Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "7340683",
    "label": "Interview of the President by Arthur Albert, Executive News Director, WJAR-TV; Sarah Wye, Correspondent, WJAR-TV; and Jack Cavenaugh, Correspondent, WJAR-TV [Ford Speech or Statement]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7340683"
}

{
    "id": "7340683",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7340683",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Interview of the President by Arthur Albert, Executive News Director, WJAR-TV; Sarah Wye, Correspondent, WJAR-TV; and Jack Cavenaugh, Correspondent, WJAR-TV [Ford Speech or Statement]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7340683",
    "collections": [
        "White House Press Releases (Ford Administration)",
        "Press Releases"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/83/3406/7340683/content/library/document/0248/whpr19750830-017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/83/3406/7340683/content/library/document/0248/whpr19750830-017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/83/3406/7340683/content/library/document/0248/whpr19750830-017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7340683",
    "naId": 7340683,
    "levelOfDescription": "item",
    "productionDates": [
        {
            "day": 30,
            "logicalDate": "1975-08-30",
            "month": 8,
            "year": 1975
        }
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/83/3406/7340683/content/library/document/0248/whpr19750830-017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "5076617598c62b91",
    "ocrText": "Digitized from Box 15 of the White House Press Releases at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nAUGUST 30, 1975\nOFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY\n(Newport, Rhode Island)\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nINTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT\nBY\nARTHUR ALBERT\nEXECUTIVE NEWS DIRECTOR, WJAR-TV\nSARAH WYE\nCORRESPONDENT, WJAR-TV\nAND\nJACK CAVENAUGH\nCORRESPONDENT, WJAR-TV\nSHERATON-ISLANDER INN\n6:00 P.M. EDT\nQUESTION: We have a weekly public affairs\nprogram we at WJAR normally call a news conference.\nBecause of the stature of our guest, we have\nexpanded the format and produced this special edition,\nwhich is being shared with 12 television stations through-\nout New England. All of you are most welcome.\nOur guest is President Gerald Ford, who\npromised when he came into office a year ago to bring new\nopenness and accessibility to the White House. His\nparticipation in this unusual sort of regional format\nindicates he is making that effort.\nMr. President, welcome.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Thank you. It is a pleasure\nto be on the program, Sarah.\nQUESTION: Asking questions along with me\ntonight will be Jack Cavenaugh, on the WJAR-TV staff\nand Arthur Albert, News Director of WJAR radio and TV.\nI think one of the subjects you will be hearing a\nlot about in this discussion in the next half hour is energy.\nObviously, it is very heavy on the minds of the people through-\nout the country. Until Friday, we were braced for a massive\nincrease in domestic crude oil because of your decision\nto veto the Congressional extension of price controls.\nYou have since changed your mind about decontrol,\nand you are suggesting perhaps a 60-day extension and\ngradual decontrol. What went into the decision to change\nyour mind?\nMORE\nPage 2\nTHE PRESIDENT: I think first, Sarah, you have\nto understand that the United States, our country, has\na serious energy crisis. Actually, the energy crisis\nin New England is more serious than it is in any other\npart of the country, primarily because New England is\nmore dependent on foreign oil than any other part of the\nUnited States.\nSo, unless we solve the energy problem for the\nUnited States, and unless we make ourselves more free of\nforeign oil imports, New England is going to be in more and\nmore trouble.\nIn January, I submitted to the Congress a compre-\nhensive energy program for a ten-year period, and we made\nsome exceptions as far as New England was concerned,\nrecognizing the vulnerability of New England.\nI had hoped that the Congress would act on a\ncomprehensive plan, either the one I submitted or one\nthey might put together.\nUnfortunately, Congress has not acted, so after\nattempting to decontrol on a phased basis on two occasions--\none over a 30-month period with an increase in old oil, so\nto speak, at a rate of about 3 percent per month--the\nCongress turned that down.\nI made another effort of compromise and concil-\niation, making it a 39-month phased decontrol program.\nThe Congress turned that down.\nUnder those circumstances, I had no alternative\nbut to say unless you act, we are going to decontrol all\nold oil, all domestic old oil. I think at least the\nleadership in the Congress -- Senator Mansfield and Speaker\nAlbert -- recognized that was not the right answer.