Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "16986952",
    "label": "Busing - Presidential Statements (4)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16986952"
}

{
    "id": "16986952",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16986952",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Busing - Presidential Statements (4)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16986952",
    "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": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16986952.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16986952.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16986952.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16986952",
    "naId": 16986952,
    "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"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16986952.pdf",
    "mediaId": "d45a110a932fabad",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 7, folder \"Busing - Presidential Statements (4)\"\nof the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 7 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nJune 1, 1976\nINTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT\nBY\nDON WAYNE\nWHIO-TV\nDAYTON, OHIO\nTHE OVAL OFFICE\n2:07 P.M. EDT\nMR. WAYNE: Mr. President, the American voter\ntoday listens to the candidates discuss the issues and\nthe American voters exclaims when it is all over in\nNovember nobody will remember or do anything about the\nissues they talked about simply because, the voter says,\nas long as there is a difference in politics between the\nExecutive Branch and the Legislative Branch, nothing\nconcrete can be accomplished.\nNow, you were not elected to this office, but do\nyou feel as the President elected by the people --- will that\ngive you any stronger power or authority to work with\nCongress to enact your legislative programs?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Don, I think it would. I became\nPresident under the most unusual circumstances. For the\nlast 22 months I have been forced to deal with a Congress\nthat had a margin of better than two to one in the opposition\nparty. Many of them are my friends on both sides of the\naisle, but it was not like I had gotten a mandate from the\npeople.\nI got a very strong vote from the House and the\nSenate, among both Democrats and Republicans, but it was such\nan unusual circumstance that if I were to win in November,\ncertainly that would be a mandate from the people, and I think\nalso it would result in a changed ratio of Democrats and\nRepublicans in the House as well as in the Senate.\nSo, an election by the people in November would be\nhelpful in getting a legislative program through the Congress.\nFORD & 076830 LIBRARY\nPage 2\nMR. WAYNE: You don't think the Republicans could\nregain control of Congress, however?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I think the odds, Don, are against\nthat, but I believe that the odds can shift. Instead of\nbetter than two to one against us I think they might be\nsomewhere between three to two or at least something better\nthan it is today.\nMR. WAYNE: Your opponent, Governor Ronald Reagan,\nhas had a campaign theme he has been hammering away at. It\nis \"cut Federal bureaucracy, cut Federal bureaucracy.\" How\nmuch importance do you attach to that issue?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I would like to set the record\nstraight first, Don. Since I became President, there has\nbeen no increase in Federal employees. As a matter of fact,\none of the first acts I took was to cut back on a projected\n40,000 increase in Federal employment that my predecessor\nhad authorized, so since I have become President we have\nheld the line.\nI don't agree that we cannot cut back more in the way\nof Federal employees, but that is something that takes a\nlittle time. As we try to control Federal spending -- and I\nrecommended a reduction of 50 percent in the growth of Federal\nspending -- inevitably you are going to have a tightening of\nthe belt in Federal employment.\nI think my record in this regard is a responsible\none, and at the same time it permits the Federal Government to\ncarry on those duties that it must, such as defense and the\nother domestic programs that are essential to the health and\nwelfare of the people.\nMR. WAYNE: Do you feel it is necessary and\nessential that more responsibility be transferred from\nWashington to State and local Governments? I ask you this\nprimarily because the argument arises that Washington is\nwhat it is today because State and local Government did not\nhave the energy nor did they have the sensitivity to provide\nto the people what they wanted and what they needed.\nDo you agree with that argument?\nPage 3\nTHE PRESIDENT: I don't. I think you have to look\nat it this way -- and this is a very essential difference\nbetween myself and Mr. Reagan --- I believe that the\nFederal Government, through such programs as general revenue\nsharing, can collect the money and then turn the money back\nto the States and to the local units of Government in States\nlike Ohio and then let the locally elected officials make\nthe decisions as to how that money should be spent.\nThis is a program that I fought very hard for in\n1972, and it has provided to the State of Ohio and to the\nmany cities and towns and communities in Ohio good sums of\nmoney so they can help their police force, their fire\ndepartments, their health departments. But, the decision\nas to how that money ought to be spent is made at the local\nlevel.\nNow, Mr. Reagan says, \"Do away with general\nrevenue sharing,\" and then you either have to increase local\ntaxes or you have to do away with these local services that\nare supported by general revenue sharing. This is a very\nhonest difference. I think the best way to do it is by\ngeneral revenue sharing, and all local officials in Ohio as\nwell as Governor Rhodes strongly support my position and\nthey don't think the position taken by my opponent is very\npractical.\nMR. WAYNE: Do you think there is too much Federal\ninterference in education, too much Federal regulation?\nTHE PRESIDENT: It has been, to some extent, but it\nis not as bad as some of the opponents of Federal aid to\neducation alleged at the time that legislation was enacted\nin the first instance. What I would do, however, is absolutely\navoid any Federal interference in local education by what I\ncall block grant funding by the Federal Government of a\nportion of local education.\nFor example, under the present law the Federal\nGovernment has about 26 categorical grant programs. These\nare very rigid, and there is some control at the Federal level\nof local educational policy. Under my proposal the same\namount of money, or even greater in some instances, would go\nfrom the Federal Government to the school districts in Ohio,\nand the local school board would make the decision as to how\nthat money should be spent.\nPage 4\nI think this is the way to avoid Federal inter-\nference and, at the same time, provide Federal support for\nlocal education. Again, my opponent, Mr. Reagan, doesn't\nbelieve in any Federal aid to education. Again, I think\nthat is the wrong approach. I think mine is the responsible\none.\nMR. WAYNE: Boston, Louisville, even in my own\ncommunity of Dayton, Ohio --\nTHE PRESIDENT: My hometown, Grand Rapids, Michigan,\ntoo.\nMR. WAYNE: -- school busing is an issue. We know,\nI think, fairly well where you stand on the school busing,\nbut you keep talking about alternatives. The American voter\nis not sure what alternatives you are talking about. Are\nyou talking about legislation, constitutional amendment?\nCan you clarify it?\nTHE PRESIDENT: First, let me re-emphasize my total\nopposition to court ordered forced busing to achieve balance\nin the school system. I think court ordered forced busing\nis the wrong approach to achieve quality education. The\nquestion then is how do you achieve quality education if you\ndon't go along with court ordered forced busing. My answer\nis that we can improve, through some additional Federal money,\nschool facilities.\nI think we can improve the equipment that is avail-\nable to make educational opportunities better available to\nthe students. I believe that we can inaugurate what they\ncall cluster schools or neighborhood schools in place of cross-\ntown busing. There are a number of alternatives that were\nwritten by the Congress when I was in Congress, and subsequently\nsigned by me when I became President, in what we call the\nEqual Educational Opportunities Act.\nIt lists seven alternatives, six of them ahead of\nbusing, and if the courts would follow those guidelines, I\nthink we could avoid most of the busing that would take place.\nNow, in addition to that, the Attorney General has drafted\nsome legislation which would be an additional guideline to\nthe courts that they should follow in these desegregation\ncases.\nPage 5\nWhat it provides is that if there is segregation,\nthen the court should take cognizance of those instances\nwhere there is segregation, but it would limit the courts\nremedy to just those areas rather than taking over a whole\nschool system, cas the courts did in the case of the Boston\ncase and several others.\nSo, between the present law and that legislation\nwhich I am recommending, I think we can minimize to a sub-\nstantial degree busing and, at the same time, achieve better\neducational opportunities.\nMR. WAYNE: You have opposed most public works\nlegislation, public jobs, what is your program to reduce the\nunemployment rate? Do you expect to do this by continued\neconomic recovery?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Let me clarify one thing. In the\nbudget that I submitted for the fiscal year that begins\nOctober 1, I increased the expenditures for public works,\nriver, harbor and flood control projects throughout the\nUnited States, and in addition I recommended more spending\nfor local water and sewer projects throughout this country.\nNow, what I opposed are these make-work projects,\nprojects that are put together just to make work to meet an\nemergency. I strongly believe in building America by more\nhighways, by more river, harbor and flood control projects\nand water and sewer projects, but these make-work projects\nI strongly disapprove of.\nNow, five out of six jobs, Don, in this country are\nin the private sector. What we have to do really is to\nstimulate the private economy of this country because if it\ncomes back like it is coming back at the present time, there\nare many, many more job opportunities than just make-work\njobs that would hurt the treasury and add to inflationary\ncosts.\nMR. WAYNE: Can I go back to the people again.\nPeople say, \"Well, you know the economic recovery has been\ngood and it will probably remain this way at least through\nthe election and then it is just going to go to pot.\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\nPage 6\nTHE PRESIDENT: That is a most unfair and, I think,\npolitically motivated allegation by some people. We are in\nthe process of the best, most sustained economic recovery at\nany time since the end of World War II. We are getting\ninflation under control. We have cut it by 75 percent. When\nI became President, it was over 12 percent per year inflation.