tweets.txt

This page is no longer being updated view the new page here.

A TIME FOR CHOOSING (The Speech – October 27, 1964)

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks. 

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good." 

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value. 

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers. 

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. 

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. 

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. 

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down—[up] man's old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. 

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." 

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy. 

Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming—that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow. 

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil. 

At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore. 

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how—who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down. 

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency. 

They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed. 

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they've had almost 30 years of it—shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing? 

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead. 

Now—so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have—and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs—do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency. 

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing. 

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things—we're never "for" anything. 

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. 

Now—we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. 

But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that. 

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary—his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due—that the cupboard isn't bare? 

Barry Goldwater thinks we can. 

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road. 

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth? 

I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations. 

I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. 

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth. 

Federal employees—federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work. 

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do. 

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died—because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England. 

Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the—or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. 

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men—that we're to choose just between two personalities. 

Well what of this man that they would destroy—and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing. 

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there. 

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load. 

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won. 

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right. 

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender. 

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. 

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all. 

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits—not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty." 

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. 

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. 

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny. 

Thank you very much.

RONALD REAGAN ANNOUNCEMENT FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDACY
NOVEMBER, 20, 1975
 
 
          Thank you for coming.
         
I have called this press conference to announce that I am a candidate for the Presidency and to ask for the support of all Americans who share my belief that our nation needs to embark on a new, constructive course.
 
          I believe my candidacy will be healthy for the nation and my party.
 
          I am running because I have grown increasingly concerned about the course of events in the United States and in the world.
 
In just a few years, three vital measures of economic decay—inflation, unemployment, and interest rates—have more than doubled, at times reaching 10 percent and even more.
 
          Government at all levels now absorbs more than 44 percent of our personal income.  It has become more intrusive, more coercive, more meddlesome and less effective.
 
          Our access to cheap and abundant energy has been interrupted, and our dependence on foreign sources is growing.
 
          A decade ago we had military superiority.  Today we are in danger of being surpassed by a nation that has never made an effort to hide its hostility to everything we stand for.
 
Through détente we have sought peace with our adversaries.  We should continue to do so but must make it plain that we expect a stronger indication that they also seek a lasting peace with us.
 
In my opinion, the root of these problems lies right here—in Washington, D.C.  Our nation’s capital has become the seat of a “buddy” system that functions for its own benefit—increasingly insensitive to the needs of the American worker who supports it with his taxes.
 
Today it is difficult to find leaders who are independent of the forces that have brought us our problems—the Congress, the bureaucracy, the lobbyist, big business and big labor.
 
If America is to survive and go forward, this must change.  It will only change when the American people vote for a leadership that listens to them, relies on them and seeks to return government to them. We need a government that is confident not of what it can do, but of what the people can do.
 
For eight years in California, we labored to make government responsive.  We worked against high odds—an opposition legislature for most of those years and an obstructive Washington bureaucracy for all of them.  We did not always succeed.  Nevertheless, we found that fiscal responsibility is possible, that the welfare rolls can come down, that social problems can be met below the Federal level.
 
In the coming months I will take this message to the American people.  I will talk in detail about responsible, responsive government.  I will tell the people it is they who should decide how much government they want.
 
          I don’t believe for one moment that four more years of business-as-usual in Washington is the answer to our problems, and I don’t think the American people believe it either.
 
We, as a people, aren’t happy if we are not moving forward.  A nation that is growing and thriving is one which will solve its problems.  We must offer progress instead of stagnation; the truth instead of promises; hope and faith instead of defeatism and despair.  Then, I am sure, the people will make those decisions which will restore confidence in our way of life and release that energy that is the American spirit.
To Restore America, Ronald Reagan’s Campaign Address
 
March 31, 1976
 
Good evening to all of you from California.  Tonight, I’d like to talk to you about issues.  Issues which I think are involved—or should be involved in this primary election season.  I’m a candidate for the Republican nomination for president.  But I hope that you who are Independents and Democrats will let me talk to you also tonight because the problems facing our country are problems that just don’t bear any party label.
 
In this election season the White House is telling us a solid economic recovery is taking place.  It claims a slight drop in unemployment.  It says that prices aren’t going up as fast, but they are still going up, and that the stock market has shown some gains.  But, in fact, things seem just about as they were back in the 1972 election year.  Remember, we were also coming out of a recession then.  Inflation had been running at round 6 percent.  Unemployment about 7 (percent).   Remember, too, the upsurge and the optimism lasted through the election year and into 1973.  And then the roof fell in.  Once again we had unemployment.  Only this time not 7 percent, more than 10.  And inflation wasn’t 6 percent, it was 12 percent.  Now, in this election year 1976, we’re told we’re coming out of this recession just because inflation and unemployment rates have fallen, to what they were at the worst of the previous recession.  If history repeats itself, will we be talking recovery four years from now merely because we’ve reduced inflation from 25 percent to 12 percent?
 
The fact is, we’ll never build a lasting economic recovery by going deeper into debt at a faster rate than we ever have before.  It took this nation 166 years until the middle of World War II to finally accumulate a debt of $95 billion.  It took this administration just the last 12 months to add $95 billion to the debt.  And this administration has run up almost one-fourth of the total national debt in just these short 19 months.
 
Inflation is the cause of recession and unemployment.  And we’re not going to have real prosperity or recovery until we stop fighting the symptoms and start fighting the disease.  There’s only one cause for inflation- government spending more than government takes in.  The cure is a balanced budget.  Ah, but they tell us, 80 percent of the budget is uncontrollable.  It’s fixed by laws passed by Congress.  Well, laws passed by Congress can be repealed by Congress.  And, if Congress is unwilling to do this, then isn’t it time we elect a Congress that will?
 
Soon after he took office, Mr. Ford promised he would end inflation.  Indeed, he declared war on inflation.  And, we all donned those WIN buttons to “Whip Inflation Now.”  Unfortunately the war – if it ever really started – was soon over.  Mr. Ford without WIN button, appeared on TV, and promised he absolutely would not allow the Federal deficit to exceed $60 billion (which incidentally was $5 billion more than the biggest previous deficit we’d ever had).  Later he told us it might be as much as $70 billion.  Now we learn it’s 80 billion or more.
 
Then came a White House proposal for a $28 billion tax cut, to be matched by a $28 billion cut in the proposed spending – not in present spending, but in the proposed spending in the new budget.  Well, my question then and my question now is, if there was $28 billion in the new budget that could be cut, what was it doing there in the first place?
 
Unfortunately, Washington doesn’t feel the same pain from inflation that you and I do.  As a matter of fact, government makes a profit on inflation.  For instance, last July Congress vaccinated itself against that pain.  It very quietly passed legislation (which the president signed into law) which automatically now gives a pay increase to every Congressman every time the cost of living goes up.
 
It would have been nice if they’d thought of some arrangement like that for the rest of us.  They could, for example, correct a great unfairness that now exists in our tax system.  Today, when you get a cost of living pay raise – one that just keeps you even with purchasing power – it often moves you up into a higher tax bracket.  This means you pay a higher percentage in tax, but you reduce your purchasing power.  Last year, because of this inequity, the government took in $7 billion in undeserved profit in the income tax alone, and this year they’ll do even better.
 
Now isn’t it time that Congress looked after your welfare as well as its own?  Those whose spending policies cause inflation to begin with should be made to fee the painful effect just as you and I do.
 
Repeal of Congress’s automatic pay raise might leave it with more incentive to do something to curb inflation.  Now, let’s look at Social Security.  Mr. Ford says he wants to “preserve the integrity of Social Security.”  Well, I differ with him on one world.  I would like to restore the integrity of Social Security.  Those who depend on it see a continual reduction in their standard of living.  Inflation strips the increase in their benefits. The maximum benefit today buys 80 fewer loaves of bread than it did when that maximum payment was only $85 a month.  In the meantime, the Social Security payroll tax has become the most unfair tax any worker pays.  Women are discriminated against, particularly working wives.  And, people who reach Social Security age and want to continue working, should be allowed to do so without losing their benefits.  I believe a presidential commission of experts should be appointed to study and present a plan to strengthen and improve Social Security while there’s still time – so that no person who has contributed to Social Security will ever lose a dime.
 
Before leaving this subject of our economic problems, let’s talk about unemployment.  Ending inflation is the only long range and lasting answer to the problem of unemployment.  The Washington Establishment is not the answer.  It’s the problem.  Is tax policies, its harassing regulation, its confiscation of investment capital to pay for its deficits keeps business and industry from expanding to meet your needs and to provide the jobs we all need.
 
No one who lived through the Great Depression can ever look upon an unemployed person with anything by compassion.  To me, there is no greater tragedy than a breadwinner willing to work, with a job skill but unable to find a market for that job skill.  Back in those dark depression days I saw my father on Christmas eve open what he thought was a Christmas greeting from his boss.  Instead, it was the blue slip telling him he not longer had a job.  The memory of him sitting there holding that slip of paper and then saying in a half whisper, “That’s quite a Christmas present”; it will stay with me as long as I live.
 
Other problems go unsolved.  Take energy.  Only a short time ago we were lined up at the gas station – turned our thermostats down as Washington announced “project Independence.”  We were going to become self-sufficient, able to provide for our own energy needs.  At the time, we were only importing a small percentage of our oil.  Yet, the Arab boycott caused half a million Americans to lose their jobs when plants closed down for lack of fuel.  Today, it’s almost three years later and “Project Independence” has become “Project Dependence.”  Congress has adopted an energy bill so bad we were led to believe Mr. Ford would veto it.  Instead, he signed it.  And, almost instantly, drilling rigs all over our land started shutting down.  Now for the first time in our history we are importing more oil than we produce.  How many Americans will be laid off if there’s another boycott?  The energy bill is a disaster that never should have been signed.
 
An effort has been made in this campaign to suggest that there aren’t any real differences between Mr. Ford and myself.  Well, I believe there are and these differences are fundamental.  One of them has to do with our approach to government.  Before Richard Nixon appointed him Vice President, Mr. Ford was a Congressman for 25 years.  His concern, of necessity, was the welfare of his congressional district.  For most of his adult life he has been a part of the Washington Establishment.  Most of my adult life has been spent outside of government.  My experience in government was the eight years I served as governor of California.  If it were a nation, California would be the 7th-ranking economic power in the world today.
 
When I became governor, I inherited a state government that was in almost the same situation as New York City.  The state payroll had been growing for a dozen years at a rate of from five to seven thousand new employees each year.  State government was spending from a million to a million-and-a-half dollars more each day than it was taking in.  The State’s great water project was unfinished and under-funded by a half a billion dollars.  My predecessor had spent the entire year’s budget for Medicaid in the first six months of the fiscal year.  And, we learned that the teacher’s retirement fund was unfunded – a $4 billion liability hanging over every property owner in the state.  I didn’t know whether I’d been elected governor or appointed receiver.  California was faced with insolvency and on the verge of bankruptcy.  We had to increase taxes.  Well, this came very hard for me because I felt taxes were already too great a burden.  I told the people the increase in my mind was temporary and that, as soon as we could, we’d return their money to them.
 
I had never in my life thought of seeking or holding public of office and I’m still not quite sure how it all happened.  In my own mind, I was a citizen representing my fellow citizens against the institution of government.  I turned to the people, not to politicians, for help.  Instead of a committee to screen applicants for jobs, I had a citizens’ recruiting committee, and I told this committee I wanted an administration made up of men and women who did not want government careers and who’d be the first to tell me if their government job was unnecessary.  And I had that happen.  [A] young man from the aerospace industry dissolved his department in four months, handed me the key to this office, and told me we’d never needed the department.  And to this day, I not only have never missed it – I don’t know where it was.
 
There was a reason for my seeking people who didn’t want government careers.  Dr. Parkinson summed it all up in his book on bureaucracy.  He said, “Government hires a rat-catcher and the first thing you know, he’s become a rodent control officer.”  In those entire eight years, most of us never lost that feeling that we were there representing the people against what Cicero once called the “arrogance of officialdom.”  We had a kind of watchword we used on each other.  “When we begin thinking of government as we instead of they, we’ve been here too long.”  Well, I believe that attitude would be beneficial in Washington.
 
We didn’t stop just with getting our administration from the ranks of the people.  We also asked for help from expert people in a great many fields, and more than 250 of our citizens volunteered to form into task forces.  They went into every department and agency of state government to see how modern business practices could make government more efficient, economical and responsive.  The gave an average of 117 days apiece full time, away from their own jobs and careers at no cost to the taxpayers.  They made eighteen hundred specific recommendations.  We implemented more than sixteen hundred of those recommendations.
 
This was government-by-the-people, proving that it works when the people work at it.  When we ended our eight years, we turned over to the incoming administration a balanced budget, a $500 million surplus, and virtually the same number of employees we’d stated with eight years before – even though the increase in population had given some departments a two-thirds increase in work load.  The water project was completed with $165 million left over.  Our bonds had a triple A rating, the highest credit rating you can get.  And the teachers’ retirement program was fully funded on a sound actuarial basis.  And, we kept our word to the taxpayers – we returned to them in rebates and tax cuts, $5 billion, $761 million.
 
I believe that what we did in California can be done in Washington if government will have faith in the people and let them bring their common sense to bear on the problems bureaucracy hasn’t solved.  I believe in the people.  Now, Mr. Ford places his faith in the Washington Establishment.  This has been evident in his appointment of former Congressmen and longtime government workers to positions in his Administration.  Well, I don’t believe that those who have been part of the problem are necessarily the best qualified to solve those problems.
 
The truth is, Washington has taken over functions that don’t truly belong to it.  In almost every case it has been a failure.  Now, understand, I’m speaking of those programs which logically should be administered at state and local levels.  Welfare is a classic example.  Voices that are raised now and then urging a federalization of welfare don’t realize that the failure of welfare is due to federal interference.  Washington doesn’t even know how many people are on welfare – how many cheaters are getting more than one check.  It only knows how many checks it’s sending out.  Its own rules keep it from finding out how many are getting more than one check.
 
Well, California had a welfare problem.  Sixteen percent of all welfare recipients in the country were drawing their checks in our state.  We were sending welfare checks to families who decided to live abroad.  On family was receiving its check in Russia.  Our caseload was increasing by 40,000 people a month.  Well, after a few years of trying to control this runaway program and being frustrated by bureaucrats here in California and in Washington, we turned again to a citizens’ task force.  The result was the most comprehensive welfare reform ever attempted.  And in less than three years we reduced the rolls by more than 300,000 people, saved the taxpayers $2 billion, and increased the grants to the truly deserving needy by an average of 43 percent.  We also carried out a successful experiment which I believe is an answer to much of the welfare problem in the nation.  We put able-bodied welfare recipients to work at useful community projects in return for their welfare grants.
 
Now, let’s look at housing.  Washington has tried to solve this problem for the poor by building low-cost houses.  So far it’s torn down three and a half homes for every one it’s built.
 
Schools – in America we created at the local level and administered at the local level for many years the greatest public school system in the world.  Now through something called federal aid to education, we have something called federal interference, and education has been the loser.  Quality has declined as federal intervention has increased.  Nothing has created more bitterness, for example, than forced busing to achieve racial balance.  It was born of a hope that we could increase understanding and reduce prejudice and antagonism.  And I’m sure we all approved of that goal.  But busing has failed to achieve the goal.  Instead, it has increased the bitterness and animosity it was supposed to reduce.  California’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, Wilson Riles (himself a Black), says “The concept that Black children can’t learn unless they are sitting with white children is utter and complete nonsense.”  Well, I agree.  The money now being wasted on this social experiment could be better spent to provide the kind of school facilities every child deserves.  Forced busing should be ended by legislation if possible – by constitutional amendment if necessary.  And, control of education should be returned to local school districts.
 
The other day Mr. Ford came out against gun control.  But back in Washington, D.C., his Attorney General has proposed a seven-point program that amounts to just that: gun control.  I don’t think that making it difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns will lower the crime rate - not when the criminals will always find a way to get them.  In California I think we found an answer.  We put into law what is practical gun control.  Anyone convicted of having a gun in his possession while he committed a crime: add five to fifteen years to the prison sentence.
 
Sometimes bureaucracy’s excesses are so great that we laugh at them.  But they are costly laughs.  Twenty-five years ago the Hoover Commission discovered that Washington files a million reports a year just reporting there is nothing to report.  Independent business people, shopkeepers and farmers file billions of reports every year required of them by Washington.  It amounts to some 10 billion pieces of paper each year, and it adds $50 billion a year to the cost of doing business.  Now, Washington has been loud in its promise to do something about this blizzard of paperwork.  And they made good.  Last year they increased it by 20 percent.
 
But there is one problem which must be solved or everything else is meaningless.  I am speaking of the problem of our national security.  Our nation is in danger, and the danger grows greater with each passing day.  Like an echo from the past, the voice of Winston Churchill’s grandson was heard recently in Britain’s House of Commons warning that the spread of totalitarianism threatens the world once again the democracies are “wandering without aim.”
 
“Wandering without aim” describes the United States’ foreign policy.  Angola is a case in point.  We gave just enough support to one side to encourage it to fight and die, but too little to give them a chance of winning.  And while we’re disliked by the winner, distrusted by the loser, and viewed by the world as weak and unsure.  If détente were the two-way street it’s supposed to be, we could have told the Soviet Union to stop its trouble-making and leave Angola to the Angolans.  But it didn’t work out that way.
 
Now, we are told Washington is dropping the word “détente,” but keeping the policy.  But whatever it’s called, the policy is what’s at fault.  What is our policy?  Mr. Ford’s new Ambassador to the United Nations attacks our longtime ally, Israel.  In Asia, our new relationship with mainland China can have practical benefits for both sides.  But that doesn’t mean it should include yielding to demands by them, as the administration has, to reduce our military presence on Taiwan where we have a longtime friend and ally, the Republic of China.
 
And, it’s also revealed now that we seek to establish friendly relations with Hanoi.  To make it more palatable, we’re told that this might help us learn the fate of the men still listed as Missing in Action.  Well, there’s no doubt our government has an obligation to end the agony of parents, wives and children who’ve lived so long with uncertainty.  But, this should have been one of our first demands of Hanoi’s patron saint, the Soviet Union, if détente had any meaning at all.  To present it now as a reason for friendship with those who have already violated their promise to provide such information is hypocrisy.
 
In the last few days, Mr. Ford and Dr. Kissinger had taken us from hinting at invasion of Cuba, to laughing it off as a ridiculous idea.  Except, that it was their ridiculous idea.  No one else suggested it.  Once again – what is their policy?  During this last year, they carried on a campaign to befriend Castro.  They persuaded the Organization of American States to lift its trade embargo, lifted some of the U.S. trade restrictions.  They engaged in cultural exchanges.  And then, on the eve of the Florida primary election, Mr. Ford went to Florida, called Castro an outlaw and said he’d never recognize him.  But he hasn’t asked our Latin American neighbors to reimpose a single sanction, nor has he taken any action himself.  Meanwhile, Castro continues to export revolution to Puerto Rico, to Angola, and who knows where else?
 
As I talk to you tonight, negotiations with another dictator go forward – negotiations aimed at giving up our ownership of the Panama Canal Zone.  Apparently, everyone knows about this except the rightful owners of the Canal Zone – you, the people of the United States.  General Omar Torrijos, the dictator of Panama, seized power eight years ago by ousting the duly-elected government.  There have been no elections since.  No civil liberties.  The press is censored.  Torrijos is a friend and ally of Castro and, like him, is pro-Communist.  He threatens sabotage and guerrilla attacks on our installations if we don’t yield to his demands.  His foreign minister openly claims that we have already agreed in principle to giving up the Canal Zone.
 
Well, the Canal Zone is not a colonial possession.  It is not a long-term lease.  It is sovereign United States Territory every bit the same as Alaska and all the states that were carved from the Louisiana Purchase.  We should end those negotiations and tell the General:  We bought it, we paid for it, we built it, and we intend to keep it.
 
Mr. Ford says détente will be replaced by “peace through strength.”  Well now, that slogan has a – a nice ring to it, but neither Mr. Ford nor his new Secretary of Defense will say that our strength is superior to all others.  In one of the dark hours of the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, “It is time to speak the truth frankly and boldly.”  Well, I believe former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger was trying to speak the truth frankly and boldly to his fellow citizens.  And that’s why he is no longer Secretary of Defense.
 
The Soviet Army outnumbers ours more than two-to-one and in reserves four-to-one.  They out-spend us on weapons by 50 percent.  Their Navy outnumbers ours in surface ships and submarines two-to-one.  We’re outgunned in artillery three-to-one and their tanks outnumber ours four-to-one.  Their strategic nuclear missiles are larger, more powerful and more numerous than ours.  The evidence mounts that we are Number Two in a world where it’s dangerous, if not fatal, to be second best.  Is this why Mr. Ford refused to invite Alexander Solzhenitsyn to the White House?  Or, why Mr. Ford traveled halfway ‘round the world to sign the Helsinki Pact, putting our stamp of approval on Russia’s enslavement of the captive nations?  We gave away the freedom of millions of people – freedom that was not ours to give.
 
Now we must ask if someone is giving away our own freedom.  Dr. Kissinger is quoted as saying that he thinks of the United States as Athens and the Soviet Union as Sparta.  “The day of the U.S. is past and today if the day of the Soviet Union.”  And he added, “…My Job as Secretary of State is to negotiate the most acceptable second-best position available.”  Well, I believe in the peace of which Mr. Ford spoke – as much as any man.  But peace does not come from weakness or from retreat.  It comes from the restoration of American military superiority.
 
Ask the people of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary – all the others: East Germany, Bulgaria, Romania – ask them what it’s like to live in a world where the Soviet Union is Number One.  I don’t want to live in that kind of world; and I don’t think you do either.  Now we learn that another high official of the State Department, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, whom Dr. Kissinger refers to as his “Kissinger,” has expressed the belief that, in effect, the captive nations should give up any claim of national sovereignty and simply become part of the Soviet Union.  He says, “their desire to break out of the Soviet straightjacket” threatens us with World War III.  In other words, slaves should accept their fate.
 
Well, I don’t believe the people I’ve met in almost every State of this Union are ready to consign this, the last island of freedom, to the dust bin of history, along with the bones of dead civilizations of the past.  Call it mysticism, it you will, but I believe God had a divine purpose in placing this land between the two great oceans to be found by those who had a special love of freedom and the courage to leave the countries of their birth.  From our forefathers to our modern-day immigrants, we’ve come from every corner of the earth, from every race and every ethnic background, and we’ve become a new breed in the world.  We’re Americans and we have a rendezvous with destiny.  We spread across this land, building farms and towns and cities, and we did it without any federal land planning program or urban renewal.
 
Indeed, we gave birth to an entirely new concept in man’s relation to man.  We created government as our servant, beholden to us and possessing no powers except those voluntarily granted to it by us.  Now a self-anointed elite in our nation’s capital would have us believe we are incapable of guiding our own destiny.  They practice government by mystery, telling us it’s too complex for our understanding.  Believing this, they assume we might panic if we were to be told the truth about our problems.
 
Why should we become frightened?  No people who have ever lived on this earth have fought harder, paid a higher price for freedom, or done more to advance the dignity of man than the living Americans – the Americans living in this land today.  There isn’t any problem we can’t solve if government will give us the facts.  Tell us what needs to be done.  Then, get out of the way and let us have at it.
 
Recently on one of my campaign trips I was doing a question-and-answer session, and suddenly I received a question from a little girl – couldn’t have been over six or seven years old – standing in the very front row.  I’d heard the question before but somehow in her asking it, she threw me a little bit.  She said, why do you want to be president?  Well, I tried to tell her about giving government back to the people; I tried to tell her about turning authority back to the states and local communities, and so forth; winding down the bureaucracy. [It] might have been an answer for adults, but I knew that it wasn’t what that little girl wanted, and I left very frustrated.  It was on the way to the next stop that I turned to Nancy and I said I wish I had it to do over again because I – I’d like to answer her question.
 
Well, maybe I can answer it now.  I would like to go to Washington.  I would like to be president, because I would like to see this country become once again a country where a little six-year old girl can grow up knowing the same freedom that I knew when I was six years old, growing up in America.  If this is the America you want for yourself and your children; if you want to restore government not only of and for but by the people; to see the American spirit unleashed once again. To make this land a shining, golden hope God intended it to be, I’d like to hear from you.  Write, or send a wire.  I’d be proud to hear your thoughts and your ideas.
 
Thank you, and good night.Republican National Convention
 
August 19, 1976
 
Mr. President, Mrs. Ford, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Vice President-to-be, the distinguished guests here, you ladies and gentlemen.  I was going to say fellow Republicans here but those who are watching from a distance (including) all those millions of Democrats and independents who I know are looking for a cause around which to rally and which I believe we can give them.  Mr. President, before you arrive tonight, these wonderful people, here, when we came in, gave Nancy and myself a welcome.  That, plus this, plus your kindness and generosity in honoring us by bringing us down here will give us a memory that will live in our hearts forever.
 
Watching on television these last few nights I’ve seen also the warmth with which you greeted Nancy and you also filled my heart with joy when you did that.  May I say some words.  There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read and is doesn’t very often amount to much.  Whether it is different this time than is has ever been before, I believe the Republican party has a platform that is a banner of bold, unmistakable colors with no pale pastel shades.  We have just heard a call to arms, based on that platform.
And a call to us to really be successful in communicating and reveal to the American people the difference between this platform and the platform of the opposing party which is nothing but a revamp and a reissue and a rerunning of a late, late show of the thing that we have been hearing from them for the last 40 years.
 
If I could just take a moment, I had an assignment the other day.  Someone asked me to write a letter for a time capsule that is going to opened in Los Angeles a hundred years from now, on our Tricentennial.
It sounded like an easy assignment.  They suggested I write about the problems and issues of the day.  And I set out to do so, riding down the coast in an automobile, looking at the blue Pacific out on one side and the Santa Ynez Mountains on the other, and I couldn’t help but wonder if it was going to be that beautiful a hundred years from now as it was on that summer day.
And then as I tried to write-let your own minds turn to that task.  You’re going to write for people a hundred years from now who know all about us, we know nothing about them.  We don’t know what kind of world they’ll be living in.  And suddenly I thought to myself, “If I write of the problems, they’ll be the domestic problems of which the President spoke here tonight; the challenges confronting us, the erosion of freedom taken place under Democratic rule in this country, the invasion of private rights, the controls and restrictions on the vitality of the great free economy that we enjoy.”  These are the challenges that we must meet and then again there is that challenge of which he spoke that we live in a world in which the great powers have aimed and poised at each other horrible missiles of destruction, nuclear weapons that can in a matter of minutes arrive at each other’s country and destroy virtually the civilized world we live in.
And suddenly it dawned on me; those who would read this letter a hundred years from now will know whether those missiles were fired.  They will know whether we met our challenge.
Whether they will have the freedom that we have known up until now will depend on what we do here.  Will they look back with appreciation and say, “Thank God for those people in 1976 who headed off that loss of freedom?  Who kept us now a hundred years later free?  Who kept our world from nuclear destruction?”
And if we fail they probably won’t get to read the letter at all because it spoke of individual freedom and they won’t be allowed to talk of that or read of it.
This is our challenge and this is why we’re here in this hall tonight.  Better than we’ve ever done before, we’ve got to quit talking to each other and about each other and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer in numbers than we’ve ever been but we carry the message they’re waiting for.  We must go forth from here united, determined and what a great general said a few years ago is true: “There is no substitute for victory.” Mr. President.
 Ronald Reagan’s announcement for Presidential Candidacy
 
11/13/1979
 
Good evening.  I am here tonight to announce my intention to seek the Republican nomination for President of the United States.
 
I’m sure that each of us has seen our country from a number of viewpoints depending on where we’ve lived and what we’ve done.  For me it has been as a boy growing up in several small towns in Illinois.  As a young man in Iowa trying to get a start in the years of the great depression and later in California for most of my adult life.
 
I’ve seen America from the stadium press box as a sportscaster, as an actor, officer of my labor union, soldier, officeholder and as both Democrat and Republican.  I’ve lived in an America where those who often had too little to eat outnumbered those who had enough.  There have been four wars in my lifetime and I’ve seen our country face financial ruin in depression.  I have also seen the great strength of this nation as it pulled itself up from that ruin to become the dominant force in the world.
 
To me our country is a living, breathing presence, unimpressed by what others say is impossible, proud of its own success, generous, yes and naïve, sometimes wrong, never mean and always impatient to provide a better life for its people in a framework of a basic fairness and freedom.
 
Someone once said that the difference between an American and any other kind of person is that an American lives in anticipation of the future because he knows it will be a great place. Other people fear the future as just a repetition of past failures.  There’s a lot of truth in that.  If there is one thing we are sure of it is that history need not be relived; that nothing is impossible, and that man is capable of improving his circumstances beyond what we are told is fact.
 
There are those in our land today, however, who would have us believe that the United States, like other great civilizations of the past, has reached the zenith of its power; that we are weak and fearful, reduced to bickering with each other and no longer possessed of the will to cope with our problems.
 
Much of this talk has come from leaders who claim that our problems are too difficult to handle.  We are supposed to meekly accept their failures as the most which humanly can be done.  They tell us we must learn to live with less, and teach our children that their lives will be less full and prosperous than ours have been; that the America of the coming years will be a place where – because of our past excesses – it will be impossible to dream and make those dreams come true.
 
I don’t believe that.  And, I don’t believe you do either.  That is why I am seeking the presidency.  I cannot and will not stand by and see this great country destroy itself.  Our leaders attempt to blame their failures on circumstances beyond their control, on false estimates by unknown, unidentifiable experts who rewrite modern history in an attempt to convince us our high standard of living, the result of thrift and hard work, is somehow selfish extravagance which we must renounce as we join in sharing scarcity.  I don’t agree that our nation must resign itself to inevitable decline, yielding its proud position to other hands.  I am totally unwilling to see this country fail in its obligation to itself and to the other free peoples of the world.
 
The crisis we face is not the result of any failure of the American spirit; it is a failure of our leaders to establish rational goals and give our people something to order their lives by.  If I am elected, I shall regard my election as proof that the people of the United States have decided to set a new agenda and have recognized that the human spirit thrives best when goals are set and progress can be measured in their achievement.
 
During the next year I shall discuss in detail a wide variety of problems which a new administration must address.  Tonight I shall mention only a few.
 
No problem that we face today can compare with the need to restore the health of the American economy and the strength of the American dollar.  Double-digit inflation has robbed you and your family of the ability to plan.  It has destroyed the confidence to buy and it threatens the very structure of family life itself as more and more wives are forced to work in order to help meet the ever-increasing cost of living.  At the same time, the lack of year growth in the economy has introduced the justifiable fear in the minds of working men and women who are already over extended that soon there will be fewer jobs and no money to pay for even the necessities of life.  And tragically as the cost of living keeps going up, the standard of living which has been our great pride keeps going down.
 
The people have not created this disaster in our economy; the federal government has.  It has overspent, overestimated, and over regulated.  It has failed to deliver services within the revenues it should be allowed to raise from taxes.  In the thirty-four years since the end of World War II, it has spent 448 billion dollars more than it has collection in taxes – 448 billion dollars of printing press money, which has made every dollar you earn worth less and less.  At the same time, the federal government has cynically told us that high taxes on business will in some way “solve” the problem and allow the average taxpayer to pay less.  Well, business is not a taxpayer it is a tax collector.  Business has to pass its tax burden on to the customer as part of the cost of doing business.  You and I pay the taxes imposed on business every time we go to the store.  Only people pay taxes and it is political demagoguery or economic illiteracy to try and tell us otherwise.
 
The key to restoring the health of the economy lies in cutting taxes.  At the same time, we need to get the waste out of federal spending.  This does not mean sacrificing essential services, nor do we need to destroy the system of benefits which flow to the poor, the elderly, the sick and the handicapped.  We have long since committed ourselves, as a people, to help those among us who cannot take care of themselves.  But the federal government has proven to be the costliest and most inefficient provider of such help we could possibly have.
 
We must put an end to the arrogance of a federal establishment which accepts no blame for our condition, cannot be relied upon to give us a fair estimate of our situation and utterly refuses to live within its means.  I will not accept the supposed “wisdom” which has it that the federal bureaucracy has become so powerful that it can no longer be changed or controlled by any administration.  As President I would use every power at my command to make the federal establishment respond to the will and the collective wishes of the people.
 
We must force the entire federal bureaucracy to live in the real world of reduced spending, streamlined functions and accountability to the people it serves.  We must review the functions of the federal government to determine which of those are the proper province of levels of government closer to the people.
 
The 10th article of the Bill of Rights is explicit in pointing out that the federal government should do only those things specifically called for in the Constitution.  All others shall remain with the states or the people.  We haven’t been observing that 10th article of late.  The federal government has taken on functions it was never intended to perform and which it does not perform well.  There should be a planned, orderly transfer of such functions to states and communities and a transfer with them of the sources of taxation to pay for them.
 
The savings in administrative would be considerable and certainly there would be increased efficiency and less bureaucracy.
 
By reducing federal tax rates where they discourage individual initiative – especially personal income tax rates – we can restore incentives, invite greater economic growth and at the same time help give us better government instead of bigger government.  Proposals such as the Kemp-Roth bill would bring about this kind of realistic reductions in tax rates.
 
In short, a punitive tax system must be replaced by one that restores incentive for the worker and for industry; a system that rewards initiative and effort and encourages thrift.
 
All these things are possible; none of them will be easy.  But the choice is clear.  We can go on letting the country slip over the brink to financial ruin with the disaster that it means for the individual or we can find the will to work together to restore confidence in ourselves and to regain the confidence of the world.  I have lived through one depression.  I carry with me the memory of a Christmas Eve when my brother and I and our parents exchanged modest gifts – there was no lighted tree as there had been on Christmases past.  I remember watching my father open what he thought was a greeting from his employer.  We all watched and yes, we were hoping for a bonus check.  It was notice that he no longer had a job.  And in those days the government ran radio announcements telling workers not to leave home looking for jobs – there were no jobs.  I’ll carry with me always the memory of my father sitting there holding that envelope, unable to look at us.  I cannot and will not stand by while inflation and joblessness destroy the dignity of our people.
 
Another serious problem which must be discussed tonight is our energy situation.  Our country was built on cheap energy.  Today, energy is not cheap and we face the prospect that some forms of energy may soon not be available at all.
 
Last summer you probably spent hours sitting in gasoline lines.  This winter, some will be without heat and everyone will be paying much more simply to keep home and family warm.  If you ever had any doubt of the government’s inability to provide for the needs of the people, just look at the utter fiasco we now call “the energy crisis.”  Not one straight answer nor any realistic hope of relief has come from the present administration in almost three years of federal treatment of the problem.  As gas lines grew, the administration again panicked and now has proposed to put the country on a wartime footing; but for this “war” there is no victory in sight.  And, as always, when the federal bureaucracy fails, all it can suggest is more of the same.  This time it’s another bureau to untangle the mess made by the ones we already have.
 
But, this just won’t work.  Solving the energy crisis will not be easy, but it can be done.  First we must decide that “less” is not enough.  Next we must remove government obstacles to energy production.  And, we must make use of those technological advantages we still possess.
 
It is no program simply to say “use less energy.”  Of course waste must be eliminated and efficiency promoted, but not an energy policy.  At best it means we will run out of energy a little more slowly.  But a day will come when the lights will dim and the wheels of industry will turn more slowly and finally stop.  As President I will not endorse any course which has this as its principle objective.
 
We need more energy and that means diversifying our sources of supply away from the OPEC countries.  Yes, it means more efficient automobiles.  But it also means more exploration and development of oil and natural gas here in our own country.  The only way to free ourselves from the monopoly pricing power of OPEC is to be less dependent on outside sources of fuel.
 
The answer obvious to anyone except those in the administration, it seems, is more domestic production of oil and gas.  We must also have wider use of nuclear power within strict safety rules, of course.  There must be more spending by the energy industries on research and development of substitutes for fossil fuels.
 
In years to come solar energy may provide much of the answer but for the next two or three decades we must do such things as master the chemistry of coal.  Putting the market system to work for these objectives is an essential first step for their achievement.  Additional multi-billion dollar federal bureaus and programs are not the answer.
 
In recent weeks there has been much talk about “excess” oil company profits.  I don’t believe we’ve been given all the information we need to make a judgement about this.  We should have that information.  Government exists to protect us from each other.  It is not government’s function to allocate fuel or impose unnecessary restrictions on the marketplace.  It is government’s function to determine whether we are being unfairly exploited and if so to take immediate and appropriate action.  As President I would do exactly that.
 
On the foreign front, the decade of the 1980’s will place severe pressures upon the United States and its allies.  We can expect to be tested in ways calculated to try our patience, to confound our resolve and to erode our belief in ourselves.  During a time when the Soviet Union may enjoy nuclear superiority over this country, we must never waiver in our commitment to our allies nor accept any negotiation which is not clearly in the national interest.  We must judge carefully.  Though we should leave no initiative untried in our pursuit of peace, we must be clear voiced in our resolve to resist any unpeaceful act wherever it may occur.  Negotiations with the Soviet Union must never become appeasement.
 
For the most of the last forty years, we have been preoccupied with the global struggle – the competition – with the Soviet Union and with our responsibilities to our allies.  But too often in recent times we have just drifted along with events, responding as if we thought of ourselves as a nation in decline.  To our allies we seem to appear to be a nation unable to make decisions in its own interests, let alone in the common interest.  Since the Second World War we have spent large amounts of money and much of our time protecting and defending freedom all over the world.  We must continue this, for if we do not accept the responsibilities of leadership, who will?  And if no one will, how will we survive?
 
The 1970’s have taught us the foolhardiness of not having a long-range diplomatic strategy of our own.  The world has become a place where, in order to survive, our country needs more than just allies – it needs real friends.  Yet, in recent times we often seem not to have recognized who our friends are.  This must change.  It is now time to take stock of our own house and to resupply its strength.
 
Part of that process involves taking stock of our relationship with Puerto Rico.  I favor statehood for Puerto Rico and if the people of Puerto Rico vote for statehood in their coming referendum I would, as President, initiate the enabling legislation to make this a reality.
 
We live on a continent whose three countries possess the assets to make it the strongest, most prosperous and self-sufficient area on earth.  Within the borders of this North American continent are the food, resources, technology and undeveloped territory which, properly managed, could dramatically improve the quality of life of all its inhabitants.
 
It is no accident that this unmatched potential for progress and prosperity exists in three countries with such long-standing heritages of free government.  A developing closeness among Canada, Mexico and the United States – a North American accord – would permit achievement of that potential in each country beyond that which I believe any of them – strong as they are – could accomplish in the absence of such cooperation.  In fact, the key to our own future security may lie in both Mexico and Canada becoming much stronger countries than they are today.
 
No one can say at this point what form future cooperation among our three countries will take.  But if I am elected President, I would be willing to invite each of our neighbors to send a special representative to our government to sit in on high level planning sessions with us, as partners, mutually concerned about the future of our Continent.  First, I would immediately seek the views and ideas of Canadian and Mexican leaders on this issue, and work tirelessly with them to develop closer ties among our peoples.  It is time we stopped thinking of our nearest neighbors as foreigners.
 
By developing methods of working closely together, we will lay the foundations for future cooperation on a broader and more significant scale.  We will also put to rest any doubts of those cynical enough to believe that the United States would seek to dominate any relationship among our three countries, or foolish enough to think that the governments and peoples of Canada and Mexico would ever permit such domination to occur.  I, for one, am confident that we can show the world by example that the nations of North America are ready, within the context of an unswerving commitment to freedom, to seek new forms of accommodation to meet a changing world.  A developing closeness between the United States, Canada and Mexico would serve notice on friend and foe alike that we were prepared for a long haul, looking outward again and confident our of future; that together we are going to create jobs, to generate new fortunes of wealth for many and provide a legacy for the children of each of our countries.
Two hundred years ago we taught the world that a new form of government, created out of the genius of man to cope with his circumstances, could succeed in bringing a measure of quality to human life previously thought impossible.
 
Now let us work toward the goal of using the assets of this continent, its resources, technology and foodstuffs in the most efficient ways possible for the common good of all its people.  It may take the next 100 years but we can dare to dream that at some future date a map of the world might show the North American continent as one in which the peoples and commerce of its three strong countries flow more freely across their present borders than they do today.
 
In recent months leaders in our government have told us that, we, the people, have lost confidence in ourselves; that we must regain the spirit and our will to achieve our national goals.  Well, it is true there is a lack of confidence, an unease with things the way they are.  But the confidence we have lost is confidence in our government’s policies.  Our unease can almost be called bewilderment at how our defense strength has deteriorated.  The great productivity of our industry is now surpassed by virtually all the major nations who compete with us for world markets.  And, our currency is no longer the stable measure of value it once was.
 
But there remains the greatness of our people, our capacity for dreaming up fantastic deeds and bringing them off to the surprise of an unbelieving world.  When Washington’s men were freezing at Valley Forge, Tom Paine told his fellow Americans: “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”  We still have that power.
 
We—today’s living Americans—have in our lifetime fought harder, paid a higher price for freedom and done more to advance the dignity of man than any people who ever lived on this earth.  The citizens of this great nation want leadership—yes—but not a “man on a white horse” demanding obedience to his commands.  They want someone who believes they can “begin the world over again.”  A leader who will unleash their great strength and remove the roadblocks government has put in their way.  I want to do that more than anything I’ve ever wanted.  And it’s something that I believe with God’s help I can do.
 
I believe this nation hungers for a spiritual revival; hungers to once again see honor placed above political expediency; to see government once again the protector of our liberties, not the distributor of gifts and privilege.  Government should uphold and not undermine those institutions which are custodians of the very values upon which civilization is founded—religion, education and, above all, family.  Government cannot be clergyman, teacher and parent.  It is our servant, beholden to us.
 
We who are privileged to be Americans have had a rendezvous with destiny since the moment in 1630 when John Winthrop, standing on the deck of the tiny Arbella off the coast of Massachusetts, told the little band of pilgrims, “We shall be as a city upon a hill.  The eyes of all people are upon us so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world.”
 
A troubled and afflicted mankind looks to us, pleading for us to keep our rendezvous with destiny; that we will uphold the principles of self-reliance, self-discipline, morality, and—above all—responsible liberty for every individual that we will become that shining city on a hill.
 
I believe that you and I together can keep this rendezvous with destiny.
 
Thank you and good night.
 
 
 
 
 
 Republican National Convention Acceptance Speech
 
7/17/80
 
Mr. Chairman, delegates to the Convention, my fellow citizens of this great nation:  With a deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust, I accept your nomination for the Presidency of the United States.  I do so with deep gratitude.
 
I am very proud of our party tonight.  This convention has shown to all America a party united, with positive programs for solving the nation’s problems; a party ready to build a new consensus with all those across the land who share a community of values embodied in these words: family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom. 
 
I know we have had a quarrel or two in our party, but only as to the method of attaining a goal.  There was no argument about the goal.  As President, I will establish a liaison with the 50 Governors to encourage them to eliminate, wherever it exists, discrimination against women.  I will monitor Federal laws to insure their implementation and to add statutes if they are needed.
 
More than anything else, I want my candidacy to unify our country; to renew the American spirit and sense of purpose.  I want to carry our message to every American, regardless of party affiliation, who is a member of this community of shared values. 
 
Never before in our history have Americans been called upon to face three grave threats to our very existence, any one of which could destroy us.  We face a disintegrating economy, a weakened defense and an energy policy based on the sharing of scarcity.
The major issue of this campaign is the direct political, personal and moral responsibility of Democratic party leadership-in the White House and in Congress-for this unprecedented calamity which has befallen us.  They tell us they have done the most that humanly could be done.  They say that the United States has had its day in the sun; that our nation has passed its zenith.  They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems; that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities.
 
My fellow citizens I utterly reject that view.  The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves.  Those who believe we can have no business leading the nation.  I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.  We have come together here because the American people deserve better from those to whom they entrust our nation’s highest offices, and we stand united in our resolve to do something about it.
 
We need a rebirth of the American tradition of leadership at every level of government and in private life as well.  The United States of America is unique in world history because it has a genius for leaders – many leaders – on many levels.  But, back in 1976, Mr. Carter said, “Trust me.”  And a lot of people did.  Now, many of those people are out of work.  Many have seen their savings eaten away by inflation.  Many others on fixed incomes, especially the elderly, have watched helplessly as the cruel tax of inflation wasted away their purchasing power.  And, today a great many who trusted Mr. Carter wonder if we can survive the Carter policies of national defense.
 
“Trust me” government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what’s best for us.  My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties.  The trust is where it belongs – in the people.  The responsibility to live up to that trust is where it belongs, in their elected leaders.  That kind of relationship, between the people and their elected leaders, is a special kind of compact; an agreement among themselves to build a community and abide by its laws.
 
Three hundred and sixty years ago, in 1620, a group of families dared to cross a mighty ocean to build a future for themselves in a new world.  When they arrived at Plymouth, Massachusetts, they formed what they called a “compact”; an agreement among themselves to build a community and abide by its laws.  The single act – the voluntary binding together of free people to live under the law – set the pattern for what was to come.
 
A century and a half later, the descendants of those people pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to found this nation.  Some forfeited their fortunes and their lives; none sacrificed honor.
 
Four score and seven years later, Abraham Lincoln called upon the people of all America to renew their dedication and their commitment of, for and by the people.  Isn’t it once again time to renew our compact of freedom; to pledge to each other all that is best in our lives; all that gives meaning to them – for the sake of this, our beloved and blessed land?
 
Together, let us make this a new beginning.  Let us make a commitment to care for the needy; to teach our children the values and the virtues handed down to us by our families; to have the courage to defend those values and the willingness to sacrifice for them.
Let us pledge to restore, in our time, the American spirit of voluntary service, of cooperation, of private and community initiative; a spirit that flows like a deep and mighty river through the history of our nation.
 
As your nominee, I pledge to restore to the federal government the capacity to do the people’s work without dominating their lives.  I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely; its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
 
The first Republican President once said, “While the people retain their virtue and their vigilance, no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.”
 
If Mr. Lincoln could see what’s happened in these last three-and-half years, he might hedge a little on that statement.  But, with the virtues that are our legacy as a free people and with the vigilance that sustains liberty, we still have time to use our renewed compact to overcome the injuries that have been done to America these past three-and-a half years.
 
First we must overcome something the present Administration has cooked up: a new and altogether indigestible economic stew, one part inflation, one part high unemployment, one part recession, one part runaway taxes, one part deficit spending and seasoned by an energy crisis.  It’s an economic stew that has turned the national stomach.  It is as if Mr. Carter had set out to prove, once and for all, that economics is indeed a “dismal science.”
 
Ours are not problems of abstract economic theory.  These are problems of flesh and blood; problems that cause pain and destroy the moral fiber of real people who should not suffer the further indignity of being told by the White House that it is all somehow their fault.  We do not have inflation because, as Mr. Carter says, we have lived too well.
 
The head of a government which has utterly refused to live within its means and which has, in the last few days, told us that this year’s deficit will be $60 billion, dares to point the finger of blame at business and labor, both of which have been engaged in a losing struggle just trying to stay even.
 
High taxes, we are told, are somehow good for us, as if, when government spends our money it isn’t inflationary, but when we spend it, it is.  Those who preside over the worst energy shortage in our history tell us to use less, so that we will run out of oil, gasoline and natural gas a little more slowly.  Conservation is desirable, of course, for we must not waste energy.  But conservation is not the sole answer to our energy needs.
 
America must get to work producing more energy.  The Republican program for solving economic problems is based on growth and productivity.  Large amounts of oil and natural gas lay beneath our land and off our shores, untouched because the present Administration seems to believe the American people would rather see more regulation, taxes and controls than more energy.
 
Coal offers great potential.  So does nuclear energy produced under rigorous safety standards.   It could supply electricity for thousands of industries and millions of jobs and homes.  It must not be thwarted by a tiny minority opposed to economic growth which often finds friendly ears in regulatory agencies for its obstructionist campaigns.
 
Make no mistake.  We will not permit the safety of our people or our environmental heritage to be jeopardized, but we are going to reaffirm that the economic prosperity of our people is a fundamental part of our environment.
 
Our problems are both acute and chronic, yet all we hear from those in positions of leadership are the same tired proposals for more government tinkering, more meddling and more control – all of which led us to this state in the first place.
 
Can anyone look at the record of this Administration and say “Well done”?  Can anyone compare the state of our economy when the Carter Administration took office with where we are today and say, “Keep up the good work”? Can anyone look at our reduced standing in the world today and say, “Let’s have four more years of this”?
 
I believe the American people are going to answer these questions the first week of November and their answer will be, “No – we’ve had enough.”  And, when the American people have spoken, it will be up to us – beginning next January 20th – to offer an Administration and Congressional leadership of competence and more than a little courage.
 
We must have the clarity of vision to see the difference between what is essential and what is merely desirable; and then the courage to use this insight to bring our government back under control and make it acceptable to the people.
 
We Republicans believe it is essential that we maintain both the forward momentum of economic growth and the strength of the safety net beneath those in society who need help.  We also believe it is essential that the integrity of all aspects of Social Security be preserved.
 
Beyond these essentials, I believe it is clear our federal government is overgrown and overweight.  Indeed, it is time for our government to go no a diet.  Therefore, my first act as Chief Executive will be to impose an immediate and thorough freeze on federal hiring.  Then, we are going to enlist the very best minds from business, labor and whatever quarter to conduct a detailed review of every department, bureau and agency that lives by federal appropriation.  We are also going to enlist the help and ideas of many dedicated and hard-working government employees at all levels who want a more efficient government as much as the rest of us do.  I know that many are demoralized by the confusion and waste they confront in their work as a result of failed and failing policies.
 
Our instructions to the groups we enlist will be simple and direct.  We will remind them that government programs exist at the sufferance of the American taxpayer and are paid for with money earned by working men and women.  Any program that represents a waste of their money – a theft from their pocketbooks – must have that waste eliminated or the program must go – by Executive Order where possible; by Congressional action where necessary.  Everything that can be run more effectively by state and local governments we shall turn over to state and local government, along with the funding sources to pay for it.  We are going to put an end to the money merry go round where our money becomes Washington’s money, to be spent by the states and cities only if they spend it exactly the way the federal bureaucrats tell them to. 
 
I will not accept the excuse that the federal government has grown so big and powerful that it is beyond the control of any President, any Administration or Congress.  We are going to put an end to the notion that the American taxpayer exists to fund the federal government.  The federal government exists to serve the American people and to be accountable to the American people.  On January 20th, we are going to re-establish that truth.
 
Also on that date we are going to initiate action to get substantial relief for our taxpaying citizens and action to put people back to work.  None of this will be based on any new form of monetary tinkering or fiscal sleight-of-hand.  We will simply apply to government the common sense we all use in our daily lives.
 
Work and family are at the center of our lives; the foundation of our dignity as a free people.  When we deprive people of what they have earned, or take away their jobs, we destroy their dignity and undermine their families.  We cannot support our families unless there are jobs; and we cannot have jobs unless people have both money to invest and the faith to invest it.
 
These are concepts that stem from the foundation of an economic system that for more than two hundred years has helped us master a continent, create a previously undreamed of prosperity for our people and has fed millions of others around the globe.  That system will continue to serve us in the future if our government will stop ignoring the basic values on which it was built and stop betraying the trust and good will of the American workers who keep it going.
 
The American people are carrying the heaviest peacetime tax burden in our nation’s history – and it will grow even heavier, under present law, next January.  This burden is crushing our ability and incentive to save, invest and produce.  We are taxing ourselves into economic exhaustion and stagnation.  This must stop.  We must halt this fiscal self-destruction and restore sanity to our economic system.
 
I have long advocated a 30 percent reduction in income tax rates over a period of three years.  This phased tax reduction would begin with a 10 percent “down payment” tax cut in 1981, which the Republicans in Congress and I have already proposed.
 
A phased reduction of tax rates would go a long way toward easing the heavy burden on the American people.  But, we should not stop here.
 
Within the context of economic conditions and appropriate budget priorities during each fiscal year of my Presidency, I would strive to go further.  This would include improvement in business depreciation taxes so we can stimulate investment in order to get plants and equipment replaced, put more Americans back to work and put our nation back on the road to being competitive in world commerce.  We will also work to reduce the cost of government as a percentage of our Gross National Product.
 
The first task of national leadership is to set honest and realistic priorities in our policies and our budget and I pledge that my Administration will do that.
 
When I talk of tax cuts, I am reminded that every major tax cut in this century has strengthened the economy, generated renewed productivity and ended up yielding new revenues for the government by creating new investment, new jobs and more commerce among our people.
 
The present administration has been forced by us Republicans to play follow the leader with regard to a tax cut.  But, we must take with the proverbial “grain of salt” any tax cut proposed by those who have given us the greatest tax increase in our history.
 
When those in leadership give us tax increases and tell us we must also do with less, have they thought about those who have always had less – especially the minorities?  This is like telling them that just as they step on the first rung of the ladder of opportunity, the ladder is being pulled up.  That may be the Democratic leadership’s message to the minorities, but it won’t be ours. Our message will be; we have to move ahead, but we’re not going to leave anyone behind.
 
Thanks to the economic policies of the Democratic party, millions of Americans find themselves out of work.  Millions more have never even had a fair chance to learn new skills, hold a decent job, seize the opportunity to climb the ladder and secure for themselves and their families a share in the prosperity of this nation.
 
It is time to put Americans back to work; to make our cities and towns resound with the confident voices of men and women of all races, nationalities and faiths bringing home to their families a decent paycheck they can cash for money.
 
For those without skills, we’ll find a way to help them get skills.  For those without job opportunities, we’ll stimulate new opportunities, particularly in the inner cities where they live.  For those who have abandoned hope, we’ll restore hope and we’ll welcome them into a great national crusade to make America great again!
 
When we move from domestic affairs and cast our eyes abroad, we see an equally sorry chapter in the record of the present Administration.
 
A Soviet combat brigade trains in Cuba, just 90 miles from our shores.
A Soviet army of invasion occupies Afghanistan, further threatening our vital interests in the Middle East.
America’s defense strength is at its lowest ebb in a generation, while the Soviet Union is vastly outspending us in both strategic and conventional arms.
Our European allies, looking nervously at the growing menace from the East, turn to us for leadership and fail to find it.
And incredibly more than 50 of our fellow Americans have been held captive for over eight months by a dictatorial foreign power that holds us up to ridicule before the world.
 
Adversaries large and small test our will and seek to confound our resolve, but the Carter Administration gives us weakness when we need strength; vacillation when the times demand firmness.
 
Why?  Because the Carter Administration live in the world of make-believe.  Every day, it dreams up a response to that day’s troubles, regardless of what happened yesterday and what will happen tomorrow.  The Administration lives in a world where mistakes, even very big ones, have no consequence.
 
The rest of us, however, live in the real world.  It is here that disasters are overtaking our nation without any real response from the White House.
 
I condemn the Administration’s make-believe; its self deceit and - above all – its transparent hypocrisy.  For example, Mr. Carter says he supports the volunteer army, but he lets military pay and benefits slip so low that many of our enlisted personnel are actually eligible for food stamps.  Re-enlistment rates drop and, just recently, after he fought all week against a proposal to increase the pay of our men and women in uniform, he helicoptered out to our carrier the USS Nimitz, which was returning from long months of duty.  He told the crew that he advocated better pay for them and their comrades!  Where does he really stand, now that he’s back on shore?
 
I’ll tell you where I stand.  I do not favor a peacetime draft or registration, but I do favor pay and benefit levels that will attract and keep highly motivated men and women in our volunteer forces and an active reserve trained and ready for an instant call in case of an emergency.
 
An Annapolis graduate may be at the helm of the ship of state, but the ship has no rudder.  Critical decisions are made at times almost in Marx Brothers fashion, but who can laugh?  Who was not embarrassed when the Administration handed a major propaganda victory in the United Nations to the enemies of Israel, our staunch Middle East ally for three decades, and then claimed that the American vote was a “mistake,” the result of a “failure of communication” between the President, his Secretary of State and his UN Ambassador?
 
Who does not feel a growing sense of unease as our allies, facing repeated instances of an amateurish and confused Administration; reluctantly conclude that America is unwilling or unable to fulfill its obligations as leader of the free world?
 
Who does not feel rising alarm when the question in any discussion of foreign policy is no longer, “Should we do something?”, but “Do we have the capacity to do anything?”
 
The Administration which has brought us to this state is seeking your endorsement for four more years of weakness, indecision, mediocrity and incompetence.  No American should vote until he or she has asked, is the United States stronger and more respected now than it was three-and-a-half years ago?  Is the world today a safer place in which we live?
 
It is the responsibility of the President of the United States, in working for peace, to insure that the safety of our people cannot successfully be threatened by a hostile foreign power.  As President, fulfilling that responsibility will be my Number One priority.
 
We are not a warlike people.  Quite the opposite.  We always seek to live in peace.  We resort to force infrequently and with great reluctance – and only after we have determined that it is absolutely necessary.  We are awed – and rightly so – by the forces of destruction at loose in the world in this nuclear era.  But neither can we be naïve or foolish.  Four times in my lifetime America has gone to war, bleeding the lives of its young men into the sands of beachheads, the fields of Europe and the jungles and rice paddies of Asia.  We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak.  It is then that tyrants are tempted.
We simply cannot learn these lessons the hard way again without risking our destruction.
 
Of all the objectives we seek, first and foremost is the establishment of lasting world peace.  We must always stand ready to negotiate in good faith, ready to pursue any reasonable avenue that holds forth the promise of lessening tensions and furthering the prospects of peace.  But let our friends and those who may wish us ill take note: the United States has an obligation to its citizens and to the people of the world never to let those who would destroy freedom dictate the future course of human life on this planet.
I would never regard my election as proof that we have renewed our resolve to preserve world peace and freedom.  This nation will once again be strong enough to do that.
 
This evening marks the last step – save one – of a campaign that has taken Nancy and me from one end of this great land to the other, over many months and thousands and thousands of miles.  There are those who question the way we choose a President; who say that our process imposes difficult and exhausting burdens on those who seek the office.  I have not found it so.
 
It is impossible to capture in words the splendor of this vast continent which God has granted as our portion of his creation.  There are no words to express the extraordinary strength and character of this breed of people we call Americans.
 
Everywhere we have me thousands of Democrats, Independents and Republicans from all economic conditions and walks of life bound together in that community of shared values of family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom.  They are concerned, yes, but they are the kind of men and women Tom Paine had in mind when he wrote – during the darkest days of the American Revolution – “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”
 
Nearly one-hundred-and-fifty years after Tom Paine wrote those words, an American President told the generation of the Great Depression that it had a “rendezvous with destiny.”  I believe this generation of Americans today also has a rendezvous with destiny.
 
Tonight, let us dedicate ourselves to renewing the American Compact.  I ask you not simply to “Trust me,” but to trust your values – our values – and to hold me responsible for living up to them.  I ask you to trust that American spirit which knows no ethnic, religious, social, political, regional or economic boundaries; the spirit that burned with zeal in the hearts of millions of immigrants from every corner of the earth who came here in search of freedom.
 
Some say that spirit no longer exists.  But I have seen it – I have felt it – all across this land; in the big cities, the small towns and in rural America.  The American spirit is still there, ready to blaze into life if you and I are willing to do what has to be done; the practical, down to earth things that will stimulate our economy, increase productivity and put America back to work.
 
The time is now to limit federal spending; to insist on a stable monetary reform and to free ourselves from imported oil.
 
The time is now to resolve that the basis of a firm and principled foreign policy is one that takes the world as it is and seeks to change it by leadership and example; not by lecture and harangue.
 
The time is now to say that while we shall seek new friendships and expand and improve others, we shall not do so by breaking our word or casting aside old friends and allies.
 
And the time is now to redeem promises once made to the American people by another candidate, in another time and another place.  He said, “… For three long years I have been going up and down this country preaching that government – federal, state and local – costs too much.  I shall not stop that preaching.  As an immediate program of action, we must abolish useless offices.  We must eliminate unnecessary functions of government….
“… we must consolidate subdivisions of government and, like the private citizen, give up luxuries which we can no longer afford.  “I propose to you, my friends, and through you that government of all kinds, big and little be made solvent and that the example be set by the President of the United States and his cabinet.”  So said Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his acceptance speech to the Democratic National Convention in July, 1932.
 
