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
7340854
label
Remarks of the President and Question and Answer Session at the St. Louis White House Conference on Domestic Affairs and the Economy, Stouffer's Riverfront Towers [Ford Speech or Statement]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
7340854
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Remarks of the President and Question and Answer Session at the St. Louis White House Conference on Domestic Affairs and the Economy, Stouffer's Riverfront Towers [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
7340854
levelOfDescription
item
productionDates
day
12
logicalDate
1975-09-12
month
9
year
1975
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f051171a1e8256ca
ocrText
Digitized from Box 15 of the White House Press Releases at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 12, 1975
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
(St. Louis, Missouri)
THE WHITE HOUSE
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
AND
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
AT THE
ST. LOUIS WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON
DOMESTIC AFFAIRS AND THE ECONOMY
STOUFFER'S RIVERFRONT TOWERS
4:05 P.M. CDT
Governor Bond, Congressman Taylor, members
of the Cabonet, the Administration, ladies and gentlemen:
It is really a great privilege and pleasure
to be here in St. Louis, the Crossroads of America,
and this very attractive Riverfront Towers.
I have been in St. Louis a good many times
in the past and it really is a shame. I can recall
rather vividly when big events in St. Louis were held
at the Spanish Pavillion. (Laughter)
I do want to thank Secretary Mathews and
his alma mater. And I expected to come to Missouri and
have to give some odds to Kip on the forthcoming game
between Michigan and Missouri. I think the situation is
reversed. (Laughter) And we will have some negotiating
to do later on, but my bargaining position is infinitely
better.
Let me thank you all for being here. I had
some prepared remarks which I have thrown away. I just
want to get to the questions and the answers.
These White House conferences which have been
held in a number of major communities throughout the
United States are aimed at the fine people that are
leaders in the Administration talking to you, but more
importantly listening and learning from you. We think
this is the best way to establish communication between
people throughout the United States and the people who
have some decision-making responsibilities in the
Federal Government.
I have been President now about 15 months and
we have had our share of problems. We have made headway
in most of them; we admittedly have not solved all.
MORE
Page 2
Some of the most difficult problems involve
the economy and energy. In the area of the economy
it is my judgment that we have moved out of the bottom
and are starting upward with some very encouraging
signs. In the last four or five months about
1,500,000 more people are gainfully employed even
though the unemployment rate is far too high.
In the area of retail sales, industrial
production and other significant signs in the area
of the economy there is encouragement, but we are
not going to rest in this area until everybody who
wants a job and seeks a job gets a job. That is our
definition of how we should handle the unemployment
problem.
Number two, in the area of energy, we will
not be satisfied until the Congress enacts either
my program, which I think is the best solution, or
their program, which I have not seen yet, (Laughter)
and until some program is enacted that gets the United
States free of the vulnerability of actions against
our interests by foreign oil cartel.
So with those basic observations and comments,
I will be glad to turn to the questioning and, as I
understand it, the first is Mr. Barksdale.
MORE
Page 3
QUESTION: Yes, Mr. President.
I am Clarence Barksdale, and I am President of
the St. Louis Regional Commerce and Growth Association.
St. Louis, as you know, is the heart of the bread
basket of the world and, consequently, we are concerned
with the nternational commerce as far as agricultural
products are concerned.
Accordingly, is there any consideration being
given by your Administration about using our agricultural
production and pricing as a leverage in the international
marketplace, such as has to be done by us, by the OPEC
cartels?
THE PRESIDENT: Let me emphasize that I consider
the sale of our agricultural products overseas vitally
important. Last year we sold $23 billion worth, as I
recollect. We bought about $10 billion worth of foreign
agricultural products so that the net gain to the United
States in foreign trade was roughly $12 to $13 billion.
That was significantly vital in our trade relationships
around the world.
I believe that we can use food in a variety of
ways: One, for humanitarian purposes for those less well off
than ourselves but, in additionl for a wide variety of
other reasons, including foreign policy objectives.
At the present time, we have a top negotiating
team in Hoscow, for example, negotiating for a long-term
sales contract with the Soviet Union so that if and
when they buy, they buy under the terms of an agreement,
no on sudden stopping and starting, as they have in the
past, with 1972 buying a lot and several other years buying
very little.
