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
135839070
label
JGR/Presidential Remarks, [Statements, & Addresses] (02/19/1986-02/24/1986)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839070
contentType
document
title
JGR/Presidential Remarks, [Statements, & Addresses] (02/19/1986-02/24/1986)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
135839070
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
84615ed83f1746cc
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: JGR/Presidential Remarks,
[Statements, & Addresses] (02/19/1986-02/24/1986)
Box: 42
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 19, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DIRECTOR OF SPEECHWRITING
FROM:
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
JOHN G. ROBERTS Jon
SUBJECT:
Presidential Remarks: Peace
and National Security
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced Presidential
remarks and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.
CC: David L. Chew
ID #.
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
0 OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Have Chew
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Presidential remarks: Peace and
national Security
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUHOLL
ORIGINATOR 86,02,19
/ /
Referral Note:
cuat 18
R
86,02,19
5 86,02,19
Referral Note:
10am
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
1. Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C - Comment/Recommendation
R Direct Reply w/Copy
B Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Extreme clase hald
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
EXTREME CLOSE HOLD
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 2/18/86
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: Wed. 2/19/86, 10:00 am
SUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: PEACE AND NATIONAL SECURITY
(2/18 - 7:00 pm draft)
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
OGLESBY
REGAN
POINDEXTER
MILLER
RYAN
BUCHANAN
SPEAKES
CHAVEZ
SPRINKEL
CHEW
P
SS STEELMAN
DANIELS
SVAHN
FIELDING
THOMAS
HENKEL
TUTTLE
HICKS
ELLIOTT
KINGON
LACY
REMARKS:
Attached is a revised draft of the President's remarks on peace and
national security. Please comment to Ben Elliott by 10:00 a.m.
tomorrow with an info copy tomorrow. We expect to forward it to
the President tomorrow afternoon.
RESPONSE:
David L. Chew
Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
(Elliott/Noonan/Buchanan)
February 18, 1986
7:00 p.m.
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PEACE AND NATIONAL SECURITY
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1986
My fellow Americans, I want to speak to you this evening
about our deep hopes for peace and the great responsibility we
share to build a strong, lasting peace -- by protecting our
independence, our freedom, and this American way of life we hold
dear.
We know that peace is God's will, the condition under which
mankind was meant to flourish. Yet, peace is passive; it does
not exist of its own will. Ultimately, peace depends on us -- on
our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to succeeding
generations.
Forty-one years ago, U.S. marines stormed the island of
Iwo Jima in one of the bloodiest battles of World War II. How
many of those brave men, and others throughout that long,
terrible war might have been spared, if only good people had
responded to the first tremors of danger with more than a resort
to the delusions of blind and innocent trust?
George Washington's words may seem hard and cold today, but
history has proven them right again and again: "To be prepared
for war," he said, is among "the most effective means of
preserving peace."
To those who insist that strength provokes conflict, Will
Rogers had his own answer: "I've never seen anyone insult Jack
Dempsey," he said.
Page 2
That's why our program for peace depends on a strong
America. That's why the past 5 years have shown that American
strength is once again a sheltering arm for freedom and security
in a dangerous world.
In a moment, I'm going to give you a clear but stark
portrait of the threat we face. I want to make it clear why any
slackening of our defense effort in today's world would invite
the very risks, the very dangers America can and must avoid.
But first, let me report to you on what we've done so far.
When we arrived in Washington back in 1981, I couldn't help
recalling a quip John Kennedy made -- that what surprised him
most when he came into the White House was finding that things
were really as bad as he'd been saying they were.
We need to remember why Americans 5 years ago were so
troubled by the state of the world:
It was not just the Iranian hostage crisis or the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan, but the rejection of American aid,
ridiculed as "peanuts," by Pakistan, the country most threatened
by the invasion. Nations were saying that it was dangerous,
deadly dangerous, to be a friend of the United States.
It was not just years of declining defense spending, but a
crisis in recruitment and the outright cancellation of programs
vital to our security. The Pentagon horror stories at the time
weren't about $400 hammers -- more on that later -- but about
flotillas of ships that couldn't sail, squadrons of planes that
couldn't fly, and army divisions unprepared to fight.
Page 3
And it was not just an arms control treaty flawed by
inadequate verification and one-sided terms, but a treaty that
actually endorsed steady increases in strategic forces. Even its
supporters were demoralized saying, well, it's the best we can
hope for; the Soviets won't agree to anything better. And when
President Carter had to withdraw SALT II because the leaders of
his own party like Henry Jackson and John Glenn wouldn't support
it, the United States was left without a national strategy for
the control of nuclear weapons.
We need to recall the atmosphere of that time -- the anxiety
that events were out of control, the fears that the West was in
inexorable decline, that our enemies were on the march, that we
had few ways to constrain them or avoid the dangerous
confrontations that loomed ahead.