The time is now, my fellow Americans, to recapture our destiny, to take it into our own hands.  But, to do this will take many of us, working together.  I ask you tonight to volunteer your help in this cause so we carry our message throughout the land.
 
Yes, isn’t now the time that we, the people, carried out these unkept promises?  Let us pledge to each other and to all America on this July day 48 years later, we intend to do just that.
 
At the end, Reagan departed from his prepared text:
I have thought of something that is not a part of my speech and I’m worried over whether I should do it.  Can we doubt that only a divine providence placed this land, this island of freedom, here as a refuge for all those people in the world who yearn to breath freely: Jews and Christians enduring persecution behind the Iron Curtain, the boat people of Southeast Asia, of Cuba and of Haiti, the victims of drought and famine in Africa, the freedom fighters of Afghanistan and our own countrymen held in savage captivity.
 
I’ll confess that I’ve been a little afraid to suggest what I’m going to suggest.  I’m more afraid not to.  Can we begin our crusade joined together in a moment of silent prayer?
 
God Bless America.VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS CONVENTION, Chicago, Illinois
PEACE: Restoring the Margin of Safety
 
AUGUST 18, 1980
 
Thank you Commander Vanderclute.
 
Four weeks ago, I was deeply honored to go before a national convention of my party and accept the greatest honor they can bestow:  their nomination for the Presidency of the United States.
 
What a wonderful pleasure it is now to come before you and accept your endorsement for that same high office.
 
I know you have broken a 80-year precedent to make this endorsement, and I only hope that four years from now you will be as happy with me as I am with you today.  Because, my friends, nothing would mean more to me as President than to live up to your trust.
 
I also know full well today that the last four commanders of the VFW have all been Democrats.  But this endorsement sends a message ringing across the land:  when it comes to keeping America strong, when it comes to keeping America great, when it comes to keeping America at peace, then none of us can afford to be simply a Democrat or a Republican – we must all stand united as Americans.
 
And that is what I intend to do in this campaign and in the next four years:  to unite people of every background and faith in a great crusade to restore the America of our dreams.
 
America has been sleepwalking far too long.  We have to snap out of it, and with your help, that’s exactly what we’re going to do.
 
The high and noble purpose of your great organization, to “honor the dead by helping the living,” is personified by your gratuitous representation of veterans, their widows and orphans in claims with the Veteran Administration through your nationwide network of skilled service officers and, also, before the various discharge review and correction boards within the Department of Defense.
 
With respect to your legislative efforts to assist veterans, my colleagues inform me that your representatives in your Washington office, under the dynamic leadership of Cooper Holt, are highly professional, highly effective and highly respected within the halls of Congress.  True, and most unfortunately your impressive legislative accomplishments of Congresses past have not been duplicated this second session of the 96th Congress.  Not because your representatives have been found wanting in this area, but solely because this present anti-veteran administration has stacked the deck against you through the vast power of the White House.  It has not escaped me that the Carter Administration has cut the Veterans Administration budget each and every year of its incumbency with respect to the Federal budget while our veteran population of 30 million is the highest in the history of our great republic.  Where has the money denied our deserving veterans gone?  Surely not to our national defense which is in shambles.
 
--to me it is unconscionable that veterans in need are denied hospital and medical care because of inadequate funding which has closed hospital beds and cut health-care personnel within the VA.
 
--to me it is a breach of faith that compensation for those with service-connected disabilities has not kept abreast of inflation and that the administration rammed through Congress a pension program admittedly designed to deny such to World War II and subsequent veterans and their survivors.
 
--to me it is the height of hypocrisy for the administration in high sounding words to repeatedly tell us how much we owe our Vietnam veterans and, then, only in this election year recommend a stingy 10 percent increase in the GI bill when these veterans have not had an increase since 1977 and the Congressional Budget Office has stated they now need a 30 percent increase to catch-up.
 
--to me the cruelest betrayal of all was the administration’s proposed national health plan which, if passed, would have made the VA hospital and medical care system the nucleus of national health insurance.  This, following repeated statements by the President that he supported the continued presence of an independent, progressive system of VA hospitals.
 
--to me it is regrettable and insensitive of the administration to drag its feet in providing open national cemeteries in which veterans can be interred near their survivors.  And finally today let me personally pledge to uphold veteran’s preference in Federal employment and to see it is strictly enforced in all federally funded programs.
 
These are matters of great concern to your great organization.  Let us turn now to a matter which vitally concerns our nation—“PEACE.”
 
It has always struck me as odd that you who have known at firsthand the ugliness and agony of war are so often blamed for war by those who parade for peace.
 
The truth is exactly the reverse.  Having known war, you are in the forefront of those who know that peace is not obtained or preserved by wishing and weakness.  You have consistently urged maintenance of a defense capability that provides a margin of safety for America.  Today, that margin is disappearing.
 
But because of your support for military preparedness, there are those who equate that with being militant and desirous of war.  The great American humorist, Will Rogers, has an answer for those who believed that strength invited war.  He said, “I’ve never seen anyone insult Jack Dempsey.”
 
About 10 days ago, our new Secretary of State addressed a gathering on the West Coast.  He took me to task about American military strength.  Indeed, he denounced the Republican Party for pledging to restore that margin of safety which the Carter Administration had allowed to evaporate.  Actually, I’ve called for whatever it takes to be strong enough that no other nation will dare violate the peace.  This is what we mean by superiority—nothing more, nothing less.  The American people expect that the nation will remain secure; they have a right to security and we have an obligation to provide it.  But Mr. Muskie was downright angry.  He charged that such a policy would lead to an all-out arms race.  Well, I have a message for him-one which he ignored for years as a Senator when he consistently voted against a strong national defense-we’re already in an arms race, but only the Soviets are racing.  They are outspending us in the military field by 50 percent and more than double, sometimes triple, on their strategic forces.
 
One wonders why the Carter Administration fails to see any threatening pattern in the Soviet presence, by way of Cuban proxies, in so much of Africa, which is the source of minerals absolutely essential to the industrialized democracies of Japan, Western Europe, and the U.S.  We are self-sufficient in only 5 of the 27 minerals important to us industrially and strategically, and so the security of our resource life line is essential.
 
Then there is the Soviet, Cuban and East German presence in Ethiopia, South Yemen, and now the invasion and subjugation of Afghanistan.  This last step moves them within striking distance of the oil-rich Arabian Gulf.  And is it just coincidence that Cuban and Soviet-trained terrorists are bringing civil war to Central American countries in close proximity to the rich oil fields of Venezuela and Mexico?  All over the world, we can see that in the face of declining American power, the Soviets and their friends are advancing.  Yet the Carter Administration seems totally oblivious.
 
Clearly, world peace must be our number one priority.  It is the first task of statecraft to preserve peace so that brave men need not die in battle.  But it must not be peace at any price; it must not be a peace of humiliation and gradual surrender.  Nor can it be the kind of peace imposed on Czechoslovakia by Soviet tanks just 12 years ago this month.  And certainly it isn’t the peace that came to Southeast Asia after the Paris Peace accords were signed.
 
Peace must be such that freedom can flourish and justice prevail.  Tens of thousands of boat people have shown us there is no freedom in the so-called peace in Vietnam.  The hill people of Laos know poison gas, not justice, and in Cambodia there is only the peace of the grave for at least one-third of the population slaughtered by the Communists.
 
For too long, we have lived with the “Vietnam Syndrome.”  Much of that syndrome has been created by the North Vietnamese aggressors who now threaten the peaceful people of Thailand.  Over and over they told us for nearly 10 years that we were the aggressors bent on imperialistic conquests.  They had a plan.  It was to win in the field of propaganda here in America what they could not win on the field of battle in Vietnam.  As the years dragged on, we were told that peace would come if we would simply stop interfering and go home.
 
It is time we recognized that ours was, in truth, a noble cause.  A small country newly free from colonial rule sought our help in establishing self-rule and the means of self-defense against a totalitarian neighbor bent on conquest.  We dishonor the memory of 50,000 young Americans who died in that cause when we give way to feelings of guilt as if we were doing something shameful, and we have been shabby in our treatment of those who returned.  They fought as well and as bravely as any Americans have ever fought in any war.  They deserve our gratitude, our respect, and our continuing concern.
 
There is a lesson for all of us in Vietnam.  If we are forced to fight, we must have the means and the determination to prevail or we will not have what it takes to secure the peace.  And while we are at it, let us tell those who fought in that war that we will never again ask young men to fight and possibly die in a war our government is afraid to let them win.
 
Shouldn’t it be obvious to even the staunchest believer in unilateral disarmament as the sure road to peace that peace never more certain than in the years following World War II when we had a margin of safety in our military power which was so unmistakable that others would not dare to challenge us?
 
The Korean tragedy was really not an exception to what I am saying, but a clear example of it.  North Korea’s attack on South Korea followed a injudicious statement from Washington that sphere of interest in the Pacific and that our defense perimeter did not include Korea.  Unfortunately, Korea also became our first “no win war,” a portent of much that has happened since.  But reflect for a moment how in those days the U.S. led free nations in other parts of the world to join together in recovering from the ravages of war.  Our will and our capacity to preserve the peace were unchallenged.  There was no question about our credibility and our welcome throughout the world.  Our erstwhile enemies became close friends and allies, and we protected the peace from Berlin to Cuba.
 
When John F. Kennedy demanded the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba and the tension mounted in 1962, it was Nikita Khrushchev who backed down, and there was no war.  It was because our strategic superiority over the Soviets was so decisive, by about a margin of 8 to 1.
 
But, then, in the face of such evidence that the cause of peace is best served by strength not bluster, an odd thing happened.  Those responsible for our defense policy ignored the fact that some evidence of aggressive intent on the part of the Soviets was surely indicated by the placement of missiles in Cuba.  We failed to heed the Soviet declaration that they would make sure they never had to back down again.  No one could possibly misinterpret that declaration.  It was an announcement of the Soviet intention to begin a military buildup, one which continues to this day.
 
Our policymakers, however, decided the Soviet Union would not attempt to catch us and that, for some reason, they would permanently accept second place as their proper position.  Sometime later, in 1965, Secretary of Defense McNamara stated unequivocally that the Soviets were not attempting to compete with the U.S. on strategic Forces and were resigned to inferiority.
 
Fifteen years have passed since that exercise in self-delusion.  At that time we led the Soviet Union in about 40 strategic military categories.  Today, they lead us in all but 6 or 8 and may well surpass us in those if present trends continue.
 
Soviet leaders talk arrogantly of a so-called “correlation of forces” that has moved in their favor, opening up opportunities for them to extend their influence.  The response from the administration in Washington has been one of weakness, inconsistency, vacillation and bluff.  A Soviet combat brigade is discovered in Cuba; the Carter Administration declares its presence 90 miles off our shore as “unacceptable.”  The brigade is still there.  Soviet troops mass on the border of Afghanistan.  The President issues a stern warning against any move by those troops to cross the border.  They cross the border, execute the puppet President they themselves installed in 1978, and carry out a savage attack on the people of Afghanistan.  Our credibility in the world slumps further.  The President proclaims we’ll protect the Middle East by force of arms and 2 weeks later admits we don’t have the force.
 
Is it only Jimmy Carter’s lack of coherent policy that is the source of our difficulty?  It is his vacillation and indecision?  Or is there another, more frightening possibility—the possibility that this administration is being very consistent, that it is still guided by that same old doctrine that we have nothing to fear from the Soviets—if we just don’t provoke them.
 
Well, World War II came about without provocation.  It came because nations were weak, not strong, in the face of aggression.  Those same lessons of the past surely apply today.  Firmness based on a strong defense capability is not provocative.  But weakness can be provocative simply because it is tempting to a nation whose imperialist ambitions are virtually unlimited.
 
We find ourselves increasingly in a position of dangerous isolation.  Our allies are losing confidence in us, and our adversaries no longer respect us.
 
There is an alternative path for America which offers a more realistic hope for peace, one which takes us on the course of restoring that vital margin of safety.  For thirty years since the end of World War II, our strategy has been to preserve peace through strength.  It is steadiness and the vision of men like Dwight Eisenhower that we have to thank for policies that made America strong and credible.
 
The last Republican defense budget, proposed by President Ford, would have maintained the margin.
But the Carter Administration came to power on a promise of slashing America’s defenses.  It has made good on its promise.
 
Our program to restore the margin of safety must be prudent and measured.  We must take a stand against terrorism in the world and combat it with firmness, for it is a most cowardly and savage violation of peace.  We must regain that margin of safety I spoke of both in conventional arms and the deployment of troops.  And we must allow no weakness in our strategic deterrent.
 
We do not stand alone in the world.  We have Allies who are with us, who look to America to provide leadership and to remain strong.  But they are confused by the lack of a coherent, principled policy from the Carter Administration.  And they must be consulted, not excluded from, matters which directly affect their own interest and security.
 
When we ignore our friends, when we do not lead, we weaken the unity and strength that binds our alliances.  We must now reverse this dangerous trend and restore the confidence and cohesion of the alliance system on which our security ultimately rests.
 
There is something else.  We must remember our heritage, who we are and what we are, and how this nation, this island of freedom, came into being.  And we must make it unmistakably plain to all the world that we have no intention of compromising our principles, our beliefs or our freedom.  Our reward will be world peace; there is no other way to have it.
 
For more than a decade, we have sought a détente.  The world means relaxation.  We don’t talk about a detente with our allies; there is no tension there that needs relaxing.  We seek to relax tensions where there are tensions—with potential enemies.  And if those potential enemies are well armed and have shown a willingness to use armed force to gain their ends (for ends that are different from ours) then relaxing tensions is a delicate and dangerous but necessary business.
 
Détente has meaning only if both sides take positive actions to relax the tension.  When one side relaxes while the other carries out the greatest military buildup in the history of mankind, the cause of peace has not been advanced.
 
Arms control negotiation can often help to improve stability but not when the negotiations are one-sided.  And they obviously have been one-sided and will continue to be so if we lack steadiness and determination in keeping up our defense.
 
I think continued negotiation with the Soviet Union is essential.  We need never be afraid to negotiate as long as we remain true to our goals—the preservation of peace and freedom—and don’t seek agreement just for the sake of having an agreement.  It is important, also, that the Soviets know we are going about the business of restoring our margin of safety pending an agreement by both sides to limit various kinds of weapons.
 
I have repeatedly stated that I would be willing to negotiate an honest, verifiable reduction in nuclear weapons by both our countries to the point that neither of us represented a threat to the other.  I cannot, however, agree to any treaty, including the SALT II treaty, which, in effect, legitimizes the continuation of a one-sided nuclear arms buildup.
 
We have an example in recent history of our ability to negotiate properly by keeping our objective clearly in mind until an agreement is reached.  Back in the mid ‘50’s, at the very height of the “cold war,” Allied and Soviet military forces were still occupying Austria in a situation that was virtually a confrontation.  We negotiated the Austrian State Treaty calling for the removal of all the occupying forces, Allied and Soviet.  If we had negotiated in the manner we’ve seen these last few years, Austria would still be a divided country.
 
The American people must be given a better understanding of the challenge to our security and of the need for effort and, yes, sacrifice to turn the situation around.
 
Our government must stop pretending that it has a choice between promoting the general welfare and providing for the common defense.  Today they are one and the same.
 
Let our people be aware of the several objectives of Soviet strategy in this decade and the threat they represent to continued world peace.  An attempt will be made to divide the NATO alliance and to separate, one at a time, our Allies and friends from the United States.  Those efforts are clearly underway.  Another objective I’ve already mentioned is an expansion of Soviet influence in the area of the Arabian Gulf and South Asia.  Not much attention has been given to another move, and that is the attempt to encircle and neutralize the People’s Republic of China.  Much closer to home is Soviet-inspired trouble in the Caribbean.  Subversion and Cuban-trained guerilla bands are targeted on Jamaica, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Leftist regimes have already taken over in Nicaragua and Grenada.
 
A central concern of the Kremlin will always be the Soviet ability to handle a direct confrontation with our military forces.  In a recent address, Paul Nitze said; “The Kremlin leaders do not want war; they want the world.”  For that reason, they have put much of their military effort into strategic nuclear programs.  Here the balance has been moving against us and will continue to do so if we follow the course set by this administration.
 
The Soviets want peace and victory.  We must understand this and what it means to us.  They seek a superiority in military strength that, in the event of a confrontation, would leave us with an unacceptable choice between submission or conflict.  Submission would give us peace alright—the peace of a Czechoslovakia or and Afghanistan.  But if we have the will and the determination to restore the margin of safety which this Administration seems bent on losing, we can have real peace because we will never be faced with an ultimatum from anyone.
 
Indeed, the men in the Kremlin could in the face of such determination decide that true arms limitation makes sense.
 
Our best hope of persuading them to live in peace is to convince them they cannot win at war.
 
For a nation such as ours, arms are important only to prevent others from conquering us or our allies.  We are not a belligerent people.  Our purpose is not to prepare for war or wish harm to others.  When we had great strength in the years following World War II, we used that strength not for territorial gain but to defend others.
 
Our foreign policy should be to show by example the greatness of our system and the strength of American ideals.  The truth is we would like nothing better than to see the Russian people living in freedom and dignity instead of being trapped in a backwash of history as they are.  The greatest fallacy of the Lenin-Marxist philosophy is that it is the “wave of the future.”  Everything about it is primitive:  compulsion in place of free initiative; coercion in place of law; militarism in place of trade; and empire-building in place of self-determination; and luxury for a chosen few at the expense of the many.  We have seen nothing like it since the Age of Feudalism.
 
When people have had a free choice, where have they chosen Communism?  What other system in the world has to build walls to keep its people in?
 
Recently academician Andrei Sakharov, one of Russia’s great scientists and presently under house arrest, smuggled a statement out of the Soviet Union.  It turned up in the New York Times Magazine of June 8, where Sakharov wrote: “I consider the United States the historically determined leader of the movement toward a pluralist and free society, vital to mankind.”
 
He is right.  We have strayed off course many times and we have been careless with machinery of freedom bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers, but, somehow, it has managed to survive our frailties.  One of those Founding Fathers spoke the truth when he said “God intended America to be free.”
 
We have been a refuge for the persecuted and down-trodden from every corner of the world for 200 years.  Today some of us are concerned by the latest influx of refugees, that boat people from Southeast Asia and from Cuba—all fleeing from the inhumanity of Communism.  We worry about our capacity to care for them.  I believe we must take a concerted effort to help them, and that others in the world should share in the responsibility.
 
But let’s do a better job of exporting Americanism.  Let’s meet our responsibility to keep the peace at the same time we maintain without compromise our principles and ideals.  Let’s help the world eliminate the conditions which cause citizens to become refugees.
 
I believe it is our pre-ordained destiny to show all mankind that they, too, can be free without having to leave their native shore.
 Labor Day Speech at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, New Jersey
 
September 1, 1980
 
 
It is fitting that on Labor Day, we meet beside the waters of New York harbor, with the eyes of Miss Liberty on our gathering and in the words of the poet whose lines are inscribed at her feet, “The air bridged harbor that twin cities frame.”
 
Through this “Golden Door,” under the gaze of that “Mother of Exiles,” have come millions of men and women, who first stepped foot on American soil right there, on Ellis Island, so close to the Statue of Liberty.
 
These families came here to work.  They came to build. Others came to America in different ways, from other lands, under different, often harrowing conditions, but this place symbolizes what they all managed to build, no matter where they came from or how they came or how much they suffered.
 
They helped to build that magnificent city across the river.  They spread across the land building other cities and towns and incredibly productive farms.
 
They came to make America work.  They didn’t ask what this country could do for them but what they could do to make this refuge the greatest home of freedom in history.
 
They brought with them courage, ambition and the values of family, neighborhood, work, peace and freedom. They came from different lands but they shared the same values, the same dream.
 
Today a President of the United States would have us believe that dream is over or at least in need of change.
 
Jimmy Carter’s Administration tells us that the descendants of those who sacrificed to start again in this land of freedom may have to abandon the dream that drew their ancestors to a new life in a new land.
 
The Carter record is a litany of despair, of broken promises, of sacred trusts abandoned and forgotten.
 
Eight million out of work.  Inflation running at 18 percent in the first quarter of 1980.  Black unemployment at about 14 percent, higher than any single year since the government began keeping separate statistics.  Four straight major deficits run up by Carter and his friends in Congress.  The highest interest rates since the Civil War--reaching at times close to 20 percent--lately down to more than 11 percent but now going up again--productivity falling for six straight quarters among the most productive people in history.
 
Through his inflation he has raised taxes on the American people by 30 percent--while their real income has risen only 20 percent.  He promised he would not increase taxes for the low and middle-income people--the workers of America.  Then he imposed on American families the largest single tax increase in history.
 
His answer to all of this misery?      He tries to tell us that we are “only” in a recession, not a depression, as if definitions—words--relieve our suffering.
 
Let it show on the record that when the American people cried out for economic help, Jimmy Carter took refuge behind a dictionary.  Well if it’s a definition he wants, I’ll give him one.  A recession is when your neighbor loses his job.  A depression is when you lose yours.  Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.
 
I have talked with unemployed workers all across this country.  I have heard their views on what Jimmy Carter has done to them and their families.
 
They aren’t interested in semantic quibbles.  They are out of work and they know who put them out of work. And they know the difference between a recession and a depression.
 
Let Mr. Carter go to their homes, look their children in the eye and argue with them that in is “only” a recession that put dad or mom out of work.
 
Let him go to the unemployment lines and lecture those workers who have been betrayed on what is the proper definition for their widespread economic misery.
 
Human tragedy, human misery, the crushing of the human spirit.  They do not need defining--they need action.
 
And it is action, in the form of jobs, lower taxes, and an expanded economy that -- as President -- I intend to provide.
 
Call this human tragedy whatever you want.  Whatever it is, it is Jimmy Carter’s.  He caused it.  He tolerates it.  And he is going to answer to the American people for it.
 
Last week, more than three years after be became President, he finally came up with what he calls a new economic program.  It is his 5th new economic program in 3 ½ years.  He talks as if someone else has been in charge these past few years.  With two months to go until the election he rides to the rescue now with a crazy-quilt of obvious election-year promises which he’ll ask Congress for--next year.  After three years of neglect, the misery of unemployment, inflation, high taxes, dwindling earning power and inability to save--after all this, American workers have now been discovered by this administration.
Well it won’t work.  It is cynical.  It is political.  And it is too late.  The damage is done and every American family knows who did it.
 
In 1976 he said he would never use unemployment as an economic tool to fight inflation.  In 1980 he called for an increase in unemployment--to fight inflation.
 
In 1976 he said he would bring unemployment and inflation down to 3 percent.
 
Who can believe him?  Unemployment is now around 8 percent, inflation is 12 ½.
 
And most of us have begun to realize that so long as Carter policies are in effect, the next four years will be as dark as the last four.
 
But here, beside the torch that many times before in our nation’s history has cast a golden light in times of gloom, I pledge to you I’ll bring a new message of hope to all America.
 
I look forward to meeting Mr. Carter in debate, confronting him with the whole sorry record of his Administration--the record he prefers not to mention.  If he ever finally agrees to the kind of first debate the American people want--which I’m beginning to doubt--he’ll answer to them and to me.
 
This country needs a new administration, with a renewed dedication to the dream of America--an administration that will give that dream new life and make America great again!
 
Restoring and revitalizing that dream will take bold action.
 
On this day, dedicated to American working men and women, may I tell you the vision I have of a new administration and of a new Congress, filled with new members dedicated to the values we honor today?
 
Beginning in January of 1981, American workers will once again be heeded.  Their needs and values will be acted upon in Washington.  I will consult with representatives of organized labor on those matters concerning the welfare of the working people of this nation.
 
I happen to be the only president of a union ever to be a candidate for President of the United States.
 
As president of my union -- the Screen Actors Guild -- I spent many hours with the late George Meany, whose love of this country and whose belief in a strong defense against all totalitarians is one of labor’s greatest legacies.  One year ago today on Labor Day George Meany told the American people:
“As American workers and their families return from their summer vacations they face growing unemployment and inflation, a climate of economic anxiety and uncertainty.”
Well I pledge to you in his memory that the voice of the American worker will once again be heeded in Washington and that the climate of fear that he spoke of will no longer threaten workers and their families.
 
When we talk about tax reduction, when we talk about ending inflation by stopping it where it starts -- in Washington -- we are talking about a way to bring labor and management together for America.  We are talking about jobs, and productivity and wages.  We are talking about doing away with Jimmy Carter’s view of a no-growth policy, and ever-shrinking economic pie with smaller pieces for each of us.
 
That’s no answer.  We can have a bigger pie with bigger slices for everyone.  I believe that together you and I can bake that bigger pie.  We can make that dream that brought so many of us or our parents and grandparents to this land live once more.
 
Let us work to protect the human right to acquire and own a home, and make sure that that right is extended to as many Americans as possible.  A home is part of that dream.
 
I want to work in Washington to roll back the crushing burden of taxation that limits investment, production, and the generation of real wealth for our people.  A job, and savings, and hope for our children is part of that dream.
 
I want to help Americans of every race, creed and heritage keep and build that sense of community which is at the heart of America, for a decent neighborhood is part of that dream.
 
We will work to strengthen the small business sector which creates most of the new jobs we need for our people.  Small business needs relief from government paperwork, relief from over-regulation, relief from a  host of governmentally-created problems that defeat the effort of creative men and women.  A chance to invest, build and produce new wealth is part of the dream.
 
But restoring the American dream requires more than restoring a sound, productive economy, vitally important as that is.  It requires a return to spiritual and moral values, values so deeply held by those who came here to build a new life.  We need to restore those values in our daily life, in our neighborhoods and in our government’s dealings with the other nations of the world.
 
These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland. The values that have inspired other dissidents under Communist domination.  They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.  They remind us that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.  You and I must protect and preserve freedom here or it will not be passed on to our children.  Today the workers in Poland are showing a new generation not how high is the price of freedom but how much it is worth that price.
 
I want more than anything I’ve ever wanted, to have an administration that will, through its actions, at home and in the international arena, let millions of people know that Miss Liberty still “Lifts her lamp beside the golden door.”  Through our international broadcasting stations -- the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and the others -- let us send, loud and clear, the message that this generation of Americans intends to keep that lamp shining; that this dream, this last best hope of man on earth, this nation under God, shall not perish from the earth.  We will instead carry on the building of an American economy that once again holds forth real opportunity for all, we shall continue to be a symbol of freedom and guardian of the eternal values that so inspired those who came to this port of entry.
 
Let us pledge to each other, with this Great Lady looking on, that we can, and so help us God, we will make America great again.
 
 Ronald Reagan/John Anderson Presidential Debate
 
9/21/80
 
MR. MOYERS:  None of the questions has been submitted in advance either to the League of Women Voters, or to the candidates, or to their representatives.
 
            Gentlemen, thank you both coming.  The ground rules you agreed upon with the League are brief: Each panelist will ask a single question.  You will have two and a half minutes in which to respond.  After you have stated your position in those two and a half minutes, each of you will have one minute and 15 seconds for response.  At the close of the debate, each of you will have three minutes for closing remarks.
 
            We ask the Convention Center audience to abide by one simple ground rule:  Please do not applaud or express approval or disapproval during the debate.  You may do that on November 4th.
 
             Having won the toss of the coin, Mr. Anderson will respond to the first question from Carol Loomis.
 
            MS. LOOMIS:  Mr. Anderson, opinion polls show that the American public sees inflation as the country’s number one economic problem.  Yet as individuals they oppose cures that hurt them personally.  Elected officials have played along by promising to cure inflation, while backing away from tough programs that might hurt one special interest group or another, and by actually adding inflationary elements to the system, such as indexing.   They have gone for what is politically popular rather than for what might work and amount to leadership.
           
            My question -- and please be specific -- is:  What politically unpopular measures are you willing to endorse, push, and stay with that might provide real progress in reducing inflation?
 
            CONGRESSMAN ANDERSON:  Well, Ms. Loomis, I think it’s very appropriate that the first question in this first debate of campaign ’80 should relate to the economy of the country, because it seems to me that the people who are watching us tonight, 221 million Americans, are truly concerned about the poor rate of performance of the American economy over the last four years.
 
            Now, Governor Reagan is not responsible for what has happened over the last four years, nor am I.  The man who should be here tonight to respond to those charges chose not to attend.
 
            But I want to answer as specifically as I can the question that you have just put to me.  Let me tell you that I, first of all, oppose an election year tax cut, whether it is the ten percent across the board tax cut promised to the taxpayers by my opponent in this debate tonight, or whether it is the $27.5 billion tax cut promised on the 20th of August by President Carter.
 
            I simply think that when we are confronting a budget deficit this year - - and this fiscal year will end in about ten days, and we are confronted with the possibility of a deficit of $60 billion, perhaps as much as $63 billion – that that simply would be irresponsible; that once again the printing presses will start to roll; once again we will see the monetization of that debt result in a higher rate of inflation.
 
            Even though we’ve seen some hopeful signs, perhaps, in the flash report on the third quarter, that perhaps the economy is coming out of the recession, we’ve also seen the rise in the rate of the prime; we have seen mortgage rates go back up again, a sure sign of inflation in the housing industry.
 
            What I would propose -- and I proposed it way back in March, when I was a candidate in my own state of Illinois – I proposed $11.3 billion specifically in cuts in the federal budget.  I think we’ve got to have fiscal restraint.  And I said at that time that one of the things that we could do that perhaps would save as much as 5 to $7 billion according to one of the leading members of the House Budget Committee, was to recalculate the index that is used to determine the cost of living benefits that are paid to civil service retirees, to military retirees; that we ought to, in addition to that, we ought to pay those retirement benefits on the basis of once a year instead of twice a year, and save $750 billion.  In other words, fiscal restraint –
           
            MR. MOYERS:  Mr. Anderson, your time is up.
           
            CONGRESSMAN ANDERSON:  -- I think is necessary.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Ms. Loomis.
 
            MS. LOOMIS:  Governor Reagan, repeating the question, and I would ask you again to engage in as many specifics as you can.  What politically unpopular measures are you willing to endorse, push, and stay with that might provide real progress in reducing inflation?
 
            GOVERNOR REAGAN:   I believe that the only unpopular measures actually that could be – would be applied would be unpopular with government, and with those, perhaps, some special interest groups who are tied closely to government.  I believe that inflation today is caused by government simply spending more than government takes in, at the same time that government has imposed on business and industry, from the shopkeeper on the corner to the biggest industrial plant in America, countless harassing regulations and punitive taxes that have reduced productivity, at the same time they have increased the cost of production.
 
            And when you are reducing productivity at the same time that you are turning out printing press money in excessive amounts, you’re causing inflation.  And it isn’t really higher prices; it’s just you are reducing the value of the money.  You are robbing the American people of their savings.
 
            And so the plan that I have proposed -- and contrary to what John says, my plan is for a phased-in tax cut over a three-year period -- tax increase in depreciation allowances for business and industry, to give them the capital to refurbish plants and equipment, research and development, improved technology -- all of which we see our foreign competitors having and we have the greatest percentage of outmoded industrial plant and equipment of any of the industrial nations – produce more and have stable money supply and give the people of this country a greater share of their own savings.
 
            Now, I know that this has been called inflationary by my opponent and by the man who isn’t here tonight.  But I don’t see where it is inflationary to have people keep more of their earnings and spend it and it isn’t inflationary for government to take that money away from them and spend it on the things it wants to spend it on.
 
            I believe we need incentives for the individual and for business and industry, and I believe the plan that I have submitted, with detailed backing and which has been approved by a number of our leading economists in the country, is based on projections, conservative projections out for the next five years, that indicate that this plan would by 1983 result in a balanced budget.
 
            We have to remember when we talk a tax cut, we’re only talking about reducing a tax increase, because this Administration has left us with a built-in tax increase that will amount to $86 billion next year --
 
            MR. MOYERS:   Your time is up.
 
            GOVERNOR REAGAN:  -- and $500 billion over the next five.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Mr. Anderson.
 
            CONGRESSMAN ANDERSON:  Mr. Moyers, in addition to saying that this no time for a tax cut in view of the incipient signs of renewed inflation, in addition to calling for restraint in federal spending, fifteen months ago I also suggested we ought to have an emergency excise tax on gasoline.  I say that because I think this year we will send $90 billion out of this country to pay for imported oil, even though those imports have been reduced.   And since I first made that proposal fifteen months ago, the price of gasoline, which was then 80 cents, has gone up to $1.30.
 
             In other words, we have had a huge increase of about 50 cents a gallon since that time, and all of that increase has gone out of this country, or much of it, into the pockets of OPEC oil producers, whereas I had proposed we ought to take – put that tax on here at home, reduce that consumption of that imported oil, recycle those proceeds then back into the pockets of the American workers by reducing their tax payments, their Social Security tax payments, by 50 percent.  That, I think, in addition would be an anti-inflationary measure that would strengthen the economy of this country.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Mr. Reagan.
 
            GOVERNOR REAGAN:  Well, I cannot see where a 50 cent a gallon tax applied to gasoline would have changed the price of gasoline.  It would still have gone up as much as it has, and the 50 cents would be added on top of that, and it would be a tax paid by the consumers, and then we are asked to believe that some way they would get this back to the consumers.
 
            But why?  Why take it in the first place if you are going to give it back?  Why not leave it with them?
 
            And while John spoke about fifteen years ago and the position that he – or fifteen months ago and what he believed in, fifteen months ago he was a co-signer and advocating the very tax cut that I am proposing and said that that would be a forward step in fighting inflation, and that it would be beneficial to the working people of this country.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  The next question goes to Mr. Reagan from Daniel Greenberg.
 
            MR. GREENBERG:  Well, gentlemen, what I would like to say first is I think the panel and the audience would appreciate responsiveness to the questions rather than repetitions of your campaign addresses.
 
            Now, my question for the Governor is every serious examination of the future supply of energy and other essential resources, including air, land and water, find that we face shortages and skyrocketing prices, and that in many ways we are pushing the environment to dangerous limits.
 
            I would like to know specifically what changes you would encourage and require in American lifestyles, in automobile use, housing, land use and general consumption to meet problems that aren’t going to respond to campaign lullabies about minor conservation efforts and more production.
 
            GOVERNOR REAGAN:  Well, I believe that conservation, of course, is worthy in and of itself.  Anything that would preserve to help us use less energy, that would be fine and I am for it.  But I do not believe that conservation alone is the answer to the present energy problem because all you are doing then is staving off by a short time the day when you would come to the end of the energy supply.
 
            To say that we are limited and in a dangerous point in this country with regard to energy I think is to ignore the fact.  The fact is that in today’s oil wells, there is more oil still there than we have so far taken out and used.   But it would require what is known as secondary or tertiary efforts to bring it out of the ground.  And this is known oil reserves, known supplies.
 
            There are hundreds of millions of acres of land that have been taken out of circulation by the government, for whatever reason they have, that is believed by the most knowledgeable oil geologists to contain probably more oil and natural gas than we have used so far since we drilled that first well 121 years ago.
 
            We have a coal supply that is equal to 50 percent of the world’s coal supply, good for centuries in this country.
 
            I grant you that prices may go up because as you go further and have to go deeper, you are adding to the cost of production.  We have nuclear power which, I believe, with the most stringent of safety requirements, could meet our energy needs for the next couple of decades while we go forward exploring the areas of solar power and other forms of energy that might be renewable and that would not be exhaustible.
 
            All of these things can be done.  When you stop and think that we are only drilling on 2 percent, at least only 2 percent of the possibility for oil of the whole continental shelf around the United States, when you stop to think that the government has taken over 100 million acres of land out of circulation in Alaska alone that is believed by geologist to contain much in the line of minerals and energy sources, then I think it is the government, and the government with its own restrictions and regulations, that is creating the energy crisis, that we are indeed an energy rich nation.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  I would like to say at this point that the candidates requested the same questions to be repeated for the sake of precision on the part of the interrogator.
 
            So, Mr. Greenberg, you may address Mr. Anderson.
 
            MR. GREENBERG:  Mr. Anderson, I would like to know specifically what changes you would encourage and require in American lifestyles, in automobile use, housing, land us and consumption to meet problems that aren’t going to respond to campaign lullabies about minor conservation efforts and more production.
 
            CONGRESSMAN ANDERSON:  Well, Mr. Greenberg, I simply cannot allow to go unpassed the statements that have just been made by Mr. Reagan, who once again has demonstrated, I think, a total misunderstanding of the energy crisis that confronts not only this country but the world when he suggests that we have 27 years’ supply of natural gas, 47 years’ supply of oil and all the rest, and that we really, all we have to do is to get the government off the back of the oil industry and that is going to be enough.
 
            I agree with what I think is the major premise of your question, sir, that we are going to have to create a new conservation effort in the minds of the American people, and that is simply why I proposed fifteen months ago the emergency excise tax on gasoline that I did.  I did it as a security measure to be sure, because I would rather see us reduce the consumption of imported oil than have to send American boys to fight in the Persian Gulf.
 
            But at the same time, I think it is going to take a dramatic measure of that kind to convince the American people that we will have to reduce the use of the private automobile.  We simply cannot have people sitting one behind the wheel of a car in these long traffic jams going in and out of our great cities.  We are going to have to resort to vanpooling, to car-pooling.  We are going to have to develop better community transportation systems so that with buses and light rail, we can replace the private automobile in those places where it clearly is not energy efficient.
 
            I think that with respect to housing, when we are consuming, even though our per capita income today is about the same as that of the Federal Republic of Germany, we are consuming about, by a factor of two, the amount of energy that they consume in that country.
 
            Surely there are things that we can do in the retrofitting, in the redesign of our homes, not only of our houses but of our commercial structures as well, that will make it possible for us to achieve.  According to one study that was published a short time ago, the Harvard Business School Study indicated that just in the commercial sector alone of the economy, we could save between 30 to 40 percent of the energy that we consume in this county today.
 
            So I think yes, we will have to change in a very appreciable way some of the lifestyles that we now enjoy.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Mr. Reagan.
 
            GOVERNOR REAGAN:  Well, as I have said, I am not an enemy of conservation.  I wouldn’t be called a conservative if I were.  But when my figures are challenged, as the President himself challenged them after I made them, I think it should be called to the attention of John and the others here that my figures are the figures of the Department of Energy, which has not been overly optimistic in recent years as to how much supply we have left.  That is the same government that in 1920 told us we only have enough oil left for 13 years, and 19 years later told us we only had enough left for another 15 years.
 
            As for saving energy and conserving, the American people haven’t been doing badly at that because in industry today we are producing more over the last several years, and at 12 percent less use of energy than we were back in about 1973, and motorists are using 8 percent less than they were back at that time of the oil embargo.
 
            So I think we are proving that we can go forward with conservation and benefit from that.  But also, I think it is safe to say that we do have sources of energy that have not yet been used or found.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Mr. Anderson.
 
            CONGRESSMAN ANDERSON:  Mr. Greenberg, I think my opponent in this debate tonight is overlooking one other very important fact, and that is that we cannot look at this as simply a national problem, even though it is true that perhaps between now and the end of the decade our total consumption of oil may not increase by more than perhaps a million or two barrels of oil a day.  The rest of the western world, we are told, may see its consumption increase from 51 million barrels to about 66 million.  And that additional 15 million barrels is going to cause scarcity.  It is going to cause scarcity in world markets, because there are at least five reputable studies, one even by the American Petroleum Institute itself, that I think clearly indicates that somewhere along around the end of the present decade, total world demand for oil is simply going to exceed total available supply.
 
            I think that conservation, I think that a change in lifestyle is necessary, and we had better begin to plan for that now rather than later.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  This question goes to you, Mr. Anderson, from Charles Corddry.
 
            MR. CORDDRY:  Mr. Anderson, you and Mr. Reagan both speak for better defense, for stronger defense and for programs that would mean spending more money.  You do not either of you however, come to grips with the fundamental problems of manning the forces, of who shall serve and how the burden will be distributed.  This will surely be a critical issue in the next presidential term.
 
            You both oppose the draft.  The questions are:  How would you fill the understrength combat force with numbers and quality, without reviving conscription; and will you commit yourself here tonight, should you become Commander-in-Chief, to propose a draft, however unpopular, if it became clear that voluntary means are not working?
 
            MR. ANDERSON:  Mr. Corddry, I am well aware of the present deficiencies of the armed forces of this country.  When you have a report, as we did recently, that six out of ten CONUS divisions in this country, continental United States Army divisions simply could not pass a readiness test; that two out of three divisions that were to be allocated to the so-called rapid deployment force could not meet a readiness test, and in most cases, that failure to meet the test was because of a lack of manning requirements and inability to fill many of the slots in those divisions.
 
            Yes, I have seen figures that indicate that perhaps as of September 1980, this very money, that there is a shortage of about 104,000 in the ranks between E-4 and E-9.  And there were reports, public reports not long ago, about ships that could not leave American ports because of a lack of crews.
 
            I talked to one of the leading former Chiefs of Naval Operations in my office a few weeks ago, who told me about 25,000 chief petty officers being short.
 
            But I think that that is clearly related to the fact that, going back to the time when the all volunteer army was created in 1973 – and I worked hard for it and supported it - - we simply have failed to keep pace with the cost of living.  And today on average, the average serviceman is at least 15 percent - - and I happen to think that’s a very modest estimate - - 15 percent below what has happened to the cost of living over that period of time.  And as a result the families of some of our young servicemen are on food stamps.  I think that’s shocking, it’s shameful.
 
            So, yes, I told the American Legion National Convention, the VFW National Convention, when I spoke to each of those bodies, I outlined a very specific program of increasing pay and allowances, reenlistment bonuses.  That only makes sense.
 
            But I would leave you with this thought, sir, to be quite specific in my answer to your question:  that of course, to protect the vital interests of this country, if that became impossible, If I could not, despite the very best efforts that I ask the Congress to put forward to raise those pay and incentives and allowances, of course I would not leave this country go undefended.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Mr. Corddry?
 
            MR. CORDDRY:  Mr. Reagan, I will just repeat the two questions:  How would you fill the under-strength combat forces, with numbers and with quality, without reviving conscription, and will you commit yourself here tonight, should you become the commander in chief, to propose a draft, however unpopular, if it becomes clear that voluntary means are not solving our manpower problems?
 
            GOVERNOR REAGAN:  Mr. Corddry, it’s a shame now that there are only two of us here debating, because the two that are here are in more agreement than disagreement on this particular issue, and the only one who would be disagreeing with us is the President, if he were present.
 
            I too believe in the voluntary military.  As a matter of fact, today the shortages of noncommissioned officers that John mentioned are such that if we tried to have a draft today, we wouldn’t have the noncommissioned officers to train the draftees.
 
            Now, I believe the answer lies in just recognizing human nature and how we make everything else work in this country when we want it to work.  Recognize that we have a voluntary military.  We are asking for men and women to join the military as a career, and we’re asking them to deal with the most sophisticated equipment.  And a young man is out there on a billion dollar carrier in charge of the maintenance of a $25 million aircraft, working 100 hours a week at times, and he’s earning less for himself and his family while he’s away from his family that he could earn if he was in one of the most menial jobs working 40 hours a week here at home.
 
            As an aid to enlistment - - we had an aid.  46 percent of the people who enlisted in the voluntary military up until 1977 said they did so for one particular reason:  The GI Bill of Rights, the fact that by serving in the military they could provide for a future college education.  In 1977 we took that away from the military.  That meant immediately 46 percent of your people that were signing up had no reason for signing up.
 
            So I think it is a case of pay scale, of recognizing that if we’re going to have young men and women responsible for our security, dealing with this sophisticated equipment, then for heaven’s sakes let’s go out and have a pay scale that is commensurate with the sacrifice that we’re asking of them.
 
            Along with this, I think that we need something else that has been allowed to deteriorate.  We need a million-man active reserve that could be called up in an instant’s notice, and it would also be trained, ready to use that type of equipment.  Both of these I think would respond to the proper kind of incentives that we could offer these people.
 
            The other day I just - - I’ll hasten - - I just saw once example.  Down in Texas I just saw a high school that is military.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Your time is up, Mr. Reagan.  I’m sorry.
           
            GOVERNOR REAGAN:  I’ll catch up with that later.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  You can finish that after it’s over.  Mr. Anderson.
 
            CONGRESSMAN ANDERSON:  Mr. Moyers, I must say that I think I have a better opportunity, however, of finding the necessary funds to pay what admittedly will be a very, very substantial sums of money.  We signed on bill, or we passed one bill just a couple of weeks ago in the House of Representatives, for $500 million, a half billion dollars.  That is just a down payment, in my opinion.
 
            But unlike Governor Reagan, I do not support a boondoggle like the MX Missile.  I’ve just gotten a report from the Air Force that indicates that the 30-year life cycle cost of that system is going to be $100 billion.  The initial cost if about $54 billion, and then when you add in the additional cost, not only the construction of the system, the missiles and the personnel and so on, when you add in the additional cost over the life cycle of that system, over $100 billion.
 
            I would propose to save the taxpayers of this country from that kind of costly boondoggle.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Mr. Reagan?
 
            GOVERNOR REAGAN:  Well, let me just say that, with regard to that same missile system, I happen to support and believe in the missile itself.  But that’s not the $54 billion cost that John is talking about.  He’s talking about that fantastic plan of the Administration to take thousands and thousands of square miles out in the Western states.  And first he was going to dig a race track and have it going around in a race track, so it would meet the requirements of the SALT II treaty, and now he’s decided he’ll have a straight up and down things, so it can be both verifiable and yet hide able from the Soviet Union.
 
            We need the missile, I think, because we are so out of balance strategically that we lack a deterrent to a possible first assault.  But I am not in favor of the plan that is so costly.  And therefore, if I only had another second left, I’d say that that high school class in military training - - 40 of its 80 graduates last year entered the United States service academies, West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy.  And to see those young men made me very proud to realize that there are young people in this country who are prepared to go into that kind of a career in service of their country.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  This question comes to you, Mr. Reagan, from my colleague, Lee May.
 
            MR. MAY:  Mr. Reagan, the military is not the only area of crisis.  American cities are physically wearing out, as housing, streets, sewers and budgets all fall apart.  And all of this is piled upon the emotional strain that comes from refugees and racial confrontations.
 
            Now, I’m wondering, what specific plans do you have for federal involvement in saving our cities from this physical and emotional crisis?  And how would you carry out those plans, in addition to raising military pay, without going against your pledge of fiscal restraint?
 
            GOVERNOR REAGAN:  I don’t think I’d have to go against that pledge.  I think one of the problems today with the cities is federal aid.  The majors that I’ve talked to in some of our leading cities tell me that the federal grants that come for specific cause or specific objective come with such red tape, such priorities established by a bureaucracy in Washington, that the local governments’ hands are tied with regard to using that money as they feel it could best be used and for what they think might be the top priority.
 
            If they had that money without those government restrictions, every one of them has told me they could make great savings and make far greater use of the money.
 
            What I have been advocating is, why don’t we start with the Federal Government turning back tax sources to states and local governments, as well as the responsibilities for those programs?  75 percent of the people live in the cities.  I don’t know of a city in America that doesn’t have the kind of problems you’re taking about.
 
            But where are we getting the money that the Federal Government is putting out to help them?  New York is being taxed for money that will then go to Detroit.  But Detroit is being taxed for money that, let’s say, will then go to Chicago, while Chicago is being taxed to help with the problems in Philadelphia.  Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense if the government let them keep their own money there in the first place?
 
            But there are other things that we can do with inner cities.  And I believe - - I have talked of having zones in those cities that are run down, where there’s a high percentage of people on welfare, and offer tax incentives.  The government isn’t getting the tax now from businesses there because they aren’t there, or from individuals who are on welfare rather than working.  And why don’t we offer incentives for business and industry to start up in those zones?  Give them a tax moratorium for a period if they build and develop there.
 
            The individuals that would then get jobs, give them a break that encourages them to leave the social welfare programs and go to work.  We could have an urban homestead act.  We’ve got thousands and thousands of homes owned by government, boarded up, being vandalized, that have been taken in in mortgage foreclosures.  What if we had a homestead act and said to the people:  For one dollar, we sell you this house.  All you have to do is agree to refurbish it, make it habitable, and live in it.  Just as 100 or more years ago we did with the open land in this country, urban - - or country homesteading.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Mr. May.
 
            MR. MAY:  Mr. Anderson, let me ask you:  What specific plans do you have for federal involvement in saving cities from the physical and emotional crises that confront them, and how would you carry out those plans, in addition to raising military pay, without going against your pledge of fiscal restraint?
 
            CONGRESSMAN ANDERSON:  Mr. May, I recently saw a Princeton University study that indicated that the cities of America, the large cities of this country, are in worse shape today than they were in 1960.  It seems to totally belie the claim that I heard President Carter make a few days ago that he was the first President that had come forth with a real urban strategy to meet the problems of urban America.
 
            Incidentally, just this last week the crown jewel in that program that he had devised was stolen, I guess, because the conference Committee turned down the ambitious plan that he had to increase the amount of money that would be available for the Economic Development Administration for loan guarantees and direct loans and credits.
 
            I’m happy to say that, in contrast to that, the Anderson-Lucy platform for American program for the ‘80s has devoted considerable time and in very specific detail we have talked about two things that ought to be done to aid urban America:
 
            We call, first of all, for the creation of a $4 billion Urban Reinvestment Trust Fund, to do exactly what you spoke about in your question:  to rebuild the streets, to rebuild the cities, the leaking water mains.
 
            I was in North Pittsburgh, I think it was, a few weeks ago on my campaign.  The water mains in that city had began to leak, and literally there wasn’t money available to fix them.  And until we can begin to recreate the basic infrastructure of the great cities of America, particularly in the upper Midwest and in the Northeast, they simply are not going to provide the kind of economic climate that will enable them to retain industry, enable them to retain the kind of solid industrial base that they need so that they can provide jobs.
 
            We have also provided in our program for a $4 billion community trust fund, and we’ve told you where the money is coming from.  It’s going to come from the dedications by 1984 of the excise revenues that today are being collected by the Federal Government on alcohol and tobacco.  That money I think ought to be put into rebuilding the base of our cities.
 
            In addition to that, jobs programs to re-employ the youth in our cities would be very high on my priority list:  both the Youth Opportunities Act of 1980 and a billion dollar program that I would recommend to put youth to work in energy projects, in conservation projects, in projects that would carry out some of the great national goals of our country.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Mr. Reagan, your response?
 
            GOVERNOR REAGAN:  John claims that he is making clear where the money will come from.  It will come from the pockets of the people.  It will come from the pockets of the people who are living in those very areas.  And the problem is, with governments federal, state and local taking 44 cents out of every dollar earned, that the Federal Government has preempted too many of the tax sources, and that the cities - - that if Pittsburgh does not have the money to fix the leaking water mains, it’s because the Federal Government has preempted it.
 
            Now the Federal Government is going to turn around and say:  Oh, you have this problem.  We will now hand you the money to do it.  But the Federal Government doesn’t make money.  It just takes it from the people.  And in my view this is not the answer to the problem.
 
            Stand in the South Bronx, as I did, in the spot where Jimmy Carter made his promise that he was going to, with multi-billion dollar programs, refurbish that area that looks like bombed-out London in World War Two.  I stood there and I met the people and I heard them ask just for something that would give them hope.  And I believe that, with all of the promises that have been broken - - they’ve never been carried out.  But I believe that my plan might offer an opportunity for that, if we would move into those areas and let’s encourage with the tax incentives the private sector to develop and to create the jobs for the people.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Mr. Anderson?
 
            CONGRESSMAN ANDERSON:  Well, of course, where has the private sector been, Governor Reagan, during the years that our cities have been deteriorating?
 
            It seems to me that to deny the responsibility of the Federal Government to do something about our crumbling cities is to deny the opportunity, for one thing, to 55 percent of the black population of our country that is locked within the inner cities of the metropolitan areas of our country.  We simply cannot ignore the fact that in those cities today we have 55 percent youth unemployment amongst black and Hispanic youths.  And why is that?  It’s because they have lost their industry.
 
            And why have they lost their industry?  It’s because they no longer present the kind of viable economic climate that makes it possible for industry to remain there or to locate there.  I think government has a responsibility to find jobs for the youth of this country, and that the place to start is to assist in the very important and necessary task of helping cities rebuild.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Jane Bryant Quinn has the next question for you, Mr. Anderson.
 
            MS. QUINN:  Mr. Anderson, many voters are very worried that tax cuts, nice as they are, will actually add to inflation.  Many eminent conservatives have testified that even business tax cuts, as you have proposed, can be inflationary as long as we have a budget deficit.
 
            Now, Mr. Reagan has mentioned that he put out a five year economic forecast, which indeed he did, but it contained no inflation number.  You have published a detailed program, but it, too, doesn’t have any hard numbers on it about how these things work with inflation.
 
            So I would like to ask you if you will commit to publish specific forecasts within two weeks so that the voters can absorb them and understand them and analyze them, showing exactly what all these problems you have mentioned tonight on energy, on defense, on the cities, how these impact on inflation and what inflation is actually going to be over five years.
 
            CONGRESSMAN ANDERSON:  Ms. Quinn, I would be very happy to accept the challenge of your question tonight, to tell the voters of this country exactly what I think it is going to cost, because I believe that all too often in past elections politicians have simply been promising people things that they cannot deliver.  When these presidential debates were held just four years ago, I remember the incumbent President, who was willing to debate, President Ford, telling the American people that they simply ought not to vote for somebody who promised more than they could deliver.
 
            Well, we have seen what has happened.  We haven’t gotten either the economies in government that were promised; we haven’t gotten the 4 percent inflation that we were supposed to get at the end of Mr. Carter’s first term.  Instead, we had, I think, in the second quarter of Consumer Price Index registering around 12 percent, and nobody really knows with the latest increase in the Wholesale Price Index, that is about 18 percent on an annualized basis, what it is going to be.
 
            Let me say this.  I think my programs are far less inflationary than those of Governor Reagan.  His own running mate, when he was running for the presidency, said that they would cost 30 percent inflation inside of two years, and he cited his leading economic advisor, a very distinguished economist, Paul McEvoy, as the source of that information.  He went so far as to call it voodoo economics.
 
            I have been very careful, I have been very careful in saying that what I am going to do is to bring federal spending under control first.  I would like to stand here and promise the American people a tax cut as Governor Reagan has done, but you know, it has gotten to be about a $122 difference.  Somebody worked it out, and they figured out that between the tax cut that Governor Reagan is promising the American people, and the tax cut that Jimmy Carter is promising in 1981, his is worth about $122 more.
 
            So you, dear voters, are out there on the auction block, and these two candidates are bidding for your voles, and one is going to give you $122 more if you happen to be in that range of about $20,000 a year income.
 
            I am going to wait until I see that that inflation rate is going down before I even begin to phase in the business tax cuts that I have talked about.  But I think by improving productivity, they would be far less inflationary than the consumption oriented tax cut that Governor Reagan is recommending.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Ms. Quinn?
 
            MS. QUINN:  Mr. Anderson, I will call you for that forecast.
 
            Mr. Reagan, will you publish specific forecasts within two weeks so that the voters can have time to analyze and absorb them before the election showing exactly what all these things you have discussed tonight for energy, cities and defense, mean for inflation over the next five years?
 
            GOVERNOR REAGAN:  Ms. Quinn, I don’t have to.  I have done it.  I have a backup paper to my economic speech of a couple of weeks ago in Chicago that gives all of the figures, and we used, yes, we used the Senate Budget Committee’s projections for five years which are based on an average inflation rate of 7 ½ percent which I think that under our plan can be eliminated, and eliminated probably more quickly than our plan, but we wanted to be so conservative with it that people would see how well it could be done.
 
            Now, John has been in the Congress for 20 years, and John tells us that first we have got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes.  But if you have go a kid that is extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance, or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker.
 
            But government has never reduced, government does not tax to get the money it needs.  Government always needs the money it gets, and when John talks about his non-inflationary plan, as far as I have been able to learn, there are 88 proposals in it that call for additional government spending programs.
 
            Now, I speak with some confidence of our plan because I took over a state, California, 10 percent of the population of this nation, a state that if it were a nation would be the seventh ranking economic power in the world, and that state, we controlled spending, we cut the rate of increase in spending in half.  But at the same time, we gave back to the people of California in tax rebates, tax credits, tax cuts $5,700,000,000.  I vetoed 993 measures without having a veto overturned, and among those vetoes, I stopped $16 billion in additional spending.  And the funny thing was that California, which is normally above the national average in inflation and unemployment, for those six years, for the first time, was below the national average in both inflation and unemployment.
 
            We have considered inflation in our figures.  We deliberately took figures that we ourselves believed were too conservative.  I believe the budget can be balanced by 1982 or 1983, and it is a combination of planned reduction of the tax increase that Carter has built into the economy, and that is what he is counting on for his plan, that he is going to get a half a trillion dollars more over the next five years that he can use for additional programs, or hopefully someplace down the line balancing the budget.
 
            We believe that that is too much additional money to take out of the pockets of the people.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Mr. Anderson.
 
            CONGRESSMAN ANDERSON:  Mr. Moyers, I am not here to debate Governors Reagan’s record as governor.  This is 1980 and not 1966.  But I do know that despite his pledge to reduce state government spending, that it rose from $4.6 billion which to took office in 1967 to $10.2 billion during his eight years in office, spending, in other words, more than double, and it rose at a faster rate than spending was rising in the federal government.
 
            But on his very optimistic figures about his tax cut producing a balanced budget by 1983, and the fact that he is using, he says, the figures of the Senate Budget Committee, that Senate Budget Committee report does not accommodate all of the Reagan defense plans.  It doesn’t accommodate the expenditures that he calls for accelerated development and deployment of a new manned strategic bomber, for a permanent fleet in the Indian Ocean, for the restoration of the fleet to 600 ships, to the development and deployment of a dedicated, modern aircraft interceptor.  In other words, I have seen his program costed out to the point where it would amount to more than $300 million a year just for the military.  And I think the figures that he has given are simply not going to stand up.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Would you have a comment, Mr. Reagan?
 
            GOVERNOR REAGAN:  Well, some people look up figures and some people make up figures, and John has just made up some very interesting figures.  We took the Senate report, of course, but we did factor in our own ideas with regard to increases in the projected military spending that we believe would over a period of time do what is necessary.
 
            Now, also with regard to the figures about California, the truth of the matter is we did cut the increase in spending in half.  John doesn’t quite realize - -  he has never held an executive position of that kind, and I think being Governor of California is probably the closest thing to the presidency, if that is possible, of any executive job in America today because it is the most populous state, and I can only tell him that we reduced in proportion to other states the per capita spending, the per capita size of government.  We only increased the size of government one-twelfth what it had increased in the preceding eight years.  And one journal, the San Francisco Chronicle, a respected newspaper, said there was no question about the fact that Governor Reagan had prevented the State of California from going bankrupt.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Our final question comes from Soma Golden, and it is directed to Mr. Reagan.
 
            MS. GOLDEN:  I would like to switch the focus from inflation to God.
 
            This week Cardinal Mederas of Boston warned Catholics that is sinful to vote for candidates who favor abortion.  This did not defeat the two men he opposed, but it did raise questions about the role of the church and state.
 
            You, Mr. Reagan, have endorsed the participation of fundamentalist churches in your campaign; and you, Mr. Anderson, have tried three times to amend the Constitution to recognize the “law and authority” of Jesus Christ.
 
            My question:  Do you approve of the Church’s actions this week in Boston, and should a President be guided by organized religion on issues like abortion, equal rights, and defense spending?
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Mr. Reagan.
 
            GOVERNOR REAGAN:  It is my question.
 
            Well, whether I agree or disagree with some individual or what he may say or how he may say it, I don’t think there is any way that we can suggest that because people believe in God and go to church, that they should not want reflected in those people and those causes they support their own belief in morality and in the high traditions and principles which we have abandoned so much in this country.
 
            Going around this country, I think that I have found a great hunger in America for a spiritual revival, for a belief that law must be based on a higher law, for a return to traditions and values that we once had.  Our government, in its most sacred documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and all, speak of man being created, of a Creator, that we are a nation under God.
 
