(00:00:01) Good morning. I am Ted warehouser a member of the Minnesota meeting board of directors is my pleasure to welcome all of you to Minnesota meeting today. We are pleased to be working with the Anoka County Chamber of Commerce to present today's program. We also extend to Welcome to our radio audience throughout the Upper Midwest who will be listening to this Minnesota meeting on today's. Midday program, Minnesota Public Radio. Broadcast is sponsored by the Oppenheimer wolf and Donnelly Law Firm. Today's speaker Gerald Ford, the 38th president of the United States is well known for his many years of service to this country President Ford was first elected to the US House of Representatives in 1948 after serving 25 years in the house. Ford was nominated vice president in October 1973 and succeeded to the presidency following the resignation of Richard Nixon serving from August 1974 to January 1977. Today President Ford will be discussing the role of the Congress and the president and balancing the federal budget and what he sees is a critical need for leadership during President Ford's talk. Please jot down questions on the white index cards. Tony tremble chair, the Minnesota Republican party will move through the audience with a microphone and approach of those of you that have cards after the speech is my pleasure to present to you President Gerald Ford. (00:02:03) Thank you very very much Dad. I delighted to have an opportunity to return to Anoka and to make some observations and comments. Some of the problems that I foresee and some of the suggestions I might have for their solution. You're never quite sure what kind of an introduction you're going to get. They vary some are good. Some are bad. Some are long some are short. I appreciate your introduction Ted. It's a little different. However than one that I had a few weeks ago down in Southern California before I tell you how I how it went. I ought to give you a little background. Most of you would agree that my wife Betty is far far more popular than I for poles are always higher or surveys were always better A lot of very thoughtful people think Betty could have been elected in (00:03:03) 1976 (00:03:06) our second or third son. Steve Ford is a star in this daytime award-winning CBS soap opera The Young and the Restless. So in the introduction the man got up and he said it's my pleasure. To introduce Betty Ford's husband and Steve Ford's father. So Ted, I thank you very very much. I was surprised I no sooner walked in the breakfast area here this morning and somebody asked me how my golf game was. I won't tell you my handicap because it's very highly classified. But I will tell you that a week or two ago. I was playing golf with Bob Hope and as we went to the First Tee there was a very sizable crowd standing outside watching us as we went up to. Got going on the course is Bob went up to the tee. But his ball down somebody one of the spectators yelled. Hey, Bob. What's your favorite foursome? And Bob said Jerry Ford of faith healer and a paramedic. Well, let me just take a minute or two to give you my impression of where I think our economy is at the present time and the status of our economy has a very direct impact on the two major problems that I think we Face here in the United States on a domestic side. If you look at the economy today employment is up. I looked at the figures in one of the newspapers yesterday and we've had a sizable increase in the total number of people gainfully employed this year vis-à-vis a year ago. On the other hand unemployment. The percentage is down this year versus last year. Now. I must admit that a six percent unemployment figure nationally is high by what we call traditional standards. But on the other hand, it is very favorable compared to 1980. When we had unemployment of around 8% now if you take a look at inflation a year ago, we were going through a very deflationary period as a matter of fact in 1986, the inflation rate was under 2% In 1987 at the present time, it's somewhere between three and a half and four percent and most economists will tell you that it'll stay in that range for the full 12 months. That is higher than a year ago, but it's a far cry from the double-digit inflation. We had back in again 1980 interest rates more or less stabilized. A prime rate of eight and a quarter (00:06:42) that's (00:06:44) higher than we would like. I must say it's higher than when I left office when it was six and a quarter percent, but nevertheless it's a lot better than it was again back to that Benchmark of 1980. The gross national product figure sluggish certainly sluggish compared to a year or two ago, but we're in the fifth year of an economic recovery and a two-and-a-half to three percent. GNP figure is not bad. So when you look at the overall 1987 is not a bad economic year. The problems we have however are potentially serious. If we don't solve them and those two problems are our trade deficit on the one hand and our budget deficit on the other the trade deficit in calendar year 1986 was about a hundred and sixty