\nIt is down to 3 percent or less at the present time. We\nhave gained 3,300,000 jobs in the last 12 months, since the\nbottom of the recession, and every economist that I talked\nto, whether they are liberal or whether they are conservative,\nall agree that our recovery today is in good shape. It is\nmoderate in its approach and yet it is very, very solidly\nbased.\nSo, if we don't get a lot of trouble from the\nCongress, I am absolutely convinced that we can look forward\nto a long stretch of good economic times.\nMR. WAYNE: Considering your policy on the economy,\nhow about Social Security? People are putting money into\nSocial Security and they are saying, \"When I retire I bet\nthere isn't any Social Security. I put all this money in for\nnothing.\"\nTHE PRESIDENT: Don, here is another case where Mr.\nReagan and I differ. I believe that the Social Security\nsystem, if properly funded, is a good insurance policy for\nthe American working man. But, we have to make sure that the\nfunds are there so that those now retired and those working\nand who will retire have enough income coming from the funds.\nI have recommended some reforms in Social Security that will\nguarantee the security of the Social Security Trust Fund.\nSome of the suggestions by my opponent are less than\nenthusiastic I think for Social Security. But, I think this\ncountry made a commitment when it undertook the Social\nSecurity program and I intend to keep that Trust Fund solvent,\nand those that are now retired and those about to retire\nwill have no worry if President Ford is elected.\nMR. WAYNE: There is great distress still about the\nWashington establishment. It is not easy for people who have\nto eek out a living from day to day to read and hear about\nelected officials who indulge in immoral affairs and mis-\nconduct and try to charge it off to the taxpayer.\nPage 7\nI am talking about the incident recently of Ohio\nCongressman Wayne Hays, and it seems when one story breaks\nabout one rotten apple, or supposedly or alleged rotten apple,\nthere are other stories that break and the public says there\nis no credibility in Washington.\nTHE PRESIDENT: It is my judgment that the over-\nwhelming majority of Members of Congress, Democratic or\nRepublican, are honest, hard working people and individuals\nof high moral character. I knew such members for 26 years,\nalmost. Inevitably there are individuals in public life,\nlike in other occupations, who don't live up to the accepted\nmoral standards of this great country.\nI can only say in my own case, my record was\nscrutinized by 400 FBI agents and approved by the Congress,\nthe Democrats as well as the Republicans, so I have got some\ncredibility there.\nI have tried in this office where we are sitting\ntoday to conduct myself at a high moral level. I think I\nhave. I have restored public confidence and trust in the\nWhite House.\nPage 8\nMR. WAYNE: I know I am probably putting you on the spot\nhere but in the case of Congressman Hays, now he has laid forth\nhis story in the House. He has apologized to these people back\nhome. After issuing an apology should we forgive the Congressman?\nI mean, is this the way it should work?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I think that is a decision that each\nindividual has to make. None of us individually, I would hope,\nwould condone such things, and whether we forgive or not is a\nmatter of individual judgment, and since the Congress is a\ncorps and a branch of the Federal Government I don't think\nI should involve myself at this stage certainly in passing\njudgment on a member of the corps branch of the Federal\nGovernment.\nMR. WAYNE: I am sure you have had to make some painful\ndecisions as President on the scope of American defense spending.\nDo you have specific established priorities as to whether more\nmoney should be spent on air power, more money on sea power or\nnuclear conventional weapons?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Don, last November and December when\nI was working with the budget people on the Federal budget for the\nnext fiscal year I made all those decisions -- all the tough\nones anyhow -- and the net result was we added about a billion\nand a half for next year over this year in strategic forces,\nthe production items for the B-1 bomber. I think the B-1 bomber,\nassuming it passes its final test -- and I think it will -- is a\nvery, very important weapon system for our strategic arms capability.\nSo I am all for the B-1.\nIn the budget presentation to me I had to make some\ndecisions on conventional forces. I recommended about four and\na half billion dollars more for conventional forces including an\nacceleration of our tank production that had slowed down and\nnow we are hoping to double or triple the production of tanks\nfor the Army and for the Marine Corps.\nGERALDO FORD LIBRARY\nPage 9\nResearch and Development is another area where the\nUnited States must keep ahead. So I recommended about a billion\ndollars more for next year in order to have our scientists come\nup with both offensive and defensive weapons that would make our\nnational security more certain.\nSo these are the general areas where I have recommended\nincreases.\nMR. WAYNE: As you well know, the B-1 bomber project\noffice is located at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. You are\nnot worried about --- do you think the B-1 is an aircraft that\nthis country needs despite its tremendous cost?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Yes. We are now flying roughly 400\nB-52s, some of them 20 years old, most of them between 10 and\n20 years of age. If we don't build the B-1 bomber -- and I\nstrongly support the purchase of the B-1 bomber -- but if we\ndon't buy it we will ask our young men to be flying in the\nnext ten years planes that are getting older and older and older\nby the day. I don't think that is fair to the young pilots and\nthe co-pilots, and, secondly, the B-52 in another ten years will\nnot be an effective weapon system.\nSo the B-1 bomber which is a follow on to the B-52 --\nand we expect to buy about 255 of them -- will be a very important\nadd on to our strategic forces.\nMR. WAYNE: Are you happy with the United Nations,\nMr. President? Do you foresee any major changes of the\nAmerican role or policy in that world organization?\nTHE PRESIDENT: About a year ago, Don, I appointed\nAmbassador Moynihan as our UN Ambassador. He went to the\nUnited Nations and really took some strong, affirmative stands\nand called a spade a spade. I think Pat Moynihan, as our\nAmbassador to the UN, did a good job. He retired and we now have\na good successor to him in Bill Scranton. Bill has a little\ndifferent technique but Bill is also a very strong advocate of\nnew policy of strength at the United Nations.\nPage 10\nSo between Moynihan and Scranton I think we have been\nmost forceful in presenting the American position. In addition,\nSecretary Kissinger went up there last fall and at the seventh\nSpecial Session made some very, I think, constructive recommendations\nin handling some of the problems in the under-developed countries,\nso overall our policies are good. We are, unfortunately,\noccasionally outvoted. I don't like that because I think what\nwe are trying to do is right but we are making some headway\nand I think basically if we keep the pressure on we can do a\nbetter job and the United Nations can, too.\nMR. WAYNE: Mr. President, voters seem to be somewhat\ndisturbed over the cost, besides the mismanagement of certain\nanti-poverty programs, food stamps, Medicaid, model cities.\nThere seems to be a feeling of uncertainty and anger over\nwhether Washington and the expenditure of billions of dollars\ncan ever really cure the Nation's social ills. What is Washington's\nrole? What should Washington do on these programs?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I believe that Washington has to be\ncompassionate but at the same time it should not be wasteful.\nWe can run some of these welfare programs -- and I use that in\nthe broadest sense -- better than we have in the past. For\nexample, the food stamp program has gotten way out of hand.\nIn ten years it grew from expenditures of roughly $200 million\na year until this year we are spending approximately $18 billion.\nThe growth has been way out of proportion to the I think\nresponsible management of a food stamp program. We are trying\nto cut back on the food stamp program, those that don't need\nit. At the same time, we expect to increase the benefits to the\nindividuals who are deserving of extra food stamp care.\nBut by balancing it better than it is at the present\ntime, we can save about a billion two hundred million dollars.\nWhat I am saying in using that illustration is that we can be\ncompassionate with the poor who are deserving but we ought to\nget rid of those who are undeserving and should not be on\nwelfare roles, food stamp roles or any of the others.\nPage 11\nMR. WAYNE: Where do you stand at the present time on\nthe energy situation and do you think we should build more\nnuclear reactors?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I firmly believe we have to build\nmore nuclear reactors. We have 58 operating nuclear reactors in\nthis country today. If we are going to become energy independent\nin the United States by 1985 we have to build approximately\n250 nuclear power plants. The process is slow and there are\nsome who are concerned about safety and reliability. But\nthe safety record of nuclear power plants is better than most\nindustrial plants in this country. The reliability has to be\nimproved but they are very reliable compared to other methods\nof producing energy.\nIn order to improve safety and reliability, I recommended\nin the next year's budget substantial amounts of research and\ndevelopment so that our scientists and technicians can build\nbetter, safer, more reliable nuclear plants. If we were to\nstop nuclear plant construction we would become more and more\ndependent on foreign oil and that is I think too big a gamble.\nAt the present time we buy 40 percent or more of our\ncrude oil from overseas and if you cut out nuclear power, it\nwould have a serious adverse impact on our energy independence.\nMR. WAYNE: Do you really expect to go to Kansas City\nwith enough delegates to get the nomination on the first ballot?\nTHE PRESIDENT: We are optimistic, Don. It will be\nclose but our best projections -- depending on the six primaries\nthat are yet to be held on June 1st and June 8, plus the various\nconventions that will be concluded by the latter part of June --\nI think we will have enough to get a first ballot.\nMR. WAYNE: How much importance do you attach to the\nOhio primary? Is it now critical to your campaign?\nPage 12\nTHE PRESIDENT: Very critical, Don. I am spending some\nextra time in Ohio because I think it is very critical. I\nbelieve that we can make some headway in Ohio because their\ninterests are much like those of my home State Michigan and\nwe did well in Michigan. I would hope that we could do well in\nOhio.\nMR. WAYNE: Do you think the American election process\nis still a valid process? Is there a necessity for reform in\nour election process?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I think the primaries are wholesome.