            Now, I have thought for a long time that too many of our churches have been too reluctant to speak up in behalf of what they believe is proper in government, and they have been too lax in interfering in recent years with government’s invasion of the family itself, putting itself between parent and child.  I vetoed a number of bills of that kind myself when I was in California.
 
            Now, whether it is right for, on a single issue, for anyone to advocate that someone should not be elected or not , I won’t take a position on that.  But I do believe that no one in this country should be denied the right to express themselves, or to even try to persuade others to follow their lead.  That is what elections are all about.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Ms. Golden?
 
            MS. GOLDEN:  Okay.  I would point out that churches are tax-exempt institutions, and I will repeat my question.
 
            Do you approve the Church’s action this week in Boston, and should a President be guided by organized religion on issues like abortion, equal rights and defense spending?
 
            CONGRESSMAN ANDERSON:  Ms. Golden, certainly the Church has the right to take a position on moral issues, but to try as occurred in the case that you mentioned, that specific case, to try to tell the parishioners of any church, of any denomination, how they should vote or for whom they should vote, I think violates the principle of separation of church and state.
 
            Now, Governor Reagan is running on a platform that calls for a constitutional amendment banning abortion.  I think that is a moral issue that ought to be left to the freedom of conscience of the individual, and for the state to interfere with a constitutional amendment and tell a woman that she must carry that pregnancy to term regardless of her personal belief, that I think violates freedom of conscience as much as anything that I can think of.
 
            And he is also running on platform that suggests a litmus test for the selection of judges, that only judges that hold a certain “view” on the sanctity of family life ought to be appointed to the federal judiciary, one of the three great independent branches of our government.
 
            No, I believe in freedom of choice.  I don’t believe in constitutional amendments that would interfere with that.  I don’t believe in trying to legislate new tests for the selection of the federal judiciary.  On the amendment that you mentioned, I abandoned it fifteen years ago, and I have said freely all over this country that it was a mistake for me or anyone to ever try to put the Judeo-Christian heritage of this country, important as it is, and important as my religious faith is to me, it is a very deeply personal matter, but for me to try in this very pluralistic society of ours to try to frame any definition whatever of what that belief should be is wrong.
 
            And so not once, but twice in 1971, I voted on the floor of the House of Representatives against a constitutional amendment that tried to bring prayer back into the public schools, I think mother ought to whisper to Johnny and to Susie as they button their coats in the morning and leave for the classroom, be sure to say a prayer before you start your day’s work.
 
            But I don’t think that the state, the board of regents, a board of education or any state official should try to compose that prayer for a child recite.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Mr. Reagan.
 
            GOVERNOR REAGAN:  The litmus test that John says is in the Republican Platform says no more than the judges to be appointed should have a respect for innocent life.
 
            Now, I don’t think that is a bad idea.  I think all of us should have a respect for innocent life.
 
            With regard to the freedom of the individual for choice with regard to abortion, there is one individual who is not being considered at all, and that is the one who is being aborted.  And I have noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.
 
            I think that technically - - I know this is a difficult and an emotional problem, and many people sincerely feel on both sides of this, but I do believe that maybe we could find the answer through medical evidence if we would determine once and for all, is an unborn child a human being?  I happen to believe it is.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Mr. Anderson.
 
            CONGRESSMAN ANDERSON:  I also think that that unborn child has a right to be wanted, and I also believe, sir, that the most personal, intimate decision that any woman is ever called upon to make is a decision as to whether or not she shall carry a pregnancy to term.  And for the state to interfere in that decision, under whatever guise, and with whatever rationale, for the state to try to take over in that situation and by edict command what the individual shall do and substitute itself for that individual’s conscience, for her right to consult her rabbi, her minister, her priest, her doctor, and other counselor of her choice, I think goes beyond what we want to ever see accomplished in this country if we really believe in the First Amendment, if we really believe in freedom of choices and the right of the individual.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Mr. Reagan, you now have three minutes for closing remarks.
 
            GOVERNOR REAGAN:  Before beginning my closing remarks here, I would just like to remark a concern that I have that we have criticized the failures of the Carter policy here rather considerably, both of us this evening, and there might be some feeling of unfairness about this because he was not here to respond. But I believe it would have been much more unfair to have had John Anderson denied the right to participate in this debate.
 
            And I want to express my appreciation to the League of Women Voters for adopting a course with which I believe the great majority of Americans are in agreement.
 
            Now, as to my closing remarks, I have always believed that this land was placed here between the two great oceans by some divine plan.  It was placed here to be found by a special kind of people, people who had a special love for freedom and who had the courage to uproot themselves and leave hearth and homeland and come to what in the beginning was the most undeveloped wilderness possible.
 
            We came from a hundred different corners of the earth; we spoke a multitude of tongues; landed on this eastern shore and then went out over the mountains and the prairies and the deserts and the far western mountains to the Pacific, building cities and towns and farms and schools and churches. If wind, water or fire destroyed them, we build them again, and in so doing, at the same time, we build a new breed of human called an American, a proud, and independent, and a most compassionate individual for the most part.
 
            Two hundred years ago Tom Paine, when the thirteen tiny colonies were trying to become a nation, said “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”  Today we are confronted with the horrendous problems that we have discussed here tonight, and some people in high positions of leadership tell us that the answer is to retreat, that the best is over, that we must cut back, that we must share in an ever-increasing scarcity, that we must, in the failure to be able to protect our national security as it is today, we must not be provocative to any possible adversary.
 
            Well, we, the living Americans, have gone through four wars.  We have gone through a great depression in our lifetime that literally was worldwide and almost brought us to our knees.  But we came through all of those things, and we achieved even new heights and new greatness.
 
            The living Americans today have fought harder, paid a higher price for freedom and done more to advance the dignity of man than any people who ever lived on this earth.  For two hundred years we have lived in the future, believing that tomorrow would be better than today, and today would be better than yesterday.
 
            I still believe that.  I am not running for the presidency because I believe that I can solve the problems we have discussed tonight.  I believe the people of this country can, and together we can begin the world over again.  We can meet our destiny, and that destiny is to build a land here that will be for all mankind a shining city on a hill.
 
            I think we ought to get at it.
 
            MR. MOYER:  Mr. Anderson, you have the final three minutes.
 
            CONGRESSMAN ANDERSON:  Mr. Moyers, President Carter was not right a few weeks ago when he said that the American people were confronted with only two choices, with only two men, and with only two parties.  I think you have seen tonight in this debate that Governor Reagan and I have agreed on exactly one thing, that we are both against the reimposition of a peacetime draft.  We have disagreed, I believe, on virtually every other issue.
 
            I respect him for showing tonight, for appearing here, and I thank the League of Women Voters for the opportunity that they have given me.  I am running for President as an independent because I believe our country is in trouble.  I believe that all of us are going to have to begin to work together to solve our problems.
 
            If you think that I am a spoiler, consider these facts, Do you really think that our economy is healthy?  Do you really think that 8 million Americans being out of work and that 50 percent unemployment among the youth of our country are acceptable?  Do you really think that our armed forces are really acceptably strong in those areas of conventional capability where they should be?  Do you think that our political institutions are working the way they should when literally only half of our citizens vote?
 
            I don’t think you do think that, and therefore I think you ought to consider doing something about it and voting for an independent in 1980.
 
            You know, a generation of office-seekers has tried to tell the American people that they could get something for nothing.  It has been a time, therefore, of illusion and false hopes, and the longer it continues, the more dangerous it becomes.  We have got to stop drifting.
 
            What I wish tonight so desperately is that we had had more time to talk about some of the other issues that are so fundamentally important.  The great historian Henry Steele Commager said that “In their lust for victory, neither traditional party is looking beyond November.”  And he went on to cite three issues that their platforms totally ignored:  atomic warfare - - Presidential Directive 59 notwithstanding, if we don’t resolve that issue, all others become irrelevant; the issue of our natural resources, the right of posterity to inherit the earth, and what kind of earth will it be;  the issue of nationalism, the recognition, he says, that every major problem confronting us is global and cannot be solved by nationalism here or elsewhere, that is chauvinistic, that is parochial, that is as anachronistic as state’s rights was in the days of Jefferson Davis.
 
            Those are some of the great issues, atomic warfare, the use of our natural resources, and the issue of nationalism, that I intend to be talking about in the remaining six weeks of the campaign, and I dare hope that the American people will be listening and that they will see that an independent government of John Anderson and Patrick Lucey can give us the kind of coalition government that we need in 1980 to begin to solve our problems.
 
            Thank you.
 
            MR. MOYERS:  Mr. Anderson, we, too, wish there were more time, and for all the limitations of the forum - - and there are other forums to try - - the Chair for one would like to see such meetings become a regular and frequent part of every presidential campaign.
 
            Mr. Reagan, Mr. Anderson, we thank you for coming, and thanks to our panelists, Carol Loomis, Daniel Greenberg, Charles Corddry, Lee May, Jane Bryant Quinn, and Soma Golden.
 
            And thank you in the audience at home for joining us.
 
            The first presidential debate of 1980 has been brought to you as a public service by the League of Women Voters’ Education Fund.
 
            I’m Bill Moyers.  Good night.
 
           
 
 
 Televised Address by Governor Ronald Reagan “A Strategy for Peace in the ‘80s”
 
10/19/1980
 
Good Evening.
Three months ago, in accepting the nomination of my party to be its presidential candidate, I said: “Of all the objectives we seek, first and foremost is the establishment of lasting world peace.”
 
Since I spoke those words, I have had the chance to visit with Americans like you, all across the nation.  I have brought that same message of peace as our primary goal.
 
But it hasn’t all been one-sided.  I have had the chance not only to talk with you but also to listen to you about the course you believe our country should take.  We have, in a way, been holding a national conversation together on the future of our country.
 
Tonight, I want to continue my part of that ongoing conversation, and offer what I believe are ways in which peace can be assured for every American family and for the world.
 
But before I do, I’d like to speak to you for a few moments now, not as a candidate for the Presidency, but as a citizen, a parent – in fact, a grandparent – who shares with you the deep and abiding hope for peace.
 
I revere, as I know you do, the American tradition of free and reasoned discussion of our complex issues.  That is why I have participated in six debates since I became a candidate for President.  And that is why I have stated my willingness to engage President Carter in his first debate.
 
The great tradition of reasoned exchange of views has not exactly characterized all the rhetoric of this campaign.  My own views have been distorted in what I can only conclude is an effort to scare people through innuendoes and misstatements of my positions.
 
Possibly Mr. Carter is gambling that his long litany of fear will somehow influence enough voters to save him from the inevitable consequences of the policies of his administration which have brought so much human misery.
 
I am confident he will lose that gamble.  I think the American people know – to paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt – that the only thing the cause of peace has to fear is fear itself.
 
Let us base our decisions about peace and security on the facts, on what we need to know and not on what we are told we must fear.
 
There can be no doubt about what is the major issue in this campaign concerning the question of peace.
 
It is whether you believe Mr. Carter’s words and deeds have brought the United States closer to or further away from the goal of peace based on confidence in the strength of our nation.
 
As a presidential candidate four years ago, he said: “…it is imperative that the world know that we will meet obligations and commitments to our allies and that we will keep our nation strong.”
 
Did he keep his promise?  That’s the real peace issue in 1980.  And that’s an issue for you to decide.  Has he kept our nation strong?  Are you willing to risk four more years of what we have now?  Has the registration and the possible draft of your sons and daughters contributed to your peace of mind?  Is the world safer for you and your family?
 
Whatever else history may say about my candidacy.  I hope it will be recorded that I appealed to our best hopes, not our worst fears, to our confidence rather than our doubts, to the facts, and not to fantasies.
 
And these three – hope, confidence, and facts – are at the heart of my vision of peace.
 
We have heard the phrase “peace through strength” so often, its meaning has become blurred through overuse.
 
The time has come for America to recall once more the basic truths behind the familiar words.
 
Peace is made by the fact of strength – economic, military, and strategic.
 
Peace is lost when such strength disappears or – just as bad – is seen by an adversary as disappearing.
 
We must build peace upon strength. There is no other way. And the cold, hard fact of the matter is that our economic, military, and strategic strength under President Carter is eroding.
 
Only if we are strong will peace be strong.
 
Throughout Scripture, we see reference to peace-makers – those who through their actions – not just their words – take the material of this imperfect world and, with hard work and God’s help, fashion from that material peace for the world.
 
In recent weeks you’ve been hearing from a lot of other people as to what they say I believe about peace. Well, tonight let me tell you what I believe.
 
Understanding of how peace is obtained – through competence and hard work, confidence, and patience – must guide and inspire this nation in the years ahead.
 
And at the center of such peace-making is the need to restore our historic American tradition of bipartisanship.
 
The cause of peace knows no party. The cause of peace transcends personal ambition. The cause of peace demands appeals for unity, not appeals to divisiveness.
 
These are truisms – which Mr. Carter has forgotten – or chosen to ignore.
 
Senator Ted Kennedy said earlier this year, in reference to him, that “no president should be reelected because he happened to be standing there when his foreign policy collapsed around him.”
 
I cannot believe this administration’s defense policies reflect the thinking of millions of rank-and-file Democrat party members. The Carter administration, dominated as it is by the McGovernite wing of the party, has broken sharply with the views and policies of Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and many contemporary Democratic leaders.
 
A great American tradition of bipartisanship – where domestic political differences end at the water’s edge – has been lost at a time when we are faced with growing instability and crisis abroad. I believe the bipartisan tradition is too deep and sound to be destroyed by one man in the space of four years, but still, damage has been done and it will take a determined effort to repair it.
 
I pledge, if elected President, to take every step necessary to restore the bipartisan tradition in American national security and foreign policy; to work with congressional leaders of both parties to design and conduct a truly bipartisan tradition in American national security and foreign policy. And, I intend to have this bipartisan spirit reflected during my presidency in key foreign and defense policy appointive positions. As in the past, our domestic differences will end at the water’s edge.
 
In the next few minutes, I would like to outline for you nine specific steps that I will take to put America on a sound, secure footing in the international arena. Working closely with the Congress, I propose to accomplish these steps with the support of an informed American public. Here are the steps:
 
An improved policy-making structure;
A clear approach to East-West relations;
A realistic policy toward our own Hemisphere;
A plan to assist African and Third World development;
A plan to send our message abroad;
A realistic strategic arms reduction policy;
A determined effort to strengthen the quality of our armed services;
Combating international terrorism;
Restoration of a margin of safety in our defense planning.
 
Reorganizing the Policy-Making Structure
 
The present administration has been unable to speak with one voice in foreign policy. This must change. My administration will restore leadership to U.S. foreign policy by organizing it in a more coherent way.
 
An early priority will be to make structural changes in the foreign policy-making machinery so that the Secretary of State will be the President’s principal spokesman and adviser.
 
The National Security Council will once again be the coordinator of the policy process. Its mission will be to assure that the President receives an orderly, balanced flow of information and analysis. The National Security Adviser will work closely in teamwork with the Secretary of State and the other members of the Council.
 
My goal also will be to build and utilize a diplomatic corps with language proficiency, and organizational and professional skills, and to insure the safety of our representatives on duty overseas. We can restore pride and effectiveness in our foreign policy establishment by putting an end to kidnapping and murder of our public servants in service abroad.
 
Relations with Friends and Adversaries
 
With effective machinery in place, we must first address the conduct of our relations with our allies, with the Soviet Union, and with the People’s Republic of China.
 
Confidence and trust in the United States has fallen to an all-time low. This must be reversed. The United States has an important leadership role, and this role can be effective only if our alliances are cemented by unity of purpose and mutual respect.
 
Worldwide, our allies are stronger, most are robust and healthy. But the challenge of the 1980s is to assemble that strength in a manner which allows us to pursue the objective of peace together. If our alliances are divided, only our adversaries benefit.
 
With our allies, we can conduct a realistic and balanced policy toward the Soviet Union. I am convinced that the careful management of our relationship with the Soviet Union depends on a principled, consistent American foreign policy. We seek neither confrontation nor conflict, but to avoid both, we must remain strong and determined to protect our interests.
 
Our relationship with the People’s Republic of China is in its beginning stages. It is one that can and will grow, and I repeat my intention to assist its rapid growth. There is an historic bond of friendship between the American and Chinese peoples, and I will work to amplify it wherever possible. Expanded trade, cultural contact and other arrangements will all serve the cause of preserving and extending the ties between our two countries.
 
A Realistic Policy for the Western Hemisphere
 
No area of the world should have a higher priority than the place where we live, the Western Hemisphere. My administration will forge a new, more realistic policy toward our own Hemisphere as an integral part of my program for peace.
 
In four years, Mr. Carter’s administration has managed to alienate our friends in the Hemisphere, to encourage the destabilization of governments, and to permit Cuban and Soviet influence to grow.
 
We must take steps to change the Carter administration’s sorry record of vacillation, alienation, and neglect in the region.
 
Our relations must be solidly based on shared economic and security interests, not upon mutual recrimination and insult.
 
We will initiate a program of intensive economic development with cooperating countries in the Caribbean. Many of these countries were given their independence and then promptly forgotten. In their natural resentment, some have turned to extremist models – fertile ground for Cuban meddling. Our programs will assist them both financially and technically to make the best use of their resources in agriculture, industry, and tourism.
 
Closer to home, I have spoken before of my belief that we should work toward a North American Accord with our immediate neighbors, Mexico and Canada. This would take the form of broadened, more open lines of communication between us to seek ways in which we can strengthen our traditional friendship. If Canada and Mexico are stronger, our entire Hemisphere benefits.
 
A Policy to Assist African and Third World Development
 
Our relationship with what has often been called the “Third World” must form an important part of any program for peace. A strong American economy and the spirit of our free enterprise system have a great deal to offer the poorer, less developed nations of the world. Africans, for example, look to us and our industrial allies for the dominant share of their export markets, for their investment capital, for official aid, and for technical know-how.
 
Yet, the flow of American investment to Africa continues at only a trickle, and our export promotion has been neglected.
 
My administration will recognize that investment from the private sector – know-how, technology, and marketing assistance – is the key to African development. Government will help promote this, not intervene to make it more difficult.
 
Sending the American Message
 
Proclaiming the American message is a vital step in the program for peace.
 
I will strengthen the United States International Communication Agency, including the Voice of America. We will also strengthen Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. Compared with other costs of our national security, the dollar amounts involved in this are small. What is needed most is a sense of conviction, the conviction that by carrying the American message abroad we strengthen the foundation of peace.
 
The current administration has permitted these vital efforts to decline.
 
For instance, the United States has been unable to broadcast to a majority of the Afghan people during these critical years, yet all the while Soviet-sponsored broadcasts were stirring up hatred toward America throughout the Islamic world.
 
For our long-term strategy, the communication of our ideals must become part of our strategy for peace.
 
We have a story to tell about the differences between the two systems now competing for the hearts and minds of mankind. There is the poverty and despair in the emerging nations who adopt Marxist totalitarianism and, by contrast, the freedom and prosperity of free market countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore.
 
A Realistic Strategic Arms Reduction Policy
 
As the next requirement for a program for peace, I would assign a high priority to strategic arms reduction. I have repeatedly said in this campaign that I will sit down with the Soviet Union for as long as it takes to negotiate a balanced and equitable arms limitation agreement, designed to improve the prospects for peace. To succeed at arms control, however, we must first be honest with ourselves so that we can be convincing with the Soviets.
 
We must honestly face the facts of the arms competition in which we are caught. And, we must have a view of the world that is consistent with these facts and that does not change to suit different audiences. The Carter administration told Congress that the Soviet Union has long been investing about three times as much as we have in strategic arms and is expected to continue doing so, with or without SALT – the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty.
 
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, controlled by a Democratic majority, in a narrow vote came out for the Treaty, but only after more than 20 changes had been made. Then, on December 20, 1979, the Senate Armed Services Committee, also controlled by a Democratic majority, voted 10-0 with seven abstentions to adopt a report which concluded – and I urge you to listen closely to these words: “that the SALT II Treaty as it now stands, is not in the national security interests of the United States of America.” Finally, Mr. Carter could not even muster the necessary votes to pass his SALT Treaty in the United States Senate – yes, controlled by a Democratic majority – even before the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.
 
It would appear that members of his own party are trying to tell Mr. Carter something is flawed in his approach to arms limitation.
 
Please listen to the following statement:
 
“I must admit that I am not at all pleased that those of us expressing reservations and concern regarding the Treaty are characterized by some as warmongers.”
 
Ladies and gentlemen, that statement was made by a Democratic Senator, a Marine veteran, a former astronaut, and a man who, in 1976, Jimmy Carter considered for his vice-presidential running mate – John Glenn of Ohio.
 
I think it’s time that you, the American people, heard some straight talk about Mr. Carter’s SALT II Treaty. The real truth about that Treaty is that Mr. Carter himself doomed its fate from the moment it was negotiated. It has been effectively blocked, not by Ronald Reagan, but by the United States Senate – your elected representatives from all over the nation, fulfilling their constitutional obligation to advise and consent on treaties. It has been critically denounced by dozens of the most eminent scholars and knowledgeable analysts, Democrat as well as Republican.
 
As president, I will make immediate preparation for negotiations on a SALT III Treaty. My goal is to begin arms reductions. My energies will be directed at reducing destructive nuclear weaponry in the world – and doing it in such a way as to protect fully the critical security requirements of our nation.
 
The way to avoid an arms race is not simply to let the Soviets race ahead. We need to remove their incentive to race ahead by making it clear to them that we can and will compete if need be, at the same time we tell them that we prefer to halt this competition and reduce the nuclear arsenals by patient negotiation.
 
Restoring the Quality of our Armed Forces
 
Restoring a sense of pride in their careers for the men and women in our armed services is another important element of my program for peace. We must direct our attention to the urgent manpower needs of our services. In defense matters, we hear much about hardware, not enough about people. The most important part of our military strength is the people involved – their quality, their training, and their welfare. We must do all in our power to make sure they are well-trained and well-equipped, that they feel proud and secure in their jobs and that their economic sacrifice is not out of proportion to what we ask of them. The economic policies of the Carter administration have made life especially difficult for our men and women in uniform and for their families.
 
We can reverse this situation. We can implement a program of compensation and benefits for military personnel that is comparable to what is available in the private sector. I will ask Congress to reinstate the G.I. Bill, a program which was directly responsible for the most rapid advance ever in the educational level of our population. Our country must provide our service personnel and their families with the security, the incentives, and the quality of life to compensate for the sacrifices they make on our behalf.
 
Combating International Terrorism
 
Let us turn now to the need for the United States to assume a leadership role in curbing the spread of international terrorism. In sharing the outrage against terrorism, I will direct the resources of my administration against this scourge of civilization and toward expansion of our cooperation with other nations in combating terrorism in its many forms.
 
Terrorists seek to undermine, paralyze and, finally, destroy democratic governments. Israel has long been the victim of the most wanton acts of terrorism. Our allies in Europe and elsewhere have experienced terrorism with increasing frequency.
 
Terrorist organizations have enjoyed the support – covert and open – of the Soviet Union. In Iran, terrorism has been elevated to the level of national policy in the assault on the U.S. Embassy and the year-long captivity of our fellow-citizens. The tactics and philosophy of the Palestine Liberation Organization are also based on terrorism.
 
We must restore the ability of the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies to keep us informed and forewarned about terrorist activities and we must take the lead in forging an international consensus that firmness and refusal to concede or to pay ransom are ultimately the only effective deterrents to terrorism.
 
Restoring Our Margin of Safety for Peace
 
An important step – perhaps the most important of all – in a systematic program for peace is to restore the margin of safety for peace in our defense program by working closely with the Congress on a long-term program designed to meet our needs throughout this critical decade.
 
We must ask ourselves, is America more secure? Are we more confident of peace in the world than we were just four years ago? You know the answer to those questions: it is “no.”
 
President Ford left a long-range defense program designed to keep America strong throughout the 80s. He recognized that, after years of negotiation, the Soviet Union was still bent upon surpassing the United States in overall strategic strength.
 
Wisely, he did not give up on arms control negotiations, but sought to provide us with an “insurance policy” in the form of a balanced program to keep us from falling behind.
 
But, the Carter administration, in its haste to make good on a reckless campaign promise to cut defense spending by billions of dollars, insisted on a policy of systematic concessions in defense and in arms control negotiations.
 
Now I’ve criticized the President, I will admit, for not having kept his campaign promises. But in this case, I’m sorry to say, he did keep his promise. He has weakened our defense capability and wiped out our margin of safety.
 
My task as President will be to strengthen our defenses and to lead our allies in a sustained and prudent effort to keep us, and the entire world, secure from confrontation. The preservation of peace will require the best resources we can marshal in this precarious decade. We can marshal them by reaffirming our national purpose, by reasserting our will and determination, and by regaining our economic vitality.
 
But each of these approaches to establishing a real peace must rest on the firm underpinning of a strong American economy.
 
Tragically, the weakened state of America’s economy has significantly affected our ability to have the strongest possible foreign and defense policies. Maintaining our strength requires having our people in productive jobs, not in unemployment lines. It requires having our citizens confident that their future will not continue to be eroded away by incredibly high inflation and interest rates. It demands a strong dollar that encourages other nations to trust us.
 
Our inflation has especially undermined the dollar and has upset world markets. Our trading partners now question our reliability. And when they question our economic reliability, they begin to question our reliability as a strong ally.
 
Our failed energy policies have caused many of our allies to blame the United States for the world’s energy problem as much as OPEC. Neglect of energy realities diminishes our diplomatic strength. But worse, our dependence on imported oil also weakens our strategic position.
 
We can indeed make peace. We can have the peace we want for ourselves and for our children. We are going to have to work hard and think hard and act with competence and with confidence – but it can be done.
 
And, as we work, we will have to be inspired by the vision of what our country means to us and to the world.
 
In recent weeks, I have had that vision of our nation’s meaning brought to my attention in a very personal way.
 
The home in which Nancy and I are temporarily living in the Virginia countryside during this campaign is only a relatively short distance away from the home of a great American President, Thomas Jefferson.
 
In his first Inaugural Address, Jefferson spoke of “the preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet-anchor of our peace at home and our safety abroad.” He knew that peace in the world depended on the strength of our nation in its “whole constitutional vigor.”
 
Jefferson loved America and the cause of peace too – too much ever to give in or appeal to fear and doubt.
 
I have known four wars in my lifetime – I don’t want to see a fifth. I pray that never again will we bleed a generation of young Americans into the sands of island beachheads, the mud of European battlefields, or the rice paddies or jungles of Asia.
 
Whether we like it or not, it is our responsibility to preserve world peace because no one else can do it. We cannot continue letting events and crises get out of control, we must – through sound management and planning – be in control so as to prevent being confronted by a crisis. This requires a sound economy, a strong national defense, and the will and determination to preserve peace and freedom.
 
Recently, I was on the campaign trail in the state where I was born and raised, Illinois.
 
Nancy and I traveled down through the central and southern part of the state by bus and car in a motorcade, stopping at lovely towns; we visited a coal mine typical of our industrial capacity; saw for the first time the tomb of Abraham Lincoln in Springfield. We toured a productive family farm and saw again the amazing gift for technology that the American farmer has and how much he contributes to eliminating hunger in the world. At the end of the day we stood on the banks of the Mississippi beneath that great silver arch there in St. Louis, Missouri.
 
It was a beautiful, crisp autumn day. Thousands of families had come out to see us at every stop. It was a moving experience, but I was most moved, as I always am, by the young people, the youngsters – from the little ones perched on their father’s shoulders to the teenagers. You get a rebirth of optimism about our nation’s future when you see their young faces.
 
They are what this campaign is all about. Renewing our spirit, securing their future in a world at peace is the legacy I would like to leave for them.
 
You know, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence said it isn’t important that we leave wealth to our children, it is important that we leave them freedom. And we can only have that freedom if we continue to have peace throughout the world.
 
Thank you and good evening.Televised Campaign Address 
A Vital Economy:  Jobs, Growth, and Progress for Americans
 
10/24/1980
 
 
Novelist Thomas Wolfe once wrote of our country, there is “a mighty music” to “the proud, glittering names” of places in America.
 
During this campaign, I have visited places in America with such proud names, each name synonymous with the growth and progress that once made the American economy the envy of the world.
 
Steubenville and Detroit, Youngstown and Buffalo, Pittsburgh and Seattle, Houston and Hartford and Jersey City and Lima, cities like New York and small towns like Greenville, Illinois—the very sound of these American names evokes a feeling of confidence and strength based upon what Americans have built through hard work.
 
But in many places the mighty music has been all but silenced.  Where once there was the great, confident roar of American progress and growth and optimism, there is now the eerie, ghostly silence of economic stagnation, unemployment, inflation, and despair.
 
If you are like most Americans, you and your family know the sound of that silence.
 
You experience it around the dinner table when there is a discussion of how to pay for the children’s education.
 
You experience it in supermarkets when you pick up an item, look at the price, and--placing it back on the shelf--move on.
 
You or a loved one may have personally experienced that silence in the place where you once worked—when it had to shut down.
 
On street corners of our city neighborhoods it is a silence filled with anger and bitterness; on farms it is a puzzled silence, filled with questions of how things could go so wrong in a land as blessed as ours.
 
Yes, the mighty music of American economic progress has been all but silenced by four years of Mr. Carter’s failures.  This election will determine whether the nation and the world will ever again hear that great sound; will determine if the dinner table of your home and the supermarkets of your neighborhood will ever again be places where plans can be made and necessities can be purchased without the gnawing doubt and, yes, fear, brought by Mr. Carter’s inflation and unemployment.
 
Mr. Carter recently was asked by a young woman why our country could not work out a solution to unemployment and inflation.
 
His response was startling even by the rather extraordinary standards he has set in this campaign.  He said:
 
“You know, people tend to dwell on temporary inconveniences and the transient problems that our nation faces.”  Unemployment a temporary inconvenience?  Inflation a transient problem?  These words from an American President?
 
Recently, he told a group of labor officials his opinion of the coming election.  He said:
 
“It’s more important than your income.  It’s more important than the quality of the house that you have.  It’s more important than the neighborhood where you and your wife might ultimately retire.”
 
Is Mr. Carter’s chance of reelection as important as what has been done to your income, your home, your neighborhood, and your family?
 
Douglas Fraser, President of the United Auto Workers, in a recent interview, was asked about the support I have been getting from union members all across America.  Mr. Fraser, an avowed Carter supporter, said:
 
“There’s an absolute correlation between unemployment and Reagan’s support among blue-collar workers, including members of our union. . . .And we’ve been preaching for years that the workers vote their pocketbook.  Now, if they vote their pocketbook this time, we’re in trouble.  This is the kind of economics that the President told us in May of 1977 at our convention that he would never tolerate. . . .unless the people understand. . .this anguish, this feeling of hopelessness, I think our society is going to be in trouble.”
 
Let me remind you that those are the words of someone who publicly supports Mr. Carter.  They are an extraordinary indictment of the Carter record and they accurately portray the feelings of many union members and their families, as well as many other Americans.
 
If this is what one of Mr. Carter’s chief supporters thinks of his policies, what should the rest of us think?  Mr. Fraser says that if workers vote their pocketbooks in this election, “we”, meaning Mr. Carter and his allies, are in trouble.  But the problem is that American workers are in trouble now—and if they don’t vote their pocketbook, who is going to do it for them?
 
By the very standards Mr. Carter himself uses to measure presidential failure, he has failed.
 
He promised to bring inflation down to 4 percent.  It’s now running at double-digit rates, and hit 18.2 percent earlier this year.  The producer price index the past three months has averaged an annual rate of some 13 percent.  In fact, between January 1977 and August 1980, consumer prices have risen 42.3 percent.
 
In the fade of all this economic bad news, Mr. Carter has taken to telling voters that things will get better.  But today we found the answer to that.  The consumer price index released just this morning showed that the cost of living went up to an annual rate of 12.7 percent in September.
 
Inflation is not easing;  it is rapidly rising.  The double digit punishment of Jimmy Carter is not receding.  At this rate it will continue to eat up your incomes, ravage those of you who are retired, and destabilize our entire economy.
 
No matter what Mr. Carter says, inflation is getting worse.
 
Right now, as I speak to you, nearly eight million American men and women are out of work.  You or a loved one may be unfortunate enough to be one of them.  Their distress is obvious—savings may be destroyed, houses may be lost, and families may go unfed.
 
As a candidate four years ago, Mr. Carter adopted what he called the “misery index.”  He added the rate of inflation to the rate of unemployment and for 1976 it totaled 12.5 percent.  This was his “misery index” and he suggested that no President has a right to seek reelection with an index of 12.5 percent.  Today by his own standard he does not deserve reelection.  The misery index is two-thirds higher than it was four years ago—almost 20 percent.
 
Interest rates are again rising.  The prime rate was only 6 ¼ percent in January 1977.  It is 14 percent and rising today.  The mortgage rate for new homes was 9 percent in January 1977.  It is 13 ½ percent or higher today.  It is now estimated that only one in eleven young families can now afford to purchase a home—something that used to be the hallmark of the American dream.
 
Indeed, of all the sectors of the American economy, few have been hit so hard as housing.  In 1979 our housing industry produced 1.7 million units.  This year we’ll be 500,000 short of that.  To meet the real demand for housing, we should be building at least 800,000 more units this year.
 
When Jimmy Carter took office in 1977 a median priced new home sold for $47,400.  It cost $306 a month to pay the mortgage on that home.  Today that same home would cost $556 a month—an increase of 81 percent in just over three years.
 
Even Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development admitted this last spring, conceding that “for many hardworking people, the American dream is denied because housing is growing beyond their reach.”
 
Productivity has fallen six straight quarters, as America continues to fall further behind our industrial competitors around the world.  American workers are ready to compete, but American companies don’t have the new plants and equipment for them to do so.  More and more American jobs are exported overseas, and new jobs are not being created here at home.
 
A little more than a week ago the President said we are all better off than we were four years ago. He could have looked at the report of his own economic indicators and learned that in purchasing power the average American is 8 ½ percent poorer than he was four years ago.
 
Total industrial production grew 10.8 percent in 1976.  Total industrial production has fallen 6.7 percent this past year.
 
That’s not just a record of economic failure.  That is failure on a scale so vast, in dimensions so broad, with effects so devastating, that it is virtually without parallel in American history.
 
The other day someone said:  “The Carter administration is giving failure a bad name.”  And they haven’t just failed last month or last year.  They’ve been failing for four years.
 
On August 28th of this year Mr. Carter announced his fifth, “new” economic program.  After four straight failures, it’s no wonder he wanted to wait until after the election and submit it to Congress next year.
 
Mr. Carter has blamed OPEC for inflation.  He’s blamed the American people for inflation.  He’s blamed the Federal Reserve Board for inflation.  The symbol of this administration is a finger pointing at someone else.
 
And on October 14th, after spending most of the first part of the campaign running away from his economic record, he finally made a speech on the economy.  And he came up with a new list of who, or what, to blame for inflation.
 
The number one item on his list was, and I quote:  “the failure to raise adequate revenues at a time of greatly increased public spending.”
 
What that means in plain English is that he didn’t raise our taxes enough.
 
Now, Mr. Carter has already imposed the two largest tax increases in our nation’s history.  And by 1981, he will have succeeded in doubling the tax load on the American people—the equivalent of a tax increase on a family of four of more than $5,000 a year.   Now, I’d like to ask him:  isn’t that enough?  Apparently not—according to his economic plan, annual taxes will go up $86 billion next year alone, and $500 billion over the next five years.
 
I would also like to ask him why government spending isn’t to blame.  He’s increased government spending by nearly 60 percent in four years.  It is this incredible increase in spending that has caused inflationary deficits—not low taxes.  We don’t have inflation because we are living too well.  We have it because government is living too well.
 
Mr. Carter is acting as if he hasn’t been in charge for the past three and a half years; as if someone else ran up nearly $200 billion in federal red ink; as if someone else was responsible for the largest deficit, including off-budget items, in American history; and, as if someone else was predicting a budget deficit for this fiscal year that began October 1st of $30 billion or more.
 
He has other scapegoats for inflation, such as oil price increases.  He doesn’t explain why Japan and West Germany, who import practically all their oil, don’t have our high inflation rates and economies in a state of crisis.
 
Finally, he blames “the long decline in our productivity growth.”  I would like to ask him:  which President has presided over six straight quarters of falling productivity?  Which President by 1981 will have increased the punitive tax burden on our economy by some $300 billion?  Which President has created two new cabinet departments and has increased the burden of federal regulations?
 
In the same speech Mr. Carter went on to misrepresent my economic program.  You know, it’s one thing when his administration jimmies its own economic figures to make its record look good, but when he starts jimmying my figures, it’s going too far.
 
What our nation needs—what the American people want—is a humane economy, one that sees them not as interchangeable parts to whom unemployment is a “temporary inconvenience” but as individual human beings and members of families with feelings, hopes, and dreams.  Earlier this year, Vice President Mondale summed up unforgettably the approach of the Carter administration toward the economic suffering of millions.  He said, speaking of inflationary problems, “We think what we’re doing now will be using unemployment for a while.  We know that.”
 
I don’t think the American people want an administration that talks about unemployment as something to be “used” against Americans.  You don’t “use” the suffering of human beings—you alleviate that suffering.
 
Tonight I want to share with you my vision of an economy that works for the people and doesn’t seek to use them for policies made in Washington.
 
My plan, as I outlined in a speech in Chicago last month, is rooted in a strategy for economic  growth, a program that sees the American economic system as it is—a huge, complex, dynamic system—that can work if the American people get a chance to work.
 
Tonight, because of time limits, I can’t go into the same detail I did in Chicago but I want you to know that I stand by the specific points I made in that speech.  At the heart of that strategy for economic growth are eight major steps:
1.      We must keep the rate of growth of government spending at reasonable and prudent levels.
2.      We must reduce personal income tax rates and accelerate and simplify depreciation schedules for business in an orderly, systematic way to provide incentives to work, savings, investment, and productivity.
3.      We must review regulations that affect the economy, and change or eliminate them to encourage economic growth.
4.      We must establish a stable, sound, and predictable monetary policy.
5.      We must promote the export of American products aboard.
6.      We must revitalize American industry.
7.      We must adopt an energy policy that will allow our economy to grow, and our standard of living to rise.
8.      And we must restore confidence by following a consistent national economic policy that does not change from month to month.
 
One of the most critical elements of my economic program is the control of government spending.  Billions of dollars of waste, extravagance, fraud, and abuse in federal agencies simply are being ignored, for all practical purposes, by the Carter administration.
 
Let me give you one example—and there are, sadly, many—to show you what happens to the dollars you send to Washington.
 
A couple of years ago one of the worst scandals in the history of the federal government broke out in the General Services Administration, the agency that buys government supplies and manages federal property.
 
There were more than 130 indictments, and GSA auditors estimated they were looking for $100 million lost to fraud and another $130 million lost to mismanagement every year.
 
Mr. Carter’s answer to all of this was politics-as-usual.  The GSA mess is still not cleaned up and the men who tried to clean it up are no longer in the GSA.
 
Let me make a pledge to you tonight:  If you give me the opportunity, I will put the corruption fighters back in charge at GSA to finish the job they started, and that goes for every department, agency, and bureau in the executive branch.
 
I am confident that we can squeeze at least 2 percent out of what otherwise would be spent in fiscal year 1981, adding 2 percent the next year, and so on, up to 7 percent by fiscal year 1985.  And that is a modest projection.
 
Actually, I believe we can do even better.  My goal will be spending reductions of 10 percent by fiscal year 1984.
 
I will appoint men and women in key positions who share my belief that it is the government and not the people that must cut back in spending.  And I will work with citizens’ task forces that will examine every department and agency.
 
This strategy for spending control does not require slashing necessary programs.  To the contrary, I will defend the integrity of the Social Security system and work to improve those programs which provide for the disadvantaged and those in need.
 
The second major element of my economic program is a tax rate reduction plan.  This plan calls for an across-the-board 10 percent reduction in personal income tax rates in each of the next three years.  After that, we will index tax rates so that inflation doesn’t force taxpayers into higher tax brackets.
 
Jimmy Carter says this can’t be done.  In fact, he says it shouldn’t be done.  He favors the current crushing tax burden because it fits into his philosophy of government as the dominating force in American economic life.
 
Official projections of the Congressional Budget Office show that by fiscal year 1985, if the current rates of taxation are still in effect, federal tax revenues will rise to over one trillion dollars a year.  In 1981, the increase will take $86 billion more than government took this year.
 
The President says my proposed reduction of tax rates would be inflationary.  Well, let me ask him a simple question in economics.  Why is it inflationary if you keep more of your earnings and spend them the way you want to, but it isn’t inflationary if he takes them and spends them the way he wants to?
 
The fact is this program will give us a balanced budget by 1983, and possibly by 1982.
 
We also need faster, less complex depreciation schedules for business.  Outdated depreciation schedules now prevent many industries from modernizing their plants.  Faster depreciation would allow these companies to generate more capital internally, permitting them to make the investment necessary to create new jobs, to help workers become more productive, and to become more competitive in world markets.
 
Another vital part of this strategy concerns government regulations which work against rather than for the interests of the people.  No one argues with the intent of regulations dealing with health, safety, and clean air and water.  But we must carefully re-examine our regulatory structure to assess to what degree regulations have cost jobs and economic growth.  There should and will be a thorough and systematic review of the thousands of federal regulations that affect the economy.
 
Along with spending control, tax reform, and deregulations, a sound, stable, and predictable monetary policy is essential to restoring economic health.  The Federal Reserve Board is, and should remain, independent of the Executive Branch of government.  But the President must nominate those who serve on the Federal Reserve Board.  My appointees would share my commitment to restoring the value and stability of the American dollar.
 
The federal government can also take a greater rode in promoting American exports.  I have suggested that we revise Export-Import Bank rules to assist in the export of automobiles.  The government should also work to break down foreign barriers to our exports.
 
We must also revitalize American industry by exploring areas of patent law reform which would encourage increased innovation and inventing.
 
Finally, we must adopt an energy policy which will enhance our economic growth.  We must implement a balanced energy program that will encourage prudent energy conservation, along with increased domestic energy production.
 
As soon as possible, we must end federal price, production, and allocation controls, which have discouraged energy production, and accelerate the leasing of federal lands.  When fiscally possible, we must remedy the disincentive effects of the so-called windfall profits tax.  Finally, we should streamline and reform regulations which block the use of coal and safe nuclear power, and we should encourage the development of alternative fuels, such as solar and biomass.
 
Finally, let me say something about one part of the American economic life that represents what I mean by a humane economy—the American home.  Your home transcends mere economics.  It is part of your life, not just a part of the economy.
 
The people—especially the young people—of this country should not have to suffer a continued housing crisis.  An administration committed to a housing policy that puts workers back to work, lenders back to making home loans, and young couples and all the people of this country into better housing—that kind of administration can turn the housing picture around.
 
As soon as fiscally possible, I will ask Congress to increase the amount of savings account income exempt from taxation, to encourage Americans to increase their savings and generate new capital for home loans.
 
And we’ll explore some new ways of financing housing, and of stimulating housing rehabilitation in the neighborhoods of our large cities.
 
All of these specific steps, taken together, make up a comprehensive strategy.  Instead of the on-again and off-again policies of Mr. Carter, I think we must have one coherent program that we can stick with.
 
Thus, what I am proposing is a strategy which encompasses many elements—none of which can do the job alone, but all of which together can get it done.
 
This strategy would depend on the will of the people to regain control of their government.
 
Throughout this campaign, I’ve been saying that the economy concerns more than mere statistics—it concerns people, families, human hopes, and human suffering.
 
Each American family has its own story about what the Carter economy has done.  But the other day I came across a story that sums up what the American people have been through.  The story is all the more poignant because it concerns a child’s disappointment.
 
It appeared in the Fort Wayne, Indiana, News-Sentinel and concerns a Fort Wayne fifth grader named Andrea Baden who wanted to buy a pair of roller skates.  So, in the great American tradition, she saved her allowance until she had the money to buy them.
 
Andrea put it this way:  “When I went back to the store the price had gone up.  I saved more money but when I got back again, the price had gone up again.  It’s just not fair.”
 
That’s right, Andrea:  What Mr. Carter has done to this country’s economy just isn’t fair.  It just isn’t right.
 
But Andrea has learned something as a fifth grader that Mr. Carter seems to have forgotten or not to have learned at all:  inflation hurts people.  It hurts when you want to buy a pair of roller skates—and it hurts when adults have to buy food and pay for heating and other necessities.  It hurts older Americans who suffer unimaginably from what inflation does to the fixed incomes.  And unemployment hurts even more.
 
This election is going to determine what kind of country Andrea Baden and millions of other American children are going to grow up in.  Will it be a country in which everything keeps on going up in price, and jobs are harder to find and keep?  Or will it be a country where, because of our efforts, beginning in January of 1981, savings will mean something, prices will be stable, and there will be jobs for people who want to work?
 
I would like very much to do something about that lack of fairness to hard-working Americans and, Andrea, to thrifty Americans like you.
 
I need your help, your support, and your prayers.  But first of all, I need your commitment, your hope, and your belief in this great nation’s ability to begin again.
 
It just hasn’t been fair or easy for any of us for the past four years.
 
I think the time has come for fair play for Americans.  If you agree, together we can have a new beginning, for ourselves and for our children.
 
Thank you and good night.
 
 
 Election Eve Address “A Vision for America”
 
11/3/1980
 
The election will be over soon, autumn will become winter, this year will fade into next . . . and yet, the decisions we make tomorrow will determine our country’s course through what promises to be one of the most perilous decades in our history.
 
I know that tonight the fate of America’s 52 hostages is very much on the minds of all of us.  Like you, there is nothing I want more than their safe return- -that they be reunited with their families after this long year of imprisonment.
 
When they have returned, all of us will be turning to the concerns that will determine the course of America in the next four years.
 
A child born this year will begin his or her adult life in what will be the 21st century.  What kind of country, what kind of legacy will we leave to these young men and women who will live out America’s third century as a nation?
 
In thinking about these questions, many Americans seem to be wondering, searching. . . feeling frustrated and perhaps even a little afraid.
 
Many of us are unhappy about our worsening economic problems, about the constant crisis atmosphere in our foreign policy, about our diminishing prestige around the globe, about the weakness in our economy and national security that jeopardizes world peace, about our lack of strong, straight-forward leadership.
 
And many Americans today, just as they did 200 years ago, feel burdened, stifled and sometimes even oppressed by government that has grown too large, too bureaucratic, too wasteful, too unresponsive, too uncaring about people and their problems.
 
Americans, who have always known that excessive bureaucracy is the enemy of excellence and compassion, want a change in public life—a change that makes government work for people.  They seek a vision of a better America, a vision of society that frees the energies and ingenuity of our people while it extends compassion to the lonely, the desperate, and the forgotten.
 
I believe we can embark on a new age of reform in this country and an era of national renewal.  An era that will reorder the relationship between citizen and government, that will make government again responsive to people, that will revitalize the values of family, work, and neighborhood and that will restore our private and independent social institutions.  These institutions always have served as both buffer and bridge between the individual and the state—and these institutions, not government, are the real sources of our economic and social progress as a people.
 
That’s why I’ve said throughout this campaign that we must control and limit the growth of federal spending, that we must reduce tax rates to stimulate work and savings and investment.  That’s why I’ve said we can relieve labor and business of burdensome, unnecessary regulations and still maintain high standards of environmental and occupational safety.  That’s why I’ve said we can reduce the cost of government by eliminating billions lost to waste and fraud in the federal bureaucracy—a problem that is now an unrelenting national scandal.  And because we are a Federation of sovereign states, we can restore the health and vitality of state and local governments by returning to them control over programs best run at those levels of government closer to the people.  We can fight corruption while we work to bring into our government women and men of competence and high integrity.
 
This last pledge is particularly important.  No person who understands the American presidency can possibly hope to make every decision or tend to every detail in the national government.  But he can promise to bring to government the best leaders in this nation and put them to work for the American people.
 
During the past three months, many of these leaders have been working—as part of our transition process—on ways to reform the federal bureaucracy—to make it truly a partnership between people and government.
 
With their help and guidance, some of the reforms I will seek to implement, if elected, are:
            --a new structuring of the presidential cabinet that will make cabinet officers the managers of the national administration—not captives of the bureaucracy or special interests in the departments they are supposed to direct.
            --businesslike revisions of federal auditing and management procedures.  Such revisions are long overdue and will ultimately save billions in wasted tax dollars.
            --appointment of a special ombudsman to work with labor and industry groups to strengthen needed federal regulations while eliminating those that are burdensome and unnecessarily costly.
            --we would seek to put the Social Security system back on a sound financial footing so there can never be any question about its strength.
            --the appointment of special panels of top law enforcement experts to deal with the menacing problems of organized crime, drug abuse and the corruption of public officials.
 
I realize these reforms provide an ambitious agenda for our nations in the next four years.  But I believe each of these objectives can be achieved.
 
In accomplishing these goals, it will be imperative to establish a close working relationship with the new Congress.  No objective will be more important to me, if I am elected president, than that of opening a new era of cooperation between the executive and legislative branches of government.
 
These are much more than promises made in an election campaign.  When I first entered office as Governor of California, that state--which, if it were a nation, would be the seventh greatest economic power in the world—faced many of the same problems that confront our nation today.
 
We brought into California government the best leaders from the private and public sectors.  We cut the rate of government spending and provided billions in tax relief to our citizens.  We brought the state back from bankruptcy by working closely with the legislature in constructing a welfare program that put cheaters off the rolls, reducing them by 350,000, while it increased benefits to the truly needy.  The Urban Institute, a Washington non-profit scholarly foundation, recently referred to this program as a “major policy success.”
 
That’s why I am confident we can effect the reforms I have mentioned—reforms that will get government off our backs, out of our pockets and up to the standards of decency and excellence envisioned by the founding fathers.
 
But beyond even these reforms—as important as they are—there is something more, much more, that needs to be said tonight.
 
That’s why I want to talk with you—not about campaign issues—but about America, about us, you and me.
 
Not so long ago, we emerged from a world war.  Turning homeward at last, we built a grand prosperity and hoped—from our own success and plenty--to help others less fortunate.
 
Our peace was a tense and bitter one, but in those days the center seemed to hold.
 
Then came the hard years: riots and assassinations, domestic strife over the Vietnam War and in the last four years, drift and disaster in Washington.
 
It all seems a long way from a time when politics was a national passion and sometimes even fun.
 
A popular novel of the ‘60s ended prophetically with its description of a “kindly, pleasant, greening land about to learn whether history still has a place for a nation so strangely composed of great ideals and uneasy compromise as she.”
 
That is really the question before us tonight:  for the first time in our memory many Americans are asking:  does history still have a place for America, for her people, for her great ideals?  There are some who answer “no;” that our energy is spent, our days of greatness at an end, that a great national malaise is upon us.
 
They say we must cut our expectations, conserve and withdraw, that we must tell our children…not to dream as we once dreamed.
 
Last year I lost a friend who was more than a symbol of the Hollywood dream industry; to millions he was a symbol of our country itself.  And when he died, the headlines seemed to convey all the doubt about America, all the nostalgia for a seemingly lost past.
 
“The Last American Hero,” said one headline, “Mr. America dies, “ said another.
 
Well, I knew John Wayne well, and no one would have been angrier at being called the “last American hero.”
 
Just before his death, he said in his own blunt way, “Just give the American people a good cause, and there’s nothing they can’t lick.”  Duke Wayne did not believe that our country was ready for the dust bin of history, and if we’ll just think about it we too will know it isn’t.
 
Have we forgotten that night several years ago when we waited through the long hours watching our TV screens for that first plane to land at Clark Field in the Philippines bearing our men who had been prisoners of the North Vietnamese?  Finally the moment came.  What would we see when that plane door opened?  Those men had been imprisoned and tortured by savage captors for years—as many as ten in some cases.  The door opened, and we had our answer--Admiral Jeremiah Denton came down the ramp, saluted our country’s flag, thanked us for bringing them home and said, “God Bless America.”
 
I was Governor of California at the time, and Nancy and I were privileged to have many of the returned P.O.W.’s in our home on four different occasions.  We heard stories of incredible heroism and unbelievable horror told without bitterness or attempt at embellishment.  We saw two men meet in our home, hear each other’s name and throw their arms around each other—they were the closest of friends, knew every detail of each other’s life, but they were seeing each other face to face for the first time in their lives, there in our home.  Their friendship had been built up over the years, tapping code on the wall that divided their solitary confinement cells.
 
One night after such an evening had ended, I asked Nancy, “where did we find such men?”  The answer came to me as quickly as I had asked the question.  We found them where we’ve always found them.  In our shops, on our farms, on our city streets, in our villages and towns.  They are just the product of the freest society the world has ever known.
 
There were astronauts Virgil Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee who died as other Americans had died in opening new frontiers.  Their courage was remembered when later the message came back to earth from other astronauts—“the eagle has landed.”  Man had set foot on the moon.
 
These were not the deeds of men who set out to be heroes.  In many ways they were ordinary Americans whose spontaneous response to time and circumstance gave us a glimpse into the soul of this country and enduring vigor of her people.
 
Do not mistake me, no reasonable man who sees the world as it is, who views the deterioration of our economy, the waning of our relationships with our allies, the growth of Soviet might and the sufferings of our recent past could underestimate the difficulties before us.
 
But I wonder if those who doubt America have forgotten that just as in the lives of individuals so too in the lives of nations:  it is always when things seem most unbearable—that we must have faith that America’s trials have meaning beyond our own understanding.
 
Since her beginning America has held fast to this hope of divine providence, this vision of “man with God.”
 
It is true that world peace is jeopardized by those who view man—not as a noble being—but as an accident of nature, without soul, and important only to the extent he can serve an all powerful state.
 
But it is our spiritual commitment—more than all the military might in the world—that will win our struggle for peace.
 
It is not ”bombs and rockets” but belief and resolve—it is humility before God that is ultimately the source of America’s strength as a nation.
 
Our people always have held fast to this belief, this vision, since our first days as a nation.
 
I know I have told before of the moment in 1630 when the tiny ship Arabella bearing settlers to the New World lay off the Massachusetts coast.  To the little bank of settlers gathered on the deck John Winthrop said:  “we shall be a city upon a hill.  The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world.”
 
Well, America became more than “a story,” or a “byword”—more than a sterile footnote in history.  I have quoted John Winthrop’s words more than once on the campaign trail this year—for I believe that Americans in 1980 are every bit as committed to that vision of a shining “city on a hill,” as were those long ago settlers.
 
We celebrated our 200th anniversary as a nation a short time ago.  Fireworks exploded over Boston harbor, Arthur Fiedler conducted, thousands cheered and waved Old Glory.
 
These were not just images of a bicentennial;  they were reminders of our birthright of freedom—and of generous, fervent patriotism that burns in America.  A patriotism that shows itself sometimes in very unexpected places.  Remember “baseball’s designated patriot”—Rick Monday—an outfielder for the Chicago Cubs who on April 25, 1976, at Dodger Stadium grabbed our flag from two demonstrators who were trying to burn it in center field—and as he came off the field to the dugout, carrying the flag, thousands stood and cheered and then found themselves singing “God Bless America.”
 
During this last year, I have had a chance to meet and talk on the campaign trail with Americans in every corner of the United States.
 
I find no national malaise, I find nothing wrong with the American people.  Oh, they are frustrated, even angry at what has been done to this blessed land.  But more than anything they are sturdy and robust as they have always been.
 
Any nation that sees softness in our prosperity or disunity—in our sometimes noisy arguments with each other—let such nations not make the mistakes others have made—let them understand that we will put aside in a moment the fruits of our prosperity and the luxury of our disagreements if the cause is a safe and peaceful future for our children.
 
Let it always be clear that we have no dreams of empire, that we seek no manifest destiny, that we understand the limitations of any one nation’s power.
 
But let it also be clear that we do not shirk history’s call; that America is not turned inward but outward—toward others.  Let it be clear that we have not lessened our commitment to peace or to the hope that someday all of the people of the world will enjoy lives of decency, lives with a degree of freedom, with a measure of dignity.
 
Together, tonight, let us say what so many long to hear:  that America is still united, still strong, still compassionate, still clinging fast to the dream of peace and freedom, still willing to stand by those who are persecuted or alone.
 
For those who seek the right to self-determination without interference from foreign powers, tonight let us speak for them,
 
For those who suffer from social or religious discrimination,
 
For those who are victims of police states or government induced torture or terror,
 
For those who are persecuted,
 
For all the countries and people of the world who seek only to live in harmony with each other, tonight let us speak for them.
 
And to our allies—who regard us with such constant puzzlement and profound affection—we must also speak tonight.
 
To our Canadian neighbors who so recently rescued Americans in Teheran, to the people of Great Britain to whom ties of blood, language and culture bind so closely, to the people of France who midwifed our birth as a nation, to the people of Germany and Japan with whom we bound up the wounds of war, to the people of Ireland and Italy and all the ethnic communities whose national heritages have enriched this nation and become our own, to the people of Israel with whom we enjoy the closest of friendships, to the people of Latin America, Australia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Korea—to all our allies great and small, we say tonight:  at last the sleeping giant stirs and is filled with resolve—a resolve that we will win together our struggle for world peace—our struggle for the human spirit.
 
And to the people of Africa, we say that we seek a lasting, just and close relationship.
 
To the people of China, with whom we have begun the first important steps to friendship—let it be known to them that we mean for that friendship to bring our peoples closer together.
 
To the people of Russia—if only we could speak to them without their government intervening, they would know our willingness to build an enduring peace.
 
Tonight, my fellow Americans, we have reached deep into our national past—remembered the words and deeds of great men who have gone before us.
 
But before I close, I want to leave with you a speech by a man not so well remembered in history, but those words, spoken on the eve of our struggle for independence, should uplift and inspire now as surely as they did in 1775.  Joseph Warren, a Boston doctor, left us these words before giving his life at Bunker Hill:  “Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of…on you depend the fortunes of America—you are to decide the important question, on which rests the happiness and liberty of millions yet unborn.  Act worthy of yourselves.”
 
Tomorrow morning, you will be making a choice between different visions of the future.  Your decision is a uniquely personal one.  It belongs to no one but you.  It will be critical in determining the path we will follow in the years ahead.
 
If you feel that Mr. Carter has faithfully served America with the kind of competence and distinction which deserve four more years in office, then you should vote for him. If he has given you the kind of leadership you are looking for, if he instills in you pride for our country and a sense of optimism about our future, then he should be reelected.
 
But consider these questions as well when you finally make your decision:
 
Are you more confident that our economy will create productive work for our society or are you less confident?  Do you feel you can keep the job you have or gain a job if you don’t have one?
 
Are you satisfied that inflation as the highest rates in 33 years were the best that we could do?  Are interest rates at 14 ½ percent something you are prepared to live with?
 
Are you pleased with the ability of young people to buy a home; of the elderly to live their remaining years in happiness; of our youngsters to take pride in the world we have build for them?
 
Is our nation stronger and more capable of leading the world toward peace and freedom or is it weaker?
 
Is there more stability in the world or less?
 
Are you convinced that we have earned the respect of the world and our allies, or has America’s position across the globe diminished?
 
Are you personally more secure in your life?  Is your family more secure?  Is America safer in the world?
 
And, most importantly--quite simply--the basic question of our lives:  are you happier today than when Mr. Carter became President of the United States?
 
I cannot answer those questions for you.  Only you can.
 
It is autumn now in Washington, and the residents there say that more than ever during the past few years, Americans are coming to visit their capital—some say because economic conditions rule out more expensive vacations elsewhere; some say an election year has heightened interest in the workings of the national government.
 
Others say something different:  in a time when our values, when our place in history is so seriously questioned, they say Americans want their sons and daughters to see what is still for them and for so many other millions in the world a city offering the “last best hope of man on earth!”
 
You can see them—these Washington visitors—looking for the famous as they walk through congressional hallways; see them as they return silent and tightlipped to tour buses that brought them for a walk through rows of white crosses in Arlington Cemetery; you can see them as they look up at a towering statue of Jefferson or out from the top of the Washington Monument; or as they read the words inscribed at the Lincoln Memorial.  “Let us bind up the nation’s wounds.”
 
