Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
16986949
label
Busing - Presidential Statements (3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
16986949
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Busing - Presidential Statements (3)
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Busing for school integration
Press conferences
Press interviews
Speeches, addresses, etc.
White House briefings
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
16986949
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-06-30
month
6
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-08-01
month
8
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
50e3e6497d761a2c
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 7, folder "Busing - Presidential Statements (3)"
of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 7 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
This Copy For
NEWS CONFERENCE
#497
AT THE WHITE HOUSE
WITH RON NESSEN
AT 11:35 A.M. EDT
MAY 21, 1976
FRIDAY
MR. NESSEN: The schedule today you pretty
well know about. There is the meeting with the Agricul-
tural Policy Committee. If anybody is interested in
that, you can have some pictures or a pool in at the
beginning. If there is any interest in a report on the
meeting, Jim Cavanaugh of the Domestic Council will
be available afterwards. I don't think we will have a
briefing on it, but he will be available to answer your
questions.
Q You mean call him?
MR. NESSEN: He will be hanging around here
in the Press Office.
The President is meeting General Haig this after-
noon. I think you know that is on the schedule. That is
a review of NATO matters.
Q Will there be a photographic opportunity
for that?
MR. NESSEN: I wouldn't think so. It is a
routine meeting.
Q Why not?
MR. NESSEN: It is a routine meeting.
The diplomatic credentials are being presented
at 2:00 by the Ambassadors from Bolivia, Czechoslovakia
and the Yeman Arab Republic.
Q
On the Haig meeting, is he here specifically
for this session or is he in Washington on other business?
MR. NESSEN: He is in Washington for discussions
with U.S. officials. It is a return home to discuss with
a number of people matters of importance currently in
NATO.
MORE
#497
GERALD, FORD LIBRARY
- 2 -
#497-5/21
Q
So, he didn't come here --
Finday 5/21/76
MR. NESSEN: Just for the Presidential meeting,
that is right. He is meeting with others.
Q
Ron, do you know why Haig is here now
when Kissinger is off in Oslo?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know what that indicates
about anything.
Q
If he was going to talk about important
matters concerning NATO, one would think he might talk
to the Secretary of State.
MR. NESSEN: Then, let's see, that is about
it for the schedule today.
Q How about Levi?
MR. NESSEN: The Consumer Price Index --
Q Isn't the Attorney General coming in?
MR. NESSEN: That is on the schedule, isn't it,
for 2:30?
Q You neglected to mention it.
MR. NESSEN: It is on the schedule.
Q Will there be a pool on that, too, Ron?
MR. NESSEN: No.
Q Would you expect there will be an announce-
ment or a briefing on the busing issue?
MR. NESSEN: Out of the White House?
Q
Out of the White House or out of Mr. Levi
while he is in the White House?
MR. NESSEN: I certainly don't anticipate we
will have anything here.
Q
Is there any reason Mr. Levi can't come
out nere and brief us?
MR. NESSEN: There is no plan for him to come
out here.
Q
Why not? If you can make Cavanaugh
available on a meeting that precedes that, why not make
the Attorney General --
MR. NESSEN: His plan is to go back to the
Justice Department. That is my understanding.
MORE
#497
- 3 --
#497-5/21
Q
Will you ask him if he will see us before
he goes?
MR. NESSEN: I have already talked to the Justice
Department, and he does not plan to see the press over
here.
Q
Is there any reason for the White House
and the Justice Department keeping the results of
this discussion secret?
MR. NESSEN: I am not sure there are any results.
My understanding is that the Attorney General is coming
to give the President more or less of a progress report
on his efforts to see whether there is any case where it
would be proper for the Federal Executive Branch to
intervene with the Supreme Court to have a review of
busing as the proper remedy.
It is a progress report. He is going to tell
the President, I understand, what considerations he is
taking into account as he deliberates this question, and
my understanding again is that he is not ready to make
a decision on whether there is such a case and, if so,
what case it is.
So, that is the purpose of the meeting.
Q
Wouldn't it be appropriate --
MR. NESSEN: As I say, there is no plan to have
a press briefing here --
Q
Wouldn't it be appropriate to make that
information available to the public?
MR. NESSEN: There is no plan here, Dave, for
the Attorney General to see the reporters after the
meeting.
Q
I notice that meeting is set for the
Cabinet Room. Who all is going to take part in it?
MR. NESSEN: That may be a mistake because it
is a very small group. I don't know anybody else from
the Justice Department who is taking part other than
the Attorney General.
Q
Who from the White House?
MR. NESSEN: I have not seen the complete
attendance list from the White House.
MORE
#497
- 4 -
#497-5/21
Q
Of the list you have seen, who is going
to be there?
MR. NESSEN: I haven't seen any attendance
list. I assume it will be Buchen and somebody from the
Domestic Council, and that is about it.
Q
Is there a photo on that?
MR. NESSEN: No photo.
Q
In response to a question in the Rose
Garden the other day, the President said very
specifically that he expected Mr. Levi to come to
see him with a decision this week. What has changed
in the interim?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know. You will have to ask
Mr. Levi. This is a matter that is in his hands.
Q
You said, "It is my understanding he is
not ready. 11 On what basis? Is this from the President,
Mr. Levi or what?
MR. NESSEN: The President had no idea what
the report will contain.
Q
If the President doesn't, how do you?
MR. NESSEN: I called the Justice Department
this morning.
Q And that is what they said?
Q
Were you present in the interview with
the Tennessee representatives today?
MR. NESSEN: I was.
Q
Did the subject of busing come up?
MR. NESSEN: It came up in a passing way, yes.
Q
How passing? Can you tell us what he said?
MR. NESSEN: Nothing really new, I don't
think. Actually, I decided before I came out here today
that I wasn't going to answer any questions on busing
because every time I answer questions on busing for the
past four days there is a big story about how the White
House is raising this issue for political purposes.
So, I decided to avoid that charge for the
fifth straight day, I wouldn't answer any questions.
MORE
#497
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
no 5 -
#497-5/21
Q
You say when the Attorney General comes
in today he will not have made any firm decision?
MR. NESSEN: Helen, this is my understanding
from a phone conversation with the Justice Department
today. But that is his decision, and whether he has
made it or not and what it is, that is something he has --
Q
You said he has not made it.
MR. NESSEN: My understanding is he has not
made it, but I am not the source of information for the
Justice Department.
Q Who is?
MR. NESSEN: Bob Havel.
Q
Does he know you are doing this, Ron?
(Laughter)
MR. NESSEN: That is what his job is. His
number is 739-2028.
Q
Why are we barred from seeing him?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know what you mean by
"barred from seeing him," Helen. He is coming to give
the President a progress report and he is going back to
his department.
Q
He has been ducking reporters all week.
MR. NESSEN: I don't know anything about that.
You know if he didn't duck reporters, Dave, I expect there
would be stories about the Attorney General seeking out
reporters to hypo this story in a political way.
Q
Why did the President say Louisville was
under consideration yesterday when Havel says it isn't?
MR. NESSEN: First of all, the President did not
say Louisville is under consideration, and Havel did
not say it isn't, so we can get rid of those two false
assumptions first.
The President said -- and if you will read the
transcript you will see what he said -- "It could be
Louisville. I don't know. The fact is it could be
Louisville. The President was using that as an example
that with the overall policy direction he has given to the
Attorney General to find a case, if there is one, that is
appropriate to rasie the issue of busing with the
courts, it could be any of the busing cases that are
working their way through the courts -- Boston, Louisville,
Pasadena -- any of them, and he was using Louisville in
that sense.
MORE
#497
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 6 -
#497-5/21
Q
Why does he mention Louisville?
Q
Havel said yesterday it was going to be
the case under consideration in Boston.
MR. NESSEN: I can see what is going to happen.
