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
7340683
label
Interview of the President by Arthur Albert, Executive News Director, WJAR-TV; Sarah Wye, Correspondent, WJAR-TV; and Jack Cavenaugh, Correspondent, WJAR-TV [Ford Speech or Statement]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
7340683
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Interview of the President by Arthur Albert, Executive News Director, WJAR-TV; Sarah Wye, Correspondent, WJAR-TV; and Jack Cavenaugh, Correspondent, WJAR-TV [Ford Speech or Statement]
citationUrl
collections
White House Press Releases (Ford Administration)
Press Releases
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
7340683
levelOfDescription
item
productionDates
day
30
logicalDate
1975-08-30
month
8
year
1975
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5076617598c62b91
ocrText
Digitized from Box 15 of the White House Press Releases at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AUGUST 30, 1975
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
(Newport, Rhode Island)
THE WHITE HOUSE
INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT
BY
ARTHUR ALBERT
EXECUTIVE NEWS DIRECTOR, WJAR-TV
SARAH WYE
CORRESPONDENT, WJAR-TV
AND
JACK CAVENAUGH
CORRESPONDENT, WJAR-TV
SHERATON-ISLANDER INN
6:00 P.M. EDT
QUESTION: We have a weekly public affairs
program we at WJAR normally call a news conference.
Because of the stature of our guest, we have
expanded the format and produced this special edition,
which is being shared with 12 television stations through-
out New England. All of you are most welcome.
Our guest is President Gerald Ford, who
promised when he came into office a year ago to bring new
openness and accessibility to the White House. His
participation in this unusual sort of regional format
indicates he is making that effort.
Mr. President, welcome.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. It is a pleasure
to be on the program, Sarah.
QUESTION: Asking questions along with me
tonight will be Jack Cavenaugh, on the WJAR-TV staff
and Arthur Albert, News Director of WJAR radio and TV.
I think one of the subjects you will be hearing a
lot about in this discussion in the next half hour is energy.
Obviously, it is very heavy on the minds of the people through-
out the country. Until Friday, we were braced for a massive
increase in domestic crude oil because of your decision
to veto the Congressional extension of price controls.
You have since changed your mind about decontrol,
and you are suggesting perhaps a 60-day extension and
gradual decontrol. What went into the decision to change
your mind?
MORE
Page 2
THE PRESIDENT: I think first, Sarah, you have
to understand that the United States, our country, has
a serious energy crisis. Actually, the energy crisis
in New England is more serious than it is in any other
part of the country, primarily because New England is
more dependent on foreign oil than any other part of the
United States.
So, unless we solve the energy problem for the
United States, and unless we make ourselves more free of
foreign oil imports, New England is going to be in more and
more trouble.
In January, I submitted to the Congress a compre-
hensive energy program for a ten-year period, and we made
some exceptions as far as New England was concerned,
recognizing the vulnerability of New England.
I had hoped that the Congress would act on a
comprehensive plan, either the one I submitted or one
they might put together.
Unfortunately, Congress has not acted, so after
attempting to decontrol on a phased basis on two occasions--
one over a 30-month period with an increase in old oil, so
to speak, at a rate of about 3 percent per month--the
Congress turned that down.
I made another effort of compromise and concil-
iation, making it a 39-month phased decontrol program.
The Congress turned that down.
Under those circumstances, I had no alternative
but to say unless you act, we are going to decontrol all
old oil, all domestic old oil. I think at least the
leadership in the Congress -- Senator Mansfield and Speaker
Albert -- recognized that was not the right answer.
We had a meeting on Friday, and I said that I
would hold off the veto until they could get their troops
together and come up and agree to the phased program that
I submitted about a month ago.
QUESTION: What you are saying is you never were
in favor of intermediate and secondary control?
MORE
Page 3
THE PRESIDENT: No, I proposed two examples of phased
decontrol, one a 30-month and another 39, but Congress turned
both down. In order to try to avoid an abrupt end, I agreed
to resubmit a 39-month phased decontrol program and, hopefully,
the majority party leadership will be able to work with the
Republicans in the House and get a phased program over a
39-month period.
QUESTION: Mr. President, the controls have to come
off eventually but New England will have to bear the brunt
of those controls because we have such problems with energy,
because our economy is in such bad shape right now. What do
you say to people who are unemployed here who have to bear up
under this energy crisis? Or is the Federal Government
going to make any kind of specific commitments to New England
to help us get out of this situation?
THE PRESIDENT: Over the last three or four months
I have made exceptions as far as New England is concerned.
In the first imposition of the import levy, it had
no effect on New England, it had an effect on the rest of the
United States. When I put the second dollar on to try to
prod Congress to do something, the second dollar only
affected New England, I think, to 60 cents a barrel. So I
tried to recognize the needs, the problems that exist in
New England. As I said at the outset, New England has a
greater need for a comprehensive solution to the energy problem
than any other part of the United States.