These visitors to that city on the Potomac do not come as white or black, red or yellow; they are not Jews or Christians; conservatives or liberals; or Democrats or Republicans.  They are Americans awed by what has gone before, proud of what for them is still…a shining city on a hill.
 
At this very moment, some young American, coming up along the Virginia or Maryland shores of the Potomac is seeing for the first time the lights that glow on the great halls of our government and the monuments to the memory of our great men.
 
Let us resolve tonight that young Americans will always see those Potomac lights; that they will always find there a city of hope in a country that is free.  And let us resolve they will say of our day and our generation that we did keep faith with our God, that we did act “worthy of ourselves;” that we did protect and pass on lovingly that shining city on a hill.
 
 
 
 
 Inaugural Address

January 20, 1981

Senator Hatfield, Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. President, Vice President Bush, Vice President Mondale, Senator Baker, Speaker O'Neill, Reverend Moomaw, and my fellow citizens:

To a few of us here today this is a solemn and most momentous occasion, and yet in the history of our nation it is a commonplace occurrence. The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place, as it has for almost two centuries, and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every-4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.

Mr. President, I want our fellow citizens to know how much you did to carry on this tradition. By your gracious cooperation in the transition process, you have shown a watching world that we are a united people pledged to maintaining a political system which guarantees individual liberty to a greater degree than any other, and I thank you and your people for all your help in maintaining the continuity which is the bulwark of our Republic.

The business of our nation goes forward. These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions. We suffer from the longest and one of the worst sustained inflations in our national history. It distorts our economic decisions, penalizes thrift, and crushes the struggling young and the fixed-income elderly alike. It threatens to shatter the lives of millions of our people.

Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, human misery, and personal indignity. Those who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity.

But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.

You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we're not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding: We are going to begin to act, beginning today.

The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we've had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we're sick -- professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truckdrivers. They are, in short, ``We the people,'' this breed called Americans.

Well, this administration's objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunities for all Americans with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination. Putting America back to work means putting all Americans back to work. Ending inflation means freeing all Americans from the terror of runaway living costs. All must share in the productive work of this ``new beginning,'' and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy. With the idealism and fair play which are the core of our system and our strength, we can have a strong and prosperous America, at peace with itself and the world.

So, as we begin, let us take inventory. We are a nation that has a government -- not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.

It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.

Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work -- work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.

If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on Earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on Earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price.

It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we're too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We're not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing. So, with all the creative energy at our command, let us begin an era of national renewal. Let us renew our determination, our courage, and our strength. And let us renew our faith and our hope.

We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are not heroes, they just don't know where to look. You can see heroes every day going in and out of factory gates. Others, a handful in number, produce enough food to feed all of us and then the world beyond. You meet heroes across a counter, and they're on both sides of that counter. There are entrepreneurs with faith in themselves and faith in an idea who create new jobs, new wealth and opportunity. They're individuals and families whose taxes support the government and whose voluntary gifts support church, charity, culture, art, and education. Their patriotism is quiet, but deep. Their values sustain our national life.

Now, I have used the words ``they'' and ``their'' in speaking of these heroes. I could say ``you'' and ``your,'' because I'm addressing the heroes of whom I speak -- you, the citizens of this blessed land. Your dreams, your hopes, your goals are going to be the dreams, the hopes, and the goals of this administration, so help me God.

We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your makeup. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen; and loving them, reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they're sick, and provide opportunity to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?

Can we solve the problems confronting us? Well, the answer is an unequivocal and emphatic ``yes.'' To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I did not take the oath I've just taken with the intention of presiding over the dissolution of the world's strongest economy.

In the days ahead I will propose removing the roadblocks that have slowed our economy and reduced productivity. Steps will be taken aimed at restoring the balance between the various levels of government. Progress may be slow, measured in inches and feet, not miles, but we will progress. It is time to reawaken this industrial giant, to get government back within its means, and to lighten our punitive tax burden. And these will be our first priorities, and on these principles there will be no compromise.

On the eve of our struggle for independence a man who might have been one of the greatest among the Founding Fathers, Dr. Joseph Warren, president of the Massachusetts Congress, said to his fellow Americans, "Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of . . . . On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important questions upon which rests the happiness and the liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves."

Well, I believe we, the Americans of today, are ready to act worthy of ourselves, ready to do what must be done to ensure happiness and liberty for ourselves, our children, and our children's children. And as we renew ourselves here in our own land, we will be seen as having greater strength throughout the world. We will again be the exemplar of freedom and a beacon of hope for those who do not now have freedom.

To those neighbors and allies who share our freedom, we will strengthen our historic ties and assure them of our support and firm commitment. We will match loyalty with loyalty. We will strive for mutually beneficial relations. We will not use our friendship to impose on their sovereignty, for our own sovereignty is not for sale.

As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it, now or ever.

Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. We will maintain sufficient strength to prevail if need be, knowing that if we do so we have the best chance of never having to use that strength.

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans do have. Let that be understood by those who practice terrorism and prey upon their neighbors.

I'm told that tens of thousands of prayer meetings are being held on this day, and for that I'm deeply grateful. We are a nation under God, and I believe God intended for us to be free. It would be fitting and good, I think, if on each Inaugural Day in future years it should be declared a day of prayer.

This is the first time in our history that this ceremony has been held, as you've been told, on this West Front of the Capitol. Standing here, one faces a magnificent vista, opening up on this city's special beauty and history. At the end of this open mall are those shrines to the giants on whose shoulders we stand.

Directly in front of me, the monument to a monumental man, George Washington, father of our country. A man of humility who came to greatness reluctantly. He led America out of revolutionary victory into infant nationhood. Off to one side, the stately memorial to Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence flames with his eloquence. And then, beyond the Reflecting Pool, the dignified columns of the Lincoln Memorial. Whoever would understand in his heart the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln.

Beyond those monuments to heroism is the Potomac River, and on the far shore the sloping hills of Arlington National Cemetery, with its row upon row of simple white markers bearing crosses or Stars of David. They add up to only a tiny fraction of the price that has been paid for our freedom.

Each one of those markers is a monument to the kind of hero I spoke of earlier. Their lives ended in places called Belleau Wood, The Argonne, Omaha Beach, Salerno, and halfway around the world on Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Pork Chop Hill, the Chosin Reservoir, and in a hundred rice paddies and jungles of a place called Vietnam.

Under one such marker lies a young man, Martin Treptow, who left his job in a small town barbershop in 1917 to go to France with the famed Rainbow Division. There, on the western front, he was killed trying to carry a message between battalions under heavy artillery fire.

We're told that on his body was found a diary. On the flyleaf under the heading, ``My Pledge,'' he had written these words: ``America must win this war. Therefore I will work, I will save, I will sacrifice, I will endure, I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost, as if the issue of the whole struggle depended on me alone.''

The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that Martin Treptow and so many thousands of others were called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds, to believe that together with God's help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.

And after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans.

God bless you, and thank you.

Note: The President spoke at 12 noon from a platform erected at the West Front of the Capitol. Immediately before the address, the oath of office was administered by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger.

In his opening remarks, the President referred to Rev. Donn D. Moomaw, senior pastor, Bel Air Presbyterian Church, Los Angeles, Calif.

The address was broadcast live on radio and television.
Address to the Nation on the Economy
February 5, 1981

Good evening.

I'm speaking to you tonight to give you a report on the state of our Nation's economy. I regret to say that we're in the worst economic mess since the Great Depression.

A few days ago I was presented with a report I'd asked for, a comprehensive audit, if you will, of our economic condition. You won't like it. I didn't like it. But we have to face the truth and then go to work to turn things around. And make no mistake about it, we can turn them around.

I'm not going to subject you to the jumble of charts, figures, and economic jargon of that audit, but rather will try to explain where we are, how we got there, and how we can get back. First, however, let me just give a few ``attention getters'' from the audit.

The Federal budget is out of control, and we face runaway deficits of almost $80 billion for this budget year that ends September 30th. That deficit is larger than the entire Federal budget in 1957, and so is the almost $80 billion we will pay in interest this year on the national debt.

Twenty years ago, in 1960, our Federal Government payroll was less than $13 billion. Today it is 75 billion. During these 20 years our population has only increased by 23.3 percent. The Federal budget has gone up 528 percent.

Now, we've just had 2 years of back-to-back double-digit inflation -- 13.3 percent in 1979, 12.4 percent last year. The last time this happened was in World War I.

In 1960 mortgage interest rates averaged about 6 percent. They're 2\1/2\ times as high now, 15.4 percent.

The percentage of your earnings the Federal Government took in taxes in 1960 has almost doubled.

And finally there are 7 million Americans caught up in the personal indignity and human tragedy of unemployment. If they stood in a line, allowing 3 feet for each person, the line would reach from the coast of Maine to California.

Well, so much for the audit itself. Let me try to put this in personal terms. Here is a dollar such as you earned, spent, or saved in 1960. And here is a quarter, a dime, and a penny -- 36 cents. That's what this 1960 dollar is worth today. And if the present world inflation rate should continue 3 more years, that dollar of 1960 will be worth a quarter. What initiative is there to save? And if we don't save we're short of the investment capital needed for business and industry expansion. Workers in Japan and West Germany save several times the percentage of their income than Americans do.

What's happened to that American dream of owning a home? Only 10 years ago a family could buy a home, and the monthly payment averaged little more than a quarter -- 27 cents out of each dollar earned. Today, it takes 42 cents out of every dollar of income. So, fewer than 1 out of 11 families can afford to buy their first new home.

Regulations adopted by government with the best of intentions have added $666 to the cost of an automobile. It is estimated that altogether regulations of every kind, on shopkeepers, farmers, and major industries, add $100 billion or more to the cost of the goods and services we buy. And then another 20 billion is spent by government handling the paperwork created by those regulations.

I'm sure you're getting the idea that the audit presented to me found government policies of the last few decades responsible for our economic troubles. We forgot or just overlooked the fact that government -- any government -- has a built-in tendency to grow. Now, we all had a hand in looking to government for benefits as if government had some source of revenue other than our earnings. Many if not most of the things we thought of or that government offered to us seemed attractive.

In the years following the Second World War it was easy, for a while at least, to overlook the price tag. Our income more than doubled in the 25 years after the war. We increased our take-home pay in those 25 years by more than we had amassed in all the preceding 150 years put together. Yes, there was some inflation, 1 or 1\1/2\ percent a year. That didn't bother us. But if we look back at those golden years, we recall that even then voices had been raised, warning that inflation, like radioactivity, was cumulative and that once started it could get out of control.

Some government programs seemed so worthwhile that borrowing to fund them didn't bother us. By 1960 our national debt stood at $284 billion. Congress in 1971 decided to put a ceiling of 400 billion on our ability to borrow. Today the debt is 934 billion. So-called temporary increases or extensions in the debt ceiling have been allowed 21 times in these 10 years, and now I've been forced to ask for another increase in the debt ceiling or the government will be unable to function past the middle of February -- and I've only been here 16 days. Before we reach the day when we can reduce the debt ceiling, we may in spite of our best efforts see a national debt in excess of a trillion dollars. Now, this is a figure that's literally beyond our comprehension.

We know now that inflation results from all that deficit spending. Government has only two ways of getting money other than raising taxes. It can go into the money market and borrow, competing with its own citizens and driving up interest rates, which it has done, or it can print money, and it's done that. Both methods are inflationary.

We're victims of language. The very word ``inflation'' leads us to think of it as just high prices. Then, of course, we resent the person who puts on the price tags, forgetting that he or she is also a victim of inflation. Inflation is not just high prices; it's a reduction in the value of our money. When the money supply is increased but the goods and services available for buying are not, we have too much money chasing too few goods. Wars are usually accompanied by inflation. Everyone is working or fighting, but production is of weapons and munitions, not things we can buy and use.

Now, one way out would be to raise taxes so that government need not borrow or print money. But in all these years of government growth, we've reached, indeed surpassed, the limit of our people's tolerance or ability to bear an increase in the tax burden. Prior to World War II, taxes were such that on the average we only had to work just a little over 1 month each year to pay our total Federal, State, and local tax bill. Today we have to work 4 months to pay that bill.

Some say shift the tax burden to business and industry, but business doesn't pay taxes. Oh, don't get the wrong idea. Business is being taxed, so much so that we're being priced out of the world market. But business must pass its costs of operations -- and that includes taxes -- on to the customer in the price of the product. Only people pay taxes, all the taxes. Government just uses business in a kind of sneaky way to help collect the taxes. They're hidden in the price; we aren't aware of how much tax we actually pay.

Today this once great industrial giant of ours has the lowest rate of gain in productivity of virtually all the industrial nations with whom we must compete in the world market. We can't even hold our own market here in America against foreign automobiles, steel, and a number of other products. Japanese production of automobiles is almost twice as great per worker as it is in America. Japanese steelworkers outproduce their American counterparts by about 25 percent.

Now, this isn't because they're better workers. I'll match the American working man or woman against anyone in the world. But we have to give them the tools and equipment that workers in the other industrial nations have.

We invented the assembly line and mass production, but punitive tax policies and excessive and unnecessary regulations plus government borrowing have stifled our ability to update plant and equipment. When capital investment is made, it's too often for some unproductive alterations demanded by government to meet various of its regulations. Excessive taxation of individuals has robbed us of incentive and made overtime unprofitable.

We once produced about 40 percent of the world's steel. We now produce 19 percent. We were once the greatest producer of automobiles, producing more than all the rest of the world combined. That is no longer true, and in addition, the ``Big Three,'' the major auto companies in our land, have sustained tremendous losses in the past year and have been forced to lay off thousands of workers.

All of you who are working know that even with cost-of-living pay raises, you can't keep up with inflation. In our progressive tax system, as you increase the number of dollars you earn, you find yourself moved up into higher tax brackets, paying a higher tax rate just for trying to hold your own. The result? Your standard of living is going down.

Over the past decades we've talked of curtailing government spending so that we can then lower the tax burden. Sometimes we've even taken a run at doing that. But there were always those who told us that taxes couldn't be cut until spending was reduced. Well, you know, we can lecture our children about extravagance until we run out of voice and breath. Or we can cure their extravagance by simply reducing their allowance.

It's time to recognize that we've come to a turning point. We're threatened with an economic calamity of tremendous proportions, and the old business-as-usual treatment can't save us. Together, we must chart a different course.

We must increase productivity. That means making it possible for industry to modernize and make use of the technology which we ourselves invented. That means putting Americans back to work. And that means above all bringing government spending back within government revenues, which is the only way, together with increased productivity, that we can reduce and, yes, eliminate inflation.

In the past we've tried to fight inflation one year and then, with unemployment increased, turn the next year to fighting unemployment with more deficit spending as a pump primer. So, again, up goes inflation. It hasn't worked. We don't have to choose between inflation and unemployment -- they go hand in hand. It's time to try something different, and that's what we're going to do.

I've already placed a freeze on hiring replacements for those who retire or leave government service. I've ordered a cut in government travel, the number of consultants to the government, and the buying of office equipment and other items. I've put a freeze on pending regulations and set up a task force under Vice President Bush to review regulations with an eye toward getting rid of as many as possible. I have decontrolled oil, which should result in more domestic production and less dependence on foreign oil. And I'm eliminating that ineffective Council on Wage and Price Stability.

But it will take more, much more. And we must realize there is no quick fix. At the same time, however, we cannot delay in implementing an economic program aimed at both reducing tax rates to stimulate productivity and reducing the growth in government spending to reduce unemployment and inflation.

On February 18th, I will present in detail an economic program to Congress embodying the features I've just stated. It will propose budget cuts in virtually every department of government. It is my belief that these actual budget cuts will only be part of the savings. As our Cabinet Secretaries take charge of their departments, they will search out areas of waste, extravagance, and costly overhead which could yield additional and substantial reductions.

Now, at the same time we're doing this, we must go forward with a tax relief package. I shall ask for a 10-percent reduction across the board in personal income tax rates for each of the next 3 years. Proposals will also be submitted for accelerated depreciation allowances for business to provide necessary capital so as to create jobs.

Now, here again, in saying this, I know that language, as I said earlier, can get in the way of a clear understanding of what our program is intended to do. Budget cuts can sound as if we're going to reduce total government spending to a lower level than was spent the year before. Well, this is not the case. The budgets will increase as our population increases, and each year we'll see spending increases to match that growth. Government revenues will increase as the economy grows, but the burden will be lighter for each individual, because the economic base will have been expanded by reason of the reduced rates.

Now, let me show you a chart that I've had drawn to illustrate how this can be.

Here you see two trend lines. The bottom line shows the increase in tax revenues. The red line on top is the increase in government spending. Both lines turn upward, reflecting the giant tax increase already built into the system for this year 1981, and the increases in spending built into the '81 and '82 budgets and on into the future. As you can see, the spending line rises at a steeper slant than the revenue line. And that gap between those lines illustrates the increasing deficits we've been running, including this year's $80 billion deficit.

Now, in the second chart, the lines represent the positive effects when Congress accepts our economic program. Both lines continue to rise, allowing for necessary growth, but the gap narrows as spending cuts continue over the next few years until finally the two lines come together, meaning a balanced budget.

I am confident that my administration can achieve that. At that point tax revenues, in spite of rate reductions, will be increasing faster than spending, which means we can look forward to further reductions in the tax rates.

Now, in all of this we will, of course, work closely with the Federal Reserve System toward the objective of a stable monetary policy.

Our spending cuts will not be at the expense of the truly needy. We will, however, seek to eliminate benefits to those who are not really qualified by reason of need.

As I've said before, on February 18th I will present this economic package of budget reductions and tax reform to a joint session of Congress and to you in full detail.

Our basic system is sound. We can, with compassion, continue to meet our responsibility to those who, through no fault of their own, need our help. We can meet fully the other legitimate responsibilities of government. We cannot continue any longer our wasteful ways at the expense of the workers of this land or of our children.

Since 1960 our government has spent $5.1 trillion. Our debt has grown by 648 billion. Prices have exploded by 178 percent. How much better off are we for all that? Well, we all know we're very much worse off. When we measure how harshly these years of inflation, lower productivity, and uncontrolled government growth have affected our lives, we know we must act and act now. We must not be timid. We will restore the freedom of all men and women to excel and to create. We will unleash the energy and genius of the American people, traits which have never failed us.

To the Congress of the United States, I extend my hand in cooperation, and I believe we can go forward in a bipartisan manner. I've found a real willingness to cooperate on the part of Democrats and members of my own party.

To my colleagues in the executive branch of government and to all Federal employees, I ask that we work in the spirit of service.

I urge those great institutions in America, business and labor, to be guided by the national interest, and I'm confident they will. The only special interest that we will serve is the interest of all the people.

We can create the incentives which take advantage of the genius of our economic system -- a system, as Walter Lippmann observed more than 40 years ago, which for the first time in history gave men ``a way of producing wealth in which the good fortune of others multiplied their own.''

Our aim is to increase our national wealth so all will have more, not just redistribute what we already have which is just a sharing of scarcity. We can begin to reward hard work and risk-taking, by forcing this Government to live within its means.

Over the years we've let negative economic forces run out of control. We stalled the judgment day, but we no longer have that luxury. We're out of time.

And to you, my fellow citizens, let us join in a new determination to rebuild the foundation of our society, to work together, to act responsibly. Let us do so with the most profound respect for that which must be preserved as well as with sensitive understanding and compassion for those who must be protected.

We can leave our children with an unrepayable massive debt and a shattered economy, or we can leave them liberty in a land where every individual has the opportunity to be whatever God intended us to be. All it takes is a little common sense and recognition of our own ability. Together we can forge a new beginning for America.

Thank you, and good night.
Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the Program for Economic Recovery
February 18, 1981

Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, distinguished Members of Congress, honored guests, and fellow citizens:

Only a month ago I was your guest in this historic building, and I pledged to you my cooperation in doing what is right for this Nation that we all love so much. I'm here tonight to reaffirm that pledge and to ask that we share in restoring the promise that is offered to every citizen by this, the last, best hope of man on Earth.

All of us are aware of the punishing inflation which has for the first time in 60 years held to double-digit figures for 2 years in a row. Interest rates have reached absurd levels of more that 20 percent and over 15 percent for those who would borrow to buy a home. All across this land one can see newly built homes standing vacant, unsold because of mortgage interest rates.

Almost 8 million Americans are out of work. These are people who want to be productive. But as the months go by, despair dominates their lives. The threats of layoff and unemployment hang over other millions, and all who work are frustrated by their inability to keep up with inflation.

One worker in a Midwest city put it to me this way: He said, ``I'm bringing home more dollars than I ever believed I could possibly earn, but I seem to be getting worse off.'' And he is. Not only have hourly earnings of the American worker, after adjusting for inflation, declined 5 percent over the past 5 years, but in these 5 years, Federal personal taxes for the average family have increased 67 percent. We can no longer procrastinate and hope that things will get better. They will not. Unless we act forcefully -- and now -- the economy will get worse.

Can we, who man the ship of state, deny it is somewhat out of control? Our national debt is approaching $1 trillion. A few weeks ago I called such a figure, a trillion dollars, incomprehensible, and I've been trying ever since to think of a way to illustrate how big a trillion really is. And the best I could come up with is that if you had a stack of thousand-dollar bills in your hand only 4 inches high, you'd be a millionaire. A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high. The interest on the public debt this year we know will be over $90 billion, and unless we change the proposed spending for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, we'll add another almost $80 billion to the debt.

Adding to our troubles is a mass of regulations imposed on the shopkeeper, the farmer, the craftsman, professionals, and major industry that is estimated to add $100 billion to the price of the things we buy, and it reduces our ability to produce. The rate of increase in American productivity, once one of the highest in the world, is among the lowest of all major industrial nations. Indeed, it has actually declined in the last 3 years.

Now, I've painted a pretty grim picture, but I think I've painted it accurately. It is within our power to change this picture, and we can act with hope. There's nothing wrong with our internal strengths. There has been no breakdown of the human, technological, and natural resources upon which the economy is built.

Based on this confidence in a system which has never failed us, but which we have failed through a lack of confidence and sometimes through a belief that we could fine-tune the economy and get it tuned to our liking, I am proposing a comprehensive four-point program. Now, let me outline in detail some of the principal parts of this program. You'll each be provided with a completely detailed copy of the entire program.

This plan is aimed at reducing the growth in government spending and taxing, reforming and eliminating regulations which are unnecessary and unproductive or counterproductive, and encouraging a consistent monetary policy aimed at maintaining the value of the currency. If enacted in full, this program can help America create 13 million new jobs, nearly 3 million more than we would have without these measures. It will also help us to gain control of inflation.

It's important to note that we're only reducing the rate of increase in taxing and spending. We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have. This plan will get our economy moving again, [create] productivity growth, and thus create the jobs that our people must have.

And I'm asking that you join me in reducing direct Federal spending by $41.4 billion in fiscal year 1982, and this goes along with another $7.7 billion in user fees and off-budget savings for a total of $49.1 billion. And this will still allow an increase of $40.8 billion over 1981 spending.

Now, I know that exaggerated and inaccurate stories about these cuts have disturbed many people, particularly those dependent on grant and benefit programs for their basic needs. Some of you have heard from constituents, I know, afraid that social security checks, for example, were going to be taken away from them. Well, I regret the fear that these unfounded stories have caused, and I welcome this opportunity to set things straight.

We will continue to fulfill the obligations that spring from our national conscience. Those who, through no fault of their own, must depend on the rest of us -- the poverty stricken, the disabled, the elderly, all those with true need -- can rest assured that the social safety net of programs they depend on are exempt from any cuts.

The full retirement benefits of the more than 31 million social security recipients will be continued, along with an annual cost-of-living increase. Medicare will not be cut, nor will supplemental income for the blind, the aged, and the disabled. And funding will continue for veterans pensions. School breakfasts and lunches for the children of low-income families will continue, as will nutrition and other special services for the aging. There will be no cut in Project Head Start or summer youth jobs.

All in all, nearly $216 billion worth of programs providing help for tens of millions of Americans will be fully funded. But government will not continue to subsidize individuals or particular business interests where real need cannot be demonstrated. And while we will reduce some subsidies to regional and local governments, we will at the same time convert a number of categorical grant programs into block grants to reduce wasteful administrative overhead and to give local governments and States more flexibility and control. We call for an end in duplication to Federal programs and reform of those which are not cost-effective.

Now, already some have protested that there must be no reduction in aid to schools. Well, let me point out that Federal aid to education amounts to only 8 percent of the total educational funding, and for this 8 percent, the Federal Government has insisted on tremendously disproportionate share of control over our schools. Whatever reductions we've proposed in that 8 percent will amount to very little in the total cost of education. They will, however, restore more authority to States and local school districts.

Historically, the American people have supported by voluntary contributions more artistic and cultural activities than all the other countries in the world put together. I wholeheartedly support this approach and believe that Americans will continue their generosity. Therefore, I'm proposing a savings of $85 million in the Federal subsidies now going to the arts and humanities.

There are a number of subsidies to business and industry that I believe are unnecessary, not because the activities being subsidized aren't of value, but because the marketplace contains incentives enough to warrant continuing these activities without a government subsidy. One such subsidy is the Department of Energy's synthetic fuels program. We will continue support of research leading to development of new technologies and more independence from foreign oil, but we can save at least $3.2 billion by leaving to private industry the building of plants to make liquid or gas fuels from coal.

We're asking that another major industry -- business subsidy I should say, the Export-Import Bank loan authority, be reduced by one-third in 1982. We're doing this because the primary beneficiaries of taxpayer funds in this case are the exporting companies themselves -- most of them profitable corporations.

This brings me to a number of other lending programs in which government makes low-interest loans, some of them at an interest rate as low as 2 percent. What has not been very well understood is that the Treasury Department has no money of its own to lend; it has to go into the private capital market and borrow the money. So, in this time of excessive interest rates, the government finds itself borrowing at an interest rate several times as high as the interest it gets back from those it lends the money to. And this difference, of course, is paid by your constituents -- the taxpayers. They get hit again if they try to borrow, because government borrowing contributes to raising all interest rates.

By terminating the Economic Development Administration, we can save hundreds of millions of dollars in 1982 and billions more over the next few years. There's a lack of consistent and convincing evidence that EDA and its Regional Commissions have been effective in creating new jobs. They have been effective in creating an array of planners, grantsmen, and professional middlemen. We believe we can do better just by the expansion of the economy and the job creation which will come from our economic program.

The Food Stamp program will be restored to its original purpose, to assist those without resources to purchase sufficient nutritional food. We will, however, save $1.8 billion in fiscal year 1982 by removing from eligibility those who are not in real need or who are abusing the program. But even with this reduction, the program will be budgeted for more than $10 billion.

We will tighten welfare and give more attention to outside sources of income when determining the amount of welfare that an individual is allowed. This, plus strong and effective work requirements, will save $520 million in the next year.

I stated a moment ago our intention to keep the school breakfast and lunch programs for those in true need. But by cutting back on meals for children of families who can afford to pay, the savings will be $1.6 billion in the fiscal year 1982.

Now, let me just touch on a few other areas which are typical of the kind of reductions we've included in this economic package. The Trade Adjustment Assistance program provides benefits for workers who are unemployed when foreign imports reduce the market for various American products, causing shutdown of plants and layoff of workers. The purpose is to help these workers find jobs in growing sectors of our economy. There's nothing wrong with that, but because these benefits are paid out on top of normal unemployment benefits, we wind up paying greater benefits to those who lose their jobs because of foreign competition than we do to their friends and neighbors who are laid off due to domestic competition. Anyone must agree that this is unfair. Putting these two programs on the same footing will save $1.15 billion in just 1 year.

Earlier I made mention of changing categorical grants to States and local governments into block grants. Now, we know of course that the categorical grant programs burden local and State governments with a mass of Federal regulations and Federal paperwork. Ineffective targeting, wasteful administrative overhead -- all can be eliminated by shifting the resources and decisionmaking authority to local and State government. This will also consolidate programs which are scattered throughout the Federal bureaucracy, bringing government closer to the people and saving $23.9 billion over the next 5 years.

Our program for economic renewal deals with a number of programs which at present are not cost-effective. An example is Medicaid. Right now Washington provides the States with unlimited matching payments for their expenditures; at the same time, we here in Washington pretty much dictate how the States are going to manage those programs. We want to put a cap on how much the Federal Government will contribute, but at the same time allow the States much more flexibility in managing and structuring the programs. I know from our experience in California that such flexibility could have led to far more cost-effective reforms. Now, this will bring a savings of $1 billion next year.

The space program has been and is important to America, and we plan to continue it. We believe, however, that a reordering of priorities to focus on the most important and cost-effective NASA programs can result in a savings of a quarter of a million dollars.

Now, coming down from space to the mailbox, the Postal Service has been consistently unable to live within its operating budget. It is still dependent on large Federal subsidies. We propose reducing those subsidies by $632 million in 1982 to press the Postal Service into becoming more effective, and in subsequent years the savings will continue to add up.

The Economic Regulatory Administration in the Department of Energy has programs to force companies to convert to specific fuels. It has the authority to administer a gas rationing plan, and prior to decontrol it ran the oil price control program. With these and other regulations gone we can save several hundreds of millions of dollars over the next few years.

I'm sure there's one department you've been waiting for me to mention, the Department of Defense. It's the only department in our entire program that will actually be increased over the present budgeted figure. But even here there was no exemption. The Department of Defense came up with a number of cuts which reduce the budget increase needed to restore our military balance. These measures will save $2.9 billion in 1982 outlays, and by 1986 a total of $28.2 billion will have been saved -- or perhaps I should say, will have been made available for the necessary things that we must do. The aim will be to provide the most effective defense for the lowest possible cost.

I believe that my duty as President requires that I recommend increases in defense spending over the coming years. I know that you're all aware -- but I think it bears saying again -- that since 1970 the Soviet Union has invested $300 billion more in its military forces than we have. As a result of its massive military buildup, the Soviets have made a significant numerical advantage in strategic nuclear delivery systems, tactical aircraft, submarines, artillery, and anti-aircraft defense. To allow this imbalance to continue is a threat to our national security. Notwithstanding our economic straits, making the financial changes beginning now is far less costly than waiting and having to attempt a crash program several years from now.

We remain committed to the goal of arms limitation through negotiation. I hope we can persuade our adversaries to come to realistic balanced and verifiable agreements. But, as we negotiate, our security must be fully protected by a balanced and realistic defense program.

Now, let me say a word here about the general problem of waste and fraud in the Federal Government. One government estimate indicated that fraud alone may account for anywhere from 1 to 10 percent -- as much as $25 billion of Federal expenditures for social programs. If the tax dollars that are wasted or mismanaged are added to this fraud total, the staggering dimensions of this problem begin to emerge.

The Office of Management and Budget is now putting together an interagency task force to attack waste and fraud. We're also planning to appoint as Inspectors General highly trained professionals who will spare no effort to do this job. No administration can promise to immediately stop a trend that has grown in recent years as quickly as government expenditures themselves, but let me say this: Waste and fraud in the Federal Government is exactly what I've called it before -- an unrelenting national scandal, a scandal we're bound and determined to do something about.

Marching in lockstep with the whole program of reductions in spending is the equally important program of reduced tax rates. Both are essential if we're to have economic recovery. It's time to create new jobs, to build and rebuild industry, and to give the American people room to do what they do best. And that can only be done with a tax program which provides incentive to increase productivity for both workers and industry.

Our proposal is for a 10-percent across-the-board cut every year for 3 years in the tax rates for all individual income taxpayers, making a total cut in the tax-cut rates of 30 percent. This 3-year reduction will also apply to the tax on unearned income, leading toward an eventual elimination of the present differential between the tax on earned and unearned income.

Now, I would have hoped that we could be retroactive with this. But as it stands, the effective starting date for these 10-percent personal income tax rate reductions will call for as of July 1st of this year.

Again, let me remind you that while this 30-percent reduction will leave the taxpayers with $500 billion more in their pockets over the next 5 years, it's actually only a reduction in the tax increase already built into the system. Unlike some past ``tax reforms,'' this is not merely a shift of wealth between different sets of taxpayers. This proposal for an equal reduction in everyone's tax rates will expand our national prosperity, enlarge national incomes, and increase opportunities for all Americans.

Some will argue, I know, that reducing tax rates now will be inflationary. A solid body of economic experts does not agree. And tax cuts adopted over the past three-fourths of a century indicate these economic experts are right. They will not be inflationary. I've had advice that in 1985 our real production in goods and services will grow by 20 percent and be $300 billion higher than it is today. The average worker's wage will rise in real purchasing power 8 percent, and this is in after-tax dollars. And this, of course, is predicated on a complete program of tax cuts and spending reductions being implemented.

The other part of the tax package is aimed directly at providing business and industry with the capital needed to modernize and engage in more research and development. This will involve an increase in depreciation allowances, and this part of our tax proposal will be retroactive to January 1st.

The present depreciation system is obsolete, needlessly complex, and economically counterproductive. Very simply, it bases the depreciation of plant machinery and vehicles and tools on their original cost, with no recognition of how inflation has increased their replacement cost. We're proposing a much shorter write-off time than is presently allowed -- a 5-year-write-off for machinery, 3 years for vehicles and trucks, and a 10-year write-off for plant. In fiscal year 1982 under this plan, business would acquire nearly $10 billion for investment; by 1985, the figure would be nearly 45 billion.

These changes are essential to provide the new investment which is needed to create millions of new jobs between now and 1985 [1986], and to make America competitive once again in the world market. These won't be make-work jobs. They are productive jobs, jobs with a future.


I'm well aware that there are many other desirable and needed tax changes, such as indexing the income tax brackets to protect taxpayers against inflation; the unjust discrimination against married couples if both are working and earning; tuition tax credits; the unfairness of the inheritance tax, especially to the family-owned farm and the family-owned business; and a number of others. But our program for economic recovery is so urgently needed to begin to bring down inflation that I'm asking you to act on this plan first and with great urgency. And then, I pledge I will join with you in seeking these additional tax changes at the earliest date possible.

American society experienced a virtual explosion in government regulation during the past decade. Between 1970 and 1979, expenditures for the major regulatory agencies quadrupled. The number of pages published annually in the Federal Register nearly tripled, and the number of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations increased by nearly two-thirds. The result has been higher prices, higher unemployment, and lower productivity growth. Overregulation causes small and independent business men and women, as well as large businesses to defer or terminate plans for expansion. And since they're responsible for most of the new jobs, those new jobs just aren't created.

Now, we have no intention of dismantling the regulatory agencies, especially those necessary to protect environment and assure the public health and safety. However, we must come to grips with inefficient and burdensome regulations, eliminate those we can and reform the others.

I have asked Vice President Bush to head a Cabinet-level Task Force on Regulatory Relief. Second, I asked each member of my Cabinet to postpone the effective dates of the hundreds of new regulations which have not yet been implemented. Third, in coordination with the Task Force, many of the agency heads have already taken prompt action to review and rescind existing burdensome regulations. And finally, just yesterday I signed an Executive order that for the first time provides for effective and coordinated management of the regulatory process.

Much has been accomplished, but it's only a beginning. We will eliminate those regulations that are unproductive and unnecessary by Executive order where possible and cooperate fully with you on those that require legislation.

The final aspect of our plan requires a national monetary policy which does not allow money growth to increase consistently faster than the growth of goods and services. In order to curb inflation we need to slow the growth in our money supply.

Now, we fully recognize the independence of the Federal Reserve System and will do nothing to interfere with or undermine that independence. We will consult regularly with the Federal Reserve Board on all aspects of our economic program and will vigorously pursue budget policies that'll make their job easier in reducing monetary growth. A successful program to achieve stable and and moderate growth patterns in the money supply will keep both inflation and interest rates down and restore vigor to our financial institutions and markets.

This, then, is our proposal -- America's new beginning: a program for economic recovery. I don't want it to be simply the plan of my administration. I'm here tonight to ask you to join me in making it our plan. Together we can embark on this road -- -- [applause].

Thank you very much. I should have arranged to quit right here. [Laughter]

Well, together we can embark on this road, not to make things easy, but to make things better. Our social, political, and cultural, as well as our economic institutions, can no longer absorb the repeated shocks that have been dealt them over the past decades. Can we do the job? The answer is yes. But we must begin now.

We're in control here. There's nothing wrong with America that together we can't fix. I'm sure there'll be some who raise the old familiar cry, ``Don't touch my program; cut somewhere else.'' I hope I've made it plain that our approach has been evenhanded, that only the programs for the truly deserving needy remain untouched. The question is, are we simply going to go down the same path we've gone down before, carving out one special program here, another special program there? I don't think that's what the American people expect of us. More important, I don't think that's what they want. They're ready to return to the source of our strength.

The substance and prosperity of our nation is built by wages brought home from the factories and the mills, the farms, and the shops. They are the services provided in 10,000 corners of America; the interest on the thrift of our people and the returns for their risk-taking. The production of America is the possession of those who build, serve, create, and produce.

For too long now, we've removed from our people the decisions on how to dispose of what they created. We've strayed from first principles. We must alter our course.

The taxing power of government must be used to provide revenues for legitimate government purposes. It must not be used to regulate the the economy or bring about social change. We've tried that, and surely we must be able to see it doesn't work.

Spending by government must be limited to those functions which are the proper province of government. We can no longer afford things simply because we think of them. Next year we can reduce the budget by $41.4 billion, without harm to government's legitimate purposes or to our responsibility to all who need our benevolence. This, plus the reduction in tax rates, will help bring an end to inflation.

In the health and social services area alone, the plan we're proposing will substantially reduce the need for 465 pages of law, 1,400 pages of regulations, 5,000 Federal employees who presently administer 7,600 separate grants in about 25,000 separate locations. Over 7 million man and woman hours of work by State and local officials are required to fill out government forms.

I would direct a question to those who have indicated already an unwillingness to accept such a plan: Have they an alternative which offers a greater chance of balancing the budget, reducing and eliminating inflation, stimulating the creation of jobs, and reducing the tax burden? And, if they haven't, are they suggesting we can continue on the present course without coming to a day of reckoning? If we don't do this, inflation and the growing tax burden will put an end to everything we believe in and our dreams for the future.

We don't have an option of living with inflation and its attendant tragedy, millions of productive people willing and able to work but unable to find a buyer for their work in the job market. We have an alternative, and that is the program for economic recovery.

True, it'll take time for the favorable effects of our proposal to be felt. So, we must begin now. The people are watching and waiting. They don't demand miracles. They do expect us to act. Let us act together.

Thank you, and good night.
Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the Program for Economic Recovery
April 28, 1981


You wouldn't want to talk me into an encore, would you? [Laughter]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Congress, honored guests, and fellow citizens:

I have no words to express my appreciation for that greeting.

I have come to speak to you tonight about our economic recovery program and why I believe it's essential that the Congress approve this package, which I believe will lift the crushing burden of inflation off of our citizens and restore the vitality to our economy and our industrial machine.

First, however, and due to events of the past few weeks, will you permit me to digress for a moment from the all-important subject of why we must bring government spending under control and reduce tax rates. I'd like to say a few words directly to all of you and to those who are watching and listening tonight, because this is the only way I know to express to all of you on behalf of Nancy and myself our appreciation for you messages and flowers and, most of all, your prayers, not only for me but for those others who fell beside me.

The warmth of your words, the expression of friendship and, yes, love, meant more to us than you can ever know. You have given us a memory that we'll treasure forever. And you've provided an answer to those few voices that were raised saying that what happened was evidence that ours is a sick society.

The society we heard from is made up of millions of compassionate Americans and their children, from college age to kindergarten. As a matter of fact, as evidence of that I have a letter with me. The letter came from Peter Sweeney. He's in the second grade in the Riverside School in Rockville Centre, and he said, ``I hope you get well quick or you might have to make a speech in your pajamas.'' [Laughter] He added a postscript. ``P.S. If you have to make a speech in your pajamas, I warned you.'' [Laughter]

Well, sick societies don't produce men like the two who recently returned from outer space. Sick societies don't produce young men like Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy, who placed his body between mine and the man with the gun simply because he felt that's what his duty called for him to do. Sick societies don't produce dedicated police officers like Tom Delahanty or able and devoted public servants like Jim Brady. Sick societies don't make people like us so proud to be Americans and so very proud of our fellow citizens.

Now, let's talk about getting spending and inflation under control and cutting your tax rates.

Mr. Speaker and Senator Baker, I want to thank you for your cooperation in helping to arrange this joint session of the Congress. I won't be speaking to you very long tonight, but I asked for this meeting because the urgency of our joint mission has not changed.

Thanks to some very fine people, my health is much improved. I'd like to be able to say that with regard to the health of the economy.

It's been half a year since the election that charged all of us in this Government with the task of restoring our economy. Where have we come in this 6 months? Inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, has continued at a double-digit rate. Mortgage interest rates have averaged almost 15 percent for these 6 months, preventing families across America from buying homes. There are still almost 8 million unemployed. The average worker's hourly earnings after adjusting for inflation are lower today than they were 6 months ago, and there have been over 6,000 business failures.

Six months is long enough. The American people now want us to act and not in half-measures. They demand and they've earned a full and comprehensive effort to clean up our economic mess. Because of the extent of our economy's sickness, we know that the cure will not come quickly and that even with our package, progress will come in inches and feet, not in miles. But to fail to act will delay even longer and more painfully the cure which must come. And that cure begins with the Federal budget. And the budgetary actions taken by the Congress over the next few days will determine how we respond to the message of last November 4th. That message was very simple. Our government is too big, and it spends too much.

For the last few months, you and I have enjoyed a relationship based on extraordinary cooperation. Because of this cooperation we've come a long distance in less than 3 months. I want to thank the leadership of the Congress for helping in setting a fair timetable for consideration of our recommendations. And committee chairmen on both sides of the aisle have called prompt and thorough hearing.

We have also communicated in a spirit of candor, openness, and mutual respect. Tonight, as our decision day nears and as the House of Representatives weighs its alternatives, I wish to address you in that same spirit.

The Senate Budget Committee, under the leadership of Pete Domenici, has just today voted out a budget resolution supported by Democrats and Republicans alike that is in all major respects consistent with the program that we have proposed. Now we look forward to favorable action on the Senate floor, but an equally crucial test involves the House of Representatives.

The House will soon be choosing between two different versions or measures to deal with the economy. One is the measure offered by the House Budget Committee. The other is a bipartisan measure, a substitute introduced by Congressmen Phil Gramm of Texas and Del Latta of Ohio.

On behalf of the administration, let me say that we embrace and fully support that bipartisan substitute. It will achieve all the essential aims of controlling government spending, reducing the tax burden, building a national defense second to none, and stimulating economic growth and creating millions of new jobs.

At the same time, however, I must state our opposition to the measure offered by the House Budget Committee. It may appear that we have two alternatives. In reality, however, there are no more alternatives left. The committee measure quite simply falls far too short of the essential actions that we must take.

For example, in the next 3 years, the committee measure projects spending $141 billion more than does the bipartisan substitute. It regrettably cuts over $14 billion in essential defense spending, funding required to restore America's national security. It adheres to the failed policy of trying to balance the budget on the taxpayer's back. It would increase tax payments by over a third, adding up to a staggering quarter of a trillion dollars. Federal taxes would increase 12 percent each year. Taxpayers would be paying a larger share of their income to government in 1984 than they do at present.

In short, that measure reflects an echo of the past rather than a benchmark for the future. High taxes and excess spending growth created our present economic mess; more of the same will not cure the hardship, anxiety, and discouragement it has imposed on the American people.

Let us cut through the fog for a moment. The answer to a government that's too big is to stop feeding its growth. Government spending has been growing faster than the economy itself. The massive national debt which we accumulated is the result of the government's high spending diet. Well, it's time to change the diet and to change it in the right way.

I know the tax portion of our package is of concern to some of you. Let me make a few points that I feel have been overlooked. First of all, it should be looked at as an integral part of the entire package, not something separate and apart from the budget reductions, the regulatory relief, and the monetary restraints. Probably the most common misconception is that we are proposing to reduce Government revenues to less than what the Government has been receiving. This is not true. Actually, the discussion has to do with how much of a tax increase should be imposed on the taxpayer in 1982.

Now, I know that over the recess in some informal polling some of your constituents have been asked which they'd rather have, a balanced budget or a tax cut, and with the common sense that characterizes the people of this country, the answer, of course, has been a balanced budget. But may I suggest, with no inference that there was wrong intent on the part of those who asked the question, the question was inappropriate to the situation.

Our choice is not between a balanced budget and a tax cut. Properly asked, the question is, ``Do you want a great big raise in your taxes this coming year or, at the worst, a very little increase with the prospect of tax reduction and a balanced budget down the road a ways?'' With the common sense that the people have already shown, I'm sure we all know what the answer to that question would be.

A gigantic tax increase has been built into the system. We propose nothing more than a reduction of that increase. The people have a right to know that even with our plan they will be paying more in taxes, but not as much more as they will without it.

The option, I believe, offered by the House Budget Committee, will leave spending too high and tax rates too high. At the same time, I think it cuts the defense budget too much, and by attempting to reduce the deficit through higher taxes, it will not create the kind of strong economic growth and the new jobs that we must have.

Let us not overlook the fact that the small, independent business man or woman creates more than 80 percent of all the new jobs and employs more than half of our total workforce. Our across-the-board cut in tax rates for a 3-year period will give them much of the incentive and promise of stability they need to go forward with expansion plans calling for additional employees.

Tonight, I renew my call for us to work as a team, to join in cooperation so that we find answers which will begin to solve all our economic problems and not just some of them. The economic recovery package that I've outlined to you over the past weeks is, I deeply believe, the only answer that we have left.

Reducing the growth of spending, cutting marginal tax rates, providing relief from overregulation, and following a noninflationary and predictable monetary policy are interwoven measures which will ensure that we have addressed each of the severe dislocations which threaten our economic future. These policies will make our economy stronger, and the stronger economy will balance the budget which we're committed to do by 1984.

When I took the oath of office, I pledged loyalty to only one special interest group -- ``We the people.'' Those people -- neighbors and friends, shopkeepers and laborers, farmers and craftsmen -- do not have infinite patience. As a matter fact, some 80 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt wrote these instructive words in his first message to the Congress: ``The American people are slow to wrath, but when their wrath is once kindled, it burns like a consuming flame.'' Well, perhaps that kind of wrath will be deserved if our answer to these serious problems is to repeat the mistakes of the past.

The old and comfortable way is to shave a little here and add a little there. Well, that's not acceptable anymore. I think this great and historic Congress knows that way is no longer acceptable. [Applause]

Thank you very much.

I think you've shown that you know the one sure way to continue the inflationary spiral is to fall back into the predictable patterns of old economic practices. Isn't it time that we tried something new?

When you allowed me to speak to you here in these chambers a little earlier, I told you that I wanted this program for economic recovery to be ours -- yours and mine. I think the bipartisan substitute bill has achieved that purpose. It moves us toward economic vitality.

Just 2 weeks ago, you and I joined millions of our fellow Americans in marveling at the magic historical moment that John Young and Bob Crippen created in their space shuttle, Columbia. The last manned effort was almost 6 years ago, and I remembered on this more recent day, over the years, how we'd all come to expect technological precision of our men and machines. And each amazing achievement became commonplace, until the next new challenge was raised.

With the space shuttle we tested our ingenuity once again, moving beyond the accomplishments of the past into the promise and uncertainty of the future. Thus, we not only planned to send up a 122-foot aircraft 170 miles into space, but we also intended to make it maneuverable and return it to Earth, landing 98 tons of exotic metals delicately on a remote, dry lakebed. The space shuttle did more than prove our technological abilities. It raised our expectations once more. It started us dreaming again.

The poet Carl Sandburg wrote, ``The republic is a dream. Nothing happens unless first a dream.'' And that's what makes us, as Americans, different. We've always reached for a new spirit and aimed at a higher goal. We've been courageous and determined, unafraid and bold. Who among us wants to be first to say we no longer have those qualities, that we must limp along, doing the same things that have brought us our present misery?

I believe that the people you and I represent are ready to chart a new course. They look to us to meet the great challenge, to reach beyond the commonplace and not fall short for lack of creativity or courage.

Someone you know has said that he who would have nothing to do with thorns must never attempt to gather flowers. Well, we have much greatness before us. We can restore our economic strength and build opportunities like none we've ever had before.

As Carl Sandburg said, all we need to begin with is a dream that we can do better than before. All we need to have is faith, and that dream will come true. All we need to do is act, and the time for action is now.

Thank you. Good night.
Address to the Nation on Federal Tax Reduction Legislation
July 27, 1981


Good evening.

I'd intended to make some remarks about the problem of social security tonight, but the immediacy of congressional action on the tax program, a key component of our economic package, has to take priority. Let me just say, however, I've been deeply disturbed by the way those of you who are dependent on social security have been needlessly frightened by some of the inaccuracies which have been given wide circulation. It's true that the social security system has financial problems. It's also true that these financial problems have been building for more than 20 years, and nothing has been done. I hope to address you on this entire subject in the near future.

In the meantime, let me just say this: I stated during the campaign and I repeat now, I will not stand by and see those of you who are dependent on social security deprived of the benefits you've worked so hard to earn. I make that pledge to you as your President. You have no reason to be frightened. You will continue to receive your checks in the full amount due you. In any plan to restore fiscal integrity of social security, I personally will see that the plan will not be at the expense of you who are now dependent on your monthly social security checks.

Now, let us turn to the business at hand. It's been nearly 6 months since I first reported to you on the state of the nation's economy. I'm afraid my message that night was grim and disturbing. I remember telling you we were in the worst economic mess since the Great Depression. Prices were continuing to spiral upward, unemployment was reaching intolerable levels, and all because government was too big and spent too much of our money.

We're still not out of the woods, but we've made a start. And we've certainly surprised those longtime and somewhat cynical observers of the Washington scene, who looked, listened, and said, ``It can never be done; Washington will never change its spending habits.'' Well, something very exciting has been happening here in Washington, and you're responsible.

Your voices have been heard -- millions of you, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, from every profession, trade and line of work, and from every part of this land. You sent a message that you wanted a new beginning. You wanted to change one little, two little word -- two letter word, I should say. It doesn't sound like much, but it sure can make a difference changing ``by government,'' ``control by government'' to ``control of government.''

In that earlier broadcast, you'll recall I proposed a program to drastically cut back government spending in the 1982 budget, which begins October 1st, and to continue cutting in the '83 and '84 budgets. Along with this I suggested an across-the-board tax cut, spread over those same 3 years, and the elimination of unnecessary regulations which were adding billions to the cost of things we buy.

All the lobbying, the organized demonstrations, and the cries of protest by those whose way of life depends on maintaining government's wasteful ways were no match for your voices, which were heard loud and clear in these marble halls of government. And you made history with your telegrams, your letters, your phone calls and, yes, personal visits to talk to your elected representatives. You reaffirmed the mandate you delivered in the election last November -- a mandate that called for an end to government policies that sent prices and mortgage rates skyrocketing while millions of Americans went jobless.

Because of what you did, Republicans and Democrats in the Congress came together and passed the most sweeping cutbacks in the history of the Federal budget. Right now, Members of the House and Senate are meeting in a conference committee to reconcile the differences between the two budget-cutting bills passed by the House and Senate. When they finish, all Americans will benefit from savings of approximately $140 billion in reduced government costs over just the next 3 years. And that doesn't include the additional savings from the hundreds of burdensome regulations already cancelled or facing cancellation.

For 19 out of the last 20 years, the Federal Government has spent more than it took in. There will be another large deficit in this present year which ends September 30th, but with our program in place, it won't be quite as big as it might have been. And starting next year, the deficits will get smaller until in just a few years the budget can be balanced. And we hope we can begin whittling at that almost $1 trillion debt that hangs over the future of our children.

Now, so far, I've been talking about only one part of our program for economic recovery -- the budget-cutting part. I don't minimize its importance. Just the fact that Democrats and Republicans could work together as they have, proving the strength of our system, has created an optimism in our land. The rate of inflation is no longer in double-digit figures. The dollar has regained strength in the international money markets, and businessmen and investors are making decisions with regard to industrial development, modernization and expansion -- all of this based on anticipation of our program being adopted and put into operation.

A recent poll shows that where a year and a half ago only 24 percent of our people believed things would get better, today 46 percent believe they will. To justify their faith, we must deliver the other part of our program. Our economic package is a closely knit, carefully constructed plan to restore America's economic strength and put our nation back on the road to prosperity.

Each part of this package is vital. It cannot be considered piecemeal. It was proposed as a package, and it has been supported as such by the American people. Only if the Congress passes all of its major components does it have any real chance of success. This is absolutely essential if we are to provide incentives and make capital available for the increased productivity required to provide real, permanent jobs for our people.

And let us not forget that the rest of the world is watching America carefully to see how we'll act at this critical moment.

I have recently returned from a summit meeting with world leaders in Ottawa, Canada, and the message I heard from them was quite clear. Our allies depend on a strong and economically sound America. And they're watching events in this country, particularly those surrounding our program for economic recovery, with close attention and great hopes. In short, the best way to have a strong foreign policy abroad is to have a strong economy at home.

The day after tomorrow, Wednesday, the House of Representatives will begin debate on two tax bills. And once again, they need to hear from you. I know that doesn't give you much time, but a great deal is at stake. A few days ago I was visited here in the office by a Democratic Congressman from one of our southern States. He'd been back in his district. And one day one of his constituents asked him where he stood on our economic recovery program -- I outlined that program in an earlier broadcast -- particularly the tax cut. Well, the Congressman, who happens to be a strong leader in support of our program, replied at some length with a discussion of the technical points involved, but he also mentioned a few reservations he had on certain points. The constituent, a farmer, listened politely until he'd finished, and then he said, ``Don't give me an essay. What I want to know is are you for 'im or agin 'im?''

Well, I appreciate the gentleman's support and suggest his question is a message your own representatives should hear. Let me add, those representatives honestly and sincerely want to know your feelings. They get plenty of input from the special interest groups. They'd like to hear from their home folks.

Now, let me explain what the situation is and what's at issue. With our budget cuts, we've presented a complete program of reduction in tax rates. Again, our purpose was to provide incentive for the individual, incentives for business to encourage production and hiring of the unemployed, and to free up money for investment. Our bill calls for a 5-percent reduction in the income tax rates by October 1st, a 10-percent reduction beginning July 1st, 1982, and another 10-percent cut a year later, a 25-percent total reduction over 3 years.

But then to ensure the tax cut is permanent, we call for indexing the tax rates in 1985, which means adjusting them for inflation. As it is now, if you get a cost-of-living raise that's intended to keep you even with inflation, you find that the increase in the number of dollars you get may very likely move you into a higher tax bracket, and you wind up poorer than you would. This is called bracket creep.

Bracket creep is an insidious tax. Let me give an example. If you earned $10,000 a year in 1972, by 1980 you had to earn $19,700 just to stay even with inflation. But that's before taxes. Come April 15th, you'll find your tax rates have increased 30 percent. Now, if you've been wondering why you don't seem as well-off as you were a few years back, it's because government makes a profit on inflation. It gets an automatic tax increase without having to vote on it. We intend to stop that.

Time won't allow me to explain every detail. But our bill includes just about everything to help the economy. We reduce the marriage penalty, that unfair tax that has a working husband and wife pay more tax than if they were single. We increase the exemption on the inheritance or estate tax to $600,000, so that farmers and family-owned businesses don't have to sell the farm or store in the event of death just to pay the taxes. Most important, we wipe out the tax entirely for a surviving spouse. No longer, for example, will a widow have to sell the family source of income to pay a tax on her husband's death.

There are deductions to encourage investment and savings. Business gets realistic depreciation on equipment and machinery. And there are tax breaks for small and independent businesses which create 80 percent of all our new jobs.

This bill also provides major credits to the research and development industry. These credits will help spark the high technology breakthroughs that are so critical to America's economic leadership in the world. There are also added incentives for small businesses, including a provision that will lift much of the burden of costly paperwork that government has imposed on small business.

In addition, there's short-term but substantial assistance for the hard pressed thrift industry, as well as reductions in oil taxes that will benefit new or independent oil producers and move our nation a step closer to energy self-sufficiency. Our bill is, in short, the first real tax cut for everyone in almost 20 years.

Now, when I first proposed this -- incidentally, it has now become a bipartisan measure coauthored by Republican Barber Conable and Democrat Kent Hance -- the Democratic leadership said a tax cut was out of the question. It would be wildly inflationary. And that was before my inauguration. And then your voices began to he heard and suddenly, in February, the leadership discovered that, well, a 1-year tax cut was feasible. Well, we kept on pushing our 3-year tax cut and by June, the opposition found that a 2-year tax cut might work. Now it's July, and they find they could even go for a third year cut provided there was a trigger arrangement that would only allow it to go into effect if certain economic goals had been met by 1983.

But by holding the people's tax reduction hostage to future economic events, they will eliminate the people's ability to plan ahead. Shopkeepers, farmers, and individuals will be denied the certainty they must have to begin saving or investing more of their money. And encouraging more savings and investment is precisely what we need now to rebuild our economy.

There's also a little slight of hand in that trigger mechanism. You see, their bill, the committee bill, ensures that the 1983 deficit will be $6\1/2\ billion greater than their own trigger requires. As it stands now, the design of their own bill will not meet the trigger they've put in; therefore, the third year tax cut will automatically never take place.

If I could paraphrase a well-known statement by Will Rogers that he had never met a man he didn't like, I'm afraid we have some people around here who never met a tax they didn't hike. Their tax proposal, similar in a number of ways to ours but differing in some very vital parts, was passed out of the House Ways and Means Committee, and from now on I'll refer to it as the committee bill and ours as the bipartisan bill. They'll be the bills taken up Wednesday.

The majority leadership claims theirs gives a greater break to the worker than ours, and it does -- that is, if your're only planning to live 2 more years. The plain truth is, our choice is not between two plans to reduce taxes; it's between a tax cut or a tax increase. There is now built into our present system, including payroll social security taxes and the bracket creep I've mentioned, a 22-percent tax increase over the next 3 years. The committee bill offers a 15-percent cut over 2 years; our bipartisan bill gives a 25-percent reduction over 3 years.

Now, as you can see by this chart, [At this point, the President referred to two charts which were shown on the televised broadcast of his address.] there is the 22-percent tax increase. Their cut is below that line. But ours wipes out that increase and with a little to spare. And there it is, as you can see. The red column -- that is the 15-percent tax cut, and it still leaves you with an increase. The green column is our bipartisan bill which wipes out the tax increase and gives you an ongoing cut.

Incidentally, their claim that cutting taxes for individuals for as much as 3 years ahead is risky, rings a little hollow when you realize that their bill calls for business tax cuts each year for 7 years ahead. It rings even more hollow when you consider the fact the majority leadership routinely endorses Federal spending bills that project years into the future, but objects to a tax bill that will return your money over a 3-year period.

Now, here is another chart which illustrates what I said about their giving a better break if you only intend to live for 2 more years. Their tax cut, so called, is the dotted line. Ours is the solid line. As you can see, in an earning bracket of $20,000, their tax cut is slightly more generous than ours for the first 2 years. Then, as you can see, their tax bill, the dotted line, starts going up and up and up. On the other hand, in our bipartisan tax bill, the solid line, our tax cut keeps on going down, and then stays down permanently. This is true of all earning brackets -- not just the $20,000 level that I've used as an example -- from the lowest to the highest. This red space between the two lines is the tax money that will remain in your pockets if our bill passes; and it's the amount that will leave your pockets if their tax bill is passed.

Now, I take no pleasure in saying this, but those who will seek to defeat our Conable-Hance bipartisan bill as debate begins Wednesday are the ones who have given us five ``tax cuts'' in the last 10 years. But, our taxes went up $400 billion in those same 10 years. The lines on these charts say a lot about who's really fighting for whom. On the one hand, you see a genuine and lasting commitment to the future of working Americans; on the other, just another empty promise.

Those of us in the bipartisan coalition want to give this economy and the future of this Nation back to the people, because putting people first has always been America's secret weapon. The House majority leadership seems less concerned about protecting your family budget than with spending more on the Federal budget.

