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
7337815
label
Interview with the President by Tom Brokaw and John Chancellor, Live Television and Radio [Ford Speech or Statement]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
7337815
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Interview with the President by Tom Brokaw and John Chancellor, Live Television and Radio [Ford Speech or Statement]
citationUrl
collections
White House Press Releases (Ford Administration)
Press Releases
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
7337815
levelOfDescription
item
productionDates
day
23
logicalDate
1975-01-23
month
1
year
1975
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
8cba29cff80b6815
ocrText
Digitized from Box 7 of the White House Press Releases at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JANUARY 23, 1975
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT
BY
TOM BROKAW
AND
JOHN CHANCELLOR
LIVE TELEVISION AND RADIO
THE RESIDENCE
10:01 P.M. EST
MR. CHANCELLOR: Mr. President, we have had a
request in for an interview for some time, and you
have chosen tonight for it, and I must say on Tom's
behalf and mine, we are terribly pleased you picked
tonight because it was quite a busy day here at the
White House. You were as busy as you could have been
here.
THE PRESIDENT: We were talking, John, and we
had a regular schedule of things that in itself was a
busy day, and then we had a few little added items that --
well, I would rather be busy than sitting around not
preoccupied, let me put it that way.
MR. CHANCELLOR: You were busy enough today
and I would like to begin with that. By the stroke of a
pen, sir, this afternoon you issued a proclamation that
is going to mean people are going to have to pay more
for gas.
Can we get into that? How much more are we
going to pay for gas?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, under the proclamation
that I signed today, which I hope is an interim adminis-
trative action, there will be some additional payments
extracted from foreign oil of $1 per barrel, and that
in and of itself will probably add two cents to three
cents to a gallon of gasoline.
If the Congress acts on the total package,
which I hope they will do in a very short period of time,
then we will be able to not only collect the necessary
funds but will be able to pay it back. The total
cost, when the program gets into complete operation,
will probably mean, gasoline prices would increase
eight to ten cents a gallon.
MORE
(OVER)
Page 2
MR. CHANCELLOR: Maybe a little more.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is a little hard to
tell, but the first increment of $1 that will be imposed
on February 1 -- it won't go on automatically and immediately
because there are stocks that are in supply, and the
total impact on the first dollar won't come for about
55 days, but that will mean two to three cents increase
in the price of gasoline and as it goes up to $2, it
will go up correspondingly at the filling station.
MORE
Page 3
MR. BROKAW: Mr. President, I know you want to
convince the people this plan. is the correct onè, and yet,
today on the White House lawn, a number of Governors from
the Northeast were down right angry, threatening legal
action. There are people on Capitol Hill -- on the Democratic
side, especially -- in the Congress, who think your idea
of a good marriage is roughly the same as Henry the VIII's.
I wonder if you have not overplayed your hand by taking the
action you did today. A lot of people think it was an
arrogant action in an attempt to force Congress to go along
with your idea about how to solve the energy package.
THE PRESIDENT: Tom, I think you have to look at
it this way -- and I told the Governors who were down at
the West Wing this afternoon -- that in the last three years,
we have heard from various Administration officials, Members
of Congress, my predecessor as President, that we had a
serious energy crisis, and, of course, that was accentuated
by the oil embargo that was imposed in October of 1973. And
despite the recognized fact that we do have a problem, a
short-range problem and a long-range problem, nothing has
really been done to achieve conservation on the one hand
or new supplies on the other.
There has been a lot of talk -- and I am not
critical of anybody -- but it had not materialized into
any action, either in the Congress or otherwise. It seemed
to me the time for conversation had ended and that we had
to act. I said, a week or two ago, in my State of the Union
Message that I was only taking this action as a way to
stimulate Congressional action.
If I had backed off, there would have been two,
I think, adverse impacts. Number one, I think the Congress
would have delayed longer in acting. Number two, I think
it would have been a sign of weakness around the world,
that we could not make up our mind, that we could not act
decisively, we could not find a remedy. So, even though
I have been charged with being a little hardheaded on this,
in my judgment, the time for action has come, and I think
it will bring action, the right kind of action.
MORE
Page 4
MR. CHANCELLOR: Mr. President, your problem
involves taking some money from the taxpayers and giving
back money to the taxpayers and it is kind of tricky.
As I understand it, you are going to take money
from the taxpayers in terms of what they have to pay for
energy and some food and plastics and metals and all of the
things that are related to that. You are going to ask the
Congress to give some of that money back through tax cuts.