It is going to be the fifth straight day of stories
saying the White House raised the issue for political
purposes, so I don't think I should answer questions--
Q
I won't, and I am sure all these people
won't, and we will all take a pledge. How about
that, Ron? (Laughter)
Q
The case in Pasadena has been argued
before the Supreme Court.
MR. NESSEN: Somebody said about two days ago
what other cases have been considered, and I said I
know at one time the Justice Department considered
Pasadena.
Q Yesterday, Bob Havel said or at least
he was quoted in the New York Times as saying that
Levi believes busing is a legitimate remedy for school
segregation, and the story in the Times indicates there
is a conflict between Ford's attitude and Levi's
attitude.
MR. NESSEN: I don't know what the Attorney
General's attitude is on this matter. It is a complex
legal question, as I have tried to indicate over these
past few days.
Q
Did you see the story in the Times this
morning?
MR. NESSEN: It was hard to understand because
it was all garbled, but I got the general thrust of it,
yes.
Q
Did you ask the President about it this
morning?
MR. NESSEN: I didn't know what there was to
ask him, Mort.
Q
Well, is there a conflict between Levi and
Ford on this?
MR. NESSEN: You know what the President's
position is, and I don't know what the Attorney General's
position is. My understanding is that Havel does not
agree and in fact strongly disagrees with the thrust of
that story, but that is something you need to talk to
Havel about.
MORE
#497
- 7 -
#497-5/21
Q
Are you saying he has been misquoted,
misgarbled or what?
MR. NESSEN: I think you have to talk to Havel
on that, Jim.
Q
Anybody need the Times phone number?
(Laughter)
MR. NESSEN: Very well done, Jim.
Q
There were a couple of source stories
yesterday out of the Justice Department indicating that
Levi seems to feel that he is under some pressure to
make a decision now on whether it ought to be Boston or
not when he preferred to not make the decision right now.
Is the President or the White House pressuring Levi to
come up with a decision now?
MR. NESSEN: He :certainly is not. The President
gave this overall policy direction last November, and I
think the reason for all the questions that we have
had for five days now, which have led to stories saying
the White House has raised this issue and which I said
yesterday I think is a bad interpretation of what has
been going on here for five days -- as you know, this
whole current round of interest in this matter arose last
Thursday or Friday, I believe, because of someone -- well,
certainly not in the White House and not in the Justice
Department -- telling some reporters that Boston was
under consideration as a case in which the Federal Govern-
ment might intervene.
Q
How do you know it wasn't somebody from
the White House or Justice Department?
MR. NESSEN: Because I think I know who it was.
Q
Senator Brooke?
MR. NESSEN: So, that comment from someone out
of the Executive Branch of the Government to reporters
set off the five days of interest in this story and there
is no pressure from the White House, there is no effort
by the White House to evaluate, talk about or answer
questions about this as any sort of political effort.
I really am sure there will be a fifth day of
stories saying the White House again pressed this--
Q
What is there to worry about? It is a
legitimate story?
MR. NESSEN: It is an incorrect story, Helen,
to say that anything I have said here or the President
said over the past five days has been done for political
reasons.
MORE
#497
150 8 -
#497-5/21
Q Nobody has said that.
MR. NESSEN: That is what I have been reading
for five days.
Q
Then why not put Levi out here and let
us talk to him?
MR. NESSEN: I didn't have anything to do with
the Attorney General's plans for what he intends to do.
Q
Couldn't you plead with him, Ron?
Q
I want to ask something here. Was
this meeting with the Attorney General set up a week ago,
more than a week ago or was it set up this week?
MR. NESSEN: As far as I know, the Attorney
General asked for the meeting yesterday or the day
before.
Q How can you say there is no pressure for
Levi to bring a decision when the President stood out
there and announced that there would be a decision this
week? That flies in the face of your contention.
MR. NESSEN: I have to see what he said because
I don't know that he has said anything that strongly
because it is the Attorney General's decision.
Q
You invited Levi to bring the case to his
office the other day, didn't you?
MR. NESSEN: Who did?
Q You did. You said that the President
told
MR. NESSEN: Oh, Roger, come on now. The
President was walking over to an event and I don't know
what the exact dialogue was, but in the course of that
he said, "When you have made your decision, if you want
to inform me about it, I would like to hear about it. If
Q
He said yesterday he wants to be, demanded
that he be informed of the decision.
MR. NESSEN: I wouldn't say demanded. He wants
to be informed of Levi's decision.
Q
When the President speaks to a member of
his Cabinet, it is an order.
MR. NESSEN: He will be informed of Levi's
decision.
MORE
#497
- 9 -
#497-5/21
Q
Since the President presumably has a
passing opportunity this morning to set all of this
straight in the interview, what did he say?
MR. NESSEN: I would be happy to make available
more Xeroxes. I don't think what he said today really
adds a great deal to the story. He was asked, "Why
did you choose this particular time" -- one of your
basic skeptical questions coming up there again --
"for considering a revision of your busing policy, and
is it possible your Presidential disposition toward the
ERA and abortion are also going to be under reconsideration?"
(Laughter)
"Let me take the busing situation first."
Then he reviews that last fall and November he had a
meeting with Levi and Mathews because "I was disappointed
in some of the developments that were taking place around
the country where courts were ordering forced busing to
achieve racial balance.
"For 15 years I have opposed court ordered
forced busing. It is not the best way to get a quality
education, so this study that I ordered has been something
that has been in the process for a number of months. It
had no relationship whatever to any Presidential campaign.
I am against segregation. I am for quality education, and
there is a better way of getting quality education than
by court ordered forced busing."
Q
How about putting it out?
MR. NESSEN: I will.
"I believe between the Secretary of HEW and the
Attorney General we can find some way, with the cooperation
of the court, to get quality education without court
ordered busing."
Q
What about getting desegregation without
court ordered busing? What is this quality education?
MR. NESSEN: He says, "I am against segregation."
Q
Yes, but he talks about getting quality
education through busing. It is a better way to get
quality education. Is there a better way to get
desegregated education?
MR. NESSEN: When he says quality education --
Fran, I think you ask me the question probably periodically
and each time you ask me the question I always give you
the same answer, which is, when he says quality education
he means quality integrated education.
MORE
#497
- 10 -
#497-5/21
Q
Why doesn't he say integrated education
then?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know, Helen.
0
Ron, there was more to this busing thing
which you haven't read, in which he suggested some of the
alternatives that heis considering.
MR. NESSEN: That is right, and it is all being
Xeroxed now so we can give it out to you.
0
Is there more on this subject that you
haven't told us about?
MR. NESSEN: We are having this Xeroxed.
There was a ouestion, "How do you propose to get
a quality education?" "There are a number of alternatives.
He talks about the Esch amendment -- if the courts would
follow that they could get quality education without
busing.
"Secondly, there are programs that Mathews is
submitting to me as a result of my ordered study that I
think will be helpful in alleviating the problems, so we
are trying to find something that is a better remedy
than these decisions by the various courts, and I can
assure you that this is under study and that these
recommendations were done well before any Presidential
campaign was undertaken.'
0
Do you have any details on what the alter-
natives are?
MR. NESSEN: No, as he said yesterday, he is not
going to put out what they are at this time until he has
decided which ones to recommend.
0
Yesterday he said there were three alter-
natives he was considering.
MR. NFSSEN: Right.
0
Today he mentions one and very broadly
the second is a review of everything. Are there really
three alternatives? Is there a study going on?
MR. NESSEN: Did you doubt the President would
say something if it weren't the case?
0
I would just like to know what he means.
MORE
#497
GERALD FORD LIBRART
- 11 -
#497-5/21
MR. NESSEN: On the 19th of February Tim Cannon
submitted this five-page proposal with nine proposed
alternatives, or other methods of achieving quality
integrated education without forced busing, and
attached to it recommendations from various members of
the staff. The President sent that out saying that it
looked like this study was on the right track and
saying that he particularly was interested in following
up on recommendations or proposals A, B, D and E.