We think it is in the best interest of agriculture
for us to have long-term contracts or agreements with the
Soviet Union, as we do with Japan, as we do with other
countries. We think this great resource produced by less
than 6 percent of the American people, those that live
on the farm, can be used and in a wide variety of ways, and
we are going to do it for the benefit of all the 214 million
Americans.
Thank you.
Mr. Douthit?
MORE
Page 4
QUESTION: Yes, Mr. President. I am Bill
Douthit, the Executive Director of the Urban League
of St. Louis.
Mr. President, your posture in the public
press has appeared to be that of being opposed to
busing. Now some well-intentioned whites are opposed
to busing, as well as some blacks, but, Mr. President,
my question is, how do we achieve quality education
without isolating large segments of our population
from each other?
THE PRESIDENT: I am glad that you put the
emphasis where I think it belongs; namely, quality
education.
Quality education under the method utilized
by the courts is aimed at forced school busing. That,
of course, came out of the 1954 Supreme Court decision.
I firmly say without any hesitation or
qualification that if the court says something has to
be done, it will be done, as far as this Administration
is concerned, no question about that. On the
other hand, it is my judgment that there is a better
way of achieving quality education for all school
children than by the court method.
It is most interesting. A very able
black newspaper columnist by the name of William
Raspberry, in the Washington Post this morning, said
that court order forced busing was not achieving quality
education. I wholeheartedly agree with him.
Now what can be a better way to do it? I
believe that you can improve the facilities in many
of the disadvantaged areas. Too often school boards
have neglected some of the plant and equipment in those
areas. We should increase the pupil-teacher ratio. I
think that would be helpful in upgrading the educational
opportunities of young people so they can achieve
a quality education.
I believe that the Emergency School Aid
Program which Congress approved roughly five or six
years ago, it is about a billion and a half a year --
no, it is not quite that much but it is a sizeable
amount -- can be focused in on places like Boston,
as Secretary Mathews has done, or in Louisville where
we are having our current problems; to try and get
better faculty, better facilities, better equipment.
In my honest opinion, that is a preferable way to
achieve the objective of quality education without
tearing apart some of the social fabric in some of
these communities.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
MORE
Page 5
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Frank Gamelin, of the Higher
Education Council in St. Louis.
Mr. President, those of us who profited
from the GI bill after World War II and are grateful
to America for what it made possible for us have long
hoped, I think, that it would be possible for every
man and woman to obtain from their fellow citizens,
through Government, the support necessary to supplement
family health to the extent that they could attend
the post-secondary school of their choice in the program
for which they are eligible.
Do you see any possibility of further
implementation of this principle in planning for future
spending in higher education?
THE PRESIDENT: We have a number of higher
education programs. The GI bill that was originated
after World War II is in full operation now and is
continuing even though those who are in the military
today are not in combat, and that was the general
basis upon which the GI bill was initially passed
at the time of World War II and at the time of Korea.
We spend roughly $1 billion to $1.5 billion a year on
that program at the present time.
In addition, we have a number of educational
programs that are aimed at helping young people who
want to go to college and who do not have the financial
means to do SO. We have a loan guarantee program with
any loaning institution. We have basic educational
opportunities with BEOG, or whatever the combination
is, and there is another one -- I can't recall the
name -- but the total amount available in these several
programs is about $1 billion a year. So there is really
no reason today why no young person who wants to go
to college can't get Federal financial assistance of a
substantial amount. It won't cover the whole thing
but it will cover a very substantial amount.
If I could add a PS to that, I believe in
those programs -- and we recommended a very sizeable
budget figure for all of them, roughly $1 billion --
I am very disturbed at the default rate in those programs
where young people borrow from their government and
then fail to repay when they get through and get a
job. That is an obligation to their government, and
it is about a 20 percent default rate at the present
time, and it amounts to $200 million a year, as I
recall. I don't think that is playing fair with the
people who loaned them the money in the first instance.
I am for the program but young people have as
much an obligation to repay their government as they do
to repay anyone, and I just think we have got to instill
that spirit in them. We are going to loan -- if the
Government is going to loan, then they ought to under-
take a comparable obligation to repay.
MORE
Page 6
QUESTION: Mr. President, I am Ann Slaughter
and this is Del McClellan. We are Co-Chairmen of the
Women's Crusade Against Crime, which for five years has
been marshaling citizens to seek improvements in the
criminal justice system.