What happens if the Congress doesn't move?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the action that I have taken,
John, is only administrative action up to and through
prospectively April lst. If the Congress has not acted in
roughly three months --- and I certainly hope they will --
I can, of course, remove the import duty that I have
imposed. I have the flexibility -- it is $1.00 the
first month; $2.00 the second; and $3.00 the third. I
have the flexibility to retain it at $1.00 or to leave it
at $2.00. I just hope the Congress understands the need
and necessity for new legislative action.
I think my proposal of taking money from the
economy and giving it back will mean equity in the first
place. It will help us conserve energy in the second. And
it will provide the wherewithal for us to develop and
explore for new sources of energy.
Now, this is a well-balanced program. If the
Congress can improve on it, I am more than glad to
cooperate with them. But the time for action had come and
that is why I took the rather stern action today.
MR. BROKAW: Mr. President, you have been quite
adamant in your resistance to some of the proposals that
have come from Congress. For instance, a number of the
leaders, including Mike Mansfield, have talked seriously
about gas rationing and the White House opposition and
criticism of gas rationing has been, I think, clear to
everyone. You just wouldn't sign it under any conditions.
So, where is the give-and-take in the program?
THE PRESIDENT: Tom, I think you bring up the
very fundamental question that I had to decide as we worked
for about two months on what was the best approach, as we
saw it.
What are we trying to do? That is the main thing, Tom.
We are trying to conserve energy in the first instance, and we
are trying to provide funds for exploration and development
of new sources of energy. We are seeking, basically, to
remove our country's vulnerability from foreign oil and
energy sources. I was presented with two volumes of
options, or alternatives, covering the whole spectrum of
conservation and new sources of energy.
MORE
Page 5
We took a look at gas rationing. We took a
look at the allocation of crude oil and the derivative
products. In the case of gas rationing, here is what I
found and I think it is accurate.
I found, for example, that it wouldn't be gas
rationing for six months or a year, This is a 10-year
program of conservation, so when we put gas rationing
on it would have to be for a minimum of five years and
probably ten years.
Well, in World War II, we had gas rationing
for four or five years during a serious crisis, and even then,
we had black marketeering and we had cheating and in peace-
time, gas rationing for four or five or ten years -- I just
don't think would work.
In addition, we found this: Everybody thinks that
if youhave gas rationing they are going to get their full
share and somebody else, or everybody else, is going to
cut back.
Let me give you this statistic, if I might. There
are about 140 million licensed automobile drivers in this
country and there is approximately 270 million gallons of
gasoline a day, which means that if you divide the number
of drivers into the availability of gasoline, it means
about 1-1/2 gallons per person per day, or about nine
gallons per week, or 36 gallons per month. That is a
cutback from the average of 50 gallons at the present time
because we have to save that much.
Now, how many people can get along on a gallon
and a half of gasoline, or nine gallons a week? That is
the way the mathematics works out.
So, when you look at the impracticability, the
inequities, in my judgment, gas rationing would not work.
Page 6
MR. BROKAW: Mr. President, you obviously have
done your homework on the gas rationing question, but
I don't think anyone in Congress is proposing only gas
rationing, but perhaps the combination of gas rationing
and other factors. The question is, if you are willing
to change your program and let Congress go into it,
where are you willing to let Congress change it?
THE PRESIDENT: I think you can find some
options, for example, in the most dire necessity of
having to put a lid on the actual imports. In other
words, if we take in from foreign sources as we are
today about seven million barrels a day of foreign
oil, if a conservation program like I have proposed
does not work, then I think we might have to move to
arbitrary allocations.
I think that is a less desirable answer, but
it is a possible answer.
MR. BROKAW: Mr. President, do you blame people
for being skeptical about your plan? Given the
record of your advisers and the economy and other
areas, it was not very long ago people around here
were wearing WIN buttons and talking about 5 percent
tax surcharges, for instance, so can you blame the American
public and Congress for being skeptical that this
will work out the way you say it will?
THE PRESIDENT: I think there is always room
for difference of opinion, and I must say I don't contend
my proposal is 100 percent right because the options
I had to look at -- there were some honest differences
of opinion, but you did indicate that the proposal
for the economy that I submitted last October might not
have been the right answer.
I happen to think in October it was the right
answer, but in the interval, between October and January,
there were some very, very precipitous actions in the
economy that nobody foresaw. We had the economic summit,
as you know, Tom, and nobody at that summit told us that
automobile sales were going to drop off as suddenly
as they did in November and December and in January.
Nobody who testified or spoke indicated that the
unemployment would go up as rapidly as it did. What
we have done in the proposals that I submitted on
January 16 or 15 was to take into consideration the
dropoff in automobile sales, the tremendous increase in
unemployment and to tailor our plan or program to meet
unemployment--to provide jobs--because in the meantime
inflation had moderated or the rate of inflation had
moderated so there was a change of economic circum-
stances, and in reality, I had to be flexible enough to
change the emphasis.
