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
1515778
label
Busing - Presidential Statements (1)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1515778
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Busing - Presidential Statements (1)
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
1515778
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
027b97bb352753e5
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 7, folder "Busing - Presidential Statements (1)"
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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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
[undated]
Page 5
QUESTION: Mr. President, some 'embers of
Congress are talking like an extension of the tax cut is
already an accomplished fact next year. la fact, they are
saying that an even larger cut needs to cone, What is
your thinking right now on the tax cut nex: year?
THE PRESIDENT: We have made no firm decision
on that. We will, in a reasonably short period of time,
make a recommendation. If the economy needs any
additional stimulant, we will, of course, recommend a
continuation of the present tax cut.
If we find that the economy is continuing to come
out of the recession, as it is, and there is no danger of
added inflationary problems, we would probably not
recommend a continuation of the tax cut.
But, we do feelochat we have some additional time
before making a specific quest of the Congress for
action in this area.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you have been saying
that there is a better way than busing to achieve quality
education and suggested some better ways, such as improving
facilities and the teacher-pupil ratio. Are you prepared
jo approve of more money to do things like that?
THE PRESIDENT: We, of course, do have in the
emergency school aid legislation and appropriations a
substantial amount of money that is available, and we have
made money available to Boston and we have --- if my memory
is correct ---- done the same in Louisville, although I will
have to check that.
The thing that bothers me about actions of some
of the courts, where they are involved in the school
busing controversy, is that they apparently have not taken
into consideration the law that was passed and signed by
me on August 12 of 1974, three days after I was sworn in.
That law included what was known then, and still
is, as the Esch amdnement. I just happen to have a copy of
the Esch amendment here (Laughter) that sets forth seven
specific proposals that the court should follow before
they actually use the busing remedy.
It is in Title 2 of the Education Amendments
of 1974, Section 214, This section establishes a
priority of remedies and it says, in effect, that the courts
and other Government agencies shall require the first
of the following remedies, or the first combination of the
remedies, which would correct a denial of rights.
MORE
Page 6
It says, for example, assigning students to
schools closest to their homes, taking into account
both school capacities and natural physical barriers;
two, assigning students to the closest school, taking
into account only, school capacities; three, permitting
students to transfer from a school in which a majority
of the students are of their race to one in which a
minority are of their race; four creating or revising
attendant zones or grade structures without requiring
transportation, construction of new schools or closing of
inferior schools, establishment of magna schools.
Then it goes on to say that students should not
be transferred to a school other than the school closest
or the next closest to his place of residence.
Now, those recommendations included in law in
many instances apparently have not been followed by the
courts. I think the court ought to take into cognizance
the legislative recommendations that are as a matter of
law, at the present.
Now, in addition, there are other things that
I have mentioned before -- improved facilities, upgrading
the teachers, if necessary, including the better pupil-
teacher ratios.
QUESTION: Mr. President, that requires a lot
more money than just the emergency funds you talked about,
Are you going to propose increases?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think it is going to
require a great deal more money, Bonnie. Really, that is
a very substantial sum, and it has been used up in
Boston, and I believe it is being used in Louisville.
It is not nearly as much money if you focus it
in on the places where the tension is the highest, and
the problem is the greatest, particularly if the courts
follow the law, as was enacted by the Congress in 1974.
MORE
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
[undated]
Page 7
QUESTION: Mr. President, do you have thoughts of
inviting Senator Percy into your Administration, and if so, in
what capacity?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Percy has been a long-time
friend of mine. In fact, in 1949 or 1950, we were jointly
honored with eight other people down in Joliet as ten of the
young outstanding men by the judges, so I have known him from 1949
or 1950.
I think he does an excellent job as United States
Senator. He has been very helpful to me in this campaign. I
think very highly of him personally and professionally, and his
political life. He has been helpful on many occasions representing
the great State of Illinois, and I have mentioned him as one of a
number of potential Vice Presidential candidates, not above or
below any of the others, but as one of a number, but other
than that, I have no specific plans for having him as an active
part of the Administration.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you have mentioned your
opposition to forced busing previously, as have several of your
predecessors, yet forced busing continues to be a major
political issue.
I am wondering if you foresee any changes in the
next four years that will change the stance of HEW or the
courts on this issue?
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, the problem is forced on
the country under a judgment or a decision of the United States
Supreme Court that came about the mid-1950s on the basis that
it was a Constitutional violation of the rights of individuals
to perpetuate segregation in public school systems.
Now, the courts make that judgment. Nobody in the
Executive Branch can change that judgment. The problem is that
when Congress has tried to change the laws to meet the problem,
there is always the Constitutional question involved whether
the law violates the Constitution just as the practices did
for a good many years. I do think, however, that the courts,
in applying the Constitutional principle, have begun to use
more reasonable and rational remedies. That is the real problem.
So the courts, when they have used radical remedies,
have torn the local communities' society asunder, but when the
courts use a rational remedy for the solution of the Constitutional
issue, there is a great deal more acceptance by the community.
Now, I have asked the Attorney General and the
Secretary of HEW to submit to me any thoughts that they might
have or recommendations they might have for what I or we in the
Executive Branch might do. They submitted this a week or so ago.
I asked them to take two or three of the suggestions and to
refine them more preciselv.
MORE
GLRALD FORD LIBRARY
Page 8
I have not gotten their final recommendations back,
but I think the final answer really comes in how the Federal
courts interpret the Brown decision and utilize it in
individual cases at the local level, and I have found somè
of the more recent decisions more moderate.
I strongly disagree with the radical remedies
of forced busing to achieve racial balance. I don't think
that accomplishes what we all want, which is quality education.
I think it is harmful to quality education, and I
think there are some recent studies that prove that.
So if the courts will be more moderate, and we can
help in any other way, I think that is the real answer.
MORE
GERALO FORD LIGRARY
Page 9
QUESTION: A very quick follow-up. Do you believe
any of the candidates that are now running for President of
the United States, if elected, could change the busing
situation in this country in the next four years?
THE PRESIDENT: No, because it is primarily within
the jurisdiction and responsibility of how the Federal court
system interprets the constitutional issue and what remedies
they utilize, so there is no law that can underline a
constitutional issue, it is a matter of the Judicial
interpretation of the factual situation, the constitutional
problem and the remedy that is used.
I don't see how any Presidential candidate,
other than to have an impact or an influence indirectly on
the Judicial system, would have any capability of changing
it dramatically.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Mr. President, during the 1974 Health
Planning and Resources Development Act in the designation of
Health Systems Agencies nationwide, will your program of
block grants through HEW force a scrapping of HSA's and,
if so, what will replace the planning structure?
THE PRESIDENT: No, my health block grant program seeks
to consolidate -- I think it is 15 or 16 -- various federally
financed health programs into one block grant to the State and
to the local units of Government. What that would do is
to give no less money than they have this year, in fact we
promised them about a half billion dollars more each year for
the next several years.
It is now $10 billion and it goes up to $10.5 billion,
$11 billion under our proposal. What it does is to give the
same amount of money or more to the States and to the local
units of Government for all of these programs and then it
depends on how the local or State officials want to utilize
that money.
In some States they might want to put more money
in Program A and less in Program B. It is a matter of local
determination at that point so there is no denial of the amount
of money, it simply transfers the decision-making process to
to the local unit of Government and it does away with an
immense amount of red tape because if you have 15 or 16
categorical grant programs, the red tape is unbelievable.
If you have one block grant program, you save an awful lot of
man hours in the applications and you can reduce correspondingly,
I think, a number of Federal employees.
MORE
[undated]
Page 10
QUESTION: Mr. President, we have talked about educational
issues and specifically some of NEA's concerns about the future
of education in the United States. I would like for just a couple
of minutes, if you would respond to our concerns about some of your
other major aims and objectives as the President of the United
States?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I look for the next four years
and the next century, John, that this country ought to have an
objective, and the objective that I believe in very deeply is that
in our third century as a Nation we have. to put a greater emphasis
on the right of the individual. You can look at it from this point
of view--the right of the individual to express himself, to
participate, to be a leader in our economy and all of the
ramifications that that includes the right of the individual
to express himself, participate more in education in a professional
way, in whatever his profession might be, in our society as a
whole.
As I look back over the first two centuries of our
country, the first century was dedicated to the foundation of a
political system that had stability, and that is now secure. The
second century involved the development of the United States as
a country that had the greatest industrial capacity of any nation
in the history of mankind, but our third century -- and this, I
think, is very appropriate as far as teachers are concerned -- we
want in the next 100 years to put the emphasis on the rights of
the individual. That, of course, cuts across almost every program
that the Federal Government participates in.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
On behalf of the National Education Association Board
of Directors and our membership at large, we are honored that you
took this time out of a very busy schedule.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, John, and thank
all of the others. It has been a pleasure to be on your program.
END (AT 11:40 A.M. EDT)
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Page 7
QUESTION: Mr. President, 01 two occasions over
the weekend in discussing busing you mentioned a
1954 Supreme Court decision as the basis for busing.
It is my recollection that that Supreme Court decision
in Brown versus the Board of Education related to
striking separate but equal. Could you elaborate a little
bit on that?
THE PRESIDENT: You are correct but I don't
think I said that decision in any way ordered court
busing. It was the decision in 1954 that declared
unconstitutional the long accepted practice in many
States of having separate but equal schools. But as
an outgrowth of that court decision there have been the
subsequent decisions that have involved busing.
QUESTION: Mr. President, as you know, a good
many Congressional offices are receiving mail which runs
contrary to your proposal for the Middle East
settlement, particularly objecting to the use of
American technicians in the Sinai.
I was wondering, sir, if as you say that is
worth the risk? How long are those Americans going
to be there, and is that not an open-ended commitment?
THE PRESIDENT: They will be there during the
term of the agreement unless I, or another President,
withdraw them because of any danger to their lives.
It is a case of not more than 200 Americans performing
a highly technical warning station responsibility in
a UN buffer zone. I think it is a good contribution
by the United States to the establishment and permanency
of peace in the Middle East.
QUESTION: May I follow up, please? I would
like to ask what you would do if in the course of their
term in the Sinai, the PLO moves in and kidnapped some
of them, captured them, or if perhaps they were killed?