billion dollars. an all-time high In the net result of that horrendously High trade deficit was that the United States in 1986 became a debtor Nation for the first time in many many years. Now. I'm not saying that because we have a better situation to the extent of about 200 plus billion dollars that we're in the same circumstances as Brazil and Mexico Etc, but it's not healthy and we have an obligation to try and turn it (00:08:35) around the trouble (00:08:40) with such a trade deficit is that they're inevitably as a consequence is a drive in the Congress House and Senate to pass the wrong kind of legislation to solve the problem. Right. Now the Congress is going through the throes of working on trade legislation the house passed a very bad Bill the Senate improved it to some extent. It's now in conference with the possibility that the legislation could be (00:09:20) improved. (00:09:24) The president has said he's going to veto it and I strongly support such a veto if that kind of legislation emerges from the House and Senate (00:09:33) conference. (00:09:37) I think most people who studied history. Will tell you that. In 1930 when Congress passed the smoot-hawley Tariff Act it was a major factor in the economic depression of the 1930s. We tried to build a trade Ring Of Steel around the United (00:10:05) States (00:10:07) and the net result (00:10:09) was (00:10:11) World Trade literally stopped. and what started out as a typical recession was exacerbated by the bad trade legislation that the Congress passed and if the Congress repeats it again. It would be a major contributing factor to another serious economic problem in this (00:10:40) country. (00:10:42) So I applaud President Reagan's strong Stadium. That we should not repeat the errors of the 1930s by enacting bad trade legislation. Now, we should be encouraged with the developments in the last six to 12 months. The value of the US dollar has gone down particularly against the Japanese Yen years 14 months ago. It was 250 some the end of the dollar today. It's about a hundred and fifty game to the dollar. That's a good illustration of how our American made products can become more competitive in a country like Japan or anyplace else and foreign Goods can become less competitive in the United States. And the net result is our trade deficit is getting better. Not as dramatically as we would like, but at least it's moving in the right direction. And if you look at the cold hard statistics American exports abroad in the last three months have gone up significantly and Foreign imports. The United States are having a much more difficult time. I'm optimistic that over a period of time we can improve our trade deficit and hopefully avoid catastrophic trade legislation, which to many members of the House and Senate are now promoting. Now, let me turn to the budget deficit which is our other major domestic problem in the nation's capital. When the books were closed last September 30th at the end of the fiscal year. The federal deficit was 221 billion dollars (00:12:53) the highest (00:12:55) fiscal deficit in the history of the United States. Unbelievable, and it was the fifth consecutive year that the fiscal deficits had been in that range or that magnitude. Despite all the talk from the Congress from the White House. It was getting worse not better. Because in the previous fiscal year had been 202 billion (00:13:29) dollars. (00:13:30) And then all of a sudden when the books were closed it was 221. Congress has gone through a lot (00:13:38) of (00:13:42) attempted Solutions They passed the gramm-rudman-hollings proposal. (00:13:51) Which (00:13:51) was an effort to solve the problem without any pain or at least would not having to vote yes or no on expenditures. They wanted to turn it over to a mechanism. I happen to think the gramm-rudman-hollings proposal was a parliamentary robot and substitution of political wisdom and willpower. Fortunately the Supreme Court knocked out one of the key provisions and put the burden right back where it belongs on people in the House and Senate who have to vote on it. That's why we sent them down there. We didn't send them down there to develop a mechanism to do their job. I don't care whether the Democrats are Republicans. They're down there to make hard decisions and I must say those hard decisions haven't been made the evidence. Is there the kind of deficits that we're (00:14:57) dealing with? (00:15:02) When the books are closed this coming September 30th, the best prospects according to the current situation are that the deficit will be in the range of a hundred and sixty five to a hundred and seventy billion (00:15:22) dollars (00:15:24) admittedly. That's about a 50 to 55 billion dollar Improvement in I applauded But should we be very happy about a hundred and sixty billion dollar deficit? I don't think so. We've got to make significant (00:15:43) progress. (00:15:45) We cannot in my opinion go blithely along over a continuing period of time without straightening out our federal fiscal Affairs. It's my judgment. That