Unhappily, our country has witnessed an increase,
rather than a decrease, in crime. Citizens are increasingly
frightened by the horrendous acts of criminals. The time
has come to return principal consideration to the victims
of crime.
This means swifter justice in the courts through
outline of unjust delays. This means effective correctional
facilities for those convicted. However, impoverished
citizens do not have adequate funds for maintenance of
deteriorating neighborhoods which breed crime. We need more
Federal funds to be made available for our cities.
My Co-Chairman, Del McClellan, will ask our
question.
QUESTION: Mr. President, improvements in the
system are very important, but they will be useless
without good men and women. Paramount is the need for a
return to individual honesty, to respect for personal
and property rights.
In this, our Bicentennial year, we ask that you
follow the directive of Benjamin Franklin, who in 1880
asked that a moral science be developed to carry personal
morality forward with the amazing scientific and engineering
feats he so accurately predicted.
Fighting crime without the full commitment of the
American people to a return to the moral values which made
our Nation great is an expensive and completely hopeless
enterprise.
As Mr. Seidman told us at lunch -- and I think I
quote him properly -- he is looking for new directions to
go back to old truths.
I am asking if you couldnot convene a working
task force to develop guidelines toward a revival of
spiritual values as inscribed on our coins, In God We
Trust, appoint men and women of wisdom from churches and
schools, and homes, and then could you please use your good
offices to spread these principles of right conduct
through the printed word, news media and television, which
would again lift the spirit of our people and encourage
the return of heroes to our land?
MORE
Page 7
THE PRESIDENT: I made a speech this morning, or
this afternoon, where I made some comments that I think
would fit in very neatly with the observations made by
both of you.
I think that we have got to seek the strength-
ening of the family, in the first place, and the strength-
ening of our individual ties to the church in the second.
I believe that all of the money we have spent --
and we have spent a great deal of money at the Federal
level, about $800 million a year in the last three or four
years -- for what we call Law Enforcement Assistance
Act programs, Federal money to States and local units of
Government, and unfortunately despite that vast expenditure
of money, the crime rate continues to go up.
So, money itself will not meet the problem.
The basic one is how we can strengthen the family, the
church, our moral and spiritual values.
I will take under consideration the establishment
of a national commission or committee, but I think it is
more basic than that. I think the leadership has to come
from the clergy, from civic leaders, from others in the
local area.
I will certainly consider it, but I think we
ought to take a look at other alternatives aside from money,
and money at the Federal level really has not solved the
problem.
Thank you very much.
QUESTION: Mr. President, my name is Sugarman.
I represent the Ozark Chapter of the Sierra Club.
We have a great many problems in the St. Louis
region, stemming from the Corp of Engineers relentless
promotional activities on the Mississippi River and on our
agricultural flood plains and on our scenic Ozark streams.
The Council on Environmental Quality has recently
conducted a special review of the Merrimack Basin Dam
project in Eastern Missouri, but has been blocked by the
General Council from publishing their findings. Meanwhile,
citizens would like very much to debate the issues knowing
the facts that CEQ has developed.
Mr. President, will you ask the CEQ to make their
findings known to the public on this and other similar
projects?
MORE
Page 8
THE PRESIDENT: I am generally familiar with that
project. I will find out the details from Governor
Peterson and his associates at CEQ. I would certainly
consult with him as to whether or not those findings by
ham should be made public.
I don't think it is appropriate for me to make
a commitment at this time. Their procedures, I would
assume, would call for such documentation being made
public, but I think it is the better judgment for me to
consult with him and his associates before making any
categorical commitment.
I can assure you that whether they are made
public or not, they will be made available to the proper
authorities within the Government and they will be
considered by all of those who have a responsibility in
making the final decision.
I think we have to incorporate in any decision-
making process whatever EPA or CEQ or the Corp of Engineers,
the Department of Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation,
the Forest Service and others ought to have an input
but at some point somebody has to make a decision.
As long as the flow of information is free and
those who have that responsibility analyze_at all, there
has to be a cut-off point, and once that process has
been concluded, and I think in this case it will--then
we either proceed or don't proceed, depending upon what
a responsible official decides.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MORE
Page 9
QUESTION: Mr. President, I am Roger Guyot,
President of the World Trade Club of St. Louis.