\nI wish we c-uld develop a regional primary system so that you\nwould maybe have five or six regions and all of the States in\neach region would have their primaries on the same day. That\nwould be very helpful to candidates. And I might add I think\nit would be helpful to the public as a whole. That is the\nprincipal recommendation that I would propose.\nMR. WAYNE: That is bothersome to the public, the\nexpenditure of funds for primary campaigns, the efforts, the time\nspent by a President and by the other candidates. They worry\nas it gets to convention time it is going to be brokered,\neverything is going to be done in the back room.\nTHE PRESIDENT: I don't think the Republican Convention\nwill be brokered in the back room. I think it will be right out\nin front of the public on that first ballot. My Democrat\nfriends have a little different situation. They have morethan\ntwo candidates and I don't think any one candidate is going to\nhave a majority on the first ballot. When you have that\nsituation you are quite likely going to have a brokered\nconvention.\nMR. WAYNE: You served in office 21 months?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Almost 22.\nPage 13\nMR. WAYNE: It may be hard for you to spot one\nsingleoaccomplishment since you have been in office.\nTHE PRESIDENT: It is not hard. I would like to pick\ntwo, however. I inherited an economic mess. Inflation was at\n12 percent or more. We have cut it to under 3 percent. We\nwere on the brink of a recession. I think we have turned the\neconomy around. We have added to the job force and the net\nresult is we are on the road to a healthy economy. That to me\nwas the major accomplishment of my 22 months plus the\nrestoration of trust and confidence, through my openness,\nthrough my candor, through my forthrightness. This was\nimportant in the White House and I think I have done that.\nMR. WAYNE: I think in your appearance before a\ncommittee prior to your taking the oath of office you said that\nyou really would not run for President. What has changed\nyour mind? Why do you want another four years here?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I have found that in the 22 months I\nhave done the things that I mentioned, improved the economy,\nrestored confidence and trust and achieved and maintained the\npeace. If I can have four more years as President of this great\ncountry, I believe that I can solidify those gains that I have\nbeen able to make in the last 22 months.\nMR. WAYNE: You have mentioned some names of prominent\nindividuals that you might find acceptable as a running mate.\nGovernor Reagan has refused to mention any names. He claims\nthat it is his belief it is in violation of the Federal Election\nLaws.\nTHE PRESIDENT: I would differ with him on the latter\npoint. We have a wealth of talent in the Republican Party for\npotential Vice Presidential candidates. I don't like to mention\none by name, although I have, because then you inevitably\nleave out some other very talented individuals, but you could\ntake any one of a number of Governors, Governor Ray of Iowa,\nGovernor Rhodes of Ohio, Governor Bond of Missouri, Governor\nEvans of Washington.\nPage 14\nYou have got members of the Senate, Senator Howard\nBaker, John Tower. You have got former Governor John Connally.\nYou have got members of the Cabinet. We have got a lot of first\nclass talent and I am not reluctant to mention how many good\npeople we have in the Republican Party.\nMR. WAYNE: But you have removed Ronald Reagan's name\nfrom your list?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I have not excluded anybody. Now,\nMr. Reagan, I understand, has said he would not accept, but\nI have not excluded anybody, including him.\nMR. WAYNE: Thank you, Mr. President.\nEND\n(AT 2:40 P.M. EDT)\nINTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT BY NICK CLOONEY\nWKRC-TV, Cincinnati, Ohio, The Map Room, June, 1, 1976\nMR. CLOONEY: Mr. President, it has been charged in\nat least one political column that I read recently and else-\nwhere that you deliberately brought busing into the primary\ncampaign as an issue and since Cincinnati, as other communities,\nis going to be a court test, we have great interest in that.\nWhat is your response?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I have been against court ordered\nforced busing to achieve racial balance since the mid-1950s,\nso that is almost 20 years. I don't think court ordered\nforced busing is the way to achieve quality education.\nSo, any allegation that this is a new thought on my part is\ntotally without foundation. Last November I asked the\nAttorney General, as well as the Secretary of HEW, to come\nforth with some new approaches or new programs that might\neither alleviate the problems caused by court ordered forced\nbusing or any other solution that they might find beneficial.\nIt was something done way last year, plus my long-\nstanding record of being against court ordered forced busing,\nthat I think certainly knocks in the cocked hat these alle-\ngations about my comments on busing being involved in the\nprimaries. It is not true.\nMR. CLOONEY: But Mr. President, do you support\nbusing as a last measure in integration?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Under the Equal Educational Oppor-\ntunities Act, which was passed in 1974, which I signed,\ncourt ordered forced busing is the last resort in order to\nprotect constitutional rights, but there are six other approaches\nthat a court can take before it gets to busing. In addition,\nthe Attorney General has recommended to me some legislation\nwhich would limit the remedy of a court when it finds segre-\ngation, to correcting those areas of a community where there\nis segregation instead of giving the court the authority to\ncome in and take over a whole school system, as some Federal\ndistrict courts have done.\nSo, the combination of the proposal made to me\nby the Attorney General and the legislation which was passed\nin 1974 would severely limit and, in some cases, eliminate\ncourt ordered forced busing.\nINTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT BY DON WAYNE\nWHIO-TV, Dayton, Ohio, The Oval Office, June 1, 1976\nMR. WAYNE: Boston, Louisville, even in my own\ncommunity of Dayton, Ohio --\nTHE PRESIDENT: My hometown, Grand Rapids, Michigan,\ntoo.\nMR. WAYNE: -- school busing is an issue. We know,\nI think, fairly well where you stand on the school busing,\nbut you keep talking about alternatives. The American voter\nis not sure what alternatives you are talking about. Are\nyou talking about legislation, constitutional amendment?\nCan you clarify it?\nTHE PRESIDENT: First, let me re-emphasize my total\nopposition to court ordered forced busing to achieve balance\nin the school system. I think court ordered forced busing\nis the wrong approach to achieve quality education. The\nquestion then is how do you achieve quality education if you\ndon't go along with court ordered forced busing. My answer\nis that we can improve, through some additional Federal money,\nschool facilities.\nI think we can improve the equipment that is avail-\nable to make educational opportunities better available to\nthe students. I believe that we can inaugurate what they\ncall cluster schools or neighborhood schools in place of cross-\ntown busing. There are a number of alternatives that were\nwritten by the Congress when I was in Congress, and subsequently\nsigned by me when I became President, in what we call the\nEqual Educational Opportunities Act.\nIt lists seven alternatives, six of them ahead of\nbusing, and if the courts would follow those guidelines, I\nthink we could avoid most of the busing that would take place.\nNow, in addition to that, the Attorney General has drafted\nsome legislation which would be an additional guideline to\nthe courts that they should follow in these desegregation\ncases.\nWhat it provides is that if there is segregation,\nthen the court should take cognizance of those instances\nwhere there is segregation, but it would limit the courts\nremedy to just those areas rather than taking over a whole\nschool system, tas the courts did in the case of the Boston\ncase and several others.\nSo, between the present law and that legislation\nwhich I am recommending, I think we can minimize to a sub-\nstantial degree busing and, at the same time, achieve better\neducational opportunities.\nINTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT BY WJW-TV, Cleveland, Ohio\nThe Map Room, June 1, 1976\nQUESTION: Mr. President, as you know, in the City of\nCleveland there is pending a decision by a Federal District\nJudge following a suit by the NAACP, the outgrowth of which when\nthis decision comes, perhaps this summer, might be forced\nbusing to achieve racial integration in the public school system\nin Cleveland. At this point what would be your advice to the\nCity of Cleveland if this comes about?\nTHE PRESIDENT: My feeling is, number one, they have\nto obey the law. Because whether they like it or not, in this\ncountry the President and everybody else must obey the laws as\ndecided by the Congress on the one hand or the courts on the\nother.\nNumber two, if it is a decision to have busing,\nI think that leadership in the community must make a maximum\neffort to try and do it in an orderly fashion. Now, I happen to\ne against court ordered forced busing to achieve racial balance\nbecause I think there is a better way to achieve quality\neducation. But, at the same time, I fully believe in protecting\nthe Constitutional rights of people, that there should not be\nsegregation in our school system. That is unconstitutional\naccording to the decisions of the Supreme Court. But I think\nthere is a way in which the courts can get quality education by\nusing a remedy that does not just take over a whole school\nsystem but takes the position that where there is segregation\nthey ought to correct that but not destroy the whole school\nsystem.\nQUESTION: As you indicate, Mr. President, for approximately\nthe last 25 years segregation has been unconstitutional in this\ncountry. What remedies are there to get around busing, if any at\nall?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I think there are several remedies.\nI strongly am opposed to segregation. It is unconstitutional\nbut I think other remedies can be utilized to improve education\nto achieve what we call quality education. We have what we call\nthe Educational Equal Opportunities Act which lists six things\nprior to busing that the courts can utilize, neighborhood\nschools and other constructive devices, and in addition the Federal\ncourts don't have to take over a whole school system in order\nto eliminate segregation in a part of the school system so\neither by using more judicious action by the courts on the\none hand or the courts following the guidelines on the other,\nyou can get the Constitutional rights protected and at the\nsame time improve the opportunity for quality education.\nQUESTION: Yet in a city like Cleveland there is a\nsituation, the east side of Cuyahoga River is basically predominantly\nblack and the west side is very predominantly white. What do you\ndo in a situation like that?\nTHE PRESIDENT: This is where I think the school\nofficials have to sit down with the court and with the leadership\nin the communities to try and work out the necessary remedies\nso you get a minimal amount of busing. This can be done.