Would you then use American intervention; the question
being then, would you flatly rule out there would be
no American intervention to protect those people?
THE
PRESIDENT:
You are speculating on some-
thing I do not anticipate would happen. I think I or
any other President would use utmost caution in the
protection of the lives of any Americans.
Yes?
QUESTION: Mr. President, to follow that up, if
you are committed to the use of Americans on the
Egyptian front, would you also, later perhaps, be
committed to the principle of using Americans on the
Jordanian or the Syrian front?
MORE
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT UPON
August 21,
1974
SIGNING AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 69,
THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDAY EDUCATION
ACT
I think it is fair to say that this legislation
A
places reasonable and equitable restrictions upon the problem
of busing, and in conjunction with the Supreme Court
decision will hopefully relieve that problem and make the
solution far more equitable and just.
FORD is LIBRARY 076835
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
August 21, 1974
(On signing HR 69,
an omnibus education bill)
Much of the controversy over H.R. 69 has centered on its busing provisions.
In general, I am opposed to the forced busing of school children because it
does not lead to better education and it infringes upon traditional freedoms in
America.
As enacted, H.R. 69 contains an ordered and reasoned approach to dealing
with the remaining problems of segregation in our schools, but I regret that
it lacks an effective provision for automatically re-evaluating existing court
orders. This omission means that a different standard will be applied to those
districts which are already being compelled to carry out extensive busing
plans and those districts which will now work out desegregation plans under the
more rational standards set forth in this bill. Double standards are unfair,
and this one is no exception. I believe that all school districts, North and
South, East and West, should be able to adopt reasonable and just plans for
desegregation which will not result in children being bused from their
neighborhoods.
GERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
August 21, 1974
(On signing HR 69,
an omnibus education bill)
Much of the controversy over H.R. 69 has centered on its busing provisions.
In general, I am opposed to the forced busing of school children because it
does not lead to better education and it infringes upon traditional freedoms in
America.
As enacted, H.R. 69 contains an ordered and reasoned approach to dealing
with the remaining problems of segregation in our schools, but I regret that
it lacks an effective provision for automatically re-evaluating existing court
orders. This omission means that a different standard will be applied to those
districts which are already being compelled to carry out extensive busing
plans and those districts which will now work out desegregation plans under the
more rational standards set forth in this bill. Double standards are unfair,
and this one is no exception. I believe that all school districts, North and
South, East and West, should be able to adopt reasonable and just plans for
desegregation which will not result in children being bused from their
neighborhoods.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT UPON
August 21,
1974
SIGNING AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 69,
THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDAY EDUCATION
ACT
I think it is fair to say that this legislation
places reasonable and equitable restrictions upon the problem
of busing, and in conjunction with the Supreme Court
decision will hopefully relieve that problem and make the
solution far more equitable and just.
FORD is LIBRARY DERALD
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT REQUESTED
BY BOSTON MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES
October 12, 1974
Boston is a fine, proud City. The cradle of liberty. Where many of the
freedoms that we all so cherish today in this Country, were born, 200 years
ago. The people of Boston share a tradition for reason, fairness and respect
for the rights of others. Now, in a difficult period for all of you, it is a
time to reflect on all that your City means to you. To react in the finest
tradition of your City's people. It is up to you, every one of you, every
parent, child, to reject violence of any kind in your City. To reject hatred
and the shrill voices of the violent few.
I know that nothing is more important to you than the safety of the children
in Boston. And only your calm and thoughtful action now can guarantee that
safety. I know that you will all work together for that goal. And have one
more thing to be proud of in the cradle of liberty.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY Busing 4, 1975
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
(Baltimore, Maryland)
brus
bris
83894 THE WHITE HOUSE
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
AT THE
FIFTH ANNUAL OUR COUNTRY. CELEBRATION
B&W ti Isebro FORT McHENRY
brus avais Mad Jon bluow
9:05 P.M. EDT
on Governor Mandel and Mrs. Mandel, Senator Beall
and Mrs. Beall, distinguished Members of the House of
Representatives, Congressman Long, Congressman Gude,
Congresswoman Holt, Congréssman Bauman, Congresswoman
Spellman, Congressman Sarbanes, Mayor Schaefer, our
country's newest citizens, and all of you wonderful
people from Baltimore and the great State of Maryland:
to
We meet here tonight at the twilight's last
gleaming. The casement walls and the silent cannons of
the Fort McHenry bear a very quiet testimony to the
Nation's travail on another night in another age.
We all know that Francis Scott Key enshrined
forever those events in 1814 -- the patriotism and the
national pride surrounding our flag, our country, and
their defense that night, our heritage -- in a song and
a verse.
The Star Spangled Banner is an expression of
our love of country. We must not be so sophisticated, so
IIA
blase that we ignore those simple but eloquent moments
of
our
history.
to
to
We need to remind ourselves that America is
really the land of the free and the home of the brave,
and we should be proud of it.
to
We are honored, every one of us, by those who
earlier this evening became our newest United States
citizens, and we should give them a special round of
applause right now.
They have chosen what often is taken for granted
among many of us. The hallmark of our first century was
the establishment of a free Government. In the face of 5
the greatest odds, 13 poor struggling colonies became a
fledgling Nation.
MORE
(OVER)
LIBRARY GERALD
Page 2
Its future, in those dark days and weeks and
months, was insecure. In the first 100 years the
Western movement accelerated, vast territories were
acquired, States joined the Union, Constitutional issues
were raised and wars were fought, none more devestating
than the one that turned American against American.
Yet, through that horrible ordeal, it was
resolved that this Nation would not endure half slave and
half free. The Union was preserved.
By our Centennial in 1876, the American Republic
had been securely established. Of this, there was no
doubt, either at home or abroad.
Our second century has been marked by the
growth of the great American free enterprise system.
The pioneer spirit which carried us West turned us to
new frontiers. Railroads spanned the Continent and became
a web of steel linking city to city, region to region,
town to town.
to
The automobile and its assembly line changed
forever transportation and our manufacturing process in
America. The Wright brothers mastered powered flight
at Kitty Hawk. The age of flight was born.
From the first Atlantic crossing by the lone
eagle, Charles Lindbergh, to the American astronauts who
announced that the Eagle had landed, when touchdown on
the moon, America's latest ship was again established.
to
The telegram. The telephone. The television.
All are a great part of the communications revolution of
our second century. Science, medicine, agriculture,
production, marketing -- these have been just a few of
the modern frontiers since 1876.
But now our third century, I believe, should
be an era of individual freedom. The mass approach of
the modern world places a premium on creativity and
individuality.
We see mass production, mass education, mass
population. They must not smother individual expression
or limit individual opportunity. Individualism is a
safeguard against the sameness of society. A Government
too large and bureaucratic can stifle individual initiative
by a frustrating statism.
In America, and never forget it, our sovereign
is a citizen. Our sovereign is the citizen, and we
must never forget it.
(язмо)
MORE
Page 3
Governments exist to serve people. The State
is the creature of the populus. These propositions are
the foundation stones of our Bicentennial. Today, in the
199 years of our independence, we stand on the thresh-
hold of a new American experience.
Let us make the coming year a great year on
America's agenda of achievement. As we move to the
Bicentennial of American independence, let us think where
we will be and what we can achieve by next July 4, by
the next decade, by the 200th anniversary of our
Constitution and by the year 2000.
Let us resolve that this shall be an era of
hope rather than despair. Let us resolve that it
shall be an era of achievement rather than apathy. Let
us resolve that it shall be a time of promises rather
than regret.
The Bicentennial should be a time for each of
us for self-examination and individual accomplishment.
Quality and permanence should be the measurement of
your life and my life and the life of 214 other million
Americans in 50 States and our territories.
Let us pursue truths and values that will
enhance the quality of life, of you and your fellow
Americans. To form a more perfect Union -- and that is
what we want -- we need to learn more of our country and
more of our good people.
Americans must appreciate the diversity of our
lands and the diversity of our citizens. There is a
quotation that I learned in my early days n Sunday school,
that the beauty of Joseph's coat is its many colors, and
that is the strength of America.
Boundariesof regionalism and urbanization must
dissolve before our will to be one Nation and one people.
In the coming year, the Bicentennial must become a true
national experience. The American Revolution and its
legacy belong to each of the States and our far-flung
territories. It belongs to every county, to every city,
to every church, to every club and to each and every
American citizen.
At every school where the American flag flies,
it is my hope that there will be, in the coming year, a
concentrated effort in the clássroom to study, discuss
and portray these past 200 years of our history.
I would urge that every community seek to make
its program as meaningful as possible to as many as
possible -- old, young, in every walk of life.
FORD
MORE
GERALD
LIBRARY
Page 4
This should stress the history, culture and
the achievements and the basic values that are so
important that we associate with our way of life.
Yes, the ideas that were forged and fought for
in the 13 colonies crossed the Appalachians. They
followed the wagons and rode with the Pony Express.
They crossed the Mississippi and the Missouri, spanned
the plains and the American desert.
They belong as much to the West as they belonged
to the East.
Wherever the American flag has gone, so went
the concepts of this great Republic. American clipper
ships that probably sailed in part from this great
Baltimore harbor took the story of America to the far
corners of the earth with pride and with success. American
jet liners carry it every day across the skies to
distant lands.
Indeed, this event does not belong just to
Americans. This is a celebration of liberty, freedom,
democracy, wherever they exist, and we want them to exist
on a global basis at some time in the world's history.
While we cherish the many heritages that enrich
our land, we of all people have no history except what we
have written for ourselves. We are not Americans alone,
by birth or blood, by oath or creed or compact among
princes. We are Americans because we deliberately chose
to be one Nation, indivisible. For 199 years, with
God's help, we have gone forward together, and we will
in the future.
Two centuries of sacrifice and struggle, of
conflict and compromise, have gained for us an unprecedented
measure of political and economic independence
We have, on this Independence Day of 1975, a
free Government that checks and balances its own excesses,
and a free economic system that corrects its own errors,
given the courage and the constructive cooperation of a
free and enlightened citizenry.
This is the amazing history Americans have
written for themselves, you and your forefathers, as we
begin our Bicentennial celebration.