We are concerned regarding the trend towards
reduction and elimination of assistance to Midwest
business firms engaged in international trade.
Specifically, we believe the case for the Domestic
International Sales Corporation, otherwise known as DISC,
that this as an incentive is as important now as it
was in 1971. U.S. companies need a tax stimulus
to compete on equal terms with the foreign governments
who subsidize their producers and their industries.
Would you comment, please?
THE PRESIDENT: I was in the Congress in 1971
and voted for the legislation that incorporated DISC.
I believe DISC is just as important today as it was then.
It helped to expand our trade at that time. I think it
can be beneficial in expanding trade at the present
time, giving incentives for the expansion of our
trade.
I would hope the Congress in its deliberations
would not rescind the legislation. This Administration
will not recommend the abolition of the DISC program.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I am Randy Parent,
President of Vocational Industrial Clubs of America.
Just how much monetary support is being given
to the vocational education in the future, and what is
being done to promote the growth of the vocational
education?
THE PRESIDENT: It is my best recollection
that in the traditional vocational education program
there has been a gradual increase -- if my memory
is accurate, it is about $300 million a year. Is that
roughly right?
Well, I can tell you that it has been on
an increasing scale, and I think that figure is roughly
right.
Now in addition to the traditional vocational
education programs we have what is called CETA --
Comprehensive Educational Training Act, CETA -- and
(Laughter) it has been funded this year at a figure
of $3 billion 200 million.
Included in that program was $450 million
for the summer job training program for young people,
which was very helpful -- it had some aspects of vocational
education.
MORE
Page 10
The remainder of the CETA program is aimed
at vocational training primarily for those people who
are out of work of one occupation and seeking employment
in another occupation. So roughly $2.5 billion is
available in that aspect of the program plus the
traditional high school and vocational education
program.
Now that is a lot of money -- I think it has
generally done a good job. But what has bothered
me about some of the vocational educational programs
and some of the CETA training programs is that we have
a training program that does not necessarily relate to
an occupational area where there are job opportunities.
I know from my old experience in the Congress
that we used to establish -- not we but the Department --
job training programs, and then all of a sudden when
the program ended there were no job opportunities in
that particular employment field. I think there has to
be a better coordination in finding out where the job
opportunities are, the shortages exist, and then train
people for those shortages rather than just train
them for an occupation where there are no job oppor-
tunities. I think we can do a better job spending that
much money in this aspect of vocational education.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I am Geraldine Berry,
Board Member for the St. Louis OIC. My question was
just asked but I have another.
Many of the social and training programs which
have aided the poor, the minorities and the disadvantaged
were begun under other Administrations. Your Administration
has continued some of these programs either through
transfering them to other departments and then to the
creation of the Legal Services Corporation.
Mr. President, my question is: Are there
any other social programs that you might have in the
planning stage that might alleviate some of the many
ills of our community? If not, what can the poor and
the disadvantaged expect from your Administration,
particularly in terms of full employment and hope for
the future?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the best opportunity
for those that are disadvantaged is to have a healthy
economy, and let me tell you the burden of not having
one.
MORE
Page 11
This past year we have spent between $18
billion and $20 billion in unemployment compensation
by the Federal Government itself. In addition, we
have had a tax loss so the net result of not having
a healthful economy has been very substantial.
What we have to do is stimulate the economy
so we have less unemployed and a bigger tax base or
a tax base with a greater depth. Now if we can get
the economy going, we won't have to have as many of
these so-called aid programs as we have at the present
time. We could cut back and should cut back in a
responsible way in the food stamp program, the welfare
program, if people are working.
Now the Vice President is undertaking,
beginning in about 10 days or two weeks, a series of
meetings with the Domestic Council in 9 or 10
cities throughout the United States where there will
be opportunities for individuals or groups to testify
in the area of welfare, food stamps, training programs,
the whole range in this area, and it will be a wide
open opportunity for groups and individuals to testify
whether they want more of them or they want less of
them. It won't be a stacked house, I can assure you.
So we will get some ideas from the people in
this operation under the Domestic Council headed by the
Vice President. At the moment, it is my honest opinion
we have got enough programs; we just have to make them
work better. We have some that are top-heavy with
Admini tration. We have some where the benefits
are paid through error, and that is unforgiveable in
this kind of a society. We have some where the
instances of illegality are far too high.
