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
7337774
label
Press Conference No. 6 of the President of the United States
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
7337774
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Press Conference No. 6 of the President of the United States
citationUrl
collections
White House Press Releases (Ford Administration)
Press Releases
subjects
Press conferences
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
7337774
levelOfDescription
item
productionDates
day
21
logicalDate
1975-01-21
month
1
year
1975
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
296724bb6bc935eb
ocrText
Digitized from Box 7 of the White House Press Releases at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
PRESS CONFERENCE NO. 6
of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
2:04 P.M. EST
January 21, 1975
Tuesday
In Room 450
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D. C.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you do. Sit down, please.
Before getting into questions, I would like to
take a few moments to briefly review with you several
critical energy issues.
The energy decisions which I announced as a
part of my State of the Union address resulted from the
most comprehensive review this Nation has ever had of
our energy problems. This study demonstrated that there
are only three basic alternatives, the first to continue
doing what we have been doing.
I have rejected this because if we do continue,
we will be importing 25 percent more oil by 1977. By.
1985 we will be dependent on foreign sources for more
than half of our oil. This would subject the economy of
the United States to very serious disruption if these
supplies were once again curtailed.
The embargo of 1973 occurred during a period
when a little more than one-third of oil came from foreign
sources. The disruptionswe suffered then were just a
small taste of what would likely happen in the event
of a future embargo when we would be far more vulnerable.
Some have suggested rationing as the second
alternative. I can understand why many in Congress and
elsewhere are attempting to find a solution which does
not entail sacrifice and hardship, but there is no easy
solution, and I never promised one.
I believe that those who propose rationing do
not have a clear understanding of what their plan would
entail for the American people. Many of us, of course,
remember rationing during World War II.
MORE
Page 2
I have no doubt that this Nation is capable
of sustaining a rationing program during a short
emergency. However, to really curb demand, we would have
to embark on a long-range rationing program of more
than five years.
Those favoring rationing must be thinking of a
short-term program, not a serious long-term effort to
end energy dependency.
Further, there is no simple way to reach our
goals by rationing. Rationing provides no stimulus to
increase domestic petroleum supply or accelerate alter-
native energy sources. By concentrating exclusively on
gasoline rationing, many other areas for energy conser-
vation are overlooked.
MORE
Page 3
In addition to being ineffective, gas rationing
is inequitable. Even a rationing system that is designed
with the best motives in mind and implemented by the most
conscientious administrators would not be fair.
If you were to go around the country and ask
individuals what they should get under a fair rationing
system, you would find that there would be simply not enough
gasoline to go around. In fact, to reach our 1975 goal of
reducing foreign oil imports by one million barrels per
day, a gas rationing system would limit each driver to
less than nine gallons a week.
Inequities would be everywhere. How would people
in remote areas of the country get enough gas to drive
into town? How would farmers get enough gas to harvest
their crops? What would happen to people who must drive
a long way to work each day and who would make those decisions?
It is essential that we recognize the size of
the problem which we are attempting to solve. As a
consequence, we must evaluate each energy program to see
whether in fact it actually confronts and solves the problem.
It does us little good to impose rationing or a gasoline
tax or simply shut down gasoline stations on Sunday. These
will not give us energy independence.
The alternative I have chosen relies on freedom
of individual choice -- giving people and businesses an
incentive to save energy. This is the only way to achieve
our energy goals.
A need for action is obvious. Therefore, later this
week, I will sign a Presidential Proclamation which will
set in motion the most important and far-reaching energy
conservation program in our Nation's history. It is the
first step toward regaining our energy freedom. We must
reverse our increasing dependency on imported oil. It
seriously threatens our national security and the very
existence of our freedom and leadership in the free world.
The Proclamation is designed to impose higher
fees on imported oil which are equitable and fair. For
example, it will contain special provisions to avoid undue
hardships on certain regions of the country, such as the
Northeast, which are heavily dependent upon high cost foreign
oil.
On Thursday, I will meet with the Governors of the
Northeast States on their special problems. It is absolutely
critical that Congress act quickly on my energy proposals.
The increased revenues which the Government will collect
from energy taxes must be returned to consumers and businesses
through my proposed tax cut. To insure speedy enactment
of the program, I will, of course, work with the Congress. I
will not sit by and watch the Nation continue to talk about
an energy crisis and do nothing about it. Nor will I take
halfway measures which fail to change the direction that
has put our Nation in this position.
MORE
Page 4
We have the resources in this country, the
technological capability and the spirit to regain our
energy independence. I will, of course, use all of my
powers as President to make certain that we succeed.