MORE
Page 7
MR. CHANCELLOR: Mr. President, it seems to me
I heard you say a few minutes ago that if the program
you have started today doesn't work, that you would
go to allocations. Could you expand on that a little bit,
how that would work? Wouldn't that require a sizeable
bureaucracy in itself?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think it would be much
less bureaucratically a burden than gas rationing. I
didn't mention in the conversation with Tom the number
of bureaucrats that I am told it would take -- 15,000
to 20,000 for gas rationing.
But you see, when foreign crude oil or the
products of crude oil come in from overseas, it is much
easier to handle that than to handle the allocation
through rationing at the gas station or through the
30,000 or 40,000 possible offices.
MR. CHANCELLOR: So that allocation would be
a possibility, if this doesn't work?
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
MR. CHANCELLOR: You told, I think it was
Time Magazine, that we might have gas rationing
if we get another oil embargo, is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Another oil embargo which
would deprive us of anywhere from six to seven million
barrels of oil a day would create a very serious crisis.
MR. CHANCELLOR: Is that a likelihood, sir. As
I understand it, of those seven million barrels a day,
only about 8 percent came from the Arab countries, or
10 or something like that.
THE PRESIDENT: I can't give you that
particular statistic. It would depend, of course, on
whether the Shah of Iran or Venezuela or some of the
other oil-producing countries cooperated.
At the time of the October 1973 oil embargo, we
did get some black market oil. We got it from some of
the noncooperating countries, but in the interval, the
OPEC nations have solidified their organization a great
deal more than they did before. So, we might have a
solid front this time rather than one that was more
flexible.
MORE
Page 8
MR. CHANCELLOR: In other words, you are
worried not about an Arab oil boycott but a boycott
by all of the oil-producing countries that belong to
OPEC?
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
MR. CHANCELLOR: Have you geared that as a
political possibility?
THE PRESIDENT: Itais a possibility.
MR. CHANCELLOR: And in that case that would
produce the necessity for gas rationing systems?
THE PRESIDENT: It would produce the necessity
for more drastic action. I think gas rationing in and
of itself would probably be the last resort, just as it
was following the 1973 embargo.
At the time, as you remember, John, in order to
be prepared, Bill Simon, who was then the energy boss,
had printed I don't know how many gas rationing coupons.
We have those available now; they are in storage. I think
that they cost about $10 million to print, but they are
available in case we have the kind of a crisis that would
be infinitely more serious than even the one of 1973.
MORE
Page 9
MR. CHANCELLOR: Mr. President, you have talked also
about energy independence and it is a key to your whole
program. As I recall, of the 17 million barrels of oil a
day we use in this country, about seven, as you say, come
from other countries.
Let me put it to you in a tendentious way. An
awful lot of experts are saying it will be impossible for
us by 1985 to be totally free of foreign supplies of energy.
Do you really think we can make it?
THE PRESIDENT: The plan that I have submitted does
not contemplate that we will be totally free of foreign
oil but the percentage of reliance we have, or will have, on
foreign oil will be far less.
At the present time, for example, John, 37
percent of our crude oil use comes from foreign sources.
In contrast to 1960, we were exporting oil but in the
interval between 1960 and the present time, we are now
using 37 to 38 percent of foreign oil for our energy uses.
Now, if my plan goes through, if the Congress
accepts it and we implement it and everything goes well,
by 1985, if I recall, instead of 37 or 38 percent dependence
on foreign oil, we will be down to about ten percent.
Well, a ten percent cutoff with all the contingency
plans we might have, 'we can handle without any crisis.
MR. CHANCELLOR: Tom, may I just follow up on
that?
The other day at your press conference, you were
asked about Dr. Kissinger's quote and the possibility of
military intervention and something surprised me, sir.
You have been in politics for a long time and you are as
expert a question-ducker as anybody in that trade. Why
didn't you duck that question? Why didn't you just say that
is hypothetical? You did go into some detail on it.
THE PRESIDENT: I did. In part, I reiterated what I
had said, I think, at a previous conference. I wanted it
made as clear as I possibly could that this country, in
case of economic strangulation and the key word is
"strangulation" we had to be prepared without specifying
what we might do, to take the necessary action for our
self-preservation.
When you are being strangled it is a question of either
dying or living and when you use the word "strangulation" in
relationship to the existence of the United States or its
non-existence, I think the public has to have a reassurance, our
people, that we are not going to permit America to be
strangled to death. And so, I, in my willingness to be as
frank, but with moderation, I thought I ought to say what
I said then and I have amplified it -- I hope clarified it --
here.