we're facing a potential Time (00:16:02) Bomb a (00:16:03) potential time bomb and if we don't do something about (00:16:07) it, (00:16:09) the consequences could be serious and I don't lay the blame on the Congress or the White House the Democrats or Republicans. It's our country's problem. And we better do something about it. And let me just give you a statistic or two. We now have a federal debt of am out to trillion three hundred billion dollars last year in the federal budget. We paid interest interest on the national debt of a hundred and sixty some billion dollars. Does it make you feel any better that when you paid your income taxes April 15th or June 15th or September 15th that 15% of every dollar you paid whatever you paid goes to pay (00:17:10) interest (00:17:12) doesn't make me feel any (00:17:14) happier. (00:17:16) I think we've got to do something about it now. What's going to be done? Right at the moment? There's a stalemate between the White House and the Congress between Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats in Congress say if the president wants more money for defense. He's got to agree to an 18 billion dollar tax increase President. Reagan says he wants what he recommended for defense. He doesn't want any tax increase and if there's to be any give it has to be further reductions in domestic spending. I can't tell you what this time what the outcome will be of this confrontation. I suspect there will be some (00:18:09) compromise. (00:18:15) The best guess would be that there will be some increase in defense. Some cut back in domestic spending and some Revenue enhancement. They don't talk about a tax increase. It's all revenue enhancement in the nation's (00:18:34) capital. (00:18:36) Whether that kind of a compromise will be achieved. I can't predict with certainty but that's what I believe has a possibility now if I might let me turn from such mundane matters is trade deficits and fiscal deficits to some observations on the presidential political situation. I'm a totally unbiased Observer. So whatever I say will hopefully be constructive and not partisan. In the Republican field, we've got about five or six potential candidates. The two leading candidates, of course our Vice President Bush and Senator (00:19:40) Dole (00:19:43) bush is probably ahead Dole is a strong Contender Jack Kemp congressman from New York state is probably the number third Contender and then you have Al Haig P Du Pont Paul. Laxalt Pat Robertson. They I think are long shots, but they certainly will continue to make their effort as we go down the political path on the Democratic side. You have a very wide open field. You've got Jesse Jackson thunder Biden Congressman Gephardt Governor Dukakis Governor Babbitt of Arizona tender Gore of Tennessee and Senator Simon of (00:20:43) Illinois. (00:20:47) In my judgment the if I were to want a Democrat and I'm not saying I do I would pick to others that whose names are not mentioned here. And those are Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey and Senator Sam Nunn of of Georgia, whether they'll get in the race. I don't know but certainly ideologically I would be very much impressed with those two in the rates. Let me make one comment on (00:21:29) the (00:21:31) presidential campaign process. In my judgment the way we select our candidates. Takes much too long and cost much too much money. How we can go through this process which has become literally a two-year process. It is it is self destructing as I see it. I don't know how the candidates can do it physically. I don't know how we can support this kind of a contest financially. And in my judgment is the process could taking so long and costings too much undermines undermines our whole governmental process. in my judgment, we've got to find a (00:22:34) way to (00:22:38) cut the process down in time and make a significant effort to reduce the (00:22:44) cost. (00:22:48) Each of those seven Democrats will probably try to raise two to three million dollars minimum and the same will be true of Republicans. George Bush has already raised significant amounts of money and so is Bob Dole A friend of mine was thinking of running for the presidency and I won't mention his name. He was a highly qualified individual. He said to make (00:23:18) any (00:23:22) effort at all that had a chance of being successful. He had to have three million dollars in the (00:23:28) bank. (00:23:30) I think that's unfortunate. But that's what The Facts of Life (00:23:35) are (00:23:37) as a result. He did he (00:23:39) decided not to be a candidate. (00:23:43) Now, let me just conclude with this observation before we get to the questions and answers. I don't mean to be pessimistic. In fact, I'm very optimistic about our country's future. I believe that our current problems are solvable I believe will muddle along but will solve (00:24:09) them (00:24:11) and when I see what's happening elsewhere throughout the world, whether it's in Europe and the Middle East and Asia or (00:24:21) otherwise (00:24:23) I come back with a very