Then, on the 17th of May, 1976 which was last
week, I guess, four days ago, Jim Cannon of the Domestic
Council sent in a two-page memo bringing the President
up-to-date on the three matters which are currently under
study by the Domestic Council - uranium enrichment,
food stamps and busing.
In the busing category, Cannon savs, "We are
working on three possible approaches to help a community
avoid a court order to bus: A, B and C," and there they
are.
0
Keep. reading. A is what, B is what, and
C is what?
MR. NESSEN: I didn't relish the suggestion that
there were not three alternatives somewhere that the
President had seen.
0 Didn't he say one of the alternatives was
to strengthen the Esch amendment? Was that not said or
alluded to in the interview?
MR. NESSEN: He said it in the interview. It
was not one of the three proposals listed here. It
was mentioned in the interview.
0
Ron, was one technical assistance to local
communities?
MR. NESSEN: As he said yesterday, "I am not
going to indicate what the three proposals under study
are."
0
May I have that line again, to help the
communities what?
MR. NESSEN: "We are working on three possible
approaches to help a community avoid a court order to
bus," then a colon, then three possible approaches.
0
Did you say the Esch amendment is not
one of those three?
MR. NESSEN: It is not one of those three. It
is one he mentioned in his meeting with the Tennessee
reporters today as one additional way to ---
MORE
#497
- 12 -
#497-5/21
Q
So, it is up to four now?
MR. NESSEN: I suppose, yes.
0
Ron, did you make any effort to ask that
the Attorney General appear here, or were you asked not
to?
MR. NESSEN: I think we went through that
subject.
o
I didn't hear your answer, Ron.
MR. NESSEN: I think we went through that
subject, Les.
0
I know, but you didn't answer the
question. Did you ask the Department of Justice if
Attorney General Levi could meet with reporters or not?
MR. NESSEN: As I said before, the indication
from the Justice Department is that he will go back
to the Justice Department after --
0
They told you that before you asked, is
that it?
MR. NESSEN: You have these three, plus the one
he mentioned in the interview, which is to strengthen the
Esch amendment.
Q
And then going to the court is a fifth --
MR. NESSEN: Yes, a separate one. That goes
back to the meeting of last November, which had really
two subjects: One, alternatives' to busing, specific
proposals for it: and two, the directive to Levi to find
a case to bring the matter to the court.
0
I would like to ask you a question I asked
a day or two ago on this.
MR. NESSEN: Can the record show I am doing all
this talking and raising this issue in response to lots of
questions and haven't volunteered anything on my own?
0
Don't you think it is an important subject?
MR. NESSEN: I think it is a very important
subject, Helen, but the thing, as you can probably tell,
I am not crazy about is some idea that the White House
has raised this issue this week.
0
Don't you think your decisiveness is
overdone?
MORE
#497
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 13 -
#497-5/21
MR. NESSEN: I am perfectly happy to talk
about it. I have talked about it for four days, four hours
this week, and a fifth hour today. I am perfectly happy to talk
about it. I have done a lot of work to dig out answers
to your questions. The part I don't like about it is
my digging out the answers to your questions indicates
that I or the White House are evaluating it or "hypoing"
it or bringing it to your attention and the public's
attention.
0
Where have you seen that?
0
On the other hand, Ron, couldn't the
White House be fairly accused of deliberately suppressing
information about this meeting today? A verv calculated
decision?
MR. NESSEN: I don't think so, Dave. I don't
know what Levi is going to say, neither does the President,
for that matter, except for this broad, general outline
that I received on the phone today.
MORE
#497
- 14 -
#497-5/21
Q
Will you be at the meeting, Ron?
MR. NESSEN: Yes.
Q
Ron, will you suggest that the Attorney
General be available?
Q
Last November, did the President know he
would be running for election this year?
MR. NESSEN: I think he indicated -- what sort of
trap am I stepping into here, before I answer? Let me look
at the land mines out there.
Q
You keep referring to last November in trying
to refute that there is anything political about it. I would
like to know if last November he was planning on running
for President this year?
MR. NESSEN: I think you know what the record is,
Tom. I will let you make that point.
Q
Is he aware busing is a very sensitive political
issue?
MR. NESSEN: I will let you make that point, too,
Tom. I have tried all week here, without any success, to
indicate that this is a matter -- at least the attention
focused on the matter is something that we have not done in
the White House. It is a matter that has most recently come
to the public attention because of someone outside the Executive
Branch and I have been asked a lot of questions and have
made the effort to get the answers.
I mean, the alternative would have been what I
jokingly said I was going to do today, which was to refuse
to answer any questions about busing. I have tried to be
responsive to questions about busing.
Q
Why didn't you answer all these questions
earlier when it was going along step-by-step so the country
could know what was being considered?
MR. NESSEN: I think we have, Fran.
Q
Why can't we have a list of these proposals
that are under consideration?
MR. NESSEN: That is not possible.
Q
Can you give us the three you referred to on
that list?
MR. NESSEN: The President said yesterday he
preferred not to.
MORE
#497
FORD : LIBRARY GERAL
- 15 -
#497-5/21
Q
Ron, last summer the President said, when he
was asked several times about busing, maybe during the Vail
trip or just before, when he was in Peoria, he talked about
it, and in there he talked about clustered schools as being
one possible alternative, and he talked about building non-
segregated housing.
Now, are those among the alternatives, or has he
dropped those? Are those still live options?
MR. NESSEN: I think I am going to take the position
the President took, that he does have alternatives and ideas
under consideration and, when he makes his choices and is
ready to announce them, he will. But I think he deserves,
on this matter and other matters, the opportunity to consider
recommendations and ideas without having them discussed
publicly before he has a chance to make his choices.
Q
His last words on this are those. Should
we consider those remarks as no longer operative?
MR. NESSEN: Which are those, John?
Q
Clustered schools and not building segregated
housing.
MR. NESSEN: I am going to do what the President
did yesterday, which is to say that he --
Q Take the Fifth?
MR. NESSEN: -- to say he has under consideration
at least three alternatives and ideas, and when he is ready
to announce them he will.
Q
Ron, when can we expect the plan to unveil
the secret plan? Is there a timetable?
MR. NESSEN: I don't think you ought to build this
up in your mind as a secret plan, seriously, because --
Q
You know, that has been a tack taken in the
past.
MR. NESSEN: I know, but I don't want you to get
your minds all set and your appetites aroused for some gigantic
secret plan to avoid busing.
Q That other one never came about, either?
MR. NESSEN: I know. I remember that other one.
This is a series of steps and he might or might not adopt
them. He might ask for more study. He might change them.
They might be announced one at a time or altogether. Please
don't get it in your mind that there is some gigantic thing
that will be announced.
MORE
#497
- 16 -
#497-5/21
Q
Ron, let me ask a basic question. Why does
the United States have to go to the Supreme Court as a friend
of the Court to get them to change the law of the land?
If there is an alternative to school busing which will
achieve quality, integrated, desegregated education, then
no sane judge in the United States would order busing. Isn't
it a little like the death penalty - we leave it on the books
and never use it?
MR. NESSEN: I am not sure I understand your
question, Saul.
Q
If there are alternative plans, why ask the
Supreme Court to upset what it has declared the law of the
land?
MR. NESSEN: I think the President's original
policy directive to Levi last November was to see if there
was a case that seemed to be proper and appropriate to ask
the Supreme Court to reexamine busing as a remedy and to
explore alternative solutions which would be less destructive
to the fabric of community life.
Q
Can we assume the Government -- the Executive
Branch won't submit to the Supreme Court alternatives which
it would like the Court to substitute for forced busing?
MR. NESSEN: I can't project that far ahead.
