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
7343757
label
Press Conference No. 31 of the President of the United States
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
7343757
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Press Conference No. 31 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
7343757
levelOfDescription
item
productionDates
day
29
logicalDate
1976-04-29
month
4
year
1976
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
7061d2ba74398e61
ocrText
Digitized from Box 25 of the White House Press Releases at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
PRESS CONFERENCE NO. 31
of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
9:32 A.M. CDT
April 29, 1976
Thursday
In the Imperial Ballroom West
At the Hyatt Regency Hotel
Houston, Texas
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Won't you all
sit down.
It has been great in Texas for the last two days.
We are looking forwand to a couple more. So, let's get
started. this morning.
QUESTION: I would like to ask you about what you
said yesterday about Mr. Reagan. Does this represent a new
turn in the campaign where you and he will take on each
other directly, confront each other directly and personally?
THE PRESIDENT: It is not a question of person-
alities. It is a question of which candidate has the best
policies the best programs, which candidate is the one that
is better qualified to do the job, and that is really the
issue what the people in Texas have to decide and what the
people throughout the rest of the country must decide.
We have laid out our program, which is a very
complete and a very detailed program, both at home and
abroad, a program with a record, and my opponent is coming
up with some rather simple, some rather lacking in
detail answers, and I think the people in Texas must decide
it on those policies rather than on personality.
QUESTION: Why do you not refer to him by name?
THE PRESIDENT: That is sort of a tradition you
do in politics.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Dick Growald, UPI.
Mr. President, you said you would welcome a battle
in November between yourself and Senator Humphrey as pro-
viding a clear battle issue of philosophy. What will be
the nature of the battle between yourself and Jimmy Carter,
especially in view of former Governor Carter saying you
failed to provide leadership in all areas?
MORE
(OVER)
Page 2
THE PRESIDENT: If by chance former Governor
Carter is the Democratic nominee, again it will be a
challenge between a proven record on my part, where I think
we have been very successful in taking a very bad economic
situation and turning it around so that we are now on a
stable and a constructive road to economic prosperity,
and where our foreign policy in my judgment has been one of
strength and success. It will be a contest between Carter
and Ford on a record and a challenger.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Michaal Morgan, KHOU-TV.
When we were up to speak with you last week at the
White House, you mentioned that you thought you had closed
the gap here in Texas between yourselves and Mr. Reagan. Has
this four-day campaign by you closed the gap even more?
THE PRESIDENT: I have been very, very encouraged
by the wonderfully warm reception we have received in
Texas for the last two days, and I have met with a great
many of my volunteer Ford people here in the State of Texas
and they are getting more and more enthusiastic.
I find a good spirit and the determination and the
net result is I think we have closed the gap. We are making
it very, very close, and I am always optimistic. We
certainly have generated a lot of momentum that I think
could very well give us an opportunity to win.
But, we are working hard, we have good leadership,
good programs, good policies, and in the next two days we
hope to enhance the possibilities of success on Saturday.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Walter Rodgers, repre-
senting the Associated Press.
There has been a perceptible chill in U.S.-Soviet
relations, You have dropped the word detente,
Secretary Brezhnev's visit has been scrubbed and there is
no immediate prospect that the SALT II treaty will be signed.
To what extent has the campaign been responsible
for this very perceptible chill in Soviet relations?
THE PRESIDENT: I haven't detected any significant
change in the communications between the Soviet Union and
the United States Government, We are still working con-
structively in trying to find an answer to the limitations
on strategic weapons.
We are trying to work in every way that I know to
keep the lid on any outbreaks throughout the world. We are
certainly encouraged by the purchase by the Soviet Union
yesterday of 3,400,000 metric tons of corn and grain, which
I think is an indication of their living up to the agreement
that we signed for a five-year grain sale to the Soviet
Union. I don't detect any deterioration in the constructive
elements of a relationship between the Soviet Union and the
United States.
MORE
Page 3
QUESTION: What you call Mr. Reagan's superficial
and simplistic charges, have they done any damage inter-
nationally and abroad, and if not, why have. they upset you so?