Our bipartisan tax bill targets three-quarters of its tax relief to middle-income wage earners who presently pay almost three-quarters of the total income tax. It also then indexes the tax brackets to ensure that you can keep that tax reduction in the years ahead. There also is, as I said, estate tax relief that will keep family farms and family-owned businesses in the family, and there are provisions for personal retirement plans and individual savings accounts.

Because our bipartisan bill is so clearly drawn and broadly based, it provides the kind of predictability and certainty that the financial segments of our society need to make investment decisions that stimulate productivity and make our economy grow. Even more important, if the tax cut goes to you, the American people, in the third year, that money returned to you won't be available to the Congress to spend, and that, in my view, is what this whole controversy comes down to. Are you entitled to the fruits of your own labor or does government have some presumptive right to spend and spend and spend?

I'm also convinced our business tax cut is superior to theirs because it's more equitable, and it will do a much better job promoting the surge in investment we so badly need to rebuild our industrial base.

There's something else I want to tell you. Our bipartisan coalition worked out a tax bill we felt would provide incentive and stimulate productivity, thus reducing inflation and providing jobs for the unemployed. That was our only goal. Our opponents in the beginning didn't want a tax bill at all. So what is the purpose behind their change of heart? They've put a tax program together for one reason only: to provide themselves with a political victory. Never mind that it won't solve the economic problems confronting our country. Never mind that it won't get the wheels of industry turning again or eliminate the inflation which is eating us alive.

This is not the time for political fun and games. This is the time for a new beginning. I ask you now to put aside any feelings of frustration or helplessness about our political institutions and join me in this dramatic but responsible plan to reduce the enormous burden of Federal taxation on you and your family.

During recent months many of you have asked what can you do to help make America strong again. I urge you again to contact your Senators and Congressmen. Tell them of your support for this bipartisan proposal. Tell them you believe this is an unequalled opportunity to help return America to prosperity and make government again the servant of the people.

In a few days the Congress will stand at the fork of two roads. One road is all too familiar to us. It leads ultimately to higher taxes. It merely brings us full circle back to the source of our economic problems, where the government decides that it knows better than you what should be done with your earnings and, in fact, how you should conduct your life. The other road promises to renew the American spirit. It's a road of hope and opportunity. It places the direction of your life back in your hands where it belongs.

I've not taken your time this evening merely to ask you to trust me. Instead, I ask you to trust yourselves. That's what America is all about. Our struggle for nationhood, our unrelenting fight for freedom, our very existence -- these have all rested on the assurance that you must be free to shape your life as you are best able to, that no one can stop you from reaching higher or take from you the creativity that has made America the envy of mankind.

One road is timid and fearful; the other bold and hopeful.

In these 6 months, we've done so much and have come so far. It's been the power of millions of people like you who have determined that we will make America great again. You have made the difference up to now. You will make the difference again. Let us not stop now.

Thank you. God bless you, and good night.
Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Reporters on the Air Traffic Controllers Strike
August 3, 1981


The President. This morning at 7 a.m. the union representing those who man America's air traffic control facilities called a strike. This was the culmination of 7 months of negotiations between the Federal Aviation Administration and the union. At one point in these negotiations agreement was reached and signed by both sides, granting a $40 million increase in salaries and benefits. This is twice what other government employees can expect. It was granted in recognition of the difficulties inherent in the work these people perform. Now, however, the union demands are 17 times what had been agreed to -- $681 million. This would impose a tax burden on their fellow citizens which is unacceptable.

I would like to thank the supervisors and controllers who are on the job today, helping to get the nation's air system operating safely. In the New York area, for example, four supervisors were scheduled to report for work, and 17 additionally volunteered. At National Airport a traffic controller told a newsperson he had resigned from the union and reported to work because, ``How can I ask my kids to obey the law if I don't?'' This is a great tribute to America.

Let me make one thing plain. I respect the right of workers in the private sector to strike. Indeed, as president of my own union, I led the first strike ever called by that union. I guess I'm maybe the first one to ever hold this office who is a lifetime member of an AFL - CIO union. But we cannot compare labor-management relations in the private sector with government. Government cannot close down the assembly line. It has to provide without interruption the protective services which are government's reason for being.

It was in recongition of this that the Congress passed a law forbidding strikes by government employees against the public safety. Let me read the solemn oath taken by each of these employees, a sworn affidavit, when they accepted their jobs: ``I am not participating in any strike against the Government of the United States or any agency thereof, and I will not so participate while an employee of the Government of the United States or any agency thereof.''

It is for this reason that I must tell those who fail to report for duty this morning they are in violation of the law, and if they do not report for work within 48 hours, they have forfeited their jobs and will be terminated.

Q. Mr. President, are you going to order any union members who violate the law to go to jail?

The President. Well, I have some people around here, and maybe I should refer that question to the Attorney General.

Q. Do you think that they should go to jail, Mr. President, anybody who violates this law?

The President. I told you what I think should be done. They're terminated.

The Attorney General. Well, as the President has said, striking under these circumstances constitutes a violation of the law, and we intend to initiate in appropriate cases criminal proceedings against those who have violated the law.

Q. How quickly will you initiate criminal proceedings, Mr. Attorney General?

The Attorney General. We will initiate those proceedings as soon as we can.

Q. Today?

The Attorney General. The process will be underway probably by noon today.

Q. Are you going to try and fine the union $1 million per day?

The Attorney General. Well, that's the prerogative of the court. In the event that any individuals are found guilty of contempt of a court order, the penalty for that, of course, is imposed by the court.

Q. How much more is the government prepared to offer the union?

The Secretary of Transportation. We think we had a very satisfactory offer on the table. It's twice what other Government employees are going to get -- 11.4 percent. Their demands were so unreasonable there was no spot to negotiate, when you're talking to somebody 17 times away from where you presently are. We do not plan to increase our offer to the union.

Q. Under no circumstances?

The Secretary of Transportation. As far as I'm concerned, under no circumstance.

Q. Will you continue to meet with them?

The Secretary of Transportation. We will not meet with the union as long as they're on strike. When they're off of strike, and assuming that they are not decertified, we will meet with the union and try to negotiate a satisfactory contract.

Q. Do you have any idea how it's going at the airports around the country?

The Secretary of Transportation. Relatively, it's going quite well. We're operating somewhat in excess of 50 percent capacity. We could increase that. We have determined, until we feel we're in total control of the system, that we will not increase that. Also, as you probably know, we have some rather severe weather in the Midwest, and our first priority is safety.

Q. What can you tell us about possible decertification of the union and impoundment of its strike funds?

The Secretary of Transportation. There has been a court action to impound the strike fund of $3.5 million. We are going before the National Labor Relations Authority this morning and ask for decertification of the union.

Q. When you say that you're not going to increase your offer, are you referring to the original offer or the last offer which you've made? Is that still valid?

The Secretary of Transportation. The last offer we made in present value was exactly the same as the first offer. Mr. Poli (Robert Poli, Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) asked me about 11 o'clock last evening if he could phase the increase in over a period of time. For that reason, we phased it in over a longer period of time. It would have given him a larger increase in terms of where he would be when the next negotiations started, but in present value it was the $40 million originally on the table.

Q. Mr. Attorney General, in seeking criminal action against the union leaders, will you seek to put them in jail if they do not order these people back to work?

The Attorney General. Well, we will seek whatever penalty is appropriate under the circumstances in each individual case.

Q. Do you think that is an appropriate circumstance?

The Attorney General. It is certainly one of the penalties that is provided for in the law, and in appropriate cases, we could very well seek that penalty.

Q. What's appropriate?

The Attorney General. Well, that depends upon the fact of each case.

Q. What makes the difference?

Q. Can I go back to my ``fine'' question? How much would you like to see the union fined every day?

The Attorney General. Well, there's no way to answer that question. We would just have to wait until we get into court, see what the circumstances are, and determine what position we would take in the various cases under the facts as they develop.

Q. But you won't go to court and ask the court for a specific amount?

The Attorney General. Well, I'm sure we will when we reach that point, but there's no way to pick a figure now.

Q. Mr. President, will you delay your trip to California or cancel it if the strike is still on later this week?

The President. If any situation should arise that would require my presence here, naturally I will do that. So, that will be a decision that awaits what's going to happen. May I just -- because I have to be back in there for another appointment -- may I just say one thing on top of this? With all this talk of penalties and everything else, I hope that you'll emphasize, again, the possibility of termination, because I believe that there are a great many of those people -- and they're fine people -- who have been swept up in this and probably have not really considered the result -- the fact that they had taken an oath, the fact that this is now in violation of the law, as that one supervisor referred to with regard to his children. And I am hoping that they will in a sense remove themselves from the lawbreaker situation by returning to their posts.

I have no way to know whether this had been conveyed to them by their union leaders, who had been informed that this would be the result of a strike.

Q. Your deadline is 7 o'clock Wednesday morning for them to return to work?

The President. Forty-eight hours.

The Secretary of Transportation. It's 11 o'clock Wednesday morning.

Q. Mr. President, why have you taken such strong action as your first action? Why not some lesser action at this point?

The President. What lesser action can there be? The law is very explicit. They are violating the law. And as I say, we called this to the attention of their leadership. Whether this was conveyed to the membership before they voted to strike, I don't know. But this is one of the reasons why there can be no further negotiation while this situation continues. You can't sit and negotiate with a union that's in violation of the law.

The Secretary of Transportation. And their oath.

The President. And their oath.

Q. Are you more likely to proceed in the criminal direction toward the leadership than the rank and file, Mr. President?

The President. Well, that again is not for me to answer.

Q. Mr. Secretary, what can you tell us about the possible use of military air controllers -- how many, how quickly can they get on the job?

The Secretary of Transportation. In answer to the previous question, we will move both civil and criminal, probably more civil than criminal, and we now have papers in the U.S. attorneys offices, under the Attorney General, in about 20 locations around the country where would be involved two or three principal people.

As far as the military personnel are concerned, they are going to fundamentally be backup to the supervisory personnel. We had 150 on the job, supposedly, about a half-hour ago. We're going to increase that to somewhere between 700 and 850.

Q. Mr. Secretary, are you ready to hire other people should these other people not return?

The Secretary of Transportation. Yes, we will, and we hope we do not reach that point. Again as the President said, we're hoping these people come back to work. They do a fine job. If that does not take place, we have a training school, as you know. We will be advertising. We have a number of applicants right now. There's a waiting list in terms of people that want to be controllers, and we'll start retraining and reorganize the entire FAA traffic controller group.

Q. Just to clarify, is your deadline 7 a.m. Wednedsay or 11 o'clock?

The Secretary of Transportation. It's 11 a.m. Wednesday. The President said 48 hours, and that would be 48 hours.

Q. If you actually fire these people, won't it put your air traffic control system in a hole for years to come, since you can't just cook up a controller in -- [inaudible]?

The Secretary of Transportation. That obviously depends on how many return to work. Right now we're able to operate the system. In some areas, we've been very gratified by the support we've received. In other areas, we've been disappointed. And until I see the numbers, there's no way I can answer that question.

Q. Mr. Lewis, did you tell the union leadership when you were talking to them that their members would be fired if they went out on strike?

The Secretary of Transportation. I told Mr. Poli yesterday that the President gave me three instructions in terms of the firmness of the negotiations: one is there would be no amnesty; the second there would be no negotitaions during the strike; and third is that if they went on strike, these people would no longer be government employees.

Q. Mr. Secretary, you said no negotiations. What about informal meetings of any kind with Mr. Poli?

The Secretary of Transportation. We will have no meetings until the strike is terminated with the union.

Q. Have you served Poli at this point? Has he been served by the Attorney General?

The Attorney General. In the civil action that was filed this morning, the service was made on the attorney for the union, and the court has determined that that was appropriate service on all of the officers of the union.

Q. My previous question about whether you're going to take a harder line on the leadership than rank and file in terms of any criminal prosecution, can you give us an answer on that?

The Attorney General. No, I can't answer that except to say that each case will be investigated on its own merits, and action will be taken as appropriate in each of those cases.

Q. Mr. Lewis, do you know how many applications for controller jobs you have on file now?

The Secretary of Transportation. I do not know. I'm going to check when I get back. I am aware there's a waiting list, and I do not have the figure. If you care to have that, you can call our office, and we'll tell you. Also, we'll be advertising and recruiting people for this job if necessary.

Q. Mr. Secretary, how long are you prepared to hold out if there's a partial but not complete strike?

The Secretary of Transportation. I think the President made it very clear that as of 48 hours from now, if the people are not back on the job, they will not be government employees at any time in the future.

Q. How long are you prepared to run the air controller system -- [inaudible]?

The Secretary of Transportation. For years, if we have to.

Q. How long does it take to train a new controller, from the waiting list?

The Secretary of Transportation. It varies; it depends on the type of center they're going to be in. For someone to start in the system and work through the more minor office types of control situations till they get to, let's say, a Chicago or a Washington National, it takes about 3 years. So in this case, what we'll have to do if some of the major metropolitan areas are shut down or a considerable portion is shut down, we'll be bringing people in from other areas that are qualified and then start bringing people through the training schools in the smaller cities and smaller airports.

Q. Mr. Secretary, have you definitely made your final offer to the union?

The Secretary of Transportation. Yes, we have.

Q. Thank you.

Address to the Nation on the Program for Economic Recovery
September 24, 1981


Good evening.

Shortly after taking office, I came before you to map out a four-part plan for national economic recovery: tax cuts to stimulate more growth and more jobs, spending cuts to put an end to continuing deficits and high inflation, regulatory relief to lift the heavy burden of government rules and paperwork, and, finally, a steady, consistent, monetary policy.

We've made strong, encouraging progress on all four fronts. The flood of new governmental regulations, for example, has been cut by more than a third. I was especially pleased when a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Democrats enacted the biggest tax cuts and the greatest reduction in Federal spending in our nation's history. Both will begin to take effect a week from today.

These two bills would never have passed without your help. Your voices were heard in Washington and were heeded by those you've chosen to represent you in government. Yet, in recent weeks we've begun to hear a chorus of other voices protesting that we haven't had full economic recovery. These are the same voices that were raised against our program when it was first presented to Congress. Now that the first part of it has been passed, they declare it hasn't worked. Well, it hasn't; it doesn't start until a week from today.

There have been some bright spots in our economic performance these past few months. Inflation has fallen, and pressures are easing on both food and fuel prices. More than a million more Americans are now at work than a year ago, and recently there has even been a small crack in interest rates. But let me be the first to say that our problems won't suddenly disappear next week, next month, or next year. We're just starting down a road that I believe will lead us out of the economic swamp we've been in for so long. It'll take time for the effect of the tax rate reductions to be felt in increased savings, productivity, and new jobs. It will also take time for the budget cuts to reduce the deficits which have brought us near runaway inflation and ruinous interest rates.

The important thing now is to hold to a firm, steady course. Tonight I want to talk with you about the next steps that we must take on that course, additional reductions in Federal spending that will help lower our interest rates, our inflation, and bring us closer to full economic recovery.

I know that high interest rates are punishing many of you, from the young family that wants to buy its first home to the farmer who needs a new truck or tractor. But all of us know that interest rates will only come down and stay down when government is no longer borrowing huge amounts of money to cover its deficits.

These deficits have been piling up every year, and some people here in Washington just throw up their hands in despair. Maybe you'll remember that we were told in the spring of 1980 that the 1981 budget, the one we have now, would be balanced. Well, that budget, like so many in the past, hemorrhaged badly and wound up in a sea of red ink.

I have pledged that we shall not stand idly by and see that same thing happen again. When I presented our economic recovery program to Congress, I said we were aiming to cut the deficit steadily to reach a balance by 1984. The budget bill that I signed this summer cut $35 billion from the 1982 budget and slowed the growth of spending by $130 billion over the next 3 years. We cut the government's rate of growth nearly in half.

Now, we must move on to a second round of budget savings to keep us on the road to a balanced budget.

Our immediate challenge is to hold down the deficit in the fiscal year that begins next week. A number of threats are now appearing that will drive the deficit upward if we fail to act. For example, in the euphoria just after our budget bill was approved this summer, we didn't point out immediately, as we should, that while we did get most of what we'd asked for, most isn't all. Some of the savings in our proposal were not approved, and since then, the Congress has taken actions that could add even more to the cost of government.

The result is that without further reductions, our deficit for 1982 will be increased by some 18 -- or, pardon me -- $16 billion. The estimated deficit for '83 will be increased proportionately. And without further cuts, we can't achieve our goal of a balanced budget by 1984.

Now, it would be easy to sit back and say, ``Well, it'll take longer than we thought. We got most of what we proposed, so let's stop there.'' But that's not good enough.

In meeting to discuss this problem a few days ago, Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, recalled the words of that great heavyweight champion and great American, Joe Louis, just before he stepped into the ring against Billy Conn. There had been some speculation that Billy might be able to avoid Joe's lethal right hand. Joe said, ``Well, he can run but he can't hide.'' Senator Domenici said to me, ``That's just what we're facing on runaway Federal spending. We can try to run from it, but we can't hide. We have to face up to it.''

He's right, of course. In the last few decades we started down a road that led to a massive explosion in Federal spending. It took about 170 years for the Federal budget to reach $100 billion. That was in 1962. It only took 8 years to reach the $200 billion mark, and only 5 more to make it $300 billion. And in the next 5, we nearly doubled that. It would be one thing if we'd been able to pay for all the things government decided to do, but we've only balanced the budget once in the last 20 years.

In just the past decade, our national debt has more than doubled. And in the next few days, it'll pass the trillion dollar mark. One trillion dollars of debt -- if we as a nation needed a warning, let that be it.

Our interest payments on the debt alone are now running more than $96 billion a year. That's more than the total combined profits last year of the 500 biggest companies in the country; or, to put it another way, Washington spends more on interest than on all of its education, nutrition, and medical programs combined.

In the past, there have been several methods used to fund some of our social experiments -- one was to take it away from national defense. From being the strongest nation on Earth in the post World War II years, we steadily declined while the Soviet Union engaged in the most massive military buildup the world has ever seen.

Now, with all our economic problems, we're forced to try to catch up so that we can preserve the peace. Government's first responsibility is national security, and we're determined to meet that responsibility. Indeed, we have no choice.

Well, what all of this is leading up to is, ``What do we plan to do?'' Last week I met with the Cabinet to take up this matter. I'm proud to say there was no handwringing, no pleading to avoid further budget cuts. We all agreed that the ``tax and tax, spend and spend'' policies of the last few decades lead only to economic disaster. Our government must return to the tradition of living within our means and must do it now. We asked ourselves two questions -- and answered them: ``If not us, who? If not now, when?''

Let me talk with you now about the specific ways that I believe we ought to achieve additional savings, savings of some $6 billion in 1982 and a total of $80 billion when spread over the next 3 years. I recognize that many in Congress may have other alternatives, and I welcome a dialog with them. But let there be no mistake: We have no choice but to continue down the road toward a balanced budget, a budget that will keep us strong at home and secure overseas. And let me be clear that this cannot be the last round of cuts. Holding down spending must be a continuing battle for several years to come.

Now, here's what I propose. First, I'm asking Congress to reduce the 1982 appropriation for most government agencies and programs by 12 percent. This will save $17\1/2\ billion over the next several years. Absorbing these reductions will not be easy, but duplication, excess, waste, and overhead is still far too great and can be trimmed further.

No one in the meeting asked to be exempt from belt-tightening. Over the next 3 years, the increase we had originally planned in the defense budget will be cut by $13 billion. I'll confess, I was reluctant about this because of the long way we have to go before the dangerous window of vulnerability confronting us will be appreciably narrowed. But the Secretary of Defense assured me that he can meet our critical needs in spite of this cut.

Second, to achieve further economies, we'll shrink the size of the non-defense payroll over the next 3 years by some 6\1/2\ percent, some 75,000 employees. Much of this will be attained by not replacing those who retire or leave. There will, however, be some reductions in force simply because we're reducing our administrative overhead. I intend to set the example here by reducing the size of the White House staff and the staff of the Executive Office of the President.

As a third step, we propose to dismantle two Cabinet Departments, Energy and Education. Both Secretaries are wholly in accord with this. Some of the activities in both of these departments will, of course, be continued either independently or in other areas of government. There's only one way to shrink the size and cost of big government, and that is by eliminating agencies that are not needed and are getting in the way of a solution.

Now, we don't need an Energy Department to solve our basic energy problem. As long as we let the forces of the marketplace work without undue interference, the ingenuity of consumers, business, producers, and inventors will do that for us.

Similarly, education is the principal responsibility of local school systems, teachers, parents, citizen boards, and State governments. By eliminating the Department of Education less than 2 years after it was created, we cannot only reduce the budget but ensure that local needs and preferences, rather than the wishes of Washington, determine the education of our children.

We also plan the elimination of a few smaller agencies and a number of boards and commissions, some of which have fallen into disuse or which are now being duplicated.

Fourth, we intend to make reductions of some $20 billion in Federal loan guarantees. Now, these guarantees are not funds that the government spends directly. They're funds that are loaned in the private market and insured by government at subsidized rates. Federal loan guarantees have become a form of back door, uncontrolled borrowing that prevent many small businesses that aren't subsidized from obtaining financing of their own. They are also a major factor in driving up interest rates. It's time we brought this practice under control.

Fifth, I intend to forward to Congress this fall a new package of entitlement and welfare reform measures, outside social security, to save nearly $27 billion over the next 3 years. In the past two decades, we've created hundreds of new programs to provide personal assistance. Many of these programs may have come from a good heart, but not all have come from a clear head -- and the costs have been staggering.

In 1955 these programs cost $8 billion. By 1965 the cost was $79 billion. Next year it will be $188 billion. Let there be no confusion on this score: Benefits for the needy will be protected, but the black market in food stamps must be stopped, the abuse and fraud in Medicaid by beneficiaries and providers alike cannot be tolerated, provision of school loans and meal subsidies to the affluent can no longer be afforded.

In California when I was Governor and embarked upon welfare reform, there were screams from those who claimed that we intended to victimize the needy. But in a little over 3 years, we saved the taxpayers some $2 billion at the same time we were able to increase the grants for the deserving and truly needy by an average of more than 40 percent. It was the first cost-of-living increase they'd received in 13 years. I believe progress can also be made at the national level. We can be compassionate about human needs without being complacent about budget extravagance.

Sixth, I will soon urge Congress to enact new proposals to eliminate abuses and obsolete incentives in the tax code. The Treasury Department believes that the deficit can be reduced by $3 billion next year and $22 billion over the next 3 years with prompt enactment of these measures. Now that we've provided the greatest incentives for saving, investment, work, and productivity ever proposed, we must also ensure that taxes due the government are collected and that a fair share of the burden is borne by all.

Finally, I'm renewing my plea to Congress to approve my proposals for user fees -- proposals first suggested last spring but which have been neglected since.

When the Federal Government provides a service directly to a particular industry or to a group of citizens, I believe that those who receive benefits should bear the cost. For example, this next year the Federal Government will spend $525 million to maintain river harbors, channels, locks and dams for the barge and maritime industries. Yacht owners, commercial vessels, and the airlines will receive services worth $2.8 billion from Uncle Sam.

My spring budget proposals included legislation that would authorize the Federal Government to recover a total of $980 million from the users of these services through fees. Now, that's only a third of the $3.3 billion it'll cost the government to provide those same services.

None of these steps will be easy. We're going through a period of difficult and painful readjustment. I know that we're asking for sacrifices from virtually all of you, but there is no alternative. Some of those who oppose this plan have participated over the years in the extravagance that has brought us inflation, unemployment, high interest rates, and an intolerable debt. Now, I grant they were well-intentioned, but their costly reforms didn't eliminate poverty or raise welfare recipients from dependence to self-sufficiency, independence, and dignity. Yet, in their objections to what we've proposed, they offer only what we know has been tried before and failed.

I believe we've chosen a path that leads to an America at work, to fiscal sanity, to lower taxes, and less inflation. I believe our plan for recovery is sound, and it will work.

Tonight, I'm asking all of you who joined in this crusade to save our economy to help again, to let your representatives know that you will support them in making the hard decisions to further reduce the cost and size of government.

Now, if you'll permit me, I'd like to turn to another subject which I know has many of you very concerned and even frightened. This is an issue apart from the economic reform package that we've just been discussing, but I feel I must clear the air. There has been a great deal of misinformation and, for that matter, pure demagoguery on the subject of social security.

During the campaign, I called attention to the fact that social security had both a short- and a long-range fiscal problem. I pledged my best to restore it to fiscal responsibility without in any way reducing or eliminating existing benefits for those now dependent on it.

To all of you listening, and particularly those of you now receiving social security, I ask you to listen very carefully: first to what threatens the integrity of social security, and then to a possible solution.

Some 30 years ago, there were 16 people working and paying the social security payroll tax for every 1 retiree. Today that ratio has changed to only 3.2 workers paying in for each beneficiary. For many years, we've known that an actuarial imbalance existed and that the program faced an unfunded liability of several trillion dollars.

Now, the short-range problem is much closer than that. The social security retirement fund has been paying out billions of dollars more each year than it takes in, and it could run out of money before the end of 1982 unless something is done. Some of our critics claim new figures reveal a cushion of several billions of dollars which will carry the program beyond 1982. I'm sure it's only a coincidence that 1982 is an election year.

The cushion they speak of is borrowing from the Medicare fund and the disability fund. Of course, doing this would only postpone the day of reckoning. Alice Rivlin of the Congressional Budget Office told a congressional committee, day before yesterday, that such borrowing might carry us to 1990, but then we'd face the same problem. And as she put it, we'd have to cut benefits or raise the payroll tax. Well, we're not going to cut benefits, and the payroll tax is already being raised.

In 1977 Congress passed the largest tax increase in our history. It called for a payroll tax increase in January of 1982, another in 1985, and again in 1986 and in 1990. When that law was passed we were told it made social security safe until the year 2030. But we're running out of money 48 years short of 2030.

For the nation's work force, the social security tax is already the biggest tax they pay. In 1935 we were told the tax would never be greater than 2 percent of the first $3,000 of earnings. It is presently 13.3 percent of the first $29,700, and the scheduled increases will take it to 15.3 percent of the first $60,600. And that's when Mrs. Rivlin says we would need an additional increase.

Some have suggested reducing benefits. Others propose an income tax on benefits, or that the retirement age should be moved back to age 68. And there are some who would simply fund social security out of general tax funds, as welfare is funded. I believe there are better solutions.

I am asking the Congress to restore the minimum benefit for current beneficiaries with low incomes. It was never our intention to take this support away from those who truly need it. There is, however, a sizable percentage of recipients who are adequately provided for by pensions or other income and should not be added to the financial burden of social security.

The same situation prevails with regard to disability payments. No one will deny our obligation to those with legitimate claims, but there's widespread abuse of the system which should not be allowed to continue.

Since 1962 early retirement has been allowed at age 62 with 80 percent of full benefits. In our proposal we ask that early retirees in the future receive 55 percent of the total benefit, but -- and this is most important -- those early retirees would only have to work an additional 20 months to be eligible for the 80-percent payment. I don't believe very many of you were aware of that part of our proposal.

The only change we proposed for those already receiving social security had to do with the annual cost-of-living adjustment. Now, those adjustments are made on July 1st each year, a hangover from the days when the fiscal year began in July. We proposed a one-time delay in making that adjustment, postponing it for 3 months until October 1st. From then on it would continue to be made every 12 months. That one-time delay would not lower your existing benefits but would, on the average, reduce your increase by about $86 one time next year.

By making these few changes, we would have solved the short- and long-range problems of social security funding once and for all. In addition, we could have canceled the increases in the payroll tax by 1985. To a young person just starting in the work force, the savings from canceling those increases would, on the average, amount to $33,000 by the time he or she reached retirement, and compound interest, add that, and it makes a tidy nest egg to add to the social security benefits.

However, let me point out, our feet were never imbedded in concrete on this proposal. We hoped it could be a starting point for a bipartisan solution to the problem. We were ready to listen to alternatives and other ideas which might improve on or replace our proposals. But, the majority leadership in the House of Representatives has refused to join in any such cooperative effort.

I therefore am asking, as I said, for restoration of the minimum benefit and for inter-fund borrowing as a temporary measure to give us time to seek a permanent solution. To remove social security once and for all from politics, I am also asking Speaker Tip O'Neill of the House of Representatives and Majority Leader in the Senate Howard Baker to each appoint five members, and I will appoint five, to a task force which will review all the options and come up with a plan that assures the fiscal integrity of social security and that social security recipients will continue to receive their full benefits.

I can not and will not stand by and see financial hardship imposed on the more than 36 million senior citizens who have worked and served this Nation throughout their lives. They deserve better from us.

Well now, in conclusion, let me return to the principal purpose of this message, the budget and the imperative need for all of us to ask less of government, to help to return to spending no more than we take in, to end the deficits, and bring down interest rates that otherwise can destroy what we've been building here for two centuries.

I know that we're asking for economies in many areas and programs that were started with the best of intentions and the dedication to a worthwhile cause or purpose, but I know also that some of those programs have not succeeded in their purpose. Others have proven too costly, benefiting those who administer them rather than those who were the intended beneficiaries. This doesn't mean we should discontinue trying to help where help is needed. Government must continue to do its share. But I ask all of you, as private citizens, to join this effort, too.

As a people we have a proud tradition of generosity. More than a century ago, a Frenchman came to America and later wrote a book for his countrymen, telling them what he had seen here. He told them that in America when a citizen saw a problem that needed solving, he would cross the street and talk to a neighbor about it, and the first thing you know a committee would be formed, and before long the problem would be solved. And then he added, ``You may not believe this, but not a single bureaucrat would ever have been involved.''

Some years ago, when we were a young nation and our people began visiting the lands of their forefathers, these American tourists then were rather brash, unsophisticated by European standards, but blessed with a spirit of independence and pride. One such tourist, an elderly, smalltown gentleman, and his wife were there in Europe listening to a tour guide go on about the wonders of the volcano, Mt. Aetna. He spoke of the great heat that it generated, the power, the boiling lava, et cetera.

Finally the old boy had had enough of it, turned to his wife, and he said, ``We've got a volunteer fire department at home that'd put that thing out in 15 minutes.'' Well, he was typical of those Americans who helped build a neighbor's barn when it burned down. They built the West without an area redevelopment plan, and cities across the land without Federal planning.

I believe the spirit of voluntarism still lives in America. We see examples of it on every hand -- the community charity drive, support of hospitals and all manner of non-profit institutions, the rallying around whenever disaster or tragedy strikes. The truth is we've let government take away many things we once considered were really ours to do voluntarily, out of the goodness of our hearts and a sense of community pride and neighborliness. I believe many of you want to do those things again, want to be involved if only someone will ask you or offer the opportunity. Well, we intend to make that offer.

We're launching a nationwide effort to encourage our citizens to join with us in finding where need exists, and then to organize volunteer programs to meet that need. We've already set the wheels of such a volunteer effort in motion.

As Tom Paine said 200 years ago, ``We have it within our power to begin the world over again.'' What are we waiting for?

God bless you, and good night.

Remarks to Members of the National Press Club on Arms Reduction and Nuclear Weapons
November 18, 1981


Officers, ladies and gentlemen of the National Press Club and, as of a very short time ago, fellow members:

Back in April while in the hospital I had, as you can readily understand, a lot of time for reflection. And one day I decided to send a personal, handwritten letter to Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev reminding him that we had met about 10 years ago in San Clemente, California, as he and President Nixon were concluding a series of meetings that had brought hope to all the world. Never had peace and good will seemed closer at hand.

I'd like to read you a few paragraphs from that letter. ``Mr. President: When we met, I asked if you were aware that the hopes and aspirations of millions of people throughout the world were dependent on the decisions that would be reached in those meetings. You took my hand in both of yours and assured me that you were aware of that and that you were dedicated with all your heart and soul and mind to fulfilling those hopes and dreams.''

I went on in my letter to say: ``The people of the world still share that hope. Indeed, the peoples of the world, despite differences in racial and ethnic origin, have very much in common. They want the dignity of having some control over their individual lives, their destiny. They want to work at the craft or trade of their own choosing and to be fairly rewarded. They want to raise their families in peace without harming anyone or suffering harm themselves. Government exists for their convenience, not the other way around.

``If they are incapable, as some would have us believe, of self-government, then where among them do we find any who are capable of governing others?

``Is it possible that we have permitted ideology, political and economic philosophies, and governmental policies to keep us from considering the very real, everyday problems of our peoples? Will the average Soviet family be better off or even aware that the Soviet Union has imposed a government of its own choice on the people of Afghanistan? Is life better for the people of Cuba because the Cuban military dictate who shall govern the people of Angola?

``It is often implied that such things have been made necessary because of territorial ambitions of the United States; that we have imperialistic designs, and thus constitute a threat to your own security and that of the newly emerging nations. Not only is there no evidence to support such a charge, there is solid evidence that the United States, when it could have dominated the world with no risk to itself, made no effort whatsoever to do so.

``When World War II ended, the United States had the only undamaged industrial power in the world. Our military might was at its peak, and we alone had the ultimate weapon, the nuclear weapon, with the unquestioned ability to deliver it anywhere in the world. If we had sought world domination then, who could have opposed us?

``But the United States followed a different course, one unique in all the history of mankind. We used our power and wealth to rebuild the war-ravished economies of the world, including those of the nations who had been our enemies. May I say, there is absolutely no substance to charges that the United States is guilty of imperialism or attempts to impose its will on other countries, by use of force.''

I continued my letter by saying -- or concluded my letter, I should say -- by saying, ``Mr. President, should we not be concerned with eliminating the obstacles which prevent our people, those you and I represent, from achieving their most cherished goals?''

Well, it's in the same spirit that I want to speak today to this audience and the people of the world about America's program for peace and the coming negotiations which begin November 30th in Geneva, Switzerland. Specifically, I want to present our program for preserving peace in Europe and our wider program for arms control.

Twice in my lifetime, I have seen the peoples of Europe plunged into the tragedy of war. Twice in my lifetime, Europe has suffered destruction and military occupation in wars that statesmen proved powerless to prevent, soldiers unable to contain, and ordinary citizens unable to escape. And twice in my lifetime, young Americans have bled their lives into the soil of those battlefields not to enrich or enlarge our domain, but to restore the peace and independence of our friends and Allies.

All of us who lived through those troubled times share a common resolve that they must never come again. And most of us share a common appreciation of the Atlantic Alliance that has made a peaceful, free, and prosperous Western Europe in the post-war era possible.

But today, a new generation is emerging on both sides of the Atlantic. Its members were not present at the creation of the North Atlantic Alliance. Many of them don't fully understand its roots in defending freedom and rebuilding a war-torn continent. Some young people question why we need weapons, particularly nuclear weapons, to deter war and to assure peaceful development. They fear that the accumulation of weapons itself may lead to conflagration. Some even propose unilateral disarmament.

I understand their concerns. Their questions deserve to be answered. But we have an obligation to answer their questions on the basis of judgment and reason and experience. Our policies have resulted in the longest European peace in this century. Wouldn't a rash departure from these policies, as some now suggest, endanger that peace?

From its founding, the Atlantic Alliance has preserved the peace through unity, deterrence, and dialog. First, we and our Allies have stood united by the firm commitment that an attack upon any one of us would be considered an attack upon us all. Second, we and our Allies have deterred aggression by maintaining forces strong enough to ensure that any aggressor would lose more from an attack than he could possibly gain. And third, we and our Allies have engaged the Soviets in a dialog about mutual restraint and arms limitations, hoping to reduce the risk of war and the burden of armaments and to lower the barriers that divide East from West.

These three elements of our policy have preserved the peace in Europe for more than a third of a century. They can preserve it for generations to come, so long as we pursue them with sufficient will and vigor.

Today, I wish to reaffirm America's commitment to the Atlantic Alliance and our resolve to sustain the peace. And from my conversations with allied leaders, I know that they also remain true to this tried and proven course.

NATO's policy of peace is based on restraint and balance. No NATO weapons, conventional or nuclear, will ever be used in Europe except in response to attack. NATO's defense plans have been responsible and restrained. The Allies remain strong, united, and resolute. But the momentum of the continuing Soviet military buildup threatens both the conventional and the nuclear balance.

Consider the facts. Over the past decade, the United States reduced the size of its Armed Forces and decreased its military spending. The Soviets steadily increased the number of men under arms. They now number more than double those of the United States. Over the same period, the Soviets expanded their real military spending by about one-third. The Soviet Union increased its inventory of tanks to some 50,000, compared to our 11,000. Historically a land power, they transformed their navy from a coastal defense force to an open ocean fleet, while the United States, a sea power with transoceanic alliances, cut its fleet in half.

During a period when NATO deployed no new intermediate-range nuclear missiles and actually withdrew 1,000 nuclear warheads, the Soviet Union deployed more than 750 nuclear warheads on the new SS - 20 missiles alone.

Our response to this relentless buildup of Soviet military power has been restrained but firm. We have made decisions to strengthen all three legs of the strategic triad: sea-, land-, and air-based. We have proposed a defense program in the United States for the next 5 years which will remedy the neglect of the past decade and restore the eroding balance on which our security depends.

I would like to discuss more specifically the growing threat to Western Europe which is posed by the continuing deployment of certain Soviet intermediate-range nuclear missiles. The Soviet Union has three different type such missile systems: the SS - 20, the SS - 4, and the SS - 5, all with the range capable of reaching virtually all of Western Europe. There are other Soviet weapon systems which also represent a major threat.

Now, the only answer to these systems is a comparable threat to Soviet threats, to Soviet targets; in other words, a deterrent preventing the use of these Soviet weapons by the counterthreat of a like response against their own territory. At present, however, there is no equivalent deterrent to these Soviet intermediate missiles. And the Soviets continue to add one new SS - 20 a week.

To counter this, the Allies agreed in 1979, as part of a two-track decision, to deploy as a deterrent land-based cruise missiles and Pershing II missiles capable of reaching targets in the Soviet Union. These missiles are to be deployed in several countries of Western Europe. This relatively limited force in no way serves as a substitute for the much larger strategic umbrella spread over our NATO Allies. Rather, it provides a vital link between conventional shorter-range nuclear forces in Europe and intercontinental forces in the United States.

Deployment of these systems will demonstrate to the Soviet Union that this link cannot be broken. Deterring war depends on the perceived ability of our forces to perform effectively. The more effective our forces are, the less likely it is that we'll have to use them. So, we and our allies are proceeding to modernize NATO's nuclear forces of intermediate range to meet increased Soviet deployments of nuclear systems threatening Western Europe.

Let me turn now to our hopes for arms control negotiations. There's a tendency to make this entire subject overly complex. I want to be clear and concise. I told you of the letter I wrote to President Brezhnev last April. Well, I've just sent another message to the Soviet leadership. It's a simple, straightforward, yet, historic message. The United States proposes the mutual reduction of conventional intermediate-range nuclear and strategic forces. Specifically, I have proposed a four-point agenda to achieve this objective in my letter to President Brezhnev.

The first and most important point concerns the Geneva negotiations. As part of the 1979 two-track decision, NATO made a commitment to seek arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union on intermediate range nuclear forces. The United States has been preparing for these negotiations through close consultation with our NATO partners.

We're now ready to set forth our proposal. I have informed President Brezhnev that when our delegation travels to the negotiations on intermediate range, land-based nuclear missiles in Geneva on the 30th of this month, my representatives will present the following proposal: The United States is prepared to cancel its deployment of Pershing II and ground-launch cruise missiles if the Soviets will dismantle their SS - 20, SS - 4, and SS - 5 missiles. This would be an historic step. With Soviet agreement, we could together substantially reduce the dread threat of nuclear war which hangs over the people of Europe. This, like the first footstep on the Moon, would be a giant step for mankind.

Now, we intend to negotiate in good faith and go to Geneva willing to listen to and consider the proposals of our Soviet counterparts, but let me call to your attention the background against which our proposal is made.

During the past 6 years while the United States deployed no new intermediate-range missiles and withdrew 1,000 nuclear warheads from Europe, the Soviet Union deployed 750 warheads on mobile, accurate ballistic missiles. They now have 1,100 warheads on the SS - 20s, SS - 4s and 5s. And the United States has no comparable missiles. Indeed, the United States dismantled the last such missile in Europe over 15 years ago.

As we look to the future of the negotiations, it's also important to address certain Soviet claims, which left unrefuted could become critical barriers to real progress in arms control.

The Soviets assert that a balance of intermediate range nuclear forces already exists. That assertion is wrong. By any objective measure, as this chart indicates, the Soviet Union has developed an increasingly overwhelming advantage. They now enjoy a superiority on the order of six to one. The red is the Soviet buildup; the blue is our own. That is 1975, and that is 1981.

Now, Soviet spokesmen have suggested that moving their SS - 20s behind the Ural Mountains will remove the threat to Europe. Well, as this map demonstrates, the SS - 20s, even if deployed behind the Urals, will have a range that puts almost all of Western Europe -- the great cities -- Rome, Athens, Paris, London, Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin, and so many more -- all of Scandinavia, all of the Middle East, all of northern Africa, all within range of these missiles which, incidentally, are mobile and can be moved on shorter notice. These little images mark the present location which would give them a range clear out into the Atlantic.

The second proposal that I've made to President Brezhnev concerns strategic weapons. The United States proposes to open negotiations on strategic arms as soon as possible next year.

I have instructed Secretary Haig to discuss the timing of such meetings with Soviet representatives. Substance, however, is far more important than timing. As our proposal for the Geneva talks this month illustrates, we can make proposals for genuinely serious reductions, but only if we take the time to prepare carefully.

The United States has been preparing carefully for resumption of strategic arms negotiations because we don't want a repetition of past disappointments. We don't want an arms control process that sends hopes soaring only to end in dashed expectations.

Now, I have informed President Brezhnev that we will seek to negotiate substantial reductions in nuclear arms which would result in levels that are equal and verifiable. Our approach to verification will be to emphasize openness and creativity, rather than the secrecy and suspicion which have undermined confidence in arms control in the past.

While we can hope to benefit from work done over the past decade in strategic arms negotiations, let us agree to do more than simply begin where these previous efforts left off. We can and should attempt major qualitative and quantitative progress. Only such progress can fulfill the hopes of our own people and the rest of the world. And let us see how far we can go in achieving truly substantial reductions in our strategic arsenals.

To symbolize this fundamental change in direction, we will call these negotiations START -- Strategic Arms Reduction Talks.

The third proposal I've made to the Soviet Union is that we act to achieve equality at lower levels of conventional forces in Europe. The defense needs of the Soviet Union hardly call for maintaining more combat divisions in East Germany today than were in the whole Allied invasion force that landed in Normandy on D-Day. The Soviet Union could make no more convincing contribution to peace in Europe, and in the world, than by agreeing to reduce its conventional forces significantly and constrain the potential for sudden aggression.

Finally, I have pointed out to President Brezhnev that to maintain peace we must reduce the risks of surprise attack and the chance of war arising out of uncertainty or miscalculation.

I am renewing our proposal for a conference to develop effective measures that would reduce these dangers. At the current Madrid meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, we're laying the foundation for a Western-proposed conference on disarmament in Europe. This conference would discuss new measures to enhance stability and security in Europe. Agreement in this conference is within reach. I urge the Soviet Union to join us and many other nations who are ready to launch this important enterprise.

All of these proposals are based on the same fair-minded principles -- substantial, militarily significant reduction in forces, equal ceilings for similar types of forces, and adequate provisions for verification.

My administration, our country, and I are committed to achieving arms reductions agreements based on these principles. Today I have outlined the kinds of bold, equitable proposals which the world expects of us. But we cannot reduce arms unilaterally. Success can only come if the Soviet Union will share our commitment, if it will demonstrate that its often-repeated professions of concern for peace will be matched by positive action.

Preservation of peace in Europe and the pursuit of arms reduction talks are of fundamental importance. But we must also help to bring peace and security to regions now torn by conflict, external intervention, and war.

The American concept of peace goes well beyond the absence of war. We foresee a flowering of economic growth and individual liberty in a world at peace.

At the economic summit conference in Cancun, I met with the leaders of 21 nations and sketched out our approach to global economic growth. We want to eliminate the barriers to trade and investment which hinder these critical incentives to growth, and we're working to develop new programs to help the poorest nations achieve self-sustaining growth.

And terms like ``peace'' and ``security'', we have to say, have little meaning for the oppressed and the destitute. They also mean little to the individual whose state has stripped him of human freedom and dignity. Wherever there is oppression, we must strive for the peace and security of individuals as well as states. We must recognize that progress and the pursuit of liberty is a necessary complement to military security. Nowhere has this fundamental truth been more boldly and clearly stated than in the Helsinki Accords of 1975. These accords have not yet been translated into living reality.

Today I've announced an agenda that can help to achieve peace, security, and freedom across the globe. In particular, I have made an important offer to forego entirely deployment of new American missiles in Europe if the Soviet Union is prepared to respond on an equal footing.

There is no reason why people in any part of the world should have to live in permanent fear of war or its spectre. I believe the time has come for all nations to act in a responsible spirit that doesn't threaten other states. I believe the time is right to move forward on arms control and the resolution of critical regional disputes at the conference table. Nothing will have a higher priority for me and for the American people over the coming months and years.

Addressing the United Nations 20 years ago, another American President described the goal that we still pursue today. He said, ``If we all can persevere, if we can look beyond our shores and ambitions, then surely the age will dawn in which the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.''

He didn't live to see that goal achieved. I invite all nations to join with America today in the quest for such a world.

Thank you.

Address to the Nation About Christmas and the Situation in Poland
December 23, 1981


Good evening.

At Christmas time, every home takes on a special beauty, a special warmth, and that's certainly true of the White House, where so many famous Americans have spent their Christmases over the years. This fine old home, the people's house, has seen so much, been so much a part of all our lives and history. It's been humbling and inspiring for Nancy and me to be spending our first Christmas in this place.

We've lived here as your tenants for almost a year now, and what a year it's been. As a people we've been through quite a lot -- moments of joy, of tragedy, and of real achievement -- moments that I believe have brought us all closer together. G. K. Chesterton once said that the world would never starve for wonders, but only for the want of wonder.

At this special time of year, we all renew our sense of wonder in recalling the story of the first Christmas in Bethlehem, nearly 2,000 year ago.

Some celebrate Christmas as the birthday of a great and good philosopher and teacher. Others of us believe in the divinity of the child born in Bethlehem, that he was and is the promised Prince of Peace. Yes, we've questioned why he who could perform miracles chose to come among us as a helpless babe, but maybe that was his first miracle, his first great lesson that we should learn to care for one another.

Tonight, in millions of American homes, the glow of the Christmas tree is a reflection of the love Jesus taught us. Like the shepherds and wise men of that first Christmas, we Americans have always tried to follow a higher light, a star, if you will. At lonely campfire vigils along the frontier, in the darkest days of the Great Depression, through war and peace, the twin beacons of faith and freedom have brightened the American sky. At times our footsteps may have faltered, but trusting in God's help, we've never lost our way.

Just across the way from the White House stand the two great emblems of the holiday season: a Menorah, symbolizing the Jewish festival of Hanukkah, and the National Christmas Tree, a beautiful towering blue spruce from Pennsylvania. Like the National Christmas Tree, our country is a living, growing thing planted in rich American soil. Only our devoted care can bring it to full flower. So, let this holiday season be for us a time of rededication.

Even as we rejoice, however, let us remember that for some Americans, this will not be as happy a Christmas as it should be. I know a little of what they feel. I remember one Christmas Eve during the Great Depression, my father opening what he thought was a Christmas greeting. It was a notice that he no longer had a job.

Over the past year, we've begun the long, hard work of economic recovery. Our goal is an America in which every citizen who needs and wants a job can get a job. Our program for recovery has only been in place for 12 weeks now, but it is beginning to work. With your help and prayers, it will succeed. We're winning the battle against inflation, runaway government spending and taxation, and that victory will mean more economic growth, more jobs, and more opportunity for all Americans.

A few months before he took up residence in this house, one of my predecessors, John Kennedy, tried to sum up the temper of the times with a quote from an author closely tied to Christmas, Charles Dickens. We were living, he said, in the best of times and the worst of times. Well, in some ways that's even more true today. The world is full of peril, as well as promise. Too many of its people, even now, live in the shadow of want and tyranny.

As I speak to you tonight, the fate of a proud and ancient nation hangs in the balance. For a thousand years, Christmas has been celebrated in Poland, a land of deep religious faith, but this Christmas brings little joy to the courageous Polish people. They have been betrayed by their own government.

The men who rule them and their totalitarian allies fear the very freedom that the Polish people cherish. They have answered the stirrings of liberty with brute force, killings, mass arrests, and the setting up of concentration camps. Lech Walesa and other Solidarity leaders are imprisoned, their fate unknown. Factories, mines, universities, and homes have been assaulted.

The Polish Government has trampled underfoot solemn commitments to the UN Charter and the Helsinki accords. It has even broken the Gdansk agreement of August 1980, by which the Polish Government recognized the basic right of its people to form free trade unions and to strike.

The tragic events now occurring in Poland, almost 2 years to the day after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, have been precipitated by public and secret pressure from the Soviet Union. It is no coincidence that Soviet Marshal Kulikov, chief of the Warsaw Pact forces, and other senior Red Army officers were in Poland while these outrages were being initiated. And it is no coincidence that the martial law proclamations imposed in December by the Polish Government were being printed in the Soviet Union in September.

The target of this depression [repression] is the Solidarity Movement, but in attacking Solidarity its enemies attack an entire people. Ten million of Poland's 36 million citizens are members of Solidarity. Taken together with their families, they account for the overwhelming majority of the Polish nation. By persecuting Solidarity the Polish Government wages war against its own people.

I urge the Polish Government and its allies to consider the consequences of their actions. How can they possibly justify using naked force to crush a people who ask for nothing more than the right to lead their own lives in freedom and dignity? Brute force may intimidate, but it cannot form the basis of an enduring society, and the ailing Polish economy cannot be rebuilt with terror tactics.

Poland needs cooperation between its government and its people, not military oppression. If the Polish Government will honor the commitments it has made to human rights in documents like the Gdansk agreement, we in America will gladly do our share to help the shattered Polish economy, just as we helped the countries of Europe after both World Wars.

It's ironic that we offered, and Poland expressed interest in accepting, our help after World War II. The Soviet Union intervened then and refused to allow such help to Poland. But if the forces of tyranny in Poland, and those who incite them from without, do not relent, they should prepare themselves for serious consequences. Already, throughout the Free World, citizens have publicly demonstrated their support for the Polish people. Our government, and those of our allies, have expressed moral revulsion at the police state tactics of Poland's oppressors. The Church has also spoken out, in spite of threats and intimidation. But our reaction cannot stop there.

I want emphatically to state tonight that if the outrages in Poland do not cease, we cannot and will not conduct ``business as usual'' with the perpetrators and those who aid and abet them. Make no mistake, their crime will cost them dearly in their future dealings with America and free peoples everywhere. I do not make this statement lightly or without serious reflection.

We have been measured and deliberate in our reaction to the tragic events in Poland. We have not acted in haste, and the steps I will outline tonight and others we may take in the days ahead are firm, just, and reasonable.

In order to aid the suffering Polish people during this critical period, we will continue the shipment of food through private humanitarian channels, but only so long as we know that the Polish people themselves receive the food. The neighboring country of Austria has opened her doors to refugees from Poland. I have therefore directed that American assistance, including supplies of basic foodstuffs, be offered to aid the Austrians in providing for these refugees.

But to underscore our fundamental opposition to the repressive actions taken by the Polish Government against its own people, the administration has suspended all government-sponsored shipments of agricultural and dairy products to the Polish Government. This suspension will remain in force until absolute assurances are received that distribution of these products is monitored and guaranteed by independent agencies. We must be sure that every bit of food provided by America goes to the Polish people, not to their oppressors.

The United States is taking immediate action to suspend major elements of our economic relationships with the Polish Government. We have halted the renewal of the Export-Import Bank's line of export credit insurance to the Polish Government. We will suspend Polish civil aviation privileges in the United States. We are suspending the right of Poland's fishing fleet to operate in American waters. And we're proposing to our allies the further restriction of high technology exports to Poland.

These actions are not directed against the Polish people. They are a warning to the Government of Poland that free men cannot and will not stand idly by in the face of brutal repression. To underscore this point, I've written a letter to General Jaruzelski, head of the Polish Government. In it, I outlined the steps we're taking and warned of the serious consequences if the Polish Government continues to use violence against its populace. I've urged him to free those in arbitrary detention, to lift martial law, and to restore the internationally recognized rights of the Polish people to free speech and association.

The Soviet Union, through its threats and pressures, deserves a major share of blame for the developments in Poland. So, I have also sent a letter to President Brezhnev urging him to permit the restoration of basic human rights in Poland provided for in the Helsinki Final Act. In it, I informed him that if this repression continues, the United States will have no choice but to take further concrete political and economic measures affecting our relationship.

When 19th century Polish patriots rose against foreign oppressors, their rallying cry was, ``For our freedom and yours.'' Well, that motto still rings true in our time. There is a spirit of solidarity abroad in the world tonight that no physical force can crush. It crosses national boundaries and enters into the hearts of men and women everywhere. In factories, farms, and schools, in cities and towns around the globe, we the people of the Free World stand as one with our Polish brothers and sisters. Their cause is ours, and our prayers and hopes go out to them this Christmas.

Yesterday, I met in this very room with Romuald Spasowski, the distinguished former Polish Ambassador who has sought asylum in our country in protest of the suppression of his native land. He told me that one of the ways the Polish people have demonstrated their solidarity in the face of martial law is by placing lighted candles in their windows to show that the light of liberty still glows in their hearts.

Ambassador Spasowski requested that on Christmas Eve a lighted candle will burn in the White House window as a small but certain beacon of our solidarity with the Polish people. I urge all of you to do the same tomorrow night, on Christmas Eve, as a personal statement of your commitment to the steps we're taking to support the brave people of Poland in their time of troubles.

Once, earlier in this century, an evil influence threatened that the lights were going out all over the world. Let the light of millions of candles in American homes give notice that the light of freedom is not going to be extinguished. We are blessed with a freedom and abundance denied to so many. Let those candles remind us that these blessings bring with them a solid obligation, an obligation to the God who guides us, an obligation to the heritage of liberty and dignity handed down to us by our forefathers and an obligation to the children of the world, whose future will be shaped by the way we live our lives today.

Christmas means so much because of one special child. But Christmas also reminds us that all children are special, that they are gifts from God, gifts beyond price that mean more than any presents money can buy. In their love and laughter, in our hopes for their future lies the true meaning of Christmas.

So, in a spirit of gratitude for what we've been able to achieve together over the past year and looking forward to all that we hope to achieve together in the years ahead, Nancy and I want to wish you all the best of holiday seasons. As Charles Dickens, whom I quoted a few moments ago, said so well in ``A Christmas Carol,'' ``God bless us, every one.''

Good night.
Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress Reporting on the State of the Union
January 26, 1982


Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Congress, honored guests, and fellow citizens:

Today marks my first State of the Union address to you, a constitutional duty as old as our Republic itself.

President Washington began this tradition in 1790 after reminding the Nation that the destiny of self-government and the ``preservation of the sacred fire of liberty'' is ``finally staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.'' For our friends in the press, who place a high premium on accuracy, let me say: I did not actually hear George Washington say that. [Laughter] But it is a matter of historic record. [Laughter]

But from this podium, Winston Churchill asked the free world to stand together against the onslaught of aggression. Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke of a day of infamy and summoned a nation to arms. Douglas MacArthur made an unforgettable farewell to a country he loved and served so well. Dwight Eisenhower reminded us that peace was purchased only at the price of strength. And John F. Kennedy spoke of the burden and glory that is freedom.

When I visited this Chamber last year as a newcomer to Washington, critical of past policies which I believed had failed, I proposed a new spirit of partnership between this Congress and this administration and between Washington and our State and local governments. In forging this new partnership for America, we could achieve the oldest hopes of our Republic -- prosperity for our nation, peace for the world, and the blessings of individual liberty for our children and, someday, for all of humanity.

It's my duty to report to you tonight on the progress that we have made in our relations with other nations, on the foundation we've carefully laid for our economic recovery, and finally, on a bold and spirited initiative that I believe can change the face of American government and make it again the servant of the people.

Seldom have the stakes been higher for America. What we do and say here will make all the difference to autoworkers in Detroit, lumberjacks in the Northwest, steelworkers in Steubenville who are in the unemployment lines; to black teenagers in Newark and Chicago; to hard-pressed farmers and small businessmen; and to millions of everyday Americans who harbor the simple wish of a safe and financially secure future for their children. To understand the state of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we're going but where we've been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous.

The last decade has seen a series of recessions. There was a recession in 1970, in 1974, and again in the spring of 1980. Each time, unemployment increased and inflation soon turned up again. We coined the word ``stagflation'' to describe this.

Government's response to these recessions was to pump up the money supply and increase spending. In the last 6 months of 1980, as an example, the money supply increased at the fastest rate in postwar history -- 13 percent. Inflation remained in double digits, and government spending increased at an annual rate of 17 percent. Interest rates reached a staggering 21\1/2\ percent. There were 8 million unemployed.

Late in 1981 we sank into the present recession, largely because continued high interest rates hurt the auto industry and construction. And there was a drop in productivity, and the already high unemployment increased.

This time, however, things are different. We have an economic program in place, completely different from the artificial quick fixes of the past. It calls for a reduction of the rate of increase in government spending, and already that rate has been cut nearly in half. But reduced spending alone isn't enough. We've just implemented the first and smallest phase of a 3-year tax-rate reduction designed to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Already interest rates are down to 15\3/4\ percent, but they must still go lower. Inflation is down from 12.4 percent to 8.9, and for the month of December it was running at an annualized rate of 5.2 percent. If we had not acted as we did, things would be far worse for all Americans than they are today. Inflation, taxes, and interest rates would all be higher.

A year ago, Americans' faith in their governmental process was steadily declining. Six out of 10 Americans were saying they were pessimistic about their future. A new kind of defeatism was heard. Some said our domestic problems were uncontrollable, that we had to learn to live with this seemingly endless cycle of high inflation and high unemployment.

There were also pessimistic predictions about the relationship between our administration and this Congress. It was said we could never work together. Well, those predictions were wrong. The record is clear, and I believe that history will remember this as an era of American renewal, remember this administration as an administration of change, and remember this Congress as a Congress of destiny.

Together, we not only cut the increase in government spending nearly in half, we brought about the largest tax reductions and the most sweeping changes in our tax structure since the beginning of this century. And because we indexed future taxes to the rate of inflation, we took away government's built-in profit on inflation and its hidden incentive to grow larger at the expense of American workers.

Together, after 50 years of taking power away from the hands of the people in their States and local communities, we have started returning power and resources to them.

Together, we have cut the growth of new Federal regulations nearly in half. In 1981 there were 23,000 fewer pages in the Federal Register, which lists new regulations, than there were in 1980. By deregulating oil we've come closer to achieving energy independence and helped bring down the cost of gasoline and heating fuel.

Together, we have created an effective Federal strike force to combat waste and fraud in government. In just 6 months it has saved the taxpayers more than $2 billion, and it's only getting started.

Together we've begun to mobilize the private sector, not to duplicate wasteful and discredited government programs, but to bring thousands of Americans into a volunteer effort to help solve many of America's social problems.

Together we've begun to restore that margin of military safety that ensures peace. Our country's uniform is being worn once again with pride.

Together we have made a New Beginning, but we have only begun.

No one pretends that the way ahead will be easy. In my Inaugural Address last year, I warned that the ``ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away . . . because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we've had it in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.''

The economy will face difficult moments in the months ahead. But the program for economic recovery that is in place will pull the economy out of its slump and put us on the road to prosperity and stable growth by the latter half of this year. And that is why I can report to you tonight that in the near future the state of the Union and the economy will be better -- much better -- if we summon the strength to continue on the course that we've charted.

And so, the question: If the fundamentals are in place, what now? Well, two things. First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting underway, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax and spend and spend.

Second, because our economic problems are deeply rooted and will not respond to quick political fixes, we must stick to our carefully integrated plan for recovery. That plan is based on four commonsense fundamentals: continued reduction of the growth in Federal spending; preserving the individual and business tax reductions that will stimulate saving and investment; removing unnecessary Federal regulations to spark productivity; and maintaining a healthy dollar and a stable monetary policy, the latter a responsibility of the Federal Reserve System.