MORE
Page 10
MR. CHANCELLOR: The New Republic this week has
a story saying there are three American divisions being
sent to the Middle East, or being prepared for the Middle
East. We called the Pentagon and we got a confirmation
on that, that one is air mobile, one is airborne and one
is armor. It is a little unclear as to whether this is
a contingency plan because we don't know where we would
put the divisions in the Middle East. Could you shed any
light on that?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that I ought to
talk about any particular military contingency plans, John.
I think what I said concerning strangulation and Dr.
Kissinger's comment is about as far as I ought to go.
MR. CHANCELLOR: Then, we have reached a point
where another question would be unproductive on that?
THE PRESIDENT: I think you are right.
MR. BROKAW: You said the other day, speaking
about this, that general area, you think there is a serious
danger of war in the Middle East. Earlier this year, you
were quoted as saying something over 70 percent. Has it
gone up recently?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that I ought to talk
in terms of percentage, Tom. There is a serious danger of
war in the Middle East. I have had conferences with
representatives of all of the nations, practically, in the
Middle East. I have talked to people in Europe. I have
talked to other experts, and everybody says it is a very,
potentially volatile situation.
It is my judgment that we might have a very good
opportunity to be successful in what we call our step-by-
step process. I hope our optimism is borne out. We are
certainly going to try.
MR. BROKAW: Is it tied to Secretary Kissinger's
next trip to that part of the world?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he is going because we
think it might be fruitful, but we don't want to raise
expectations. We, have to be realistic, but if we don't
try to move in this direction at this time, I think we
might lose a unique opportunity.
MR. BROKAW: Should we not succeed this time,
Mr President, do you think it is probably time we have to
abandon this step-by-step process and go on to Geneva as
the Soviets would like us to do?
MORE
Page 11
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is a distinct
possibility. We prefer the process that has been successful
so far, but if there is no progress, then I think we
undoubtedly would be forced to go to Geneva.
I wouldn't be anymore optimistic, and in fact, I
would be less optimistic, if the matter was thrown on the
doorstep of Geneva.
MORE
Page 12
MR. CHANCELLOR: Mr. President, really, the Russians
have been shut out of Middle Eastern diplomacy since Dr.
Kissinger began step-by-step diplomacy. Why was that?
Couldn't the Russians play more of a positive role than
they are doing? They are arming the Arabs to the teeth
and that is really about all we have been able to see or
all they have been allowed to do under the way we have set
out policies.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not as authoritative on what
was done during the October War of 1973 in the Middle East
as I am now, of course. I can assure you that we do keep
contact with the Soviet Union at the present time. We are
not trying to shut them out of the process of trying
to find an answer in the Middle East. They can play and
they have played a constructive role, even under the
current circumstances.
So, I think it is unfair and not accurate to say
that they are not playing a part. We are taking a course
of action where it is more visible perhaps that we are
doing something but I say sincerely that the Soviet Union
is playing a part even at the present time.
MR. CHANCELLOR: Would you tell us what you think
about the idea that is going around a little bit -- and
perhaps you have heard it as well, perhaps you know a
great deal about it, I don't know -- that if the Israelis
made a significant pullback on various fronts in the Middle
East, that that could be followed by some sort of American
guarantee for their security?
THE PRESIDENT: John, I really do not think I
ought to get into the details of what might or might not
be the grounds for a negotiated settlement. This is
a very difficult area because of the long history of
jealousies, antagonisms and it is so delicate I really do
not think I ought to get into the details of what might or
might not be the grounds for a settlement.
MR. CHANCELLOR: Would you entertain a question
based on the reported Israeli desire for a three-fold increase
in our aid to them?
THE PRESIDENT: The United States, over the years,
has been very generous in economic and military aid for
Israel. On the other hand, we have been quite generous to a
number of Arab nations. The State of Israel does need
adequate military capability to protect its boundaries
or its territorial integrity.
I think because of the commonality of interest that
we have with Israel in the Middle East that it is in our
interest as well as theirs to be helpful to them, both
militarily and economically. There has been no determination
by me or by us as to the amount of that aid.
MORE
Page 13
MR. BROKAW: Mr. President, I wonder if we can come
back at you again about Israel security in another way. As
you know, reporters don't give up easily on some of these
questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I found that out, Tom.
MR. BROKAW: On a long-range basis, do you think it
is possible for Israel to be truly secure in the Middle East
without a United States guarantee of some kind?
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, Israel, to my knowledge,
Tom, has never asked for any U.S. manpower or any guarantee
from us for their security or their territorial integrity.