Mr. Cormier, please.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you just said that you are
willing to work with the Congress on this package. HOW
flexible are you in compromising with those Democrats who
argue that your tax plan plus the higher gas, crude oil
levies bear most heavily on the poor?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have submitted a tax
rebate program that is aimed at getting money back into
the hands of individuals to the extent of $12 billion-plus
as quickly as possible, with a cap on the 12 percent rebate.
The cap being a $1,000. We think this is fair and equitable,
particularly, when you combine it with the method of returning
the $19 billion to individual taxpayers under the energy
program.
The two, in my judgment, do provide equity in
that we increase the low income allowance, and we try to
equalize the burden on the less well off. At the same time,
giving the people in the middle income brackets a fair share.
Now, that is our proposal.
Of course, the Congress will have witnesses, they
will act independently, but I think, if they take a good look
at our program, they will see that it is well-balanced,
giving the poor a fair break, giving the people in the middle
income a fair opportunity to get their funds. And I hope
the Congress won't make too many changes in it.
Miss Thomas.
QUESTION: On recent occasions, several times you
have warned of the serious possibility of another war in the
Middle East. Why, then, is the United States contributing so
heavily to the military build-up there, and I have a follow-up?
THE PRESIDENT: The United States does feel that
the danger of war in the Middle East is very serious. I have
said it repeatedly, and I say it again here today. But in
order to avoid that, we are maximizing our diplomatic efforts
with Israel as well as with several Arab states.
In order to maintain the internal security of the
various countries, in order to maintain equilibrium in arms
capability, one nation against the other, we are supplying
some arms to various states in that region. I think, while
we negotiate, or while we expand our diplomatic efforts, it
is important to maintain a certain degree of military
capability on all sides.
MORE
Page 5
QUESTION: Mr. President, both you and Secretary
Kissinger have said that in case of strangulation of the
West by the oil producers you would use military force,
and you were hypothetically speaking. I think on that
same basis the American people would like to know whether
you would require a Congressional declaration of war or
whether you would bypass that Constitutional process, as
some of your predecessors have done?
THE PRESIDENT: I can assure you that on any occasion
where there was any commitment of U.S. military personnel
to any engagement we would use the complete Constitutional
process that is required of the President.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I believe I have
detected the subtle thunder of politics interwoven among
the bid by Washington officials to come up with a program
for the Nation's energy and the economy. My question
goes to you, sir.
Do you feel that your political future is tied
directly to turning the economy around and, more
specifically, can a man be elected to your office when
polls show that a large majority of the public does not
have confidence in his handling of the economy?
THE PRESIDENT: I think any President or any
candidate for the Presidency is affected by the status of
the economy. In my judgment, the program I have submitted
both to answer the energy problem and to meet the difficulties
we are having in the economy today will be reflected in a
definite improvement in our economy in the months ahead.
The plan for energy, if approved by the Congress,
will get us on the road to meet our difficulties in the
field of energy. It will make us less vulnerable to
outside or foreign sources.
I am convinced both programs are sound. We
may be at a low point now, but I am convinced that the
months ahead will prove that we were right and that
political prospects, if they are affected by that,
will likewise be improved.
QUESTION: Mr. President, are there circumstances
in which the U.S. might actively re-enter the Vietnam war?
THE PRESIDENT: I cannot foresee any at the moment.
MORE
Page 6
QUESTION: Are you ruling out the possibility
of bombing, U.S. bombing over there, or naval action?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think it is appropriate
for me to forecast any specific actions that might be
taken. I would simply say that any military actions,
if taken, would be only taken following the actions under
our Constitutional and legal procedures.
QUESTION: Mr. President, some critics of your
energy and tax proposals say that it looks like a
"made in Detroit" plan, and that it is more an effort
to rescue or revive the auto industry in that it does
not attack the horsepower and weight of automobiles and
the gas-guzzling machines.
I would like to ask you whether you considered
these options and if so, why you rejected them.
THE PRESIDENT: I can assure you, Mr. Lisagor,
we considered every option, including the options that
some are talking about, gas rationing, closing gas
stations on Sunday and things of that nature, but we did
not think any of those proposals were the right solution.
Let me just take one that you mentioned -- a tax
on new automobiles, I assume, that had a high horsepower.
I really do not think that is any solution
because automobiles in that category are not the ones
that are bought by most people. So, the impact really
would be minimal.
All of these little pieces that people talk
about are not a part of a comprehensive plan, the kind of
a program that I have submitted to the Congress and to
the American people.