Q Ron, in the same area as Saul's question, until
you started talking about some alternatives, some of which
you identify and some you don't --
MR. NESSEN: Wait a minute. This talk about
alternatives as I read you in a transcript of a briefing
of last November 22 which referred then to previous statements
that I had made -- this was last November 22 at a briefing
where I said, "If you recall, the President has said publicly
on a couple of occasions that he has asked the Attorney
General and the HEW Secretary to consider alternatives to
busing. They have been doing that and we wanted to discuss
their views with the President."
So, to suggest that I, this week, am raising
alternatives to busing is wrong, Jim. The Administration is
not mentioning alternatives to busing for the first time this
week.
Q
When you say "until," that doesn't imply a
time. I will rephrase my question because of your sensitivity.
(Laughter)
MR. NESSEN: I am a sensitive person, Jim.
Q
The only alternatives that have been listed
are those listed in the Esch amendment. Before I go on with
my question, do you want to disagree with that?
MORE
#497
- 17 -
#497-5/21
MR. NESSEN: I would like to ask what do you mean
by the alternatives listed?
Q
The Esch amendment consists of a list of
alternatives that the Court is supposed to take into
consideration before they order busing.
MR. NESSEN: That is correct.
Q My question is this: The courts have done
just exactly that. Judge Marriage did that in Richmond;
Judge Garrity did it in Boston; and the Judge in Corpus
Christi did it. They have taken into consideration the
alternatives.
Does the President consider these judges gave
insufficient attention to those alternatives, or does he
consider they were negligent or does he consider their
decisions were bad law? They came up with the conclusion
the alternatives would not suffice and that busing was the
only way to achieve integrated education.
My question is, since these three judges did consider
alternatives to busing, what is the President's reaction to
their decisions? Does he consider that they give insufficient
attention to the alternatives, or that their decisions were
bad law, or what?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know. That question has
come up before. I don't have an answer. I am not enough of
a lawyer, for one thing.
Q
I am asking about the President. The
President is certainly familiar with the Boston decision,
the Richmond decision and I suppose the Corpus Christi
decision. What is his reaction to them since they did indeed
examine the alternatives and found them inadequate or found
they would not accomplish integrated education?
MR. NESSEN: I don't have the answer to that
question.
Q
Would you attempt to find out?
Q
The President is a lawyer. He would know.
You are not a lawyer, but the President is.
Q
Ron, may I ask if there are circumstances
in which the President would accept busing as the appropriate,
equitable remedy?
MR. NESSEN: His view is that there are better
remedies to illegal segregation than busing.
Q
When those remedies that are regarded
by the President as better have been exhausted, does the
President conceive of circumstances in which busing is the
appropriate, equitable remedy?
MORE
#497
- 18 -
#497-5/21
MR. NESSEN: I don't know how you can answer
that question, Larry. We are dealing here not with some
abstract but with a series of legal cases and I just can't,
you know, give you some kind of off-the-wall theory on this
question.
Q
Is the President aware that judges, in reaching
busing as the appropriate, equitable remedy, have considered
alternatives, including those incorporated in the Esch
amendment, and found them insufficient?
MR. NESSEN: I think that was Jim's question,
and I just don't have an answer for you on that.
Q
Does the President continue to rule out a
constitutional amendment on busing, continue to oppose it?
MR. NESSEN: I don't think he ever opposed it,
Mort. I think what he said is that legislative and judicial
remedies seem more appropriate and seem to be remedies that
can apply sooner, and so forth.
Q
Ron, is the President aware of the fact that
the Chief of the Justice Department Civil Rights Division
believes it would be a mistake for Levi to intervene in
Boston?
MR. NESSEN: I am not sure that that is an accurate
statement of Stan Pottinger's views, and I suggest you go
back and make sure that UPI-A-242 accurately reflects Stan's
views.
Q You are not expecting to come out this after-
noon with anything on the results?
MR. NESSEN: Right now, I don't.
Q Ron, I don't think you answered my question
along that same line, which was whether you were prepared to
recommend that Levi be available to us, or someone, after
the meeting?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know what he is coming to
report, Jim, and I can't very well recommend that he come
and talk to you when I don't know what he has to talk about.
Q
Ron, does the President intend to review
Deputy Defense Secretary Clements' decision to rewrite the
contracts for Tenneco shipbuilding contracts which have
been in dispute?
MR. NESSEN: That Navy contract is something that
has been in the process of being worked on, or something,
for a long time, and I don't know that the President has a
role in it.
MORE
#497
- 19 -
#497-5/21
Q
Well, inasmuch as he is always expressing
his interest in saving the taxpayers money and inasmuch as
Secretary Clements' decision would amount to a $74 million
profit for these companies above and beyond what they are
alleged to be due, don't you think the President would take
an interest in saving the taxpayers money and review
Secretary Clements' decision?
MR. NESSEN: Let me find out where that stands
and whether the President has a role in it. I don't know.
Q Since tomorrow is Saturday, could you be more
precise on the check-in at Andrews? I looked back at my notes
and all I have you saying earlier on that is that the press
would leave at about 8:00 a.m., but that doesn't give a
check-in time.
MR. NESSEN: You never let me get through my
opening announcements. We tried to push this political
busing story so hard, I decided to bring in my announcement
and hypo it.
On the cost of living index --
Q
I would still like to get to Andrews.
MR. NESSEN: I am getting to Andrews. We are all
going to get to Andrews.
As you know, the cost of living went up in April
about four-tenths of one percent, which is slightly higher
than the low rates of the previous couple of months.
The CPI is still running below what the President's
economists have forecast. The President was especially
pleased to see the decline in the inflation rate for the
services portion of the Consumer Price Index. The President
wanted to take this opportunity to say again that the battle
against inflation is not won and that the country shouldn't
let its guard down, and Congress should not take this as a
signal that they can go ahead and start passing big spending
bills which would merely reignite inflation.
Q
Ron, you keep saying how all these figures
are running ahead of expectations. When are we going to
get a revision of the economic assumptions?
MR. NESSEN: What is the deadline when that has to
be done July 15 they have to be revised. They will make
a decision when they get closer to that time.
Where is the check-in time?
That is 6:45 at Andrews with luggage, and a 7:30
departure.
MORE
#497
- 20 -
#497-5/21
There is a summary schedule of the first two days,
or the first day and a half, and it shows a check-in at 6:45
at Andrews with or without your luggage, and a 7:30 departure
time for the press plane tomorrow.
The President will leave the South Lawn at 8:05
and will leave Andrews at 8:25.
The first stop is Medford, Oregon --
Q
Will you be giving copies of that away?
MR. NESSEN: You can pick up the summary schedule
from there. There are some press notes and so forth on it.
Q
One further question: On the Council of Foreign
Affairs, whatever that group is called, the foreign policy
speech, what do you think in terms of now, on the plane,
tonight, or what?
MR. NESSEN: Here is the deal: On the bibles,
we hope to get them for you late this afternoon, at least
the first day or so of the bibles. If not, we will have
them on the plane. But, you will have the summary schedule
so you can write overnighters from that. No definite word
yet on the Foreign Affairs Council speech, but I think the
outlook is hopeful. We might put out a version of the speech
that is longer than the delivered version and then he would
stand by the printed version, but might cut short the
delivered version in order to take questions.
Q
When?
MR. NESSEN: Hopefully, we will have that by 6 o'clock
That is all we can do right now.
Q
For release when?
MR. NESSEN: Six o'clock tonight, for release
at 6:00 p.m. Saturday, Eastern Time.
Q
That would be the only text you would have?
MR. NESSEN: For tomorrow, right.
Q
For those who are thinking of writing the
speech, whatever it is, on the plane, what is our arrival
time in Medford in terms of Washington time?