THE PRESIDENT: Because they are not a true
picture of our military capability on the one hand and,
on the other, they could very well mislead our allies abroad
and actually mislead some; of our adversaries abroad.
We have a comprehensive, I think a very strong
and fundamentally sound military program, and I can take
credit for the fact that we apparently are able to reverse
the trend that Congress imposed on previous Presidents
as to our military capability.
The United States Government, if my military
program that I submitted in January is carried through,
there won't be any doubt about the strong and effective
capability of our defense program in the years ahead, so
that the charges made, by my opponent, being lacking in
depth, overly simplistic, have, in my judgment, at least
created some problems potentially abroad because people
might believe something that is inaccurate.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Bart Cannon, Houston
News Service.
Trying to keep up with your campaign around
the country, I know you have made some political appointments
in primary States before you have gone there, and you have
also dropped some grant funds in those States. I am trying
to find out if you think the President should use that
kind of influence to buy voters?
THE PRESIDENT: That is a completely inaccurate
allegation. The business of Government has to continue.
We can't stop making appointments, we can't stop agencies
from awarding contracts, or awards to cities or to States
or to organizations just because a political çampaign is
in progress. The business of Government has to proceed and,
under no circumstances, have any of these decisions been
made in relationship to any primary.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Bill Broom of Ritter
Newspapers.
One of the key issues in this Texas Republican
primary seems to be whether you are conservative enough, and
some newspapermen think they detected a shift toward the
right in some of your policies and positions. Will this
be a benefit or a handicap to you in the fall?
MORE
Page 4
THE PRESIDENT: In the first place, Bill, the
policies that I have carried out for the last 20 or 21
months in the White House have been the policies that I
have believed in in the 25 years that I have served in the
Congress of the United States, They are middle-of-the-road
policies, both at home as well as abroad, and nothing that
I have done, as far as I can analyze, would indicate any
shift in my basic philosophy or in the implementation
of that philosophy, and I believe that being in the middle
of the road, as far as the Republicans are concerned on
a nationwide basis, is the right policy, and I know it is
the right policy in meeting a Democratic challenger in
November.
QUESTION:- You are confident you are conservative
enough to win in Texas but middle-of-the-road enough to win
in the fall?
THE PRESIDENT: I think so, right,
QUESTION: Mr. President, David Glodt with KTRK-TV
in Houston.
Why suddenly the attack on Ronald Reagan openly?
And secondly, are you saying that Ronald Reagan is in effect
not fit to be President of the United States?
THE PRESIDENT: When I set forth our defense
budget, when I carry out our foreign policy, it is
predicated on an in-depth study before we make any decision,
where I consult with the best experts we have within and
without the Government and those policies have been
successful, as I have indicated, and when they are challenged
by oversimplified one-liners, in my opinion those
challenges have to be met head-on by specifics, and that
is what I have tried to do on an impersonal basis and
that is what I will do from now on, because this country
deserves to know the facts in a complex and very difficult
area and you can't take just part of a problem and come
to a certain conclusion. You have to look at the broad
spectrum,
Now some of those statistics that the former
Governor has used are statistics that we use in convincing
the Congress to give to the President the kind of a defense
budget that I have recommended. But in the process he
only takes a very small part of those statistics instead
of presenting the total picture. Let me give you an
example,
In the strategic area, we have the most accurate,
we have the most survivable ballistic missiles in the world
and, at the same time, we have far, far more warheads, many
more than the Soviet Union has, and, in addition, we have
in our strategic forces a two-to-one or three-to-one ratio
over them in long-range high-performance aircraft, so what
you have to do is to take the total picture and not just a
piece, which my opponent has done.
MORE
Page 5
QUESTION: What about -- do you feel Mr. Reagan
is fit to be President of the United States?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is a judgment for the
voters of Texas and the voters in the rest of the country
to decide. It is really a question of which individual
is the best qualified to be President and, in that context,
I think my record of performance in office is the best
judgment that the voters can make, and I think in the final
analysis they will make it for me and against someone
who hasn't had the experience and the continuity in office.
QUESTION: Bonnie Angelo, Time Magazine.
The Panama Canal renegotiations have figured in
the Texas primary in particular. In realistic terms,
how important is the Panama Canal to our national defense?