So what I have tried to do is to make exceptions for
New England and at the same time get the Congress moving to
enact an energy program that would solve the problem not only
in the short haul but the long pull. Now, in the interim
while we had this unfortunate unemployment and we do have more
unemployment not only in New England but elsewhere than I
certainly want, we have done a number of things. For example,
we have extended the unemployment payments from 39 weeks to
65 weeks. We have broadened the coverage so that 12 million
more people are covered under unemployment. I recommended,
and the Congress approved, about $450 million for the Summer
Youth Program so that young people this past summer would be
gainfully employed.
We have done a great deal with what they call
public service employment. I recommended about $2 billion
for that program and I was talking to the Mayor of Providence
today and he says it has been a very helpful program.
We have also tried to expedite some public works projects.
I made available a $2 billion allocation for highway con-
struction which has been made available in many, many
States and I presume here in Rhode Island.
MORE
Page 4
We have, for example, been trying to get some
local projects going. I talked to the Mayor of Providence
today coming down here about a $32 million Federal building
in the City of Providence. I am going to give it some
personal attention. when I get back to Washington. I think
that kind of project would be very helpful. So
we try
to push forward for an energy program, which is what we need
over the long haul, we are trying to take care of individual
geographical problems.
QUESTION: And yet, while we are working on it,
the unemployment rate in this State here is about 16 percent,
12 percent in Massachusetts, 11 percent throughout New England.
Is it possible for the Federal Government to redirect some of
its major installations, relocate them, transfer them,
create new ones here? After 1972 when military bases were closed
in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the economies were hurt
very, very hard.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course I am deeply concerned
about the unemployment problem not only in Massachusetts but
the 48 other States. But we have to try to rebuild the economy
from an inflation-ridden economy from a year ago to one that
is solidly based so that over the next few months when we
get better employment -- as we are at the present time over-
all -- we are not going to have a reigniting of inflation
like we had a year ago.
So we will do all we can through public works,
through unemployment insurance, through public service
employment, summer youth employment, in order to meet the
unique circumstances of a particular State. But the basic
way to solve our unemployment, whether it is Rhode Island
or 49 other States, is to get a healthy private sector economy.
And we can do that through some tax proposals that I have
recommended and some of the other legislation which we will
be submitting shortly.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Andrew Brimmer, who
used to be a Governor of the Federal Reserve and who is
a fiscal conservative, said -- I think he disagreed with you.
He said that next year, thanks to the Project Independence,
your energy policy, thanks to grain sales, there will be
six to seven percent inflation but he says there is no chance
really that excess demand will push the inflation higher.
And he says now you can do it, now you can lower interest
rates, now you can provide jobs by encouraging the economy
without the danger or inflation. Have you considered that
and talked about that with Dr. Burns?
MORE
Page 5
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, I am sure you
recognize I don't control interest rates. Those are
basically controlled by several factors; one, the
Federal Reserve Board.
I have talked to Mr. Arthur Burns, and we have
what I think are appropriate as well as private conver-
sations. He is cognizant of the needs of an adequate
supply of money, and he is very cognizant of the problem
of higher interest rates.
At the same time, I think you have to recognize
that if the Federal deficit goes beyond my $60 billion
deficit -- and unfortunately, the Congress is spending
more money than I think they should -- that will contribute
significantly to higher interest rates and a shorter supply
of money available in the private sector.
So, we have to control the Federal deficit. $60
billion is too darned big a deficit, but the Congress
is continuously pressing to make it bigger.
Now, we are going to hold the deficit as low as
we can, and we are hopefully expecting cooperation, and
I think we will get it from the Federal Reserve Board.
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Brimmer if
he alleged that the grain sales to the Soviet Union are
a significant factor in inflation. I respectfully dis-
agree with him. Does he want us to put out that grain in
storage and pay $1 million a day in storage charges, as
we did in the sixties? I don't think that is a very
satisfactory answer.
QUESTION: I think he did say that energy was
the main component, but following up on your answer, I
have been talking to people around New England in antici-
pation of your visit, and I keep coming up with that old
folk saying: "Democrats get us into wars, Republicans
into depressions." That, of course, may be oversimplified,
but previous Administrations and your Administration have
chosen to fight inflation first and unemployment second.
I am just wondering when will the time come
to switch so that this recovery, which seems as if it is
on the horizon, will recover in a hurry rather than just
stumble along?
THE PRESIDENT: I would say that the recovery
is doing better, and we are coming out of it more quickly
now than some people anticipated. For the fifth month
in a row, as I recollect, overall indicators show that we
are making headway. We are seeing higher housing starts.
MORE
Page 6
We are seeing better retail sales. We are
making some headway, except for the last month, in
inflation, and I think that was an unusual example, and
we are optimistic in the future.