MR. NESSEN: In terms of Washington time -- 10:15
a.m. their time is 1:15 p..m. Washington time. It is close
for Sunday papers, and that is why I would like to get it out
tonight if we possibly can.
Q
Do you see a stop on the way back from
California?
MORE
#497
- 21 -
#497-5/21
MR. NESSEN: There is a possibility, yes, but I
am not going to be able to tell you today whether it is
definite or not because it is not definite.
Q
Do you foresee campaigning over the Memorial
Day weekend, the holiday?
MR. NESSEN: I haven't gotten anything that far
ahead yet, Helen.
Let me tell you about the weather on the trip.
Portland, Medford and Pendleton -- what they are looking for
is cloudy and pleasant, a chance of showers on Saturday; the
low temperatures, 43 to 50; high temperatures, 63 to 73;
and wind, 5 to 15.
The Los Angeles, San Diego, Southern California
area, sunny during the day, foggy at night; the low temperature
about 55; the high temperature about 70.
The Las Vegas temperature -- it is sunny and warm
there. We will be there in the middle of the day so it will
be about 80.
The San Francisco area, cloudy and mild; low
temperature at night about 45 to 50, and during the day about
65.
Q
Ron, the Washington Star published an article
about the evening of the Michigan primary at the PFC head-
quarters in which, until the first projections, it was almost
a kind of skeletal force, and then as soon as the first
projection came through they said an enormous crowd suddenly
materialized, including several White House people who had
heretofore not been seen on the nights of those losing
primaries.
I was wondering, what is your reaction to that, or
the White House reaction to that? I don't expect you would
be over there because you are over here.
MR. NESSEN: I wasn't. I was in a tent in the back
yard of the French Embassy.
Q
I would agree with that. Suddenly a crowd
came out of nowhere and I just wondered what is the White
House reaction?
MR. NESSEN: I don't have any comment, Les. I
don't know what the scene was over there.
Q Ron, did the President tell the interviewers
with whom he met this morning that he had decided it would
be appropriate to meet with South Africa's head of Government?
MORE
#497
- 22 -
#497-5/21
MR. NESSEN: No, I don't know how that story keeps
rolling along day after day, but it all started with a question
that he got during an interview on the train, and I think he
was just making the point that if at some point it seemed
appropriate or helpful or could help with the situation
there, that he would then consider meeting with the South
African Prime Minister. But, you know, it hasn't advanced
beyond that. He keeps getting these questions.
Q
He has been much more definite yesterday
and today, much more definite.
MR. NESSEN: The words may have changed but
certainly the situation has not changed.
Q
He said he wouldn't meet with the Rhodesians
but he keeps saying more and more firmly there is consideration
of meeting with the South Africans.
MR. NESSEN: As I say, whatever the words may be,
there are no plans to meet with the Prime Minister of South
Africa.
Q Did he not say today that he would meet
the Prime Minister?
MR. NESSEN: I don't have the text but, as I say
again, Ralph, whatever variation of wording he used, there
are no plans to meet the South Africans.
Q
Ron, we have to write our stories on the basis
of what the President said. You are now reinterpreting?
MR. NESSEN: Look at his words in the context,
Ralph, and look at the question and so forth.
Q I have done that.
MR. NESSEN: You have to write what you have to
write, but I am just saying there are no plans for the
President to meet the Prime Minister of South Africa.
MORE
#497
- 23 -
#497-5/21
0
Did the President have any comment on the
B-1 bomber delay of funds?
MR. NESSEN: On the B-1 bomber, the President
really believes the Senate made a mistake, that that was
the wrong decision. The House, of course, defeated an
amendment similar to the one the Senate passed, so now
the President is hopeful when the matter gets to the
Conference Committee, that the conferees will resolve it
in favor of the House version.
Also, I understand about 20 percent of the
Senate was absent and it seems like an important decision
to be decided with that many people absent.
Generally speaking, bombers are an important
part of the American defense force. They make up more
than half of the nuclear capability of the United
States. The bomber we now have, which is the B-52, is
aging. It is 20 or 25 years old. It will have to be
replaced, and the President doesn't think the American
people would want a decision in this crucial area to be
made the way it has been.
The B-1 testing is continuing in a satisfactory
way, about 90 percent of the tests have been completed.
In fact, the B-1 has had more tests than any other
military plane in history. As I say, they are now about
90 percent complete. Three Presidents, seven Defense
Secretaries and every Congress since 1970 has considered
the B-1 project, moved it along, and the tests are going
ahead.
As you know, the decision on whether to go ahead
with production will be made on November 1 on the basis
of the rest of the testing. The money that is involved
in the Senate amendment is for long lead time items, items
that need to be ordered so they will be ready to put on the
plane if and when the decision is made to go ahead with
production.
Of course, that money wouldn't be spent until
the decision is made to go ahead with production.
0
Hasn't the President said almost flat out
that he was in favor of the project going ahead?
0
Yes, he promised to deliver it in Texas.
He delivers everything he promises.
MR. NESSEN: The final decision on whether to
go ahead with production will be made on November 1.
90 percent of the testing has been done, and it is
satisfactory. You know, I don't want to change the words
he has used.
MORE
#497
LIBRARY GERALD FORD
- 24 -
#497-5/21
0
He will definitely make the decision before
the election?
MR. NESSEN: The target date is November 1.
0
I am asking this question because you have
cited a list of arguments in favor of the B-1. Otherwise
I wouldn't ask it. Has the President followed the debate
in the Senate, which is centered around Senator Proxmire
and Senator Goldwater?
MR. NESSEN: Oh, yes.
0
What is his answer to a point made by
Senator Proxmire which is that in the time it would
take the B-1 to fly to Russia there could be four missile
exchanges and the airplane would arrive five hours after
the war had ended? What is his response to that?
MR. NESSEN: I had a long talk with your friend
and mine, Mr. Greener, this morning and Mr. Greener has
made himself an expert on the continued need for manned
bombers, and he has, I think, answers that will satisfy
the question, Jim.
Q
Could you tell us what they are?
MR. NESSEN: I was actually in a hurry this
morning (Laughter) and didn't write them down.
0
Do you have his phone number, Ron?
0
Would you take Greener at his word?
MR. NESSEN: I certainly would on this subject.
He was in with the Secretary. The number is 697-9312.
0
Ron, the President said Levi will have the
final word on the test case. Why is that? If the
President disagreed with him, if Levi comes in and says
these are my considerations, I reached this decision,
and the President felt differently, why wouldn't the
President exert his authority to overrule?
MR. NESSEN: As wesaid to the same question
earlier in the week, John, it is a legal question, and it
is something for a man who devotes his full time to the
matter of courts and the law to weigh and decide on its
legal merits.
0
Is it solely a legal question, Ron? Isn't
there a social question involved as well?
MORE
#497
- 25 -
#497-5/21
MR. NESSEN: We are talking here about a legal
remedy to a situation if a court finds that there is
illegal segregation in a school system, what is the
legal remedy to correct that. That is what we are dealing
with. We are not dealing with the question of should the
illegal segregation be allowed to continue. That is
decided. The question is how do you remedy it?
Q The issue of whether it is appropriate or
not to intervene in this particular case is not solely
a legal question, is it?
MR. NESSEN: I feel sure that the Attorney
General is taking into consideration a lot of factors.
Q
The President is not opposed to forced
busing solely on legal grounds, is he? He has said that
this leads to emotional disruption, and so forth and so
on. If he is not opposed to busing on legal grounds, then
his desire for intervention is not solely on legal
grounds, is that right?
MR. NESSEN: He feels there is a better way to
remedy the illegal segregation of schools than by
busing.
0 Does the President believe that most
Americans are opposed to busing?
MR. NESSEN: I don't know that he has made anv
check of that, John.
0
Ron, two questions. What is the mood of
discussion between the President and the Attorney General
on the President's request? Is there a mood of agreement
or disagreement or what?