We knew immediate changes had to be made. So here's what we
did:
We set out to show that the long string of governments
falling under Soviet domination was going to stop. And we did
it. In the 1970's, South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Angola,
Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and Nicaragua all fell under the grip of
pro-Soviet dictatorships. In these last 5 years, not one square
inch of territory has been lost and Grenada has been set free.
El Salvador is a case in point. When we arrived in 1981,
communist guerillas in El Salvador were launching what they
called their final offensive to convert that nation into the
second communist state on the mainland of North America. Many
people said it was hopeless and didn't want to help El Salvador.
Page 4
We didn't agree; we did help, and today the communists are on the
defensive. El Salvador is a democracy and freedom fighters are
putting communism on the defensive in Nicaragua, Angola,
Cambodia, and Ethiopia.
We set out to show that the Western alliance could meet its
defense needs, despite Soviet intimidation. And we did it. Many
said that to try to counter the Soviet SS-20 missiles would split
NATO because Europe no longer believed in defending itself.
Well, that was nonsense. Today, Pershing and cruise deployments
are on course under an alliance-wide agreement.
We set out to reverse the decline in morale in our Armed
Forces. And we did it. Pride in our Armed Forces has been
restored. More and more qualified men and women want to join --
and remain in -- the military. In 1980, only 54 percent of the
Army's recruits were high school graduates; last year, 91 percent
had high school degrees.
Our Armed Forces may be smaller in size than in the 1950's,
but they're some of the finest young people this country has
produced. And as long as I'm President, the quality of the
equipment they need to carry out their mission will remain
second to none.
We set out to narrow the growing gaps in our strategic
deterrent caused by a decade of neglect. And we're beginning to
do that. Our modernization program begun in 1981 -- the MX, the
Trident submarine, the B-1 bomber -- represents our first
significant improvement in America's deterrent capabilities in
20 years.
Page 5
Those who speak SO often about the so-called arms race
ignore a central fact: Until 1981, there was an arms race all
right, but only the Soviets were racing.
We set out to control the ballooning costs of defense
programs. When I first came to office, I called waste and fraud
in the Federal Government an unrelenting national scandal. That
is why we appointed the first Inspector General in the history of
the Defense Department and appointed the Packard Commission to
review procurement policies in the department.
We knew we could never rebuild America's strength without
controlling the growth in costs of new systems. And we did it.
Costs were increasing at an annual rate of 14 percent in 1980.
In the last 2 years, costs have increased less than 1 percent.
An F-18 fighter costs $3 million less today. Our AIM-9L
air-to-air missile costs barely half as much.
We've tried to make competitive bidding the rule. In 1981,
26 percent of ship-building contracts were awarded competitively.
Today, that figure is 90 percent.
Well, you may be asking, what about those defense horror
stories -- the $435 hammer, and other outrages. It is true that
the Defense Department paid $435 for a claw hammer. The error
was discovered by a Navy employee and the contractor refunded the
price. It's also true that the Defense Department bought 80,000
hammers between $6 and $8 each.
The Defense Department each year deals with over 300,000
contractors. So an occasional bonafide horror story will turn up
despite the best efforts and intentions. The irony is that
Page 6
virtually every case of blatant fraud or abuse, in which the
media have reveled of late, has been uncovered by our own Defense
Department, our own Inspector General. Secretary Weinberger
should be praised, not pilloried, for cleaning up the mess he
inherited.
Finally, we set out to do all we could to reduce the danger
of nuclear war. Here, too, we're achieving what our critics said
couldn't be done. We've put forth a plan for deep reductions in
offensive nuclear systems; and we're pushing forward highly
promising research and testing on the Strategic Defense
Initiative -- a security shield that may one day protect the
world from nuclear attack.
Our message is getting through. The Soviets once said that
real reductions in offensive missiles were out of the question.
Now they say they accept the idea that strategic forces must be
cut back. Well, we shall see. One thing is certain: If the
Soviets truly want a fair and verifiable agreement that reduces
nuclear forces, we'll have an agreement.
This is a long list of accomplishments, and while I don't
want to boast about them, I am proud of what we've done. Our
defense problems 5 years ago were enormous: It was a true
national crisis, and anything less than drastic action would have
been irresponsible.
Now we're over the hump -- the biggest increases in defense
spending are behind us. That's why last fall I agreed with
Congress to freeze defense funding for 1 year, and after that to
resume a modest 3-percent annual increase. Frankly, I hesitated
Page 7
to make this agreement because we still have far too much to do
in restoring our strength to afford a freeze. But I thought that
congressional support for steady, modest increases was a step
forward. Certainly if Congress had held up its end of the
bargain, we would have had the kind of bipartisan consensus that
is essential to continue our re-building.
