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
7343364
label
Remarks of the President and Question and Answer Session at the Brown County (Wisconsin) Veterans Arena [Ford Speech or Statement]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
7343364
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Remarks of the President and Question and Answer Session at the Brown County (Wisconsin) Veterans Arena [Ford Speech or Statement]
citationUrl
collections
White House Press Releases (Ford Administration)
Press Releases
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
7343364
levelOfDescription
item
productionDates
day
3
logicalDate
1976-04-03
month
4
year
1976
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
956df806bac73f57
ocrText
Digitized from Box 24 of the White House Press Releases at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 3, 1976
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
(Green Bay, Wisconsin)
THE WHITE HOUSE
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
AND
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
AT THE
BROWN COUNTY VETERANS ARENA
2:40 P.M. CST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Bart,
Governor Knowles, Congressman Bill Steiger, Mel Laird,
Mrs. Starr, Mr. and Mrs. Dilweg, and all of the other
wonderful people who have been helping on the President Ford
Committee and, most importantly, all of you great people
here in Green Bay and this part of Wisconsin:
It is just wonderful to come here on this
occasion, the home of the Green Bay Packers. It was a thrill
for me to participate just a few moments ago in the
dedication of the Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame. It is
a great, great opportunity and a great thing for me, a
"has been" football player, to see all the greats from
Green Bay and participate in that. Thank you for the
opportunity.
But let me say at the outset I really don't mind
if the Green Bay Packers have a linebacker by the name of
Jimmy Carter, it is a great team anyway.
If I might transgress for a minute, I did
participate in this dedication and it gave to me an
opportunity to think of the great traditions of the Packers
and the wonderful struggles they have had and the games that
they have won, and then I began thinking, as I flew up here,
of the association that I have had with some of the people,
the greats of the Green Bay Packers.
Back in 1935, in August, I played in the Chicago
Bear All-Star Game and Don Hutson was on the team,
the All Stars, and we lost it to the Chicago Bears five to
nothing. You would not remember that -- many of you.
As you know, Don went on to become one of the beerless
ends of all time in professional football.
MORE
Page 2
Then in December of 1934 I was a member of the
East Team of the Shriners East-West football game, and we met down
here at Northwestern University campus, practiced for a week
or two, and then took the train out to San Francsico, and
on the way out Curly Lambeau, your great coach for many,
many years, was on the train and he was looking around on the
East squad and I think we had 24 members and he didn't spend
much time looking at me because we had lost seven games
and won one at Michigan that year and we didn't have many
good ball players.
Anyhow, we got out to San Francisco and we were
playing the Western team and the other center, Brooks
Atchinson from Colgate, who started, got hurt in the first
minute so I played 59 minutes and had a pretty good game
and all the way back from San Francisco to Chicago Curly
Lambeau spent an awful lot of time talking to me about coming
up and playing for the Packers and he offered me $200 a
game and 14 games during the season of 1935.
Now that does not sound like a lot of money to some
of you, but in 1935, 200 bucks a game or $2800 in what --
three months, Bart -- was an awful lot of dough. I decided to
go to Yale and, frankly, I have always had a lot of interest
in and spirit for the Green Bay Packers just because of that
incident.
Then I did have an opportunity over the years to
meet Bart Starr, know him and I think he exemplifies not only
perfection on the football field, but the kind of outstanding
leadership that is needed in a community on the football
field as a coach, as a player and I value my friendship with
Bart Starr and he is going to give you a great ball team in'
Green Bay.
Then I had the privilege of knowing Gary Dilweg's
father when I was in Washington as a young Congressman, and it
is awfully nice of you, Gary, and your wife, to help in the
leadership of my campaign in this part of Wisconsin.
Then one final note. I got to know Curly--
Vince Lombardi--when he came to Washington, and what an
inspirational person. He just exuded the good things, the
things that are good about America, the things that are good
about competition, the things that are good about you and me,
and so my experiences with Green Bay have all been good and
I am just delighted to be here because I feel so strongly
about the people here, the people I know and what you
stand for.
