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
7340974
label
Interview of the President by Sid Davis, Westinghouse Broadcasting Washington Bureau Chief [Interview Transcript]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
7340974
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Interview of the President by Sid Davis, Westinghouse Broadcasting Washington Bureau Chief [Interview Transcript]
citationUrl
collections
White House Press Releases (Ford Administration)
Press Releases
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
7340974
levelOfDescription
item
productionDates
day
22
logicalDate
1975-09-22
month
9
year
1975
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
caf10fade639e151
ocrText
Digitized from Box 16 of the White House Press Releases at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 22, 1975
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
(San Francisco, California)
THE WHITE HOUSE
INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT
BY
SID DAVIS
WESTINGHOUSE BROADCASTING WASHINGTON
BUREAU CHIEF
STAN BORMAN
BELVA DAVIS
JENNY CRIMM
AND
LYNN JOINER
KPIX-TV
THE ST. FRANCIS HOTEL
2:56 P.M. PDT
QUESTION: Mr. President, just recently this
city went through a traumatic and somewhat extraordinary
set of circumstances when the fire department and the
police department all went out on strike at the same time.
I am sure you were aware of that. This is
somewhat of an indication of what possibly might happen
in major cities across the country.
How do you, as the Chief Executive, feel about
this, sir? Do you think that, number one, policemen
should be allowed to go out on strike and, number two,
if you feel they shouldn't, do you think there should be
a Federal law prohibiting strikes by all municipal workers?
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, the problem that you
raise is 100 percent a local problem in that the Federal
Government has no jurisdiction to enact legislation or to
take Executive action to force a procedure or a method for
resolving disputes between local employees and the
responsible city officials.
The situation in San Francisco ought to be
settled by the people of this community. It ought to be
settled perhaps as some States have, by enacting State
legislation. That is within the jurisdiction of the State,
as well as the local community.
MORE
Page 2
The only area where the Federal Government has
any authority is that involving Federal employees, and when
a few years ago, I think it was 1970, the Congress estab-
lished a postal service system in contrast to the old
Postal Department, the Congress approved a procedure for
arbitration in case the Government and the employees
couldn't get together.
That does, in effect, provide, number one, for a
procedure for a firm determination, and it also includes
a provision that prohibits a strike by postal service
employees. I voted for that legislation.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, on another topic, there are
reports that a man was arrested and booked today here in
San Francisco on suspicion of threatening you and, also,
following your own close brush with death in Sacramento
a couple of weeks, I wonder if this has convinced you at
all that we need tough gun control legislation in this
country or are public officials going to have to travel
across the country with a bullet-proof vest and a prayer?
THE PRESIDENT: I did recommend to the Congress
earlier this year a rather comprehensive approach to crime
control, a new proposal that would make it much more difficult
for individuals to get what we call Saturday night specials,
which are the cheap handguns that are used extensively
for illegal purposes.
In addition, I proposed to the Congress that we
have much more severe penalties for a person using a gun
in the commission of some other crime and for mandatory
sentences in order to get people who use guns in the
process of committing a crime or alleged crime.
It seems to me that that approach is far, far
better than the approach of some people who recommend that
gun owners should be registered and that handguns and long
guns ought to be registered.
I prefer to go after the person who uses the
gun for illegal or criminal purpose. That, to me, is a
far better approach than the one where you require
registration of the individual or the gun.
QUESTION: Mr. President, yesterday Secretary of
Defense Schlesinger said that any new weapons we introduce
into the Middle East, or Israel, should not, to use his
words, overawe Israel's neighbors.
In the interim agreement we have signed with
Israel, we are promising new weapons and there is the
prospect of the Pershing missile, which has the range that
could touch just about all of Israel's neighbors.
Aren't we creating the prospects of the seeds
for a monstions new ALTAS race in the Middle East?
MORE
Page 3
THE PRESIDENT: Not if it is properly handled,
Sid.
The shopping list that the Government of Israel
submitted to the United States Government included a very
substantial number of weapons, most of which are defensive
in nature.
The Pershing missile request, we -- the United
States -- only promised to study. We made. no commitment
that we would make that weapon available and in the process
of study, we will have some time to see how the peace
efforts, the Sinai peace agreement proceeds along with
potential other agreements in that area.
But, there is no commitment by us except to study
for the delivery of a Pershing missile to the Middle East.
MORE
Page 4
QUESTION: Mr. President, today in a speech you
said that you envision some 200 nuclear power plants by
the year 1985. Here in California enough citizens are
concerned about the safety and disposal problems of these
plants to have put it in issue on the ballot in June to
ban the construction of them. How do you feel about the
safety problem and about the disposal problem?