It is a very strong belief on my part that
we can make the programs we have run better and then
we won't have to worry about new programs because we
have got then to the extent of about 1,000 categorical
grant programs in the Federal Government, and if that
isn't enough. than I am really mystifled. A thousand
categorical grant programs ought to be sufficient to
handle the problems we have at the present time. We
just ought to make them work better, and I think we can.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I am Bill Vorbeck,
President of the St. Louis Police Officers Association.
It is our opinion, the St. Louis Police
Officers Association, that one of the most productive
ways for federally-funded agencies and commissions to
operate at the local level, such agencies as LEAA, are
to have input from the grass roots.
MORE
Page 12
Therefore, my question is: Does the Government
have any plans that would permit local police associations
to nominate one or two of their members to federally-
funded local boards so that the police officer on
the street can have some input into the agencies'
programs?
THE PRESIDENT: Under the LEAA, Law Enforcement
Assistance Act, that was passed about 1967 or 1968,
the money goes to the State and then is filtered down
to the local communities. The basic law provides
that there shall be a commission at the State level --
and I think each State has a different title, but it
is a board or a commission that operates at the State
level for the distribution or the recommendation for
the distribution of the money that goes to the State
for funneling to the local units of government.
I think it would be helpful in each State
to have that kind of representation. On the other
hand, not knowing how each State sets up its boards --
some States may have 20, some may have 5 on that board --
I am just not familiar with that detail -- but there
ought to be some representation, let me put it in that
context. How much, I am not qualified to say. There
should be a point of view on that board from people
who are on the firing line, so to speak.
QUESTION: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I hope I didn't get the
Governor in trouble. (Laughter) I didn't get in trouble
with the Governors, let me put it that way. (Laughter)
MORE
Page 13
QUESTION: Mr. President, I am Joe Snyder of
Gallatin, Missouri, the Missouri Press Association which
represents the small city and small town newspapers of our
State.
Many people are becoming quite concerned about
the strikes that are directly affecting various levels of
Government. We have seen law enforcement officers, firemen,
teachers, garbage collectors and postal workers -- and I
didn't mean to tie those two together (Laughter) -- strike
or threatened strikes against the Government, and I am
told that the Armed Forces are themselves not immune to
overtures from those who would like to organize them.
Now, my question is, how far can these movements
go without jeopardizing the historic role of public service
jobs, and when does this type of pressure and coersion by
those working for Government and paid from tax money begin
to approach the degree of rebellion or insurrection?
THE PRESIDENT: At the Federal level, there is
no authority for Federal employees to strike. In fact, if
I am correct, I think it is prohibited. It is particularly
so in the Postal Service. There is, in Postal Service
legislation that was enacted in 1969 or 1970, a procedure
by which if the new management of the Postal Service and
the labor unions can't agree, there is an arbitration
procedure set up whereby any irreconcilable differences
can be mediated and decided by this arbitration board, and
it is binding.
That is the only instance that I am familiar
with in the Federal Government where this procedure is used.
It has never gone that far. There has been negotiations
on two or three occasions that were difficult, but there
was never any need to utilize that procedure.
I feel that in the area of non-Federal Government
employees -- and I am now getting into an area where I have
no authority or jurisdiction, so I am only expressing an
opinion -- that in the area of health and safety and security,
there ought to be in that area -- like we have in the
Postal Service, which involves for the Federal Government
a great responsibility -- there ought to be some arbitration
that ends in a decision if the two parties can't negotiate
it.
It seems to me that the population as a whole,
or citizens as a whole, need some protection, as we have
in the Federal Government, for the Postal Service in
State and local units of Government, and in some States
that has been the case.
MORE
Page 14
There is a procedure that I think has merit
that has been tried in some areas of labor-management
differences where you have an arbitration board and if
they can't agree, then each party -- labor on the one
hand, management on the other -- submits its best offer
for settlement and then the arbitration board has to
pick one or the other. They can't divide them in two.
What does this do? It gets both management on
the one hand and labor on the other hand to make the best
possible offer in the hopes that their view will be
accepted and it does not give to the arbitrator the right
to cut it down the middle, which I don't think in most
cases is very good, and in this case where it has been
used, it has been very successful. I would urge that as an
alternative to the usual arbitration procedure.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Florence McGiffin,
President of the Missouri Federation of Women's Clubs.