Unfortunately, this isn't what happened. Congress broke the
bargain almost immediately. It had agreed to a freeze, but
instead, it imposed a sharp cut. Together with the additional
cuts already required under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, the effect has
been to cut this year's defense funding by about 6 percent. And
although the same Congress also agreed that we needed 3 percent
real growth in funding for next year, some are now saying that
perhaps we need to carve another 20 or $30 billion out of
defense.
This is reckless, dangerous, and wrong. It's political
backsliding of the most irresponsible kind. You need to know
about it, because you are the ones who've paid for what we've
accomplished over the past 5 years.
There are two very simple reasons not to cut defense now.
One, it's not cheap. Two, it's not safe. If we listen now to
those who want to forget about restoring our defenses, we can say
right now what the result will be: We will increase both the
dangers and the costs to our country -- and that means, to you.
I said it wouldn't be cheap to cut. How can cutting not be
cheap? Simple. We tried cutting in the seventies, and we saw
Page 8
what happened. In hopes of saving money, purchases were
stretched out: fewer planes, fewer tanks, fewer ships per year.
The result was waste, on an enormous scale. Hundreds of
millions of dollars were wasted, because the cost of each plane
and tank and ship went up, often way up. In the seventies we
spent less on defense, but we got much less defense for it.
This will happen again if Congress does what some propose:
They say, let's cut now -- and catch up later. They say that
bookkeeping tricks can save us money.
That's exactly the position we were in 5 years ago, when my
Administration took office. I have no intention of putting my
successor in that same position too. It's not fair to the next
Administration, and it's not fair to the American people.
Real cuts only bring phony savings, but there's a more
important reason that we must not cut our defense effort. It's
not safe.
All the reasons that we needed a restored national defense
in 1981 are still there. We have closed the gap in annual
purchases of military equipment, but we are still living with the
effects of a decade in which that gap was huge. Remember that
between 1970 and 1984, the Soviet Union invested $300 billion
more than we did in defense. With that extra money, they built
three times as many tanks, three times as many attack submarines,
five times as many intercontinental missiles, and forty-two times
as many artillery pieces and rocket launchers!
Page 9
We're gaining ground, but unless we continue to do what we
have to, the gap will open again. Certainly the Soviets aren't
slowing down.
For example, we estimate that the Soviets will build 18,000
tanks in the next 5 years. My budget provides for building
of our new M-1 tanks. Can we afford to do less than this?
In the next 5 years, the Soviets will build 540 new
intercontinental ballistic missiles. My budget provides for
building
.
Should we do even less than that?
And in the next 5 years, the Soviets will add some
50 submarines to their fleet of 300, and they'll add these subs
to a fleet that is already three times as large as ours. The
budget I've submitted will enable us to build
submarines.
How can those in the Congress who want to cut justify reopening
the gap between us and the Soviet Union?
Almost 25 years ago, when John Kennedy occupied this office
during the dramatic days of the Cuban missile crisis, he
commanded the greatest military power on Earth. Today we
Americans must live with a dangerous and demanding new reality.
Through a generation of costly building, year-in and year-out, at
the expense of its peoples' well-being, the Soviet leadership has
gained military superiority in one category after another of
military power.
But it is not simply the enormous arsenal of weapons that
they have acquired that puts us on our guard. The long record of
Soviet behavior -- its history of brutality toward those who are
weaker -- tells us that the only guarantee of peace, security,
Page 10
and freedom is this: To maintain our military strength and our
national will.
The peoples of Afghanistan, of Czechoslovakia and Hungary,
of Poland and the Baltic Republics, of more distant countries in
Africa and Central America -- they understand this. Few of them
would be able to understand how it can be that today we are
spending a third less of our Gross National Product on defense
than we did under John Kennedy -- and yet some of us are talking
about further cuts.
Some have been led to believe that our dialogue with the
Soviets means we can treat our defense programs more casually.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It was our seriousness
about defense and about responding to Soviet intervention that
created a climate in which serious talks could finally begin.
Stopping before the job is done will jeopardize all those gains.
Vacillation leads our enemies and our friends to
miscalculate our strength, misjudge our resolve, and mistake our
purpose. That's why weakness is ultimately provocative.
If we are steady, however, we can be hopeful about the
future. But we do not intend to stand pat or be complacent.
First, we must be smart about what we build. No view could
be more mistaken than to believe we have to ape everything the
Soviet Union does. To do so would lock us into a dismal
competition on Soviet terms, one that reflected their advantages
and they would be likely to win.
That's not what we intend to do. Our job is different:
It's to provide for our security by understanding -- and using --
Page 11
the strengths of a free society. If we can think smart enough,
we don't have to think quite so big.