\nWe had a meeting on Friday, and I said that I\nwould hold off the veto until they could get their troops\ntogether and come up and agree to the phased program that\nI submitted about a month ago.\nQUESTION: What you are saying is you never were\nin favor of intermediate and secondary control?\nMORE\nPage 3\nTHE PRESIDENT: No, I proposed two examples of phased\ndecontrol, one a 30-month and another 39, but Congress turned\nboth down. In order to try to avoid an abrupt end, I agreed\nto resubmit a 39-month phased decontrol program and, hopefully,\nthe majority party leadership will be able to work with the\nRepublicans in the House and get a phased program over a\n39-month period.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, the controls have to come\noff eventually but New England will have to bear the brunt\nof those controls because we have such problems with energy,\nbecause our economy is in such bad shape right now. What do\nyou say to people who are unemployed here who have to bear up\nunder this energy crisis? Or is the Federal Government\ngoing to make any kind of specific commitments to New England\nto help us get out of this situation?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Over the last three or four months\nI have made exceptions as far as New England is concerned.\nIn the first imposition of the import levy, it had\nno effect on New England, it had an effect on the rest of the\nUnited States. When I put the second dollar on to try to\nprod Congress to do something, the second dollar only\naffected New England, I think, to 60 cents a barrel. So I\ntried to recognize the needs, the problems that exist in\nNew England. As I said at the outset, New England has a\ngreater need for a comprehensive solution to the energy problem\nthan any other part of the United States.\nSo what I have tried to do is to make exceptions for\nNew England and at the same time get the Congress moving to\nenact an energy program that would solve the problem not only\nin the short haul but the long pull. Now, in the interim\nwhile we had this unfortunate unemployment and we do have more\nunemployment not only in New England but elsewhere than I\ncertainly want, we have done a number of things. For example,\nwe have extended the unemployment payments from 39 weeks to\n65 weeks. We have broadened the coverage so that 12 million\nmore people are covered under unemployment. I recommended,\nand the Congress approved, about $450 million for the Summer\nYouth Program so that young people this past summer would be\ngainfully employed.\nWe have done a great deal with what they call\npublic service employment. I recommended about $2 billion\nfor that program and I was talking to the Mayor of Providence\ntoday and he says it has been a very helpful program.\nWe have also tried to expedite some public works projects.\nI made available a $2 billion allocation for highway con-\nstruction which has been made available in many, many\nStates and I presume here in Rhode Island.\nMORE\nPage 4\nWe have, for example, been trying to get some\nlocal projects going. I talked to the Mayor of Providence\ntoday coming down here about a $32 million Federal building\nin the City of Providence. I am going to give it some\npersonal attention. when I get back to Washington. I think\nthat kind of project would be very helpful. So\nwe try\nto push forward for an energy program, which is what we need\nover the long haul, we are trying to take care of individual\ngeographical problems.\nQUESTION: And yet, while we are working on it,\nthe unemployment rate in this State here is about 16 percent,\n12 percent in Massachusetts, 11 percent throughout New England.\nIs it possible for the Federal Government to redirect some of\nits major installations, relocate them, transfer them,\ncreate new ones here? After 1972 when military bases were closed\nin Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the economies were hurt\nvery, very hard.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Of course I am deeply concerned\nabout the unemployment problem not only in Massachusetts but\nthe 48 other States. But we have to try to rebuild the economy\nfrom an inflation-ridden economy from a year ago to one that\nis solidly based so that over the next few months when we\nget better employment -- as we are at the present time over-\nall -- we are not going to have a reigniting of inflation\nlike we had a year ago.\nSo we will do all we can through public works,\nthrough unemployment insurance, through public service\nemployment, summer youth employment, in order to meet the\nunique circumstances of a particular State. But the basic\nway to solve our unemployment, whether it is Rhode Island\nor 49 other States, is to get a healthy private sector economy.\nAnd we can do that through some tax proposals that I have\nrecommended and some of the other legislation which we will\nbe submitting shortly.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, Andrew Brimmer, who\nused to be a Governor of the Federal Reserve and who is\na fiscal conservative, said -- I think he disagreed with you.