MR. NESSEN: I don't have any idea.
0 The other question is, to your knowledge do
you rule out the possibility that the Attorney General
might resign today?
MR. NESSEN: That is a real stunner, Cliff. Is
that based on anything?
0
Yes, it is based on the fact that sometimes
one doesn't ask a question and something happens.
0
What is the question?
MR. NESSEN: The question was, do I have anything
to lead me to believe that Attorney General Levi will
resign today. It reminds me of an old Lyndon Johnson story.
THE PRESS: Thank you, Ron.
END
(AT 12:24 P.M. FDT)
#497
Q & A SESSION AT THE JACKSON COUNTY-MEDFORD COUNTY
AIRPORT, May 22, 1976
QUESTION: Mr. President, are you moving to the
right on the racial issue with these busing remarks, and
the nuclear reactions in South Africa?
THE PRESIDENT: Not at all. I have strongly
opposed court ordered forced busing to achieve racial
balance. I have consistently all my life lived and
believed and voted for the end of segregation. But I think
the real answer that we are trying to get is quality
education, and court ordered forced busing is not the best
way to achieve quality education.
Therefore, what may transpire by the Attorney
General ~~ and he has not yet made his final decision --
is an attempt to get a better remedy for quality education
than the remedy that has been applied in several States.
In the case of South Africa, we are trying to
since and the Soviet Union and Cuba took over Angola. The
the radicalism which has developed in South Africa
wav to do that is to convince the independent States in
South Africa that there should be no outside power
controlling that part of that continent.
Q & A Session, PENDLETON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, May 23, 1976
QUESTION: Ronald Reagan says the attitude of the
Attorney General apparently signifies some sort of change in
attitude of the Administration toward busing. What is the
attitude now of your Administration toward busing?
THE PRESIDENT: There is no change in my attitude.
I have been totally opposed to court-ordered forced busing to
achieve racial balance, because that is not the right way to
get quality education. The Attorney General is investigating
the possibility of filing an amicus curaie proceeding, as
far as the Supreme Court is concerned. He will make the
decision, if the facts justify it, and he will report to
me when he has made that decision.
But the basic attitude of the Ford Administration
is the same as it has been in the Congress and in the White
House. Quality education is not achieved by court-ordered
forced busing.
FORD GIV87 LIBRARY
Q & A SESSION AT EL TORO MARINE CORPS AIR STATION,
May 23, 1976
QUESTION: Mr. President, what do you propose
as an alternativeito forced busing?
THE PRESIDENT: The alternatives are well set
forth in what we call the Esch amendment, the Esch amend-
ment which was approved when I was a Member of the Hòuse
of Representatives; and I signed it as a law in Iate 1974
provides a list of alternative steps which, if the courts
of this country would follow, they wouldn get down to
the last one, which is forced busing to achieve racial
balance.
The courts, in my judgment, have to look at the
guidelines prescribed by the Congress. The Congress is
interested in quality education, as I am, and they -=
the Congress -- are also against segregation, but WE
can find a way for quality education if we follow the Esch
amendment, and I hope and trust that the courts will in
the future.
Q & A SESSION AT SAN DIEGO AIRPORT, LINDBERGH FIELD,
May 24, 1976
QUESTION: Mr. President, when you talk about
quality education, are you speaking about desegregated
education?
THE PRESIDENT: I am talking first that quality
education is our prime responsibility. But, at the same
time. we have to maintain the constitutional rights of
individuals that we should not have segregation. I think
we can have both. If we do the right thing, both with
the courts on the one hand and the Congress and the
President on the other, we can achieve quality education
without undermining the constitutional right of
individuals to have desegregation.
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AT THE LOS ANGELES PRESS
CLUB BREAKFAST, Hyatt House International, May 25, 1976
THE PRESIDENT: We can have one more after this
if somebody is ready, willing and able.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I wanted to know whether
you believe that there are some situations in which busing
could help toward the implementation of the 1954 Supreme
Court school desegregation ruling?
THE PRESIDENT: Basically, I have opposed the
kind of busing remedy that the courts have utilized for the
achievement of quality education. I think the courts have
gone much too far in most cases in trying to achieve quality
education by the imposition of court-ordered forced busing
to achieve racial balance.
I am strongly opposed to segregation. I fully
oppose the constitutional rights of those who have been
discriminated against in the past. But the Court really has
a tool in court-ordered forced busing.
I can cite one case that I am personally
familiar with where they handled that remedy in a responsible
way -- my own hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan. A judge
used good judgment and the problem was solved. We took
care of segregation in a proper way constitutionally and,
at the same time, we were able to put the emphasis on quality
education.
But I can' cite some other judges -- and I won't
do that because the Attorney General admonishes me not to
do so -- where I think they have gone far too far, and the
net result is we have torn up a number of communities and
it is tragic and sad.
I hope that the Supreme Court in the proper case
can give some better guidelines, more specific guidelines
to some of these lower Federal courts so that they can use
a better judgment in trying to achieve, first, quality
education and, secondly, the ending of segregation, and
the protection of constitutional rights.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 26, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR JIM CANNON
FROM:
ART QUERN
SUBJECT:
President's Busing Statements
Enclosed is a catalogue of the President's
statements on busing since the time he entered
office.
IND
Attachment
PRESS CONFERENCE NO. 33
of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
7:01 P.M. EDT
May 26, 1976
Wednesday
In the Presidential Ballroom
East
At the Neil House Hotel
Columbus, Ohio
Page 14
QUESTION: Mr. President, you have reiterated
tonight that you are against court ordered busing to
achieve school desegregation, a remedy that is the
law of the land. You have also said that you told your
Attorney General to get the Supreme Court to reconsider
its busing decisions.
Just this week you also indicated that you
would get your Administration to try and reverse a
court order protecting porpoises against being killed
by tuna fishing.
My question is this, sir. If the President of
the United States does not accept court decisions, doesn't
that encourage the people of the United States to defy
court decisions and isn't there a danger the law of the
land will be eroded?
THE PRESIDENT: Not at all because whether I
agree with decisions or not, this Administration, through
the Attorney General, has insisted that the court decisions,
whether they are in Boston or Detroit or anyplace else be
upheld. I have repeatedly said that the Administration
will uphold the law.
Now, in the case of court ordered forced busing,
which I fundamentally disagree with as the proper way to
get quality education, the Attorney General is looking
himself to see whether there is a proper record in a case
that would justify the Department of Justice entering as
amicus curiae a proceeding before the Supreme Court to see
if the court would review its decision in the Brown case
and the several that followed thereafter.
I think that is a very proper responsibility for
the Department of Justice and the Attorney General to take.
They need clarification because all of those busing cases are
not identical and if the Department of Justice thinks that
they can't administer the law properly under the decisions
because of the uncertainties. I think the Department of Justice
has an obligation to go to the court and ask for clarification
and that is precisely what the Attorney General may do.
MORE
The reference to the Brown case was incorrect.
The President has consistently and firmly stated that he
supports the Brown decision. What he was referring to in
someof The
the Q&A was more recent court cases since Brown that
have ordered forced busing to achieve desegregation goals.
The Presedent said repeated
last night re is apposed to
segregation and intends to
uphold Constitutional right
SENTED FORD LIBRARY
5/26/76
Page 4
Press Conf #33
QUESTION: Mr. President, Mr. Udall has accused
you of playing politics with busing. Some Ohio civil
rights leaders have indicated agreement. What is your
answer to this criticism and also what is your advice to
residents of Ohio cities facing court-ordered desegregation
next fall?
THE PRESIDENT: First, let me say that I have
vigorously opposed court-ordered forced busing to achieve
racial balance as the way to accomplish quality education.
I have opposed it from 1954 to the present time.