THE PRESIDENT: The Panama Canal is not in the
overall context as important today as it was in the past,
although it is still a very vital part of our capability to
move from the East Coast to the West Coast, and what I am
trying to do is to maintain the useabilities of that Canal
without hindrance, without bloodshed, without guerrilla
warfare and without antagonizing 309 million individuals
in South and Latin America. And if we break off those
negotiations, we will unquestionably lead to bloodshed, we
will have guerrilla warfare, the possibilities of the Canal
being disabled, it would be very, very possible, so what
we are trying to do is preserve the useability of that
Canal ad infinitum, so to speak, so that it will not be
lost to us as a part of our economic and military needs
and necessities.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Bob Morrison, KTRH-Radio.
I would like to talk about the economy for a
minute, if we could. There have been some analysts around
the country, also your opponent has said that some of the
economic measures your Administration has put into effect
are merely stop gap measures and the country could possibly
be in a recession in 1977 and 1978.
THE PRESIDENT: Those, of course, are typical
campaign scare charges and have no substance whatsoever.
We took a very serious economic recession that reached its
bottom in April or May, a year ago, and by strong, affirmative,
constructive policies we have been able to turn the economy
around. We have reduced, for example, the rate of inflation
from over 12 percent when I became President, down to less
than 3 percent for the first three months of 1976. That is
a 75 percent reduction in the rate of inflation. Now, those
are trends that are going to continue whether it is an increase
in employment, a decrease in unemployment and a reduction
in the rate of inflation. Those are solid achievements and
I think the Ford Administration can take credit for them and
we are not going to have any lapse in the months ahead.
MORE
Page 6
QUESTION: Then you feel the United States is
on the course for a peacetime prosperity?
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.
=
QUESTION: Thank you. :
Mi
L
11
nk MORE
nt hought evant Lone)
citative n) ni visiting boxes 953
que of lans) sitz il моб
nd) nil ton v2 India with THE
with no now * OR vahor RG Drive
or TUO to 120g larly (XIV 11134 d #1
(If X birth 78600 TasH sitit or 72200 tens add mill
Lane) Jarit to offi 02 4 65 oz antwar
100/19
Diaubivibal HOLLIN 806 horth birth 07017AV
mode 110 street OUT 11 brea above bee truet al
NW beneboold 03 bast IIIM DU
on: To 942 overs 121v
02 PTSV you Did bluev 11 ,beldsein Dalid
10 city el on 07 galves are OK
11 700 1120 75 Jent of Manne 03 DA sche.,
above varillin Drin suo to 2700 . de to de 3602
bas
a not 1 and suods or 7425 blues I
THEROPER prior and over study ou 12 insured
with to PRIOR 7407 DISE esd Inanogeo may only add
donths 02/12 rug on were - cimenous
villing Stuce and here 488 goza Visits me
,6501 the as notessost 5 (t) el
bys to - GNY
on Dite MEDE
N Birth ,950 TADY 1 70 it!
and - aved YY
36 address HIS aved
street of singed 1 -
arei 10
1ml
to
it)
to
Page 7
QUESTION: Mr. President, Muriel Dobbin of the
Baltimore Sun.
You have said you will not rule out Mr. Reagan
as the Vice President because of statements he has made in
the heat of the campaign, yet yesterday you described Mr.
Reagan as superficial, glib, irresponsible and too
inexperienced. Should your comments also be read in terms
of campaign rhetoric, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think you have to set the
record straight. As I said yesterday, the charges he has
made for the last month or two have indicated some
desperation on his part and the more desperate you get, the
wilder the charges, and I understand that. I have been
through a number of political campaigns, but you have to
meet them head on, and that is what we have tried to do, by
pointing out that the United States is unsurpassed in
military capability, that the United States does have this
tremendous capability industrially, agriculturally,
scientifically and technically.
That is the bottom line, not undercutting the
capability of the United States.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Bob Raleigh, with
KPRC Radio in Houston.
Income tax is something near and dear to the
hearts of Americans this time of year. Do you favor income
tax reforms and, if so, what would you like to see them
become?