I think the Israelis, if they are given adequate arms and
sufficient economic help, can handle the situation. in the
Middle East.
Now, the last war, unfortunately, was much more
severe from their point of view than the three previous ones and
I suspect that with the Arabs having more sophisticated
weapons and probably a better military capability, another
war might even be worse. That is one reason why we wish
to accelerate the efforts to find some answers over there.
But, I think the Israelis, with adequate equipment
and their determination and sufficient economic aid won't
have to have U.S. guarantees of any kind.
MR. BROKAW: I wonder if we can move to another
area in the world or would you like to go back to the
Middle East?
MR. CHANCELLOR: I have one question I would like to
put to the President.
Sir, when we talk about strangulation -- and I hope
we don't talk about it any more tonight after this, and I
do believe it is the hypothetical -- I agree with you
on that -- what about the moral implications? If a
country is being strangled by a country or another set of
countries that own a natural resource, is it moral to go
and take that? It is their oil, it is not ours. Isn't
that a troublesome question?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is a troublesome question.
It may not be right, John, but I think if you go back over
the history of mankind, wars have been fought over natural
resources from time immemorial. I would hope that in this
decade or in this century and beyond, we would not have
to have wars for those purposes and we certainly are not
contemplating any such action. But history, in the years
before us, indicates quite clearly that that was one of
the reasons why nations fought one another.
MORE
Page 14
MR. BROKAW: Mr. President, what is your objective
in Southeast Asia, and Vietnam, particularly.
THE PRESIDENT: In Vietnam, after all the lives
that were lost there, Americans, over 50,000, and after
the tremendous expenditures that we made in American
dollars, several times more than $30 billion a year, it
seems to me that we ought to try and give the South
Vietnamese the opportunity through military assistance
to protect their way of life.
This is what we have done traditionally as
Americans. Certainly, since the end of World War II
we have helped innumerable nations in military arms and
economic assistance to help themselves to maintain their
own freedom.
The American people believe, I think historically,
that if a country and a people want to protect their way
of life against aggression, we will help them in a
humanitarian way, and in a military way with arms and
funds, if they are willing to fight for themselves.
This is within our tradition as Americans.
The South Vietnamese apparently do wish to
maintain their national integrity and their independence.
I think it is in our best tradition as Americans to
help them at the present time.
MR. BROKAW: How much longer and how deep
does our commitment go to the South Vietnamese?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that there is
any long-term commitment. As a matter of fact,
the American Ambassador there, Graham Martin, has told
me, as well as Dr. Kissinger, that he thinks if adequate
dollars which are translated into arms and economic
aid -- if that was made available that within two or
three years the South Vietnamese would be over the hump
militarily as well as economically.
I am sure we have been told that before, but
they had made substantial progress until they began
to run a little short of ammunition, until inflation started
in the last few months to accelerate.
I happen to think that Graham Martin, who is a
very hardnosed, very, dedicated man and very realistic,
is right. I hope the Congress will go along with this
extra supplemental that I am asking for to help the
South Vietnamese protect themselves,
MORE
Page 15
MR. CHANCELLOR: Sir, there is that $300
million yau have asked for the South Vietnamese, and
given what you have just said -- I am going to phrase
it this way -- will we see the light at the end
of the tunnel if we give them $300 million?
THE PRESIDENT: The best estimate of the
experts that are out there, both military and civilian,
tell me that $300 million in this fiscal year is the
minimum. A year ago when the budget was submitted for
military assistance for South Vietnam, it was
$1 billion 400 million. Congress cut it in half, which
meant that South Vietnamese rangers going out on patrol
instead of having an adequate supply of hand grenades
and weapons were cut in half, which, of course, has
undercut their military capability.
It has made them conserve and not be as strong.
Now, $300 million doesn't take them back up
to where they were or where it was proposed they
should be. But the experts say, who are on the scene,
who have seen the fighting and have looked at the
stocks and the reserves, tell me that that would be
adequate for the current circumstances.
MR. CHANCELLOR: Mr. President, does it make you
uneasy to sit on that couch in this room and have
experts in Vietnam saying only a little bit more and
it will be all right? We did hear that for so many years.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you have to think
pretty hard about it, but a lot of skeptics, John, said
that the money we were going to make available for the
rehabilitation of Europe after World War II wouldn't
do any good and, of course, the investment we made did
pay off.
A lot of people have said the money that we
made available to Israel wouldn't be helpful in bringing
about the peace that has been achieved there for the
last year and a half or so, but it did. It helped.
I think an investment of $300 million at this
time in South Vietnam could very likely be a key for
the preservation of their freedom and might conceivably
force the North Vietnamese to stop violating the
Paris accords of January 1973.