The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment. The doubters would have us turn back the clock with tax increases that would offset the personal tax-rate reductions already passed by this Congress. Raise present taxes to cut future deficits, they tell us. Well, I don't believe we should buy that argument.

There are too many imponderables for anyone to predict deficits or surpluses several years ahead with any degree of accuracy. The budget in place, when I took office, had been projected as balanced. It turned out to have one of the biggest deficits in history. Another example of the imponderables that can make deficit projections highly questionable -- a change of only one percentage point in unemployment can alter a deficit up or down by some $25 billion.

As it now stands, our forecast, which we're required by law to make, will show major deficits starting at less than a hundred billion dollars and declining, but still too high. More important, we're making progress with the three keys to reducing deficits: economic growth, lower interest rates, and spending control. The policies we have in place will reduce the deficit steadily, surely, and in time, completely.

Higher taxes would not mean lower deficits. If they did, how would we explain that tax revenues more than doubled just since 1976; yet in that same 6-year period we ran the largest series of deficits in our history. In 1980 tax revenues increased by $54 billion, and in 1980 we had one of our alltime biggest deficits. Raising taxes won't balance the budget; it will encourage more government spending and less private investment. Raising taxes will slow economic growth, reduce production, and destroy future jobs, making it more difficult for those without jobs to find them and more likely that those who now have jobs could lose them. So, I will not ask you to try to balance the budget on the backs of the American taxpayers.

I will seek no tax increases this year, and I have no intention of retreating from our basic program of tax relief. I promise to bring the American people -- to bring their tax rates down and to keep them down, to provide them incentives to rebuild our economy, to save, to invest in America's future. I will stand by my word. Tonight I'm urging the American people: Seize these new opportunities to produce, to save, to invest, and together we'll make this economy a mighty engine of freedom, hope, and prosperity again.

Now, the budget deficit this year will exceed our earlier expectations. The recession did that. It lowered revenues and increased costs. To some extent, we're also victims of our own success. We've brought inflation down faster than we thought we could, and in doing this, we've deprived government of those hidden revenues that occur when inflation pushes people into higher income tax brackets. And the continued high interest rates last year cost the government about $5 billion more than anticipated.

We must cut out more nonessential government spending and rout out more waste, and we will continue our efforts to reduce the number of employees in the Federal work force by 75,000.

The budget plan I submit to you on February 8th will realize major savings by dismantling the Departments of Energy and Education and by eliminating ineffective subsidies for business. We'll continue to redirect our resources to our two highest budget priorities -- a strong national defense to keep America free and at peace and a reliable safety net of social programs for those who have contributed and those who are in need.

Contrary to some of the wild charges you may have heard, this administration has not and will not turn its back on America's elderly or America's poor. Under the new budget, funding for social insurance programs will be more than double the amount spent only 6 years ago. But it would be foolish to pretend that these or any programs cannot be made more efficient and economical.

The entitlement programs that make up our safety net for the truly needy have worthy goals and many deserving recipients. We will protect them. But there's only one way to see to it that these programs really help those whom they were designed to help. And that is to bring their spiraling costs under control.

Today we face the absurd situation of a Federal budget with three-quarters of its expenditures routinely referred to as ``uncontrollable.'' And a large part of this goes to entitlement programs.

Committee after committee of this Congress has heard witness after witness describe many of these programs as poorly administered and rife with waste and fraud. Virtually every American who shops in a local supermarket is aware of the daily abuses that take place in the food stamp program, which has grown by 16,000 percent in the last 15 years. Another example is Medicare and Medicaid -- programs with worthy goals but whose costs have increased from 11.2 billion to almost 60 billion, more than 5 times as much, in just 10 years.

Waste and fraud are serious problems. Back in 1980 Federal investigators testified before one of your committees that ``corruption has permeated virtually every area of the Medicare and Medicaid health care industry.'' One official said many of the people who are cheating the system were ``very confident that nothing was going to happen to them.'' Well, something is going to happen. Not only the taxpayers are defrauded; the people with real dependency on these programs are deprived of what they need, because available resources are going not to the needy, but to the greedy.

The time has come to control the uncontrollable. In August we made a start. I signed a bill to reduce the growth of these programs by $44 billion over the next 3 years while at the same time preserving essential services for the truly needy. Shortly you will receive from me a message on further reforms we intend to install -- some new, but others long recommended by your own congressional committees. I ask you to help make these savings for the American taxpayer.

The savings we propose in entitlement programs will total some $63 billion over 4 years and will, without affecting social security, go a long way toward bringing Federal spending under control.

But don't be fooled by those who proclaim that spending cuts will deprive the elderly, the needy, and the helpless. The Federal Government will still subsidize 95 million meals every day. That's one out of seven of all the meals served in America. Head Start, senior nutrition programs, and child welfare programs will not be cut from the levels we proposed last year. More than one-half billion dollars has been proposed for minority business assistance. And research at the National Institute of Health will be increased by over $100 million. While meeting all these needs, we intend to plug unwarranted tax loopholes and strengthen the law which requires all large corporations to pay a minimum tax.

I am confident the economic program we've put into operation will protect the needy while it triggers a recovery that will benefit all Americans. It will stimulate the economy, result in increased savings and provide capital for expansion, mortgages for homebuilding, and jobs for the unemployed.

Now that the essentials of that program are in place, our next major undertaking must be a program -- just as bold, just as innovative -- to make government again accountable to the people, to make our system of federalism work again.

Our citizens feel they've lost control of even the most basic decisions made about the essential services of government, such as schools, welfare, roads, and even garbage collection. And they're right. A maze of interlocking jurisdictions and levels of government confronts average citizens in trying to solve even the simplest of problems. They don't know where to turn for answers, who to hold accountable, who to praise, who to blame, who to vote for or against. The main reason for this is the overpowering growth of Federal grants-in-aid programs during the past few decades.

In 1960 the Federal Government had 132 categorical grant programs, costing $7 billion. When I took office, there were approximately 500, costing nearly a hundred billion dollars -- 13 programs for energy, 36 for pollution control, 66 for social services, 90 for education. And here in the Congress, it takes at least 166 committees just to try to keep track of them.

You know and I know that neither the President nor the Congress can properly oversee this jungle of grants-in-aid; indeed, the growth of these grants has led to the distortion in the vital functions of government. As one Democratic Governor put it recently: The National Government should be worrying about ``arms control, not potholes.''

The growth in these Federal programs has -- in the words of one intergovernmental commission -- made the Federal Government ``more pervasive, more intrusive, more unmanageable, more ineffective and costly, and above all, more [un]accountable.'' Let's solve this problem with a single, bold stroke: the return of some $47 billion in Federal programs to State and local government, together with the means to finance them and a transition period of nearly 10 years to avoid unnecessary disruption.

I will shortly send this Congress a message describing this program. I want to emphasize, however, that its full details will have been worked out only after close consultation with congressional, State, and local officials.

Starting in fiscal 1984, the Federal Government will assume full responsibility for the cost of the rapidly growing Medicaid program to go along with its existing responsibility for Medicare. As part of a financially equal swap, the States will simultaneously take full responsibility for Aid to Families with Dependent Children and food stamps. This will make welfare less costly and more responsive to genuine need, because it'll be designed and administered closer to the grassroots and the people it serves.

In 1984 the Federal Government will apply the full proceeds from certain excise taxes to a grassroots trust fund that will belong in fair shares to the 50 States. The total amount flowing into this fund will be $28 billion a year. Over the next 4 years the States can use this money in either of two ways. If they want to continue receiving Federal grants in such areas as transportation, education, and social services, they can use their trust fund money to pay for the grants. Or to the extent they choose to forgo the Federal grant programs, they can use their trust fund money on their own for those or other purposes. There will be a mandatory pass-through of part of these funds to local governments.

By 1988 the States will be in complete control of over 40 Federal grant programs. The trust fund will start to phase out, eventually to disappear, and the excise taxes will be turned over to the States. They can then preserve, lower, or raise taxes on their own and fund and manage these programs as they see fit.

In a single stroke we will be accomplishing a realignment that will end cumbersome administration and spiraling costs at the Federal level while we ensure these programs will be more responsive to both the people they're meant to help and the people who pay for them.

Hand in hand with this program to strengthen the discretion and flexibility of State and local governments, we're proposing legislation for an experimental effort to improve and develop our depressed urban areas in the 1980's and '90's. This legislation will permit States and localities to apply to the Federal Government for designation as urban enterprise zones. A broad range of special economic incentives in the zones will help attract new business, new jobs, new opportunity to America's inner cities and rural towns. Some will say our mission is to save free enterprise. Well, I say we must free enterprise so that together we can save America.

Some will also say our States and local communities are not up to the challenge of a new and creative partnership. Well, that might have been true 20 years ago before reforms like reapportionment and the Voting Rights Act, the 10-year extension of which I strongly support. It's no longer true today. This administration has faith in State and local governments and the constitutional balance envisioned by the Founding Fathers. We also believe in the integrity, decency, and sound, good sense of grassroots Americans.

Our faith in the American people is reflected in another major endeavor. Our private sector initiatives task force is seeking out successful community models of school, church, business, union, foundation, and civic programs that help community needs. Such groups are almost invariably far more efficient than government in running social programs.

We're not asking them to replace discarded and often discredited government programs dollar for dollar, service for service. We just want to help them perform the good works they choose and help others to profit by their example. Three hundred and eighty-five thousand corporations and private organizations are already working on social programs ranging from drug rehabilitation to job training, and thousands more Americans have written us asking how they can help. The volunteer spirit is still alive and well in America.

Our nation's long journey towards civil rights for all our citizens -- once a source of discord, now a source of pride -- must continue with no backsliding or slowing down. We must and shall see that those basic laws that guarantee equal rights are preserved and, when necessary, strengthened.

Our concern for equal rights for women is firm and unshakable. We launched a new Task Force on Legal Equity for Women and a Fifty States Project that will examine State laws for discriminatory language. And for the first time in our history, a woman sits on the highest court in the land.

So, too, the problem of crime -- one as real and deadly serious as any in America today. It demands that we seek transformation of our legal system, which overly protects the rights of criminals while it leaves society and the innocent victims of crime without justice.

We look forward to the enactment of a responsible clean air act to increase jobs while continuing to improve the quality of our air. We're encouraged by the bipartisan initiative of the House and are hopeful of further progress as the Senate continues its deliberations.

So far, I've concentrated largely, now, on domestic matters. To view the state of the Union in perspective, we must not ignore the rest of the world. There isn't time tonight for a lengthy treatment of social -- or foreign policy, I should say, a subject I intend to address in detail in the near future. A few words, however, are in order on the progress we've made over the past year, reestablishing respect for our nation around the globe and some of the challenges and goals that we will approach in the year ahead.

At Ottawa and Cancun, I met with leaders of the major industrial powers and developing nations. Now, some of those I met with were a little surprised that I didn't apologize for America's wealth. Instead, I spoke of the strength of the free marketplace system and how that system could help them realize their aspirations for economic development and political freedom. I believe lasting friendships were made, and the foundation was laid for future cooperation.

In the vital region of the Caribbean Basin, we're developing a program of aid, trade, and investment incentives to promote self-sustaining growth and a better, more secure life for our neighbors to the south. Toward those who would export terrorism and subversion in the Caribbean and elsewhere, especially Cuba and Libya, we will act with firmness.

Our foreign policy is a policy of strength, fairness, and balance. By restoring America's military credibility, by pursuing peace at the negotiating table wherever both sides are willing to sit down in good faith, and by regaining the respect of America's allies and adversaries alike, we have strengthened our country's position as a force for peace and progress in the world.

When action is called for, we're taking it. Our sanctions against the military dictatorship that has attempted to crush human rights in Poland -- and against the Soviet regime behind that military dictatorship -- clearly demonstrated to the world that America will not conduct ``business as usual'' with the forces of oppression. If the events in Poland continue to deteriorate, further measures will follow.

Now, let me also note that private American groups have taken the lead in making January 30th a day of solidarity with the people of Poland. So, too, the European Parliament has called for March 21st to be an international day of support for Afghanistan. Well, I urge all peace-loving peoples to join together on those days, to raise their voices, to speak and pray for freedom.

Meanwhile, we're working for reduction of arms and military activities, as I announced in my address to the Nation last November 18th. We have proposed to the Soviet Union a far-reaching agenda for mutual reduction of military forces and have already initiated negotiations with them in Geneva on intermediate-range nuclear forces. In those talks it is essential that we negotiate from a position of strength. There must be a real incentive for the Soviets to take these talks seriously. This requires that we rebuild our defenses.

In the last decade, while we sought the moderation of Soviet power through a process of restraint and accommodation, the Soviets engaged in an unrelenting buildup of their military forces. The protection of our national security has required that we undertake a substantial program to enhance our military forces.

We have not neglected to strengthen our traditional alliances in Europe and Asia, or to develop key relationships with our partners in the Middle East and other countries. Building a more peaceful world requires a sound strategy and the national resolve to back it up. When radical forces threaten our friends, when economic misfortune creates conditions of instability, when strategically vital parts of the world fall under the shadow of Soviet power, our response can make the difference between peaceful change or disorder and violence. That's why we've laid such stress not only on our own defense but on our vital foreign assistance program. Your recent passage of the Foreign Assistance Act sent a signal to the world that America will not shrink from making the investments necessary for both peace and security. Our foreign policy must be rooted in realism, not naivete or self-delusion.

A recognition of what the Soviet empire is about is the starting point. Winston Churchill, in negotiating with the Soviets, observed that they respect only strength and resolve in their dealings with other nations. That's why we've moved to reconstruct our national defenses. We intend to keep the peace. We will also keep our freedom.

We have made pledges of a new frankness in our public statements and worldwide broadcasts. In the face of a climate of falsehood and misinformation, we've promised the world a season of truth -- the truth of our great civilized ideas: individual liberty, representative government, the rule of law under God. We've never needed walls or minefields or barbed wire to keep our people in. Nor do we declare martial law to keep our people from voting for the kind of government they want.

Yes, we have our problems; yes, we're in a time of recession. And it's true, there's no quick fix, as I said, to instantly end the tragic pain of unemployment. But we will end it. The process has already begun, and we'll see its effect as the year goes on.

We speak with pride and admiration of that little band of Americans who overcame insuperable odds to set this nation on course 200 years ago. But our glory didn't end with them. Americans ever since have emulated their deeds.

We don't have to turn to our history books for heroes. They're all around us. One who sits among you here tonight epitomized that heroism at the end of the longest imprisonment ever inflicted on men of our Armed Forces. Who will ever forget that night when we waited for television to bring us the scene of that first plane landing at Clark Field in the Philippines, bringing our POW's home? The plane door opened and Jeremiah Denton came slowly down the ramp. He caught sight of our flag, saluted it, said, ``God bless America,'' and then thanked us for bringing him home.

Just 2 weeks ago, in the midst of a terrible tragedy on the Potomac, we saw again the spirit of American heroism at its finest -- the heroism of dedicated rescue workers saving crash victims from icy waters. And we saw the heroism of one of our young government employees, Lenny Skutnik, who, when he saw a woman lose her grip on the helicopter line, dived into the water and dragged her to safety.

And then there are countless, quiet, everyday heroes of American life -- parents who sacrifice long and hard so their children will know a better life than they've known; church and civic volunteers who help to feed, clothe, nurse, and teach the needy; millions who've made our nation and our nation's destiny so very special -- unsung heroes who may not have realized their own dreams themselves but then who reinvest those dreams in their children. Don't let anyone tell you that America's best days are behind her, that the American spirit has been vanquished. We've seen it triumph too often in our lives to stop believing in it now.

A hundred and twenty years ago, the greatest of all our Presidents delivered his second State of the Union message in this Chamber. ``We cannot escape history,'' Abraham Lincoln warned. ``We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves.'' The ``trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest [last] generation.''

Well, that President and that Congress did not fail the American people. Together they weathered the storm and preserved the Union. Let it be said of us that we, too, did not fail; that we, too, worked together to bring America through difficult times. Let us so conduct ourselves that two centuries from now, another Congress and another President, meeting in this Chamber as we are meeting, will speak of us with pride, saying that we met the test and preserved for them in their day the sacred flame of liberty -- this last, best hope of man on Earth.

God bless you, and thank you.

Address to the Nation on the Fiscal Year 1983 Federal Budget
April 29, 1982


Good evening:
My fellow Americans, you know the most important goal that all of us share tonight is economic recovery -- to see our factories reopening their gates, to see the unemployed return to their jobs, and every American enjoy the fruits of prosperity. To get our economy moving again, it's imperative that we enact a Federal budget that will bring down deficits and bring down interest rates.

I had hoped that when I addressed you tonight, it would be to give you the details of a bipartisan agreement on a budget and revenue plan for 1983. As you know, yesterday marked the end of a long series of discussions to help reach such an agreement. They ended, despite our best efforts to achieve a fair compromise. But before I discuss these talks and our plans for the future, let me give the background that led up to them.

In our budget proposal, we had continued the process we started last year of trying to get control of runaway government spending. Deficits over the last few decades have been literally built into the Federal structure. The rate of increase in spending was 17 percent when we took office. There's no way that government can pay for increases at that rate without gigantic tax increases each year or borrowing and adding to the national debt.

Now, this latter course has been followed for so many years that we now have a trillion-dollar debt. To give you some idea of how much a trillion is, if we started paying off the debt at a billion dollars a year, it would take a thousand years to wipe it out.

Now, if I may, let me take you back a little. In 1977, when the previous administration took office, inflation was 4.8 percent. It rose steadily, and in 1979 and '80 we had 2 years of back-to-back double-digit inflation. Unemployment started to increase, and by 1980 we were in a recession with nearly 8 million unemployed, inflation at 12.4 percent, and interest rates at 21\1/2\ percent. As those interest rates continued, home construction and automobiles were hard hit, because few could afford to take out a mortgage or buy a car on time. Unemployment continued to increase.

The 1981 budget was already in place when our administration began, and while we managed to effect several billions of dollars savings during the balance of the fiscal year, there was nothing we could do but set our sights on the 1982 budget, which would be our first. We had to reduce the built-in rate of increase. At the same time, we had to reduce the share of the people's earnings the government was taking in taxes.

Now, this may sound strange in view of the increased spending, and it was contrary to the philosophy of the Democratic leadership. But high taxes, destroying incentive, had contributed to reduced productivity and a reduction in savings, which left us without the capital we needed for industrial expansion. And because government always finds a need for whatever money it gets, the cost of government continued to go up.

Between 1976 and 1981, Federal tax revenues increased by $300 billion. Deficits ran $318 billion. There was no way we could get the rate of spending down to where it should be in one year. But our economic recovery program did manage to reduce the rate of increase in spending to nearly half of what it had been. We also proposed a 3-year program of tax rate reduction for individuals and for business. You helped us get both the reductions in spending and the tax reductions by letting your elected representatives know you wanted them.

During the debate on our economic program, we stated many times that there would have to be a second installment of budget reductions in 1983. That built-in, automatic spending increase I spoke of would otherwise give us a budget of $827 billion in '83, $918 billion in 1984, and more than a trillion in 1985.

What is our situation now, and how well have we done with our economic recovery program? Well, we're still in a recession, and unemployment has continued to go up, particularly in those areas affected by the troubles of the automobile and construction industries. Farmers, too, are hurt by the high interest rates. They borrow to plant and pay back at harvest, but that doesn't work when interest rates remain at too high a level. It is true, however, that those rates are down about a fifth from that high of 21\1/2\ percent. But they must come down some more, and they have every reason to, because that 12.4-percent inflation rate we inherited has been running at only 3.2 percent for the last 6 months. And last month, for the first time in 17 years, it dropped below zero. Prices actually went down.

Now, with all of this in mind, we introduced a budget for 1983 of $758 billion, lower than the built-in spending by a considerable amount. Still, it represented an increase over the '82 budget of 332 -- pardon me, $32 billion. Nevertheless, there were outraged screams of protest, and you were led to believe that we were actually proposing less spending than the present level. There's been an insistent drumbeat, aided by special-interest groups charging that our budget would deprive the needy, the handicapped, and the elderly of the necessities of life. I'm sure many of these people were sincere, well intentioned, but also misinformed.

Our original budget proposal would have funded 95 million meals a day for the needy, provided medical care for 47 million Americans, subsidized housing for about 10 million people. In addition, there would be 7 million loans and grants for college students, of which there are 11 million full-time. Social security, which was $122 billion in 1980, will be $188 billion in 1983.

But the drumbeat was too loud. Many in Congress criticized that budget and demanded that we send up a new one. Well, we worked many months with the Cabinet on the one we submitted and believed it could fulfill government's responsibility to those who, through no fault of their own, had to depend on their fellow citizens for help. Besides, I felt that some workable alternative to ours should have been suggested by our critics so we could begin arriving at a consensus.

As the talk grew of stalemate, I asked my Chief of Staff, Jim Baker, to contact the congressional leadership of both Houses and see if some means couldn't be agreed upon in which the matter could be discussed, with the idea of finding an area of agreement. A bipartisan arrangement was made whereby the Senate had five representatives, the House of Representatives had seven, and the administration had five.

This group, which began to be called the ``Gang of 17,'' held its first meeting on April 1st, and its 13th and last the day before yesterday, April 27th. The rule they followed was that nothing was binding on Speaker O'Neill, Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, or myself. They would simply see if they could find enough agreement that actual negotiations seemed possible and practical. I, in turn, had told our representatives the areas I felt were nonnegotiable. They were that any changes in defense spending must not interfere with or delay our rebuilding of national security, and that spending must be significantly reduced, and that our tax reductions, adopted last year, must be preserved.

I received regular progress reports and was greatly encouraged. The Gang of 17 worked long, hard hours and deliberated in good faith. What they were doing couldn't really be called negotiation. That would come later. Speaker O'Neill referred to it once as ``dialoguery.''

Well, the projected deficits for the next 3 years continued to increase as the lower inflation rate reduced estimated revenues. Continued unemployment, which costs government about $25 billion for every added one percentage point, took its toll. And the persistent high interest rates added to the cost of government borrowing.

While I don't believe in the accuracy of long-range projections, we're required to acknowledge them in our budgeting. They stand at $182 billion for 1983, $216 billion in '84, and $233 billion in 1985 if we do nothing about reducing spending. Not only must those deficits be reduced, they must show a decline over the next 3 years, not an increase. Our goal must be a balanced budget. And our budget would have set us on that road. But, apparently, there was no meeting of the minds.

There's no question but that a difference in philosophy exists. While the Democratic leadership lamented about the deficit facing us, committees in the House of Representatives, controlled by them, were recommending increases above and beyond our proposed budget of more than $50 billion in higher spending. Apparently the philosophical difference between us is that they want more and more spending and more and more taxes. I believe we should have less spending, less taxes, and more prosperity.

There hasn't been too much opportunity in the last 40 years to see what our philosophy can do. But we know what theirs can do: the longest sustained inflation in history, the highest interest rates in a hundred years, eight recessions since World War II, and a trillion-dollar debt.

The day before yesterday, Jim Baker told me the group had decided they could come no closer to agreement than they were, and there would be no more meetings. So I called Speaker O'Neill and suggested we meet to take up where the Gang of 17 had left off. That meeting took place for more than 3 hours yesterday.

The worksheets of the committee showed that on our side our nondefense spending cuts had been reduced to about 60 percent of what we had originally proposed. There were some areas such as estimated savings from improved management practices which had been accepted. On the Democratic side they'd expressed a willingness to accept some cuts which they thought were a concession on their part inasmuch as they hadn't wanted any budget reductions except in defense.

On revenues we had originally proposed about $13 billion for next year, most of which could be obtained through changes in tax regulations. Some regulations have been regulated or interpreted in such a way as to provide tax advantages which were never intended. The group was discussing a figure of $25 billion, which meant actually increasing some taxes or passing new ones. Now, that figure would not have required eliminating or reducing the tax cuts in our economic recovery program. Still the $25 billion figure was almost double our original proposal.

In yesterday afternoon's meeting on Capitol Hill, Speaker O'Neill, Senator Howard Baker, myself, and five of the Gang of 17 participated. As I say, the figures on which the group had found some agreement were far from those we'd proposed in February. But I decided against trying to start the negotiations on the basis of that original budget. The most essential thing is to send a message to the money market that we, Democrats and Republicans alike, can agree on reducing the deficit and continuing to hold down inflation. Actually the Gang of 17 had come very close in their deliberations, and I was encouraged to believe that we could arrive at a settlement.

Our original cuts totaled $101 billion. They -- [referring to a chart] -- I can't make a big enough mark to show you -- but they were rejected, believe me. Our own representatives from the Congress proposed compromising at $60 billion. Their counterparts from the Democratic side of the aisle proposed 35. In our meeting yesterday, which went on for more than 3 hours, our compromise of $60 billion was rejected -- now my pen is working. And then I swallowed hard and volunteered to split the difference between our 60 and their 35 and settle for 48, and that was rejected. The meeting was over.

Now on this chart the red line is where we go in the next 3 years with regard to deficits if there is no compromise. It'll reach a deficit of $233 billion in 1985 alone, and as you can see, the line is still going up. And so will interest rates. The blue line is where we go if we settle on a reasonable compromise -- steadily down to a deficit by 1985 of only $44 billion. And you can see that a balanced budget is not far distant. And this blue line will, I'm convinced, start interest rates down from the moment there is agreement on the compromise.

It is essential that we have a prompt resolution of this budget debate. It is, of course, up to the Congress to act now. But I'll do everything I can to help in getting a prompt settlement. If American workers can show the statesmanship they've shown in redrawing their contracts to restrain their own wages to help in this time of recession, surely we in Washington can show some statesmanship, too.

I'm convinced we're in the trough, as it's called, of this recession and that we'll begin to see recovery in the second half of the year. There will be political pressure from some to turn on the printing presses and flood us with paper money. Well, that's been done before, and the answer is always the same -- a flush feeling for about 5 minutes, then more inflation leading toward a plunge into an even worse recession.

There is another road that leads to permanent recovery. It begins with a responsible budget now. In the coming days, I will do everything I can to help the Congress achieve this vital goal. And you can help, too, by letting your representatives know that you think this is no time for "politics as usual"; that you, too, want an end to runaway taxes, spending, government debt, and high interest rates.

Tomorrow I will meet with Republican members of the Gang of 17 to forge the beginnings of an acceptable budget initiative. On Monday I will meet with the full Republican leadership and with members of the Senate and House Budget Committees. I will also consult with responsible members of the Democratic Party in the Congress to make this a truly bipartisan effort in the national interest.

But our efforts must not stop there. Once we've achieved a balanced budget -- and we will -- I want to ensure that we keep it for many long years after I've left office. And there's only one way to do that. So, tonight I am asking the Congress to pass as soon as possible a constitutional amendment to require balanced Federal budgets.

This amendment will, of course, have to be ratified by three-fourths of the States. But I'm confident that the grassroots support for a balanced budget amendment is out there and will carry the day against the special interests. Most Americans understand the need for a balanced budget, and most Americans have seen how difficult it is for the Congress to withstand the pressures for more spending. This amendment will force government to stay within the limit of its revenues. Government will have to do what each of us does with our own family budgets -- spend no more than we can afford.

Only a constitutional amendment will do the job. We've tried the carrot, and it failed. With the stick of a balanced budget amendment, we can stop government squandering, overtaxing ways, and save our economy.

Time and again the American people -- you -- have worked wonders that have astounded the world. We've done it in war and peace, in good times and bad, because we're a people who care and who know how to pull together -- family by family, community by community, coast to coast -- to change things for the better. The success story of America is neighbor helping neighbor. So, tonight I ask for your help, your voice, at this turning point.

So often in history great causes have been won or lost at the last moment, because one side or the other lacked that last reserve of character and stamina, of faith and fortitude, to see the way through to success. Make your voice heard. Let your representatives know that you support the kind of fair, effective approach I have outlined for you tonight. Let them know you stand behind our recovery program. You did it once, you can do it again.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Address at Commencement Exercises at Eureka College, Eureka, Illinois
May 9, 1982


President Gilbert, trustees, administration and faculty, students, and the friends of Eureka College, and particularly those whose day this is, the graduating class of '82:
Dan, you said the 25th and now the 50th. Do you mind if I try for the 75th?[The President was commemorating the 50th anniversary of his graduation from Eureka College.]

But it goes without saying that this is a very special day for you who are graduating. Would you forgive me if I say it's a very special day for me also? Over the years since I sat where you, the graduating class of 1982, are now sitting, I've returned to the campus many times, always with great pleasure and warm nostalgia. Now, it just isn't true that I only came back this time to clean out my gym locker. [Laughter]

On one of those occasions, as you've been told, I addressed a graduating class here, ``'neath the elms,'' and was awarded an honorary degree. And at that time I informed those assembled that while I was grateful for the honor, it added to a feeling of guilt I'd been nursing for 25 years, because I always figured the first degree they gave me was honorary. [Laughter]

Now, if it's true that tradition is the glue holding civilization together, then Eureka has made its contribution to that effort. Yes, it is a small college in a small community. It's no impersonal, assembly-line diploma mill. As the years pass, if you have let yourselves absorb the spirit and tradition of this place, you'll find the 4 years you've spent here living in your memory as a rich and important part of your life.

Oh, you'll have some regrets along with the happy memories. I let football and other extracurricular activities eat into my study time with the result that my grade average was closer to the C level required for eligibility than it was to straight A's. And even now I wonder what I might have accomplished if I'd studied harder. [Laughter]

Now, I know there are differences between the Eureka College of 1932 and the Eureka of 1982, but I'm also sure that in many ways -- important ways -- Eureka remains the same. For one thing, it's impossible for you now to believe what I've said about things being the same. We who preceded you understand that very well, because when we were here, we thought old grads who came back only after 5 years -- not 50 -- couldn't understand what our life was like and what had taken place and changed. So, take my word for it. As the years go by, you'll be amazed at how fresh the memory of these years will remain in your minds, how easily you can relive the very emotions that you experienced.

The Class of '32 has no yearbook to record our final days on the campus. The Class of '33 didn't put out a Prism because of the hardships of that Great Depression era. The faculty sometimes went for months on end without pay. And yet this school made it possible for young men and women, myself included, to get an education even though we were totally without funds, our families destitute victims of the Depression. Yes, this place is deep in my heart. Everything that has been good in my life began here.

Graduation Day is called ``Commencement,'' and properly so, because it is both a recognition of completion and a beginning. And I would like, seriously, to talk to you about this new phase -- the society in which you're now going to take your place as full-time participants. You're no longer observers. You'll be called upon to make decisions and express your views on global events, because those events will affect your lives.

I've spoken of similarities, and the 1980's like the 1930's may be one of those -- a crucial juncture in history that will determine the direction of the future.

In about a month I will meet in Europe with the leaders of nations who are our closest friends and allies. At Versailles, leaders of the industrial powers of the world will seek better ways to meet today's economic challenges. In Bonn, I will join my colleagues from the Atlantic Alliance nations to renew those ties which have been the foundation of Western, free-world defense for 37 years. There will also be meetings in Rome and London.

Now, these meetings are significant for a simple but very important reason: Our own nation's fate is directly linked to that of our sister democracies in Western Europe. The values for which America and all democratic nations stand represent the culmination of Western culture. Andrei Sakharov, the distinguished Nobel Laureate and courageous Soviet human rights advocate, has written in a message smuggled to freedom, ``I believe in Western man. I have faith in his mind which is practical and efficient and, at the same time, aspires to great goals. I have faith in his good intentions and in his decisiveness.''

This glorious tradition requires a partnership to preserve and protect it. Only as partners can we hope to achieve the goal of a peaceful community of nations. Only as partners can we defend the values of democracy and human dignity that we hold so dear.

There's a single, major issue in our partnership which will underlie the discussions that I will have with the European leaders: the future of Western relations with the Soviet Union. How should we deal with the Soviet Union in the years ahead? What framework should guide our conduct and our policies toward it? And what can we realistically expect from a world power of such deep fears, hostilities, and external ambitions?

I believe the unity of the West is the foundation for any successful relationship with the East. Without Western unity, we'll squander our energies in bickering while the Soviets continue as they please. With unity, we have the strength to moderate Soviet behavior. We've done so in the past, and we can do so again.

Our challenge is to establish a framework in which sound East-West relations will endure. I'm optimistic that we can build a more constructive relationship with the Soviet Union. To do so, however, we must understand the nature of the Soviet system and the lessons of the past.

The Soviet Union is a huge empire ruled by an elite that holds all power and all privilege, and they hold it tightly because, as we've seen in Poland, they fear what might happen if even the smallest amount of control slips from their grasp. They fear the infectiousness of even a little freedom, and because of this in many ways their system has failed. The Soviet empire is faltering because it is rigid -- centralized control has destroyed incentives for innovation, efficiency, and individual achievement. Spiritually, there is a sense of malaise and resentment.

But in the midst of social and economic problems, the Soviet dictatorship has forged the largest armed force in the world. It has done so by preempting the human needs of its people, and, in the end, this course will undermine the foundations of the Soviet system. Harry Truman was right when he said of the Soviets that, ``When you try to conquer other people or extend yourself over vast areas you cannot win in the long run.''

Yet Soviet aggressiveness has grown as Soviet military power has increased. To compensate, we must learn from the lessons of the past. When the West has stood unified and firm, the Soviet Union has taken heed. For 35 years Western Europe has lived free despite the shadow of Soviet military might. Through unity, you'll remember from your modern history courses, the West secured the withdrawal of occupation forces from Austria and the recognition of its rights in Berlin.

Other Western policies have not been successful. East-West trade was expanded in hope of providing incentives for Soviet restraint, but the Soviets exploited the benefits of trade without moderating their behavior. Despite a decade of ambitious arms control efforts, the Soviet buildup continues. And despite its signature of the Helsinki agreements on human rights, the Soviet Union has not relaxed its hold on its own people or those of Western [Eastern] Europe.

During the 1970's, some of us forgot the warning of President Kennedy, who said that the Soviets ``have offered to trade us an apple for an orchard. We don't do that in this country.'' But we came perilously close to doing just that.

If East-West relations in the detente era in Europe have yielded disappointment, detente outside of Europe has yielded a severe disillusionment for those who expected a moderation of Soviet behavior. The Soviet Union continues to support Vietnam in its occupation of Kampuchea and its massive military presence in Laos. It is engaged in a war of aggression against Afghanistan. Soviet proxy forces have brought instability and conflict to Africa and Central America.

We are now approaching an extremely important phase in East-West relations as the current Soviet leadership is succeeded by a new generation. Both the current and the new Soviet leadership should realize aggressive policies will meet a firm Western response. On the other hand, a Soviet leadership devoted to improving its people's lives, rather than expanding its armed conquests, will find a sympathetic partner in the West. The West will respond with expanded trade and other forms of cooperation. But all of this depends on Soviet actions. Standing in the Athenian marketplace 2,000 years ago, Demosthenes said, ``What sane man would let another man's words rather than his deeds proclaim who is at peace and who is at war with him?''

Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means. I believe we can cope. I believe that the West can fashion a realistic, durable policy that will protect our interests and keep the peace, not just for this generation but for your children and your grandchildren.

I believe such a policy consists of five points: military balance, economic security, regional stability, arms reductions, and dialog. Now, these are the means by which we can seek peace with the Soviet Union in the years ahead. Today, I want to set this five-point program to guide the future of our East-West relations, set it out for all to hear and see.

First, a sound East-West military balance is absolutely essential. Last week NATO published a comprehensive comparison of its forces with those of the Warsaw Pact. Its message is clear: During the past decade, the Soviet Union has built up its forces across the board. During that same period, the defense expenditures of the United States declined in real terms. The United States has already undertaken steps to recover from that decade of neglect. And I should add that the expenditures of our European allies have increased slowly but steadily, something we often fail to recognize here at home.

The second point on which we must reach consensus with our allies deals with economic security. Consultations are under way among Western nations on the transfer of militarily significant technology and the extension of financial credits to the East, as well as on the question of energy dependence on the East, that energy dependence of Europe. We recognize that some of our allies' economic requirements are distinct from our own. But the Soviets must not have access to Western technology with military applications, and we must not subsidize the Soviet economy. The Soviet Union must make the difficult choices brought on by its military budgets and economic shortcomings.

The third element is regional stability with peaceful change. Last year, in a speech in Philadelphia and in the summit meetings at Cancun, I outlined the basic American plan to assist the developing world. These principles for economic development remain the foundation of our approach. They represent no threat to the Soviet Union. Yet in many areas of the developing world we find that Soviet arms and Soviet-supported troops are attempting to destabilize societies and extend Moscow's influence.

High on our agenda must be progress toward peace in Afghanistan. The United States is prepared to engage in a serious effort to negotiate an end to the conflict caused by the Soviet invasion of that country. We are ready to cooperate in an international effort to resolve this problem, to secure a full Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, and to ensure self-determination for the Afghan people.

In southern Africa, working closely with our Western allies and the African States, we've made real progress toward independence for Namibia. These negotiations, if successful, will result in peaceful and secure conditions throughout southern Africa. The simultaneous withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola is essential to achieving Namibian independence, as well as creating long-range prospects for peace in the region.

Central America also has become a dangerous point of tension in East-West relations. The Soviet Union cannot escape responsibility for the violence and suffering in the region caused by accelerated transfer of advanced military equipment to Cuba.

However, it was in Western Europe -- or Eastern Europe, I should say, that the hopes of the 1970's were greatest, and it's there that they have been the most bitterly disappointed. There was hope that the people of Poland could develop a freer society. But the Soviet Union has refused to allow the people of Poland to decide their own fate, just as it refused to allow the people of Hungary to decide theirs in 1956, or the people of Czechoslovakia in 1968.

If martial law in Poland is lifted, if all the political prisoners are released, and if a dialog is restored with the Solidarity Union, the United States is prepared to join in a program of economic support. Water cannons and clubs against the Polish people are hardly the kind of dialog that gives us hope. It's up to the Soviets and their client regimes to show good faith by concrete actions.

The fourth point is arms reduction. I know that this weighs heavily on many of your minds. In our 1931 Prism, we quoted Carl Sandburg, who in his own beautiful way quoted the Mother Prairie, saying, ``Have you seen a red sunset drip over one of my cornfields, the shore of night stars, the wave lines of dawn up a wheat valley?'' What an idyllic scene that paints in our minds -- and what a nightmarish prospect that a huge mushroom cloud might someday destroy such beauty. My duty as President is to ensure that the ultimate nightmare never occurs, that the prairies and the cities and the people who inhabit them remain free and untouched by nuclear conflict.

I wish more than anything there were a simple policy that would eliminate that nuclear danger. But there are only difficult policy choices through which we can achieve a stable nuclear balance at the lowest possible level.

I do not doubt that the Soviet people, and, yes, the Soviet leaders have an overriding interest in preventing the use of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union within the memory of its leaders has known the devastation of total conventional war and knows that nuclear war would be even more calamitous. And yet, so far, the Soviet Union has used arms control negotiations primarily as an instrument to restrict U.S. defense programs and, in conjunction with their own arms buildup, a means to enhance Soviet power and prestige.

Unfortunately, for some time suspicions have grown that the Soviet Union has not been living up to its obligations under existing arms control treaties. There is conclusive evidence the Soviet Union has provided toxins to the Laotians and Vietnamese for use against defenseless villagers in Southeast Asia. And the Soviets themselves are employing chemical weapons on the freedom-fighters in Afghanistan.

We must establish firm criteria for arms control in the 1980's if we're to secure genuine and lasting restraint on Soviet military programs throughout arms control. We must seek agreements which are verifiable, equitable, and militarily significant. Agreements that provide only the appearance of arms control breed dangerous illusions.

Last November, I committed the United States to seek significant reductions on nuclear and conventional forces. In Geneva, we have since proposed limits on U.S. and Soviet intermediate-range missiles, including the complete elimination of the most threatening systems on both sides. In Vienna, we're negotiating, together with our allies, for reductions of conventional forces in Europe. In the 40-nation Committee on Disarmament, the United Nations [United States] seeks a total ban on all chemical weapons.

Since the first days of my administration, we're been working on our approach to the crucial issue of strategic arms and the control and negotiations for control of those arms with the Soviet Union. The study and analysis required has been complex and difficult. It had to be undertaken deliberately, thoroughly, and correctly. We've laid a solid basis for these negotiations. We're consulting with congressional leaders and with our allies, and we are now ready to proceed.

The main threat to peace posed by nuclear weapons today is the growing instability of the nuclear balance. This is due to the increasingly destructive potential of the massive Soviet buildup in its ballistic missile force.

Therefore, our goal is to enhance deterrence and achieve stability through significant reductions in the most destabilizing nuclear systems, ballistic missiles, and especially the giant intercontinental ballistic missiles, while maintaining a nuclear capability sufficient to deter conflict, to underwrite our national security, and to meet our commitment to allies and friends.

For the immediate future, I'm asking my START -- and START really means -- we've given up on SALT -- START means ``Strategic Arms Reduction Talks,'' and that negotiating team to propose to their Soviet counterparts a practical, phased reduction plan. The focus of our efforts will be to reduce significantly the most destabilizing systems, the ballistic missiles, the number of warheads they carry, and their overall destructive potential.

At the first phase, or the end of the first phase of START, I expect ballistic missile warheads, the most serious threat we face, to be reduced to equal levels, equal ceilings, at least a third below the current levels. To enhance stability, I would ask that no more than half of those warheads be land-based. I hope that these warhead reductions, as well as significant reductions in missiles themselves, could be achieved as rapidly as possible.

In a second phase, we'll seek to achieve an equal ceiling on other elements of our strategic nuclear forces, including limits on the ballistic missile throw-weight at less than current American levels. In both phases, we shall insist on verification procedures to ensure compliance with the agreement.

This, I might say, will be the twentieth time that we have sought such negotiations with the Soviet Union since World War II. The monumental task of reducing and reshaping our strategic forces to enhance stability will take many years of concentrated effort. But I believe that it will be possible to reduce the risks of war by removing the instabilities that now exist and by dismantling the nuclear menace.

I have written to President Brezhnev and directed Secretary Haig to approach the Soviet Government concerning the initiation of formal negotiations on the reduction of strategic nuclear arms, START, at the earliest opportunity. We hope negotiations will begin by the end of June.

We will negotiate seriously, in good faith, and carefully consider all proposals made by the Soviet Union. If they approach these negotiations in the same spirit, I'm confident that together we can achieve an agreement of enduring value that reduces the number of nuclear weapons, halts the growth in strategic forces, and opens the way to even more far-reaching steps in the future.

I hope the Commencement today will also mark the commencement of a new era, in both senses of the word, a new start toward a more peaceful and secure world.

The fifth and final point I propose for East-West relations is dialog. I've always believed that people's problems can be solved when people talk to each other instead of about each other. And I've already expressed my own desire to meet with President Brezhnev in New York next month. If this can't be done, I'd hope we could arrange a future meeting where positive results can be anticipated. And when we sit down, I'll tell President Brezhnev that the United States is ready to build a new understanding based upon the principles I've outlined today.

I'll tell him that his government and his people have nothing to fear from the United States. The free nations living at peace in the world community can vouch for the fact that we seek only harmony. And I'll ask President Brezhnev why our two nations can't practice mutual restraint. Why can't our peoples enjoy the benefits that would flow from real cooperation? Why can't we reduce the number of horrendous weapons?

Perhaps I should also speak to him of this school and these graduates who are leaving it today -- of your hopes for the future, of your deep desire for peace, and yet your strong commitment to defend your values if threatened. Perhaps if he someday could attend such a ceremony as this, he'd better understand America. In the only system he knows, you would be here by the decision of government, and on this day the government representatives would be here telling most, if not all, of you where you were going to report to work tomorrow.

But as we go to Europe for the talks and as we proceed in the important challenges facing this country, I want you to know that I will be thinking of you and of Eureka and what you represent. In one of my yearbooks, I remember reading that, ``The work of the prairie is to be the soil for the growth of a strong Western culture.'' I believe Eureka is fulfilling that work. You, the members of the 1982 graduating class, are this year's harvest.

I spoke of the difference between our two countries. I try to follow the humor of the Russian people. We don't hear much about the Russian people. We hear about the Russian leaders. But you can learn a lot, because they do have a sense of humor, and you can learn from the jokes they're telling. And one of the most recent jokes I found kind of, well, personally interesting. Maybe you might -- tell you something about your country.

The joke they tell is that an American and a Russian were arguing about the differences between our two countries. And the American said, ``Look, in my country I can walk into the Oval Office; I can hit the desk with my fist and say, `President Reagan, I don't like the way you're governing the United States.''' And the Russian said, ``I can do that.'' The American said, ``What?'' He says, ``I can walk into the Kremlin, into Brezhnev's office. I can pound Brezhnev's desk, and I can say, `Mr. President, I don't like the way Ronald Reagan is governing the United States.''' [Laughter]

Eureka as an institution and you as individuals are sustaining the best of Western man's ideals. As a fellow graduate and in the office I hold, I'll do my best to uphold these same ideals.

To the Class of '82, congratulations, and God bless you.
Address to Members of the British Parliament
June 8, 1982


My Lord Chancellor, Mr. Speaker:
The journey of which this visit forms a part is a long one. Already it has taken me to two great cities of the West, Rome and Paris, and to the economic summit at Versailles. And there, once again, our sister democracies have proved that even in a time of severe economic strain, free peoples can work together freely and voluntarily to address problems as serious as inflation, unemployment, trade, and economic development in a spirit of cooperation and solidarity.

Other milestones lie ahead. Later this week, in Germany, we and our NATO allies will discuss measures for our joint defense and America's latest initiatives for a more peaceful, secure world through arms reductions.

Each stop of this trip is important, but among them all, this moment occupies a special place in my heart and in the hearts of my countrymen -- a moment of kinship and homecoming in these hallowed halls.

Speaking for all Americans, I want to say how very much at home we feel in your house. Every American would, because this is, as we have been so eloquently told, one of democracy's shrines. Here the rights of free people and the processes of representation have been debated and refined.

It has been said that an institution is the lengthening shadow of a man. This institution is the lengthening shadow of all the men and women who have sat here and all those who have voted to send representatives here.

This is my second visit to Great Britain as President of the United States. My first opportunity to stand on British soil occurred almost a year and a half ago when your Prime Minister graciously hosted a diplomatic dinner at the British Embassy in Washington. Mrs. Thatcher said then that she hoped I was not distressed to find staring down at me from the grand staircase a portrait of His Royal Majesty King George III. She suggested it was best to let bygones be bygones, and in view of our two countries' remarkable friendship in succeeding years, she added that most Englishmen today would agree with Thomas Jefferson that ``a little rebellion now and then is a very good thing.'' [Laughter]

Well, from here I will go to Bonn and then Berlin, where there stands a grim symbol of power untamed. The Berlin Wall, that dreadful gray gash across the city, is in its third decade. It is the fitting signature of the regime that built it.

And a few hundred kilometers behind the Berlin Wall, there is another symbol. In the center of Warsaw, there is a sign that notes the distances to two capitals. In one direction it points toward Moscow. In the other it points toward Brussels, headquarters of Western Europe's tangible unity. The marker says that the distances from Warsaw to Moscow and Warsaw to Brussels are equal. The sign makes this point: Poland is not East or West. Poland is at the center of European civilization. It has contributed mightily to that civilization. It is doing so today by being magnificently unreconciled to oppression.

Poland's struggle to be Poland and to secure the basic rights we often take for granted demonstrates why we dare not take those rights for granted. Gladstone, defending the Reform Bill of 1866, declared, ``You cannot fight against the future. Time is on our side.'' It was easier to believe in the march of democracy in Gladstone's day -- in that high noon of Victorian optimism.

We're approaching the end of a bloody century plagued by a terrible political invention -- totalitarianism. Optimism comes less easily today, not because democracy is less vigorous, but because democracy's enemies have refined their instruments of repression. Yet optimism is in order, because day by day democracy is proving itself to be a not-at-all-fragile flower. From Stettin on the Baltic to Varna on the Black Sea, the regimes planted by totalitarianism have had more than 30 years to establish their legitimacy. But none -- not one regime -- has yet been able to risk free elections. Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root.

The strength of the Solidarity movement in Poland demonstrates the truth told in an underground joke in the Soviet Union. It is that the Soviet Union would remain a one-party nation even if an opposition party were permitted, because everyone would join the opposition party. [Laughter]

America's time as a player on the stage of world history has been brief. I think understanding this fact has always made you patient with your younger cousins -- well, not always patient. I do recall that on one occasion, Sir Winston Churchill said in exasperation about one of our most distinguished diplomats: ``He is the only case I know of a bull who carries his china shop with him.'' [Laughter]

But witty as Sir Winston was, he also had that special attribute of great statesmen -- the gift of vision, the willingness to see the future based on the experience of the past. It is this sense of history, this understanding of the past that I want to talk with you about today, for it is in remembering what we share of the past that our two nations can make common cause for the future.

We have not inherited an easy world. If developments like the Industrial Revolution, which began here in England, and the gifts of science and technology have made life much easier for us, they have also made it more dangerous. There are threats now to our freedom, indeed to our very existence, that other generations could never even have imagined.

There is first the threat of global war. No President, no Congress, no Prime Minister, no Parliament can spend a day entirely free of this threat. And I don't have to tell you that in today's world the existence of nuclear weapons could mean, if not the extinction of mankind, then surely the end of civilization as we know it. That's why negotiations on intermediate-range nuclear forces now underway in Europe and the START talks -- Strategic Arms Reduction Talks -- which will begin later this month, are not just critical to American or Western policy; they are critical to mankind. Our commitment to early success in these negotiations is firm and unshakable, and our purpose is clear: reducing the risk of war by reducing the means of waging war on both sides.

At the same time there is a threat posed to human freedom by the enormous power of the modern state. History teaches the dangers of government that overreaches -- political control taking precedence over free economic growth, secret police, mindless bureaucracy, all combining to stifle individual excellence and personal freedom.

Now, I'm aware that among us here and throughout Europe there is legitimate disagreement over the extent to which the public sector should play a role in a nation's economy and life. But on one point all of us are united -- our abhorrence of dictatorship in all its forms, but most particularly totalitarianism and the terrible inhumanities it has caused in our time -- the great purge, Auschwitz and Dachau, the Gulag, and Cambodia.

Historians looking back at our time will note the consistent restraint and peaceful intentions of the West. They will note that it was the democracies who refused to use the threat of their nuclear monopoly in the forties and early fifties for territorial or imperial gain. Had that nuclear monopoly been in the hands of the Communist world, the map of Europe -- indeed, the world -- would look very different today. And certainly they will note it was not the democracies that invaded Afghanistan or supressed Polish Solidarity or used chemical and toxin warfare in Afghanistan and Southeast Asia.

If history teaches anything it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. We see around us today the marks of our terrible dilemma -- predictions of doomsday, antinuclear demonstrations, an arms race in which the West must, for its own protection, be an unwilling participant. At the same time we see totalitarian forces in the world who seek subversion and conflict around the globe to further their barbarous assault on the human spirit. What, then, is our course? Must civilization perish in a hail of fiery atoms? Must freedom wither in a quiet, deadening accommodation with totalitarian evil?

Sir Winston Churchill refused to accept the inevitability of war or even that it was imminent. He said, ``I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines. But what we have to consider here today while time remains is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries.''

Well, this is precisely our mission today: to preserve freedom as well as peace. It may not be easy to see; but I believe we live now at a turning point.

In an ironic sense Karl Marx was right. We are witnessing today a great revolutionary crisis, a crisis where the demands of the economic order are conflicting directly with those of the political order. But the crisis is happening not in the free, non-Marxist West, but in the home of Marxist-Leninism, the Soviet Union. It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history by denying human freedom and human dignity to its citizens. It also is in deep economic difficulty. The rate of growth in the national product has been steadily declining since the fifties and is less than half of what it was then.

The dimensions of this failure are astounding: A country which employs one-fifth of its population in agriculture is unable to feed its own people. Were it not for the private sector, the tiny private sector tolerated in Soviet agriculture, the country might be on the brink of famine. These private plots occupy a bare 3 percent of the arable land but account for nearly one-quarter of Soviet farm output and nearly one-third of meat products and vegetables. Overcentralized, with little or no incentives, year after year the Soviet system pours its best resource into the making of instruments of destruction. The constant shrinkage of economic growth combined with the growth of military production is putting a heavy strain on the Soviet people. What we see here is a political structure that no longer corresponds to its economic base, a society where productive forces are hampered by political ones.

The decay of the Soviet experiment should come as no surprise to us. Wherever the comparisons have been made between free and closed societies -- West Germany and East Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia, Malaysia and Vietnam -- it is the democratic countries what are prosperous and responsive to the needs of their people. And one of the simple but overwhelming facts of our time is this: Of all the millions of refugees we've seen in the modern world, their flight is always away from, not toward the Communist world. Today on the NATO line, our military forces face east to prevent a possible invasion. On the other side of the line, the Soviet forces also face east to prevent their people from leaving.

The hard evidence of totalitarian rule has caused in mankind an uprising of the intellect and will. Whether it is the growth of the new schools of economics in America or England or the appearance of the so-called new philosophers in France, there is one unifying thread running through the intellectual work of these groups -- rejection of the arbitrary power of the state, the refusal to subordinate the rights of the individual to the superstate, the realization that collectivism stifles all the best human impulses.

Since the exodus from Egypt, historians have written of those who sacrificed and struggled for freedom -- the stand at Thermopylae, the revolt of Spartacus, the storming of the Bastille, the Warsaw uprising in World War II. More recently we've seen evidence of this same human impulse in one of the developing nations in Central America. For months and months the world news media covered the fighting in El Salvador. Day after day we were treated to stories and film slanted toward the brave freedom-fighters battling oppressive government forces in behalf of the silent, suffering people of that tortured country.

And then one day those silent, suffering people were offered a chance to vote, to choose the kind of government they wanted. Suddenly the freedom-fighters in the hills were exposed for what they really are -- Cuban-backed guerrillas who want power for themselves, and their backers, not democracy for the people. They threatened death to any who voted, and destroyed hundreds of buses and trucks to keep the people from getting to the polling places. But on election day, the people of El Salvador, an unprecedented 1.4 million of them, braved ambush and gunfire, and trudged for miles to vote for freedom.

They stood for hours in the hot sun waiting for their turn to vote. Members of our Congress who went there as observers told me of a women who was wounded by rifle fire on the way to the polls, who refused to leave the line to have her wound treated until after she had voted. A grandmother, who had been told by the guerrillas she would be killed when she returned from the polls, and she told the guerrillas, ``You can kill me, you can kill my family, kill my neighbors, but you can't kill us all.'' The real freedom-fighters of El Salvador turned out to be the people of that country -- the young, the old, the in-between.

Strange, but in my own country there's been little if any news coverage of that war since the election. Now, perhaps they'll say it's -- well, because there are newer struggles now.

On distant islands in the South Atlantic young men are fighting for Britain. And, yes, voices have been raised protesting their sacrifice for lumps of rock and earth so far away. But those young men aren't fighting for mere real estate. They fight for a cause -- for the belief that armed aggression must not be allowed to succeed, and the people must participate in the decisions of government -- [applause] -- the decisions of government under the rule of law. If there had been firmer support for that principle some 45 years ago, perhaps our generation wouldn't have suffered the bloodletting of World War II.

In the Middle East now the guns sound once more, this time in Lebanon, a country that for too long has had to endure the tragedy of civil war, terrorism, and foreign intervention and occupation. The fighting in Lebanon on the part of all parties must stop, and Israel should bring its forces home. But this is not enough. We must all work to stamp out the scourge of terrorism that in the Middle East makes war an ever-present threat.

But beyond the troublespots lies a deeper, more positive pattern. Around the world today, the democratic revolution is gathering new strength. In India a critical test has been passed with the peaceful change of governing political parties. In Africa, Nigeria is moving into remarkable and unmistakable ways to build and strengthen its democratic institutions. In the Caribbean and Central America, 16 of 24 countries have freely elected governments. And in the United Nations, 8 of the 10 developing nations which have joined that body in the past 5 years are democracies.

In the Communist world as well, man's instinctive desire for freedom and self-determination surfaces again and again. To be sure, there are grim reminders of how brutally the police state attempts to snuff out this quest for self-rule -- 1953 in East Germany, 1956 in Hungary, 1968 in Czechoslovakia, 1981 in Poland. But the struggle continues in Poland. And we know that there are even those who strive and suffer for freedom within the confines of the Soviet Union itself. How we conduct ourselves here in the Western democracies will determine whether this trend continues.

No, democracy is not a fragile flower. Still it needs cultivating. If the rest of this century is to witness the gradual growth of freedom and democratic ideals, we must take actions to assist the campaign for democracy.

Some argue that we should encourage democratic change in right-wing dictatorships, but not in Communist regimes. Well, to accept this preposterous notion -- as some well-meaning people have -- is to invite the argument that once countries achieve a nuclear capability, they should be allowed an undisturbed reign of terror over their own citizens. We reject this course.

As for the Soviet view, Chairman Brezhnev repeatedly has stressed that the competition of ideas and systems must continue and that this is entirely consistent with relaxation of tensions and peace.

Well, we ask only that these systems begin by living up to their own constitutions, abiding by their own laws, and complying with the international obligations they have undertaken. We ask only for a process, a direction, a basic code of decency, not for an instant transformation.

We cannot ignore the fact that even without our encouragement there has been and will continue to be repeated explosions against repression and dictatorships. The Soviet Union itself is not immune to this reality. Any system is inherently unstable that has no peaceful means to legitimize its leaders. In such cases, the very repressiveness of the state ultimately drives people to resist it, if necessary, by force.

While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to take concrete actions to move toward them. We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings. So states the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, among other things, guarantees free elections.

The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.

This is not cultural imperialism, it is providing the means for genuine self-determination and protection for diversity. Democracy already flourishes in countries with very different cultures and historical experiences. It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer dictatorship to democracy. Who would voluntarily choose not to have the right to vote, decide to purchase government propaganda handouts instead of independent newspapers, prefer government to worker-controlled unions, opt for land to be owned by the state instead of those who till it, want government repression of religious liberty, a single political party instead of a free choice, a rigid cultural orthodoxy instead of democratic tolerance and diversity?

Since 1917 the Soviet Union has given covert political training and assistance to Marxist-Leninists in many countries. Of course, it also has promoted the use of violence and subversion by these same forces. Over the past several decades, West European and other Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, and leaders have offered open assistance to fraternal, political, and social institutions to bring about peaceful and democratic progress. Appropriately, for a vigorous new democracy, the Federal Republic of Germany's political foundations have become a major force in this effort.

We in America now intend to take additional steps, as many of our allies have already done, toward realizing this same goal. The chairmen and other leaders of the national Republican and Democratic Party organizations are initiating a study with the bipartisan American political foundation to determine how the United States can best contribute as a nation to the global campaign for democracy now gathering force. They will have the cooperation of congressional leaders of both parties, along with representatives of business, labor, and other major institutions in our society. I look forward to receiving their recommendations and to working with these institutions and the Congress in the common task of strengthening democracy throughout the world.

It is time that we committed ourselves as a nation -- in both the pubic and private sectors -- to assisting democratic development.

We plan to consult with leaders of other nations as well. There is a proposal before the Council of Europe to invite parliamentarians from democratic countries to a meeting next year in Strasbourg. That prestigious gathering could consider ways to help democratic political movements.

This November in Washington there will take place an international meeting on free elections. And next spring there will be a conference of world authorities on constitutionalism and self-goverment hosted by the Chief Justice of the United States. Authorities from a number of developing and developed countries -- judges, philosophers, and politicians with practical experience -- have agreed to explore how to turn principle into practice and further the rule of law.

At the same time, we invite the Soviet Union to consider with us how the competition of ideas and values -- which it is committed to support -- can be conducted on a peaceful and reciprocal basis. For example, I am prepared to offer President Brezhnev an opportunity to speak to the American people on our television if he will allow me the same opportunity with the Soviet people. We also suggest that panels of our newsmen periodically appear on each other's television to discuss major events.