Some of our members have just returned from their
spring buying of wearing apparel. Most of the merchandise
is higher by 20 to 25 percent, What can be done about the
rising prices?
THE PRESIDENT: The best way to battle inflation,
or one of the best ways, in my humble opinion, is to get
the Congress to stop spending a lot of the money that they
are trying to throw away.
Let me be specific, instead of being perhaps
facetious.
Last November and December I spent a good share
of my time trying to put together the budget that by law
the President has to submit to the Congress in January for
action by them prior to July 1 of that year.
When we sat down and literally spent hours, low
and behold, we found that despite our efforts to turn
the squeeze to cut back employment, roughly 40,000,
everything we could do, we ended up with a deficit of
$52 billion. $52 billion.
I was dumbfounded. Then we submitted that to the
Congress and under the new Budget Act that Congress passed
a year ago, they now have a responsibility to analyze the
budget, set their spending limits and come up with their
deficit.
After I submitted the budget in January or
February of this year, there were screams and hollers that
I was a spendthrift. But, you know what happened when
they had to sit down and do the same job? They came up
with a budget deficit figure of $68 billion and now,
despite that cut-off point that they set, they have now
gone above it about $4.5 billion, so it is $70 billion
or more.
MORE
Page 15
Somewhere along the line, we have to start
controlling some of the programs that have gotten out
of hand. I think we can, but if we don't, these
deficits, which will range between $60 and $75 billion
this fiscal year and probably one of $30 to $50 billion
next year, inflation will be very difficult to control,
to get a handle on.
Now, there are other things that can be done,
but this is the one where the President and the Congress
have a responsibility, and I can promise you to the extent
and the authority I have, that we are going to keep
vetoing spending tills that go beyond the budget I
submitted, and that was high enough, as far as the deficit
was concerned.
Take the education bill that I vetoed this last
week. The Congress overrode it 300 and something to 30
or 40 in the House, and in the Senate it was 70 something
to 12.
That single education bill will add $300 million
to spending in this year and $800 million next year over
and above what I recommended, and I recommended more for
this year than was made available last year.
So, we didn't cut anything back. But, as long
as they keep sending appropriation and spending bills
above a reasonable figure, I am going to veto them. I
hope the Congress will finally awaken and find that they
are the principle contributors to inflation in this
country.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I am Bcb Kelly,
the President of the Advertising Club of Greater St.
Louis.
We applaud and support in principle the Government
guidelines which set forth certain things to be followed
concerning faith and truth and accuracy in advertising.
However, before the Congress today there is a bill which
would prohibit the utilities of the Nation from continuing
to advertise their services to the public.
We feel this is a very clear and serious infringe-
ment on their right of free speech to communicate with
their customers and potential customers, If a bill of
this sort did reach your desk, what would your position
be?
MORE
Page 16
THE PRESIDENT: I am often asked that question by
Members of Congress as they go down the line in the legis-
lative process. I don't think I should treat you any
differently from them. (Laughter)
My answer to them is, I will give you an answer
to that legislation when it is placed on my desk because
there is a long, hard row between the introduction of a
bill and its consideration by a committee, its consider-
ation on the floor of the House and Senate, et cetera.
Often times, about all that is left in a bill
is its original number. (Laughter) So, I learned a long
time ago never to endorse or say you will vote against
or veto a bill just by number. I got caught in that the
first year or two I was in Congress.
What I am saying is, basically, I don't think
there should be any prohibition against people or organ-
izations exercising their right of free speech, and that is
a very fundamental issue in this country, and it ought to
be true of individuals or cooperatives or partnerships or
any other organiztion, but I don't think I ought to say
to you I am going to veto that bill, not having read it
and including the fine print, which is often most important.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Bill just reminded me, one, I
am taking too long to answer the questions and, therefore,
we ought to cut it off, but as far as I am concerned, we
will finish, so go ahead.
QUESTION: Mr. President, my name is Arthur Stoup.
I am the President of the Missouri Bar.
The Bar is noted with growing distress the incursion
of the Federal bureaucracy and, at times the Congress, in
the matters of property rights and individual freedoms
which by Constitutional intent or by custom the States have
in the past determined for their citizens.