MORE
Page 16
When you look at the agreement that was
signed--and Ihappened to be there at the time of the
signing in January of 1973 the North Vietnamese agreed
not to infiltrate. The facts are they have infiltrated
with countless thousands -- I think close to 100,000
from North Vietnam down to South Vietnam. They are
attacking cities, metropolitan areas.
They have refused to permit us to do anything
about our U.S. missing in action in North Vietnam.
They have refused to negotiate any political settlement
between North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
They have called off the meetings either in
Paris or in Siagon, so here is a country -- South
Vietnam that isfaced with an attitude on the part
of the North Vietnamese of total disregard of the
agreement that was signed about two years ago. I think
the South Vietnamese deserve some help in this crisis.
MORE
Page 17
MR. BROKAW: Mr. President, underlying all of
this in much of this interview is a kind of supposition
on your part, I guess, that the American public is
willing to carry the burden that it has in the past. Do
you believe that? Is that your view of this country?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and I am proud of that,
Tom. The United States -- we are fortunate, We have a
substantial economy. We have good people who by tradition --
certainly since the end of World War II -- have assumed
a great responsibility. We rehabilitated Europe. We
helped Japan -- both in the case of Germany and Japan --
enemies that we have defeated.
We helped underdeveloped countries in Latin
America, Africa and Southeast Asia. I think we should
be proud of the fact that we are willing to share our
great wealth with others less fortunate than we.
It gives us an opportunity to be a leader
setting an example for others, and when you look at
it from our own selfish point of view, what we have done
has basically helped America, but in addition, it
has helped millions and millions of other people.
We should be proud of it. We should not be
critical of our efforts.
MR. CHANCELLOR: Mr. President, I would like
to move on, if I could, and ask you as a reporter if
you would care to share a little information with me on
a paper you read recently on the CIA. You read a
paper given to you by the CIA. There have been resig-
nations at the CIA. Officials of the CIA have admitted
some of the charges that have been made against them.
However did they get off the reservation, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: I did read the report that was
submitted to me by Bill Colby, the head of the CIA, and
after reading it, I determined that rather than myself
making a judgment as to whether they were violating
their legislative charter or whether there was any
guilt on the part of any individual, the present Director
or any of his predecessors that the proper thing
for me to do was to turn the investigation over
to a very reputable group of gentlemen who would look
into the facts, take testimony and make a report, number
one, as to the charges; number two, make recommendations
tome as to any disciplinary action or changes within the
present personnel; and to make recommendations as to
whether the charter of the CIA ought to be revised.
MORE
Page 18
I asked the Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller,
to head up this group of seven people, three Democrats,
three Republicans, men of outstanding experience, and
I think excellent judgment, and they are in the process
now.
It would be premature for me, John, to pass
judgment on the degree of violation of the charter. There
have been admissions that there were some indiscretions
or potential illegal actions. But for me to say on
this program that Mr. A did something that was illegal or
the group did something totally wrong, I think it is better
for me to wait and see what this Commission reports to
me.
MR. BROKAW: Mr. President, another agency,
the FBI, has recently been involved in a controversy
about keeping track of Americans as well, keeping files
on Members of Congress, among others. Clearing away
everything else, do you think there is any reason for
those files to be retained?
THE PRESIDENT: Tom, I think you have to look
at what the responsibility is of the FBI.
Number one, the FBI, under no circumstances,
should do anything -- they should not spy on Members of
Congress. I do not think they ought to spy on law abiding
American citizens, but there are certain areas where the
FBI has a legal responsibility.
The FBI has the responsibility to check on
individuals who are charged with a crime--any American
citizen, including a Member of Congress. The FBI, if
they are seeking to employ somebody or if somebody applied
for a job, the FBI has an obligation to check on that
person's record and some Members of Congress at the
present time servedin the FBI at various times prior
to being elected to the House or to the Senate.
So, the FBI ought to have files on those people.
In addition, as I understand it, the FBI in
the course of investigating a person gets information
concerning somebody else. And that may be information
concerning a Member of Congress. I am told that that
information that is gotten in a peripheral way does go
into a file.
That kind of information, in my judgment, ought
to be reported to the Member of the House or to the Member
of the Senate.
MORE
Page 19
MR. BROKAW: But why should it be retained, even?
If there is no criminality, or evidence of it, or they are not
interviewing them for a job, why should they retain it in
any fashion?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is a good question,
Tom. I would have no objection to having that kind of
information disposed of.
MR. CHANCELLOR: As I understand it, sir, the way
it works now is that the FBI tells a Member of Congress
if they have heard some scurrilous charge against him and
he denies it and they keep both the charge and the
denial in his file.