I look forward to answering your questions, but
prior to that let me make a few remarks. Let me tell you
what I see as I look at the United States of America in the
spring of its Bicentennial year. Of course spring is always
a good time of the year, it is a time when nature seems to
come alive again and the weather turns pleasant and mild,
but there is a lot more this year to that than it has been
in previous springs.
MORE
Page 3
People in the country are feeling a whole lot
better this spring than they did last spring. For example,
a year ago about this time some people thought we were
headed straight for a depression. Others said unemployment
was going to reach 10 percent or more and gas would be
selling for a dollar a gallon. But you and I know that
is not the way things turned out.
Instead of a cold, hard depression we have got
a bright springtime economy and it is going to get better
and better if we follow the right courses.
We made a lot of headway. We cut inflation in
half in the last 12 months and we are going to keep it
going down. We have recovered 2,600,000 jobs since last
March. Just yesterday the Department of Labor announced
that we had 86,700,000 Americans gainfully employed in
the month of March -- an all-time record we should be
darn proud of.
What it amounts to is that the rate of unemployment
is going down and total employment is going up and we are
making significant headway in the battle against inflation.
We had the fourth straight month of improvement in our
leading economic indicators. In February, retail sales
were up, new orders received by manufacturers reached the
highest dollar volume in the history of the United States.
This means -- and this is the crux of the matter --
that consumers have enough confidence to spend their
money and businessmen have enough confidence to invest
their money. It means that the signs of faith and
optimism, the signs of health and vitality are returning
to a country that not too long ago seemed to be frozen into
a long, cold winter.
We have come through some hard times together
and now we can see that not only has our system survived
but it is getting stronger and stronger. I think the
policies that this Administration followed, that this
Administration kept to, had a significant impact on how
much better things are getting.
Common sense, for example, told us that the way
to cut unemployment was not by padding the Federal payroll
but by strengthening America's free enterprise system.
Common sense told us that the way to hold down the cost of
living was to hold down the cost of Government -- and I did
that with 46 vetoes, 39 of those vetoes were upheld by
the Congress -- and because we were able to sustain 36 of
those vetoes we saved the taxpayers $13 billion and that
ain't hay.
MORE
Page 4
We fought to get you off the treadmill of
inflation and we are going to keep on fighting and we
are going to continue to be successful. We are going to
keep our policy of sound and stable price levels and we
are going to keep our common sense.
Common sense tells us that State and local
governments close to the people frequently have a far better
sense of their needs than some Federal agency hundreds
and hundreds of miles away from you in Washington, D. C.
Common sense tells us that one program that has
worked for the American people is our Social Security
system, which insures a decent standard of living for
our elderly Americans. I am determined to preserve the
integrity of the Social Security system and I have made
concrete proposals to achieve it and the Congress better
respond to it.
Common sense tells us that we really don't want
to dismantle the Federal Government and destroy good
programs along with the bad ones. We should improve
the programs that do work and get rid of that extra
luggage that does not work and we are in the process of
doing that right now.
But, as some of you know, one of our best
programs is general revenue sharing and if you want to look
at the author of general revenue sharing, look at the author,
Mel Laird here who back at least 10 or 12 years ago
was the real author, the principal sponsor of general
revenue sharing, and it has done a lot to help local
government, State government do the job at the local level
a lot better than some of the bureaucrats are doing it or
have done it in Washington, D. C. So we ought to thank
Mel, but let's get the Congress to extend it.
You know, common sense tells us that you don't
switch quarterbacks just when your team is hitting its
stride, just when you are gaining ground or, to put it
another way, this is no time to trade in your Ford for
another model, especially one that has not been road
tested.
What America needs now is experience. America
needs to continue the sound and stable policies that have
proven their value by helping this country through its
hard times. America needs a Government that does not
raise false hope or conjure up false fears.
What we need is a Government that promises only
what it can deliver and delivers everything that it
promises. That is the policy that my Administration
has followed and that is the policy we are going to keep
on following for the next four years.
MORE
Page 5
With your help both next Tuesday and next
November we will make sure that America continues to
have the solid, the responsible Government that it needs,
not just this spring but every spring for the next four
years as well.
I thank you. It has been a great opportunity
to be here.
Let's get to questions.