The young Republic of yesteryear is today a
strong and a very great Nation. It still lives by the
values of the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights. It influences the destiny of millions beyond
our shores. It still remains, in Lincoln's words, "The
last, best hope of earth."
MORE
Page 5
Let us, this Fourth of July, continue to be a
Nation of hope. The American people believe in tomorrow,
that by dawn's early light our flag will still be there.
Let us be one Nation and one people indivisible, for our
flag is one and our destiny is one.
Let us be people of value, of liberty, equality
and justice, no matter what the cost. That has been our
history, and we are proud of it. We have never counted
the cost of freedom, and I don't think America every will.
Let us in the final analysis be true to our-
selves for then we can be false to no nation or to no
people. Let us live, not only for our own progress, but
also in harmony and hope for all other men, women and
children everywhere in this great globe.
In so doing, the United States and its people
serve and honor the promise of Francis Scott Key's
words: "Land of the free, and home of the brave."
Thank you and good night.
END (AT 9:20 P.M. EDT)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 4, 1975
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
(Baltimore, Maryland)
bns
THE
WHITE
HOUSE
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
AT
THE
FIFTH ANNUAL OUR COUNTRY CELEBRATION
bns FORT McHENRY
9:05 P.M. EDT
on Governor Mandel and Mrs. Mandel, Senator Beall
and Mrs. Beall, distinguished Members of the House of
Representatives, Congressman Long, Congressman Gude,
Congresswoman Holt, Congressman Bauman, Congresswoman
Spellman, Congressman Sarbanes, Mayor Schaefer, our
country's newest citizens, and all of you wonderful
people from Baltimore and the great State of Maryland: to
We meet here tonight at the twilight's last
gleaming. The casement walls and the silent cannons of
the Fort McHenry bear a very quiet testimony to the
Nation's travail on another night in another age.
We all know that Francis Scott Key enshrined
forever those events in 1814 -- the patriotism and the
national pride surrounding our flag, our country, and
their defense that night, our heritage in a song and
a
verse.
The Star Spangled Banner is an expression of
our love of country. We must not be so sophisticated, so
blase that we ignore those simple but eloquent moments
of our history.
We need to remind ourselves that America is
really the land of the free and the home of the brave,
and we should be proud of it.
to
We are honored, every one of us, by those who
earlier this evening became our newest United States
citizens, and we should give them a special round of
applause right now.
They have chosen what often is taken for granted
among many of us. The hallmark of our first century was
the establishment or a free Government. III the face of
the greatest odds, 13 poor struggling colonies became a
fledgling Nation.
MORE
(OVER)
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Page
2
Its future, in those dark days and weeks and
months, was insecure. In the first 100 years the
Western movement accelerated, vast territories were
acquired, States joined the Union, Constitutional issues
were raised and wars were fought, none more devestating
than the one that turned American against American.
Yet, through that horrible ordeal, it was
resolved that this Nation would not endure half slave and
half free. The Union was preserved.
By our Centennial in 1876, the American Republic
had been securely established. Of this, there was no
doubt, either at home or abroad.
Our second century has been marked by the
growth of the great American free enterprise system.
The pioneer spirit which carried us West turned us to
new frontiers. Railroads spanned the Continent and became
a web of steel linking city to city, region to region,
town to town.
The automobile and its assembly line changed
forever transportation and our manufacturing process in
America. The Wright brothers mastered powered flight
at Kitty Hawk. The age of flight was born.
From the first Atlantic crossing by the lone
eagle, Charles Lindbergh, to the American astronauts who
announced that the Eagle had landed, when touchdown on
the moon, America's latest ship was again established.
The telegram. The telephone. The television.
All are a great part of the communications revolution of
our second century. Science, medicine, agriculture,
production, marketing -- these have been just a few of
the modern frontiers since 1876.
But now our third century, I believe, should
be an era of individual freedom. The mass approach of
the modern world places a premium on creativity and
individuality.
We see mass production, mass education, mass
population. They must not smother individual expression
or limit individual opportunity. Individualism is a
safeguard against the sameness of society. A Government
too large and bureaucratic can stifle individual initiative
by a frustrating statism.
In America, and never forget it, our sovereign
is a citizen. Our sovereign is the citizen, and we
must never forget it.
MORE
(язуо)
Page 3
Governments exist to serve people. The State
is the creature of the populus. These propositions are
the foundation stones of our Bicentennial. Today, in the
199 years of our independence, we stand on the thresh-
hold of a new American experience.
Let us make the coming year a great year on
America's agenda of achievement. As we move to the
Bicentennial of American independence, let us think where
we will be and what we can achieve by next July 4, by
the next decade, by the 200th anniversary of our
Constitution and by the year 2000.
Let us resolve that this shall be an era of
hope rather than despair. Let us resolve that it
shall be an era of achievement rather than apathy. Let
us resolve that it shall be a time of promises rather
than regret.
The Bicentennial should be a time for each of
us for self-examination and individual accomplishment.
Quality and permanence should be the measurement of
your life and my life and the life of 214 other million
Americans in 50 States and our territories.
Let us pursue truths and values that will
enhance the quality of life, of you and your fellow
Americans. To form a more perfect Union -- and that is
what we want -- we need to learn more of our country and
more of our good people.
Americans must appreciate the diversity of our
lands and the diversity of our citizens. There is a
quotation that I learned in my early days in Sunday school,
that the beauty of Joseph's coat is its many colors, and
that is the strength of America.
Boundariesof regionalism and urbanization must
dissolve before our will to be one Nation and one people.
In the coming year, the Bicentennial must become a true
national experience. The American Revolution and its
legacy belong to each of the States and our far-flung
territories. It belongs to every county, to every city,
to every church, to every club and to each and every
American citizen.
At every school where the American flag flies,
it is my hope that there will be, in the coming year, a
concentrated effort in the classroom to study, discuss
and portray these past 200 years of our history.
I would urge that every community seek to make
its program as meaningful as possible to as many as
possible -- old, young, in every walk of life.
MORE
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
Page 4
This should stress the history, culture and
the achievements and the basic values that are so
important that we associate with our way of life.
Yes, the ideas that were forged and fought for
in the 13 colonies crossed the Appalachians. They
followed the wagons and rode with the Pony Express.
They crossed the Mississippi and the Missouri, spanned
the plains and the American desert.
They belong as much to the West as they belonged
to the East.
Wherever the American flag has gone, so went
the concepts of this great Republic. American clipper
ships that probably sailed in part from this great
Baltimore harbor took the story of America to the far
corners of the earth with pride and with success. American
jet liners carry it every day across the skies to
distant lands.
Indeed, this event does not belong just to
Americans. This is a celebration of liberty, freedom,
democracy, wherever they exist, and we want them to exist
on a global basis at some time in the world's history.
While we cherish the many heritages that enrich
our land, we of all people have no history except what we
have written for ourselves. We are not Americans alone,
by birth or blood, by oath or creed or compact among
princes. We are Americans because we deliberately chose
to be one Nation, indivisible. For 199 years, with
God's help, we have gone forward together, and we will
in the future.
Two centuries of sacrifice and struggle, of
conflict and compromise, have gained for us an unprecedented
measure of political and economic independence.
We have, on this Independence Day of 1975, a
free Government that checks and balances its own excesses,
and a free economic system that corrects its own errors,
given the courage and the constructive cooperation of a
free and enlightened citizenry.
This is the amazing history Americans have
written for themselves, you and your forefathers, as we
begin our Bicentennial celebration.
The young Republic of yesteryear is today a
strong and a very great Nation. It still lives by the
values of the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights. It influences the destiny of millions beyond
our shores. It still remains, in Lincoln's words, "The
last, best hope of earth."
MORE
Page 5
Let us, this Fourth of July, continue to be a
Nation of hope. The American people believe in tomorrow,
that by dawn's early light our flag will still be there.
Let us be one Nation and one people indivisible, for our
flag is one and our destiny is one.
Let us be people of value, of liberty, equality
and justice, no matter what the cost. That has been our
history, and we are proud of it. We have never counted
the cost of freedom, and I don't think America every will.
Let us in the final analysis be true to our-
selves for then we can be false to no nation or to no
people. Let us live, not only for our own progress, but
also in harmony and hope for all other men, women and
children everywhere in this great globe.
In so doing, the United States and its people
serve and honor the promise of Francis Scott Key's
words: "Land of the free, and home of the brave."
Thank you and good night.
END (AT 9:20 P.M. EDT)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AUGUST 30, 1975
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
(Newport, Rhode Island)
THE WHITE HOUSE
INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT
BY
ARTHUR ALBERT
EXECUTIVE NEWS DIRECTOR, WJAR-TV
SARAH WYE
CORRESPONDENT, WJAR-TV
AND
JACK CAVENAUGH
CORRESPONDENT, WJAR-TV
SHERATON-ISLANDER INN
6:00 P.M. EDT
QUESTION: He have a weekly public affairs
program we at WJAR normally call a news conference.
Because of the stature of our guest, we have
expanded the format and produced this special edition,
which is being shared with 12 television stations through-
out New England. All of you are most welcome.
Our guest is President Gerald Ford, who
promised when he came into office a year ago to bring new
openness and accessibility to the White House. His
participation in this unusual sort of regional format
indicates he is making that effort.
Mr. President, welcome.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. It is a pleasure
to be on the program, Sarah.
QUESTION: Asking questions along with me
tonight will be Jack Cavenaugh, on the WJAR-TV staff
and Arthur Albert, News Director of WJAR radio and TV.
I think one of the subjects you will be hearing a
lot about in this discussion in the next half hour is energy.
Obviously, it is very heavy on the minds of the people through-
out the country. Until Friday, we were braced for a massive
increase in domestic crude oil because of your decision
to veto the Congressional extension of price controls.
You have since changed your mind about decontrol,
and you are suggesting perhaps a 60-day extension and
gradual decontrol. What went into the decision to change
your mind?
MORE
FORD
Page 2
THE PRESIDENT: I think first, Sarah, you have
to understand that the United States, our country, has
a serious energy crisis. Actually, the energy crisis
in New England is more serious than it is in any other
part of the country, primarily because New England is
more dependent on foreign oil than any other part of the
United States.