Mr. President, could not this Administration use
its considerable influence in directing Federal agencies
and requesting the Congress to recede from a policy of
expanding the Federal role in these matters and permit the
States and local communities to decide what is best and
what is needed for their citizens?
THE PRESIDENT: I certainly think we should,
and we are trying to do that. One of the pieces of legis-
lation which was enacted three and a half years ago fits into
that precise philosophy you are talking about very properly.
It is called general revenue sharing, where roughly $6
billion a year goes from the Federal Treasury, a third to
the States and two-thirds to cities and counties, et cetera,
without any strings, and that program carries out precisely
what you are talking about.
MORE
Page 17
The money goes from the Federal Treasury, having
been taken in the first instance from the taxpayers of
this country, but going back to States and local units of
Government without any strings attached for the exercise
of local control in the expenditure of that money.
We are trying to incorporate in many of the
programs what we call block grants. Jim Lynn a year ago,
when he was Secretary of HUD, got the Congress to consolidate
six or seven, eight categorical grant programs into one
and giving to the local community much more authority
without Federal bureaucracy analyzing every individual
project.
So, we are aiming in that direction. We are
trying to do it, and I think we are making some headway,
but with a thousand categorical grant programs, that is a
tough job, and every one of them has their own little
constituency. They want everybody else's program changed,
but theirs is different, so it is a hard process, but we
are working at it.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
MORE
Page 18
QUESTION: Mr. President, my name is Robert
Cohn and I am Chairman of the Regional Forum of the
East-West Gateway Coordinating Council. I have used
up my time with just the title.
We are charged with the responsibility, as
a group of private citizens -- 21 of us -- to go over
in some detail these 1,000 categorical grant programs
that operate in the St. Louis area, and we are just
a group of private citizens. We find that in more
cases than not we serve as a mere rubber stamp for some
bureaucratic requirement or deadline.
Now in addition to this very welcome White
House conference to provide meaningful citizen input,
are there any other plans or programs as part of your
program of cutting red tape and opening up these
activities to the people, to reduce this, and to
provide for meaningful and realistic citizen input
on federally-funded programs?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't give you any added
ones beyond this kind of approach plus what the Vice
President is undertaking with his meetings in the 9
or 10 communities around the country, but it has been
my observation with all of this talent from the Cabinet
and top places in the Executive Branch, and most of them
have been to -- three-quarters of them -- that they
get the message.
The problem is to have them give the message
down below and then have it carried out, but we are
trying to do it and let me give you an illustration.
I made a speech, oh, several months ago, and
I said there were 5,200 forms that people in toto in the
United States had to fill out -- 5,200. And it sounded
terrible and I said we were going to get rid of them or
some of them, and Jim Lynn is in charge of that
responsibility.
A year from that speech I am going to ask him
how many forms we now have and it darn well better
be under 5,000. (Laughter)
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Jim Cope, from the
Missouri State Medical Association.
The children born during World War II baby
boom will go on Social Security in about 2000 to 2025.
Children from our present near zero population growth
will his the labor force at about the same time. It has
been estimated that there will be three or four people
going on to the Social Security roles for each one
entering the labor force.
MORE
- 19 -
Please, sir, could we have your comments, and
what are the long-term plans for meeting this situation?
THE PRESIDENT: There have been several
recent studies on the adequacy of the trust fund,
the payment schedule to meet the obligations under Social
Security. The picture is not encouraging, to be
frank with you. There are a number of suggested
ways to make certain, to make positive that the
beneficiaries down the road are guaranteed enough or
are guaranteed what they were led to believe they would
get.
Some alternatives are just to take any
deficiency out of the general fund. Others recommend
that the present withholding of both the employer and
the employee be increased. What is it now? About 11
percent for both employer and employee.
One proposal is to increase both
contributions. Others say don't worry about it, it
is not as bad as the actuaries or the experts tell you,
and don't do it for political reasons one way or
another.
I think maybe we can get by a year or two,
but in a relatively short period of time more is going
out than coming in of the trust fund and we have roughly
a year's funding available. Unfortunately, they are
all in Government bonds so the Government will have to
cash in those bonds to pay these people and then go out
and borrow more money to finance the Federal Government.