We don't have to increase the size of our forces from
2 million to their 5 million -- as long as our military men and
women have the tools they need to keep the peace. We don't have
to have just as many tanks as the Soviets as long as we have
enough sophisticated anti-tank weapons.
Creativity is our edge, and where we have a technological
edge we need to make the most of it. While it would not be
appropriate to get into classified details, let me simply point
out that advances in making airplanes and cruise missiles
invisible to Soviet radar could make immediately obsolete the
vast and costly air defense systems upon which the Soviets and
their client states depend.
However, creativity is not enough if we don't follow up. My
successors won't be able to deter aggression with blueprints
alone. We have to translate our lead in the lab to a lead in the
field. But when Congress cuts our budget, they make it harder to
do either.
Second, we need to realize that our security assistance
program frequently gives us as much security for the dollar as
our own defense budget. Military assistance to friends in
strategic parts of the world is not "give-away" aid, but part of
a careful plan to increase the capability of others who share our
values and interests. When they are strong, we are strengthened.
It is in our interest to help increase their influence, help them
meet threats that would ultimately cause harm to ourselves, and
Page 12
give them greater confidence to work for peaceful solutions in
their own regions. Moreover, if American force ever did have to
be used abroad, our network of security assistance partners could
provide important and protected points of entry.
Third, where defense reform is needed, we will pursue it
relentlessly. That is why I created the Packard Commission last
June. They will be reporting to me in the next few days. Their
mandate has been to look at how we go about the business of
providing for our defense -- to go beyond improvements already
made by Secretary Weinberger in procurement and management. We
are eager for good ideas. These are, after all, America's
special genius. Wherever the Commission's recommendation point
the way to greater effectiveness, I will implement them, even if
they run counter to the will of the entrenched bureaucracies and
special interests.
I am committed to this goal because defense shouldn't cost a
penny more than it has to. But using our advantages is not just
a matter of efficiency and good management. It's much more, and
it means as much to me as anything I will do as President. A
free society, in which the people make the decisions about
defense, simply must seek to reduce its dependence on nuclear
weapons. This is the fourth important element of our strategy
for the future.
You've heard me talk many times before about the need for
the Strategic Defense Initiative, our research program to explore
the possibility of a security shield that could one day make
nuclear weapons obsolete. I am very hopeful, but meanwhile, we
Page 13
must consider the dangers of the world we inhabit now. We have
to do everything we can to guarantee that we'll be able to repel
any aggression -- without resorting to nuclear weapons.
These are not distant issues for a future President.
They're here today. The technology we have today, for example,
makes it possible to destroy a tank column 200 miles away. This
technology, perhaps the first cost-effective conventional defense
against the giant Red Army in post-war history. When we decide
to equip our troops in Europe with these systems, we're saying we
are determined to defend ourselves. When we decide not to, we're
saying that we simply hope and pray no one will attack us.
These are the practical decisions we have to make when we
send a defense budget to Congress. We would prefer not to bear
this burden -- but the choice is not ours: We can either keep up
and assure our safety, or fall behind and expose ourselves -- and
future generations -- to danger.
Each generation has to live with the challenges history
delivers. And you can't handle these challenges by evasion. You
must recognize reality, accept it, and do what you can to meet
the challenge and improve the situation.
That's why we're talking to the Soviets, bargaining -- if
Congress will support us -- from strength. We want to make this
a more peaceful world.
We want to reduce arms, we want agreements that truly
diminish the nuclear danger, agreements that are verifiable. We
don't just want signing ceremonies and color photographs of the
leaders toasting each other with champagne -- we want real
Page 14
agreements that really work, and we want them more today than
tomorrow and more tomorrow than next year.
That's what we're working and hoping for. But until that
day, I want America to be as strong as she is good -- and that's
strong.
I will never ask for what isn't needed; I will never fight
for what isn't necessary. But now, I need your help. Please
write or call your Representatives in Congress and tell them that
you do want cuts in the budget -- but not in the national
defense.
I really need your help, and I don't mind putting a
considerable amount of my so-called "political capital" on the
line. I'd rather spend it on this -- on protecting our freedom,
our country and the West -- than on anything else in the world.
Thanks for listening. God bless you. Good night.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 19, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DIRECTOR OF SPEECHWRITING
FROM:
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL JJR THE PRESIDENT
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Presidential Remarks: Dinner
With the Nation's Governors
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced Presidential
remarks and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.
CC: David L. Chew
ID #.