THE PRESIDENT: The best income tax reform that I
know of is the kind of program I recommended to the Congress
in January of last year, where I recommended an increase in
the personal exemption for every individual taxpayer from
$750 to $1,000. That would affect every individual taxpayer.
That is the kind of reform that is meaningful, particularly
to the middle income taxpayer.
Now, Congress ought to get on with that job. I
have recommended for the period after July 1 of this year
an additional $10 billion reduction in taxes, 75 percent of
it to go to individual taxpayers, 25 percent to business, so
that they can increase their productivity, modernize their
equipment and plant.
That is the kind of tax reform that means some-
thing to people who want jobs on the one hand and people
who want more of their own money in their pockets so they
can spend it rather than have the Federal Government spend
it.
Now, all these other so-called tax reforms have
been talked about for as long as I was in Congress. The
way to get the job done is to increase personal exemptions,
as I recommended.
MORE
Page 8
QUESTION: Mr. President, Russ Ward of NBC News.
A political question, Mr. President. Hubert
Humphrey is reported ready to enter the Democratic race on
a formal basis. We would be interested in your reaction to
this and then a related question. If Jimmy Carter is the
Democratic nominee, as it now appears, how would you
propose to go about winning the Southern conservative
support that over the years has been needed for a Republican
Presidential candidate to win?
THE PRESIDENT: I am not really the best expert
on whether or not Hubert Humphrey is going to enter the New
Jersey primary or whether by doing that he can stop Jimmy
Carter or whether Jimmy Carter is going to get the
nomination. Asian outside observer, I think the win by Jimmy
Carter in Pennsylvania Tuesday certainly gave him the
kind of momentum that ought to concern Hubert Humphrey and
the other Democratic active candidates.
The only way I can_see that they could stop him
now is to have a smoke-filled room, broker's convention
and I think the public would object to that. So, unless
they find some other formula, it seems to me that Carter
certainly has the edge at the present time by a substantial
margin.
Now, if he is the nominee, I think my overall
moderate, middle-of-the road philosophy both at home and
abroad will meet the challenge in the South as it will in
the rest of the country, and we will keep on that, what
I think is a construotive policy, and the voters in the
South, in my judgment, compared to someone who hasn't had
experience, who has not dealt with the hard decisions in the
Oval Office will mean that we can be successful in November.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Ann Broderick, KRBE
News.
There has been talk of getting a divestiture
bill through .Congress this year. What are your feelings
with regard to this, and could you support such a bill?
THE PRESIDENT: Any divestiture bill that I have
seen I would oppose. I would oppose it for this reason. We
have analyzed all of the various divestiture proposals that
have been submitted against two criteria.
First, will a divestiture bill reduce the price of
petroleum products to the consumers? The answer is no.
The divestiture bill would not reduce the price of gasoline,
would not reduce the price of residual oil, would not
reduce theprice of distillates and, secondly, would the
bill stimulate more production of domestic crude oil? The
answer is no, because divestiture would undercut the capability
of the American petroleum industry to go out and explore and
drill for more domestic oil and we need it very badly. So,
when you. measure these divestiture bills by those two criteria,
you come to the conclusion that those divestiture bills ought
to be defeated.
MORE
Page 9
QUESTION: Mr. President, good morning.
Tom Jarriel with ABC.
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, Tom.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you said several times
here this morning that the public deserves to know the
facts, and the debate over national defense issues, that
Mr. Reagan is using oversimplified one-liners and the issue
should be met head-on. Would not the best way to meet the
issue head-on be for you and he to share a platform and debate
this vital issue, and if one could be arranged, would you
welcome a debate?
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me my proposal for
continued military strength, the unsurpassed capability
of the United States is a matter of public record and
Mr. Reagan's charges, as he has made them in a simple,
unverified way, in my judgment, is also before the American
people. I think the American people can judge it over a
period of time in that way. much better than a 30-minute
debate on public or private television.
QUESTION: Should you go into the Republican
National Convention without the necessary 1,150 delegates
reported to you, based on your answer about Mr. Carter and
the smoke-filled room, would you then free those delegates
at the convention to move and look for another potential
nominee?