But it is a problem and we have got to face
up to it. The best estimate I have seen is that by the
year 2000 if we don't do something we will be in a
serious deficit with no reserve, and not enough to
pay the beneficiaries. So we have either got to get it
out of the general fund, increase the wage limit, or
we have got to increase the taxes or we have got to
put a cap on the benefits. The benefits today are
escalated on a cost-of-living basis and they are putting
the sanctity of that trust fund in some jeopardy down
the road not too far away.
As long as we are talking about caps, I
recommended that we put a cap this year of five percent
on Federal Government pay, on Federal retirement, Social
Security, the whole range of things in order to get
away from the budget deficit I described a few minutes
ago. The present law says that every September I am
supposed to recommend a cost-of-living increase for
Federal pay. Well, the cost-of-living increase by this
commission was 8.66 percent and by a new law passed just
a month ago, Congress and judges and people in the
Executive Branch were included.
MORE
Page 20
I had the temerity to recommend that that 8.66
percent be five percent rather than the higher
figure. I am led to believe that my efforts to
keep that difference which amounts to $1 billion 600
million -- just $1 billion 600 million -- will be
overridden by either the House or the Senate. I hope
you write your Congressmen and your Senators and tell
them to stand firm and tough. This is just indicative
of the kind of problems we are in -- in a financial bind,
at the present time.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes?
QUESTION: Mr. President, Earl Dille, President
of Associated Industries of Missouri, and I would like
your position on the issue of the legalization of
common situs picketing at construction projects.
THE PRESIDENT: I believe that the legislation
originally introduced should be vetoed. I believe that
there are amendments that have been added, that will
be added, if they are added to force local union
responsibility, then the legislation ought to be approved.
I know the arguments that the building trades
have gotten wage hikes of too high or too great an
amount, and the people say, "Don't change the law."
My answer to that is they have gotten them
under the present law. If they are inflationary, they
came under the present circumstances. What we are
trying to do with the amendments that we have advocated
is to get some responsibility at the local level and if
they don't achieve local responsibility the international
unions have the right to veto it. I think that is a
better way to achieve wage stability in the construction
field and if those amendments are approved, I will
support it; if they are not approved, I will veto it.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I am Bill Parrish,
Chairman of the Missouri American Revolution Bicentennial
Commission.
One of the hopes of the Bicentennial
is to revivify the positive aspects of American life
so that the celebration becomes a catalyst to a
rededication of the American people to work together
to build a better future. We are finding a great
enthusiasm for this throughout Missouri.
MORE
Page 21
You talked just briefly about this in
relation to the crime situation, but I wonder if you
could give us a little more elaboration on how you
think we can better focus in on this problem through
the Bicentennial to get a better grip on moving
forward with America.
THE PRESIDENT: I believe our theme for the
Bicentennial should be the rights of the individual
operating within the law. I think the individual in
the third century of our country should be free of
mass education, mass industry, mass government. I
think the right of the individual operating within the
law without the heavy hand of government or any of
the other massive organizations running it, if we can
achieve that, I think it will accomplish what you are
seeking to accomplish.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
MORE
Page 22
QUESTION: Mr. President I am Homer Elisha Sayad
of the Arts and Educational Council of St. Louis.
St. Louis has one of the most successful arts
council in the country. In 13 years it has raised over $14
million in private funds for the benefit of our cultural
organizations. The National Endowment for the Arts,
under its very able Chairman Nancy Hanks, has done much
to stimulate the support toward the arts from the private
sector.
The arts are not a luxury, as some may think.
They are a softening and humanizing factor and a very
essential quality to our life.
Is your Administration committed to the continued
growth and development of Federal support of the arts to
the National Endowment, and will you oppose tax measures
which would tend to discourage and inhibit private contri-
butions for the arts?
THE PRESIDENT: It is my recollection that in the
budget I submitted in January the arts and humanities program
was one of the very few that got an increase. The particular
one you refer to, the arts, I recommended approximately $85
billion, about a 10 percent increase over the previous
fiscal year.
The arts for the public, it is my recollection
our deductions are appropriate under our Internal Revenue
Code at the present time. I think that is accurate. So,
I am not going to recommend it be deleted.
Then let me say there has been some criticism
tha we didn't have in the White House now an input in the
arts and humanities. Well, I have got a pretty good one
in our family, and she is a lot more influential on me
in this area than any appointed person. I am married to
her, and she does pretty well by it. (Laughter)
Thank you very much.
END
(AT 5:07 P.M. CDT)