definite feeling. How fortunate we are. I happen to subscribe to what Abraham Lincoln once said that America is our last best hope and I also subscribe to something attributed to Sir Winston Churchill and I'll paraphrase it Churchill said democracy is the worst form of government in the history of mankind, except. It's better than anything else. It's ever been tried. I agree with it, but it's our (00:24:58) responsibility (00:25:00) yours as well as mine to make it (00:25:03) work and that's what our duty is to our selves to our posterity into our country. Thank you very much. (00:25:27) Yes, for those of you who do have questions. If you would raise your hand and your card will get to you right away. We do have one immediate question that was given to me. Mr. President. What is your (00:25:36) comment on the u.s. Flag in of ships in the Persian Gulf in the Middle East? (00:25:41) Well, I strongly support our (00:25:44) effort to (00:25:48) Maintain the navigability of the international waters in the Persian Gulf for us to capitulate to the Ayatollah who in effect is telling us and other nations that that Gulf is only navigable at his discretion. I don't think we can permit that to happen. And therefore I say, I think we should take whatever are legitimate and proper actions to maintain the international the navigability of the international waters there as well as elsewhere now, you don't do that without some risk (00:26:34) will get me wrong. But if we (00:26:38) bow down and capitulate to people like the Ayatollah every time something happens, I think our influence in (00:26:47) our Effectiveness in the world will be significantly undercut and I don't think we should respond by just failing to do our duty on behalf of what I think is a responsible position. We have another question to my left ear. Mr. President enlisting the Republican candidates for the office in the next election. You did not mention Howard Baker. Obviously the most qualified. What is (00:27:26) what is (00:27:26) what is going to have to happen to get him in the race? (00:27:32) Well, I we all thought Howard was going to be a candidate and then he made the decision to go to the White House to replace Don Regan. And when he made that decision, at least my impression was that Howard himself had taken himself out of the race because you can't run for president and be the chief of staff to the president president. It doesn't work that way now. That doesn't mean that Howard Baker can't sometime in the next 12 months change his Direction. The one possibility that might take (00:28:18) place (00:28:20) if he still stays where he is. Is for the Republican convention to end up in a deadlock between Bush and Dole and there's no way to resolve it and they would then have to turn to some somebody else and that it's somebody could very likely be Howard Baker but I don't see Howard can run for president and still be Chief of Staff to President Reagan. Those are two very major jobs and you can't do both of them. He's either got to leave that job and be a candidate or stay on the job with the possibility that he might be drafted if there's a deadlock between Bush and Dole. Mr. President. Yes, sir from your position now or if you were now in the Congress what steps would you take specifically to reduce the budget or what advice would you give your colleagues in the house to do the (00:29:24) same? Well (00:29:30) I love I would make the following (00:29:32) observations. (00:29:35) There's no way that you can have a meaningful impact on overall spending unless you do something about the growth factor in transfer payments transfer payments or entitlements constitute today Dave depending on how you lump me in a minimum of 40% to 45% of our annual expenditures that Social Security that's government pay that's government retirement. It's a huge amount out of a trillion dollar budget this year. That's what it is. 40 to 45 percent of the actual cash out go we'll go to transfer payments or entitlements. There's no way you can get a better handle or control. On those expenditures than to restrict the growth the growth of entitlements and transfer payments. You have heard me say cut. But you've got to put a lid on growth. No, secondly, there are some programs that have to be eliminated. Just because a program was well-intentioned met a need in the 60s and 70s doesn't mean it should go on and on like Tennyson's Brooke. Programs have to be analyzed on the basis of cost of benefit. And if they don't meet that criteria, we can't afford them anymore. And that'll be hard. One of those programs that's Fallen by the wayside was what we call revenue-sharing General Revenue sharing. I don't maybe there's some public (00:31:41) officials here (00:31:43) and boy, they liked it Uncle Sam gave him money with no strings and in the 1960s 70s when that program was started and I voted for we could afford it and it was justified. But when we have a two hundred and twenty 1 billion dollar deficit at the federal level for the fifth year in a row close to 200 billion dollars Uncle Sam can't