Until someone comes up with a total plan,
such as we have come up with, I think it is unfortunate
to have this rather limited criticism.
MORE
Page 7
QUESTION: Would your plan come apart if any piece
of it were not approved by the Congress?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is so comprehensive that
one piece not being implemented would not bring about its
downfall. But I can assure you that it is so well integrated
that every piece is essential if we are to achieve the
maximum results, which is no vulnerability against foreign
sources of energy after 1985.
QUESTION: Mr. President, in recent days the Democratic
Caucus seems to have emerged as the power up in the House. How
can you, as a President, deal with the Caucus instead of the
more traditional power base such as Speaker, Minority Leader,
committee chairmen?
THE PRESIDENT: I know and have worked with many
of the new forces that have emerged in the House of Representa-
tives on the Democratic side. I will, of course, concentrate
my working relationship with the Speaker and with the Majority
Leader and the other elected leaders, but I will also, of
course, be required to work with the committee chairmen,
whoever they may be. We will have to be very pragmatic as we
try to get our legislation through and that means working
with the Majority from the top to the most junior Member.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I would like to follow
up on Helen Thomas's question. There has been considerable
discussion, as you know, about this question of military
intervention in the Middle East and you and others have said
it might be considered if the West's economies were strangled.
Mr. President, as you know, the charter of the United Nation.
says that all members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat of the use of force against a
territorial integrity or political independence of any
state.
Now, Mr. President, I would like to know whether
this section of the charter of the United Nations was
considered, taken under consideration before these statements
were made by members of the Administration and, if not, why not?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the hypothetical question
which was put to Secretary Kissinger, a hypothetical
question of the most extreme kind, I think called for
the answer that the Secretary gave and I fully endorse that
answer.
I can't tell you whether Secretary Kissinger
considered that part of the United Nations' charter at the
time he made that comment, but if a country is being
strangled, and I use "strangled" in the sense of the
hypothetical question, that, in effect, means that a country
has the right to protect itself against death.
MORE
Page 8
QUESTION: Mr. President, would a new oil embargo
be considered strangulation?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly none comparable to
the one in 1973.
QUESTION: Mr. President, your fiscal austerity
program, because of that, will you have to abandon plans
for national health insurance?
THE PRESIDENT: Unfortunately, the "no new program
guideline" that I laid down does mean the deferral of any
recommendation by me of a national health insurance
program.
Yes?
QUESTION: Mr. President, when you were Minority
Leader of the House, would you not have been horrified
by a President who proposed -- who predicted a $30 billion
deficit and then proposed a big tax cut on top of it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I am horrified as President
(Laughter). But unfortunately, because of the economic
problems we have, the recession, our revenues have dropped
very substantially and because of the recession, we have
had to pay out substantially more in unemployment compensa-
tion and for the Public Service Employment Act, and the
net result is that we were looking at a $30 billion-plus deficit,
whether we did anything.
And in order to stimulate the economy and to pro-
vide jobs and to get money back into the hands of the American
people, I felt that in these extenuating circumstances that a tax
reduction or rebate was absolutely essential and I believe
that it is the right medicine for our current illness. And
I think if we had done nothing, the patient would have been
in much worse condition.
MORE
Page 9
QUESTION: Mr. President, does the state of the
American economy permit additional military and economic
aid to Vietnam or Cambodia?
THE PRESIDENT: I believe it does. When the budget
was submitted for fiscal 1975, in January of 1974, the request
was for $1.4 billion for military assistance. The Congress
cut that to $700 million.
The request that I will submit for military
assistance in a supplemental will be $300 million. I think
it is a proper action by us to help a nation and a people
prevent aggression in violation of the Paris accord.
QUESTION: The deadline for draft deserters and
draft dodgers is about to run out to apply for your amnesty
program. I was just wondering, are you considering extending
that deadline or will it die?
THE PRESIDENT: I am in the process right now of
analyzing whether there should be an extension of the
amnesty program beyond the January 31 deadline. I have
not made a final decision on that at this point.
QUESTION: Could you bring us up-to-date with an
evaluation of the state of detente with the Soviet Union
in the light of what happened to the trade agreement?
THE PRESIDENT: It is my judgment that the detente
with the Soviet Union will be continued, broadened, expanded.
I think that is in our interest, and I think it is in the
interest of the Soviet Union.
I, of course, was disappointed that the trade
agreement was canceled, but it is my judgment that we can
continue to work with the Soviet Union to expand trade
regardless. And I would hope that we could work with the
Congress to eliminate any of the problems in the trade bill
that might have precipitated the action by the Soviet Union.