THE PRESIDENT: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
which was established by the Congress last year and which
is now in operation, and the Energy Research and Development
Organization, which was likewise established by the
Congress, both are in the process of studying safety,
nuclear power development, et cetera.
So far, I believe that the overwhelming prepon-
derance of the evidence indicates, number one, that we have
a safe nuclear power capability and furthermore that, if
there are any serious questions, that the further research
and development will result in even a higher degree of
safety, better safeguards.
I think in light of our serious, almost critical
energy shortage, that it is unwise for any State to ban
the development and the utilization of nuclear power in the
future.
We expect to build 250 nuclear power plants, as
I recall, in the next ten years. If 49 other States do it,
I can imagine there could be a serious, adverse economic
impact on the State of California.
It would potentially -- I don't say certainly,
but potentially -- interfere with the economic development
of the great State of California. It would mean the loss
of potential jobs as we need more jobs for the young
people, for others.
I think there is a better approach than an arbitrary
ban because the safety record so far and the prognostications
of responsible people indicate to me, at least, that the
danger is not a serious one and, if there are any problems,
they can be resolved.
QUESTION: Mr. President, we are very glad to see
you back in California again, and I understand you will be
returning against next month.
The question is why three trips in less than a
month and a half and, if this California blitz -- if you
will pardon the expression -- is really just to try to
sidetrack Ronald Reagan's shadow campaign for the nomination
in 1976?
MORE
Page 5
THE PRESIDENT: Our plans to come to California
two weeks ago and the plans for this current weekend
were made a good many months ago. They were made because
we have visited, or I have attended, a number of meetings
of a variety of organizations.
I spoke at Pepperdine University on Saturday,
at Stanford University on Sunday. I spoke at the AFL-CIO
Building and Construction Workers Convention this morning,
or on Monday. I spoke to the World Affairs Council in
San Francisco.
It is a whole list of very diverse organizations
that give me an opportunity to get acquainted with their
interests and to indicate my policies.
California is a big -- it is an important State.
We want Californians to understand their President, and
I want to get to know Californians. It has really no
relevance as far as the political campaign is concerned.
I am coming back in October for a purely Repub-
lican Party function. That is a different type of activity,
and I think it is important for me, as the head of the
party, to participate.
QUESTION: There is one other Californian you
did speak to. You spoke to Richard Nixon yesterday. Why
did the White House wait until today to report that, and
will you accept Richard Nixon's help in your campaign in
1976?
THE PRESIDENT: My relationship with the former
President is a personal one, a personal friendship that
has existed for 26 years. I don't think it is necessary for
us to volunteer when I call him or he should happen to call
me.
It is my understanding that if Ron Nessen was
asked, he would say yes, I called the President, I am
in the State where he lives, within a relatively short
distance of his home.
I think it is a perfectly natural thing for
longstanding friends to talk on the telephone.
His participation in 1976 is a matter for him
to decide, and we will wait and see what he does decide.
QUESTION: If he decides, would you want his
help?
MORE
Page 6
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think you accept anything
in the political arena. A person has to make a choice
himself as to what he wants to do. We have no plans to
ask him, but if a person decides, it is a free country.
He can participate in any way that he wishes, but that is
a personal choice for him.
MORE
Page 7
QUESTION: So by that answer, Mr. President,
without trying to put words in your mouth, you would not
reject his help or whatever support he would give you?
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter of semantics.
What he does is his decision. We are going to run my
campaign, as I said several months ago, on my record
and on our program for the future. If people want to
help, I can't preclude it. It is up to them to decide.
QUESTION: I have a couple of questions, sir,
about the Central Intelligence Agency which has been in the
news, as we all know, for the past year or so with mounting
rapidity.
First off, are you frightened by the latest
revelations of the CIA, namely, the Cobra venom stockpile,
the shellfish toxin stockpile, the poison dart guns
supposedly they have and the latest story that broke
over the weekend that alleges that E. Howard Hunt supposedly
was supposed to kill columnist Jack Anderson. Do these
allegations frighten you, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: I think you have to go back to the
charter that President Truman recommended to the Congress and
the Congress in 1947 wrote into law in the establishment
of the Central Intelligence Agency. As I recall -- I wasn't
in the Congress at that time -- that it was virtually
unanimous that President Truman's proposed Central
Intelligence Agency should be established by law, it was
given a charter and given certain responsibilities.
And the Central Intelligence Agency over this period of
27 or 28 years has carried out its responsibilities under
the law.