QUESTION: Mr. President, my question is in regard
to Mr. Reagan's charge that the Administration's policy
is to be second best or number two in defense.
THE PRESIDENT: I am glad you asked that question
because I have some very strong feelings about it and I
will give you the facts.
Let me talk first about strategic capability.
The United States has the most accurate ballistic missiles,
the United States has the most survivable ballistic missiles,
the United States has many, many, many more ballistic missile
nuclear warheads than the Soviet Union. Those are the facts.
In addition, the United States has about three
to one over the Soviet Union in what we call strategic
bombers -- our B-52s and other comparable bombers. The
United States has, in addition, our Polaris submarines,
our Poseidon submarines. We are in the process of building
for deployment our Trident submarines. We are in the
process of procuring and deploying our B-1 bomber. The
United States has an unsurpassed ballistic nuclear strategic
capability, and anyone who says to the contrary does not
know what they are talking about.
As long as the question has been raised, let's
talk about ships. I don't know how many people in this
audience have served in the Navy, but in World War II
I served four years in the Navy, better than two years on
an aircraft carrier in the Pacific, so I know a little bit
about the Navy, both as a Member of the Congress and as
President and as a former person on active duty in World
War II.
The allegation is that the Soviet Union has
three to one, or whatever the number was, more ships than
the United States, but that is not the way you judge the
capability of a navy. You can't equate a gun boat with
an aircraft carrier. You can't compare a landing ship or
an oiler with a nuclear-powered cruiser.
The truth is that we have far, far, far more
fire power with the Navy than the Soviet Union. We
concentrated our naval capability for fire power both from
ships and from aircraft and that is what makes the difference.
It is not the number of rowboats you have. It is the
number of combat ships you have with the kind of ships
that are needed and necessary.
MORE
Page 6
Let me just add one feature and then I promise
not to add any more. The United States is number one. We
are unsurpassed in military capability. We have the
greatest industrial capacity in the history of mankind.
Our agriculture .out-produces any nation in the history of
the world. We are ahead. in science and technology. We
have the greatest moral, spiritual and religious
capabilities in the history of mankind.
All of this makes the United States number one,
and let's keep it there and let's not let any critics under-
cut it. We are proud of America and we are proud to be
Americans.
Hi. How are you?
QUESTION: Fine. My name is Tart Smith.
Is being President better than being Bart Starr?
(Laughter)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, on a few occasions I have
been envious of Bart but I must say that the training as a
player and the five years as an assistant coach at Yale
University taught me that competition on the gridiron
is pretty good training for politics.
You get a lot of Monday morning quarterbacks
in both, Bart. (Laughter)
I get more fun out of watching those great
football players play on Sundays, the day that I usually
relax a little bit, so I guess I do envy Bart and the
ball players and the coaches a lot, but we are going to
stick on this job. I can't make that league. (Laughter)
QUESTION: Mr. President, we all realize what
a demanding and difficult job Secretary Kissinger has
and just lately we have heard rumors that when you are
re-elected there is a possibility that he may not be
serving on your team. Is there any truth to this rumor
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I have said publicly
that I would like Secretary Kissinger to be Secretary
State as long as I am President, and I can't expand on
that. I think it answers your question.
And let me tell you why. When we look at the
Middle East, probably the most volatile, the most
controversial area in the world where four times in the
last 20 years they have had wars and each war has gotten
bloodier and more serious, Secretary Kissinger has had a
tremendous impact in getting the trust of the Israelis
on the one hand and the Arab nations on the other so
that we could get peace and keep peace there.
MORE
Page 7
I just use that as an example: to tackle the
hardest area in the world to achieve success and to
accomplish peace. He has done it with the direction and
the implementation and the support that I have given him.
I think you don't throw away a winning player, you keep
him and that is what he is.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I am the vice president
of the Wisconsin State Employees Union. On behalf of
our 27,000 members, I would like to welcome you to
Wisconsin.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
QUESTION: As a vice president whose constituency
is composed entirely of State, county and municipal
employees, my question will be in that direction.