So, unless we solve the energy problem for the
United States, and unless we make ourselves more free of
foreign oil imports, New England is going to be in more and
more trouble.
In January, I submitted to the Congress a compre-
hensive energy program for a ten-year period, and we made
some exceptions as far as New England was concerned,
recognizing the vulnerability of New England.
I had hoped that the Congress would act on a
comprehensive plan, either the one I submitted or one
they might put together.
Unfortunately, Congress has not acted, so after
attempting to decontrol on a phased basis on two occasions--
one over a 30-month period with an increase in old oil, so
to speak, at a rate of about 3 percent per month--the
Congress turned that down.
I made another effort of compromise and concil-
iation, making it a 39-month phased decontrol program.
The Congress turned that down.
Under those circumstances, I had no alternative
but to say unless you act, we are going to decontrol all
old oil, all domestic old oil. I think at least the
leadership in the Congress -- Senator Mansfield and Speaker
Albert -- recognized that was not the right answer.
We had a meeting on Friday, and I said that I
would hold off the veto until they could get their troops
together and come up and agree to the phased program that
I submitted about a month ago.
QUESTION: What you are saying is you never were
in favor of intermediate and secondary control?
MORE
Page 3
THE PRESIDENT: No, I proposed two examples of phased
decontrol, one a 30-month and another 39, but Congress turned
both down. In order to try to avoid an abrupt end, I agreed
to resubmit a 39-month phased decontrol program and, hopefully,
the majority party leadership will be able to work with the
Republicans in the House and get a phased program over a
39-month period.
QUESTION: Mr. President, the controls have to come
off eventually but New England will have to bear the brunt
of those controls because we have such problems with energy,
because our economy is in such bad shape right now. What do
you say to people who are unemployed here who have to bear up
under this energy crisis? Or is the Federal Government
going to make any kind of specific commitments to New England
to help us get out of this situation?
THE PRESIDENT: Over the last three or four months
I have made exceptions as far as New England is concerned.
In the first imposition of the import levy, it had
no effect on New England, it had an effect on the rest of the
United States. When I put the second dollar on to try to
prod Congress to do something, the second dollar only
affected New England, I think, to 60 cents a barrel. So I
tried to recognize the needs, the problems that exist in
New England. As I said at the outset, New England has a
greater need for a comprehensive solution to the energy problem
than any other part of the United States.
So what I have tried to do is to make exceptions for
New England and at the same time get the Congress moving to
enact an energy program that would solve the problem not only
in the short haul but the long pull. Now, in the interim
while we had this unfortunate unemployment, and we do have more
unemployment not only in New England but elsewhere than I
certainly want, we have done a number of things. For example,
we have extended the unemployment payments from 39 weeks to
65 weeks. We have broadened the coverage so that 12 million
more people are covered under unemployment. I recommended,
and the Congress approved, about $450 million for the Summer
Youth Program so that young people this past summer would be
gainfully employed.
We have done a great deal with what they call
public service employment. I recommended about $2 billion
for that program and I was talking to the Mayor of Providence
today and he says it has been a very helpful program.
We have also tried to expedite some public works projects.
I made available a $2 billion allocation for highway con-
struction which has been made available in many, many
States and I presume here in Rhode Island.
MORE
Page 4
We have, for example, been trying to get some
local projects going. I talked to the Mayor of Providence
today coming down here about a $32 million Federal building
in the City of Providence. I am going to give it some
personal attention. when I get back to Washington. I think
that kind of project would be very helpful. So
we try
to push forward for an energy program, which is what we need
over the long haul, we are trying to take care of individual
geographical problems.
QUESTION: And yet, while we are working on it,
the unemployment rate in this State here is about 16 percent,
12 percent in Massachusetts, 11 percent throughout New England.
Is it possible for the Federal Government to redirect some of
its major installations, relocate them, transfer them,
create new ones here? After 1972 when military bases were closed
in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the economies were hurt
very, very hard.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course I am deeply concerned
about the unemployment problem not only in Massachusetts but
the 48 other States. But we have to try to rebuild the economy
from an inflation-ridden economy from a year ago to one that
is solidly based so that over the next few months when we
get better employment -- as we are at the present time over-
all -- we are not going to have a reigniting of inflation
like we had a year ago.
So we will do all we can through public works,
through unemployment insurance, through public service
employment, summer youth employment, in order to meet the
unique circumstances of a particular State. But the basic
way to solve our unemployment, whether it is Rhode Island
or 49 other States, is to get a healthy private sector economy.
And we can do that through some tax proposals that I have
recommended and some of the other legislation which we will
be submitting shortly.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Andrew Brimmer, who
used to be a Governor of the Federal Reserve and who is
a fiscal conservative, said -- I think he disagreed with you.
He said that next year, thanks to the Project Independence,
your energy policy, thanks to grain sales, there will be
six to seven percent inflation but he says there is no chance
really that excess demand will push the inflation higher.
And he says now you can do it, now you can lower interest
rates, now you can provide jobs by encouraging the economy
without the danger of inflation. Have you considered that
and talked about that with Dr. Burns?
MORE
Page 5
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, I am sure you
recognize I don't control interest rates. Those are
basically controlled by several factors; one, the
Federal Reserve Board.
I have talked to Mr. Arthur Burns, and we have
what I think are appropriate as well as private conver-
sations. He is cognizant of the needs of an adequate
supply of money, and he is very cognizant of the problem
of higher interest rates.
At the same time, I think you have to recognize
that if the Federal deficit goes beyond my $60 billion
deficit -- and unfortunately, the Congress is spending
more money than I think they should -- that will contribute
significantly to higher interest rates and a shorter supply
of money available in the private sector.
So, we have to control the Federal deficit. $60
billion is too darned big a deficit, but the Congress
is continuously pressing to make it bigger.
Now, we are going to hold the deficit as low as
we can, and we are hopefully expecting cooperation, and
I think we will get it from the Federal Reserve Board.
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Brimmer if
he alleged that the grain sales to the Soviet Union are
a significant factor in inflation. I respectfully dis-
agree with him. Does he want us to put out that grain in
storage and pay $1 million a day in storage charges, as
we did in the sixties? I don't think that is a very
satisfactory answer.
QUESTION: I think he did say that energy was
the main component, but following up on your answer, I
have been talking to people around New England in antici-
pation of your visit, and I keep coming up with that old
folk saying: "Democrats get us into wars, Republicans
into depressions." That, of course, may be oversimplified,
but previous Administrations and your Administration have
chosen to fight inflation first and unemployment second.
I am just wondering when will the time come
to switch so that this recovery, which seems as if it is
on the horizon, will recover in a hurry rather than just
stumble along?
THE PRESIDENT: I would say that the recovery
is doing better, and we are coming out of it more quickly
now than some people anticipated. For the fifth month
in a row, as I recollect, overall indicators show that we
are making headway. We are seeing higher housing starts.
MORE
Page 6
We are seeing better retail sales. We are
making some headway, except for the last month, in
inflation, and I think that was an unusual example, and
we are optimistic in the future.
One thing I would like to point out is I think
it is important to talk about some affirmative things. In
the last five months, we have had one million two hundred
thousand more people gainfully employed in this country.
We now have over 85 million people gainfully employed.
We have too many unemployed, but more and more
people are being employed and the indications are that
that will be a continuing trend.
So, we have to win the battle against inflation.
If we let the problems of inflation reoccur, every knowledge-
able economist that I have talked to says, if you went back
up to 10 or 12 percent inflation, in 12 to 18 to 24 months'
we would be in a far worse recession than we are at the
present time.
So, it is a very narrow line that we are trying
to follow: To win the battle against inflation on the one
hand and at the same time provide more job opportunities,
and I think we are being reasonably successful.
As Jack said over here, New England, or at
least Rhode Island, has some unique problems, and we are
going to work on it, as I indicated.
QUESTION: Mr. President, let's return briefly
to energy. We have dealt with domestic crude oil by saying
the approach now is to decontrolling domestic oil prices.
The OPEC countries, the oil producing countries, will be
meeting to decide soon what price increases they will
ask by October 1.
It is widely rumored in the oil industry that
you have let it be known that an 8 percent increase in
foreign oil prices would be acceptable to you. Is that
true?
THE PRESIDENT: I am not familiar with that
statement. A lot of statements are attributed to me. I
have a pretty good memory, and I don't know where that
statement came from.
MORE
Page 7
QUESTION: What are you looking for from the oil
producing countries?
THE PRESIDENT: Let me put it this way, Sarah,
if the Congress had passed early this year the comprehensive
energy program that I recommended, we would be in a lot better
position to meet the challenge of any OPEC oil price increase.
Unfortunately, nothing has been done legislatively so we
are now more vulnerable today than we would have been
otherwise.
I have said that, as far as I am concerned we will
do everything we can to defeat any OPEC oil price increase.
Unfortunately, without an energy program, we don't have
many tools to do that with.
QUESTION: Mr. President, schools open very soon
around the country and in New England. And in Boston and
Springfield, Massachusetts that means forced busing for de-
segregation. You have had a position on busing before. Can
you take a minute and clarify your position on busing? What
is your position on busing?
THE PRESIDENT: Before I say anything about what my
own personal views are, I want to say most emphatically that
I, as President and all that serve with me in the Federal
Government, will enforce the law, no question about that.
We will, to the extent necessary, make sure that
any court order is enforced.
Now I add one thing that I hope is understood.
We don't want any conflict developing in Boston or any of
these other communities that have court orders forcing busing
on local school systems. So I have sent up the the Attorney
General, and the community relations experts -- they have four
or five people up there that are working with the court, with
the school boards and with parents and with others. At the
same time the new Secretary of HEW, David Mathews, has sent up
his top man to work with the school system. And that
individual, Dr. Goldberg, has authority to spend extra
Federal funds to try and improve the situation in Boston.
Now, having said the law is going to be enforced,
that we are going to try and moderate and work with the
pecple in Boston, I will give you my views on what we are
trying to do.
MORE
Page 8
The basic thing that everyone is trying to do is to
provide quality education. there is a difference of opinion
on how you achieve quality education. My personal view is
that forced busing by courts is not the way to achieve quality
education. I think there is a better way.