\nHe said that next year, thanks to the Project Independence,\nyour energy policy, thanks to grain sales, there will be\nsix to seven percent inflation but he says there is no chance\nreally that excess demand will push the inflation higher.\nAnd he says now you can do it, now you can lower interest\nrates, now you can provide jobs by encouraging the economy\nwithout the danger or inflation. Have you considered that\nand talked about that with Dr. Burns?\nMORE\nPage 5\nTHE PRESIDENT: Of course, I am sure you\nrecognize I don't control interest rates. Those are\nbasically controlled by several factors; one, the\nFederal Reserve Board.\nI have talked to Mr. Arthur Burns, and we have\nwhat I think are appropriate as well as private conver-\nsations. He is cognizant of the needs of an adequate\nsupply of money, and he is very cognizant of the problem\nof higher interest rates.\nAt the same time, I think you have to recognize\nthat if the Federal deficit goes beyond my $60 billion\ndeficit -- and unfortunately, the Congress is spending\nmore money than I think they should -- that will contribute\nsignificantly to higher interest rates and a shorter supply\nof money available in the private sector.\nSo, we have to control the Federal deficit. $60\nbillion is too darned big a deficit, but the Congress\nis continuously pressing to make it bigger.\nNow, we are going to hold the deficit as low as\nwe can, and we are hopefully expecting cooperation, and\nI think we will get it from the Federal Reserve Board.\nI respectfully disagree with Mr. Brimmer if\nhe alleged that the grain sales to the Soviet Union are\na significant factor in inflation. I respectfully dis-\nagree with him. Does he want us to put out that grain in\nstorage and pay $1 million a day in storage charges, as\nwe did in the sixties? I don't think that is a very\nsatisfactory answer.\nQUESTION: I think he did say that energy was\nthe main component, but following up on your answer, I\nhave been talking to people around New England in antici-\npation of your visit, and I keep coming up with that old\nfolk saying: \"Democrats get us into wars, Republicans\ninto depressions.\" That, of course, may be oversimplified,\nbut previous Administrations and your Administration have\nchosen to fight inflation first and unemployment second.\nI am just wondering when will the time come\nto switch so that this recovery, which seems as if it is\non the horizon, will recover in a hurry rather than just\nstumble along?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I would say that the recovery\nis doing better, and we are coming out of it more quickly\nnow than some people anticipated. For the fifth month\nin a row, as I recollect, overall indicators show that we\nare making headway. We are seeing higher housing starts.\nMORE\nPage 6\nWe are seeing better retail sales. We are\nmaking some headway, except for the last month, in\ninflation, and I think that was an unusual example, and\nwe are optimistic in the future.\nOne thing I would like to point out is I think\nit is important to talk about some affirmative things. In\nthe last five months, we have had one million two hundred\nthousand more people gainfully employed in this country.\nWe now have over 85 million people gainfully employed.\nWe have too many unemployed, but more and more\npeople are being employed and the indications are that\nthat will be a continuing trend.\nSo, we have to win the battle against inflation.\nIf we let the problems of inflation reoccur, every knowledge-\nable economist that I have talked to says, if you went back\nup to 10 or 12 percent inflation, in 12 to 18 to 24 months\nwe would be in a far worse recession than we are at the\npresent time.\nSo, it is a very narrow line that we are trying\nto follow: To win the battle against inflation on the one\nhand and at the same time provide more job opportunities,\nand I think we are being reasonably successful.\nAs Jack said over here, New England, or at\nleast Rhode Island, has some unique problems, and we are\ngoing to work on it, as I indicated.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, let's return briefly\nto energy. We have dealt with domestic crude oil by saying\nthe approach now is to decontrolling domestic oil prices.\nThe OPEC countries, the oil producing countries, will be\nmeeting to decide soon what price increases they will\nask by October 1.\nIt is widely rumored in the oil industry that\nyou have let it be known that an 8 percent increase in\nforeign oil prices would be acceptable to you. Is that\ntrue?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I am not familiar with that\nstatement. A lot of statements are attributed to me. I\nhave a pretty good memory, and I don't know where that\nstatement came from.\nMORE\nPage 7\nQUESTION: What are you looking for from the oil\nproducing countries?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Let me put it this way, Sarah,\nif the Congress had passed early this year the comprehensive\nenergy program that I recommended, we would be in a lot better\nposition to meet the challenge of any OPEC oil price increase.