We all know the tragedy that has occurred in many
communities where the court has ordered forced busing on
a massive basis. I think that is the wrong way to achieve
quality education.
Last November, well, before the Presidential
primaries got going, I met with the Secretary of HEW and
with the Attorney General and asked them to come up with
some better alternatives to the achievement of quality
education and court-ordered forced busing. The two
Secretaries in my Cabinet have been working on alternative
proposals.
The Attorney General is in the process of
deciding whether or not, where and when he should appear on
behalf of the Federal Government to see if the Court,
the Supreme Court, won't review its previous decisions in
this record. And secondly, the Secretary of HEW is
submitting to me in a week or so the alternatives that
he would propose to achieve quality education without losing
the constitutional right of individuals so that we can
do away with segregation and, at the same time, achieve
quality education.
Now, the various communities in the State of Ohio
that are in various stages of action by various parties,
as far as busing is concerned, certainly ought to abide
by the law. But, we hope that at least possibly the Supreme
Court will review its previous decisions and possibly
modify or change. We can't tell.
But, in the meantime, local communities, of course,
have to obey the law and my obligation is to make certain
that they do. But we must come back to the fundamental
objective -- one, quality education, I believe there is
a better remedy than court-ordered forced busing.
QUESTION: Mr. President, there are many civil rights
groups who believe thatthe word "quality education" is a
code word; that is, it is not in conformity with the Supreme
Court's 1954 decision that we should have desegregated
schools and that separate but equal are not equal. What
is your definition of "quality education"?
MORE
LIBRARY GERALD FORD
Page 5
THE PRESIDENT: I respectfully disagree with
some of the civil rights leaders. I think the best way
to outline how we can achieve better or quality education
and still insist upon desegregation is set forth in legis-
lation under the title of Equal Educational Opportunities
Act, which was passed in 1974.
If the court will follow those guidelines that
were included in that legislation, we can protect the
constititutional rights of individuals, we can eliminate
segregation and, at the same time, we can give to
individuals, the students, a better educational opportunity
and accomplish quality education.
QUESTION: Mr. President, do you feel the Wayne
Hays incident and the prospects of a House investigation
of Mr. Hays' conducts will fuel what seems to be an anti-
Washington establishment tenor to the Carter and Reagan
campaigns? If so, how will it affect you and as a long-
time member of that establishment, how will you cope with
it?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't believe it is appropriate
for me to comment on housekeeping problem involving the
House of Representatives. I am sure the House will take
whatever appropriate action should be taken. I can't
see how, under any circumstances, it would affect me
because at the time I was nominated for the Vice President
400 FBI agents investigated my life from birth up that
point and 89 of them spent about a month in my home town,
so I think on the basis of their investigation and the
fact that a Democratic Congress, House and Senate, over-
whelmingly approved the record that was made in the
Senate Committee on Procedures and the House Committee on
the Judiciary, where they cleared me of any problems what-
soever. I don't see how this incident would have any
ramification or application as far as I am concerned.
QUESTION: You don't think it would contribute
to that whole anti-Washington mood that Carter and Reagan
seem to be exploiting?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't pass judgment on the
anti-Washington feeling, but certainly it has no applica-
tion as far as I am concerned.
QUESTION: Mr. President, following your victories
in Oregon, Tennessee and Kentucky, you declared earlier
today that you are the Republican with national potential
and you had some reservations about Mr. Reagan. Could you
elaborate on your reservations about Mr. Reagan as a
Republican candidate?
MORE
PRESS CONFERENCE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL BALLROOM
EAST AT THE NEIL HOUSE HOTEL, Columbus, Ohio,
May 26, 1976
QUESTION: Mr. President, Mr. Udall has' accused
you of playing politics with busing. Some Ohio civil
rights leaders have indicated agreement. What is your
answer to this criticism and also what is your advice to
residents of Ohio cities facing court-ordered desegregation
next fall?
THE PRESIDENT: First, let me say that I have
vigorously opposed court-ordered forced busing to achieve
racial balance as the way to accomplish quality education.
I have opposed it from 1954 to the present time.
We all know the tragedy that has occurred in many
communities where the court has ordered forced busing on
a massive basis. I think that is the wrong way to achieve
quality education.
Last November, well, before the Presidential
primaries got going, I met with the Secretary of HEW and
with the Attorney General and asked them to come up with
some better alternatives to the achievement of quality
education and court-ordered forced busing. The two
Secretaries in my Cabinet have been working on alternative
proposals.
The Attorney General is in the process of
deciding whether or not, where and when he should appear on
behalf of the Federal Government to see if the Court,
the Supreme Court, won't review its previous decisions in
this record. And secondly, the Secretary of HEW is
submitting to me in a week or so the alternatives that
he would propose to achieve quality education without losing
the constitutional right of individuals so that we can
do away with segregation and, at the same time, achieve
quality education.
Now, the various communities in the State of Ohio
that are in various stages of action by various parties,
as far as busing is concerned, certainly ought to abide
by the law. But, we hope that at least possibly the Supreme
Court will review its previous decisions and possibly
modify or change. We can't tell.
But, in the meantime, local communities, of course,
have to obey the law and my obligation is to make certain
that they do. But we must come back to the fundamental
objective -- one, quality education, I believe there is
a better remedy than court-ordered forced busing.
QUESTION: Mr. President, there are many civil rights
groups who believe thatthe word "quality education" is a
code word; that is, it is not in conformity with the Supreme
Court's 1954 decision that we should have desegregated
schools and that separate but equal are not equal. What
is your definition of "quality education"?
THE PRESIDENT: I respectfully disagree with
some of the civil rights leaders. I think the best way X
to outline how we can achieve better or quality education
and still insist upon desegregation is set forth in legis-
lation under the title of Equal Educational Opportunities
Act, which was passed in 1974.
If the court will follow those guidelines that
were included in that legislation, we can protect the
constititutional rights of individuals, we can eliminate
segregation and, at the same time, we can give to
individuals, the students, a better educational opportunity
and accomplish quality education.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you have reiterated
tonight that you are against court ordered busing to
achieve school desegregation, a remedy that is the
law of the land. You have also said that you told your
Attorney General to get the Supreme Court to reconsider
its busing decisions.
Just this week you also indicated that you
would get your Administration to try and reverse a
court order protecting porpoises against being killed
by tuna fishing.
My question is this, sir. If the President of
the United States does not accept court decisions, doesn't
that ençourage the people of the United States to defy
court decisions and isn't there a danger the law of the
land will be eroded?
THE PRESIDENT: Not at all because whether I
agree with decisions or not, this Administration, through
the Attorney General, has insisted that the court decisions,
whether they are in Boston or Detroit or anyplace else be
upheld. I have repeatedly said that the Administration
will uphold the law.
Now, in the case of court ordered forced busing,
which I fundamentally disagree with as the proper way to
get quality education, the Attorney General is looking
himself to see whether there is a proper record in a case
that would justify the Department of Justice entering as
amicus curiae a proceeding before the Supreme Court to see
if the court would review its decision in the Brown case
and the several that followed thereafter.
I think that is a very proper responsibility for
the Department of Justice and the Attorney General to take.
They need clarification because all of those busing cases are
not identical and if the Department of Justice thinks that
they can't administer the law properly under the decisions
because of the uncertainties, I think the Department of Justice
has an obligation to go to the court and ask for clarification
and that is precisely what the Attorney General may do.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I was wondering if
you could give us some hints about these alternatives
that you are considering to forced busing. I just wondered
what, beyond the Esch amendment, and what is spelled out in
the law, and what the courts have already examined, what
possibly could be an alternative that would hold up in
the courts? What are the sorts of things that you are
looking at?
THE PRESIDENT: When the proper time comes, Mr.
Schieffer, we will reveal what Secretary Mathews has
revealed to me and the options I have selected. I think
there are some possibilities, but I think it is premature
until I have made the final decision to indicate what
he has thought might be an improvement over the way we have
been handling the situation in the past.