We have had court order forced busing in a number of
communities. There are studies that indicate that it has not
provided quality education to the young people, which is of
personal concern.
I think there is a better way to do it. In my
judgment, if the courts would follow a law that was passed,
I think, two years ago, maybe two and a half years ago, it
said that in those areas where you have a problem in seeking
desegregation, the court should follow five or six rules.
Busing was the last option.
There were five other proposals that courts could have
followed and I think we would have avoided a lot of this
conflict. That is one way I think we could have solved this
problem. The other is the utilization of Federal funds to
upgrade school buildings, provide better teacher-pupil ratios,
to provide better equipment, that is the way, in my opinion,
we achieve what we all want, which is quality education.
I just don't think court order, forced busing, is the
way to achieve quality education. I think there is a better way.
QUESTION: Mr. President, if I may follow up on
that, you have come up with an alternative but it would seem
that because we were afraid of inflation, you have vetoed
bills for more aid to education, you have vetoed bills for
more public service jobs, so are you prepared, you know,
to turn around on that?
THE PRESIDENT: Arthur, let me just clarify
something. The appropriation bill concerning public service
employment that you say I vetoed, let me give you the
history of it so the matter is clarified. I recommended
$1,900,000,000, $450 million for summer youth employment and
the remainder -- which is roughly a billion and a half --
for public service employment. The Congress loaded it up
with $3 billion in non-essential spending. Sure, I vetoed
it. When the Congress saw that the veto was sustained
they came back and virtually approved what I sent up there in
the first place.
So we had $2 billion in summer youth employment
money and we had public service employment money.
Now, the education bill, the education bill that I
submitted in January for the budget that started July 1 had
more money in it for education than any other year in recent
years. We increased it over previous years. Again, the
Congress loaded it up with some programs that I think can't be
justified if you are going to have any fiscal responsibility.
I hope the Congress sustains that veto, because there is a lot
of non-essential spending in it. Now, having vetoed that bill,
there was nothing in there, in that proposal Congress had, to do
anything more in desegregation cases than I recommended. So
that is a moot issue as far as the Boston case is concerned.
MORE
Page 9
QUESTION: Can I move you along to another
area completely, and that is fishing, which is of some
importance to the New England States. Our fishing
industry is dying, and it would appear that foreign
fleets, modern fleets, are perhaps wiping out fish for
a long time, perhaps forever.
The Senate has passed the 200 mile limit bill,
and the House probably will, too. Will you sign it?
THE PRESIDENT: If my recollection is accurate,
in this session of the Congress the Senate has not acted.
I think they acted last year.
QUESTION: Right.
THE PRESIDENT: The House committee has acted,
and it will be on the House agenda shortly. What we are
trying to do, through the Law of the Sea Conference, is to
settle all of the controversies on a worldwide basis
involving fishing, the 200 mile zone, et cetera.
I am for the concept of a 200 mile zone. I think
it is better to settle it on a worldwide basis rather
than to do it unilaterally just for the United States.
QUESTION: The problem, Mr. President, is that
while we are waiting for the international treaty our
fish supplies are being depleted.
THE PRESIDENT: We had the second meeting of this
Law of the Sea *Conference ending earlier this year.
They have a draft proposal at the present time.
They are going back to negotiations early next year. It
is my hope we can do it on a worldwide basis and the
United States, at my direction, is going to fight for
a 200 mile zone.
I think that is a better way to solve it than to
do it on a unilateral basis, just the United States.
QUESTION: How long are you willing to wait?
THE PRESIDENT: We hope that the Law of the
Sea Conference will be completed early next year. As
I recollect, the conferees are getting together in
January.
We have made a lot of progress and, if we can
get it on a worldwide basis in 1976, that is far preferable
to unilateral action just by the United States.
MORE
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Page 10
QUESTION: One quick question for New Hampshire.
New Hampshire would like to know if you are planning to
come up sometime before September 16 and campaign for
Lauie Wyman?
THE PRESIDENT: It is my expectation that I will.
We are working on a date. Louie Wyman is a very good
friend of mine. I served with him in the House. I
think he would make a fine Senator. I certainly expect
to go up sometime between now and September 16 to help
him if I can.
QUESTION: Mr. President, why can't the Northeast
New England States share in the profits from the leasing of
off-shore oil rights off the coast?
THE PRESIDENT: Under the legislation that we are
working on -- and there are about ten different alternative
proposals -- I think that the coastal areas ought to get
some help.
There is a bill in the Senate. It goes, I
think, further than it should. Of course, there are many
inland States who say, well, this is a United States
resource. Why can't we share equally with the coastal
States? So, we have these competing interests.
I believe, without any question of a doubt,
that coastal States ought to get a high priority, the
highest priority, and then we will have to work out some
formula where I think we can equitably take care of
any other interests that are involved.
Mr. President, two quick ones on politics. We
presume you will be back in New Hampshire next winter --
THE PRESIDENT: I am looking forward to it.
QUESTION: --- and that between now and then
there will be a lot of pressure on you from the Reagan
forces, some people will call them the Connally forces,
to dump Mr. Rockefeller.
If it is necessary to do that to get the
nomination, will you do it?
THE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't put it that way. I
picked Nelson Rockefeller for Vice President because I
thought he was an outstanding public servant. He has
exceeded any expectations that I have had. He has done a
superb job. He has been a good teammate. I don't dump good
teammates.
MORE
Page 11
QUESTION: Okay.
Mr. President, in 1972 when the Soviets bought
15 million tons of grain, food prices went up. Now they
would like to buy 21 million tons. Will they get it all?
Will they get part of it? Will food prices go up?
THE PRESIDENT: You have more information than
I have. They bought about 10 million tons. There are
rumors to the effect that they want to buy additional
amounts.
I have indicated that we will make no more
sales until we get the September crop report. All the
indications are that we will have a record crop in wheat,
in corn and feed grains, including soybeans.
If we get a record crop and if we can work out
some fair and equitable arrangement, I think it is in the
best interest of the farmer, the consumer, our relations
on a worldwide basis, and best for the country, if we do
make some additional sales to the Soviet Union.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I have never seen a
President end so neatly. You finished up the question,
and we don't have to cut you off.
Thank you. The time went awfully fast.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, and I enjoyed it.
I thank all of you very much.
QUESTION: Thank you and good night.
END (AT 6:28 P.M. EDT)
INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT BY
August 30, 1975
ARTHUR ALBERT, EXECUTIVE NEWS DIRECTOR,
WJAR-TV, SARAH WYE, CORRESPONDENT,
WJAR-TV AND JACK CAVENAUGH, CORRESPONDENT,
WJAR-TV, Sheraton-Islander Inn
Newport, Rhode Island
QUESTION: Mr. President, schools open very soon
around the country and in New England. And in Boston and
Springfield, Massachusetts that means forced busing for de-
segregation. You have had a position on busing before. Can
you take a minute and clarify your position on busing? What
is your position on busing?
THE PRESIDENT: Before I say anything about what my
own personal views are, I want to say most emphatically that
I, as President and all that serve with me in the Federal
Government, will enforce the law, no question about that.
We will, to the extent necessary, make sure that
any court order is enforced.
Now I add one thing that I hope is understood.
We don't want any conflict developing in Boston or any of
these other communities that have court orders forcing busing
on local school systems. So I have sent up the the Attorney
General, and the community relations experts -- they have four
or five people up there that are working with the court, with
the school boards and with parents and with others. At the
same time the new Sccretary of HEW, David Mathews, has sent up
his top man to work with the school system. And that
individual, Dr. Goldberg, has authority to spend extra
Federal funds to try and improve the situation in Boston.
Now, having said the law is going to be enforced,
that we are going to try and moderate and work with the
people in Boston, I will give you my views on what we are
trying to do.
The basic thing that everyone is trying to do is to
provide quality education. there is a difference of opinion
on how you achieve quality education. My personal view is
that forced busing by courts is not the way to achieve quality
education. I think there is a better way.
We have had court order forced busing in a number of
communities. There are studies that indicate that it has not
FORD LIBRARY
provided quality education to the young people, which is of
personal concern.
I think there is a better way to do it. In my
judgment, if the courts would follow a law that was passed,
I think, two years ago, maybe two and a half years ago, it
said that in those areas where you have a problem in seeking
desegregation, the court should follow five or six rules.
Busing was the last option.
There were five other proposals that courts could have
followed and I think we would have avoided a lot of this
conflict. That is one way I think we could have solved this
problem. The other is the utilization of Federal funds to
upgrade school buildings, provide better teacher-pupil ratios,
to provide better equipment, that is the way, in my opinion,
we achieve what we all want, which is quality education.
I just don't think court order, forced busing, is the
way to achieve quality education. I think there is a better way.
INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT BY
August 30, 1975
ARTHUR ALBERT, EXECUTIVE NEWS DIRECTOR,
WJAR-TV, SARAH WYE, CORRESPONDENT,
WJAR-TV AND JACK CAVENAUGH, CORRESPONDENT,
WJAR-TV, Sheraton-Islander Inn
Newport, Rhode Island
QUESTION: Mr President, schools open very soon
around the country and in New England. And in Boston and
Springfield, Massachusetts that means forced busing for de-
segregation. You have had a position on busing before. Can
you take a minute and clarify your position on busing? What
is your position on busing?
THE PRESIDENT: Before I say anything about what my
own personal views are, I want to say most emphatically that
I, as President and all that serve with me in the Federal
Government, will enforce the law, no question about that.
We will, to the extent necessary, make sure that
any court order is enforced.
Now I add one thing that I hope is understood.
We don't want any conflict developing in Boston or any of
these other communities that have court orders forcing busing
on local school systems. So I have sent up the the Attorney
General, and the community relations experts -- they have four
or five people up there that are working with the court, with
the school boards and with parents and with others. At the
same time the new Sccretary of HEW, David Mathews, has sent up
his top man to work with the school system. And that
individual, Dr. Goldberg, has authority to spend extra
Federal funds to try and improve the situation in Boston.
Now, having said the law is going to be enforced,
that we are going to try and moderate and work with the
pecple in Boston, I will, give you my views on what we are
trying to do.