afford it and local governments have to step up and meet their responsibilities if they want those services and those projects. That's the kind of a program that has now. It's not easy. And I was on the committee on Appropriations for 14 years and I submitted three budgets to the Congress. I know the problem. Let me give you a little personal illustration. My dear wife Betty is totally dedicated to the Arts and to dance and all of those fine fine (00:32:54) programs. Well, (00:32:58) I submitted a budget made a little change down in those programs. I used to get a lot of pillow talk now Jerry. Why do you give all the money to the defense department and take a few dollars away from the Arts and the humanities another illustration? When we first went to the White House, Don Rumsfeld was my chief of staff and Don was a very hard-nosed very dedicated fellow that believed in tightening up on expenditures and few weeks after we were in the White House Down came into the Oval Office and he said mr. President. I've gone through all the offices in the white house and we're going to cut every Department every one of the offices by about 15 percent maybe more and he said the news office and this office and everybody's going to get (00:34:04) cut. (00:34:06) I said that's great. Don you go right ahead. Now. He said, you know, the East wing of the White House is run by the First Lady. And he said she ought to have her forces cut by about two or three and he said I'll take care of the West Wing, but you go over and talk to her. I said Don your Chief of Staff you go over and solve that problem. So don went over and he came back in about an hour and he said well boy, she sure convince me. She needed all those people all I'm saying is it ain't easy folks now defense. I don't want to mislead you. I was a Hawkeye a mohawk and I expect to be a Hawkeye. I happen to believe very strongly that it's in our national interest to have a margin of safety for National Security and I'm not going to compromise that Now that doesn't mean I'm going to open the treasury and just let the Army Navy Air Force and Marines spend all the money that they want. I don't believe that either. But if I have to make a judgment in this complicated complex world, I'm going to make sure that we have enough to meet (00:35:35) whatever are reasonable challenges are I happen to believe that the (00:35:44) defense department has been pretty well (00:35:46) rebuilt. (00:35:49) I happen to believe they don't need anything beyond the increase in the cost of living in how they allocate that 300 billion (00:35:59) dollars is a matter of judgment over at the (00:36:02) Pentagon. But I happen to think a military budget of around 300 billion dollars a year at ought to be sufficient (00:36:14) it ought to be sufficient. It's a (00:36:17) matter of how well they spend it when they're up at that level how well and how (00:36:22) intelligently they spend them (00:36:25) now when you get all through with those (00:36:27) things. if you still have a Deficit that's (00:36:34) not acceptable. Then. I think you have to look (00:36:38) at some additional revenue (00:36:43) and where it should come (00:36:45) whether it should be by excise taxes, whether it should be (00:36:48) by a surtax (00:36:50) whether it should be by anyone of (00:36:52) another type of Taxation. I haven't (00:36:57) analyzed that (00:36:59) but if we don't do something about these horrendously High unconscionable deficits, which they (00:37:06) are. I think we're gambling with a time bomb. That could be very serious. Yes you comment. Please. Give me your predictions on Robert bork's nomination to the Supreme Court. (00:37:25) I strongly support the confirmation (00:37:29) of Judge bork for the United States Supreme Court. (00:37:34) That doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with every decision. He's made is a member of the Circuit Court of Appeals. It doesn't mean I agree with every article he's written as a law professor at Yale University law school, but there's nobody that I know even his most Ardent opponents (00:37:55) who will challenge is (00:37:57) academic his intellectual (00:38:00) capacity. (00:38:01) I couldn't be more (00:38:03) pleased what I read in yesterday's paper (00:38:08) that the Justice of the Supreme Court that I nominated and who has served with great distinction Justice Stevens endorse quarks (00:38:19) nomination at I think is (00:38:24) very encouraging Justice Stevens has turned out to be a first-class Justice not again that I agree with every decision. He's made fact. He's disappointed me on one or (00:38:37) two, but (00:38:38) nobody challenges his basic qualifications (00:38:43) and I happen to think Bob bork would will be if Successful in his nomination (00:38:52) will be an end up being an (00:38:54) outstanding member of the United States Supreme Court. President Ford is is (00:39:04) abandoning (00:39:05) Star Wars to Advanced nuclear disarmament a reasonable compromise. (00:39:12) Well, I think you have over simplified it if I might (00:39:16) be so abrupt (00:39:20) I happen to believe the the United States and the Soviet Union should make a major effort to (00:39:27) reduce the nuclear threshold threshold. (00:39:32) I negotiated with mr. Brezhnev and Vladivostok (00:39:36) and we came very close to (00:39:38) having a significant reduction in long-range strategic nuclear (00:39:44) weapons. I applaud (00:39:50) what I believe is the possibility of a (00:39:53) negotiated (00:39:56) effort by mr. Gorbachev and President Reagan if they can get the zero zero (00:40:02) option for (00:40:06) all nuclear weapons of 300 to 6,000 miles. I think that's (00:40:14) progress. I think there are some (00:40:19) Problems that appear yet unsolved (00:40:24) we have the problem of what to do about the 72 (00:40:28) German pershing's West German pershing's we have the more serious problem. At least I think it's (00:40:35) more serious of what we're going to do about verification. It's (00:40:40) nice to agree to get rid of all (00:40:44) the (00:40:45) intermediate and short-range nuclear weapons between 300 miles in six thousand miles. But I'd like to know (00:40:53) whether they do it or not. And that's the issue of verification. It's nice that make a commitment on paper but I think (00:41:05) both day and we ought to have the right under the agreement to verify what's been done. And if we don't do a good job in that area, (00:41:15) then I would have reservations about (00:41:18) the agreement. Now you raise the (00:41:20) question of SDI Strategic Defense Initiative. (00:41:26) I'm for (00:41:27) that I think President Reagan (00:41:31) got off on the wrong (00:41:32) foot in his first speech when he (00:41:35) proposed STI when he said he wanted to substitute in Toto defensive weapons for offensive weapons (00:41:46) in my opinion that What's not the right (00:41:50) approach? No military strategy that puts all its eggs in one (00:41:59) basket is going to be successful. (00:42:03) For example. The French after World War One decided the way to keep the Germans out of France was to build imaginal line. They build a ring of Steel around France that was going to keep those Germans from ever getting on French soil again. (00:42:25) Will you know what (00:42:26) happened? The Germans went over they went through and they went under the Maginot Line and they occupied France for what four (00:42:35) years. (00:42:38) It was a mistake for the French to put all their eggs in the defensive basket. It would be a mistake for us to put all our eggs in the defensive Bast get to abandon offensive nuclear weapons offensive nuclear weapons can be reduced in number but we ought to have them as a deterrent as a balance. I believe we should after we get through with intermediate and short-range missile negotiations. Hopefully successfully. Then I think we ought to move to reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons. And at the same time have a responsible SDI program that gives us a balance between offense and defense. (00:43:37) Mr. President, where am I way over here to your right? All right. Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. If ever there was a time in our recent history when we should have been able to manage the budget. It should have been it seems to me when there was a fiscal conservative in the White House and Republican control of the Senate and yet not only did we not manage it well, but things seem to have gotten worse. Do you believe that there might be a systemic problem with the way in which we go about setting the budget and number two. Would you have any ideas along those lines? Well The (00:44:15) so-called budget reform and anti impoundment act which was enacted in 1974 was to be the Panacea to solve all budget problems. The argument those days was Congress had a poor procedure to handle budgets and there was some legitimacy to that argument because Congress took 13 subcommittee appropriation request and acted on them independently without any comprehensive idea what they would end up with in revenues and expenditures Etc. So we had all these ekam additions who came and theorists who came up with this new proposal That was supposed to be the answer to (00:45:07) federal budget problems. (00:45:11) Tragic part of it is it's been a disaster (00:45:14) because (00:45:16) instead of solving the problem. It's made it worse. And what's the evidence? The best evidence is since its enactment in 1974 and its implementation in 1976. We've had the highest number of federal deficits in the history of the United States is gone the other (00:45:39) way and solve the problem (00:45:42) and secondly it's in effect put a layer an extra layer in the Congressional process because you now have a budget Committee in the house and the senate in addition to the Appropriations committees addition to the authorization committees. (00:46:03) It just hasn't worked. (00:46:05) In the best evidence is some of you may remember. Last November or December whenever Congress was about to adjourn they had not yet passed a single Appropriations bill for the fiscal year that started October first. 