\nUnfortunately, nothing has been done legislatively so we\nare now more vulnerable today than we would have been\notherwise.\nI have said that, as far as I am concerned we will\ndo everything we can to defeat any OPEC oil price increase.\nUnfortunately, without an energy program, we don't have\nmany tools to do that with.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, schools open very soon\naround the country and in New England. And in Boston and\nSpringfield, Massachusetts that means forced busing for de-\nsegregation. You have had a position on busing before. Can\nyou take a minute and clarify your position on busing? What\nis your position on busing?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Before I say anything about what my\nown personal views are, I want to say most emphatically that\nI, as President and all that serve with me in the Federal\nGovernment, will enforce the law, no question about that.\nWe will, to the extent necessary, make sure that\nany court order is enforced.\nNow I add one thing that I hope is understood.\nWe don't want any conflict developing in Boston or any of\nthese other communities that have court orders forcing busing\non local school systems. So I have sent up the the Attorney\nGeneral, and the community relations experts -- they have four\nor five people up there that are working with the court, with\nthe school boards and with parents and with others. At the\nsame time the new Secretary of HEW, David Mathews, has sent up\nhis top man to work with the school system. And that\nindividual, Dr. Goldberg, has authority to spend extra\nFederal funds to try and improve the situation in Boston.\nNow, having said the law is going to be enforced,\nthat we are going to try and moderate and work with the\npeople in Boston, I will give you my views on what we are\ntrying to do.\nMORE\nPage 8\nThe basic thing that everyone is trying to do is to\nprovide quality education. there is a difference of opinion\non how you achieve quality education. My personal view is\nthat forced busing by courts is not the way to achieve quality\neducation. I think there is a better way.\nWe have had court order forced busing in a number of\ncommunities. There are studies that indicate that it has not\nprovided quality education to the young people, which is of\npersonal concern.\nI think there is a better way to do it. In my\njudgment, if the courts would follow a law that was passed,\nI think, two years ago, maybe two and a half years ago, it\nsaid that in those areas where you have a problem in seeking\ndesegregation, the court should follow five or six rules.\nBusing was the last option.\nThere were five other proposals that courts could have\nfollowed and I think we would have avoided a lot of this\nconflict. That is one way I think we could have solved this\nproblem. The other is the utilization of Federal funds to\nupgrade school buildings, provide better teacher-pupil ratios,\nto provide better equipment, that is the way, in my opinion,\nwe achieve what we all want, which is quality education.\nI just don't think court order, forced busing, is the\nway to achieve quality education. I think there is a better way.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, if I may follow up on\nthat, you have come up with an alternative but it would seem\nthat because we were afraid of inflation, you have vetoed\nbills for more aid to education, you have vetoed bills for\nmore public service jobs, so are you prepared, you know,\nto turn around on that?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Arthur, let me just clarify\nsomething. The appropriation bill concerning public service\nemployment that you say I vetoed, let me give you the\nhistory of it so the matter is clarified. I recommended\n$1,900,000,000, $450 million for summer youth employment and\nthe remainder -- which is roughly a billion and a half --\nfor public service employment. The Congress loaded it up\nwith $3 billion in non-essential spending. Sure, I vetoed\nit. When the Congress saw that the veto was sustained\nthey came back and virtually approved what I sent up there in\nthe first place.\nSo we had $2 billion in summer youth employment\nmoney and we had public service employment money.\nNow, the education bill, the education bill that I\nsubmitted in January for the budget that started July 1 had\nmore money in it for education than any other year in recent\nyears. We increased it over previous years. Again, the\nCongress loaded it up with some programs that I think can't be\njustified if you are going to have any fiscal responsibility.\nI hope the Congress sustains that veto, because there is a lot\nof non-essential spending in it. Now, having vetoed that bill,\nthere was nothing in there, in that proposal Congress had, to do\nanything more in desegregation cases than I recommended. So\nthat is a moot issue as far as the Boston case is concerned.\nMORE\nPage 9\nQUESTION: Can I move you along to another\narea completely, and that is fishing, which is of some\nimportance to the New England States. Our fishing\nindustry is dying, and it would appear that foreign\nfleets, modern fleets, are perhaps wiping out fish for\na long time, perhaps forever.