\nIt has been done in a number of communities and if it is done\nproperly what it achieves is the court orders being upheld without\nviolence and at the same time you are able to get what you want\nreally as quality education without violation of anybody's\nConstitutional rights. It can be done.\nI could cite several communities where, with the\nproper leadership, sitting down with the court, with the\nBoard of Education and handling it, we have avoided the violence\nthat has taken place in several other places.\nINTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT BY NEW JERSEY NEWS\nMEDIA REPRESENTATIVES, East Room, June 2, 1976\nQUESTION: Mr. President, you said you are concerned\nabout the busing legisIation that is being drafted. What is\nthe theory behind this legislation?\nTHE PRESIDENT: The legislation seeks to achieve\na clarification of the various decisions that have been made\nby the Supreme Court on the extent of the remedy that local\ncourts can utilize when they find a violation of constitutional\nrights. There have been some cases where the local district\ncourt has found a violation of a constitutional right, segre-\ngation. The court has then gone in and taken over the whole\nschool district rather than trying to remedy the limited\narea where there was segregation within a school district.\nNow, the proposed legislation seeks to limit the\nauthority of the local district courts to remedy the precise\nproblem and not to become a school board in every case.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, won't that still be\nsegregation in some school districts where busing is taken\naway from them?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Not according to the information\nthat has been given to me by the Department of Justice.\nEMBARGOED FOR RELEASE\nJUNE 5, 1976\nUNTIL 11:30 A.M., SUNDAY\nJUNE 6, 1976\nOFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY\nTHE\nWHITE\nHOUSE\nINTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT\nBY\nHELEN THOMAS, UPI\nBOB SCHIEFFER, CBS\nAND\nGEORGE HERMAN, CBS\nON\nFACE THE NATION\n11\n50\nA.M.\nEDT\n5\nQUESTION: President Ford, you say you are not\nmaking the assumption that Fonald Reagan will get the\nnomination or be elected, but the problem lies ahead of you\nnow for Tuesday in California. Some political experts think\nyou are going to have a really tough time at the convention\nif you don't win a good hunk of California's votes -- say\n45 percent. Can you do it?\nTHE PRESIDENT: We are very encouraged by the last\nthree days. I talked to some people in California and I have\ngotten reports from our people in California and we think we\nare coming from an underdog position with new momentum and we\nbelieve we are closing the gap, and we think that there is an\nopportunity to win California. That, of course, would be the\nultimate, but we think we will do quite well in California.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, how many delegates do you\nthink you will have when you 00 to Kansas City and do you\nstill think you will win on the first ballot?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Miss Thomas, I think we will win on\nthe first ballot. At the present time we have 805 delegates.\nWe expect to win a good share of the delegates on Tuesday.\nThat will put us quite close to the necessary 1130 and if\nwe do well on Tuesday, then I think we only need about 40\npercent of the uncommitted delegates, SQ the opportunities\nlook I think very good for us in Kansas City on the first\nballot.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, do you feel that you will\nhave the delegates before the convention actually opens or\ndo you feel as Vice President Rockefeller does that you\nprobably will be 20 or 30 votes short, but you will have them\nby the time the first ballot comes around?\nMORE\nOVER\nCERALD FORD LIBRARY\nPage 2\nTHE PRESIDENT:\nbelieve we will have them by the\ntime the first ballot comes around. There are always those,\nyou know, Mr. Schieffer, who play a little cozy and have not\nquite made up their mind, but if we add up the committed\nand those that we think are honestly leaning our way, I tbink\nby the first ballot we will have the 1130.\nQUESTION: But you won't necessarily have them by the\ntime the convention opens.\nTHE PRESIDENT Well, I am not going to argue about\nwhether we have them by the time the convention opens or not,\nthe most important time is when they actually cast their\nvote in that first ballot.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, let me get back just for a\nmoment to Ronald Reagan. One of the most interest things,\nI think, that has been found by the CBS-New York Times polls\nis a statistic that came up the other day that said if the\nrace were Ford versus Carter, 41 percent of those who call\nthemselves Ronald Reagan people would defect and vote for\nJimmy Carter. It also says 23 percent of those who call\nthemselves Ford voters would defect to Carter if Reagan is\nthe nominee. In light of that, aren't you going to have to\nput Ronald Reagan on the ticket if you are going to have the\nbacking of your party and you have got to have the solid\nbacking of the Republican Party?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I have said that I would not\nexclude any Republican that I have looked at or we have heard\nabout that might qualify as being a Vice Presidential candidate\nand that would include Ronald Reagan. Now he has himself\nindicated he would not be interested in being Vice President\nbut as far as I am concerned I would not exclude him.\nNow we will have to take a look at the two people\nthat the Democratic Party nominates in their July convention\nin New York City. We will have to see how the convention turns\nout in Kansas City, how we can best heal any wounds that the\nparty might have as a result of the many primaries, Of course,\nthe main thing is, is the person who is going to be nominated\nfor Vice President fully qualified to be President in case\nsomething should happen to the President? Now all of those\nthings have to be put into this formula and we will look at the\nkind of data you have indicated, but I think it is premature\nto make any commitment at this time.\nQUESTION: But are you seriously saying that the choice\nof the Democratic Convention would really influence the man\nthat you want for your Vice President?\nTHE PRESIDENT: It certainly is a factor in the formula.\nThat has been the tradition in conventions over the years in\nour Presidential races. You can't ignore it. Democrats have\ndone it, Republicans have done it and I suspect it will be\na factor. not the controlling factor, but it will be a factor.\nMORE\nPage 3\nQUESTION: I this is probably something you\ncan't tell us in some detail. You usually give a list of the\npeople that you are interested in that has been well published.\nDo you have Lone favorite yourself, in your bosom as they\nsay in the dhurch T-S- who you would like as your Vice\nPresident? nisigne UOV\nI en\nTO THE PRESIDENT I haven decided on one person,\nMr. Herman. I have several that P think fit a very good\ncategory of the kind of people, but it is very premature to\nmake any final decision at' this point.\n%\nQUESTION: Mr. President, you have said several\ntimes on several occasions that Peagan's statements on\nPanama were irresponsible, Yet you say all that would belo\nforgotten when he gets into the White House he would be\nresponsible. Are you saying that Reagan is only making\ncampaign rhetoric now and does not truly believe in the\nthings he says? You also implied there would be guerrilla\nwarfare if Reagan became President and stopped the Panama\nCanal negotiations:\nto\nenolatosh\nTHE PRESIDENT: Sometimes in the height of a political\n,ampaign statements are made that on cool reflection candidates\nwish they hadn't said.\n.00 ob of\nTINO QUESTION Are you'referring to yours or his?\nton sonsied istoor eveldos\nTHE PRESIDENT: I am referring to several that have\nbeen made by my opponent in recent weeks. Certainly if a\nperson becomes, President he has to: be more judicious, more\ncareful, in what he says and how he says it and when he says it,\nand I think when you get in that Oval Office, Miss Thomas,\nit does make you far more responsible than you are when you\nare out on the political hustings. salvas at\nand IS , bris atdate to meldora\n.nottsoube VILIBUP univeldos smaa\nInsense Ventoria orig sleow owt 1851 orig abdrew\nboos 20% 8880 notsol sitt at Insurance of for bebiceD and\nI bris ,bebioob VEHICLES 86 .od tsdt enosser\nIssured Ventotta on ISATO odt no .orld TROCCUM\nis Jon 755 and 9800 information B et\nemergue evolvero odt 10 SMOE to la to notteo\n.5975 relamos VT9V aids at enolatoeb\nsoltant to Insuryaged and ,minotal gdt nit won\n-- 10 8890090 gift ni at to -- and\nand at any 01 simewe thiw I nolde\nto BJTWOO odt statf of XOOD bluow STWING seen VISA\neds unsite BESTS and to nottoorth silt of strit\nsitt hoselotv and ,JOB att vd ,bread 100/198 18001\n0880 stat rsk -- to events\nbroved 09 or truce and timed 03 ton brie -- amounte\n,bosefolv need eved strigir secretent one\n380M\nPage\nQUESTION: You know in a recent interview you\nvolunteered or in answer to a question, I guess\nsome information about your plans for alternatives to\ncourt ordered school busing. Could you explain them in\nsomewhat more detail than they were explained, as I\nread them. They seemed a little indefinite to me, or\nare they still in that stage?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I think there are three points\nwe have to make before we discuss busing.\nNumber one, this Administration will uphold all\nconstitutional rights of any individual in this country,\nincluding the rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.\nNumber two, this Administration is totally\ndedicated to quality education.\nNumber three, this Administration will carry out\nthe decisions of the Supreme Court.\ntook an oath of office to do so, and I will\ncontinue to do SO.\nNow, we have found, or I believe, that court\nordered forced busing to achieve racial balance is not\nthe best way to necessarily protect individual rights\non the one hand or to achieve quality education on the\nother. Therefore, starting back in November of 1975, I\nasked the Attorney General and other members of my\nCabinet to see if we couldn't put together something that\nwould be better than the remedy that has been used by some\ndistrict courts in trying to solve the very difficult\nproblem of protecting constitutional rights and, at the\nsame time, achieving quality education.\nWithin the last two weeks the Attorney General\nhas decided not to intervene in the Boston case for good\nreasons that he, as Attorney General, decided, and I\nsupport him. On the other hand, the Attorney General\nis seeking a particular case where we can get a clarifi-\ncation or a modification of some of the previous Supreme\nCourt decisions in this very complex area.\nNow, in the interim, the Department of Justice\nhas prepared -- or is in the process of preparing --\nlegislation which I will submit to the Congress in the\nvery near future which would seek to limit the courts of\nthis country to the direction of the areas where the\nlocal school board, by its act, has violated the\nconstitutional rights of individuals -- in this case\nstudents -- and not to permit the court to go beyond\nthe instances where rights have been violated.