THE PRESIDENT: I hadn't heard that, John, but
I think that is kind of silly.
MR. CHANCELLOR: You mentioned the charter of
the CIA and you mentioned the responsibility of the
United States Government to engage in a certain amount of
looking at and investigating citizens who are not necessarily
charged with a crime as in job applications and in other
things.
Do you suppose that we could work out a better
way of sharing this responsibility in the American Government?
Could that come out of these FBI and CIA investigations?
THE PRESIDENT: I think you have to differentiate,
John, between the charter of the FBI and the responsibilities
of the CIA. There is supposed to be a clear line of demarcation
between the two.
MR. CHANCELLOR: And apparently there wasn't, at
times.
THE PRESIDENT: For various reason, that line was
overstepped and, of course, the investigations, I think,
will expose what caused it and how we can remedy it.
But the FBI has domestic responsibilities, responsi-
bilities within the continental limits of the United States.
The CIA is supposed to be an intelligence-gathering
bureau aimed at overseas operations on this country's
behalf.
I think the CIA is vitally important to our total
national security, both diplomatically as well as militarily.
I can assure you that they do, in the areas that I am
intimately familiar with, an excellent job of providing
the Department of Defense and providing me with information
that is important for the decision-making process on what
I think we should do militarily or diplomatically and
they do a fine job on behalf of the Department of Defense.
MORE
Page 20
Now, I don't think they ought to get into any
domestic surveillance and mistakes apparently were made
going back as early as 1964 or 1965.
It has stopped now and I have given instructions
that under no circumstances shall it be started again, and
I think the CIA has probably learned.
But I don't think that we should destroy the CIA
in trying to straighten out the indiscretions or the mistakes
that were made.
MR. BROKAW: Mr. President, on an unrelated subject,
I have always wanted to ask you this question about the
credibility of American justice as, let us say, young
Americans see it.
We have just gone through the worst scandal in
the history of the Presidency. Mr. Agnew, we are told,
is going to become a millionaire -- at least his business
partner says that. Mr. Nixon is in California. Some of these
other people who were involved are getting huge book
advances. How do you suppose that squares with the idea of
justice as young people ought to see it in this country?
THE PRESIDENT: That is a hard question to answer,
John. I am sure it disturbs a lot of Americans -- young as
well as old -- Americans who have worked hard all of their
lives, have made middle income wages or salaries, lived an honest,
decent life, raised a family and find that for various economic
reasons they are in trouble and they see these stories about
some of these people who have plead guilty or been convicted
and gone to jail.
MR. BROKAW: And some of the big ones not touched
at all.
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct. And yet, they
come out with guarantees or prepayments of substantial amounts.
I think it will bother a good many Americans, young as well
as old, and I don't have any answer. I wouldn't buy the
books, let me add.
MR. CHANCELLOR: That is the first non-Presidential
plug for a book I think I have ever heard.
MR. BROKAW: I have a question that isn't easy
to phrase, so I will just bore straight ahead with it. As
you know, I am certain, because I have been told that you
have commented on this before, but it has been speculated on
in print not only in Washington but elsewhere and it crops
up in conversation from time to time in this town -- the
question of whether or not you are intellectually up to the
job of being the President of the United States. When you
hear that kind of talk or read that in print, does it bother you?
MORE
Page 21
THE PRESIDENT: It really doesn't, Tom. I suppose
people wonder why it doesn't bother me. My answers are as hard
as the questions you ask.
If grades one gets in school are a criteria, and
we have been doing it for years and are still doing it,
whether I was in high school or at the University of
Michigan or at Yale Law School I was always in the upper
third or the upper 10 percent of my class.
Now, if I don't have the academic capability being in
either the upper third at Yale Law School or in the upper 20-some
percent at the University of Michigan, there must be an awful
lot of people much dumber than I.
Now, I don't think that is the only way by which
you judge people. I think grades are important, judgment
is a pretty important factor, and a capability on the part
of a person to work and to analyze problems is equally
important.
I think the fact that I have done reasonably well,
both in Congress, in first getting there, and number two,
in getting to be a leader and retaining that post for five
elections among my peers as a Member on our side of the
aisle -- I think that does show some feeling on the part
of responsible people that I have the capability of
doing the job.
MORE
Page 22
MR. BROKAW: Mr. President, I just want to ask
you about a personal moment I witnessed in Vladivostok.
After you signed the agreement with General Secretary
Brezhnev and there was a shaking of hands and the champagne,
I caught you looking out kind of into the distance for a
moment there, and I thought I saw, at least, in your eyes,
a question of "What in the world am I doing here a year
after being in the House of Representatives."