One thing I would like to point out is I think
it is important to talk about some affirmative things. In
the last five months, we have had one million two hundred
thousand more people gainfully employed in this country.
We now have over 85 million people gainfully employed.
We have too many unemployed, but more and more
people are being employed and the indications are that
that will be a continuing trend.
So, we have to win the battle against inflation.
If we let the problems of inflation reoccur, every knowledge-
able economist that I have talked to says, if you went back
up to 10 or 12 percent inflation, in 12 to 18 to 24 months
we would be in a far worse recession than we are at the
present time.
So, it is a very narrow line that we are trying
to follow: To win the battle against inflation on the one
hand and at the same time provide more job opportunities,
and I think we are being reasonably successful.
As Jack said over here, New England, or at
least Rhode Island, has some unique problems, and we are
going to work on it, as I indicated.
QUESTION: Mr. President, let's return briefly
to energy. We have dealt with domestic crude oil by saying
the approach now is to decontrolling domestic oil prices.
The OPEC countries, the oil producing countries, will be
meeting to decide soon what price increases they will
ask by October 1.
It is widely rumored in the oil industry that
you have let it be known that an 8 percent increase in
foreign oil prices would be acceptable to you. Is that
true?
THE PRESIDENT: I am not familiar with that
statement. A lot of statements are attributed to me. I
have a pretty good memory, and I don't know where that
statement came from.
MORE
Page 7
QUESTION: What are you looking for from the oil
producing countries?
THE PRESIDENT: Let me put it this way, Sarah,
if the Congress had passed early this year the comprehensive
energy program that I recommended, we would be in a lot better
position to meet the challenge of any OPEC oil price increase.
Unfortunately, nothing has been done legislatively so we
are now more vulnerable today than we would have been
otherwise.
I have said that, as far as I am concerned we will
do everything we can to defeat any OPEC oil price increase.
Unfortunately, without an energy program, we don't have
many tools to do that with.
QUESTION: Mr. President, schools open very soon
around the country and in New England. And in Boston and
Springfield, Massachusetts that means forced busing for de-
segregation. You have had a position on busing before. Can
you take a minute and clarify your position on busing? What
is your position on busing?
THE PRESIDENT: Before I say anything about what my
own personal views are, I want to say most emphatically that
I, as President and all that serve with me in the Federal
Government, will enforce the law, no question about that.
We will, to the extent necessary, make sure that
any court order is enforced.
Now I add one thing that I hope is understood.
We don't want any conflict developing in Boston or any of
these other communities that have court orders forcing busing
on local school systems. So I have sent up the the Attorney
General, and the community relations experts -- they have four
or five people up there that are working with the court, with
the school boards and with parents and with others. At the
same time the new Secretary of HEW, David Mathews, has sent up
his top man to work with the school system. And that
individual, Dr. Goldberg, has authority to spend extra
Federal funds to try and improve the situation in Boston.
Now, having said the law is going to be enforced,
that we are going to try and moderate and work with the
people in Boston, I will give you my views on what we are
trying to do.
MORE
Page 8
The basic thing that everyone is trying to do is to
provide quality education. there is a difference of opinion
on how you achieve quality education. My personal view is
that forced busing by courts is not the way to achieve quality
education. I think there is a better way.
We have had court order forced busing in a number of
communities. There are studies that indicate that it has not
provided quality education to the young people, which is of
personal concern.
I think there is a better way to do it. In my
judgment, if the courts would follow a law that was passed,
I think, two years ago, maybe two and a half years ago, it
said that in those areas where you have a problem in seeking
desegregation, the court should follow five or six rules.
Busing was the last option.
There were five other proposals that courts could have
followed and I think we would have avoided a lot of this
conflict. That is one way I think we could have solved this
problem. The other is the utilization of Federal funds to
upgrade school buildings, provide better teacher-pupil ratios,
to provide better equipment, that is the way, in my opinion,
we achieve what we all want, which is quality education.
I just don't think court order, forced busing, is the
way to achieve quality education. I think there is a better way.
QUESTION: Mr. President, if I may follow up on
that, you have come up with an alternative but it would seem
that because we were afraid of inflation, you have vetoed
bills for more aid to education, you have vetoed bills for
more public service jobs, so are you prepared, you know,
to turn around on that?
THE PRESIDENT: Arthur, let me just clarify
something. The appropriation bill concerning public service
employment that you say I vetoed, let me give you the
history of it so the matter is clarified. I recommended
$1,900,000,000, $450 million for summer youth employment and
the remainder -- which is roughly a billion and a half --
for public service employment. The Congress loaded it up
with $3 billion in non-essential spending. Sure, I vetoed
it. When the Congress saw that the veto was sustained
they came back and virtually approved what I sent up there in
the first place.
So we had $2 billion in summer youth employment
money and we had public service employment money.