THE PRESIDENT: We fully expect to have 1,130
delegates by Kansas City time so we aren't considering under
any circumstances anything but winning in Kansas City.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Len Hart, of KILT-Radio,
in Houston.
All the President's Men is currently enjoying
a tremendous box office success all across the country,
as well as here in Houston. How will the release of this
motion picture, as well as the release of the book "The
Final Days" have an effect on the Presidential policies or
the Presidential campaign?
THE PRESIDENT: It certainly should have no
effect on my candidacy because, at the time I was nominated
for the Vice Presidency, I had the most thorough investigation
by over 400 FBI agents all over the country examining record
from birth on up, and then they got through with their
investigation, the Senate Committee on Rules held several
hearings, I answered all their questions, the House Committee
on Judiciary held hearings, I answered all their questions,
I got approval from the two committees and I got an over-
whelming vote in the Democratic Congress endorsing my
candidacy and indicating without any question of a doubt that
I had no relationship whatsoever to Watergate.
MORE
Page 10
So, as far as my candidacy is concerned, Watergate
and all the problems that took place prior. to August of 1974
won't affect me whatsoever or my candidacy. What impact
it might have mothers, Ioam not qualified to say.
QUESTION: Mr. President, as a man who should know
how much of the book The Final Days" can we take seriously,
how
accurate
is
it?
THE PRESIDENT:; The only part I am qualified to
pass judgment on, as far as I know the book is reasonably
accurate. I, think, however, that it is in bad taste in
a number of cases.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Dave Binder, New York
Times.
Following on Muriel Dobbins' and Tom Jarriel's
question, why, Mr. President, why, with a man you have
described as irresponsible, simplistic and whom you compared
yesterday to a donkey (Laughter) -- why do you take
this man so seriously? Why don't you ignore him? Why
do you give him such prominence? Why do you have to meet
him head-on?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, because the charges in effect
could arouse some apprehension in the minds of Americans,
could raise some: questions with our allies, could raise
some questions with our adversaries, and I want to reassure
the American people, I want to reassure our allies and I
certainly don't want any misconception of our strength
and our will as far as our adversaries are concerned. I
feel that I owe it to the American people to tell them the
truth, to state the facts and to analyze for them as well as
I can in these, complicated areas the fact that we are
strong, that we have the kind of a program that can meet
any challenge. I think that is my responsibility as
President regardless of any political campaign.
QUESTION: Well, exactly, you would tell the truth
and analyze the facts and present them and reassure allies
with or without this particular opponent, I am just wondering
why you build him up so much?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, because his charges have
gotten a lot of publicity and there are a lot of clever
one-liners that might appeal to some of our fellow citizens
if the facts and the overall picture is not presented to
them, and that is what I have sought to do.
MORE
Page 11
QUESTION: Do you have the impression that any
of our allies; or a large portion of the American public,
has been swayed by your opponent's charges and rhetoric?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't be sure, and I don't want
to gamble. I want the public to know the facts, and I
want them to be reassured, and I want our allies to be in
the same position, We have to be sure that from the facts
the American people can come: to the right conclusion, and
we can let any campaigning rhetoric undercut the strength
and the will of the American people.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Lou Hanlon, KEYH-Radio.
At the time that you mentioned a moment ago of your
appointment to the office, throughout those hearings that
were held you mentioned on several occasions that you did
not intend to seek re-election. Do you feel that will
affect your current campaign or do you feel the public may
have forgotten about it at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: At that time, I was simply
nominated as. Vice President, and under the circumstances,
I felt the statement I made was the proper one. When I
became President and looked at the possibilities both in
the Democratic Party or in the Republican Party, I felt
that I was the best person to carry out the effective
program so we could meet the economic challenges at home
and handle our foreign affairs in the most successful way,
and with that feeling I decided that it was better for me
to announce my candidacy and to seek election as President
for the next four years.
That comment made when I was a nominee for Vice
President I don't think will undercut my efforts either in
the primaries or in the election leading up to November 2.
QUESTION:. Mr. President, John Mashek, U.S. News.