The basic thing that everyone is trying to do is to
provide quality education. there is a difference of opinion
on how you achieve quality education. My personal view is
that forced busing by courts is not the way to achieve quality
education. I think there is a better way.
We have had court order forced busing in a number of
communities. There are studies that indicate that it has not
provided quality education to the young people, which is of
personal concern.
I think there is a better way to do it. In my
judgment, if the courts would follow a law that was passed,
I think, two years ago, maybe two and a half years ago, it
said that in those areas where you have a problem in seeking
desegregation, the court should follow five or six rules.
Busing was the last option.
There were five other proposals that courts could have
followed and I think we would have avoided a lot of this
conflict. That is one way I think we could have solved this
problem. The other is the utilization of Federal funds to
upgrade school buildings, provide better teacher-pupil ratios,
to provide better equipment, that is the way, in my opinion,
we achieve what we all want, which is quality education.
I just don't think court order, forced busing, is the
way to achieve quality education. I think there is a better way.
INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT BY
September 12,
JULIUS HUNTER, NEWS ANCHORMAN AND
1975
HOST, ROBERT HARDY, KMOX-RADIO
ANNOUNCER, RICHARD DUDMAN, ST.
LOUIS POST DISPATCH AND JOHN FLACK,
POLITICAL EDITOR, ST. LOUIS GLOBE
DEMOCRAT, Gateway Tower Building,
St. Louis, Missouri
QUESTION Mr. President, busing is a subject,
a practice that is distasteful to a large segment of the
American population, both black and white. If it is such
a distasteful and wasteful process, why bus? Is there
any alternative that you see?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that we have to decide,
in the first place, what we are really trying to do by
busing before you discuss whether it is good or bad. All
of us -- white, black, every American, in my opinion
wants quality education.
Now, the court decided in 1954 that separate but
equal schools were constitutional and the courts have
decided that busing is one way to try and desegregate on the
one hand and perhaps improve education on the other.
Many of those decisions have raised great problems
in many, many localities -- Louisville and Boston being the
most prominent at the present time.
Discussing those two communities, let me very
strongly emphasize the court has decided something. That
is the law of the land. As far as my Administration is
concerned, the law. of the land will be upheld, and we are
upholding it.
But then, I think I have the right to give what
I think is a better answer to the achievement of quality
education, which is what we all seek, and there is always
more than one answer.
I think that quality education can be enhanced
by better school facilities, lower pupil-teacher ratios,
the improvement of the neighborhood, as such. Those are
better answers, in my judgment, than busing under a court
order.
Quality education can be achieved by more than one
method. I was reading in the Washington Post this morning
a column by one of the outstanding black columnists,
Mr Raspberry, and Mr. Raspberry has come to the conclusion
that court ordered, forced busing, is not the way to achieve
quality education for blacks or whites in a major metro-
politan area.
That is a very significant decision by Mr. Rasp-
berry, who I think Mr. Dudman, for example, highly
respects.
QUESTION: I certainly do.
In Boston and Louisville, where the court has
ordered busing, how well do you think the people of
those two cities have conducted themselves in bringing
about ordered exchanges of black and white students?
THE PRESIDENT:- There have been some disorders
there over the last year or more,
QUESTION: I am thinking about this fail. There
have been Federal agents there, of course, to try to main-
tain order. Are you reasonably well satisfied with the
way things have happened or not?
THE PRESIDENT: So far, there has been a minimum
of local disorder. I hope that that attitude can
prevail in the months ahead as the police. involvement
and the Federal marshal involvement becomes less and less.
I am also an optimist, even though I disagree
with the method by which they are trying to achieve quality
education.
QUESTION: Are you counseling the people of those
two cities to cooperate with the courts, or are you
encouraging them to maintain their strong feelings in
some cases that this is an improper solution?
THE PRESIDENT: Last year I did a televised
tape urging the people of Boston to cooperate with the
court and to maintain law and order. I did that then,
and I have counseled everybody that I talked with in
Boston to encourage their fellow Bostonians to obey the
law and follow the court's action.
INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT BY
September 12,
JULIUS HUNTER, NEWS ANCHORMAN AND
1975
HOST, ROBERT HARDY, KMOX-RADIO
ANNOUNCER, RICHARD DUDMAN, ST.
LOUIS POST DISPATCH AND JOHN FLACK,
POLITICAL EDITOR, ST. LOUIS GLOBE
DEMOCRAT, Gateway Tower Building,
St. Louis, Missouri
QUESTION Mr President, busing is a subject
a practice that is distasteful to a large segment of the
American population, both black and white If it is such
a distasteful and wasteful process, why bus? Is there
any alternative that you see?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that we have to decide,
in the first place, what we are really trying to do by
busing before you discuss whether it is good or bad. All
of us --- white, black, every American, in my opinion
wants quality education.
Now, the court decided in 1954 that separate but
equal schools were constitutional and the courts have
decided that busing is one way to try and desegregate on the
one hand and perhaps improve education on the other.
Many of those decisions have raised great problems
in many, many localities -- Louisville and Boston being the
most prominent at the present time.
Discussing those two communities, let me very
strongly emphäsize the court has decided something. That
is the law of the land. As far as my Administration is
concerned, the law of the land will be upheld, and we are
upholding it.
But then, I think I have :the right to give what
I think is a better answer to the achievement of quality
education, which is what we all seek, and there is always
more than one answer.
I think that quality education can be enhanced
by better school facilities, lower pupil-teacher ratios,
the improvement of the neighborhood, as such. Those are
better answers, in my judgment, than busing under a court
order.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Quality education can be achieved by more than one
method. I was reading in the Washington Post this morning
a column by one of the outstanding black columnists,
Mr. Raspberry, and Mr. Raspberry has come to the conclusion
that court ordered, forced busing, is not the way to achieve
quality education for blacks or whites in a major metro-
politan area.
That is a very significant decision by Mr. Rasp-
berry, who I think Mr. Dudman, for example, highly
respects.
QUESTION: I certainly do.
In Boston and Louisville, where the court has
ordered busing, how well do you think the people of
those two cities have conducted themselves in bringing
about court OF dered exchanges of black and white students?.
THE PRESIDENT: There have been some disorders
there over the last year or more.
QUESTION: I am thinking about this fall. There
have been Federal agents there, of course, to try to main-
tain order. Are you reasonably well satisfied with the
way things have happened or not?
THE PRESIDENT: So far, there has been a minimum
of local disorder. I hope that that attitude can
prevail in the months ahead as the police involvement
and the Federal marshal involvement becomes less and less.
I am also an optimist, even though I disagree
with the method by which they are trying to achieve quality
education.
QUESTION: Are you counseling the people of those
two cities to cooperate with the courts, or are you
encouraging them to maintain their strong feelings in
some cases that this is an improper solution?
THE PRESIDENT: Last year I did a televised
tape urging the people of Boston to cooperate with the
court and to maintain law and order. I did that then,
and I have counseled everybody that I talked with in
Boston to encourage their fellow Bostonians to obey the
law and follow the court's action.
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AT THE 18th BIENNIAL
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF REPUBLICAN WOMEN'S
CONVENTION, Dallas, Texas, September 13, 1975
Let me add at this point, if I might, the
matter of deep concern to me -- a matter that I am
positive is of deep concern to all, those here and
214 million Americans -- we have tried hard, we have
written laws, we have appropriated money to accomplish
quality education for the young in America. In 1954
the courts of this country decided that one way in
their estimation to achieve that was court order forced
busing. Now, regardless of how we individually may
feel, the law of the land must be upheld.
But if I could give you a view that I have
expressed, not just recently but for 10 or more
years, there is a better way to achieve quality
education in America than by forced busing. We
can and we will find a better way.
We can increase pupil-teacher ratios; we
can improve facilities, have more and better
equipment, rely more heavily on the neighborhood
school concept. There is a way and we must find it.
FORD is LIBRARY 034870
INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT BY
September 20, 1975
BOB ABERNETHY, JESS MARLOW
AND WARREN OLNEY, KNBC-TV
Century Plaza Hotel, Los
Angeles, Califorria
QUESTION: Mr. President, you have said that
State courts in their effort to integrate the schools have
ignored less drastic alternatives than busing.
What specifically do you mean -- which less drastic alterna-
tives?
THE PRESIDENT: The Congress in 1974 approved what
was labeled the Esch Amendment, laid out six or seven
specific guidelines for the courts to follow. The last of the
recommendation to achieve what the courts should do was busing --
court ordered forced busing to achieve racial integration.
Those steps, and I was in the Congress part of that time and
I signed the bill that became law, those steps include a
magnetschool, utilization of the neighborhood school concept,
the improvements of facilities, et cetera. I hope that in
the future, as some course in the past, recent past, will
utilize those guidelines rather than plunging into court
ordered forced busing as the only option for the settlement
of the segregation problem in the school.
QUESTION: The whole option to busing tends to get
confused with racism and there are a lot of racial epithets
and what not being thrown about on the protest line. Do
you have anything to say about that? You are opposed to
busing but how do you make the distinction?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think opposition to
busing really has any relationship to racism on the part
of most people. I think the best illustration, one of the
rising young columnists in the country, Bill Raspberry, a
black, has been most forceful and most constructive, I
think, in opposing the court approach in many cases.
I have been opposed to busing as a means of
achieving quality education from its inception. My
record in the Congress in voting for civil rights legis-
lation is a good one, so I believe that the real issue
is quality education. It can be achieved better for dis-
advantaged people, minorities, by other means.
I have sought, through the support of the Esch
amendment, through adequate funding, to help Boston and
other communities where this problem exists, to upgrade
their school system rather than to have this very contro-
versial approach of forced busing.
QUESTION: Do you think it will be an issue in
next year's campaign?
THE PRESIDENT: I hope it won't.
INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT BY
September 20, 1975
BOB ABERNETHY, JESS MARLOW
AND WARREN OLNEY, KNBC-TV
Century Plaza Hotel, Los
Angeles, Califorria
QUESTION: Mr. President, you have said that
State courts in their effort to integrate the schools have
ignored less drastic alternatives than busing.
What specifically do you mean -- which less drastic alterna-
tives?