QUESTION: Is it fair to say, though, Mr.
President, that this is going to require some major legis-
lative work, some major changes in the law?
THE PRESIDENT: Not necessarily, not major
legislative changes. It can have some legislative impact,
but it is also what we can do administratively.
QUESTION: Why not just go for a constitutional
amendment against forced busing?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is too inflexible
and the facts of life are that that constitutional amend-
ment has not gotten, or it can't possibly get a two-
thirds vote in either the House or the Senate, and it
certainly can't be approved by 75 percent of the States.
So, anybody who talks about a constitutional
amendment is not being fair and square with the American
people because no Congress that I have seen -- and this one
is a very liberal one -- has done anything to get it to the
floor of the House or even to the floor of the Senate.
So, when you talk about a constitutional amendment,
you are kidding the American people and anybody who has been
in Congress knows that.
QUESTION: At least that is saying what you are for.
What I am wondering is, why you can't give us a few hints
about what the alternatives are that you think will solve
the problems?
THE PRESIDENT: At the proper time, Mr. Schieffer,
Secretary Mathews will have the option paper before me, and
I will be glad to review it and make it public at thattime.
QUESTION: Mr. President, since Governors Reagan,
Carter and Wallace have all conducted, to some degree, an
anti-Washington campaign, should you be the nominee and
Governor Carter be the Democratic nominee, how do you propose
to attract the votes of the Reagan supporters, particularly
the Wallace crossovers to Reagan?
THE PRESIDENT: I want to appeal to as many
Democrats as I possibly can and that is what I did in Michigan
in the recent primary. My opponent very obviously wanted
the Wallace element and only the Wallace element. I appealed
in Michigan to all Democrats and all independents who wanted
to cross over and vote for me if they believed in my
record and believed in what I was trying to do, and we got
a tremendous number of Democrats in Michigan to cross over
and I am very proud of it.
Now, after we get the nomination in Kansas City,
we will naturally want to get as many Democrats as we can
because the Republican Party, according to statistics, has
only about 19 percent of the public and the Democratic Party
has 35 to 40 percent, as I recall. The rest of the people are
independents.
So, a Republican candidate for the Presidency
has to have a lot of support from independents and a significant
support from Democrats. And the experience in Michigan,
where I got a broad spectrum of independents as well as
Democrats certainly is conclusive that I have a very good
appeal to independent voters as well as broad-minded and
I think very wise Democrats.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I think any number of
people are a little confused about the status of the so-called
alternatives to court-ordered busing. Just last week, you
told a group of Kentucky editors just before the Kentucky
primary that you had three alternatives that you were studying
and that you would be making a judgment on them within a
few weeks.
At that same meeting, you said the Justice
Department may choose Louisville when, in fact, the Justice
Department was not at that time considering Louisville.
Do you now have those alternatives before you or, as you
have indicated tonight, will they come from David Mathews?
Finally, as a result of all this confusion, don't you see
how the impression is left strongly that you may be doing
this for political reasons?
THE PRESIDENT: I think you have confused it
by not relating the whole sequence of events. I have
repeatedly said that last November I called in the Attorney
General and the Secretary of HEV and said I wanted a
better answer so we could achieve quality education and not
tear up society in a City such as Boston.
A month or two later they came back with a number
of options. I said they ought to winnow them down. This
was well before any Presidential primaries were on the agenda.
He have been seriously and constructively working
together and the Attorney General, in due time, as he finds
the right case, will go to the Supreme Court if he thinks
the record justifies it. And Secretary Mathews will come
to me with a more limited number of options at the proper
time, and I expect some time within the next several weeks
I will get those recommendations.
QUESTION: But did you not tell the Kentucky
editors, as I recall it quite vividly, that you had three
alternatives already that you were studying and that you
would make a judgment on those shortly?
THE PRESIDENT: I had three and I asked Secretary
Mathews to review them and to make sure that they might
be alternatives that would really be helpful. And he has
gone back to review those three alternatives and I expect
shortly he will come up with a more complete recommendation.
QUESTION: Just to follow up my original question,
sir, you said in reply to a question on busing on the
West Coast, and I think I am quoting you correctly, that "maybe
we need some new judges."
Mr. President, are you suggesting if elected, you
might try to pack the Federal courts with judges favorable
to your position on busing?
THE PRESIDENT: Let me say that the one opportunity
I have had to appoint a judge to the United States Supreme
Court, he was almost unanimously approved because of his high
quality. He wasn't selected because he had any prejudgments
or conclusions concerning anything. He was a man of great
intellect, great experience and good judgment. And I would
expect in the next four years to appoint people of the
same quality and caliber and I would expect the United
States Senate to overwhelmingly approve them as they did
Justice Stevens.
ricstuency: News
Betty Ford Opposes School Busing
First Lady Betty Ford, campaigning in New Jersey, said Thursday
she personally is opposed to school busing.
"I think the money being spent for new buses, gasoline
and court fights could be put in the school systems for better
schools and better teachers," she said.
Mrs. Ford made it clear that this was her personal view,
although it coincides with her husband's. UPI -- (5/27/76)
F OR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 29, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
The Attorney General has notified me that after
a thorough review, he has decided that the Department
of Justice should not file a brief in the Boston
school desegregation case at the current stage of
litigation.
The Attorney General also pointed out that for
over two decades the Department of Justice has
entered virtually every school desegregation case
that the Supreme Court has agreed to review. If the
Supreme Court agrees to review the Boston case, the
Department of Justice will follow past practice and
enter the case at that time.
I have informed the Attorney General that I respect
his decision not to intervene at this time and agree
with him that the decision in no way reflects upon
the merits of the case.
I have directed the Attorney General to continue
an active search for a busing case which would be
suitable for judicial review of current case law on
forced school busing, and to accelerate his efforts to
develop legislative remedies to minimize forced school
busing. It is my intention to send a message to the
Congress recommending such legislation at the earliest
possible time. In addition, I shall meet next week
with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare, and other members of my Adminis-
tration to review other possible actions that can be
taken to provide communities with assistance in
achieving equal educational opportunity for all.
My objective is to create better educational
opportunities consistent with the Nation's commitment
to justice and equal opportunity. In my view, massive
school busing, while done with the best of intentions,
has too often disrupted the lives and impeded the
education of the children affected. I believe that
ways can be found to minimize forced busing while also
remaining true to the Nation's ideals and our educa-
tional goals. That is my objective.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 29, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
The Attorney General has notified me that after
a thorough review, he has decided that the Department
of Justice should not file a brief in the Boston
school desegregation case at the current stage of
litigation.
The Attorney General also pointed out that for
over two decades the Department of Justice has
entered virtually every school desegregation case
that the Supreme Court has agreed to review. If the
Supreme Court agrees to review the Boston case, the
Department of Justice will follow past practice and
enter the case at that time.
I have informed the Attorney General that I respect
his decision not to intervene at this time and agree
with him that the decision in no way reflects upon
the merits of the case.
I have directed the Attorney General to continue
an active search for a busing case which would be
suitable for judicial review of current case law on
forced school busing, and to accelerate his efforts to
develop legislative remedies to minimize forced school
busing. It is my intention to send a message to the
Congress recommending such legislation at the earliest
possible time. In addition, I shall meet next week
with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare, and other members of my Adminis-
tration to review other possible actions that can be
taken to provide communities with assistance in
achieving equal educational opportunity for all.
My objective is to create better educational
opportunities consistent with the Nation's commitment
to justice and equal opportunity. In my view, massive
school busing, while done with the best of intentions,
has too often disrupted the lives and impeded the
education of the children affected. I believe that
ways can be found to minimize forced busing while also
remaining true to the Nation's ideals and our educa-
tional goals. That is my objective.
###