Now, there may have been certain indiscretions
or actions or programs that border on being outside of that
charter and that is what the Congress is in the process
of examining. And I think it is a very proper responsibility
for the Congress, in an oversight capacity, to examine such
as they have in both the Church Committee and the Pike
Committee, the operations of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you mentioned former
President Harry Truman and it was published in the
Washington Post on December 22, 1963, a column that was
written by the former President. In that he said, "The
role of the CIA should be limited to intelligence, there
is something about the way the CIA has been functioning
that is casting a shadow over our historic position in this
country and I feel that we need to correct it."
That was 12 years ago. Do you feel there should
be some limitations on the power of the CIA and, if so,
what limitations?
MORE
Page 8
THE PRESIDENT: The basic limitations come from
the law. The operation under the charter comes from the
people who have the responsibility.
It is, I think, very proper for Congress to conduct
an. oversight operation, as they are, and it is very probable
that there ought to be a greater control exercised through the
Executive Branch over the operations of the CIA.
We have an organization, have had for a good many
years, an intelligence advisory committee that has a
relationship in a broad sense to the CIA and the intelligence
community. There have been suggestions that this advisory
group ought to be given more authority to actually supervise
the operations of the Central Intelligence Agency and the
others. There has been no decision by me as yet on whether
that group or some other group, or in some other way, we
might have a closer control over the operations on a
day-to-day basis of the Central Intelligence Agency and the
intelligence community. Those are possibilities.
Within the very near future, I expect to make
administrative recommendations, I expect to make legislative
proposals as far as the intelligence agencies are
concerned.
I did not answer, Stan, one previous question you
indicated concerning columnist Jack Anderson.
MORE
Page 9
QUESTION: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: As I read the newspapers -- I
haven't gotten any further information on that -- that was
not connected with the Central Intelligence Agency. That
was an alleged arrangement or program between certain
people in the White House in the 1970-1971 period. It
did not involve the CIA.
Therefore, I don't think the CIA should be con-
nected or condemned with that allegation. They have
enough troubles on their own.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, to get on the topic of
energy for a second, it is obvious that Russia needs our
wheat and we need oil. You have been quoted as saying
that it is conceivable and quite possible that America
would negotiate with the Soviets for oil in exchange for
wheat.
Getting out of the possible, the conceivable
realm, is it going to become a reality?
THE PRESIDENT: We have made very substantial,
encouraging, optimistic progress in negotiation with the
Soviet Union for the SovietUnion on a five-year agreement
to buy substantial amounts of American grain, a set
amount as a minimum and potentially more on an option
basis.
This would help to equalize the purchases over
a period of time instead of the wide fluctuations where
one year they buy very little, the next year they buy a
tremendous amount.
We think that a firm, long-term wheat or grain
agreement with the Soviet Union is good for the American
agriculture, for the farmers, for the consumers.
It also will increase the, I think, effectiveness
of detente between the Soviet Union and the United States.
MORE
Page 10
We hope to have an answer on this problem
within the very near future and I might add that, if it
is signed, we will also get an additional benefit and
this important here in the Bay area, the West Coast,
in that we will get a better freight rate for American
ships in the delivery or the shipment of American
grain to Soviet ports, which would mean that about 35
American ships would come out of lay-up and go into
the trade and provide more jobs for American seamen.
So it is a complicated but very intriguing
and, I think, important negotiation. I am optimistic
that it will work out.
QUESTION: Yes, but are you going to push for
the oil since we need that so desperately? Are you going
to push for that?
THE PRESIDENT: That is another aspect and
there are discussions and there are potential negotiations
going on between the United States and the Soviet Union,
linking to some extent but not directly, grain and oil.
This is a much more complicated subject. We
have plenty of oil today and an agreement with the
Soviet Union for oil would be sort of a good insurance
policy in case there was an oil embargo from the Middle
East.
If Russia has oil that it wants to sell, and
we need some, which I think would be good insurance, I
think it makes sense to try and get both a grain deal
and an oil deal.
QUESTION: Sir, on the subject of energy and
oil, you fought long and hard for decontrol of domestic
oil, indicating that the rise in price would some how
help us to conserve somewhat.
How high are you willing to see the price of
a gallon of gasoline go before reversing that procedure?
THE PRESIDENT: It is higher than I would like
right now. (Laughter)
On the other hand, it has to some extent
helped us to conserve, it has helped us to prevent
the squandering of some of our energy sources.
I believe, however, that the price rise has
gone sufficiently high and, if we can get an energy
program on line, it is my opinion that any further price
rise will be minimal.