\nMORE\nPage 5\nNow, in some cases the court has taken an\nillegal act of a school board -- relatively small part of\na total school system -- and taken over the whole school\nsystem, and the court, in effect, has become the school\nboard. I think that is wrong. The Attorney General\nagrees with me.\nThe legislation that we will propose will seek\nto limit, to minimize the corrective action or the\nremedy by the court to the actual instances where there\nis a violation of a person's constitutional right. That\nwill minimize in many cases to a substantial degree the\namount of court ordered forced busing.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, the courts have already\nruled on that point, if I understand it, in 1973 in the\nDenver case.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Are you talking about the Keyes\ncase?\nQUESTION: Yes, sir. Have they not, when they\nsaid that was not a remedy? You could not just remedy\nit in a specific area rather than the whole system.\nTHE PRESIDENT: The Attorney General and his\nassociates informed me that that has not been totally\nclarified, and that is the purpose of actually seeking a\ncase where the Department of Justice can go into a\nsubsequent case and get a clarification.\nThat is why we are going to propose legislation,\nso that there is a legislative direction given to the\ncourt to make sure that we protect constitutional rights\nwhere there has been a violation and, at the same time,\npreclude the courts from becoming in effect the school\nboard in a local community.\nQUESTION: Let me ask you just a somewhat\nbroader question, and you are the attorney and I am not,\nso maybe you can explain it to me. If the courts have\nalready ruled that busing is a permissible way to achieve\nintegrated schools and they have already ruled that\nintegrated schools are a constitutional right\n--\nTHE PRESIDENT: A permissible remedy to correct\nan injustice.\nQUESTION: -- how can you pass a law to limit\nthat remedy if the courts have already ruled it is\nconstitutional? Don't you need a constitutional amendment?\nMORE\nPage 6\nTHE PRESIDENT: The Constitution permits the\nlegislative body to give guidelines in certain court\ncases--and according to the Attorney General he believes\nthat this proposed Iegislation is constitutional--it will\nsimply limit the remedy to the instance where there has\nbeen a violation of a constitutional right. According\nto him, that is constitutional.\nQUESTION: Then it is your interpretation that\nthe Keyes case did not invalidate\nTHE PRESIDENT: As I understand it, it was a\ndictum, not a final judgment.\nQUESTION: To cut through some of the legal\nniceties which are a little hard on us, it seems to me --\nperhaps I misunderstand it -- the final impact of this\nis to leave in place all de facto school segregation\nwhich has happened without the breaking of a law?\nTHE PRESIDENT: The courts already decided that.\nQUESTION: So, that this is the direction which\nyou wish to encourage law and legislation to continue?\nTHE PRESIDENT: We would recommend, as the\ncourt has said, we correct the violations but we only\ncorrect the violations, not make a Federal district court\na local school bcard.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, what chance do you\nthink such legislation would have of passing, and\nwhat constitutional right is violated by being bused?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, the Congress, I think,\nwould be responsive to some legislation of this kind\nbecause I think the public --\nQUESTION: This year?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I would hope SO. I can't\npromise it because I don't control the Congress, but I\ndo believe there is a great public sentiment for a\nlimitation or a minimization of the court in the remedies\nthat they have pursued.\nWhat was the second?\nMORE\nPage 7\nQUESTION: The second is, what constitutional\nright is being violated by being bused?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Busing is simply a remedy to\nachieve a correction of an alleged act by a school\nboard to violate somebody else's constitutional rights.\nBusing itself is not a constitutional right, nor is it\na lack of a constitutional right. It is only a remedy.\nOUESTION: But isn't it the law of the land\nto desegregate the schools in this land?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Where there has been'a specific\nviolation of a person's constitutional right. It is not\nbeyond that, and that is the real point at issue.\nQUESTION: On another subject, Mr. President --\nQUESTION: Before you change the subject, before\nyou abandon schools altogether, just to explore one further\nitem, private schools, the private white academies that\nhave been founded in parts of the South, would you leave\nthose as being perfectly legal?\nTHE PRESIDENT: That case is now before the\nSupreme Court. I think that the individual ought to have\na right to send his daughter or his son to a private\nschool if he is willing to pay whatever the cost might\nbe.\nQUESTION: But a segregated private school, if\nthat should be his choice?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I think in a private school a\nperson ought to have an individual right.\nQUESTION: What if those schools get some kind\nof Federal aid?\nTHE PRESIDENT: they get Federal aid, Mr.\nSchieffer, that is a totally different question and I\ncertainly would not, under those circumstances, go along\nwith segregated schools, under no circumstances.\nQUESTION: That would include any kind of tax\nbreak, Federal tax break?\nTHE PRESIDENT: That is right.\nQUESTION: Would you approve of a private\nschool turning someone away on the basis of color?\nMORE\nPage 8\nTHE PRESIDENT: Individuals have rights. I\nwould hope they would not, but individuals have a right,\nwhere they are willing to make the choice themselves,\nand there are no taxpayer funds involved. Now, this is a\nmatter before the courts at the present time, and I think\nthere will be a Supreme Court decision probably in this\nterm or the next term, certainly, but individuals have a\nright where there are no Federal funds available.\nI would hope they would not, and our own\nchildren have always gone to public schools, which were\nintegrated, and they have gone to private schools where\nthev were integrated. So, my own record is onecof our\nchildren and my own belief in integration.\nBut, I think individuals do have some rights,\nwhere they are willing to make the choice and Day the\nprice.\nQUESTION: Are you working for a Middle East\nconference this year? You said you were talking\nactively to the Israelis and other Governments to move\noff dead center the status quo. Is there a possibility\nthat there could be a Geneva conference this year?\nTHE PRESIDENT: It is not likely that there\nwould be a Geneva conference this year. I don't rule it\nout entirely, but it is not likely. We are, however --\nI am talking to the heads of Government when I see them,\nas I did with Prime Minister Rabin of Israel when he was\nhere. We are talking with foreign secretaries. We\nthink momentum has to keep going beyond the Sinai II\nagreement.\nIf we stop the momentum, the pot begins to boil\nagain, so we are trying to deal bilaterally, urging other\nnations to get together to move forward. But the prospect\nof a Geneva conference in 1976 I think is somewhat remote.\nQUESTION: Does the Syrian intervention in Lebanon\nhave your blessing?\nTHE PRESIDENT: We have objected to any foreign\nintervention in Lebanon. We don't believe that military\nintervention is the right way to solve Lebanon's political\nproblems. About eight weeks ago I sent Ambassador Dean\nBrown as my special emmissary to Lebanon, andhe was very\nhelpful in trying to bring some of the parties together,\nand I think we made a significant contribution in seeking\na political settlement without any military intervention.\nI repeat, the United States Government is opposed\nto any military intervention in Lebanon. I think it\ncould be destabilizing, even though thus far it has been\ndone with restraint.\nMORE\nPage 9\nQUESTION: Are you doing anything about it?\nTHE PRESIDENT: We have let all parties know\nthat we oppose any military intervention.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, in almost every\ncampaign speech it seems to me you say something about\nthe economy which goes along the lines that everything\nthat should be going up is going up and everything that\nshould be coming down is coming down.\nTHE PRESIDENT: That is true, and it is getting\nbetter every week.\n8.\nOUESTION: Then that gives point to my question,\nwhich is that the CBS-New York Times polls of voters have\nrepeatedly shown a very strange phenomenon. Only about\na third of the people we have queried in various States\naround the country expect their economic state to be\nbetter a year from now. The rest think it is going to be\nthe same and a very large proportion -- in some places,\nmore than half the people -- think they are going to be\nworse off in a year.\nwast m6 I use teum 2 of ford ren stunts\n10 What is going on? 08 bisnor 03 unled 995 NOV soln\nwere bloow 9d NOV worf suods bexiss voy eds\nedt ts bruow ed wodemos 11 mollio at\nto SEOB to atom mexes vievol MORE vov worl tuode belief noy\nSTAN adatov assass Yesm worf tuode betto I solveltate arts\nBTB HOV tad* VSB of 7159 ad ** benow at T9V0 salos\nE 35 mid amibutore ton 915 you bas embel galbuloni yout ton\naugises saivis 935 NOY tud vrifidissoq solv\nfatse returns TWOY 85 bisnor of molismablance\nof awoines snivin me I 3HT\nelaimated тель and to 115 of ms I will mid\n01 , V.Sa ,70 IIs tuods bate nego no aved 03 eved aw I\n\"mid are 03\nbed 9.9 semit tast grit 10 910 .IM MOTTSHUO\nSW brot viset saw WOV nedw tasobsord atdt no you\nto nottanissses add no etroqer twods UQY bexes\ntwo SITTOD asn notismotal этот [s9b Iserg A. imebiaer9\nInsbises9 90 noitentessess add to saso odt nt esvitom tuods.\nUOV of eldelisws vieucivdo ton 85% doline ( ybenas)\nUOV 00 .emit grit to петтей ont to Tedmem B. 86\nпеттам gift ,eroterent, tedi YSB orlw soods driv 99735\nfbetbuteer ed bluoria smill 91/3 benegoon ed bluods trager\n6 6976 betimil vasy art at xabit I 3HT\nexam BIB normsW art .sidenlesb ed their gaineqoes\nbed 9W bas ,evitom B ball of YII of tyotle evisesm is\nefqueq to abnix [Is bed 9W bad sw ,enstomehoos\n,two\nbalt\n00\nsalvar\n-\nnottsmmotni\nPage 10\nTHE PRESIDENT If you look at other surveys you\nfind that consumer confidence has been going up and up\nevery\nmonth\non\nwhenever\nQUESTION: Until recently.\nTHE PRESIDENT There was a slight drop in recent --\nI think the last week or so but for the last nine months it\nhas been going up very steadily and over the last year it has\ngone up 100 percent.\nNow, I think there was a little apprehension that\ndeveloped because we had a wholesale price index figure that\nwent up .8 percent for the month of April. But now that we\nhad the good news of Friday where the wholesale price index\nwent up 3 then I also saw, as you did, that we had good\nunemployment news and we added some 300, 000 more to our\nemployment figures so I believe public confidence after that\njust 30-day setback will again start climbing and if\ncontinues all of us think it will, we will have a\ncontinuous process of economic growth and stability.