THE PRESIDENT: The Congress in 1974 approved what
was labeled the Esch Amendment, laid out six or seven
specific guidelines for the courts to follow. The last of the
recommendation to achieve what the courts should do was busing --
court ordered forced busing to achieve racial integration.
Those steps, and I was in the Congress part of that time and
I signed the bill that became law, those steps include a
magnet school, utilization of the neighborhood school concept,
the improvements of facilities, et cetera. I hope that in
the future, as some course in the past, recent past, will
utilize those guidelines rather than plunging into court
ordered forced busing as the only option for the settlement
of the segregation problem in the school.
QUESTION: The whole option to busing tends-to get
confused with racism and there are a lot of racial epithets
and what not being thrown about on the protest line. Do
you have anything to say about that? You are opposed to
busing but how do you make the distinction?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think opposition to
busing really has any relationship to racism on the part
of most people. I think the best illustration, one of the
rising young columnists in the country, Bill Raspberry, a
black, has been most forceful and most constructive, I
think, in opposing the court approach in many cases.
I have been opposed to busing as a means of
achieving quality education from its inception. My
record in the Congress in voting for civil rights legis-
lation is a good one, so I believe that the real issue
is quality education. It can be achieved better for dis-
advantaged people, minorities, by other means.
I have sought, through the support of the Esch
amendment, through adequate funding, to help Boston and
other communities where this problem exists, to upgrade
their school system rather than to have this very contro-
versial approach of forced busing.
QUESTION: Do you think it will be an issue in
next year's campaign?
THE PRESIDENT: I hope it won't.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT REQUESTED
BY BOSTON MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES
October 12, 1974
Boston is a fine, proud City. The cradle of liberty. Where many of the
freedoms that we all so cherish today in this Country, were born, 200 years
ago. The people of Boston share a tradition for reason, fairness and respect
for the rights of others. Now, in a difficult period for all of you, it is a
time to reflect on all that your City means to you. To react in the finest
tradition of your City's people. It is up to you, every one of you, every
parent, child, to reject violence of any kind in your City. To reject hatred
and the shrill voices of the violent few.
I know that nothing is more important to you than the safety of the children
in Boston. And only your calm and thoughtful action now can guarantee that
safety. I know that you will all work together for that goal. And have one
more thing to be proud of in the cradle of liberty.
INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT BY LARRY
October 30, 1975
MOORE, KMBC-TV, GABE PRESSMAN, WNEW-TV,
ALAN SMITH, WTTG-TV, GILBERT AMUNDSON,
WTCH-TV, KENNETH JONES, KTTV-TV, and
HERB KLEIN, METROMEDIA, Century Plaza
Hotel, Los Angeles, California
QUESTION: Mr. President, school busing is a
problem affecting Kansas City and many other cities in the
country. You have not exactly endorsed school busing to
achieve integration in the schools, but at the same time,
you haven't exactly outlined an alternative.
What hopes can you hold out for cities like Kansas
City that run the risk of losing millions of dollars in
Federal aid in the not too distant future if they don't use
school busing?
news
THE PRESIDENT: Really, I have spoken out consis-
tently and for some time on this problem. I was one of the
original Members of the House or the Senate that said that
court-ordered forced busing to achieve racial balance was
not the way to accomplish quality education.
That has been a consistent statement, view,
policy of mine for a number of years. I believe it even
more fervently today than I did before. So, we have to
start out with the assumption that education, quality
education, is what we are all seeking to accomplish.
Now, some people say we ought to spend more money,
and I think there are programs where you can spend more money
at the local level to upgrade schools in disadvantaged
areas. There are others who say the long-range and, even
to a substantial degree, short-range, is better distribution
of housing, so we achieve integration in a different way
and you can still rely on the neighborhood school system.
Dr. Coleman, who testified before the Senate
Committee on Judiciary just a few days ago, had some
thoughts on it. It is interesting that Dr. Coleman, who
was an initial proponent of busing to achieve quality
education, has now -- after studying the problem in a
number of cities -- come to the conclusion that it is not
the answer.
I don't think there is any patent medicine that
can give us the answers, but I think we ought to spend what-
ever money is necessary for what we call magnet schools,
to upgrade teachers to provide better facilities, to give
greater freedom of choice. These are the things we ought
to push hard.
QUESTION: There are those who say, including
Congressman Jerry Littin from Kansas City, that a separate
Department of Education should be established, taking it
away from HEW.
Would you be in favor of establishing a, separate
Department of Education to handle the complex problems of
busing?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that, in and of
itself, is a solution. That sounds good. Maybe it ought
to be justified on other grounds, but I don't think it is
necessarily the answer to this problem.
INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT BY LARRY
October 30, 1975
MOORE, KMBC-TV, GABE PRESSMAN, WNEW-TV,
ALAN SMITH, WTTG-TV, GILBERT AMUNDSON,
WTCH-TV, KENNETH JONES, KTTV-TV, and
HERB KLEIN, METROMEDIA, Century Plaza
Hotel, Los Angeles, California
QUESTION: Mr. President, school busing is a
problem affecting Kansas City and many other cities in the
country. You have not exactly endorsed school busing to
achieve integration in the schools, but at the same time,
you haven't exactly outlined an alternative.
What hopes can you hold out for cities like Kansas
City that run the risk of losing millions of dollars in
Federal aid in the not too distant future if they don't use
school busing?
THE PRESIDENT: Really, I have spoken out consis-
tently and for some time on this problem. I was one of the
original Members of the House or the Senate that said that
court-ordered forced busing to achieve racial balance was
not the way to accomplish quality education.
That has been a consistent statement, view,
policy of mine for a number of years. I believe it even
more fervently today than I did before. So, we have to
start out with the assumption that education, quality
education, is what we are all seeking to accomplish.
Now, some people say we ought to spend more money,
and I think there are programs where you can spend more money
at the local level to upgrade schools in disadvantaged
areas. There are others who say the long-range and, even
to a substantial degree, short-range, is better distribution
of housing, so we achieve integration in a different way
and you can still rely on the neighborhood school system.
Dr. Coleman, who testified before the Senate
Committee on Judiciary just a few days ago, had some
thoughts on it. It is interesting that Dr. Coleman, who
was an initial proponent of busing to achieve quality
education, has now -- after studying the problem in a
number of cities -- come to the conclusion that it is not
the answer.
I don't think there is any patent medicine that
can give us the answers, but I think we ought to spend what-
ever money is necessary for what we call magnet schools,
to upgrade teachers to provide better facilities, to give
greater freedom of choice. These are the things we ought
to push hard.
QUESTION: There are those who say, including
Congressman Jerry Littin from Kansas City, that a separate
Department of Education should be established, taking it
away from HEW.
Would you be in favor of establishing a separate
Department of Education to handle the complex problems of
busing?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that, in and of
itself, is a solution. That sounds good. Maybe it ought
to be justified on other grounds, but I don't think it is
necessarily the answer to this problem.
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AND QUESTION AND
January 30, 1976
ANSWER SESSION AT THE RECEPTION FOR
THE RADIO AND TELEVISION NEWS
DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION, The State Floor
QUESTION: Mr. President, busing is very definitely
in some States an issue in the campaign. You said previously
that you didn't think it was the most agreeable answer to
desegregation. Do you plan to propose any other alternative?
THE PRESIDENT: I never felt that court ordered busing
was the proper answer to quality education. On the other hand,
as President, I am obligated to see that the law is enforced.
I signed a bill in 1974 or early 1975 that provided a list of
steps that should be taken by the Executive Branch and the
court has guidelines in resolving the problem of segregation
in school systems. I think that the courts ought to follow
those guidelines. I think the Executive Branch ought to
follow those guidelines. If they do, I think it is a better
way to achieve desegregation and to provide quality education.
QUESTION: Do you have any other alternative to
forced busing as we now know it in several states?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the courts themselves are
beginning to find some better answers. They have implemented,
beginning this last week, a modified plan in the City of
Detroit and to my knowledge there has been a minimum of
difficulty.
Now what happened was the original order of two
or three years ago was a very harsh order, it called for
massive busing, not only in the City of Detroit but in the
County of Wayne. A new judge took jurisdiction of that
problem. He modified the court order, modified it very
substantially, and apparently it is working. So I think
some good judgment on the part of the courts following the
guidelines set forth in what is called the Esch Amendment
is the proper way to treat the problem.
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AND QUESTION AND
January 30, 1976
ANSWER SESSION AT THE RECEPTION FOR
THE RADIO AND TELEVISION NEWS
DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION, The State Floor
QUESTION: Mr. President, busing is very definitely
in some States an issue in the campaign. You said previously
that you didn't think it was the most agreeable answer to
desegregation. Do you plan to propose any other alternative?
THE PRESIDENT: I never felt that court ordered busing
was the proper answer to quality education. On the other hand,
as President, I am obligated to see that the law is enforced.
I signed a bill in 1974 or early 1975 that provided a list of
steps that should be taken by the Executive Branch and the
court has guidelines in resolving the problem of segregation
in school systems. I think that the courts ought to follow
those guidelines. I think the Executive Branch ought to
follow those guidelines. If they do, I think it is a better
way to achieve desegregation and to provide quality education.
QUESTION: Do you have any other alternative to
forced busing as we now know it in several states?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the courts themselves are
beginning to find some better answers. They have implemented,
beginning this last week, a modified plan in the City of
Detroit and to my knowledge there has been a minimum of
difficulty.
Now what happened was the original order of two
or three years ago was a very harsh order, it called for
massive busing, not only in the City of Detroit but in the
County of Wayne. A new judge took jurisdiction of that
problem. He modified the court order, modified it very
substantially, and apparently it is working. So I think
some good judgment on the part of the courts following the
guidelines set forth in what is called the Esch Amendment
is the proper way to treat the problem.
FORD is LIBRARY 038830
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AND QUESTION AND
February 20, 1976
ANSWER SESSION AT THE CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE BREAKFAST, Elks Hall,
February 20, 1976
QUESTION Mr. President, I would like you- to share with
us some of your thoughts on the educational system in our
country; namely, do you feel that after two years of busing, the
City of Boston now has a better system than two years ago
and what are your thoughts on reintroducing prayer into the
educational system of this country?