QUESTION: Mr. President, would you consider
gasoline rationing if that was the choice you were given
by Congress and they rejected your plan for increased taxes?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is the obligation of
the Congress, if they favor gas rationing, to make it
mandatory. I do not approve of it because I think it is
the wrong solution to the problem.
MORE
Page 10
Gas rationing, as I indicated, does not provide
any stimulant whatsoever for alternative sources of energy.
It would not provide us any of the wherewithal to find new
sources of energy, whether it is solar, geothermal -- it
would not provide us any capability of further exploration
of crude oil.
I think gas rationing would provide many inequities.
As I illustrated in my opening statement, in my judgment, gas
rationing would provide an inflexible answer to a problem
that has to be solved by some new initiatives, and a five
year to ten year gas rationing program, which is what it
would have to be, would hamstring rather than help our
solution.
QUESTION: If requested by Congress, would you
consider postponing, for a time -- 90 days perhaps -- your
plan to increase the tariff on imported oil?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is important for the
Congress to understand, in the solution of the energy program,
that we should move forward and not take a backward step.
If we were to postpone the imposition of the $1
extra per barrel on imported oil, it would start the momentum
going against the cutback of one million barrels per day in
foreign oil imports, and the sooner we start that, the better
it will De in the conservation of energy, which is essential
to our present and future well-being.
MORE
Page 11
QUESTION: Mr. President, a two-part, follow-up
on Vietnam.
What is your assessment of the military
situation there, and are you considering any additional
measures beyond a supplemental of assistance to the
South Vietnamese government.
THE PRESIDENT: The North Vietnamese have
infiltrated with substantial military personnel and
many, many weapons in violation of the Paris accords. They
are attacking in many instances major metropolitan areas
and province capitals.
The South Vietnamese are fighting as skillfully
and with firmness against this attack by the North Viet-
namese. I think it is essential for their morale as
well as for their security that we proceed with the
supplemental that I am recommending, which will be
submitted either this week or next week.
Now, I am not anticipating any further action
beyond that supplemental at this time.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you have painted a
pretty bleak picture of the economy. Just what can the
American people expect in the months ahead, how high will
unemployment go and how soon will your medicine start
taking hold?
THE PRESIDENT: You can get a variety of answers
as to how high unemployment will go, but you can take
one figure of 7.5 percent, some say over 8 percent. Either
figure is too high and my program, if implemented by the
Congress, will remedy the situation.
Now, it seems to me that by the late summer we
ought to see a turnaround both as to economic activity,
and I hope a betterment in the unemployment figures.
QUESTION: Mr. President, in your State of the
Union Message, you urged Congress not to restrict your
ability to conduct foreign policy. Did you have in mind
Senator Jackson's amendment on the emigration of Soviet
Jews, and do you consider this to be an example of meddling
by Congress in foreign policy?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't wish to get in any
dispute with Members of Congress. I think that such
restrictive amendments as the one that was imposed on
the trade bill and the Ex-Im bank legislation and the
limitation that was imposed on several pieces of legis-
lation involving the continuation of military aid to
Turkey, those kinds of limitations, in my judgment, are
harmful to a President in the execution and implementation
of foreign policy?
MORE
Page 12
I don't think that I should speculate as
to what actually precipitated the action of the Soviet
Union in the cancellation of the trade agreement.
QUESTION: Mr. President, in an earlier
Vietnam question you left open the option for yourself
of possibly asking Congress for the authority to
engage in bombing or naval action in the future.
In light of the lengthy involvement by the
United States in Vietnam and the pains that created,
can you say now whether or not there are any circum-
stances under which you might foresee yourself doing
that, or would you care to rule out that possibility?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think it is appropriate
for me to speculate on a matter of that kind.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you have proposed a
5 percent ceiling on the automatic cost of living
increase attached to Social Security and your Adminis-
tration has, in addition, proposed an increase in the
amount of money that the elderly poor must pay for food
stamps.
Do you stick by both of those conditions? What
do you say to those who argue that the elderly poor are
being asked to assume an unfair burden of the hardships
and sacrifices?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is proper to indicate
that I am not requesting Congress to keep the Social
Security payments at the present level. I am saying that
in order to have a total effort in this country, to
combat inflation and to help the economy, that there
should be a 5 percent increase, but no more.
I think that is a fair recommendation under
the circumstances, and I would say that the requirement --
that requires that people who want food stamps pay
30 percent of their income -- is also a proper requirement.