Do you sometimes find yourself, given the way you
came to this office, stopping for a moment and thinking that
and wondering as these events brush by you?
THE PRESIDENT: I cannot recall that particular
incident, Tom, but to be honest and frank with you, yes,
I have though. I never anticipated that I would be in
the White House, in this building where this program is
originating.
I had other political ambitions, and I prepared
myself primarily for those objectives, but nevertheless,
even though I have wondered how it all happened, I feel
very secure in the capability that I have to do the job.
And I can assure you that my feeling of security, my feeling
of certainty that I can handle it grows everyday. But
nevertheless, you cannot help but wonder sometimes, how did
it all happen.
MR. CHANCELLOR: Could I phrase it this way --
because I think the growth on your part as we and the press
have perceived it has been considerable. For a long while
you represented Grand Rapids, Michigan, as you should have,
but suddenly, you have been put into another arena, and
your government is about to borrow $28 billion in six months --
THE PRESIDENT: -- $80 billion in the next 18 months.
MR. CHANCELLOR: But we are dealing with these
enormous figures now that do not seem to me to square at all
with the ideological and political outlook you have had
at all for much of your life. Would you talk about that?
THE PRESIDENT: I think all of us, John, who work
at a job and seek to broaden one's self in the process of
step-by-step movement in a career, have to understand the
much more complex problems that we face. As I moved from
a freshman Congressman in 1949 to a Republican leader in
January of 1965, and as I moved from being a new Republican
leader in January of 1965 to a Republican leader, eight,
nine years later, if you have the capability and work at it,
you inevitably get a broader look at life, and that gives
you, I think, a better understanding, not only of the complexities
at home, but the enormous difficulties and complexities on
a world-wide basis.
MORE
Page 23
I would be ashamed of myself if I did not think,
from January of 1949, when I first took the Oath of Office
in the House of Representatives, until now, I had'not learned
a lot, profited by mistakes, analyzed what I had done, right
or wrong, and expanded my knowledge and understanding. It
has been a great deal of satisfaction to me that I have been
able to meet those challenges.
MR. CHANCELLOR: And now you are here in the
cockpit. I mean, you are really on the spot as President
now. Have you learned your most in this office and in
this House -- do we tend to put Presidents too much on
pedestals? Do we expect too much from the human beings who
occupy this office?
THE PRESIDENT: An awful lot is expected, John. But
I think a person who is President of the United States should
expect that kind of responsibility, and he should act
accordingly. To do otherwise, I think, would be just wrong.
I think a person who is President, either elected
or as I was, under the unusual circumstances, has to feel
that there is an enormous responsibility and that the American
people expect him to perform 150 percent of his capability,
both as to mental and time and judgment and everything else.
MR. BROKAW: Mr. President, you said, in an interview
recently, you thought you would have a better grasp of what
the Presidency is and what your role is in it in about six
months. If things don't work out quite the way you want them
to, will it change your mind at all about your own future
in this office?
THE PRESIDENT: Tom, I think I said that the public
could judge my performance better at the end of six months
than they could at the present time. It has been about
five and one-half months since I have been President. We
have had some tough decisions, both at home and abroad. We
are facing a very difficult and very critical period domestically
for the next six to 12 months.
I said, in the interview, based on the programs that
I had submitted for the economy and for energy, I believe
we will make some headway. And if we do, it will be dis-
cernible within six months, maybe not as much as I would
like, but at least we will be out of the slump and starting
to move upward. And then, I think that is a better time
for people to judge me than at the present time.
MR. CHANCELLOR: Sir, if in early 1976 we are at
double-digit inflation and unemployment is over 7 percent,
would you be a candidate for office again?
MORE
Page 24
THE PRESIDENT: Those are pretty tough odds, and
I think anybody has to be realistic. But I add very quickly,
John, I don't think that is going to happen because the
resiliency of the American economy is such that we are going
to rebound from this recession, and I think we will do it
more quickly and in a better way than most pessimists say.
So, I am not anticipating in 1976 that we are going to have
that high unemployment. I think we will have more jobs,
people will have a fresher, more optimistic point of view.
So, based on that forecast, not the one that you speculated
on, I am planning to be a candidate in 1976.
MR. CHANCELLOR: On that note, Mr. President, for
Tom Brokaw and for me, I want to thank you, and for NBC News,
for having us here in this house this evening. It was very
instructive for us.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, John, and thank you,
Tom. We have enjoyed having you here.
MR. CHANCELLOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
MR. BROKAW: Thank you, Mr. President.
END
(AT 10:59 P.M. EST)