Now, the education bill, the education bill that I
submitted in January for the budget that started July 1 had
more money in it for education than any other year in recent
years. We increased it over previous years. Again, the
Congress loaded it up with some programs that I think can't be
justified if you are going to have any fiscal responsibility.
I hope the Congress sustains that veto, because there is a lot
of non-essential spending in it. Now, having vetoed that bill,
there was nothing in there, in that proposal Congress had, to do
anything more in desegregation cases than I recommended. So
that is a moot issue as far as the Boston case is concerned.
MORE
Page 9
QUESTION: Can I move you along to another
area completely, and that is fishing, which is of some
importance to the New England States. Our fishing
industry is dying, and it would appear that foreign
fleets, modern fleets, are perhaps wiping out fish for
a long time, perhaps forever.
The Senate has passed the 200 mile limit bill,
and the House probably will, too. Will you sign it?
THE PRESIDENT: If my recollection is accurate,
in this session of the Congress the Senate has not acted.
I think they acted last year.
QUESTION: Right.
THE PRESIDENT: The House committee has acted,
and it will be on the House agenda shortly. What we are
trying to do, through the Law of the Sea Conference, is to
settle all of the controversies on a worldwide basis
involving fishing, the 200 mile zone, et cetera.
I am for the concept of a 200 mile zone. I think
it is better to settle it on a worldwide basis rather
than to do it unilaterally just for the United States.
QUESTION: The problem, Mr. President, is that
while we are waiting for the international treaty our
fish supplies are being depleted.
THE PRESIDENT: We had the second meeting of this
Law of the Sea Conference ending earlier this year.
They have a draft proposal at the present time.
They are going back to negotiations early next year. It
is my hope we can do it on a worldwide basis and the
United States, at my direction, is going to fight for
a 200 mile zone.
I think that is a better way to solve it than to
do it on a unilateral basis, just the United States.
QUESTION: How long are you willing to wait?
THE PRESIDENT: We hope that the Law of the
Sea Conference will be completed early next year. As
I recollect, the conferees are getting together in
January.
We have made a lot of progress and, if we can
get it on a worldwide basis in 1976, that is far preferable
to unilateral action just by the United States.
MORE
Page 10
QUESTION: One quick question for New Hampshire.
New Hampshire would like to know if you are planning to
come up sometime before September 16 and campaign for
Lauie Wyman?
THE PRESIDENT: It is my expectation that I will.
We are working on a date. Louie Wyman is a very good
friend of mine. I served with him in the House. I
think he would make a fine Senator. I certainly expect
to go up sometime between now and September 16 to help
him if I can.
QUESTION: Mr. President, why can't the Northeast
New England States share in the profits from the leasing of
off-shore oil rights off the coast?
THE PRESIDENT: Under the legislation that we are
working on -- and there are about ten different alternative
proposals -- I think that the coastal areas ought to get
some help.
There is a bill in the Senate. It goes, I
think, further than it should. Of course, there are many
inland States who say, well, this is a United States
resource. Why can't we share equally with the coastal
States? So, we have these competing interests.
I believe, without any question of a doubt,
that coastal States ought to get a high priority, the
highest priority, and then we will have to work out some
formula where I think we can equitably take care of
any other interests that are involved.
Mr. President, two quick ones on politics. We
presume you will be back in New Hampshire next winter --
THE PRESIDENT: I am looking forward to it.
QUESTION: -- and that between now and then
there will be a lot of pressure on you from the Reagan
forces, some people will call them the Connally forces,
to dump Mr. Rockefeller.
If it is necessary to do that to get the
nomination, will you do it?
THE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't put it that way. I
picked Nelson Rockefeller for Vice President because I
thought he was an outstanding public servant. He has
exceeded any expectations that I have had. He has done a
superb job. He has been a good teammate. I don't dump good
teammates.
MORE
Page 11
QUESTION: Okay.
Mr. President, in 1972 when the Soviets bought
15 million tons of grain, food prices went up. Now they
would like to buy 21 million tons. Will they get it all?
Will they get part of it? Will food prices go up?
THE PRESIDENT: You have more information than
I have. They bought about 10 million tons. There are
rumors to the effect that they want to buy additional
amounts.
I have indicated that we will make no more
sales until we get the September crop report. All the
indications are that we will have a record crop in wheat,
in corn and feed grains, including soybeans.
If we get a record crop and if we can work out
some fair and equitable arrangement, I think it is in the
best interest of the farmer, the consumer, our relations
on a worldwide basis, and best for the country, if we do
make some additional sales to the Soviet Union.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I have never seen a
President end so neatly. You finished up the question,
and we don't have to cut you off.
Thank you. The time went awfully fast.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, and I enjoyed it.
I thank all of you very much.
QUESTION: Thank you and good night.
END
(AT 6:28 P.M. EDT)