THE PRESIDENT:- Let me answer the last question first.
I had the wonderful experience of being the Republican Minority
Leader:in: the House of Representatives at the same time my very
dear friend, who has now passed away, Senator Everett Dirksen,
was
the Minority Leader in the United States Senate.
We were closè personal friends, He and I both agreed that the
decision of the United States Supreme Court in precluding non-
denominational prayer in public schools was wrong. I think that
it ought to be possible to have that kind of time set aside
for a non-denominational reflection and prayer. I think it
ought to be permitted. I strongly feel that way.
On. the question of busing the Supreme Court has tried
to- do two things: It has tried to provide quality education,
it has tried to end segregation. Those are worthy objectives,
I agree with that. I think the emphasis should be on quality
education The emphasis should be on ending segregation, but
I think the Supreme Court, and our courts, particularly --
some courts have used the wrong remedies and I vigorously
oppose them:396
It is my feeling that there has been a developing
attitude on the part of some of the courts, however, to take a
more moderate view in exercising their Constitutional authority
and handle the problem Let me illustrate it very quickly.
Three years ago we had a Federal judge in Detroit who was going
to mass bus children from one county to another, not just
from -the suburbs to the city. He is no longer the judge
handling that case. We now have a Federal judge who is handling
it and he has understood the problem and the net result of his
order which seeks to achieve quality education and desegrogation
is accepted by the people of Detroit because it is responsible,
it is moderate.
So the courts have the authority, it is just that some
judges don't seem to understand that it is counter-productive
to go as far as they have gone. Therefore, I support what has
been done in some cases and I vigorously oppose what has been
done in others.
QUESTION Might I add, sir, do you feel, then,
that in the case of the City of Boston that Judge Garrity
has overgone his limits?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me say that I don't
think itsissappropriate for me to pick a certain Judge,
whether he is rightsor wrong, and comment on his particular
decision. I have an obligation. I took an oath of office
to uphold the law of the land, and at least at this point
what he has decided is the law of the land, whether I
agree with his decision or not it is immaterial. I have
an obligation to uphold the law of the land.
I have tried to explain my own personal philosophy
and illustrate that in some parts of the country other
judges have=used their Constitutional remedy to be
very effective in achieving both quality education, on the
one hand, and desegregation on the other.
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AND QUESTION AND
February 20, 1976
ANSWER SESSION AT THE CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE BREAKFAST, Elks Hall,
February 20, 1976
QUESTION: Mr President, I would like you to share with
us some of your thoughts on the educational system in our
country; namely, do you feel that after two years of busing, the
City of Boston now has a better system than two years ago
and what are your thoughts on reintroducing prayer into the
educational system of this country?
THE PRESIDENT: Let me answer the last question first.
I had the wonderful experience of being the Republican Minority
Leader in the House of Representatives at the same time my very
dear friend, who has now passed away, Senator Everett Dirksen,
was
the Minority Leader in the United States Senate.
We were close personal friends, He and I both agreed that the
decision of the United States Supreme Court in precluding non-
denominational prayer in public schools was wrong. I think that
it ought to be possible to have that kind of time set aside
for a non-denominational reflection and prayer. I think it
ought to be permitted I strongly feel that way.
On the question of busing the Supreme Court has tried
to- do two things: It has tried to provide quality education,
it has tried to end segregation. Those are worthy objectives,
I agree with that. I think the emphasis should be on quality
education. The emphasis should be on ending segregation, but
I think the Supreme Court, and our courts, particularly --
some courts have used the wrong remedies and I vigorously
oppose. them:see
It is my feeling that there has been a developing
attitude on the part of some of the courts, however, to take a
more moderate view in exercising their Constitutional authority
and handle the problem. Let me illustrate it very quickly.
Three years ago we had a Federal judge in Detroit who was going
to mass bus children from one county to another, not just
from the suburbs to the city. He is no longer the judge
handling that case. We now have a Federal judge who is handling
it and he has understood the problem and the net result of his
order which seeks to achieve quality education and desegraction
is accepted by the people of Detroit because it is responsible,
it is moderate.
So the courts have the authority, it is just that some
judges don't seem to understand that it is counter-productive
to go as far as they have gone. Therefore, I support what has
been done in some cases and I vigorously oppose what has been
done in others.
QUESTION: Might I add, sir, do you feel, then,
that in the case of the City of Boston that Judge Garrity
has overgone his limits?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me say that I don't
think it is appropriate for me to pick a certain Judge,
whether he is right or wrong, and comment on his particular
decision. I have an obligation. I took an oath of office
to uphold the law of the land, and at least at this point
what he has decided is the law of the land, whether I
agree with his decision or not it is immaterial. I have
an obligation to uphold the law of the land.
I have tried to explain my own personal philosophy
and illustrate that in some parts of the country other
judges have used their Constitutional remedy to be
very effective in achieving both quality education, on the
one hand, and desegregation on the other.
INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT BY THE BOSTON GLOBE,
In the Oval Office, February 21, 1976
QUESTION: We will begin with the Boston busing,
specifically your request from HEW and Justice that you get
some alternatives to busing and so forth -- any progress?
THE PRESIDENT: I received a memo a day or so ago with
five or six alternatives. I have not had an opportunity to
1
analyze the suggestions yet. It is a matter that is being
currently studied right here in the Oval Office, but
proposals and various options just came to me about 24 or
48 hours ago.
QUESTION: What were the five or six, can you at least
tell us that?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think I really ought to discuss
the proposals because they cover a wide range of suggestions,
and until I have had an opportunity to sit down with the Attorney
General and Secretary of HEW and get the benefit of the views
of the Domestic Council, I think it is premature to even
discuss the various options.
FORD is LIBRARY 07V839
THE PRESIDENT: I have some reservations about that.
The truth is, and I said that in a press conference or in a
response to a question up in, I think it was, Dover yesterday
that actually what the Supreme Court has ordered is that local
district courts have a remedy to end segregation on the one
hand and provide quality education in disadvantaged areas on
the other.
Some judges have gone very far, others have shown
a more moderate view in trying to apply that remedy. I refused,
and I think properly so, not to identify any particular judge
or any particular remedy used, but it is perfectly obvious
that in some communities where one judge is used to remedy
with moderation the problems have been resolved without
tearing up the fabric of the community. What some judges
have done is used, to a degree, the Esch Amendment, the
seven steps or criteria that the Congress recommended, which
I approved of. I feel very strongly that our principal emphasis
should be on how you best achieve quality education, and the
extreme view of some judges, I don't think, achieves that,
and the extreme views of some judges has not, in my opinion,
solved the problem of desegregation. So there is a
remedy if it is properly used.
QUESTION: Without busing, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: I think in some areas judges have used
the remedy of busing without tearing up the fabric of the
community and it depends upon the wisdom and the judiciousness
of the judge who has to deal with reality.
QUESTION: One last question to wrap up on busing.
These alternatives that you have here, when do you expect that
you will unveil them?
THE PRESIDENT: I always hesitate to put a deadline, but
I would say it would take us --
QUESTION: After the Massachusetts primary?
THE PRESIDENT: It would take us until some time next
month to come to some resolution of whether any one or any
part of these recommendations would --
QUESTION: One other thing, Mr. President. Have these
come from both the HEW and the Justice Departments?
THE PRESIDENT: I have ordered them to undertake
the review and I think they are the combination of their
joint efforts.
QUESTION: I would like to clear up one more
matter on the busing issue, which we opened with. You
mentioned how you had these proposals and were going to
study them, but you seem to leave open the option that as
much as you favor the search for alternatives to busing
you might not get into it at all. Is that a fair assessment?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think I should pre-judge
precisely what -I am going to do. The alternatives cover a
wide range of options and they might take any one of several
courses of action but to pre-judge it now I think would be
unwise.
QUESTION: Let me just add this one thing. I read a
letter to the editor in our paper relating to the violence
in Boston last Sunday, and this person said, "This is what happens
when you have policy made by the Judiciary instead of the
Legislative Branch."
Is it your objective that you could convince
Congress to do something in this field so that at least
the will of the people could feel represented and not under
the thumb of the Federal Judiciary?
THE PRESIDENT: Under our system of Government when
you have three coordinate branches and there is a constitutional
issue involved and the court has made a finding, even if
I disagree, I think the President, first, has an obligation to
enforce the law despite any disagreement I have. It would
be far better if we could find a solution outside of
the court administration -- it would be far better.
Certainly the handling of the administration of a
local school system by the Federal Judiciary, I think, is
very annoying to literally thousands of people because the
public, for almost 200 years, has believed that the education
of their children is primarily the responsibility of the
community and it is such a stark contrast between that concept
which is so deeply engrained with the opposite where a single
judge is running a school system. I think that is one of the
basic problems, and if we can somehow find an answer that gets
away from that, it would be a lot more acceptable to the public.
QUESTION: I know you are very clear about enforcing the
law, I am not trying to trip you up on that, but if you lived
in a school jurisdiction where a court order had been laid down
for busing and your children were going to public schools, would
you send them to private schools or move out of the jurisdiction
or do something to avoid that yourself?
THE PRESIDENT: That is a very good question. All of
our children were brought up and went to school in Alexandria,
Virginia, and with the exception of our daughter who went
one year to a private school, all of our children started
in the first grade because they don't have any kindergarten.
The three boys went from first grade through high school;
Susan went from first grade to, I think, the tenth grade,
she went one year to private school and then one year there and
one year to a private school when we were here.
But Alexandria was either under a court order or under
administrative action taken by HEW and they had an imposed
restriction of their school system and had substantial busing
and our children went to those schools during that period of
time. None of our children went to private schools as a result
of that action either taken by the court or by HEW.
QUESTION: Were they bused as such or did they go on
their own?
THE PRESIDENT: The boys -- Steve had a carry thing, but
Susan was bused.
QUESTION: She was. If you had elementary school
children who would have to be bused in a particular jurisdiction,
would you stand for that?
THE PRESIDENT: I can only reiterate what we did under
the circumstances.
QUESTION: Right.
THE PRESIDENT: I think I would rather go by the way
we handled it rather than any speculation.