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I . INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent: Name Chew
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Remarks: Dinner with the nations
Governors
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUHOLL
ORIGINATOR
86,02,19
/ /
Referral Note:
cuat 18
R
86,02,19
S 86,02,20
Referral Note:
10 am
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/ /
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A - Appropriate Action
I Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R Direct Reply w/Copy
B - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 2/19/86
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 10:00 a.m. 2/20/86
SUBJECT:
REMARKS: DINNER WITH THE NATION'S GOVERNORS
(2/19/86 11:30 a.m. draft)
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
OGLESBY
REGAN
POINDEXTER
MILLER
RYAN
BUCHANAN
SPEAKES
CHAVEZ
R
SPRINKEL
CHEW
P
$$ STEELMAN
DANIELS
SVAHN
X
FIELDING
THOMAS
HENKEL
TUTTLE
HICKS
ELLIOTT
KINGON
VERSTANDIG
LACY
FAULKNER
REMARKS:
Please give your comments/edits directly to Ben Elliott,
with an info copy to my office by 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. Thanks.
RESPONSE:
David L. Chew
Staff Secretary
Ext 2702
(Dolan/BE)
February 19, 1986
11:30 a.m.
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: DINNER WITH THE NATION'S GOVERNORS
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1986
There's a wonderful saying attributed to Churchill that the
three hardest things a man can be asked to do is: climb a wall
leaning towards him, kiss a woman leaning away from him, and make
a good after-dinner speech.
Fortunately tonight -- and you're probably just as relieved
as I am about this -- I won't be facing any of those dilemmas.
My job up here this evening is simple and brief: to say a few
words of welcome while doing my imitation of Rich Little's
imitation of me
"Well "
Actually, though, I think you can imagine the sense of
solidarity that, as a former Governor, I feel with all of you.
It's one of the reasons I look forward to your annual
conferences. I must say, though, I question your timing; you
always arrive too late for the lighting of the Christmas tree,
too early for the blooming of the cherry blossoms, but just in
time for the announcement of the budget cuts. Yet I think the
people in this room tonight are -- of all people -- sympathetic
to the demands of budget-balancing; besides, as I have mentioned
in the past, coming to the White House as a Governor does have
its side benefits: it's a chance to look around, make yourself
at home a little, and reflect: "I could be happy here.
But that in a more serious vein, let me say how pleased
I are you could join us. And just so you know I really Nancy mean and
Page 2
this, let me point out that long before I ever thought of
politics as a profession, I was giving speeches on an
extraordinary invention by our Founding Fathers -- it was called
the Federal system.
Our Founding Fathers had learned first-hand a simple but
vital fact of history: that the gravest danger to human freedom
has always come from the excessive power of Government. They not
only feared States where absolute power resided in the hands of
one man or a tiny few, they also knew that the democracies faced
a hidden danger -- through the encroachments of our central
government -- of slipping into the dangerous waters of too much
government. As James Madison put it: "I believe there are more
instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by
gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations."
In the eyes of Madison and the other founders then, it is
the legitimate power of the States and the offices all of you
hold that are the principal safeguards against those usurpations;
those potential abuses of power by the central Government.
I needn't tell you how difficult that task has been during
the past few decades; and how unbalanced the relationship between
the Federal Government and the States became. That's why we've
made reinvigorating the Federal system and establishing the best
possible working relationship with the Governors one of our
priorities. And that's why I do look forward to the chance to
spend some time here together with you tonight and over the next
few days.
Page 3
It's true things are going better for America here at home
and abroad; but I hope this will not blind us to the problems
that remain to be solved -- some of which we'll be discussing in
the days ahead. And so, if I have one thought for our
get-togethers it would be this: let us reflect and remember the
very things that account for America's greatness, those
traditional values and concepts of government like decentralized
authority and a healthy federalist system that gave birth to our
Nation. A former Governor of Massachusetts and one of my
favorite Presidents put it this way about the Declaration of
Independence: "We live in an age of science and of abounding
accumulation of material things. These did not create our
Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the
spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material
prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a
barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great
heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be
'like-minded' as the Fathers who created it."
Now that may sound like a mouthful from old "Silent Cal"
Coolidge but I think he hits home because our task here in the
next few days is to be "like-minded" with the Founding Fathers,
to restore the balance between State and Federal prerogatives, to
bring Government closer to the people. And in that spirit, I
think we can accomplish a great deal together.
If I might just finish up with one more story about Silent
Cal. Some of you may know that after he was introduced to the
sport of fishing by his Secret Service detail, it got to be quite
Page 4
a passion with him, if you can use that word about "Silent Cal."
Anyway, he was once asked by reporters how many fish were in one
of his favorite angling places, the River Brule. And Coolidge
said the waters were estimated to carry 45,000 trout. And then
he said, "I haven't caught them all yet, but I sure have
intimidated them."
Well, we haven't solved all the problems that go with
restoring a sound Federal system but together we've made an
important start. Times have changed, the climate is there now to
make the State-Federal relationship -- our relationship -- a much
healthier, much better one for our people, for America.