Your opponent in next Tuesday's election, Ronald
Reagan, has stated that if any State, county or municipal
employee participates in a strike or a similar job action,
in his opinion he has quite his job. What is your
feeling toward a right to strike or a limited right to
strike for State, county, municipal employees?
I also would like to know what you feel or what
would your reaction be to a bill that on a nationwide basis
would give State, county and municipal employees a right
to collective bargaining?
I also would like to know what your reaction is
to the repeal of 14(b), the right to work legislation?
THE PRESIDENT: I am vigorously opposed to the
repeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. As a
matter of fact, in 1950 or thereabouts I participated in
the debate and voted on that issue in the House of
Representatives. I think if a State wishes to have the
right to work, as 19 States do, under our Constitution
that is a right that they ought to be able to exercise
and I would not recommend the deletion of section (b)
of the Taft-Hartley Act.
Number two, I don't believe that the Federal
Government either has the authority on the one hand or
should exercise it on the other to pass comprehensive
legislation involving the labor-management relations of
State employees and their government or county employees
and their government or city employees and their government.
Those are decisions that ought to be made at the local
or State level and the Federal Government should not get
involved in them.
MORE
Page 8
Now, the first question that you asked. We have
50 States and we have 39,000 Governmental units below the
level of statehood. I don't think that somebody in
Washington ought to tell 39,000 Governmental units or 50
States how they should handle their labor-management relations.
That is the prerogative of those units of Government.
If a government in Green Bay wants to handle it
with the right to strike -- and I just use that as an
example -- and Waukesha wants to have a different policy
or the State of Wisconsin wants to have a different policy,
that is the responsibility and obligation of those units
of Government.
If a city council or a State legislature or Governor
passed some legislation one way and the people don't like
it, they know who to get rid of, and I think that is the
way it ought to be handled. Washington should keep its
fingers out of the situation. The responsibility and the
obligation rests here, right in your State and your local
units of government.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I was wondering what can
you do to help us teenagers get more jobs so we can go on
to school and make money so we can afford our education?
THE PRESIDENT: Would you ask that again? I
missed the first part.
QUESTION: What can you do to help us get more
jobs so we can have enough money to go on to college and that?
THE PRESIDENT: You are talking about high school
graduates?
QUESTION: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, about two million young
people enter the labor market every year as they go from
either high school into the labor market or from college
into the labor market. As I said a moment ago, we have
picked up 2,600,000 jobs since last year but that is not
enough. Our unemployment is still too high and it is still
too high particularly among our young people, and especially
among our young people in the minority categories.
Now what we have to do is to stimulate our economy
primarily in the private sector where five out of every six
jobs in this country exist today. And how do we do that?
We do that by providing an incentive to business to expand,
to modernize, to improve so that they will be more competitive
and more jobs will be available in the private sector.
MORE
Page 9
I don't think the answer is to put young people
on the Federal payroll. They have a greater opportunity
for the future, for advancement and permanency in the
private sector rather than in some temporary payroll padding
job in the Federal Government.
On the other hand, if a young person like you
wants to go to college and you don't have the funds available
to do so, there are grant programs, there are scholarship
programs. As a matter of fact, I recommended for the budget
for the current fiscal year $1 billion 100 million, as I
recall, for what we call the basic opportunity grant program.
Bill Steiger knows -- he is a real expert on that program.
We recommended the full funding of that program, which would
have a maximum assistance of $1,400 and the average amount,
because it varies, is around $900. We want to help you
if you want to go to college, and once you get out of
college we hope our economy is such that you will have
a permanent job in the private sector.
QUESTION: Mr. President, this is a little bit of a
different question than you have been harangued with or
whatever. It is a medical question.
Expenses are going up and I have had experience
with cancer. I had to leave the country to get information
to obtain relief from such cancer or trichinosis. I have
had experience with doctors here in this country, not just
in this State but in other States, that didn't know how
to diagnose the subject or the disease or worms -- plain
old worms, trichinosis.
Now you say we have all kinds of technology. When
will the American Medical Association let loose some of that
information that you talk about?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think the American Medical
Association has control over the cures or the things that
are done to analyze the illness of a person or the
recommendations for remedies to cure an illness. The AMA
does not have that responsibility. That is the responsibility
of a hospital or a clinic or an individual doctor.