Last night in introducing you Senator Tower seemed
to be suggesting that you are contemplating a supplemental
appropriation to the defense budget. Areyou in fact contem-
plating supplementals and in what areas?
THE PRESIDENT: We have already submitted a
supplemental of some $300 million, as I recall, for the
Mark III production line for the ICBMs and some added
equipment that would improve that ballistic missile capa-
bilities.
Now, that decision was made because there has been
a slowdown in the SALT II negotiations and that production
line was about to terminate under the previous funding, I
think, on May 1 of this year.
MORE
Page 12
Just as added insurance and good economics, I
recommended sufficient money to continue that production
line for the next six to 12 months, as I recollect. So,
that supplemental is before the Congress. In addition,
as I said in the January budget that I submitted, we are
currently reviewing our overall Navy shipbuilding program.
The shipbuilding program that I proposed to the
Congress added 16 major capital ships, but it has been under
review for some time and we will get a final answer within
the next month or two as to whether or not we should add
additional capital ships to our Navy program. If we decide
that is needed, I will submit a supplemental.
QUESTION: Would you agree that the Reagan
opposition has given you an impetus to get your record
defense budget through Congress?
THE PRESIDENT: No, because I made the decision
in November-December of 1975 that I wanted a 14 percent
increase in the defense budget, that I wanted the biggest
defense budget in the history of the United States with
a $14 billion increase in obligation authority and a $10
billion increase in sending for the Army, Navy, Air Force
and Marines.
Those decisions were made in November and December
of 1975.
At that time, my opponent was not a candidate.
Therefore, the decision that I made to give to this country
the largest, strongest defense budget in the history of the
United States was made without any regard whatsoever to the
political charges made by my opponent.
The fact that we submitted that budget, the fact
that it appears we have been able to convince the Congress
to give it to us, I think is an endorsement of the
policy and the new Secretary of Defense.
MORE
Page 13
QUESTION: Bill Vincent, KUHF-Radio at the
University of Houston.
Mr. President, your Administration is putting
forth to the public that you are reducing unemployment.
However, a veteran organization in Washington has reported
that unemployment on Vietnam, minorities and young vets
is approximately 20 percent.
I want to know, as a concerned veteran, what
specific policies and programs you will initiate to eliminate
this plight among the men and women who served our country?
THE PRESIDENT: First, the best way to get all
Americans back to work is the program that I have advocated
where we have added 2,600,000 more employees over the last
12 months, including a number of vets, a number of minorities.
In the case of minorities, we have had for the
younger people the full funding of what we call our Summer
Youth Program at a cost of about $450 million for each
summer over a four-month period.
In the case of vets, we firmly believe in the GI
education bill to get young people better qualified to have
better jobs. And we have had in the past, and we are working
on it, the program to employ, to get private business to
employ vets, The organization is called the National
Association of Business, as I recollect -- NAB is the
abbreviation of it. They are making a major effort to try
and get jobs for Vietnam vets, particularly, and they have had
considerable success although we have got to do better.
QUESTION: Just one more question. On the
GI bill, do you plan to pass the bill on the delimiting
date on Korean vets and, if so, how will 500,000 vets
who are depending on this money to finish their education
do this?
THE PRESIDENT: The ones who are presently in the
education process, I think you can make a good argument that
they ought to have the opportunity to continue it, but
there has to come a terminating point at some point in the
future. We should take care of those who are presently
engaged in getting an education. But I think there has to
be a terminal point, whether it is eight years or ten
years after the conclusion of their military service.
MORE
Page 14
QUESTION: Good morning, sir. John Cochran,
NBC.
Sir, your campaign manager, Rogers Morton, has
been quoted as saying you should give some thought to
reconsidering Vice President Rockefeller to continue on in
that office.
I just wondered if there were any circumstances
under which you might say to the Vice President, "Well,
you have done a good job, you have been loyal, and I
wonder if you would reconsider about your availability and
stay on"?
THE PRESIDENT: The best answer to that is that
the Vice President wrote me a letter a few months ago and
indicated he did not want to be considered as a potential
Vice Presidential candidate in the future, and I have seen
no evidence of any change in his attitude.