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, could I just for a tiny\nminute get back to politics. I must say I am struck by how\nnice you are being to Ronald Reagan today At the beginning of\nthe broadcast you talked about how you thought he would grow\nin office if somehow he wound up there at the White House.\nYou talked about how you have obviously taken note of some of\nthe statistics I cited about how many Reagan voters were\ngoing over to Carter. Would it be fair to say that you are\nnot just including him, and you are not excluding him as a\nVice Presidential possibility, but you are giving serious\nconsideration to Ronald Reagan as your running mate?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I am giving serious consideration to\nhim like I am to all of the other Republican potentials.\nI think we have to have an open mind about all of, say, 10\nto 15 individuals, including him.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, one of the last times we had\nyou on this broadcast when you were Congressman Jerry Ford we\nasked you about the Warren reports on the assassination of\nPresident Kennedy. A great deal more information has come out\nabout motives in the case of the assassination of President\nKennedy, information which was not obviously available to you\nas a member of the Warren Commission at the time. Do you\nagree with those who say that, therefore, the Warren Commission\nreport should be reopened, the thing should be restudied?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I think in the very limited area a\nreopening might be desirable. The Warren Commission did make\na massive effort to try to find a motive, and we had\nacademicians, we had lawyers, we had all kinds of people\ntrying to find out.\nQUESTION: Everything but the information --\nMORE\nPage 11\nTHE PRESIDENT: And we never were able to find a\nmotive. And if there is some additional, I think,\nconstructive information available, I think it cught to be\nreopened in that very limited area.\nQUESTION: You say \"if,\" do you not think that there\nis?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I have not had an opportunity to\nexamine the detailed information and until I have personally\nexamined it I don't think I ought to pass judgment on it.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, you said repeatedly that\nyours is an open Administration, anybody can come in and talk\nto you. Has anybody come in and talked to you about getting\nrid of Secretary Kissinger as a means of improving your\nchances.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Absolutely not.\nQUESTION: Nobody in the Administration?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Nobody in this Administration has come\nto me asking that I fire Secretary Kissinger. I happen to think\nhe has done a first class job towards peace and that is the\nresponsibility of the Secretary, to carry out my foreign policy.\nIt has been successful, so I want him to stay.\nQUESTION: Thank you very much, President Ford.\nfor being our guest on Face the Nation today.\nEND\n(AT 12:15 P.M. EDT)\nINTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT BY HELEN THOMAS, UPI\nBOB SCHIEFFER, CBS AND GEORGE HERMAN, CBS ON\nFACE THE NATION\nJune 5, 1976\nQUESTION: You know in a recent interview you\nvolunteered -- or in answer to a question, I guess --\nsome information about your plans for alternatives to\ncourt ordered school busing. Could you explain them in\nsomewhat more detail than they were explained, as I\nread them. They seemed a little indefinite to me, or\nare they still in that stage?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I think there are three points\nwe have to make before we discuss busing.\nNumber one, this Administration will uphold all\nconstitutional rights of any individual in this country,\nincluding the rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.\nNumber two, this Administration is totally\ndedicated to quality education.\nNumber three, this Administration will carry out\nthe decisions of the Supreme Court.\nI took an oath of office to do so, and I will\ncontinue to do so.\nNow, we have found, or I believe, that court\nordered forced busing to achieve racial balance is not\nthe best way to necessarily protect individual rights\non the one hand or to! achieve quality education on the\nother. Therefore, starting back in November of 1975, I\nasked the Attorney General and other members of my\nCabinet to see if we couldn't put together something that\nwould be better than the remedy that has been used by some\ndistrict courts in trying to solve the very difficult\nproblem of protecting constitutional rights and, at the\nsame time, achieving quality education.\nWithin the last two weeks the Attorney General\nhas decided not to intervene in the Boston case for good\nreasons that he, as Attorney General, decided, and I\nsupport him. On the other hand, the Attorney General\nis seeking a particular case where we can get a clarifi-\ncation or a modification of some of the previous Supreme\nCourt decisions in this very complex area.\nNow, in the interim, the Department of Justice\nhas prepared -- or is in the process of preparing --\nlegislation which I will submit to the Congress in the\nvery near future which would seek to limit the courts of\nthis country to the direction of the areas where the\nlocal school board, by its act, has violated the\nconstitutional rights of individuals -- in this case\nstudents -- and not to permit the court to go beyond\nthe instances where rights have been violated.\nNow, in some cases the court has taken an\nillegal act of a school board -- relatively small part of\na total school system -- and taken over the whole school\nsystem, and the court, in effect, has become the school\nboard. I think that is wrong. The Attorney General\nagrees with me.\nThe legislation that we will propose will seek\nto limit, to minimize the corrective action or the\nremedy by, the court to the actual instances where there\nis a violation of a person's constitutional right. That\nwill minimize in many cases to a substantial degree the\namount of court ordered forced busing.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, the courts have already\nruled on that point, if I understand it, in 1973 in the\nDenver case.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Are you talking about the Keyes\ncase?\nQUESTION: Yes, sir. Have they not, when they\nsaid that was not a remedy? You could not just remedy\nit in a specific area rather than the whole system.\nTHE PRESIDENT: The Attorney General and his\nassociates informed me that that has not been totally\nclarified, and that is the purpose of actually seeking a\ncase where the Department of Justice can go into a\nsubsequent case and get a clarification.\nThat is why we are going to propose legislation,\nso that there is a legislative direction given to the\ncourt to make sure that we protect constitutional rights\nwhere there has been a violation and, at the same time,\npreclude the courts from becoming in effect the school\nboard in a local community.\nQUESTION: Let me ask you just a somewhat\nbroader question, and you are the attorney and I am not,\nso maybe you can explain it to me. If the courts have\nalready ruled that busing is a permissible way to achieve\nintegrated schools and they have already ruled that\nintegrated schools are a constitutional right --\nTHE PRESIDENT: A permissible remedy to correct\nan injustice.\nOUESTION: -- how can you pass a law to limit\nthat remedv if the courts have already ruled it is\nconstitutional? Don't you need a constitutional amendment?\nTHE PRESIDENT: The Constitution permits the\nlegislative body to give guidelines in certain court\ncases--and according to the Attorney General he believes\nthat this proposed legislation is constitutional--it will\nsimply limit the remedy to the instance where there has\nbeen a violation of a constitutional right. According\nto him, that is constitutional.\nQUESTION: Then it is your interpretation that\nthe Keyes case did not invalidate -\nTHE PRESIDENT: As I understand it, it was a\ndictum, not a final judgment.\nQUESTION: To cut through some of the legal\nniceties which are a little hard on us, it seems to me --\nperhaps I misunderstand it -- the final impact of this\nis to leave in place all de facto school segregation\nwhich has happened without the breaking of a law?\nTHE PRESIDENT: The courts already decided that.\nQUESTION: So, that this is the direction which\nyou wish to encourage law and legislation to continue?\nTHE PRESIDENT: We would recommend, as the\ncourt has said, we correct the violations but we only\ncorrect the violations, not make a Federal district court\na local school bcard.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, what chance do you\nthink such legislation would have of passing, and\nwhat constitutional right is violated by being bused?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, the Congress, I think,\nwould be responsive to some legislation of this kind\nbecause I think the public --\nQUESTION: This year?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I would hope SO. I can't\npromise it because I don't control the Congress, but I\ndo believe there is a great public sentiment for a\nlimitation or a minimization of the court in the remedies\nthat they have pursued.\nWhat was the second?\nQUESTION: The second is, what constitutional\nright is being violated by being bused?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Busing is simply a remedy to\nachieve a correction of an alleged act by a school\nboard to violate somebody else's constitutional rights.\nBusing itself is not a cónstitutional right, nor is it\na lack of a constitutional right. It is only a remedy.\nQUESTION: But isn't it the law of the land\nto desegregate the schools in this land?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Where there has been a specific\nviolation of a person's constitutional right. It is not\nbeyond that, and that is the real point at issue.\nQUESTION: On another subject, Mr. President -\nQUESTION: Before you change the subject, before\nyou abandon schools altogether, just to explore one further\nitem, private schools, the private white academies that\nhave been founded in parts of the South, would you leave\nthose as being perfectly legal?\nTHE PRESIDENT: That case is now before the\nSupreme Court. I think that the individual ought to have\na right to send his daughter or his son to a private\nschool if he is willing to pay whatever the cost might\nbe.\nQUESTION: But a segregated private school, if\nthat should be his choice?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I think in a private school a\nperson ought to have an individual right.\nQUESTION: What if those schools get some kind\nof Federal aid?\nTHE PRESIDENT: \"If they get Federal aid, Mr.\nSchieffer, that is a totally different question and I\ncertainly would not, under those circumstances, go along\nwith segregated schools, under no circumstances.\nQUESTION: That would include any kind of tax\nbreak, Federal tax break?\nTHE PRESIDENT: That is right.\nQUESTION: Would you approve of a private\nschool turning someone away on the basis of color?