Now, I don't wish to sound overly optimistic, yet the Soviet Union is not immune from the reality of what is going on in the world. It has happened in the past -- a small ruling elite either mistakenly attempts to ease domestic unrest through greater repression and foreign adventure, or it chooses a wiser course. It begins to allow its people a voice in their own destiny. Even if this latter process is not realized soon, I believe the renewed strength of the democratic movement, complemented by a global campaign for freedom, will strengthen the prospects for arms control and a world at peace.

I have discussed on other occasions, including my address on May 9th, the elements of Western policies toward the Soviet Union to safeguard our interests and protect the peace. What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people. And that's why we must continue our efforts to strengthen NATO even as we move forward with our Zero-Option initiative in the negotiations on intermediate-range forces and our proposal for a one-third reduction in strategic ballistic missile warheads.

Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear we maintain this strength in the hope it will never be used, for the ultimate determinant in the struggle that's now going on in the world will not be bombs and rockets, but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated.

The British people know that, given strong leadership, time and a little bit of hope, the forces of good ultimately rally and triumph over evil. Here among you is the cradle of self-government, the Mother of Parliaments. Here is the enduring greatness of the British contribution to mankind, the great civilized ideas: individual liberty, representative government, and the rule of law under God.

I've often wondered about the shyness of some of us in the West about standing for these ideals that have done so much to ease the plight of man and the hardships of our imperfect world. This reluctance to use those vast resources at our command reminds me of the elderly lady whose home was bombed in the Blitz. As the rescuers moved about, they found a bottle of brandy she'd stored behind the staircase, which was all that was left standing. And since she was barely conscious, one of the workers pulled the cork to give her a taste of it. She came around immediately and said, ``Here now -- there now, put it back. That's for emergencies.'' [Laughter]

Well, the emergency is upon us. Let us be shy no longer. Let us go to our strength. Let us offer hope. Let us tell the world that a new age is not only possible but probable.

During the dark days of the Second World War, when this island was incandescent with courage, Winston Churchill exclaimed about Britain's adversaries, ``What kind of a people do they think we are?'' Well, Britain's adversaries found out what extraordinary people the British are. But all the democracies paid a terrible price for allowing the dictators to underestimate us. We dare not make that mistake again. So, let us ask ourselves, ``What kind of people do we think we are?'' And let us answer, ``Free people, worthy of freedom and determined not only to remain so but to help others gain their freedom as well.''

Sir Winston led his people to great victory in war and then lost an election just as the fruits of victory were about to be enjoyed. But he left office honorably, and, as it turned out, temporarily, knowing that the liberty of his people was more important than the fate of any single leader. History recalls his greatness in ways no dictator will ever know. And he left us a message of hope for the future, as timely now as when he first uttered it, as opposition leader in the Commons nearly 27 years ago, when he said, ``When we look back on all the perils through which we have passed and at the mighty foes that we have laid low and all the dark and deadly designs that we have frustrated, why should we fear for our future? We have,'' he said, ``come safely through the worst.''

Well, the task I've set forth will long outlive our own generation. But together, we too have come through the worst. Let us now begin a major effort to secure the best -- a crusade for freedom that will engage the faith and fortitude of the next generation. For the sake of peace and justice, let us move toward a world in which all people are at last free to determine their own destiny.

Thank you.
Address Before the Bundestag in Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany
June 9, 1982


Mr. President, Chancellor Schmidt, members of the Bundestag, distinguished guests:
Perhaps because I've just come from London, I have this urge to quote the great Dr. Johnson who said, ``The feeling of friendship is like that of being comfortably filled with roast beef.'' [Laughter] Well, I feel very much filled with friendship this afternoon, and I bring you the warmest regards and goodwill of the American people.

I'm very honored to speak to you today and, thus, to all the people of Germany. Next year, we will jointly celebrate the 300th anniversary of the first German settlement in the American Colonies. The 13 families who came to our new land were the forerunners of more than 7 million German immigrants to the United States. Today, more Americans claim German ancestry than any other.

These Germans cleared and cultivated our land, built our industries, and advanced our arts and sciences. In honor of 300 years of German contributions in America, President Carstens and I have agreed today that he will pay an official visit to the United States in October of 1983 to celebrate the occasion.

The German people have given us so much, we like to think that we've repaid some of that debt. Our American Revolution was the first revolution in modern history to be fought for the right of self-government and the guarantee of civil liberties. That spirit was contagious. In 1849, the Frankfurt Parliament's statement of basic human rights guaranteed freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and equality before the law. And these principles live today in the basic law of the Federal Republic. Many peoples to the east still wait for such rights.

The United States is proud of your democracy, but we cannot take credit for it. Heinrich Heine, in speaking of those who built the awe-inspiring cathedrals of medieval times, said that, ``In those days people had convictions. We moderns have only opinions, and it requires something more than opinions,'' he said, ``to build a Gothic cathedral.'' Well, over the past 30 years, the convictions of the German people have built a cathedral of democracy -- a great and glorious testament to your ideals. We in America genuinely admire the free society that you have built in only a few decades, and we understand all the better what you have accomplished because of our own history.

Americans speak with the deepest reverence of those Founding Fathers and first citizens who gave us the freedom that we enjoy today. And even though they lived over 200 years ago, we carry them in our hearts as well as in our history books.

I believe future generations of Germans will look to you here today and to your fellow Germans with the same profound respect and appreciation. You have built a free society with an abiding faith in human dignity -- the crowning ideal of Western civilization. This will not be forgotten. You will be saluted and honored by this Republic's descendants over the centuries to come.

Yesterday, before the British Parliament, I spoke of the values of Western civilization and the necessity to help all peoples gain the institutions of freedom. In many ways, in many places, our ideals are being tested today. We are meeting this afternoon between two important summits -- the gathering of leading industrial democracies at Versailles and the assembly of the Atlantic Alliance here in Bonn tomorrow. Critical and complex problems face us, but our dilemmas will be made easier if we remember our partnership is based on a common Western heritage and a faith in democracy.

I believe this partnership of the Atlantic Alliance nations is motivated primarily by the search for peace -- inner peace for our citizens and peace among nations. Why inner peace? Because democracy allows for self-expression. It respects man's dignity and creativity. It operates by a rule of law, not by terror or coercion. It is government with the consent of the governed. As a result, citizens of the Atlantic Alliance enjoy an unprecedented level of material and spiritual well-being, and they're free to find their own personal peace.

We also seek peace among nations. The Psalmist said, ``Seek peace and pursue it.'' Well, our foreign policies are based on this principle and directed toward this end. The noblest objective of our diplomacy is the patient and difficult task of reconciling our adversaries to peace. And I know we all look forward to the day when the only industry of man [war]\1\ (FOOTNOTE) will be the research of historians.

(FOOTNOTE) \1\White House correction.

But the simple hope for peace is not enough. We must remember something that Friedrich Schiller said: ``The most pious man can't stay in peace if it doesn't please his evil neighbor.'' So, there must be a method to our search, a method that recognizes the dangers and realities of the world.

During Chancellor Schmidt's state visit to Washington last year, I said that your Republic was ``perched on a cliff of freedom.'' I wasn't saying anything the German people do not already know. Living as you do in the heart of a divided Europe, you can see more clearly than others that there are governments at peace neither with their own peoples nor the world.

I don't believe any reasonable observer can deny that there is a threat to both peace and freedom today. It is as stark as that gash of a border that separates the German people. We're menaced by a power that openly condemns our values and answers our restraint with a relentless military buildup.

[At this point, two members of the audience began heckling the President. The heckling continued intermittently during this part of the President's address.]

We cannot simply assume every nation wants the peace that we so earnestly desire. The Polish people would tell us there are those who would use military force to repress others who want only basic human rights. The freedom fighters of Afghanistan would tell us as well that the threat of aggression has not receded from the world.

Without a strengthened Atlantic security, the possibility of military coercion will be very great. We must continue to improve our defenses if we're to preserve peace and freedom. This is -- -- [Referring to the hecklers, one of whom at this point shouted a reference to El Salvador:] Is there an echo in here? [Laughter and applause]

But this preserving peace and freedom is not an impossible task. For almost 40 years, we have succeeded in deterring war. Our method has been to organize our defensive capabilities, both nuclear and conventional, so that an aggressor could have no hope of military victory. The Alliance has carried its strength not as a battle flag, but as a banner of peace. Deterrence has kept that peace, and we must continue to take the steps necessary to make deterrence credible.

This depends in part on a strong America. A national effort, entailing sacrifices by the American people, is now underway to make long-overdue improvements in our military posture. The American people support this effort because they understand how fundamental it is to keeping the peace they so fervently desire.

We also are resolved to maintain the presence of well-equipped and trained forces in Europe, and our strategic forces will be modernized and remain committed to the Alliance. By these actions, the people of the United States are saying, ``We are with you Germany; you are not alone.'' Our adversaries would be foolishly mistaken should they gamble that Americans would abandon their Alliance responsibilities, no matter how severe the test.

Alliance security depends on a fully credible conventional defense to which all allies contribute. There is a danger that any conflict could escalate to a nuclear war. Strong conventional forces can make the danger of conventional or nuclear conflict more remote. Reasonable strength in and of itself is not bad; it is honorable when used to maintain peace or defend deeply held beliefs.

One of the first chores is to fulfill our commitments to each other by continuing to strengthen our conventional defenses. This must include improving the readiness of our standing forces and the ability of those forces to operate as one. We must also apply the West's technological genius to improving our conventional deterrence.

There can be no doubt that we as an Alliance have the means to improve our conventional defenses. Our peoples hold values of individual liberty and dignity that time and again they've proven willing to defend. Our economic energy vastly exceeds that of our adversaries. Our free system has produced technological advances that other systems, with their stifling ideologies, cannot hope to equal. All of these resources are available to our defense.

Yes, many of our nations currently are experiencing economic difficulties; yet we must nevertheless guarantee that our security does not suffer as a result. We've made strides in conventional defense over the last few years despite our economic problems, and we've disproved the pessimists who contend that our efforts are futile. The more we close the conventional gap, the less the risks of aggression or nuclear conflict.

The soil of Germany and of every other Ally is of vital concern to each member of the Alliance. And this fundamental commitment is embodied in the North Atlantic Treaty. But it will be an empty pledge unless we ensure that American forces are ready to reinforce Europe, and Europe is ready to receive them.

I'm encouraged by the recent agreement on wartime host-nation support. This pact strengthens our ability to deter aggression in Europe and demonstrates our common determination to respond to attack. Just as each Ally shares fully in the security of the Alliance, each is responsible for shouldering a fair share of the burden. Now that, of course, often leads to a difference of opinion, and criticism of our Alliance is as old as the partnership itself. But voices have now been raised on both sides of the Atlantic that mistake the inevitable process of adjustment within the Alliance for a dramatic divergence of interests.

Some Americans think that Europeans are too little concerned for their own security. Some would unilaterally reduce the number of American troops deployed in Europe. And in Europe itself, we hear the idea that the American presence, rather than contributing to peace, either has no deterrent value or actually increases the risk that our Allies may be attacked.

These arguments ignore both the history and the reality of the transatlantic coalition. Let me assure you that the American commitment to Europe remains steady and strong. Europe's shores are our shores. Europe's borders are our borders. And we will stand with you in defense of our heritage of liberty and dignity.

The American people recognize Europe's substantial contributions to our joint security. Nowhere is that contribution more evident than here in the Federal Republic. German citizens host the forces of six nations. German soliders and reservists provide the backbone of NATO's conventional deterrent in the heartland of Europe. Your Bundeswehr is a model for the integration of defense needs with a democratic way of life, and you have not shrunk from the heavy responsibility of accepting the nuclear forces necessary for deterrence.

I ask your help in fulfilling another responsibility. Many American citizens don't believe that their counterparts in Europe, especially younger citizens, really understand the United States presence there. Now, if you'll work toward explaining the U.S. role to people on this side of the Atlantic, I'll explain it to those on the other side.

In recent months, both in your country and mine, there has been renewed public concern about the threat of nuclear war and the arms buildup. I know it's not easy, especially for the German people, to live in the gale of intimidation that blows from the east.

If I might quote Heine again, he almost foretold the fears of nuclear war when he wrote, ``Wild, dark times are rumbling toward us, and the prophet who wishes to write a new apocalypse will have to invent entirely new beasts, and beasts so terrible that the ancient animal symbols will seem like cooing doves and cupids in comparison.'' The nuclear threat is a terrible beast. Perhaps the banner carried in one of the nuclear demonstrations here in Germany said it best. The sign read, ``I am afraid.''

Well, I know of no Western leader who doesn't sympathize with that earnest plea. To those who march for peace, my heart is with you. I would be at the head of your parade if I believed marching alone could bring about a more secure world. And to the 2,800 women in Filderstadt who spent a petition for peace to President Brezhnev and me, let me say I, myself, would sign your petition if I thought it could bring about harmony. I understand your genuine concerns.

The women of Filderstadt and I share the same goal. The question is how to proceed. We must think through the consequences of how we reduce the dangers to peace.

Those who advocate that we unilaterally forego the modernization of our forces must prove that this will enhance our security and lead to moderation by the other side -- in short, that it will advance, rather than undermine, the preservation of the peace. The weight of recent history does not support this notion.

Those who demand that we renounce the use of a crucial element of our deterrent strategy must show how this would decrease the likelihood of war. It is only by comparison with a nuclear war that the suffering caused by conventional war seems a lesser evil. Our goal must be to deter war of any kind.

And those who decry the failure of arms control efforts to achieve substantial results must consider where the fault lies. I would remind them that it is the United States that has proposed to ban land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles -- the missiles most threatening to Europe. It is the United States that has proposed and will pursue deep cuts in strategic systems. It is the West that has long sought the detailed exchanges of information on forces and effective verification procedures. And it is dictatorships, not democracies, that need militarism to control their own people and impose their system on others.

To those who've taken a different viewpoint and who can't see this danger, I don't suggest that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so many things that aren't true.

We in the West -- Germans, Americans, our other Allies -- are deeply committed to continuing efforts to restrict the arms competition. Common sense demands that we persevere. I invite those who genuinely seek effective and lasting arms control to stand behind the far-reaching proposals that we've put forward. In return, I pledge that we will sustain the closest of consultations with our Allies.

On November 18th, I outlined a broad and ambitious arms control program. One element calls for reducing land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles to zero on each side. If carried out, it would eliminate the growing threat to Western Europe posed by the U.S.S.R.'s modern SS - 20 rockets, and it would make unnecessary the NATO decision to deploy American intermediate-range systems. And, by the way, I cannot understand why among some, there is a greater fear of weapons NATO is to deploy than of weapons the Soviet Union already has deployed.

Our proposal is fair because it imposes equal limits and obligations on both sides, and it calls for significant reductions, not merely a capping of an existing high level of destructive power. As you know, we've made this proposal in Geneva, where negotiations have been underway since the end of November last year. We intend to pursue those negotiations intensively. I regard them as a significant test of the Soviets' willingness to enter into meaningful arms control agreements.

On May 9th, we proposed to the Soviet Union that Strategic Arms Reductions Talks begin this month in Geneva. The U.S.S.R. has agreed, and talks will begin on June 29th. We in the United States want to focus on the most destabilizing systems, and thus reduce the risk of war. And that's why in the first phase, we propose to reduce substantially the number of ballistic missile warheads and the missiles themselves. In the second phase, we will seek an equal ceiling on other elements of our strategic forces, including ballistic missile throwweight, at less than current American levels. We will handle cruise missiles and bombers in an equitable fashion. We will negotiate in good faith and undertake these talks with the same seriousness of purpose that has marked our preparations over the last several months.

Another element of the program I outlined was a call for reductions in conventional forces in Europe. From the earliest postwar years, the Western democracies have faced the ominous reality that massive Soviet conventional forces would remain stationed where they do not belong. The muscle of Soviet forces in Central Europe far exceeds legitimate defense needs. Their presence is made more threatening still by a military doctrine that emphasizes mobility and surprise attack. And as history shows, these troops have built a legacy of intimidation and repression. In response, the NATO allies must show they have the will and capacity to deter any conventional attack or any attempt to intimidate us. Yet, we also will continue the search for responsible ways to reduce NATO and Warsaw Pact military personnel to equal levels.

In recent weeks, we in the Alliance have consulted on how best to invigorate the Vienna negotiations on Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions. Based on these consultations, Western representatives in the Vienna talks soon will make a proposal by which the two alliances would reduce their respective ground force personnel in verifiable stages to a total of 700,000 men and their combined ground and air force personnel to a level of 900,000 men.

While the agreement would not eliminate the threat nor spare our citizens the task of maintaining a substantial defense force, it could constitute a major step toward a safer Europe for both East and West. It could lead to military stability at lower levels and lessen the dangers of miscalculation and a surprise attack, and it also would demonstrate the political will of the two alliances to enhance stability by limiting their forces in the central area of their military competition.

The West has established a clear set of goals. We, as an Alliance, will press forward with plans to improve our own conventional forces in Europe. At the same time, we propose an arms control agreement to equalize conventional forces at a significantly lower level.

We will move ahead with our preparations to modernize our nuclear forces in Europe. But, again, we also will work unceasingly to gain acceptance in Geneva of our proposal to ban land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

In the United States, we will move forward with the plans I announced last year to modernize our strategic nuclear forces, which play so vital a role in maintaining peace by deterring war. Yet, we also have proposed that Strategic Arms Reductions Talks begin. We will pursue them determinedly.

In each of these areas, our policies are based on the conviction that a stable military balance at the lowest possible level will help further the cause of peace. The other side will respond in good faith to these initiatives only if it believes we are resolved to provide for our own defense. Unless convinced that we will unite and stay united behind these arms control initiatives and modernization programs, our adversaries will seek to divide us from one another and our people from their leaders.

I'm optimistic about our relationship with the Soviet Union if the Western nations remain true to their values and true to each other. I believe in Western civilization and its moral power. I believe deeply in the principles the West esteems. And guided by these ideals, I believe we can find a no-nonsense, workable, and lasting policy that will keep the peace.

Earlier, I said the German people had built a remarkable cathedral of democracy. But we still have other work ahead. We must build a cathedral of peace, where nations are safe from war and where people need not fear for their liberties. I've heard the history of the famous cathedral of Cologne -- how those beautiful soaring spires miraculously survived the destruction all around them, including part of the church itself.

Let us build a cathedral as the people of Cologne built theirs -- with the deepest commitment and determination. Let us build as they did -- not just for ourselves but for the generations beyond. For if we construct our peace properly, it will endure as long as the spires of Cologne.

Thank you very much.

Remarks in New York, New York, Before the United Nations General Assembly Special Session Devoted to Disarmament
June 17, 1982


Mr. Secretary-General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen:
I speak today as both a citizen of the United States and of the world. I come with the heartfelt wishes of my people for peace, bearing honest proposals and looking for genuine progress.

Dag Hammarskjold said 24 years ago this month, ``We meet in a time of peace, which is no peace.'' His words are as true today as they were then. More than a hundred disputes have disturbed the peace among nations since World War II, and today the threat of nuclear disaster hangs over the lives of all our people. The Bible tells us there will be a time for peace, but so far this century mankind has failed to find it.

The United Nations is dedicated to world peace, and its charter clearly prohibits the international use of force. Yet the tide of belligerence continues to rise. The charter's influence has weakened even in the 4 years since the first special session on disarmament. We must not only condemn aggression; we must enforce the dictates of our charter and resume the struggle for peace.

The record of history is clear: Citizens of the United States resort to force reluctantly and only when they must. Our foreign policy, as President Eisenhower once said, ``is not difficult to state. We are for peace first, last, and always for very simple reasons.'' We know that only in a peaceful atmosphere, a peace with justice, one in which we can be confident, can America prosper as we have known prosperity in the past, he said.

He said to those who challenge the truth of those words, let me point out, at the end of World War II, we were the only undamaged industrial power in the world. Our military supremacy was unquestioned. We had harnessed the atom and had the ability to unleash its destructive force anywhere in the world. In short, we could have achieved world domination, but that was contrary to the character of our people. Instead, we wrote a new chapter in the history of mankind.

We used our power and wealth to rebuild the war-ravaged economies of the world, both East and West, including those nations who had been our enemies. We took the initiative in creating such international institutions as this United Nations, where leaders of good will could come together to build bridges for peace and prosperity.

America has no territorial ambitions. We occupy no countries, and we have built no walls to lock our people in. Our commitment to self-determination, freedom, and peace is the very soul of America. That commitment is as strong today as it ever was.

The United States has fought four wars in my lifetime. In each, we struggled to defend freedom and democracy. We were never the aggressors. America's strength and, yes, her military power have been a force for peace, not conquest; for democracy, not despotism; for freedom, not tyranny. Watching, as I have, succeeding generations of American youth bleed their lives onto far-flung battlefields to protect our ideals and secure the rule of law, I have known how important it is to deter conflict. But since coming to the Presidency, the enormity of the responsibility of this office has made my commitment even deeper. I believe that responsibility is shared by all of us here today.

On our recent trip to Europe, my wife, Nancy, told me of a bronze statue, 22 feet high, that she saw on a cliff on the coast of France. The beach at the base of the cliff is called Saint Laurent, but countless American family Bibles have written it in on the flyleaf and know it as Omaha Beach. The pastoral quiet of that French countryside is in marked contrast to the bloody violence that took place there on a June day 38 years ago when the Allies stormed the Continent. At the end of just one day of battle, 10,500 Americans were wounded, missing, or killed in what became known as the Normandy landing.

The statue atop that cliff is called ``The Spirit of American Youth Rising From the Waves.'' Its image of sacrifice is almost too powerful to describe.

The pain of war is still vivid in our national memory. It sends me to this special session of the United Nations eager to comply with the plea of Pope Paul VI when he spoke in this chamber nearly 17 years ago. ``If you want to be brothers,'' His Holiness said, ``let the arms fall from your hands.'' Well, we Americans yearn to let them go. But we need more than mere words, more than empty promises before we can proceed.

We look around the world and see rampant conflict and aggression. There are many sources of this conflict -- expansionist ambitions, local rivalries, the striving to obtain justice and security. We must all work to resolve such discords by peaceful means and to prevent them from escalation.

In the nuclear era, the major powers bear a special responsibility to ease these sources of conflict and to refrain from aggression. And that's why we're so deeply concerned by Soviet conduct. Since World War II, the record of tyranny has included Soviet violation of the Yalta agreements leading to domination of Eastern Europe, symbolized by the Berlin Wall -- a grim, gray monument to repression that I visited just a week ago. It includes the takeovers of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Afghanistan; and the ruthless repression of the proud people of Poland. Soviet-sponsored guerrillas and terrorists are at work in Central and South America, in Africa, the Middle East, in the Caribbean, and in Europe, violating human rights and unnerving the world with violence. Communist atrocities in Southeast Asia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere continue to shock the free world as refugees escape to tell of their horror.

The decade of so-called detente witnessed the most massive Soviet buildup of military power in history. They increased their defense spending by 40 percent while American defense actually declined in the same real terms. Soviet aggression and support for violence around the world have eroded the confidence needed for arms negotiations. While we exercised unilateral restraint, they forged ahead and today possess nuclear and conventional forces far in excess of an adequate deterrent capability.

Soviet oppression is not limited to the countries they invade. At the very time the Soviet Union is trying to manipulate the peace movement in the West, it is stifling a budding peace movement at home. In Moscow, banners are scuttled, buttons are snatched, and demonstrators are arrested when even a few people dare to speak about their fears.

Eleanor Roosevelt, one of our first ambassadors to this body, reminded us that the high-sounding words of tyrants stand in bleak contradiction to their deeds. ``Their promises,'' she said, ``are in deep contrast to their performances.''

My country learned a bitter lesson in this century: The scourge of tyranny cannot be stopped with words alone. So, we have embarked on an effort to renew our strength that had fallen dangerously low. We refuse to become weaker while potential adversaries remain committed to their imperialist adventures.

My people have sent me here today to speak for them as citizens of the world, which they truly are, for we Americans are drawn from every nationality represented in this chamber today. We understand that men and women of every race and creed can and must work together for peace. We stand ready to take the next steps down the road of cooperation through verifiable arms reduction.

Agreements on arms control and disarmament can be useful in reinforcing peace; but they're not magic. We should not confuse the signing of agreements with the solving of problems. Simply collecting agreements will not bring peace. Agreements genuinely reinforce peace only when they are kept. Otherwise we're building a paper castle that will be blown away by the winds of war.

Let me repeat, we need deeds, not words, to convince us of Soviet sincerity, should they choose to join us on this path.

Since the end of World War II, the United States has been the leader in serious disarmament and arms control proposals. In 1946, in what became known as the Baruch plan, the United States submitted a proposal for control of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy by an international authority. The Soviets rejected this plan. In 1955 President Eisenhower made his ``Open Skies'' proposal, under which the United States and the Soviet Union would have exchanged blueprints of military establishments and provided for aerial reconnaissance. The Soviets rejected this plan.

In 1963 the Limited Test Ban Treaty came into force. This treaty ended nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere, outer space, or under water by participating nations. In 1970 the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons took effect. The United States played a major role in this key effort to prevent the spread of nuclear explosives and to provide for international safeguards on civil nuclear activities.

My country remains deeply committed to those objectives today, and to strengthening the nonproliferation framework. This is essential to international security. In the early 1970's, again at United States urging, agreements were reached between the United States and the U.S.S.R. providing for ceilings on some categories of weapons. They could have been more meaningful if Soviet actions had shown restraint and commitment to stability at lower levels of force.

The United Nations designated the 1970's as the First Disarmament Decade. But good intentions were not enough. In reality that 10-year period included an unprecedented buildup in military weapons and the flaring of aggression and use of force in almost every region of the world. We are now in the Second Disarmament Decade. The task at hand is to assure civilized behavior among nations, to unite behind an agenda of peace.

Over the past 7 months, the United States has put forward a broad-based, comprehensive series of proposals to reduce the risk of war. We have proposed four major points as an agenda for peace: elimination of land-based, intermediate-range missiles; a one-third reduction in strategic ballistic missile warheads; a substantial reduction in NATO and Warsaw Pact ground and air forces; and new safeguards to reduce the risk of accidental war. We urge the Soviet Union today to join with us in this quest. We must act not for ourselves alone, but for all mankind.

On November 18th of last year, I announced United States objectives in arms control agreements. They must be equitable and militarily significant. They must stabilize forces at lower levels, and they must be verifiable. The United States and its allies have made specific, reasonable, and equitable proposals.

In February, our negotiating team in Geneva offered the Soviet Union a draft treaty on intermediate-range nuclear forces. We offered to cancel deployment of our Pershing II ballistic missiles and ground-launched cruise missiles in exchange for Soviet elimination of the SS - 20, SS - 4, and SS - 5 missiles. This proposal would eliminate with one stroke those systems about which both sides have expressed the greatest concern.

The United States is also looking forward to beginning negotiations on strategic arms reductions with the Soviet Union in less than 2 weeks. We will work hard to make these talks an opportunity for real progress in our quest for peace.

On May 9th I announced a phased approach to the reduction of strategic arms. In a first phase, the number of ballistic missile warheads on each side would be reduced to about 5,000. No more than half the remaining warheads would be on land-based missiles. All ballistic missiles would be reduced to an equal level, at about one-half the current United States number. In the second phase, we would reduce each side's overall destructive power to equal levels, including a mutual ceiling on ballistic missile throw-weight below the current U.S. level. We are also prepared to discuss other elements of the strategic balance.

Before I returned from Europe last week, I met in Bonn with the leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We agreed to introduce a major new Western initiative for the Vienna negotiations on Mutual Balanced Force Reductions. Our approach calls for common, collective ceilings for both NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organization. After 7 years, there would be a total of 700,000 ground forces and 900,000 ground and air force personnel combined. It also includes a package of associated measures to encourage cooperation and verify compliance.

We urge the Soviet Union and members of the Warsaw Pact to view our Western proposal as a means to reach agreement in Vienna after 9 long years of inconclusive talks. We also urge them to implement the 1975 Helsinki agreement on security and cooperation in Europe.

Let me stress that for agreements to work, both sides must be able to verify compliance. The building of mutual confidence in compliance can only be achieved through greater openness. I encourage the special session on disarmament to endorse the importance of these principles in arms control agreements. I have instructed our representatives at the 40-nation Committee on Disarmament to renew emphasis on verification and compliance. Based on a U.S. proposal, a committee has been formed to examine these issues as they relate to restrictions on nuclear testing.

We are also pressing the need for effective verification provisions in agreements banning chemical weapons. The use of chemical and biological weapons has long been viewed with revulsion by civilized nations. No peacemaking institution can ignore the use of those dread weapons and still live up to its mission. The need for a truly effective and verifiable chemical weapons agreement has been highlighted by recent events. The Soviet Union and their allies are violating the Geneva Protocol of 1925, related rules of international law, and the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. There is conclusive evidence that the Soviet Government has provided toxins for use in Laos and Kampuchea, and are themselves using chemical weapons against freedom-fighters in Afghanistan.

We have repeatedly protested to the Soviet Government, as well as to the Governments of Laos and Vietnam, their use of chemical and toxin weapons. We call upon them now to grant full and free access to their countries or to territories they control so that United Nations experts can conduct an effective, independent investigation to verify cessation of these horrors.

Evidence of noncompliance with existing arms control agreements underscores the need to approach negotiation of any new agreements with care. The democracies of the West are open societies. Information on our defenses is available to our citizens, our elected officials, and the world. We do not hesitate to inform potential adversaries of our military forces and ask in return for the same information concerning theirs.

The amount and type of military spending by a country is important for the world to know, as a measure of its intentions and the threat that country may pose to its neighbors. The Soviet Union and other closed societies go to extraordinary lengths to hide their true military spending, not only from other nations but from their own people. This practice contributes to distrust and fear about their intentions.

Today, the United States proposes an international conference on military expenditures to build on the work of this body in developing a common system for accounting and reporting. We urge the Soviet Union, in particular, to join this effort in good faith, to revise the universally discredited official figures it publishes, and to join with us in giving the world a true account of the resources we allocate to our armed forces.

Last Friday in Berlin, I said that I would leave no stone unturned in the effort to reinforce peace and lessen the risk of war. It's been clear to me steps should be taken to improve mutual communication, confidence, and lessen the likelihood of misinterpretation. I have, therefore, directed the exploration of ways to increase understanding and communication between the United States and the Soviet Union in times of peace and of crisis.

We will approach the Soviet Union with proposals for reciprocal exchanges in such areas as advance notification of major strategic exercises that otherwise might be misinterpreted; advance notification of ICBM launches within, as well as beyond, national boundaries; and an expanded exchange of strategic forces data.

While substantial information on U.S. activities and forces in these areas already is provided, I believe that jointly and regularly sharing information would represent a qualitative improvement in the strategic nuclear environment and would help reduce the chance of misunderstandings. I call upon the Soviet Union to join the United States in exploring these possibilities to build confidence, and I ask for your support of our efforts.

One of the major items before this conference is the development of a comprehensive program of disarmament. We support the effort to chart a course of realistic and effective measures in the quest for peace.

I have come to this hall to call for international recommitment to the basic tenet of the United Nations Charter -- that all members practice tolerance and live together in peace as good neighbors under the rule of law, forsaking armed force as a means of settling disputes between nations. America urges you to support the agenda for peace that I have outlined today. We ask you to reinforce the bilateral and multilateral arms control negotiations between members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact and to rededicate yourselves to maintaining international peace and security, and removing threats to peace.

We, who have signed the U.N. Charter, have pledged to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territory or independence of any state. In these times when more and more lawless acts are going unpunished -- as some members of this very body show a growing disregard for the U.N. Charter -- the peace-loving nations of the world must condemn aggression and pledge again to act in a way that is worthy of the ideals that we have endorsed. Let us finally make the charter live.

In late spring, 37 years ago, representatives of 50 nations gathered on the other side of this continent, in the San Francisco Opera House. The League of Nations had crumbled, and World War II still raged. But those men and nations were determined to find peace. The result was this charter for peace that is the framework of the United Nations.

President Harry Truman spoke of the revival of an old faith. He said the everlasting moral force of justice prompting that United Nations Conference -- such a force remains strong in America and in other countries where speech is free and citizens have the right to gather and make their opinions known. And President Truman said, ``If we should pay merely lip service to inspiring ideals, and later do violence to simple justice, we would draw down upon us the bitter wrath of generations yet unborn.'' Those words of Harry Truman have special meaning for us today as we live with the potential to destroy civilization.

``We must learn to live together in peace,'' he said. ``We must build a new world -- a far better world.'' What a better world it would be if the guns were silent, if neighbor no longer encroached on neighbor, and all peoples were free to reap the rewards of their toil and determine their own destiny and system of government, whatever their choice.

During my recent audience with His Holiness Pope John Paul II, I gave him the pledge of the American people to do everything possible for peace and arms reduction. The American people believe forging real and lasting peace to be their sacred trust. Let us never forget that such a peace would be a terrible hoax if the world were no longer blessed with freedom and respect for human rights.

``The United Nations,'' Hammarskjold said, ``was born out of the cataclysms of war. It should justify the sacrifices of all those who have died for freedom and justice. It is our duty to the past.'' Hammarskjold said, ``And it is our duty to the future so to serve both our nations and the world.''

As both patriots of our nations and the hope of all the world, let those of us assembled here in the name of peace deepen our understandings, renew our commitment to the rule of law, and take new and bolder steps to calm an uneasy world. Can any delegate here deny that in so doing he would be doing what the people, the rank and file of his own country or her own country want him or her to do? Isn't it time for us to really represent the deepest most heartfelt yearnings of all of our people?

Let no nation abuse this common longing to be free of fear. We must not manipulate our people by playing upon their nightmares. We must serve mankind through genuine disarmament. With God's help we can secure life and freedom for generations to come.

Thank you very much.

Address to the Nation on Federal Tax and Budget Reconciliation Legislation
August 16, 1982


My fellow Americans:
There's an old saying we've all heard a thousand times about the weather and how everyone talks about it but no one does anything about it. Well, many of you must be feeling that way about the present state of our economy. Certainly there's a lot of talk about it, but I want you to know we're doing something about it. And the reason I wanted to talk to you is because you can help us do something about it.

Believe me, if some of you are confused, I can understand why. For some time, ever since we started planning the 1983 budget for the fiscal year beginning this coming October 1st, there's been a steady drumbeat of ``reports'' on what we're supposed to be doing.

I know you've read and heard on the news a variety of statements attributed to various ``authoritative government sources who prefer not to have their names used.'' Well, you know my name, and I think I'm an authoritative source on this since I'm right in the middle of what's going on here. So, I'd like to set the record straight on a few of the things that you might have heard lately.

I'm sure you've heard that ``we're proposing the largest single tax increase in history.'' The truth is, we're proposing nothing of the kind. And then there's the one that ``our economic recovery program has failed, so I've abandoned it and turned to increasing taxes instead of trying to reduce Federal spending.'' Well, don't you believe that one either.

Yes, there is a tax bill before the Congress tied to a program of further cuts in spending. It is not, however, the ``greatest single tax increase in history.'' Possibly it could be called the greatest tax reform in history, but it absolutely does not represent any reversal of policy or philosophy on the part of this administration or this President.

Now, you may have heard that some special interests oppose this bill. And that's right; some do. As a matter of fact, some in the Congress of my own party object to this bill -- and strongly. I'm told by many that this bill is not politically popular, and it may not be. Why then do I support it? I support it because it's right for America. I support it because it's fair. I support it because it will, when combined with our cuts in government spending, reduce interest rates and put more Americans back to work again.

Now, you'll recall that when our administration came into office a year ago last January, we announced a plan for economic recovery. Recovery from what? From a 1980 recession that saw inflation in double-digit figures for the second year in a row. It was 12.4 percent when we arrived. Interest rates had gone into outer space. They were at the highest they'd been in a hundred years with a prime rate that hit 21\1/2\ percent. There were almost 8 million Americans out of work. And in several hard-hit industrial States, there already were pockets of unemployment reaching figures of 15, 18, and even 20 percent. I went to those areas; I know.

The cost of government was increasing at a rate of 17 percent a year. There was little we could do about the budget already in place. But we could do something about the one that had been proposed for the fiscal year beginning in October of our first year.

I'd campaigned on the belief that government costs should be reduced and that the percentage of the people's earnings taken by government in taxes should also be reduced. I also said that one area of government spending could not be reduced, but must instead be increased. That was the spending necessary to restore our nation's defenses, which had been allowed to deteriorate to a dangerous degree in the preceding 4 years.

Interest rates continued high as the months went by, and unemployment increased, particularly in the automobile industry and housing construction. Few could or would afford the high interest rates for home mortgages or installment buying of an automobile.

Meantime, we were putting our economic recovery program in place. It wasn't easy. We didn't get all the cuts we wanted. And we got some tax measures we didn't want. But we were charting a complete turnaround in government policy, and we did get the major part of what we proposed. The Congress mandated spending cuts of $130 billion over 3 years and adopted the biggest tax cut in history.

Now, this, too, was to be implemented over a 3-year period. It began with a 5-percent cut in the personal income tax beginning October 1st, 1981, then a 10-percent cut this last July, and another scheduled for July 1st, 1983. These will be followed by indexing of the tax brackets so workers getting cost-of-living pay raises won't be moved up into higher brackets. We have to realize inflation itself is a tax. Government profits by inflation, but indexing will put a stop to that.

There were tax cuts for business and industry to help provide capital for modernization of plant and equipment, changes in the estate tax, capital gains tax, and the marriage-penalty tax. Some who supported us on the spending cuts were fearful about cutting taxes in view of the continuing budget deficits. We felt that tax cuts had to be a part of our plan in order to provide incentive for individuals and for business to increase productivity and thus create jobs for the unemployed.

Now, it's only been 10 months since the first phase of our program went into effect. As I said earlier, there are those who say it's been tried and it failed. Well, as Al Smith used to say, ``Let's look at the record.''

Start with interest rates, the basic cause of the present recession: The prime rate was, as I said, 21\1/2\ percent. Well, last week it was 14\1/2\ percent. And as of today, three major banks have lowered it to 14 percent. Last week 90-day Treasury bills were paying less than 9 percent interest. One year ago they were paying 15\1/2\. That double-digit inflation, 12.4 percent, has been cut in half for the last 6 months. Real earnings are at last increasing for the first time in quite a long time. Personal savings, which trended downward throughout the last decade, are increasing. This means more money in the pool of investment capital. This will help further reduce interest rates.

All of this in only 10 months hardly looks like a program that failed to me. Oh, yes, I failed to mention that in the quarter just ended there was an increase in economic growth -- the first such increase in a long time.

Our biggest problem -- the last one to be solved in every recession -- is unemployment. I understand how tough it is for those who are waiting for the jobs that come with recovery. We can have no rest until our neighbors, our fellow citizens who want to work, are able once again to find jobs. Again, let me say, the main obstacle to their doing so is continued high interest rates.

Those rates should be lower now than they are, with the success we've had in reducing inflation. But part of the problem is psychological -- a pessimism in the money markets that we won't stay the course and continue lowering the cost of government. The projected increase in budget deficits has added to that pessimism and fear. And this brings us back to that so-called greatest tax increase in history and the budget proposals now before the Congress.

When I submitted the 1983 budget to the Congress in February, it contained very significant spending cuts on top of those we obtained last year. This time, however, we couldn't get the support we had last year. Some who had not been happy about the tax cuts then were now insisting we must have additional tax revenues. In fact, they wanted to cancel the reduction scheduled for next July and cancel the indexing of tax brackets. Others proposed tax increases mounting to about $150 billion over a 3-year period. On top of this, there was resistance to the spending reductions we asked for, and even attempts to eliminate some of last year's cuts so as to actually increase spending.

For many months now we've been working to get a compromise budget that would further reduce spending and thus reduce the deficits. We also have stood firm on retaining the tax cuts already in place, because, as I said, they're essential to restoring the economy.

We did, however, agree to limited revenue increases so long as they didn't harm the incentive features of our economic recovery program. We ourselves, last year, had called attention to the possibility of better compliance with the tax laws -- collecting taxes legitimately owed but which were not being paid.

Well, weeks and weeks of negotiations resulted in a congressional budget resolution combining revenue increases and further spending reductions. Revenues would increase over a 3-year period by about $99 billion, and outlays in that same period would be reduced by 280 billion. Now, as you can see, that figures out to about a 3-to-1 ratio -- $3 less in spending outlays for each $1 of increased revenue.

This compromise adds up to a total over 3 years of a $380 billion reduction in the budget deficits. And remember, our original tax reduction remains in place, which means your taxes will still be cut $335 billion in these next 3 years, even with the passage of this present tax bill.

Now, let me take that $99 billion tax program apart, and you decide whether it's the biggest tax increase in history. Of the entire $99 billion, 32 billion is collection of tax presently owed under the present laws and which is not being paid. Now, to all of you who are paying your tax, simple fairness says we should collect from those who are freeloading. Roughly 48 billion of the 99 billion represents closing off special-interest loopholes which have resulted in unintended tax advantages for some -- not all -- taxpayers, some who are financially well able to pay their share. Now, this is also a matter of simple fairness. So, more than 80 percent of the tax bill is not new tax at all, but is better collecting and correcting of flaws in the system.ø

Now, this leaves $19 billion over 3 years of actual new taxes, which is far outweighed by the tax cuts which will benefit individuals. There is an excise tax on cigarettes, another on telephones. Well, for people who smoke a pack a day, that tax will mean an increase of only $2.40 a month. The telephone tax increase is only about 54 cents a month for the average household. Right now the tax reduction that we passed last year is saving the average family about $400 per year. Next year, even after this new tax bill is passed, the savings will almost double; they'll go to $788.

And here's what the totals look like. The new tax reform will raise in 3 years about, as I say, 99 billion. In the same 3 years, as I said a moment ago, our tax-cut program even after this increase will save you 335 billion.

Within the new bill there has, of course, been disagreement over some of the specific provisions. For example, there's considerable confusion over the proposal to have withholding of tax due on interest and dividends, just as it's withheld now on your wages and salaries. Many senior citizens have been led to believe this is a new tax added on top of the present income tax. Well, there is no truth whatsoever to that. We found that while the overwhelming majority of Americans faithfully report income from interest and dividends and pay taxes on it, some do not. It's one of the significant areas of noncompliance and is costing the government about $9 billion a year.

In the case of those over age 65, withholding will only apply to those with incomes of $14,450 and up per individual and $24,214 for couples filing a joint return. Low-income citizens below 65 will be exempt if their income is less than about $8,000 for an individual or 15,300 for those filing joint returns. And there will be an exemption for all interest payments of $150 or less. The only people whose taxes will be increased by this withholding are those who presently are evading their fair share of the tax burden. Once again, we're striving to see that all taxpayers are treated fairly.

Now, this withholding will go into effect next July, not this January 1st, as was earlier reported. Back during the campaign -- on September 9th, 1980, to be exact -- I said my goal was to reduce by 1985 the share of the gross national product taken by the government in taxes, reduce it to 20.5 percent. If we had done nothing, it would have risen to almost 25 percent. But even after passage of this bill, the Federal Government in 1985 will only be taking 19.6 percent of the gross national product.

Make no mistake about it, this whole package is a compromise. I had to swallow hard to agree to any revenue increase. But there are two sides to a compromise. Those who supported the increased revenues swallowed hard to accept $280 billion in outlay cuts. Others have accepted specific provisions with regard to taxes or spending cuts which they opposed. There's a provision in the bill for extended unemployment payments in States particularly hard hit by unemployment. If this provision is not enacted, 2 million unemployed people will use up their benefits by the end of March.

I repeat: Much of this bill will make our tax system more fair for every American, especially those in lower income brackets. I'm still dedicated to reducing the level of spending until it's within our income, and I still want to see the base of the economy broadened so that the individual's tax burden can be further reduced.

Over the years, growth in government and deficit spending have been built into our system. Now, it'd be nice if we could just cut that out of our system with a single, sharp slice. That, however, can't be done without bringing great hardship down on many of our less fortunate neighbors who are not in a position to provide for themselves. And none of us wants that.

Our effort to restore fiscal integrity and common sense to the Federal establishment isn't limited to the budget cuts and tax policy. Vice President Bush heads up a task force that's been reviewing excessive regulations. Already enough unnecessary and duplicative regulations have been eliminated or revised to save an estimated $6 billion every year.

Our Inspectors General have been mobilized into a task force aimed at ferreting out waste and fraud. They've conducted tens of thousands of audits, secured thousands of indictments resulting in many convictions. In the first 6 months of fiscal 1982 alone, they found $5.8 billion of savings and improved use of funds. Computer cross-checking has uncovered thousands of government checks still going to people who've been dead for several years.

Task forces from the private sector are engaged in a study of the management structure of government. What they've learned already indicates a great potential for savings by simply bringing government procedures up to ordinary modern business standards. Our private sector initiatives force, under William Verity, has uncovered hundreds of community and statewide projects performing services voluntarily that once were thought to be the province of government. Some of the most innovative have to do with job training and placement, particularly for young people.

What we need now is an end to the bickering here in the Capital. We need the bipartisan, comprehensive package of revenue increases and spending cuts now before the Congress. We need it to be passed.

We're not proposing a quick fix, an artificial stimulant to the economy, such as we've seen in the several recessions in recent years. The present recession is bottoming out without resorting to quick fixes.

Now, there won't be a sudden boom or upsurge. But slowly and surely, we'll have a sound and lasting recovery based on solid values and increased productivity and an end to deficit spending. It may not be easy, but it's the best way, the only way to real and lasting prosperity for all our people.

Think of it, we've only had one balanced budget in the last 20 years. Let's look forward to the day when we begin making payments to reduce the national debt, instead of turning it all over to our children.

You helped us start this economic recovery program last year when you told your representatives you wanted it. You can help again -- whether you're a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent -- by letting them know that you want it continued, letting them know that you understand that this legislation is a price worth paying for lower interest rates, economic recovery, and more jobs.

The single most important question facing us tonight is, do we reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share? Or do we accept bigger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment simply because we disagree on certain features of a legislative package which offers hope for millions of Americans at home, on the farm, and in the workplace?

Do we tell these Americans to give up hope, that their ship of state lies dead in the water because those entrusted with manning that ship can't agree on which sail to raise? We're within sight of the safe port of economic recovery. Do we make port or go aground on the shoals of selfishness, partisanship, and just plain bullheadedness?

The measure the Congress is about to vote on, while not perfect in the eyes of any one of us, will bring us closer to the goal of a balanced budget, restored industrial power, and employment for all who want to work. Together we can reach that goal.

Thank you. God bless you.

Address to the Nation on United States Policy for Peace in the Middle East
September 1, 1982


My fellow Americans:
Today has been a day that should make us proud. It marked the end of the successful evacuation of PLO from Beirut, Lebanon. This peaceful step could never have been taken without the good offices of the United States and especially the truly heroic work of a great American diplomat, Ambassador Philip Habib.

Thanks to his efforts, I'm happy to announce that the U.S. Marine contingent helping to supervise the evacuation has accomplished its mission. Our young men should be out of Lebanon within 2 weeks. They, too, have served the cause of peace with distinction, and we can all be very proud of them.

But the situation in Lebanon is only part of the overall problem of conflict in the Middle East. So, over the past 2 weeks, while events in Beirut dominated the front page, America was engaged in a quiet, behind-the-scenes effort to lay the groundwork for a broader peace in the region. For once there were no premature leaks as U.S. diplomatic missions traveled to Mideast capitals, and I met here at home with a wide range of experts to map out an American peace initiative for the long-suffering peoples of the Middle East -- Arab and Israeli alike.

It seemed to me that with the agreement in Lebanon we had an opportunity for a more far-reaching peace effort in the region, and I was determined to seize that moment. In the words of the scripture, the time had come to ``follow after the things which make for peace.'' Tonight I want to report to you the steps we've taken and the prospects they can open up for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

America has long been committed to bringing peace to this troubled region. For more than a generation, successive United States administrations have endeavored to develop a fair and workable process that could lead to a true and lasting Arab-Israeli peace.

Our involvement in the search for Mideast peace is not a matter of preference; it's a moral imperative. The strategic importance of the region to the United States is well known, but our policy is motivated by more than strategic interests. We also have an irreversible commitment to the survival and territorial integrity of friendly states. Nor can we ignore the fact that the well-being of much of the world's economy is tied to stability in the strife-torn Middle East. Finally, our traditional humanitarian concerns dictated a continuing effort to peacefully resolve conflicts.

When our administration assumed office in January of 1981, I decided that the general framework for our Middle East policy should follow the broad guidelines laid down by my predecessors. There were two basic issues we had to address. First, there was the strategic threat to the region posed by the Soviet Union and its surrogates, best demonstrated by the brutal war in Afghanistan, and, second, the peace process between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

With regard to the Soviet threat, we have strengthened our efforts to develop with our friends and allies a joint policy to deter the Soviets and their surrogates from further expansion in the region and, if necessary, to defend against it.

With respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict, we've embraced the Camp David framework as the only way to proceed. We have also recognized, however, solving the Arab-Israeli conflict in and of itself cannot assure peace throughout a region as vast and troubled as the Middle East.

Our first objective under the Camp David process was to ensure the successful fulfillment of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. This was achieved with the peaceful return of the Sinai to Egypt in April 1982. To accomplish this, we worked hard with our Egyptian and Israeli friends and, eventually, with other friendly countries to create the multinational force which now operates in the Sinai. Throughout this period of difficult and time-consuming negotiations, we never lost sight of the next step of Camp David -- autonomy talks to pave the way for permitting the Palestinian people to exercise their legitimate rights. However, owing to the tragic assassination of President Sadat and other crises in the area, it was not until January 1982 that we were able to make a major effort to renew these talks.

Secretary of State Haig and Ambassador Fairbanks made three visits to Israel and Egypt early this year to pursue the autonomy talks. Considerable progress was made in developing the basic outline of an American approach which was to be presented to Egypt and Israel after April.

The successful completion of Israel's withdrawal from Sinai and the courage shown on this occasion by Prime Minister Begin and President Mubarak in living up to their agreements convinced me the time had come for a new American policy to try to bridge the remaining differences between Egypt and Israel on the autonomy process. So, in May I called for specific measures and a timetable for consultations with the Governments of Egypt and Israel on the next steps in the peace process. However, before this effort could be launched, the conflict in Lebanon preempted our efforts.

The autonomy talks were basically put on hold while we sought to untangle the parties in Lebanon and still the guns of war. The Lebanon war, tragic as it was, has left us with a new opportunity for Middle East peace. We must seize it now and bring peace to this troubled area so vital to world stability while there is still time. It was with this strong conviction that over a month ago, before the present negotiations in Beirut had been completed, I directed Secretary of State Shultz to again review our policy and to consult a wide range of outstanding Americans on the best ways to strengthen chances for peace in the Middle East.

We have consulted with many of the officials who were historically involved in the process, with Members of the Congress, and with individuals from the private sector. And I have held extensive consultations with my own advisers on the principles that I will outline to you tonight.

The evacuation of the PLO from Beirut is now complete, and we can now help the Lebanese to rebuild their war-torn country. We owe it to ourselves and to posterity to move quickly to build upon this achievement. A stable and revived Lebanon is essential to all our hopes for peace in the region. The people of Lebanon deserve the best efforts of the international community to turn the nightmares of the past several years into a new dawn of hope. But the opportunities for peace in the Middle East do not begin and end in Lebanon. As we help Lebanon rebuild, we must also move to resolve the root causes of conflict between Arabs and Israelis.

The war in Lebanon has demonstrated many things, but two consequences are key to the peace process. First, the military losses of the PLO have not diminished the yearning of the Palestinian people for a just solution of their claims; and, second, while Israel's military successes in Lebanon have demonstrated that its armed forces are second to none in the region, they alone cannot bring just and lasting peace to Israel and her neighbors.

The question now is how to reconcile Israel's legitimate security concerns with the legitimate rights of the Palestinians. And that answer can only come at the negotiating table. Each party must recognize that the outcome must be acceptable to all and that true peace will require compromises by all.

So, tonight I'm calling for a fresh start. This is the moment for all those directly concerned to get involved -- or lend their support -- to a workable basis for peace. The Camp David agreement remains the foundation of our policy. Its language provides all parties with the leeway they need for successful negotiations.

I call on Israel to make clear that the security for which she yearns can only be achieved through genuine peace, a peace requiring magnanimity, vision, and courage.

I call on the Palestinian people to recognize that their own political aspirations are inextricably bound to recognition of Israel's right to a secure future.

And I call on the Arab States to accept the reality of Israel -- and the reality that peace and justice are to be gained only through hard, fair, direct negotiation.

In making these calls upon others, I recognize that the United States has a special responsibility. No other nation is in a position to deal with the key parties to the conflict on the basis of trust and reliability.

The time has come for a new realism on the part of all the peoples of the Middle East. The State of Israel is an accomplished fact; it deserves unchallenged legitimacy within the community of nations. But Israel's legitimacy has thus far been recognized by too few countries and has been denied by every Arab State except Egypt. Israel exists; it has a right to exist in peace behind secure and defensible borders; and it has a right to demand of its neighbors that they recognize those facts.

I have personally followed and supported Israel's heroic struggle for survival, ever since the founding of the State of Israel 34 years ago. In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.

The war in Lebanon has demonstrated another reality in the region. The departure of the Palestinians from Beirut dramatizes more than ever the homelessness of the Palestinian people. Palestinians feel strongly that their cause is more than a question of refugees. I agree. The Camp David agreement recognized that fact when it spoke of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and their just requirements.

For peace to endure it must involve all those who have been most deeply affected by the conflict. Only through broader participation in the peace process, most immediately by Jordan and by the Palestinians, will Israel be able to rest confident in the knowledge that its security and integrity will be respected by its neighbors. Only through the process of negotiation can all the nations of the Middle East achieve a secure peace.

These, then, are our general goals. What are the specific new American positions, and why are we taking them? In the Camp David talks thus far, both Israel and Egypt have felt free to express openly their views as to what the outcome should be. Understandably their views have differed on many points. The United States has thus far sought to play the role of mediator. We have avoided public comment on the key issues. We have always recognized and continue to recognize that only the voluntary agreement of those parties most directly involved in the conflict can provide an enduring solution. But it's become evident to me that some clearer sense of America's position on the key issues is necessary to encourage wider support for the peace process.

First, as outlined in the Camp David accords, there must be a period of time during which the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza will have full autonomy over their own affairs. Due consideration must be given to the principle of self-government by the inhabitants of the territories and to the legitimate security concerns of the parties involved. The purpose of the 5-year period of transition which would begin after free elections for a self-governing Palestinian authority is to prove to the Palestinians that they can run their own affairs and that such Palestinian autonomy poses no threat to Israel's security.

The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transitional period. Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated.

I want to make the American position well understood. The purpose of this transitional period is the peaceful and orderly transfer of authority from Israel to the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. At the same time, such a transfer must not interfere with Israel's security requirements.

Beyond the transition period, as we look to the future of the West Bank and Gaza, it is clear to me that peace cannot be achieved by the formation of an independent Palestinian state in those territories, nor is it achievable on the basis of Israeli sovereignty or permanent control over the West Bank and Gaza. So, the United States will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and we will not support annexation or permanent control by Israel.

There is, however, another way to peace. The final status of these lands must, of course, be reached through the give and take of negotiations. But it is the firm view of the United States that self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan offers the best chance for a durable, just, and lasting peace. We base our approach squarely on the principle that the Arab-Israeli conflict should be resolved through negotiations involving an exchange of territory for peace.

This exchange is enshrined in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which is, in turn, incorporated in all its parts in the Camp David agreements. U.N. Resolution 242 remains wholly valid as the foundation stone of America's Middle East peace effort. It is the United States position that, in return for peace, the withdrawal provision of Resolution 242 applies to all fronts, including the West Bank and Gaza. When the border is negotiated between Jordan and Israel, our view on the extent to which Israel should be asked to give up territory will be heavily affected by the extent of true peace and normalization, and the security arrangements offered in return.

Finally, we remain convinced that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but its final status should be decided through negotiation.

In the course of the negotiations to come, the United States will support positions that seem to us fair and reasonable compromises and likely to promote a sound agreement. We will also put forward our own detailed proposals when we believe they can be helpful. And, make no mistake, the United States will oppose any proposal from any party and at any point in the negotiating process that threatens the security of Israel. America's commitment to the security of Israel is ironclad, and, I might add, so is mine.

During the past few days, our Ambassadors in Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have presented to their host governments the proposals, in full detail, that I have outlined here today. Now I'm convinced that these proposals can bring justice, bring security, and bring durability to an Arab-Israeli peace. The United States will stand by these principles with total dedication. They are fully consistent with Israel's security requirements and the aspirations of the Palestinians.

We will work hard to broaden participation at the peace table as envisaged by the Camp David accords. And I fervently hope that the Palestinians and Jordan, with the support of their Arab colleagues, will accept this opportunity.

Tragic turmoil in the Middle East runs back to the dawn of history. In our modern day, conflict after conflict has taken its brutal toll there. In an age of nuclear challenge and economic interdependence, such conflicts are a threat to all the people of the world, not just the Middle East itself. It's time for us all -- in the Middle East and around the world -- to call a halt to conflict, hatred, and prejudice. It's time for us all to launch a common effort for reconstruction, peace, and progress.

It has often been said -- and, regrettably, too often been true -- that the story of the search for peace and justice in the Middle East is a tragedy of opportunities missed. In the aftermath of the settlement in Lebanon, we now face an opportuntiy for a broader peace. This time we must not let it slip from our grasp. We must look beyond the difficulties and obstacles of the present and move with a fairness and resolve toward a brighter future. We owe it to ourselves -- and to posterity -- to do no less. For if we miss this chance to make a fresh start, we may look back on this moment from some later vantage point and realize how much that failure cost us all.

These, then, are the principles upon which American policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict will be based. I have made a personal commitment to see that they endure and, God willing, that they will come to be seen by all reasonable, compassionate people as fair, achievable, and in the interests of all who wish to see peace in the Middle East.

Tonight, on the eve of what can be a dawning of new hope for the people of the troubled Middle East -- and for all the world's people who dream of a just and peaceful future -- I ask you, my fellow Americans, for your support and your prayers in this great undertaking.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Address to the Nation Announcing the Formation of a New Multinational Force in Lebanon
September 20, 1982


My fellow Americans:
The scenes that the whole world witnessed this past weekend were among the most heart-rending in the long nightmare of Lebanon's agony. Millions of us have seen pictures of the Palestinian victims of this tragedy. There is little that words can add, but there are actions we can and must take to bring that nightmare to an end.

It's not enough for us to view this as some remote event in which we, ourselves, are not involved. For our friends in Lebanon and Israel, for our friends in Europe and elsewhere in the Middle East, and for us as Americans, this tragedy, horrible as it is, reminds us of the absolute imperative of bringing peace to that troubled country and region. By working for peace in the Middle East, we serve the cause of world peace and the future of mankind.

For the criminals who did this deed, no punishment is enough to remove the blot of their crime. But for the rest of us, there are things that we can learn and things that we must do. The people of Lebanon must have learned that the cycle of massacre upon massacre must end. Children are not avenged by the murder of other children. Israel must have learned that there is no way it can impose its own solutions on hatreds as deep and bitter as those that produced this tragedy. If it seeks to do so, it will only sink more deeply into the quagmire that looms before it. Those outsiders who have fed the flames of civil war in Lebanon for so many years need to learn that the fire will consume them, too, if it is not put out. And we must all rededicate ourselves to the cause of peace. I reemphasize my call for early progress to solve the Palestinian issue and repeat the U.S. proposals which are now even more urgent.

For now is not the time for talk alone; now is a time for action -- to act together to restore peace to Beirut, to help a stable government emerge that can restore peace and independence to all of Lebanon, and to bring a just and lasting resolution to the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors, one that satisfies the legitimate rights of the Palestinians, who are all too often its victims.