QUESTION: I imagine you could be very
persuasive if you wanted him to stay on. Do you think
there could be a circumstance under which he would stay,
look around at all the available candidates and say, "Well,
I think he is still the best one"?
THE FRESIDENT: I would. not, under any circum-
stances, assume that he would change his mind. I have
seen no evidence of it. So, until that change takes place--
and I have seen no desire on his part to have it change--I
think we ought to consider all the other outstanding potential
Republican candidates.
QUESTION: So, he will have to make the first move?
THE PRESIDENT: I think under all circumstances
that is the proper way to proceed, yes.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I am Jacqueline Edge
for the Highlands Star.
I would like to know, how can the American
public expect any President to act as effectively as he
should be able to if Congress is made up largely of
Members of the opposing political party?
THE PRESIDENT: It does present some problems. (Laughter)
On the other hand, in a number of areas I have gotten some good
support from a number of Democrats, some here from Texas, some
from Georgia. We wouldn't have been able to sustain the 39
vetoes that I have made without the help of some discerning
Democratic Members of the House and Senate and, incidentally, we
have saved $13 billion in taxpayers' money by that kind of
support from some of the Democrats in the House and the Senate.
But, I think to get an affirmative program through, it would be
recognized, much easier if we had more Republicans and fewer
of the liberal Democrats. The Democrats that I worked with most
effectively are the more conservative Democrats, and they have
been very helpful. But, we would like to replace some of the
liberal Democrats with a lot more Republicans.
MORE
Page 15
QUESTION: Hal Walker, CBS News.
Mr. President, how can you expect to win the
State of Texas without the support of such a powerful
political figure as former Governor John Connally? What
are you doing to get an endorsement from Mr. Connally, and
do you expect one between now and Saturday?
THE PRESIDENT: I have had two meetings with my
good friend John Connally over the last months. He didn't
indicate he would endorse me or my opponent, and I never
asked him to endorse me. I think the better way for
this primary to proceed is for my opponent and myself to
meet head-to-head, which we are doing.
It would also be helpful for a distinguished
public servant like John Connally to have his endorsement,
but he, for good reasons, has decided not to endorse
either my opponent or myself and so we are meeting head-
to-head, my opponent and myself, and perhaps that is the
best way to have it happen.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Bob Sirkin, fram
WFAA-TV in Dallas,
More of the Senate Intelligence Committee's
findings were released yesterday and they said U.S.
intelligence agencies felt they not only had a right to
break the law but they had the duty to break the law, and
I wonder if you agree with that summation and how these
findings will influence your future directives to the CIA?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the directives that I
initiated for the total intelligence community, including
the CIA, directives that I signed about a month ago,
under my directives would not condone any violation of the
law and would provide for strict enforcement against anybody
in the intelligence community that violated the law.
So I have already taken care of that problem
and I think the new CIA, the new intelligence community
directives are an affirmative answer to the charges that
are made by the Senate committee.
QUESTION: Well, sir, do you agree with the
findings of this committee in regard to --
THE PRESIDENT: Frankly, I have not had an
opportunity to read the volumes of their testimony, or their
conclusions. I have to look to the future. As far as I
know, none of the allegations that they made, such as
you have indicated, took place since I became President.
They may have taken place beforehand, but I can assure you
that they will not take place under the directives that I
have given to the intelligence community, including the CIA.
MORE
Page 16
QUESTION: Do you think Senator Tower, then, is
proper in not signing the bill?
THE PRESIDENT: It is not a bill; it is the
committee report. I have a great deal of respect for Senator
John Tower. If he decided not to sign the committee
report, I certainly would back him up.
QUESTION: Fred Barnes of the Washington Star.
Mr. President, you mentioned a few minutes ago
why you don't use Ronald Reagan's name while you are
campaigning. I have noticed there is another name you
never mention, and that is Richard Nixon. You mention
Lyndon Johnson and Dwight Eisenhower and other Presidents
but you only refer to Nixon as your predecessor or even as
Lyndon Johnson's successor. How come you won't mention his
name?
THE PRESIDENT: It is my judgment that that is
an unfortunate era, certainly the period that took place
from 1971 or 1973 on, and I think the more that all of us
forget that period and the unfortunate developments, the
better.