Now, I am not familiar, obviously, with your
personal case or individual case but if you look, I think,
across the length and the breadth of this globe and compare
our medical profession with any other, the United States
is lucky to have the quality of care that is given to save
people's lives and to protect them from disease and to repair
them from disabilities.
I can only say that the Federal Government is spending
better than $1 billion for research under the National
Institute of Health in Washington, D. C. on cancer, arteries
and heart and -- well, the whole range of things, and we are
going to get some of these cures that don't seem to be
available.
MORE
Page 10
I just say again that our medical profession by
the standards that I have seen is a good medical profession.
Now they make a mistake, like I have made one or you may have
made one, but they are not deliberate, I can assure you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I have a two-part
question, please. First, I would like to know your views
on the present status of the U.S. Postal Service. The
second part is, do you plan on either signing or vetoing
House Bill 8617 and if a veto, some of your reasons why?
The House Bill 8617 is the provision to the Hatch Act.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Bet me answer the second
question first.
That bill, the so-called Hatch Act abandonment
bill or the destruction of career Civil Service legislation,
when it gets down to me -- and it will be down to the Oval
Office probably in a couple of days -- everything I know
about it, I am going to veto it. I think it ought to be
vetoed.
You can't have a career service for Government
employees and get them involved in the partisan political
arena. It just doesn't work. So I probably under any
circumstances I see will veto the legislation.
Number two, the Postal Service. Up until it
became the Postal Service, the Post Office Department was
getting less and less efficient and it was costing more and
more money out of the general Treasury and the net result
was Congress decided that it ought to become a nonpolitical
patronage organization because the Post Office Department
was bedded down with partisan politics, it was not an
effective and efficient mail delivery service.
Now the present Postal Service in time is going
to remedy that. I must say I am a little disappointed in
the progress they have made but it is going to be a lot
better in the future than the old Post Office Department
would have been.
Now there are those who say that the $1 billion a
year that Congress puts in to subsidize the Postal Service
isn't enough. That is what we have been subsidizing -- the
Postal Service -- each year for the last several years.
MORE
Page 11
We recognize we have to pay something for what
is called public service but you cannot go on taking
that much money or double that much money from the general
taxpayer to keep the Postal Service going. So we either
have to improve the efficiency of the Service, cut down
on some of the uneconomical' operations, or you have to
increase the rates or you have to take more money out of
the general Treasury. Now one of those three alternatives
is what we are faced with.
The Director of the Office of Management and
Budget is trying to work with the head of the Postal Service
to find a better solution, but right now you have got
three bad alternatives -- either more money out of the
Treasury, restricted service or increased rates -- and none
of them are very good alternatives. So I think the study
that is now being undertaken, hopefully, will come up
with a better answer and we will try it if they do.
QUESTION: Thank you for your comments,
Mr. President.
MORE
Page 12
QUESTION: Mr. President, being in an educational
field, if re-elected, what do we have in store for the area
of education, and in your remarks could you direct it
especially to the aid of the handicapped children?
THE PRESIDENT: Are you talking about primary and
secondary education, or are you talking about higher education?
QUESTION: Primary and secondary.
THE PRESIDENT: I have recommended to the Congress
what is called a block grant approach to primary and secondary
education. At the present time, we have 15 different educa-
tional programs. They are all categorical grant programs.
They each have their own bureaucracy, they each have their
own little pot of money, and they each deal with a special
problem in education at the primary and secondary level.
I have recommended that you consolidate all of
those in one block grant program, and the money should go to
the States and then down to the local communities so the
people in Green Bay can decide how they want to spend that
money. Their problems might be different than those in San
Diego, and if so, they ought to spend their money differently
here in Green Bay.
Now, the problems of the disabled across the board
are a very special one as far as my wife is concerned, and me,
too. I happen to think that we have to recognize that the
disabled, for reasons in most cases beyond their own control,
have to be given some special attention.
Like in the District of Columbia, the new Metro
system, the subway sustem -- by law there has to be the means
of access and exit so that people who are blind or disabled
or elderly can have a certain way of getting on the new subway.