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Individuals have rights. I\nwould hope they would not, but individuals have a right,\nwhere they are willing to make the choice themselves,\nand there are no taxpayer funds involved. Now, this is a\nmatter before the courts at the present time, and I think\nthere will be a Supreme Court decision probably in this\nterm or the next term, certainly, but individuals have a\nright where there are no Federal funds available.\nI would hope they would not, and our own\nchildren have always gone to public schools, which were\nintegrated, and they have gone to private schools where\nthey were integrated. So, my own record is onecóf our\nchildren and my own belief in integration.\nBut, I think individuals do have some rights,\nwhere they are willing to make the choice and Day the\nprice.\nEMBARGOED FOR RELEASE\nJUNE 5, 1976\nUNTIL 11:30 A.M., SUNDAY\nJUNE 6, 1976\nOFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nINTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT\nBY\nHELEN THOMAS, UPI\nBOB SCHIEFFER, CBS\nAND\nGEORGE HERMAN, CBS\nON\nFACE THE NATION\n11:50 A.M. EDT\nQUESTION: President Ford, you say you are not\nmaking the assumption that Ronald Reagan will get the\nnomination or be elected, but the problem lies ahead of you\nnow for Tuesday in California. Some political experts think\nyou are going to have a really tough time at the convention\nif you don't win a good hunk of California's votes -- say\n45 percent. Can you do it?\nTHE PRESIDENT: We are very encouraged by the last\nthree days. I talked to some people in California and I have\ngotten reports from our people in California and we think we\nare coming from an underdog position with new momentum and we\nbelieve we are closing the gap, and we think that there is an\nopportunity to win California. That, of course, would be the\nultimate, but we think we will do quite well in California.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, how many delegates do you\nthink you will have when you go to Kansas City and do you\nstill think you will win on the first ballot?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Miss Thomas, I think we will win on\nthe first ballot. At the present time we have 805 delegates.\nWe expect to win a good share of the delegates on Tuesday.\nThat will put us quite close to the necessary 1130 and if\nwe do well on Tuesday, then I think we only need about 40\npercent of the uncommitted delegates, so the opportunities\nlook I think very good for us in Kansas City on the first\nballot.\nQUESTION : Mr. President, do you feel that you will\nhave the delegates before the convention actually opens or\ndo you feel as Vice President Rockefeller does that you\nprobably will be 20 or 30 votes short, but you will have them\nby the time the first ballot comes around?\nMORE\nLIBRARY GERALD FORD\nPage 2\nTHE PRESIDENT: We believe we will have them by the\ntime the first ballot comes around. There are always those,\nyou know, Mr. Schieffer, who play a little cozy and have not\nquite made up their mind, but if we add up the committed\nand those that we think are honestly leaning our way, I tbink\nby the first ballot we will have the 1130.\nQUESTION: But you won't necessarily have them by the\ntime the convention opens.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, I am not going to argue about\nwhether we have them by the time the convention opens or not,\nthe most important time is when they actually cast their\nvote in that first ballot.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, let me get back just for a\nmoment to Ronald Reagan. One of the most interest things,\nI think, that has been found by the CBS-New York Times polls\nis a statistic that came up the other day that said if the\nrace were Ford versus Carter, 41 percent of those who call\nthemselves Ronald Reagan people would defect and vote for\nJimmy Carter. It also says 23 percent of those who call\nthemselves Ford voters would defect to Carter if Reagan is\nthe nominee. In light of that aren't you going to have to\nput Ronald Reagan on the ticket if you are going to have the\nbacking of your party and you have got to have the solid\nbacking of the Republican Party?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I have said that I would not\nexclude any Republican that I have looked at or we have heard\nabout that might qualify as being a Vice Presidential candidate\nand that would include Ronald Reagan. Now he has himself\nindicated he would not be interested in being Vice President\nbut as far as I am concerned I would not exclude him.\nNow we will have to take a look at the two people\nthat the Democratic Party nominates in their July convention\nin New York City. We will have to see how the convention turns\nout in Kansas City, how we can best heal any wounds that the\nparty might have as a result of the many primaries. Of course,\nthe main thing is, is the person who is going to be nominated\nfor Vice President fully qualified to be President in case\nsomething should happen to the President? Now all of those\nthings have to be put into this formula and we will look at the\nkind of data you have indicated, but I think it is premature\nto make any commitment at this time.\nQUESTION: But are you seriously saying that the choice\nof the Democratic Convention would really influence the man\nthat you want for your Vice President?\nTHE PRESIDENT: It certainly is a factor in the formula.\nThat has been the tradition in conventions over the years in\nour Presidential races. You can't ignore it. Democrats have\ndone it, Republicans have done it and I suspect it will be\na factor, not the controlling factor, but it will be a factor.\nMORE\nPage 3\nQUESTION: I know this is probably something you\ncan't tell us in some detail. You usually give a list of the\npeople that you are interested in that has been well published.\nDo you have one favorite yourself, in your bosom -- as they\nsay in the church -- who you would like as your Vice\nPresident?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I haven't decided on one person,\nMr. Herman. I have several that I think fit a very good\ncategory of the kind of people, but it is very premature to\nmake any final decision at this point.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, you have said several\ntimes on several occasions that Reagan's statements on\nPanama were irresponsible. Yet you say all that would be\nforgotten when he gets into the White House he would be\nresponsible. Are you saying that Reagan is only making\ncampaign rhetoric now and does not truly believe in the\nthings he says? You also implied there would be guerrilla\nwarfare if Reagan became President and stopped the Panama\nCanal negotiations.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Sometimes in the height of a political\ncampaign statements are made that on cool reflection candidates\nwish they hadn't said.\nOUESTION: Are you referring to yours or his?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I am referring to several that have\nbeen made by my opponent in recent weeks. Certainly if a\nperson becomes President he has to be more judicious, more\ncareful, in what. he says and how he says it and when he says it,\nand I think when you get in that Oval Office, Miss Thomas,\nit does make you far more responsible than you are when you\nare out on the political hustings.\nMORE\nPage 4\nQUESTION: You know in a recent interview you\nvolunteered -- or in answer to a question, I guess --\nsome information about your plans for alternatives to\ncourt ordered school busing. Could you explain them in\nsomewhat more detail than they were explained, as I\nread them. They seemed a little indefinite to me, or\nare they still in that stage?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I think there are three points\nwe have to make before we discuss busing.\nNumber one, this Administration will uphold all\nconstitutional rights of any individual in this country,\nincluding the rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.\nNumber two, this Administration is totally\ndedicated to quality education.\nNumber three, this Administration will carry out\nthe decisions of the Supreme Court.\nI took an oath of office to do so, and I will\ncontinue to do so.\nNow, we have found, or I believe, that court\nordered forced busing to achieve racial balance is not\nthe best way to necessarily protect individual rights\non the one hand or to achieve quality education on the\nother. Therefore, starting back in November of 1975, I\nasked the Attorney General and other members of my\nCabinet to see if we couldn't put together something that\nwould be better than the remedy that has been used by some\ndistrict courts in trying to solve the very difficult\nproblem of protecting constitutional rights and, at the\nsame time, achieving quality education.\nWithin the last two weeks the Attorney General\nhas decided not to intervene in the Boston case for good\nreasons that he, as Attorney General, decided, and I\nsupport him. On the other hand, the Attorney General\nis seeking a particular case where we can get a clarifi-\ncation or a modification of some of the previous Supreme\nCourt decisions in this very complex area.\nNow, in the interim, the Department of Justice\nhas prepared -- or is in the process of preparing --\nlegislation which I will submit to the Congress in the\nvery near future which would seek to limit the courts of\nthis country to the direction of the areas where the\nlocal school board, by its act, has violated the\nconstitutional rights of individuals -- in this case\nstudents -- and not to permit the court to go beyond\nthe instances where rights have been violated.\nMORE\nDERALD FORD LIBRARY\nPage 5\nNow, in some cases the court has taken an\nillegal act of a school board -- relatively small part of\na total school system -- and taken over the whole school\nsystem, and the court, in effect, has become the school\nboard. I think that is wrong. The Attorney General\nagrees with me.\nThe legislation that we will propose will seek\nto limit, to minimize the corrective action or the\nremedy by the court to the actual instances where there\nis a violation of a person's constitutional right. That\nwill minimize in many cases to a substantial degree the\namount of court ordered forced busing.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, the courts have already\nruled on that point, if I understand it, in 1973 in the\nDenver case.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Are you talking about the Keyes\ncase?\nQUESTION: Yes, sir. Have they not, when they\nsaid that was not a remedy? You could not just remedy\nit in a specific area rather than the whole system.\nTHE PRESIDENT: The Attorney General and his\nassociates informed me that that has not been totally\nclarified, and that is the purpose of actually seeking a\ncase where the Department of Justice can go into a\nsubsequent case and get a clarification.\nThat is why we are going to propose legislation,\nso that there is a legislative direction given to the\ncourt to make sure that we protect constitutional rights\nwhere there has been a violation and, at the same time,\npreclude the courts from becoming in effect the school\nboard in a local community.\nQUESTION: Let me ask you just a somewhat\nbroader question, and you are the attorney and I am not,\nso maybe you can explain it to me. If the courts have\nalready ruled that busing is a permissible way to achieve\nintegrated schools and they have already ruled that\nintegrated schools are a constitutional right --\nTHE PRESIDENT: A permissible remedy to correct\nan injustice.