And now it's my pleasure to introduce someone known to many
of you for his imitations of yours truly; ladies and gentlemen, a
truly extraordinary talent and someone who will also be looking
for work in 1988 -- Rich Little.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 19, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR THOMAS F. GIBSON III
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL JR THE PRESIDENT
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Request for Joint Statement of Past Four
Presidents for 20th Anniversary Dinner
Invitation of the Center for the Study
of the Presidency
You have asked for our views on a request from the Center for
the Study of the Presidency that the President join former
Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter in approving a joint
statement commemorating the Center's twentieth anniversary. We
have no objection to granting this request. If the Center will
accept stylistic suggestions, "appreciate" works better than
"are appreciative for" in the second line of the fourth
paragraph, and a synonym should replace one of the two
"admirably's.
382008
ID #.
CU
1.50$
WHITE HOUSE
PRD14-09
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o - OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I - INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent: Tom Gibson
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
Request for joint Statement of past four
Presidents for 20th Anniversory dinner invitation of
the Center for the Study of the Presidency.
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUHOLL
ORIGINATOR
86102+10 PY
/ /
Referral Note:
PY
CUAT18
R
86102172
S 86102121
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
I
I
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
-
-
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
I - Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C * Comment/Recommendation
R Direct Reply w/Copy
B. - Non-Special Referral
S * Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FREE
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code
#
"A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 10, 1986
382008
MEMORANDUM TO DICK HAUSER
FROM:
TOM GIBSON
To
SUBJECT:
Center for the Study of the Presidency
The Center for the Study of the Presidency is having its 20th
Anniversary dinner on Wednesday. April 9, 1986, and plans to
include on its invitation a joint statement by the past four
Presidents. The Center has received approval from Presidents
Nixon, Ford and Carter but has not heard from the White House.
I would appreciate your looking over the joint statement which is
attached and advising me whether Counsel's Office has any
objection.
Thank you.
CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESIDENCY
208 EAST 75TH STREET
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10021
212-249-1200
November 29, 1985
CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESIDENCY TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY
STATEMENT BY PRESIDENTS NIXON, FORD, CARTER, AND REAGAN
Center for the Study of the Presidency has recently completed
twenty years of distinguished public service. Inspired by at proposal
from President Eisenhower for a center on the American Presidency
"characterized by accuracy, objectivity, and perspective, it has
admirably fulfilled those criteria.
The first non-partisan, privately supported public policy
research center with its primary focus on the American Presidency,
the Center's Leadership Conferences, lectures, student symposia,
and publications have been of great help in bringing better
understanding of our American system of government, both at home
and abroad.
President Eisenhower had expressed the hope that the Center
would be for "students old and young
11
He predicted, "The
result cannot fail to be good for them and for the Nation. " His
conception has been carried through admirably.
Those of us who have been engaged in policy formulation and
decision making are appreciative for the services of the Center.
Daily it helps fulfill the bold experiment of the Constitutional
Framers by which "We the People" work together in advancing human
dignity, peace, and security. We congratulate the Center as it
completes this milestone and look toward its continuing outstanding
service for the Nation.
RICHARD M. NIXON, GERALD 2. FORD, JIMMY CARTER, RONALD REAGAN
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 20, 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR BEN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DIRECTOR OF SPEECHWRITING
FROM:
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL J2R TO THE PRESIDENT
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Presidential Remarks: National
Governors' Association
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced Presidential
remarks and finds no objection to them from a legal perspective.
CC: David L. Chew
ID #
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o OUTGOING
H * INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Dave Chew
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Presidential remarks: national
Governors association
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUNOU
ORIGINATOR 86,02,19
/ /
Cuat 18
Referral Note:
R 86,02,19
586,02,20
Referral Note:
530
/ /
/ /
-
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
I
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
1- I Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R - Direct Reply w/Copy
B Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 2/19/86
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 5:30 p.m. 2/20/86
SUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
OGLESBY
REGAN
POINDEXTER
MILLER
RYAN
BUCHANAN
SPEAKES
CHAVEZ
SPRINKEL
CHEW
P
5S STEELMAN
DANIELS
SVAHN
FIELDING
THOMAS
HENKEL
TUTTLE
HICKS
ELLIOTT
KINGON
LACY
REMARKS: Please provide any comments on the attached directly to
Ben Elliott by 5:30 p.m. Thursday, February 20th, with
an info copy to my office. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
David L. Chew
Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
(Robinson BE)
February 19, 1986
2:00
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION FEB
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1986
Chairman Lamar Alexander, Vice Chairman Bill Clinton, ladies
and gentlemen, good afternoon and welcome to the White House.
It's an honor to have you join us this afternoon -- and it was
good to see so many of you here at dinner last night. I don't
mean to give any of you ideas, but when those dinners are over,
in my job you're already home.