700 billion dollars in Appropriations I got a copy of it because I was curious. I'm still an old committee on Appropriations enthusiastic and I wanted to see what they have done. It was that thick they passed it in the house and the Senate I'll guarantee guarantee that outside of a handful of members of the House and Senate Democrats and Republican. The rest of them didn't know what was in it. Except it was 700 billion dollars. Here they were passing this final version of the appropriation bill. Will say December 1st for a fiscal year that started (00:47:14) October 1st. (00:47:17) How can a department head or an agency run a department? If he doesn't know what his money's going to be? You blame bureaucrats for not running the Fisk their fiscal Affairs very well. I think you ought to blame the Congress. (00:47:37) There are the culprits. now that brings up one other little thing and I shouldn't get into this because I haven't been asked about it, but (00:47:50) you if you watch these Iran-Contra hearings One day I didn't watch much of it. But I watch (00:47:59) this one the council for what's his name Lyman (00:48:06) head up on the wall the words of the Boland Amendment the inference me (00:48:14) that that (00:48:16) was a single piece of paper signed by President (00:48:20) Reagan. (00:48:26) Indicating his approval of the Boland Amendment. The truth is the Boland amendment that was put up there five or (00:48:35) six sentences. Whatever. It was (00:48:38) was a part of that seven hundred billion dollar continuing appropriation piece of legislation that thick that was a total Distortion by the committee. That's investigating the Iran-Contra 9222 lead the public to believe that President Reagan had only a choice of signing or vetoing the Boland amendment. That was a totally inaccurate Distortion of the fact. Because that five or six line piece of legislation was a part of a piece of legislation involving seven hundred billion dollars. So there were a lot of other items in there a lot of other items in there that had some impact on our domestic as well as foreign (00:49:39) problems. So, you know (00:49:44) some of those staff people down there are pretty cute. (00:49:51) I think they tried to get away with something. One more than I think we have to go. (00:49:58) Mr. President due to the nature of Congress. Can we ever balance (00:50:01) the budget unless we go the President line-item veto. (00:50:05) I'm a strong believer in The line-item veto. I think that's one tool that a president ought to have very definitely that's a tool the president strongly (00:50:17) needs in order to achieve better fiscal (00:50:22) responsibility. What are I think 40 States (00:50:26) or thereabouts have the line-item veto? (00:50:32) and I happen to think State (00:50:35) fiscal Affairs (00:50:37) in recent years have been run more effectively than (00:50:43) our federal fiscal Affairs have been (00:50:47) if (00:50:50) that were the case where a (00:50:53) president had that Authority. I think you ought to use it most people. Don't understand. The veto today is a constitutionally mandated to love the president I'd be totally lot of letters legislation in the Press particularly kept harping on it that I was- that's not an accurate (00:51:21) description of a president using a veto (00:51:25) veto by a president is telling the Congress. Maybe you better think something over. (00:51:36) Maybe (00:51:39) what what you've enacted on second thought is not in the National interest. Now if on reconsideration you decide it is in the National interest under the Constitution. They can override a (00:51:55) veto. I vetoed (00:51:59) 67 bills. I think they only overrode me about six times the rest of them. (00:52:05) We we sustain the Congress if it (00:52:12) gets away with ramming things down a (00:52:16) president (00:52:18) pretty soon gets very (00:52:20) irresponsible. A (00:52:22) president has the responsibility to represent everybody in my vetoing something. He says to the Congress think it over think it over if I'm wrong you just override. I happen to think a president has to use that veto in order to maintain the proper (00:52:44) balance between the legislative and the executive branches and the (00:52:50) line-item veto (00:52:52) would be a (00:52:53) strengthening of that certainly budget (00:52:56) responsibility. In trying to solve our horrendously High budget difficult. (00:53:04) Thank you all have a good day. (00:53:25) President Ford while we are very sorry that mrs. Ford could not be here today. We do appreciate your remarks very much before we adjourn we would like to present you with the symbol of the Minnesota meeting. It's a peace pipe created by a Minnesota artist Robert Rose bear and we think it's important because it symbolizes the American system of openly discussing its problems. Thank you very much. (00:53:55) Well, thank you very much Dad. I wish You Gophers would think of that when you take on our Wolverines every year in November and treat us a little better than you did last fall. Thank you.