I think across the board we have to recognize the fact that
this group in our society needs some very special attention,
and this Administration will carry out that promise and
pledge.
QUESTION: Mr. President, we are seventh graders
from St. Jude's School. My question is, what led you to
becoming President?
THE PRESIDENT: The question is, what led me to
become President. (Laughter)
Well, I got to be a Congressman, and then Vice
President, and on August 9 of 1974 I had the opportunity to
serve the American people, and we have tried hard to do a
good job for 19 months. I would like the opportunity to
serve another four years to do a better job.
MORE
Page 13
QUESTION: Mr. President, I am from Marquette,
Michigan. I would like to know why the Congress and you are
closing these air bases and also the Government cutting
down on them and the unemployment?
THE PRESIDENT: The Department of Defense has
made a number of recommendations for studies to close down
certain military installations, including Kinchloe Field in
Michigan; including Fort Devens, an Army installation in
Massachusetts; including a number of other military installa-
tions.
The reason is very simple. As the weapons system
use changes, as you go in the Air Force to more missiles
and less aircraft, you have to change OW you use your
facilities and as the numbers in the Army go down, you have
to close the number of Army forts, camps or stations. In
other words, you have to tailor the use of facilities to the
men and the weapons that you have and the mission.
At the time of the war in Vietnam, we had 3,300,000
Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force personnel. We now have
2,100,000. We, therefore, don't need as many bases. We don't
need as many installations. So, in a responsible way we are
trying to adjust, or the Department of Defense is, the men
and weapons to the installations that are needed.
I should say in the case of Michigan, because I
know it well, there are three SAC bases up there -- Kinchloe,
K. I. Sawyer and Wurtsmith. One of the three was closed.
K. I. Sawyer and Wurtsmith were kept open. K. I. Sawyer
is up in the Upper Peninsula. Kinchloe is in the Upper
peninsula. It was closed. It is just that you can't keep
a base open if there is not a mission for it. It is just
that practical.
Now, as I said, these are studies and there is a
provision of law that says if a base is closed, the Department
of Defense and the Department of Commerce and all of the other
departments have to maximize their effort to try and adjust
the adverse economic conditions that inevitably result from
the closing of a base.
I can assure you if the Defense Department decides
that that base ought to be closed, other departments will
maximize their efforts to take care of any transitional
unfortunate circumstance to any individuals who were previously
employed there.
QUESTION: Unemployment, why is that --
MORE
Page 14
THE PRESIDENT: On unemployment, I said that last
March we had 8.9 percent unemployment in the country. At
the present time, the unemployment has dropped to 7.5
percent as announced as of yesterday. We have regained in
total employment 2,600,000. We had a gain of 375,000 in
the month of March alone. We have an all-time employment
figure of 86,700,000.
Now, we still have too much unemployment, but the
momentum is going in the right direction. We are selling
more automobiles, retail sales as a whole are up, and
industrial orders are up. You are going to find this momentum
coming from increased public confidence so that I think in
the months ahead you are going to see more employment and
les and less unemployment.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You are the
first one I have ever seen of our Presidents of the United
States of America.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: One more.
QUESTION: I have a tax related question for you.
In your State of the Union address you had mentioned that
there would be tax incentives for long-term investors. I
wonder if anything has come about on this or if you could
elaborate on it, please?
THE PRESIDENT: In the State of the Union Message
I recommended certain specific tax proposals that I thought
would be helpful in the area of unemployment. One was that
in a geographical area of unemployment where the unemployment
was high, 8 percent as I recall, that we would give a special
tax incentive for an employer to build a new plant there or
to expand or to improve his plant facilities.
I think that would have been a better way to get
unemployment down than to actually add extra payroll. That
is one proposal.
The other was to provide for greater opportunity
for employees and others to own shares of stock in American
industry and give a tax deferral in order to stimulate
investment in America's industrial capacity.
Those two proposals and several others are now
before the Committee on Ways and Means on which Congressman
Bill Steiger serves. I would hope that some of them at least
will be approved by the Congress in 1976.
Thank you all very, very much. It has been wonderful.
END
(AT 3:25 P.M. CST)