As we gather today in this historic house, one President and
50 Governors, we do so as the inheritors of the federalist system
designed by the Founding Fathers some two centuries ago. Perhaps
we might consider that federalist system briefly this
afternoon -- review its origin, consider its development, and
suggest the direction it should take in the days to come.
When federalism was first devised, the Founding Fathers
wanted not only to protect the people against a single,
all-powerful government, but to keep government as close to the
people themselves as possible, enabling them to participate
widely in its activities. To this end, the State governments
were entrusted with duties like the protection of property rights
and the enforcement of criminal justice -- duties that affected
the people in their everyday lives.
When Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in 1821, he found
that it was indeed the State governments with which the people
were most closely involved. "Men," he wrote, "are affected by
the sovereignty of the Union only in connection with a few great
Page 2
interests
But State sovereignty enfolds every citizen and in
one way or another affects every detail of daily life.' So from
an early date, a federalist system with vigorous State
governments had become an integral part of the American way of
life.
In subsequent decades, of course, the federalist system
underwent considerable development -- mostly in the direction of
greater power for the Nation at the expense of the States. In
certain respects, this growth of Federal power was necessary and
good. It was vital to our history as a Nation, for example, that
States should fail in their attempt to secede from and thus
destroy the Union.
But with the advent of the liberal experiment which began in
the 1930's -- the New Deal, the Great Society, the so-called War
on Poverty -- something profoundly unhealthy began to happen in
the relations between Washington and the States. The National
Capital began to swamp the States with social programs and
economic regulations. It taxed the American people more and more
heavily, leaving little leeway for the States to raise revenues
of their own. In time, the States were in many respects reduced
to the status of mere functionaries, mere units of
administration. This undermined the Constitution, removing
government from the people and placing it in the hands of the
Washington elite. It permitted the National Government to become
bloated and ineffective.
So when our Administration came to office, we took it as one
of our chief aims to reawaken the federalist impulse -- in short,
Page 3
to restore power to the States. In an address to the National
Conference of State Legislatures nearly 5 years ago, I spoke of a
"quiet federalism revolution that promises to be one of the
most exciting and noteworthy in our generation."
We began to promote vigorous State government and widen the
scope for independent State decision-making. Our Job Training
Partnership Act, for example, enabled you in the States to work
directly with private investment councils to create new jobs. In
1985 alone, the number of jobs you created rose to more than half
a million -- 9 out of 10 of which went to the economically
disadvantaged.
Today we're continuing this vital work. Our new
$3.3 billion transportation block grant, our expanded primary
health care block grant, and our new pollution control block
grant will give you in the States wide latitude in choosing how
to administer them. I've directed my staff to work with you in
compiling lists of Federal regulations that impinge upon your
prerogatives and can be changed without congressional approval.
But despite all we're doing to promote federalism here in
Washington, our efforts take second place to the remarkable new
initiatives you're overseeing in the States. State governments
are holding down the price of Medicaid. You're attracting
venture capital. You're fostering international trade -- indeed,
many here today have traveled abroad on trade missions, and I
urge you all to continue this vital work.
In education, States have moved with special energy. All
50 States now have task forces on education, and in many States,
Page 4
promising new programs like merit pay for teachers are already in
place. On the economy, States have come to understand the power
of tax policy to promote economic growth. In recent years, for
example, both Massachusetts and Delaware have cut their overall
taxes, soon benefiting from higher growth and lower unemployment.
While our Administration has proposed the creation of
enterprise zones to the Congress every year for the past
5 years -- always to no avail -- today 26 States have more than
1,300 enterprise zones in place. These enterprise zones have
seen the creation of tens of thousands of jobs and billions in
capital investment.
Yes, the quiet revolution I spoke of 5 years ago is well
under way. No one should be prouder of it than you, the
Governors of our 50 States, for it is in large measure your
revolution. Indeed, the States today are governing so well that
they can teach the Federal Government some important lessons --
lessons like the importance of operating in the black and of
giving the Chief Executive the line-item veto. In the words of
James J. Kilpatrick, "it becomes increasingly evident that the
State governments, as a group, are governing more responsibly
than the National Government. The most interesting political
activity these days is often not in the National Capital, but in
the State capitals." Now let me ask you: Don't you think that's
just what the Founding Fathers had in mind?
As we turn to the future, I'd like to focus on one
particular aspect of federalism, one special area of shared State
and national responsibility -- our system of welfare.
Page 5
Our welfare programs -- State and Federal alike -- add up to
one long tale of tragic failure. From the 1950's on, poverty in
America was on the decline as economic growth led millions up to
prosperity. Then in 1964 the famous "War on Poverty" was
declared. Billions were spent on programs of all kinds, but
poverty, as measured by dependency, stopped shrinking and
actually began to grow worse. I guess you could say, poverty won
the war.