\nThe Senate has passed the 200 mile limit bill,\nand the House probably will, too. Will you sign it?\nTHE PRESIDENT: If my recollection is accurate,\nin this session of the Congress the Senate has not acted.\nI think they acted last year.\nQUESTION: Right.\nTHE PRESIDENT: The House committee has acted,\nand it will be on the House agenda shortly. What we are\ntrying to do, through the Law of the Sea Conference, is to\nsettle all of the controversies on a worldwide basis\ninvolving fishing, the 200 mile zone, et cetera.\nI am for the concept of a 200 mile zone. I think\nit is better to settle it on a worldwide basis rather\nthan to do it unilaterally just for the United States.\nQUESTION: The problem, Mr. President, is that\nwhile we are waiting for the international treaty our\nfish supplies are being depleted.\nTHE PRESIDENT: We had the second meeting of this\nLaw of the Sea Conference ending earlier this year.\nThey have a draft proposal at the present time.\nThey are going back to negotiations early next year. It\nis my hope we can do it on a worldwide basis and the\nUnited States, at my direction, is going to fight for\na 200 mile zone.\nI think that is a better way to solve it than to\ndo it on a unilateral basis, just the United States.\nQUESTION: How long are you willing to wait?\nTHE PRESIDENT: We hope that the Law of the\nSea Conference will be completed early next year. As\nI recollect, the conferees are getting together in\nJanuary.\nWe have made a lot of progress and, if we can\nget it on a worldwide basis in 1976, that is far preferable\nto unilateral action just by the United States.\nMORE\nPage 10\nQUESTION: One quick question for New Hampshire.\nNew Hampshire would like to know if you are planning to\ncome up sometime before September 16 and campaign for\nLauie Wyman?\nTHE PRESIDENT: It is my expectation that I will.\nWe are working on a date. Louie Wyman is a very good\nfriend of mine. I served with him in the House. I\nthink he would make a fine Senator. I certainly expect\nto go up sometime between now and September 16 to help\nhim if I can.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, why can't the Northeast\nNew England States share in the profits from the leasing of\noff-shore oil rights off the coast?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Under the legislation that we are\nworking on -- and there are about ten different alternative\nproposals -- I think that the coastal areas ought to get\nsome help.\nThere is a bill in the Senate. It goes, I\nthink, further than it should. Of course, there are many\ninland States who say, well, this is a United States\nresource. Why can't we share equally with the coastal\nStates? So, we have these competing interests.\nI believe, without any question of a doubt,\nthat coastal States ought to get a high priority, the\nhighest priority, and then we will have to work out some\nformula where I think we can equitably take care of\nany other interests that are involved.\nMr. President, two quick ones on politics. We\npresume you will be back in New Hampshire next winter --\nTHE PRESIDENT: I am looking forward to it.\nQUESTION: -- and that between now and then\nthere will be a lot of pressure on you from the Reagan\nforces, some people will call them the Connally forces,\nto dump Mr. Rockefeller.\nIf it is necessary to do that to get the\nnomination, will you do it?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't put it that way. I\npicked Nelson Rockefeller for Vice President because I\nthought he was an outstanding public servant. He has\nexceeded any expectations that I have had. He has done a\nsuperb job. He has been a good teammate. I don't dump good\nteammates.\nMORE\nPage 11\nQUESTION: Okay.\nMr. President, in 1972 when the Soviets bought\n15 million tons of grain, food prices went up. Now they\nwould like to buy 21 million tons. Will they get it all?\nWill they get part of it? Will food prices go up?\nTHE PRESIDENT: You have more information than\nI have. They bought about 10 million tons. There are\nrumors to the effect that they want to buy additional\namounts.\nI have indicated that we will make no more\nsales until we get the September crop report. All the\nindications are that we will have a record crop in wheat,\nin corn and feed grains, including soybeans.\nIf we get a record crop and if we can work out\nsome fair and equitable arrangement, I think it is in the\nbest interest of the farmer, the consumer, our relations\non a worldwide basis, and best for the country, if we do\nmake some additional sales to the Soviet Union.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, I have never seen a\nPresident end so neatly. You finished up the question,\nand we don't have to cut you off.\nThank you. The time went awfully fast.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Thank you, and I enjoyed it.\nI thank all of you very much.\nQUESTION: Thank you and good night.\nEND\n(AT 6:28 P.M. EDT)"
}