QUESTION: You are saying you are deliberately
not mentioning his name?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is better for all of
us to just not remind ourselves of that unfortunate period.
I do it deliberately.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I am Louis Alexander
for Newsweek.
Here in Texas we understand that many supporters
of Governor George Wallace will cross over Saturday to vote
in the Republican primary. If that happens, how do you
think that will affect the votes for you?
THE PRESIDENT: I have no way of judging whether that
element of the Democratic Party will cross over and vote for
my opponent.
I have said that I want all Democrats who believe
in my philosophy, who subscribe to the success that we
have had domestically as well as internationally, I want
them to vote for me and I hope they will. But I have no
way of judging how many of the Wallace Democrats would
subscribe and, therefore, vote for my Republican opponent.
There is just no way I can give you a definitive answer on
that.
MORE
Page 17
QUESTION: Mr. President, Richard Holwill, NPR.
As you know, the key problem over the Panama
Canal treaty is the term "in perpetuity." Some months ago,
Secretary Kissinger, in talking and discussing the Canal,
said that we would negotiate a treaty with an indefinite
time period. The Panamanians replied very angrily saying
they would negotiate no treaty that disguised "in perpetuity."
This morning you used the phrase "ad finitum."
I am wondering if that is a version of disguised "in
perpetuity" and what the context of that was intended to be?
THE PRESIDENT: The context was that the Canal
would be open to transit by the United States and all
other parties, as long as it was economically useable or
viable. That was the context in which I used that phrase.
QUESTION: Are you hoping for a treaty which will
continue to grant to U.S. authorities police power and other
such powers within the Canal Zone?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, during the term of
the treaty, which we would expect would be 40 to 50 years,
which again is the estimated economic viability and useability
of that Canal, we would have the right to operate, to
maintain and defend it.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
QUESTION: Mr. President, John McDonald with KHTV,
here in Houston.
Sources in Washington said yesterday that between
50 and 100 Cubans may have arrived in Mozambique and they
are training guerrillas for action in Rhodesia. Now, if
this is so and it is "a move" by Cuba, are you planning
any new diplomatic or military measures?
THE PRESIDENT: We have been assured by all of the
African nations that are involved in that part of Africa
that they are not interested whatsoever in any Cuban involve-
ment in the problems of that very controversial part of the
world. They recognize what happened in Angola where you
have 10,000 to 15,000 Cubans. The Cubans with the Soviet
backing actually have a tremendous impact on the Government
of Angola. And I think most other African nations don't
want that to happen. They want their problems solved by
themselves without any domination from Cuba, the Soviet Union
or any other world power.
So it is our best judgments and knowledge,
information, that these countries are seeking to keep
out the dominant influence militarily, economically or
otherwise by Cuba.
MORE
Page 18
QUESTION: Mr. President, Ed Walsh with the
Washington Post.
Last January Secretary Rumsfeld in his annual
report to the Congress said in effect that we already have
enough Minutemen missiles and to build more than the 550
we have would not be worth it. That being the case, sir,
how do you justify asking Congress for $322 million to do
that?
THE PRESIDENT: If you go back and look at the
budget that I submitted in January for the Department of
Defense, we said that the Minuteman III production line
would close under present plans sometime early this spring.
At that time, it looked like we would probably make more
progress in a SALT II agreement, and if we had consummated
a SALT II agreement, there wouldn't be any need for a
further add-on to the Minuteman III production line.
That progress has not materialized and on the basis of good
economics, and on the basis of good judgment, which we
indicated in our budget presentation, we have decided to
proceed with the Minuteman III add-on production.
QUESTION: Does that mean, Mr. President, that if
there is a sudden breakthrough, a sudden improvement in
the pace of those negotiations, you may withdraw that
request?
THE PRESIDENT: That is a possibility, but again,
we can't speculate to that degree. This is just good
insurance and good economics. That is why we have asked for
the extra money, and we said we might do it if negotiations
didn't procede as we hoped they should.
THE PRESS: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very, very much.
END
(AT 10:17 A.M. CDT)