Yet how could this have happened? How could such good
intentions have gone so utterly awry, and the resources of a
great Nation have been squandered in such futility? Today we are
beginning to understand.
In the fight against poverty, we now know, it is essential
to have strong families -- families that teach children the
social skills they will need to succeed in the wider world;
families that provide mothers and fathers with comfort,
inspiration, and a focus for their labors. How often have we
heard of the immigrant father, laboring long into the night to
give his children the advantages he never had? How many
self-made men and women in America owe their success to the
strength of character given to them by hard-working, loving
parents?
Yet when we ask ourselves whether our welfare programs have
encouraged poor families to form and stay together, we must
answer, far from it. Instead, they have subjected poor families
to the action of a subtle but constant undermining, like the
lapping of a dreadful river.
Page 6
Perhaps welfare is most damaging in the way it takes the
role of provider away from parents and gives it to the impersonal
State. Think of the working mother. In the parts of the country
where payments are highest, a single mother can receive public
assistance that amounts to much more than the useable income from
a minimum-wage job. In other words, it can pay her to quit work.
or consider fathers. In many States, a family becomes
eligible for substantially higher benefits when the father is
absent. What must it do to a man to know that he has been
stripped of his role as provider -- to know that his own children
will be better off if he is never legally recognized as their
father? Under certain welfare rules, a teenage girl who becomes
pregnant can receive benefits that will feed her, clothe her,
provide her with medical care, and set her up in an apartment of
her own. She need only fulfill one condition -- not marry or
identify the father.
Given our welfare system, it should come as no surprise that
in our inner cities, families as we have always thought of them
are not even being formed. Since 1960, the percentage of babies
born out-of-wedlock has more than doubled. All too often, the
mothers of these babies are themselves only children -- many of
them 15, 16, and 17 years old. And the fathers? The fathers are
frequently nowhere to be found.
What of the babies themselves, these children born to
children? Statistically, we know that out-of-wedlock babies are
much more likely than others to suffer a low birth weight and
consequently serious health problems. We know that
Page 7
out-of-wedlock children often suffer abuse and neglect as well.
Earlier this year, the Washington Post printed a story that
reported on the children of young, unwed mothers. It described
as typical a 6-year-old girl whose mother often left her alone in
their apartment for hours on end -- alone, that is, to care for
her 6-month-old sister. What sort of future can that child and
the hundreds of thousands like her ever hope to enjoy?
The welfare system has not only failed but become virtually
insane. With only about half the amount spent on welfare
annually, we could give enough money to every impoverished man,
woman, and child to lift them above the poverty line for an
entire year. Instead we waste vast amounts on a system that
actually holds these people down, often in misery and squalor.
Now we are in danger of creating a permanent culture of poverty,
as inescapable as any chain or bond, a second and separate
America, an America of lost dreams and stunted lives.
My friends, I believe we're too great a Nation -- too good
of heart, too bold in finding solutions -- to permit this to
continue. Isn't it time for reform?
In my State of the Union Address, I directed our
Administration to study the effect on the American family of a
wide range of Government programs, and to report back to me with
recommendations by December 1st. But the Federal Government is
responsible for only a portion of our welfare system and can do
only so much on its own. So today I invite you, the chief
executives of the 50 States, to join our effort to reshape the
system with which we help those in genuine need. In short, let
Page 8
us make welfare reform the next great step in the Federalist
revolution.
Many of you already preside over important welfare
innovations. Perhaps the most striking among these is
workfare -- the attempt to give welfare recipients the training
and sense of self-respect that can come only from work. Today
more than 20 States now have some form of workfare in place. In
a sentence I cherish, Time magazine reports that workfare, quote,
"has slowly evolved from a somewhat cranky conservative notion to
one with broad support." To tell you the truth, I kind of like
cranky conservatives that end up with broad support.
Of course no one can say just how successful workfare will
finally prove, but workfare does attempt to meet what I believe
must become the central criterion for all forms of public
assistance -- not how much money we spend on welfare, but how
many Americans our programs make independent of welfare. The
50 States present us with the opportunity to apply this criterion
in endless ways, experimenting and testing in a manner from which
all can profit. In welfare reform, the States can truly become
the laboratories of our democracy.
Today, I believe, we have rediscovered the central truth of
federalism that the Constitution embodies: Washington must not
ignore the States but seek to involve them -- and even, on many
issues, to follow their lead. Let us apply this sturdy old
insight to the problems of our time. Let us strive through the
federalist system to create a land where there is no permanent
welfare culture because there is opportunity for all. Let us
Page 9
labor above all to build a Nation where the sacred institution of
the family receives unstinting encouragement and support.
Thank you, and God bless you.