As a matter of fact, if the Congress had approved
my phased decontrol program over a 39-month period, in
the first 12 months of that phased decontrol program,
energy prices related to oil would have gone down.
MORE
Page 11
Unfortunately, the Congress wasn't wise enough
to understand it or to take action to approve it. So
now that they have rejected a phased decontrol program,
we are pretty much faced with total decontrol, which
is not the best alternative, but even with total
decontrol, I don't think you are going to have any
significant increases in fuel costs.
QUESTION: Wouldn't that, though, if it did
happen, really hit at the poor, the working class more
than anybody else because they would be the ones
who could not afford to pay the prices?
THE PRESIDENT: It would affect everybody
but I urge you to go back to what I said in January when
I offered a comprehensive energy program. I said, "If
there are any energy cost increases, we would rebate
to the American people $12 billion for added energy
costs by a reduction in income tax payments. We would
give $80.00 a person to the poor who had no income to
compensate them for the added energy costs.
Again Congress has not acted on the rebate
program that I recommended. I wish they had. We
wouldn't be faced with a problem of, to some extent,
adding energy burdens to the American people.
QUESTION: Mr. President, in your travels
around the country, you have persistently launched an
attack against the Federal Government and big government
and the Federal Bureaucracy and at one point promised
to get the government off people's back and out of their
pockets. Yet today here in San Francisco you are
proposing a $100 billion government corporation to be
established subject to the approval of Congress to
help find ways to develop our energy resources. This
would include massive amounts of Federal money.
How do you square that with your comments
about less government? Are we admitting that we cannot
solve our energy problems in the private sector?
THE PRESIDENT: Most of our energy problems
can and will be solved in the private sector, but there
are some programs where we are in the process of exotic
research and development -- solar energy for example --
where once the scientists and technicians have developed
the capability for expansion of that energy source, we
do have to take the first step from research and develop-
ment to an operational plant to prove that it will work.
That first plant, so to speak, has to be
perhaps: financed by this joint government private sector
program. And that is what the energy resource corporation
will be aimed at, not in a long range financing of
energy sources, but aimed at primarily, not exclusively
but primarily taking the position from completion of
research and development to the first use where there
is a hesitancy on the part of investors, because of
the uncertainty to invest.
MORE
Page 12
This is where I think we have to act. We did in
the case of the synthetic rubber plant in World War II.
We did it in the Manhattan Project with the atomic bomb.
We did it in our efforts to get to the moon. We have
done it with COMSAT.
It is a procedure that has been used in the past,
and I think it can be adequately used in the future.
QUESTION: In doing so, you are leaving yourself
open to a charge by probably your critics that you are
going to have billions of dollars in Federal funding
going to big oil and big business, and this leads me to
the question.
The public's perception of your Administration
is one that is friendly to big business. I think in your
relationship with labor leaders you would find that, and
recently in a Gallup Poll, Mr. Gallup said that of the
adults who were questioned--and he addressed this nation-
wide--only 21 percent would own up to being Republicans
and then you have the results of New Hampshire.
Would this indicate to you that you are in
serious trouble in 1976 as a party, and you as President?
THE PRESIDENT: I think any of the polls that
have pitted me against a Democrat, with the exception of
Ted Kennedy -- and even there one month he is ahead and
the next month I am ahead -- but pitting my own candidacy
against any other Democrat, every poll that I have seen
for the last six months shows that I would win.
We have 14 months to go before the election, and
my Democratic friends have to pick a candidate first,
and they are going to have a little trouble there, but
I welcome whoever they pick. But, I think it is categorically
inaccurate and unfair, and I don't think it is said by
people who have thought it out, that this Administration
is predominantly interested in big business. That is
totally inaccurate.
We have increased our funding, for example, in
a wide spectrum -- education, unemployment compensation,
the whole area of human assistance. We have recommended
in the budget for the current fiscal year more money than
any Administration in the history of the United States for
social programs.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, I am sorry to cut off
because I understand you probably want to go further. We
only have about thirty seconds left, and I wondered if you
could in that time possibly sum up how you would talk
to some of the young people of this country about their
mounting fear of losing control of their country, what
with the murder of a President, the murder of a candidate
running for President, paralyzing of another, et cetera.
It goes on and on, still even happening today with a threat
against your life. What do you tell the young people of
this country?
MORE
Page 13
THE PRESIDENT: I tell them that, number one,
we have a great country, they have a great stake in it.
They can decide what course of action, what aims, what
visions we should have in this country, and I find a
great and good response from the young people across the
board.
I am optimistic about what they will do with
America. I think they will make it a better place for
them and those that follow.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
END
(AT 3:22 P.M. PDT)