\nQUESTION: -- how can you pass a law to limit\nthat remedy if the courts have already ruled it is\nconstitutional? Don't you need a constitutional amendment?\nMORE\nPage 6\nTHE PRESIDENT: The Constitution permits the\nlegislative body to give guidelines in certain court\ncases--and according to the Attorney General he believes\nthat this proposed legislation is constitutional--it will\nsimply limit the remedy to the instance where there has\nbeen a violation of a constitutional right. According\nto him, that is constitutional.\nQUESTION: Then it is your interpretation that\nthe Keyes case did not invalidate --\nTHE PRESIDENT: As I understand it, it was a\ndictum, not a final judgment.\nQUESTION: To cut through some of the legal\nniceties which are a little hard on us, it seems to me --\nperhaps I misunderstand it -- the final impact of this\nis to leave in place all de facto school segregation\nwhich has happened without the breaking of a law?\nTHE PRESIDENT: The courts already decided that.\nQUESTION: So, that this is the direction which\nyou wish to encourage law and legislation to continue?\nTHE PRESIDENT: We would recommend, as the\ncourt has said, we correct the violations but we only\ncorrect the violations, not make a Federal district court\na local school board.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, what chance do you\nthink such legislation would have of passing, and\nwhat constitutional right is violated by being bused?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, the Congress, I think,\nwould' be responsive to some legislation of this kind\nbecause I think the public --\nQUESTION: This year?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I would hope SO. I can't\npromise it because I don't control the Congress, but I\ndo believe there is a great public sentiment for a\nlimitation or a minimization of the court in the remedies\nthat they have pursued.\nWhat was the second?\nMORE\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nPage 7\nQUESTION: The second is, what constimutional\nright is being violated by being bused?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Busing is simply a remedy to\nachieve a correction of an alleged act by a school\nboard to violate somebody else's constitutional rights.\nBusing itself is not a constitutional right, nor is it\na lack of a constitutional right. It is only a remedy.\nQUESTION: But isn't it the law of the land\nto desegregate the schools in this land?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Where there has been a specific\nviolation of a person's constitutional right. It is not\nbeyond that, and that is the real point at issue.\nQUESTION: On another subject, Mr. President --\nQUESTION: Before you change the subject, before\nyou abandon schools altogether, just to explore one further\nitem, private schools, the private white academies that\nhave been founded in parts of the South, would you leave\nthose as being perfectly legal?\nTHE PRESIDENT: That case is now before the\nSupreme Court. I think that the individual ought to have\na right to send his daughter or his son to a private\nschool if he is willing to pay whatever the cost might\nbe.\nQUESTION: But a segregated private school, if\nthat should be his choice?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I think in a private school a\nperson ought to have an individual right.\nQUESTION: What if those schools get some kind\nof Federal aid?\nTHE PRESIDENT: If they get Federal aid, Mr.\nSchieffer, that is a totally different question and I\ncertainly would not, under those circumstances, go along\nwith segregated schools, under no circumstances.\nQUESTION: That would include any kind of tax\nbreak, Federal tax break?\nTHE PRESIDENT: That is right.\nQUESTION: Would you approve of a private\nschool turning someone away on the basis of color?\nMORE\nPage 8\nTHE PRESIDENT: Individuals have rights. I\nwould hope they would not, but individuals have a right,\nwhere they are willing to make the choice themselves,\nand there are no taxpayer funds involved. Now, this is a\nmatter before the courts at the present time, and I think\nthere will be a Supreme Court decision probably in this\nterm or the next term, certainly, but individuals have a\nright where there are no Federal funds available.\nI would hope they would not, and our own\nchildren have always gone to public schools, which were\nintegrated, and they have gone to private schools where\nthey were integrated. So, my own record is onecóf our\nchildren and my own belief in integration.\nBut, I think individuals do have some rights,\nwhere they are willing to make the choice and Day the\nprice.\nQUESTION: Are you working for a Middle East\nconference this year? You said you were talking\nactively to the Israelis and other Governments to move\noff dead center the status quo. Is there a possibility\nthat there could be a Geneva conference this year?\nTHE PRESIDENT: It is not likely that there\nwould be a Geneva conference this year. I don't rule it\nout entirely, but it is not likely. We are, however --\nI am talking to the heads of Government when I see them,\nas I did with Prime Minister Rabin of Israel when he was\nhere. We are talking with foreign secretaries. We\nthink momentum has to keep going beyond the Sinai II\nagreement.\nIf we stop the momentum, the pot begins to boil\nagain, so we are trying to deal bilaterally, urging other\nnations to get together to move forward. But the prospect\nof a Geneva conference in 1976 I think is somewhat remote.\nQUESTION: Does the Syrian intervention in Lebanon\nhave your blessing?\nTHE PRESIDENT: We have objected to any foreign\nintervention in Lebanon. We don't believe that military\nintervention is the right way to solve Lebanon's political\nproblems. About eight weeks ago I sent Ambassador Dean\nBrown as my special emmissary to Lebanon, andhe was very\nhelpful in trying to bring some of the parties together,\nand I think we made a significant contribution in seeking\na political settlement without any military intervention.\nI repeat, the United States Government is opposed\nto any military intervention in Lebanon. I think it\ncould be destabilizing, even though thus far it has been\ndone with restraint.\nMORE\nPage 9\nQUESTION: Are you doing anything about it?\nTHE PRESIDENT: We have let all parties know\nthat we oppose any military intervention.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, in almost every\ncampaign speech it seems to me you say something about\nthe economy which goes along the lines that everything\nthat should be going up is going up and everything that\nshould be coming down is coming down.\nTHE PRESIDENT: That is true, and it is getting\nbetter every week.\nOUESTION: Then that gives point to my question,\nwhich is that the CBS-New York Times polls of voters have\nrepeatedly shown a very strange phenomenon. Only about\na third of the people we have queried in various States\naround the country expect their economic state to be\nbetter a year from now. The rest think it is going to be\nthe same and a very large proportion -- in some places,\nmore than half the people -- think they are going to be\nworse off in a year.\nWhat is going on?\nMORE\nPage 10\nTHE PRESIDENT: If you look at other surveys you\nfind that consumer confidence has been going up and up\nevery month or whenever --\nOUESTION: Until recently.\nTHE PRESIDENT: There was a slight drop in recent --\nI think the last week or so but for the last nine months it\nhas been going up very steadily and over the last year it has\ngone up 100 percent.\nNow, I think there was a little apprehension that\ndeveloped because we had a wholesale price index figure that\nwent up .8 percent for the month of April. But now that we\nhad the good news of Friday where the wholesale price index\nwent up .3 -- then I also saw, as you did, that we had good\nunemployment news and we added some 300,000 more to our\nemployment figures, so I believe public confidence after that\njust 30-day setback will again start climbing and if it\ncontinues, as all of us think it will, we will have a\ncontinuous process of economic growth and stability.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, could I just for a tiny\nminute get back to politics. I must say I am struck by how\nnice you are being to Ronald Reagan today. At the beginning of\nthe broadcast you talked about how you thought he would grow\nin office if somehow he wound up there at the White House.\nYou talked about how you have obviously taken note of some of\nthe statistics I cited about how many Reagan voters were\ngoing over to Carter. Would it be fair to say that you are\nnot just including him, and you are not excluding him as a\nVice Presidential possibility, but you are giving serious\nconsideration to Ronald Reagan as your running mate?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I am giving serious consideration to\nhim like I am to all of the other Republican potentials.\nI think we have to have an open mind about all of, say, 10\nto 15 individuals, including him.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, one of the last times we had\nyou on this broadcast when you were Congressman Jerry Ford we\nasked you about the Warren reports on the assassination of\nPresident Kennedy. A great deal more information has come out\nabout motives in the case of the assassination of President\nKennedy, information which was not obviously available to you\nas a member of the Warren Commission at the time. Do you\nagree with those who say that, therefore, the Warren Commission\nreport should be reopened, the thing should be restudied?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I think in the very limited area a\nreopening might be desirable. The Warren Commission did make\na massive effort to try to find a motive, and we had\nacademicians, we had lawyers, we had all kinds of people\ntrying to find out.\nQUESTION: Everything but the information --\nMORE\nFORD LIBRARY\nPage 11\nTHE PRESIDENT: And we never were able to find a\nmotive. And if there is some additional, I think,\nconstructive information available, I think it cught to be\nreopened in that very limited area.\nQUESTION: You say \"if,\" do you not think that there\nis?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I have not had an opportunity to\nexamine the detailed information and until I have personally\nexamined it I don't think I ought to pass judgment on it.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, you said repeatedly that\nyours is an open Administration, anybody can come in and talk\nto you. Has anybody come in and talked to you about getting\nrid of Secretary Kissinger as a means of improving your\nchances.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Absolutely not.\nQUESTION: Nobody in the Administration?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Nobody in this Administration has come\nto me asking that I fire Secretary Kissinger. I happen to think\nhe has done a first class job towards peace and that is the\nresponsibility of the Secretary, to carry out my foreign policy.\nIt has been successful, so I want him to stay.\nQUESTION: Thank you very much, President Ford.\nfor being our guest on Face the Nation today.\nEND\n(AT 12:15 P.M. EDT)"
}