MORE
Page 13
QUESTION: Mr. President, in view of the rapport
you seem to have established with Mr. Brezhnev in Vladivostok,
can you shed any light on the conflicting reports about
his current political and personal health?
Specifically, have you had any direct contact
with him since your trip?
THE PRESIDENT: I have not had any direct contact.
We have communicated on several occasions but we n have had
no personal or direct contact.
QUESTION: Mr. President, can we assume by your
comments here, an objection to gas rationing, that you would
veto a gas rationing program if it were to come to the White
House for you to sign?
THE PRESIDENT: I have said that I would not hesitate
to veto any additional spending programs or new programs that
would cause new spending. I have pretty well outlined the
objections which I think are valid against any gas rationing
program.
Now, if the Congress wants to require mandatory
gas rationing, that is a judgment they can make, as bad
as I think it would be, and a program of that kind that was
a superficial answer, in my judgment, I would veto.
QUESTION: Mr. President, as we all know, the State
of the Union says that the price of fuel oil in this
country is so great now that people cannot pay it. They
are telling their Congressmen this. You propose to put
an additional price on that on February 1st and then give
them back, as an offset, a rebate in tax in May and
September. How are the people going to pay these fuel
bills in the meantime?
THE PRESIDENT: I think you have not analyzed the
energy tax reduction in full. The money that would go back
to individuals -- $19 billion -- because of added energy
costs, would go back to them through the change in the with-
holding tax, and to the poorest, an $80 payment per person,
any individual who was an adult.
So, I think the payback or the reduction in taxes
would coincide with any added energy payments they would
have to make.
QUESTION: Mr. President, the figures show that last
year the United States had an inflation of 12.2 percent -- the
highest in peacetime history. You have expressed in the
State of the Union, and elsewhere, your fear that your
programs for stimulating the economy may bring back a new
surge of inflation in future months. Under those circumstances,
don't you think it would be prudent to ask Congress for standby
authority for wage and price controls and some restraint on
profit margins if this happens?
MORE
Page 14
THE PRESIDENT: I do not believe in the economic
environment we are in today that standby price and wage
controls are the right remedy. I do not think that any
profit control is a proper remedy, either.
The free economy over the years has proven to be
the best answer and our experiences in the last several
years with wage and price control has been not a very
good one. So, I personally think, in the current cir-
cumstances, that we should not have standby or mandatory
price and wage controls.
QUESTION: In that event, Mr. President, have
you and your advisers been concerned, or had any anxiety
that this cycle of inflation and recession -- inflation
and recession -- this dreary cycle really, will just
continue year after year and at some point one or the other
of them will get completely out of control.
THE PRESIDENT: My economic program is aimed at
stimulating the economy sufficiently to get us over the
immediate recession we are in at the present time. And
I believe if the Congress will take the actions that I
have recommended to slow down the growth of spending and
at the same time, pass the energy program that I have
recommended, we can continue to make headway against
inflation and at the same time, get over the hump of our
current recession.
MORE
Page 15
QUESTION: Mr. President, you are now approaching
six months in office. Could you tell us a little bit
about how you like the job, about your personal
philosophy towards it?
THE PRESIDENT: I think I have said several
times that I enjoy the challenge of the job. It is not
an easy one, but I enjoy the day-to-day responsibilities,
challenges. I work hard at it. I try to have an open
door policy to Members of Congress, to the public and
to the Administration members individually, as well as
collectively.
I feel we are making headway and we can and
will make more headway if the Congress will work with
me on some of these problems.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I would like to ask
you, please, in view of the lack of confidence which has
been expressed in the economy to date, what makes you
think that your proposal for tax rebates would provide
any real stimulus to buying power so the public would
spend its way out of a recession?
What makes you think it won't all be eaten up in
higher fuel taxes and the rest will be put in the bank
for lack of public confidence?
THE PRESIDENT: The $12 billion tax rebate
predicated on 1974 income taxes, if the Congress acts
promptly so we can make the first payment in May, will
provide a stimulant and the tax refunds, or tax
reductions that will be predicated on the energy
package, will also, in my opinion, be helpful as far as
the economy is concerned.
Now, I can't tell you how people are going to
either spend or save the money that they will get in
the rebate, but, if they spend it, that is good. If
they save it, that might be helpful, too, because it will
go into a bank or savings and loan and it will provide
funds for the housing market, for the sale of automobiles.
In either case, I think there will be benefits
and advantages to the rebate.
THE PRESS: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. It is nice
to be here. We will do it more often now.
END
(AT 2:42 P.M. EST)