Our basic objectives in Lebanon have not changed, for they're the objectives of the Government and the people of Lebanon themselves. First and foremost, we seek the restoration of a strong and stable central government in that country, brought into being by orderly constitutional processes. Lebanon elected a new President 2 short weeks ago, only to see him murdered even before he could assume his office. This week a distressed Lebanon will again be electing a new President. May God grant him safety as well as the wisdom and courage to lead his country into a new and happier era.

The international community has an obligation to assist the Government of Lebanon in reasserting authority over all its territory. Foreign forces and armed factions have too long obstructed the legitimate role of the Government of Lebanon's security forces. We must pave the way for withdrawal of foreign forces.

The place to begin this task is in Beirut. The Lebanese Government must be permitted to restore internal security in its capital. It cannot do this if foreign forces remain in or near Beirut. With this goal in mind, I have consulted with our French and Italian allies. We have agreed to form a new multinational force, similar to the one which served so well last month, with the mission of enabling the Lebanese Government to resume full sovereignty over its capital, the essential precondition for extending its control over the entire country.

The Lebanese Government, with the support of its people, requested this help. For this multinational force to succeed, it is essential that Israel withdraw from Beirut. With the expected cooperation of all parties, the multinational force will return to Beirut for a limited period of time. Its purpose is not to act as a police force, but to make it possible for the lawful authorities of Lebanon to discharge those duties for themselves.

Secretary Shultz, on my behalf, has also reiterated our views to the Government of Israel through its Ambassador in Washington. Unless Israel moves quickly and courageously to withdraw, it will find itself ever more deeply involved in problems that are not its own and which it cannot solve.

The participation of American forces in Beirut will again be for a limited period. But I've concluded there is no alternative to their returning to Lebanon if that country is to have a chance to stand on its own feet.

Peace in Beirut is only a first step. Together with the people of Lebanon, we seek the removal of all foreign military forces from that country. The departure of all foreign forces at the request of the Lebanese authorities has been widely endorsed by Arab as well as other states. Israel and Syria have both indicated that they have no territorial ambitions in Lebanon and are prepared to withdraw. It is now urgent that specific arrangements for withdrawal of all foreign forces be agreed upon. This must happen very soon. The legitimate security concerns of neighboring states, including, particularly, the safety of Israel's northern population, must be provided for. But this is not a difficult task, if the political will is there. The Lebanese people must be allowed to chart their own future. They must rely solely on Lebanese Armed Forces who are willing and able to bring security to their country. They must be allowed to do so, and the sooner the better.

Ambassador Draper, who's been in close consultation with the parties concerned in Lebanon, will remain in the area to work for the full implementation of our proposal. Ambassador Habib will join him, will represent me at the inauguration of the new President of Lebanon, and will consult with the leaders in the area. He will return promptly to Washington to report to me.

Early in the summer, our government met its responsibility to help resolve a severe crisis and to relieve the Lebanese people of a crushing burden. We succeeded. Recent events have produced new problems, and we must again assume our responsibility.

I am especially anxious to end the agony of Lebanon because it is both right and in our national interest. But I am also determined to press ahead on the broader effort to achieve peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The events in Beirut of last week have served only to reinforce my conviction that such a peace is desperately needed and that the initiative we undertook on September 1st is the right way to proceed. We will not be discouraged or deterred in our efforts to seek peace in Lebanon and a just and lasting peace throughout the Middle East.

All of us must learn the appropriate lessons from this tragedy and assume the responsibilities that it imposes upon us. We owe it to ourselves and to our children. The whole world will be a safer place when this region which has known so much trouble can begin to know peace instead. Both our purpose and our actions are peaceful, and we're taking them in a spirit of international cooperation.

So, tonight, I ask for your prayers and your support as our country continues its vital role as a leader for world peace, a role that all of us as Americans can be proud of.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Address to the Nation on the Economy
October 13, 1982


My fellow Americans:
In recent days all of us have been swamped by a sea of economic statistics -- some good, some bad, and some just plain confusing. There are times when I think that the paper traffic that crosses my desk in a week could fill a big-city phone book, and then some.

The value of the dollar is up around the world. Interest rates are down by 40 percent. The stock and bond markets surge upward. Inflation is down 59 percent. Buying power is going up. Some economic indicators are down; others are up. But the dark cloud of unemployment hangs over the lives of 11 million of our friends, neighbors, and family.

At times, the sheer weight of all these facts and figures make them hard for anyone to understand. What do they really mean, and what can we do to make them better?

Well, the first step is to understand what they mean in human terms -- how they're affecting the everyday lives of our people, because behind every one of those numbers are millions of individual lives -- young couples struggling to make ends meet, teenagers looking for work, older Americans threatened by inflation, small businessmen fighting for survival, and parents working for a better future for their children.

All of them have one thing in common. They're Americans who love this country of ours and want to make it a better place. They're brave, hard-working people who know that America today faces serious problems that were long years in the making. And they're desperately trying to make sense out of all the statistics, slogans, and political jargon filling the airwaves in this election year. Above all, they're concerned citizens who are looking for guideposts on the road to recovery -- for ways to help see our country through to better times.

I know because I hear from hundreds of them every day -- in meetings here at the White House; on visits to schools, meeting halls, factories, and fairgrounds across the country; and in thousands of phone calls and letters. I only wish I could share with you tonight all that they have to say -- their hopes, their fears, their concerns, and most of all, their quiet, patient courage. But let me just give you one example that speaks for so many of you, a letter from a wife and mother named Judith, who lives in Selma, Alabama.

``Dear Mr. President,'' she writes, ``It's 3:45 a.m., and for over an hour I've been unable to sleep . . . this morning I need very much to believe in something . . . I'm not writing so much as an individual, but as a representative of so many. We need to talk with you -- to believe that you hear us . . .

``After years of training and experience, we can't find jobs. National unemployment figures sound almost healthy next to the almost 19 percent we're enduring in Selma.

``The costs for basic survival are nearly beyond belief . . . there may never be a house -- home of our own -- that dream we've worked for for so many years . . . We have said `no' to so many things . . . we're afraid and confused. We've worked hard -- we conserved -- we planned -- we were frugal -- careful. We feel so out of control. We don't want a handout -- we just want to help make the system well again.

``We must know that in the tons of bureaucracy . . . we've not been lost . . . we want to help. We want a better life, and we're willing to work for it. We believe. We must -- it's all we have.''

Well, Judith, I hear you. And millions of other men and women like you stand for the values of hard work, thrift, commitment to family, and love of God that made this country so great and will make us great again. And you deserve to know what we're doing in these very difficult times to bring your dream, the American dream, back to life again, after so many years of mistakes and neglect.

Tonight, in homes across this country, unemployment is the problem uppermost on many people's minds. Getting Americans back to work is an urgent priority for all of us and especially for this administration. But remember, you can't solve unemployment without solving the things that caused it, the out-of-control government spending, the skyrocketing inflation and interest rates that led to unemployment in the first place. Unless you get at the root causes of the problem -- which is exactly what our economic program is doing -- you may be able to temporarily relieve the symptoms, but you'll never cure the disease. You may even make it worse.

I have a special reason for wanting to solve this problem in a lasting way. I was 21 and looking for work in 1932, one of the worst years of the Great Depression. And I can remember one bleak night in the thirties when my father learned on Christmas Eve that he'd lost his job. To be young in my generation was to feel that your future had been mortgaged out from under you, and that's a tragic mistake we must never allow our leaders to make again. Today's young people must never be held hostage to the mistakes of the past. The only way to avoid making those mistakes again is to learn from them.

The pounding economic hangover America's suffering from didn't come about overnight. And there's no single instant cure. In recent weeks, a lot of people have been playing what I call the ``blame game.'' The accusing finger has been pointed in every direction of the compass, and a lot of time and hot air have been spent looking for scapegoats. Well, there's plenty of blame to go around.

The problems we face are bigger than any one party or group of people. They're the result not of weeks or months, but of years, even decades of past mistakes. The problem isn't who to blame; it's what to blame. So, tonight, let's forget about party politics and take a look at how our country got into this fix and what we can do to get her out of it.

When I said this problem was years in the making, I wasn't just using a figure of speech. This chart shows you what I mean. You see that red line? It represents the rate of unemployment from 1968 through the present, and it tells us two important things. First of all, it's a jagged line, representing rises and dips in unemployment as our economy passed through boom periods and bust periods over the past decade. This reminds us that the current recession is part of a long series -- a series that hasn't stopped, because in the past, when the crunch came, too many in government resorted to quick fixes instead of getting to the root cause.

Each time they applied the quick fixes, unemployment dipped for a while, only to take off again. In that sense, you could say that we've been on a decade-long roller coaster ride. The only difference is that on a roller coaster you end up on solid ground once the ride is over. As you can see from the chart, while unemployment zig-zagged from year to year, its long-term direction kept notching upward. Notice that each so-called recovery left unemployment higher than before the recession.

In 1968 unemployment stood at 3.6 percent. In 1971 it shot up to 5.9 percent. Then it started coming down again, but instead of going all the way back to 3.6 percent, it bottomed out at 4.9 percent. In 1974 it started shooting up again, and the same thing happened. It bottomed out at a higher level than before. In other words, for all its short-term ups and downs, the unemployment roller coaster was really an escalator, edging its way up the charts throughout the last decade. Unless we reverse that trend, it can only get worse -- not just for us but for our children and grandchildren.

Now let's look at what's behind this bad trend in unemployment. What's been causing it for over a decade? A second chart tells much of the story. But before we look at it, I'll bet many of you have already come up with the answer. It's a phenomenon that, last year, a majority of Americans correctly identified as our single most pressing long-term problem: inflation.

Inflation and the high interest rates it leads to are the real culprits. They create the economic climate that leads to unemployment.

This blue line represents inflation. Like unemployment, inflation has zig-zagged over the last decade, but you can see that, up to now, the long-term trend has been upwards. Again, as with unemployment, the old quick fixes simply did not work. Each time they were applied, they gave a little temporary relief to the patient, but left him weaker than he was before.

It's a consistent pattern. Each time inflation has shot up since 1969 there has been a deadly, delayed reaction of rising unemployment. Inflation is like a virus in the economic bloodstream, sometimes dormant and sometimes active, but leaving the patient weaker after every new attack.

My fellow Americans, we've got to stop these trendlines to disaster.

To do that, we have to understand what causes them. Well, for starters, our Federal Government has been living beyond its means for more than a generation. One of the wisest of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, warned that the public debt is ``the greatest of dangers to be feared.'' He believed that is was wrong for one generation to forever burden the generations yet to come, and for the first 150 years of our history, our leaders heeded Jefferson's warning.

But not lately. In our lifetimes we've seen government spending rage out of control. We've only had one balanced budget in the last 22 years. So, now we're staggering under a trillion-dollar debt. This year, before government can spend one dime to feed the hungry, care for the sick, or protect our freedom, it must plan to spend $110 billion just to pay interest on that debt. And still the big spenders wonder why the American people want what a stubborn minority in the House of Representatives denied them just 12 days ago: a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

All of this government spending and red ink can only spawn higher taxes and whopping deficits which for nearly two decades led to inflationary increases in the money supply. Inflation and massive government borrowing drive up interest rates. That makes it difficult or impossible for families to get the credit they need to buy homes, cars, and appliances or for businesses to invest in greater productivity. And ultimately inflation leads to recession and unemployment.

We've had eight recessions since World War II. At the bottom of it all is inflation, government-caused inflation. Over the years our leaders adopted something called the new economics based on a belief that a little inflation each year created prosperity. But each time the economic disruption caused by inflation triggered another round of recession and high unemployment. The government reacted not like your family would, by putting its own house in order, but by spending, borrowing, and printing more money.

Unemployment would dip for a time, but the same quick fix that temporarily eased unemployment was sending inflation back through the ceiling. It was a vicious cycle. Too many people played politics with the economy for too long, and those twin disaster lines kept inching ominously upward, bringing our society closer and closer to catastrophe.

In a way I guess I can understand why so many of our political leaders fell into this trap. I'm sure they did it with the best of intentions. It's easy to lose touch with reality when it is other people's money that you're spending. And there are so many things you want to do for those or this or that special-interest group -- so many programs, many of them quite attractive and well-meaning, that can only be subsidized by more government taxing, spending, and borrowing. I can understand how it happened. Indeed, like many others, for a time I accepted government's claim that it was sound economics. But there came a day when I and millions of other Americans began to realize the terrible consequences of all those years of playing politics as usual while the economic disaster lines crept higher and higher.

Well, at my age I didn't come to Washington to play politics as usual. I didn't come here to reward pressure groups by spending other people's money. And most of all, I didn't come here to further mortgage the future of the American people just to buy a little short-term political popularity. I came to Washington to try to solve problems, not to sweep them under the rug and leave them for those who will come later.

A President's greatest responsibility is to protect all our people from enemies, foreign and domestic. Here at home the worst enemy we face is economic -- the creeping erosion of the American way of life and the American dream that has resulted in today's tragedy of economic stagnation and unemployment.

Now, I don't pretend for a moment that, in 21 months, we've been able to undo all the damage to our economy that has built up over more than 20 years. The first part of our program has been in the books only 1 year and 13 days. Much of the legislation we need has still not been enacted. We've still got a long way to go before we restore our prosperity. But what I can report to you tonight, my fellow Americans, is that at long last your government has a program in place that faces our problems and has already started solving them.

Twenty-one months ago, we faced five critical problems: high taxes, runaway government spending, inflation, high interest rates, and unemployment. Getting to the roots of unemployment meant fighting inflation and high interest rates caused by runaway government spending and taxing, because we know that when inflation shoots up, it triggers a delayed-action rise in unemployment. Now inflation is being driven back down, and lower unemployment will follow.

So, we started by winning the first real tax cut for the American people in nearly two decades. Our program brings down income tax rates 25 percent. At the same time, we've been cutting costly, wasteful government regulations and the rate of increase in government spending. We've reduced the rate of government spending growth by nearly two-thirds. Inflation, which registered 12.4 percent in 1980, is down to just 5.1 percent so far this year.

Interest rates, which had climbed as high as 21\1/2\ percent before we took office, have this week fallen to 12 percent -- not low enough, but certainly heading in the right direction. Unemployment, always a lagging indicator in times of recession, has not yet stopped its upward drift.

But in 21 months, we've already brought tax rates down by a quarter, with the third installment coming next July, and brought down the rate of increase in government spending by nearly two-thirds. That's helped us to bring down the rate of inflation by more than half, and that's helped us to bring down interest rates by 40 percent.

So, on four out of five problems that faced us in 1980, we've made important progress. We haven't solved them all, but we're making headway.

Just last week, the Federal Reserve Bank decided to lower its discount rate to 9.5 percent -- the first time this key interest rate has gone below two digits since 1979, and the fifth reduction in just 4 months. This demonstrates the Fed's confidence that inflation and market rates will continue coming down and its confidence that we can work together for a healthy, noninflationary recovery. All of this lays the goundwork for a recovery that will mean more jobs and more opportunity for all our people. But it's a delayed reaction.

Remember the trendlines. Just as surely as skyrocketing inflation created a negative reaction that drove up unemployment, bringing down inflation and interest rates is creating a positive reaction that will boost employment. I wish there were a quicker, easier way -- some magic short-cut -- but unemployment is always one of the last things to turn around as an economy heads into recovery. And make no mistake, America is recovery bound. And the world knows it.

The American dollar, beaten down and distrusted in the late 1970's, is showing new strength. Recently, we've been seeing a surge of investment in our stock and bond markets. This is no flash in the pan. Markets will go up and they will come down, but the trend in the United States is up. What's more, this investment is coming from all over, from home, from abroad, from small investors on Main Street to those who manage billions of dollars, including our workers' pension funds.

Why aren't these people heeding the drumbeat of doom and gloom coming from Washington? Because they've been watching this country's inflation and interest rates dropping for months. They realize this administration means business in the battle against inflation. Their decision to put cash on the line is a strong vote of confidence in the foundation being laid for America's recovery -- healthy, stable growth that will bring new jobs and opportunity for our people without returning us to runaway inflation and interest rates. That's the one big difference between the recovery America is headed for today and the shaky, temporary recoveries of the recent past. This one is built to last.

With your support, we can show the world that we've learned our lesson and that this time we're going to get the job done and get it done right. This time, we're going to keep inflation, interest rates and government spending, taxing and borrowing down, and get Americans back on the job.

Much of the work that remains to be done requires congressional cooperation. As you know, Congress adjourned October 2d for the election campaign. But it left behind a lot of unfinished business. For this reason, I urge the Congress to reconvene after the elections so that it can do its part as quickly as possible to continue the work of recovery. We simply can't afford to wait until next year when something as vital as the economic health of America is at stake.

The Congress will return on November 29th. It will face five top economic priorities, priorities that must be addressed.

First, the Congress must do its part to control government spending. Before adjourning, it sent me only two appropriation bills. Eleven more remain to be passed. And I will use the veto, if necessary, to keep them within the budget. When the Congress passed the tax package this summer, it pledged to save $3 in outlays for every $1 in new revenues. I intend to hold the Congress to its word.

Second, I urge the Congress to reconsider the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. This crucial measure was passed by the Senate and supported by a clear majority in the House of Representatives. It was only defeated because of the hard core opposition of a minority of Representatives who prefer continued big spending.

Third, the Congress should act on regulatory reform to help make government more economical and efficient and the private sector more productive. Regulatory reform legislation was passed unanimously by the Senate but was bottled up in committee in the House.

Fourth, the time has come for passage of the enterprise zones initiative to revive declining inner city and rural communities by providing new incentives to develop business and jobs. This program was approved by the Senate Finance Committee, but still awaits action on the Senate floor and in the House.

And, fifth, we need to pass the clean air bill which, while protecting the environment, will make it possible for industry to rebuild its productive base and create more jobs.

But it's not an easy job, this challenge to rebuild America and renew the American dream. And I know it can be tempting, listening to some who would go back to the old ways and the quick fix. But consider the choice. A return to the big spending and big taxing that left us with 21\1/2\-percent interest rates is no real alternative. A return to double-digit inflation is no alternative. A return to taxing and taxing the American people -- that's no alternative. That's what destroyed millions of American jobs.

Together we've chosen a new road for America. It's a far better road. We need only the courage to see it through. I know we can. Throughout our history, we Americans have proven again and again that no challenge is too big for a free, united people. Together, we can do it again. We can do it by slowly but surely working our way back to prosperity that will mean jobs for all who are willing to work, and fulfillment for all who still cherish the American dream.

We can do it, my fellow Americans, by staying the course.

Thank you, good night, and God bless you.

Address to the Nation on Strategic Arms Reduction and Nuclear Deterrence
November 22, 1982


Good evening.
The week before last was an especially moving one here in Washington. The Vietnam veterans finally came home once and for all to America's heart. They were welcomed with tears, with pride, and with a monument to their great sacrifice. Many of their names, like those of our Republic's greatest citizens, are now engraved in stone in this city that belongs to all of us. On behalf of the Nation, let me again thank the Vietnam veterans from the bottom of my heart for their courageous service to America.

Seeing those moving scenes, I know mothers of a new generation must have worried about their children and about peace. And that's what I'd like to talk to you about tonight -- the future of our children in a world where peace is made uneasy by the presence of nuclear weapons.

A year ago, I said the time was right to move forward on arms control. I outlined several proposals and said nothing would have a higher priority in this administration. Now, a year later, I want to report on those proposals and on other efforts we're making to ensure the safety of our children's future.

The prevention of conflict and the reduction of weapons are the most important public issues of our time. Yet, on no other issue are there more misconceptions and misunderstandings. You, the American people, deserve an explanation from your government on what our policy is on these issues. Too often, the experts have been content to discuss grandiose strategies among themselves and cloud the public debate in technicalities no one can understand. The result is that many Americans have become frightened. And let me say, fear of the unknown is entirely understandable. Unfortunately, much of the information emerging in this debate bears little semblance to the facts.

To begin, let's go back to what the world was like at the end of World War II. The United States was the only undamaged industrial power in the world. Our military power was at its peak, and we alone had the atomic weapon. But we didn't use this wealth and this power to bully; we used it to rebuild. We raised up the war-ravaged economies, including the economies of those who had fought against us. At first, the peace of the world was unthreatened, because we alone were left with any real power, and we were using it for the good of our fellow man. Any potential enemy was deterred from aggression because the cost would have far outweighed the gain.

As the Soviets power grew, we still managed to maintain the peace. The United States had established a system of alliances, with NATO as the centerpiece. In addition, we grew even more respected as a world leader with a strong economy and deeply held moral values.

With our commitment to help shape a better world, the United States also pursued, and always pursued, every diplomatic channel for peace. And for at least 30 years after World War II, the United States still continued to possess a large military advantage over the Soviet Union. Our strength deterred -- that is, prevented -- aggression against us.

This nation's military objective has always been to maintain peace by preventing war. This is neither a Democratic nor a Republican policy. It's supported by our allies. And most important of all, it's worked for nearly 40 years.

What do we mean when we speak of ``nuclear deterrence''? Certainly, we don't want such weapons for their own sake. We don't desire excessive forces or what some people have called ``overkill.'' Basically, it's a matter of others knowing that starting a conflict would be more costly to them than anything they might hope to gain. And, yes, it is sadly ironic that in these modern times, it still takes weapons to prevent war. I wish it did not.

We desire peace. But peace is a goal, not a policy. Lasting peace is what we hope for at the end of our journey; it doesn't describe the steps we must take nor the paths we should follow to reach that goal.

I intend to search for peace along two parallel paths: deterrence and arms reductions. I believe these are the only paths that offer any real hope for an enduring peace.

And let me say I believe that if we follow prudent policies, the risk of nuclear conflict will be reduced. Certainly, the United States will never use its forces except in response to attack. Through the years, Soviet leaders have also expressed a sober view of nuclear war. And if we maintain a strong deterrent, they are exceedingly unlikely to launch an attack.

Now, while the policy of deterrence has stood the test of time, the things we must do in order to maintain deterrence have changed. You often hear that the United States and the Soviet Union are in an arms race. Well, the truth is that while the Soviet Union has raced, we have not. As you can see from this blue U.S. line, [At this point and during later portions of the address, the President referred to charts which could be seen by the television audience.] in constant dollars, our defense spending in the 1960's went up because of Vietnam. And then it went downward through much of the 1970's. And now follow the red line, which is Soviet spending. It's gone up and up and up. In spite of a stagnating Soviet economy, Soviet leaders invest 12 to 14 percent of their country's gross national product in military spending -- two to three times the level we invest.

I might add that the defense share of our United States Federal budget has gone way down, too. Watch the blue line again. In 1962, when John Kennedy was President, 46 percent, almost half of the Federal budget, went to our national defense. In recent years, about one quarter of our budget has gone to defense, while the share for social programs has nearly doubled. And most of our defense budget is spent on people, not weapons.

The combination of the Soviets spending more and the United States spending proportionately less changed the military balance and weakened our deterrent. Today, in virtually every measure of military power, the Soviet Union enjoys a decided advantage.

This chart shows the changes in the total number of intercontinental missiles and bombers. You will see that in 1962 and in 1972, the United States Forces remained about the same -- even dropping some by 1982. But take a look now at the Soviet side. In 1962, at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, the Soviets could not compare with us in terms of strength. In 1972, when we signed the SALT I treaty, we were nearly equal. But in 1982 -- well, that red Soviet bar stretching above the blue American bar tells the story.

I could show you chart after chart where there's a great deal of red and a much lesser amount of U.S. blue. For example, the Soviet Union has deployed a third more land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles than we have. Believe it or not, we froze our number in 1965 and have deployed no additional missiles since then.

The Soviet Union put to sea 60 new ballistic missile submarines in the last 15 years. Until last year, we hadn't commissioned one in that same period.

The Soviet Union has built over 200 modern backfire bombers and is building 30 more a year. For 20 years, the United States has deployed no new strategic bombers. Many of our B - 52 bombers are now older than the pilots who fly them.

The Soviet Union now has 600 of the missiles considered most threatening by both sides -- the intermediate-range missiles based on land. We have none. The United States withdrew its intermediate-range land-based missiles from Europe almost 20 years ago.

The world has also witnessed unprecedented growth in the area of Soviet conventional forces. The Soviets far exceed us in the number of tanks, artillery pieces, aircraft, and ships they produce every year. What is more, when I arrived in this office, I learned that in our own forces we had planes that couldn't fly and ships that couldn't leave port mainly for lack of spare parts and crewmembers.

The Soviet military buildup must not be ignored. We've recognized the problem and, together with our allies, we've begun to correct the imbalance. Look at this chart of projected real defense spending for the next several years. Here is the Soviet line. Let us assume the Soviets rate of spending remains at the level they've followed since the 1960's. The blue line is the United States. If my defense proposals are passed, it will still take 5 years before we come close to the Soviet level. Yet, the modernization of our strategic and conventional forces will assure that deterrence works and peace prevails.

Our deployed nuclear forces were built before the age of microcircuits. It's not right to ask our young men and women in uniform to maintain and operate such antiques. Many have already given their lives to missile explosions and aircraft accidents caused by the old age of their equipment. We must replace and modernize our forces, and that's why I decided to proceed with the production and deployment of the new ICBM known as the MX.

Three earlier Presidents worked to develop this missile. Based on the best advice that I could get, I concluded that the MX is the right missile at the right time. On the other hand, when I arrived in office I felt the proposal on where and how to base the missile simply cost too much in terms of money and the impact on our citizens' lives. I've concluded, however, it's absolutely essential that we proceed to produce this missile and that we base it in a series of closely based silos at Warren Air Force Base, near Cheyenne, Wyoming.

This plan requires only half as many missiles as the earlier plan and will fit in an area of only 20 square miles. It is the product of around-the-clock research that has been underway since I directed a search for a better, cheaper way. I urge the Members of Congress who must pass this plan to listen and examine the facts before they come to their own conclusion.

Some may question what modernizing our military has to do with peace. Well, as I explained earlier, a secure force keeps others from threatening us, and that keeps the peace. And just as important, it also increases the prospects of reaching significant arms reductions with the Soviets, and that's what we really want.

The United States wants deep cuts in the world's arsenal of weapons, but unless we demonstrate the will to rebuild our strength and restore the military balance, the Soviets, since they're so far ahead, have little incentive to negotiate with us. Let me repeat that point because it goes to the heart of our policies. Unless we demonstrate the will to rebuild our strength, the Soviets have little incentive to negotiate. If we hadn't begun to modernize, the Soviet negotiators would know we had nothing to bargain with except talk. They would know we were bluffing without a good hand, because they know what cards we hold just as we know what's in their hand.

You may recall that in 1969 the Soviets didn't want to negotiate a treaty banning antiballistic missiles. It was only after our Senate narrowly voted to fund an antiballistic missile program that the Soviets agreed to negotiate. We then reached an agreement. We also know that one-sided arms control doesn't work. We've tried time and time again to set an example by cutting our own forces in the hope that the Soviets would do likewise. The result has always been that they keep building.

I believe our strategy for peace will succeed. Never before has the United States proposed such a comprehensive program of nuclear arms control. Never in our history have we engaged in so many negotiations with the Soviets to reduce nuclear arms and to find a stable peace. What we are saying to them is this: We will modernize our military in order to keep the balance for peace, but wouldn't it be better if we both simply reduced our arsenals to a much lower level?

Let me begin with the negotiations on the intermediate-range nuclear forces that are currently underway in Geneva. As I said earlier, the most threatening of these forces are the land-based missiles which the Soviet Union now has aimed at Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

This chart shows the number of warheads on these Soviet missiles. In 1972 there were 600. The United States was at zero. In 1977 there were 600. The United States was still at zero. Then the Soviets began deploying powerful new missiles with three warheads and a reach of thousands of miles -- the SS - 20. Since then, the bar has gone through the roof -- the Soviets have added a missile with three warheads every week. Still, you see no United States blue on the chart. Although the Soviet leaders earlier this year declared they'd frozen deployment of this dangerous missile, they have in fact continued deployment.

Last year, on November 18th, I proposed the total, global elimination of all these missiles. I proposed that the United States would deploy no comparable missiles, which are scheduled for late 1983, if the Soviet Union would dismantle theirs. We would follow agreement on the land-based missiles with limits on other intermediate-range systems.

The European governments strongly support our initiative. The Soviet Union has thus far shown little inclination to take this major step to zero levels. Yet I believe, and I'm hoping, that as the talks proceed and as we approach the scheduled placement of our new systems in Europe, the Soviet leaders will see the benefits of such a far-reaching agreement.

This summer we also began negotiations on strategic arms reductions, the proposal we call START. Here we're talking about intercontinental missiles, the weapons with a longer range than the intermediate-range ones I was just discussing. We're negotiating on the basis of deep reductions. I proposed in May that we cut the number of warheads on these missiles to an equal number, roughly one-third below current levels. I also proposed that we cut the number of missiles themselves to an equal number, about half the current U.S. level. Our proposals would eliminate some 4,700 warheads and some 2,250 missiles. I think that would be quite a service to mankind.

This chart shows the current level of United States ballistic missiles, both land- and sea-based. This is the Soviet level. We intend to convince the Soviets it would be in their own best interest to reduce these missiles. Look at the reduced numbers both sides would have under our proposal -- quite a dramatic change. We also seek to reduce the total destructive power of these missiles and other elements of United States and Soviet strategic forces.

In 1977, when the last administration proposed more limited reductions, the Soviet Union refused even to discuss them. This time their reaction has been quite different. Their opening position is a serious one, and even though it doesn't meet our objective of deep reductions, there's no question we're heading in the right direction. One reason for this change is clear. The Soviet Union knows that we are now serious about our own strategic programs and that they must be prepared to negotiate in earnest.

We also have other important arms control efforts underway. In the talks in Vienna on mutual and balanced force reductions, we've proposed cuts in military personnel to a far lower and equal level. And in the 40-nation Committee on Disarmament in Geneva, we're working to develop effective limitations on nuclear testing and chemical weapons. The whole world remains outraged by the Soviets and their allies use of biological and chemical weapons against defenseless people in Afghanistan, Cambodia, and Laos. This experience makes ironclad verification all the more essential for arms control.

There is, of course, much more that needs to be done. In an age when intercontinental missiles can span half the globe in less than half an hour, it's crucial that Soviet and American leaders have a clear understanding of each other's capabilities and intentions.

Last June in Berlin, and again at the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament, I vowed that the United States would make every effort to reduce the risks of accident and misunderstanding and thus to strengthen mutual confidence between the United States and the Soviet Union. Since then, we've been actively studying detailed measures to implement this Berlin initiative.

Today I would like to announce some of the measures which I've proposed in a special letter just sent to the Soviet leadership and which I've instructed our Ambassadors in Geneva to discuss with their Soviet counterparts. They include, but also go beyond, some of the suggestions I made in Berlin.

The first of these measures involves advance notification of all United States and Soviet test launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles. We will also seek Soviet agreement on notification of all sea-launched ballistic missiles as well as intermediate-range land-based ballistic missiles of the type we're currently negotiating. This would remove surprise and uncertainty at the sudden appearance of such missiles on the warning screens of the two countries.

In another area of potential misunderstanding, we propose to the Soviets that we provide each other with advance notification of our major military exercises. Here again, our objective is to reduce the surprise and uncertainty surrounding otherwise sudden moves by either side.

These sorts of measures are designed to deal with the immediate issues of miscalculation in time of crisis. But there are deeper, longer term problems as well. In order to clear away some of the mutual ignorance and suspicion between our two countries, I will propose that we both engage in a broad-ranging exchange of basic data about our nuclear forces. I am instructing our Ambassadors at the negotiations on both strategic and intermediate forces to seek Soviet agreement on an expanded exchange of information. The more one side knows about what the other side is doing, the less room there is for surprise and miscalculation.

Probably everyone has heard of the so-called Hotline, which enables me to communicate directly with the Soviet leadership in the event of a crisis. The existing Hotline is dependable and rapid, with both ground and satellite links. But because it's so important, I've also directed that we carefully examine any possible improvements to the existing Hotline system.

Now, although we've begun negotiations on these many proposals, this doesn't mean we've exhausted all the initiatives that could help to reduce the risk of accidental conflict. We'll leave no opportunity unexplored, and we'll consult closely with Senators Nunn, Jackson, and Warner, and other Members of the Congress who've made important suggestions in this field.

We're also making strenuous efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries. It would be tragic if we succeeded in reducing existing arsenals only to have new threats emerge in other areas of the world.

Earlier, I spoke of America's contributions to peace following World War II, of all we did to promote peace and prosperity for our fellow man. Well, we're still those same people. We still seek peace above all else.

I want to remind our own citizens and those around the world of this tradition of American good will, because I am concerned about the effects the nuclear fear is having on our people. The most upsetting letters I receive are from schoolchildren who write to me as a class assignment. It's evident they've discussed the most nightmarish aspects of a nuclear holocaust in their classrooms. Their letters are often full of terror. Well, this should not be so.

The philosopher Spinoza said, ``Peace is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice.'' Well, those are the qualities we want our children to inherit, not fear. They must grow up confident if they're to meet the challenges of tomorrow as we will meet the challenges of today.

I began these remarks speaking of our children. I want to close on the same theme. Our children should not grow up frightened. They should not fear the future. We're working to make it peaceful and free. I believe their future can be the brightest, most exciting of any generation. We must reassure them and let them know that their parents and the leaders of this world are seeking, above all else, to keep them safe and at peace. I consider this to be a sacred trust.

My fellow Americans, on this Thanksgiving when we have so much to be grateful for, let us give special thanks for our peace, our freedom, and our good people.

I've always believed that this land was set aside in an uncommon way, that a divine plan placed this great continent between the oceans to be found by a people from every corner of the Earth who had a special love of faith, freedom, and peace.

Let us reaffirm America's destiny of goodness and good will. Let us work for peace and, as we do, let us remember the lines of the famous old hymn: ``O God of Love, O King of Peace, make wars throughout the world to cease.''

Thank you. Good night, and God bless you.

Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union
January 25, 1983


Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Congress, honored guests, and fellow citizens:
This solemn occasion marks the 196th time that a President of the United States has reported on the State of the Union since George Washington first did so in 1790. That's a lot of reports, but there's no shortage of new things to say about the State of the Union. The very key to our success has been our ability, foremost among nations, to preserve our lasting values by making change work for us rather than against us.

I would like to talk with you this evening about what we can do together -- not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Americans -- to make tomorrow's America happy and prosperous at home, strong and respected abroad, and at peace in the world.

As we gather here tonight, the state of our Union is strong, but our economy is troubled. For too many of our fellow citizens -- farmers, steel and auto workers, lumbermen, black teenagers, working mothers -- this is a painful period. We must all do everything in our power to bring their ordeal to an end. It has fallen to us, in our time, to undo damage that was a long time in the making, and to begin the hard but necessary task of building a better future for ourselves and our children.

We have a long way to go, but thanks to the courage, patience, and strength of our people, America is on the mend.

But let me give you just one important reason why I believe this -- it involves many members of this body.

Just 10 days ago, after months of debate and deadlock, the bipartisan Commission on Social Security accomplished the seemingly impossible. Social security, as some of us had warned for so long, faced disaster. I, myself, have been talking about this problem for almost 30 years. As 1983 began, the system stood on the brink of bankruptcy, a double victim of our economic ills. First, a decade of rampant inflation drained its reserves as we tried to protect beneficiaries from the spiraling cost of living. Then the recession and the sudden end of inflation withered the expanding wage base and increasing revenues the system needs to support the 36 million Americans who depend on it.

When the Speaker of the House, the Senate majority leader, and I performed the bipartisan -- or formed the bipartisan Commission on Social Security, pundits and experts predicted that party divisions and conflicting interests would prevent the Commission from agreeing on a plan to save social security. Well, sometimes, even here in Washington, the cynics are wrong. Through compromise and cooperation, the members of the Commission overcame their differences and achieved a fair, workable plan. They proved that, when it comes to the national welfare, Americans can still pull together for the common good.

Tonight, I'm especially pleased to join with the Speaker and the Senate majority leader in urging the Congress to enact this plan by Easter.

There are elements in it, of course, that none of us prefers, but taken together it performs a package that all of us can support. It asks for some sacrifice by all -- the self-employed, beneficiaries, workers, government employees, and the better-off among the retired -- but it imposes an undue burden on none. And, in supporting it, we keep an important pledge to the American people: The integrity of the social security system will be preserved, and no one's payments will be reduced.

The Commission's plan will do the job; indeed, it must do the job. We owe it to today's older Americans and today's younger workers. So, before we go any further, I ask you to join with me in saluting the members of the Commission who are here tonight and Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and Speaker Tip O'Neill for a job well done. I hope and pray the bipartisan spirit that guided you in this endeavor will inspire all of us as we face the challenges of the year ahead.

Nearly half a century ago, in this Chamber, another American President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in his second State of the Union message, urged America to look to the future, to meet the challenge of change and the need for leadership that looks forward, not backward.

``Throughout the world,'' he said, ``change is the order of the day. In every nation economic problems long in the making have brought crises to [of] many kinds for which the masters of old practice and theory were unprepared.'' He also reminded us that ``the future lies with those wise political leaders who realize that the great public is interested more in Government than in politics.''

So, let us, in these next 2 years -- men and women of both parties, every political shade -- concentrate on the long-range, bipartisan responsibilities of government, not the short-range or short-term temptations of partisan politics.

The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted. Unemployment is far too high. Projected Federal spending -- if government refuses to tighten its own belt -- will also be far too high and could weaken and shorten the economic recovery now underway.

This recovery will bring with it a revival of economic confidence and spending for consumer items and capital goods -- the stimulus we need to restart our stalled economic engines. The American people have already stepped up their rate of saving, assuring that the funds needed to modernize our factories and improve our technology will once again flow to business and industry.

The inflationary expectations that led to a 21\1/2\-percent interest prime rate and soaring mortgage rates 2 years ago are now reduced by almost half. Leaders have started to realize that double-digit inflation is no longer a way of life.I misspoke there. I should have said ``lenders.''

So, interest rates have tumbled, paving the way for recovery in vital industries like housing and autos.

The early evidence of that recovery has started coming in. Housing starts for the fourth quarter of 1982 were up 45 percent from a year ago, and housing permits, a sure indicator of future growth, were up a whopping 60 percent.

We're witnessing an upsurge of productivity and impressive evidence that American industry will once again become competitive in markets at home and abroad, ensuring more jobs and better incomes for the Nation's work force. But our confidence must also be tempered by realism and patience. Quick fixes and artificial stimulants repeatedly applied over decades are what brought us the inflationary disorders that we've now paid such a heavy price to cure.

The permanent recovery in employment, production, and investment we seek won't come in a sharp, short spurt. It'll build carefully and steadily in the months and years ahead. In the meantime, the challenge of government is to identify the things that we can do now to ease the massive economic transition for the American people.

The Federal budget is both a symptom and a cause of our economic problems. Unless we reduce the dangerous growth rate in government spending, we could face the prospect of sluggish economic growth into the indefinite future. Failure to cope with this problem now could mean as much as a trillion dollars more in national debt in the next 4 years alone. That would average $4,300 in additional debt for every man, woman, child, and baby in our nation.

To assure a sustained recovery, we must continue getting runaway spending under control to bring those deficits down. If we don't, the recovery will be too short, unemployment will remain too high, and we will leave an unconscionable burden of national debt for our children. That we must not do.

Let's be clear about where the deficit problem comes from. Contrary to the drumbeat we've been hearing for the last few months, the deficits we face are not rooted in defense spending. Taken as a percentage of the gross national product, our defense spending happens to be only about four-fifths of what it was in 1970. Nor is the deficit, as some would have it, rooted in tax cuts. Even with our tax cuts, taxes as a fraction of gross national product remain about the same as they were in 1970. The fact is, our deficits come from the uncontrolled growth of the budget for domestic spending.

During the 1970's, the share of our national income devoted to this domestic spending increased by more than 60 percent, from 10 cents out of every dollar produced by the American people to 16 cents. In spite of all our economies and efficiencies, and without adding any new programs, basic, necessary domestic spending provided for in this year's budget will grow to almost a trillion dollars over the next 5 years.

The deficit problem is a clear and present danger to the basic health of our Republic. We need a plan to overcome this danger -- a plan based on these principles. It must be bipartisan. Conquering the deficits and putting the Government's house in order will require the best effort of all of us. It must be fair. Just as all will share in the benefits that will come from recovery, all would share fairly in the burden of transition. It must be prudent. The strength of our national defense must be restored so that we can pursue prosperity and peace and freedom while maintaining our commitment to the truly needy. And finally, it must be realistic. We can't rely on hope alone.

With these guiding principles in mind, let me outline a four-part plan to increase economic growth and reduce deficits.

First, in my budget message, I will recommend a Federal spending freeze. I know this is strong medicine, but so far, we have only cut the rate of increase in Federal spending. The Government has continued to spend more money each year, though not as much more as it did in the past. Taken as a whole, the budget I'm proposing for the fiscal year will increase no more than the rate of inflation. In other words, the Federal Government will hold the line on real spending. Now, that's far less than many American families have had to do in these difficult times.

I will request that the proposed 6-month freeze in cost-of-living adjustments recommended by the bipartisan Social Security Commission be applied to other government-related retirement programs. I will, also, propose a 1-year freeze on a broad range of domestic spending programs, and for Federal civilian and military pay and pension programs. And let me say right here, I'm sorry, with regard to the military, in asking that of them, because for so many years they have been so far behind and so low in reward for what the men and women in uniform are doing. But I'm sure they will understand that this must be across the board and fair.

Second, I will ask the Congress to adopt specific measures to control the growth of the so-called uncontrollable spending programs. These are the automatic spending programs, such as food stamps, that cannot be simply frozen and that have grown by over 400 percent since 1970. They are the largest single cause of the built-in or structural deficit problem. Our standard here will be fairness, ensuring that the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars go only to the truly needy; that none of them are turned away, but that fraud and waste are stamped out. And I'm sorry to say, there's a lot of it out there. In the food stamp program alone, last year, we identified almost [$]1.1 billion in overpayments. The taxpayers aren't the only victims of this kind of abuse. The truly needy suffer as funds intended for them are taken not by the needy, but by the greedy. For everyone's sake, we must put an end to such waste and corruption.

Third, I will adjust our program to restore America's defenses by proposing $55 billion in defense savings over the next 5 years. These are savings recommended to me by the Secretary of Defense, who has assured me they can be safely achieved and will not diminish our ability to negotiate arms reductions or endanger America's security. We will not gamble with our national survival.

And fourth, because we must ensure reduction and eventual elimination of deficits over the next several years, I will propose a standby tax, limited to no more than 1 percent of the gross national product, to start in fiscal 1986. It would last no more than 3 years, and it would start only if the Congress has first approved our spending freeze and budget control program. And there are several other conditions also that must be met, all of them in order for this program to be triggered.

Now, you could say that this is an insurance policy for the future, a remedy that will be at hand if needed but only resorted to if absolutely necessary. In the meantime, we'll continue to study ways to simplify the tax code and make it more fair for all Americans. This is a goal that every American who's ever struggled with a tax form can understand.

At the same time, however, I will oppose any efforts to undo the basic tax reforms that we've already enacted, including the 10-percent tax break coming to taxpayers this July and the tax indexing which will protect all Americans from inflationary bracket creep in the years ahead.

Now, I realize that this four-part plan is easier to describe than it will be to enact. But the looming deficits that hang over us and over America's future must be reduced. The path I've outlined is fair, balanced, and realistic. If enacted, it will ensure a steady decline in deficits, aiming toward a balanced budget by the end of the decade. It's the only path that will lead to a strong, sustained recovery. Let us follow that path together.

No domestic challenge is more crucial than providing stable, permanent jobs for all Americans who want to work. The recovery program will provide jobs for most, but others will need special help and training for new skills. Shortly, I will submit to the Congress the Employment Act of 1983, designed to get at the special problems of the long-term unemployed, as well as young people trying to enter the job market. I'll propose extending unemployment benefits, including special incentives to employers who hire the long-term unemployed, providing programs for displaced workers, and helping federally funded and State-administered unemployment insurance programs provide workers with training and relocation assistance. Finally, our proposal will include new incentives for summer youth employment to help young people get a start in the job market.

We must offer both short-term help and long-term hope for our unemployed. I hope we can work together on this. I hope we can work together as we did last year in enacting the landmark Job Training Partnership Act. Regulatory reform legislation, a responsible clean air act, and passage of enterprise zone legislation will also create new incentives for jobs and opportunity.

One of out of every five jobs in our country depends on trade. So, I will propose a broader strategy in the field of international trade -- one that increases the openness of our trading system and is fairer to America's farmers and workers in the world marketplace. We must have adequate export financing to sell American products overseas. I will ask for new negotiating authority to remove barriers and to get more of our products into foreign markets. We must strengthen the organization of our trade agencies and make changes in our domestic laws and international trade policy to promote free trade and the increased flow of American goods, services, and investments.

Our trade position can also be improved by making our port system more efficient. Better, more active harbors translate into stable jobs in our coalfields, railroads, trucking industry, and ports. After 2 years of debate, it's time for us to get together and enact a port modernization bill.

Education, training, and retraining are fundamental to our success as are research and development and productivity. Labor, management, and government at all levels can and must participate in improving these tools of growth. Tax policy, regulatory practices, and government programs all need constant reevaluation in terms of our competitiveness. Every American has a role and a stake in international trade.

We Americans are still the technological leaders in most fields. We must keep that edge, and to do so we need to begin renewing the basics -- starting with our educational system. While we grew complacent, others have acted. Japan, with a population only about half the size of ours, graduates from its universities more engineers than we do. If a child doesn't receive adequate math and science teaching by the age of 16, he or she has lost the chance to be a scientist or an engineer. We must join together -- parents, teachers, grassroots groups, organized labor, and the business community -- to revitalize American education by setting a standard of excellence.

In 1983 we seek four major education goals: a quality education initiative to encourage a substantial upgrading of math and science instruction through block grants to the States; establishment of education savings accounts that will give middle- and lower-income families an incentive to save for their children's college education and, at the same time, encourage a real increase in savings for economic growth; passage of tuition tax credits for parents who want to send their children to private or religiously affiliated schools; a constitutional amendment to permit voluntary school prayer. God should never have been expelled from America's classrooms in the first place.

Our commitment to fairness means that we must assure legal and economic equity for women, and eliminate, once and for all, all traces of unjust discrimination against women from the United States Code. We will not tolerate wage discrimination based on sex, and we intend to strengthen enforcement of child support laws to ensure that single parents, most of whom are women, do not suffer unfair financial hardship. We will also take action to remedy inequities in pensions. These initiatives will be joined by others to continue our efforts to promote equity for women.

Also in the area of fairness and equity, we will ask for extension of the Civil Rights Commission, which is due to expire this year. The Commission is an important part of the ongoing struggle for justice in America, and we strongly support its reauthorization. Effective enforcement of our nation's fair housing laws is also essential to ensuring equal opportunity. In the year ahead, we'll work to strengthen enforcement of fair housing laws for all Americans.

The time has also come for major reform of our criminal justice statutes and acceleration of the drive against organized crime and drug trafficking. It's high time that we make our cities safe again. This administration hereby declares an all-out war on big-time organized crime and the drug racketeers who are poisoning our young people. We will also implement recommendations of our Task Force on Victims of Crime, which will report to me this week.

American agriculture, the envy of the world, has become the victim of its own successes. With one farmer now producing enough food to feed himself and 77 other people, America is confronted with record surplus crops and commodity prices below the cost of production. We must strive, through innovations like the payment-in-kind crop swap approach and an aggressive export policy, to restore health and vitality to rural America. Meanwhile, I have instructed the Department of Agriculture to work individually with farmers with debt problems to help them through these tough times.

Over the past year, our Task Force on Private Sector Initiatives has successfully forged a working partnership involving leaders of business, labor, education, and government to address the training needs of American workers. Thanks to the Task Force, private sector initiatives are now underway in all 50 States of the Union, and thousands of working people have been helped in making the shift from dead-end jobs and low-demand skills to the growth areas of high technology and the service economy. Additionally, a major effort will be focused on encouraging the expansion of private community child care. The new advisory council on private sector initiatives will carry on and extend this vital work of encouraging private initiative in 1983.

In the coming year, we will also act to improve the quality of life for Americans by curbing the skyrocketing cost of health care that is becoming an unbearable financial burden for so many. And we will submit legislation to provide catastrophic illness insurance coverage for older Americans.

I will also shortly submit a comprehensive federalism proposal that will continue our efforts to restore to States and local governments their roles as dynamic laboratories of change in a creative society.

During the next several weeks, I will send to the Congress a series of detailed proposals on these and other topics and look forward to working with you on the development of these initiatives.

So far, now, I've concentrated mainly on the problems posed by the future. But in almost every home and workplace in America, we're already witnessing reason for great hope -- the first flowering of the man-made miracles of high technology, a field pioneered and still led by our country.

To many of us now, computers, silicon chips, data processing, cybernetics, and all the other innovations of the dawning high technology age are as mystifying as the workings of the combustion engine must have been when that first Model T rattled down Main Street, U.S.A. But as surely as America's pioneer spirit made us the industrial giant of the 20th century, the same pioneer spirit today is opening up on another vast front of opportunity, the frontier of high technology.

In conquering the frontier we cannot write off our traditional industries, but we must develop the skills and industries that will make us a pioneer of tomorrow. This administration is committed to keeping America the technological leader of the world now and into the 21st century.

But let us turn briefly to the international arena. America's leadership in the world came to us because of our own strength and because of the values which guide us as a society: free elections, a free press, freedom of religious choice, free trade unions, and above all, freedom for the individual and rejection of the arbitrary power of the state. These values are the bedrock of our strength. They unite us in a stewardship of peace and freedom with our allies and friends in NATO, in Asia, in Latin America, and elsewhere. They are also the values which in the recent past some among us had begun to doubt and view with a cynical eye.

Fortunately, we and our allies have rediscovered the strength of our common democratic values, and we're applying them as a cornerstone of a comprehensive strategy for peace with freedom. In London last year, I announced the commitment of the United States to developing the infrastructure of democracy throughout the world. We intend to pursue this democratic initiative vigorously. The future belongs not to governments and ideologies which oppress their peoples, but to democratic systems of self-government which encourage individual initiative and guarantee personal freedom.

But our strategy for peace with freedom must also be based on strength -- economic strength and military strength. A strong American economy is essential to the well-being and security of our friends and allies. The restoration of a strong, healthy American economy has been and remains one of the central pillars of our foreign policy. The progress I've been able to report to you tonight will, I know, be as warmly welcomed by the rest of the world as it is by the American people.

We must also recognize that our own economic well-being is inextricably linked to the world economy. We export over 20 percent of our industrial production, and 40 percent of our farmland produces for export. We will continue to work closely with the industrialized democracies of Europe and Japan and with the International Monetary Fund to ensure it has adequate resources to help bring the world economy back to strong, noninflationary growth.

As the leader of the West and as a country that has become great and rich because of economic freedom, America must be an unrelenting advocate of free trade. As some nations are tempted to turn to protectionism, our strategy cannot be to follow them, but to lead the way toward freer trade. To this end, in May of this year America will host an economic summit meeting in Williamsburg, Virginia.

As we begin our third year, we have put in place a defense program that redeems the neglect of the past decade. We have developed a realistic military strategy to deter threats to peace and to protect freedom if deterrence fails. Our Armed Forces are finally properly paid; after years of neglect are well trained and becoming better equipped and supplied. And the American uniform is once again worn with pride. Most of the major systems needed for modernizing our defenses are already underway, and we will be addressing one key system, the MX missile, in consultation with the Congress in a few months.

America's foreign policy is once again based on bipartisanship, on realism, strength, full partnership, in consultation with our allies, and constructive negotiation with potential adversaries. From the Middle East to southern Africa to Geneva, American diplomats are taking the initiative to make peace and lower arms levels. We should be proud of our role as peacemakers.

In the Middle East last year, the United States played the major role in ending the tragic fighting in Lebanon and negotiated the withdrawal of the PLO from Beirut.

Last September, I outlined principles to carry on the peace process begun so promisingly at Camp David. All the people of the Middle East should know that in the year ahead we will not flag in our efforts to build on that foundation to bring them the blessings of peace.

In Central America and the Caribbean Basin, we are likewise engaged in a partnership for peace, prosperity, and democracy. Final passage of the remaining portions of our Caribbean Basin Initiative, which passed the House last year, is one of this administration's top legislative priorities for 1983.

The security and economic assistance policies of this administration in Latin America and elsewhere are based on realism and represent a critical investment in the future of the human race. This undertaking is a joint responsibility of the executive and legislative branches, and I'm counting on the cooperation and statesmanship of the Congress to help us meet this essential foreign policy goal.

At the heart of our strategy for peace is our relationship with the Soviet Union. The past year saw a change in Soviet leadership. We're prepared for a positive change in Soviet-American relations. But the Soviet Union must show by deeds as well as words a sincere commitment to respect the rights and sovereignty of the family of nations. Responsible members of the world community do not threaten or invade their neighbors. And they restrain their allies from aggression.

For our part, we're vigorously pursuing arms reduction negotiations with the Soviet Union. Supported by our allies, we've put forward draft agreements proposing significant weapon reductions to equal and verifiable lower levels. We insist on an equal balance of forces. And given the overwhelming evidence of Soviet violations of international treaties concerning chemical and biological weapons, we also insist that any agreement we sign can and will be verifiable.

In the case of intermediate-range nuclear forces, we have proposed the complete elimination of the entire class of land-based missiles. We're also prepared to carefully explore serious Soviet proposals. At the same time, let me emphasize that allied steadfastness remains a key to achieving arms reductions.

With firmness and dedication, we'll continue to negotiate. Deep down, the Soviets must know it's in their interest as well as ours to prevent a wasteful arms race. And once they recognize our unshakable resolve to maintain adequate deterrence, they will have every reason to join us in the search for greater security and major arms reductions. When that moment comes -- and I'm confident that it will -- we will have taken an important step toward a more peaceful future for all the world's people.

A very wise man, Bernard Baruch, once said that America has never forgotten the nobler things that brought her into being and that light her path. Our country is a special place, because we Americans have always been sustained, through good times and bad, by a noble vision -- a vision not only of what the world around us is today but what we as a free people can make it be tomorrow.

We're realists; we solve our problems instead of ignoring them, no matter how loud the chorus of despair around us. But we're also idealists, for it was an ideal that brought our ancestors to these shores from every corner of the world.

Right now we need both realism and idealism. Millions of our neighbors are without work. It is up to us to see they aren't without hope. This is a task for all of us. And may I say, Americans have rallied to this cause, proving once again that we are the most generous people on Earth.

We who are in government must take the lead in restoring the economy. [Applause] And here all that time, I thought you were reading the paper. [Laughter]

The single thing -- the single thing that can start the wheels of industry turning again is further reduction of interest rates. Just another 1 or 2 points can mean tens of thousands of jobs.

Right now, with inflation as low as it is, 3.9 percent, there is room for interest rates to come down. Only fear prevents their reduction. A lender, as we know, must charge an interest rate that recovers the depreciated value of the dollars loaned. And that depreciation is, of course, the amount of inflation. Today, interest rates are based on fear -- fear that government will resort to measures, as it has in the past, that will send inflation zooming again.

We who serve here in this Capital must erase that fear by making it absolutely clear that we will not stop fighting inflation; that, together, we will do only those things that will lead to lasting economic growth.

Yes, the problems confronting us are large and forbidding. And, certainly, no one can or should minimize the plight of millions of our friends and neighbors who are living in the bleak emptiness of unemployment. But we must and can give them good reason to be hopeful.

Back over the years, citizens like ourselves have gathered within these walls when our nation was threatened; sometimes when its very existence was at stake. Always with courage and common sense, they met the crises of their time and lived to see a stronger, better, and more prosperous country. The present situation is no worse and, in fact, is not as bad as some of those they faced. Time and again, they proved that there is nothing we Americans cannot achieve as free men and women.

Yes, we still have problems -- plenty of them. But it's just plain wrong -- unjust to our country and unjust to our people -- to let those problems stand in the way of the most important truth of all: America is on the mend.

We owe it to the unfortunate to be aware of their plight and to help them in every way we can. No one can quarrel with that. We must and do have compassion for all the victims of this economic crisis. But the big story about America today is the way that millions of confident, caring people -- those extraordinary ``ordinary'' Americans who never make the headlines and will never be interviewed -- are laying the foundation, not just for recovery from our present problems but for a better tomorrow for all our people.

From coast to coast, on the job and in classrooms and laboratories, at new construction sites and in churches and community groups, neighbors are helping neighbors. And they've already begun the building, the research, the work, and the giving that will make our country great again.

I believe this, because I believe in them -- in the strength of their hearts and minds, in the commitment that each one of them brings to their daily lives, be they high or humble. The challenge for us in government is to be worthy of them -- to make government a help, not a hindrance to our people in the challenging but promising days ahead.

If we do that, if we care what our children and our children's children will say of us, if we want them one day to be thankful for what we did here in these temples of freedom, we will work together to make America better for our having been here -- not just in this year or this decade but in the next century and beyond.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Remarks at the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida
March 8, 1983


Reverend clergy all, Senator Hawkins, distinguished members of the Florida congressional delegation, and all of you:
I can't tell you how you have warmed my heart with your welcome. I'm delighted to be here today.

Those of you in the National Association of Evangelicals are known for your spiritual and humanitarian work. And I would be especially remiss if I didn't discharge right now one personal debt of gratitude. Thank you for your prayers. Nancy and I have felt their presence many times in many ways. And believe me, for us they've made all the difference.

The other day in the East Room of the White House at a meeting there, someone asked me whether I was aware of all the people out there who were praying for the President. And I had to say, ``Yes, I am. I've felt it. I believe in intercessionary prayer.'' But I couldn't help but say to that questioner after he'd asked the question that -- or at least say to them that if sometimes when he was praying he got a busy signal, it was just me in there ahead of him. [Laughter] I think I understand how Abraham Lincoln felt when he said, ``I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go.''

From the joy and the good feeling of this conference, I go to a political reception. [Laughter] Now, I don't know why, but that bit of scheduling reminds me of a story -- [laughter] -- which I'll share with you.

An evangelical minister and a politician arrived at Heaven's gate one day together. And St. Peter, after doing all the necessary formalities, took them in hand to show them where their quarters would be. And he took them to a small, single room with a bed, a chair, and a table and said this was for the clergyman. And the politician was a little worried about what might be in store for him. And he couldn't believe it then when St. Peter stopped in front of a beautiful mansion with lovely grounds, many servants, and told him that these would be his quarters.

And he couldn't help but ask, he said, ``But wait, how -- there's something wrong -- how do I get this mansion while that good and holy man only gets a single room?'' And St. Peter said, ``You have to understand how things are up here. We've got thousands and thousands of clergy. You're the first politician who ever made it.'' [Laughter]

But I don't want to contribute to a stereotype. [Laughter] So, I tell you there are a great many God-fearing, dedicated, noble men and women in public life, present company included. And, yes, we need your help to keep us ever mindful of the ideas and the principles that brought us into the public arena in the first place. The basis of those ideals and principles is a commitment to freedom and personal liberty that, itself, is grounded in the much deeper realization that freedom prospers only where the blessings of God are avidly sought and humbly accepted.

The American experiment in democracy rests on this insight. Its discovery was the great triumph of our Founding Fathers, voiced by William Penn when he said: ``If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants.'' Explaining the inalienable rights of men, Jefferson said, ``The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.'' And it was George Washington who said that ``of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.''

And finally, that shrewdest of all observers of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, put it eloquently after he had gone on a search for the secret of America's greatness and genius -- and he said: ``Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America. . . . America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.''

Well, I'm pleased to be here today with you who are keeping America great by keeping her good. Only through your work and prayers and those of millions of others can we hope to survive this perilous century and keep alive this experiment in liberty, this last, best hope of man.

I want you to know that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that sees the greatness of America in you, her people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods, communities -- the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect for the rule of law under God.

Now, I don't have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they're freeing us from superstitions of the past, they've taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation. Sometimes their voices are louder than ours, but they are not yet a majority.

An example of that vocal superiority is evident in a controversy now going on in Washington. And since I'm involved, I've been waiting to hear from the parents of young America. How far are they willing to go in giving to government their prerogatives as parents?

Let me state the case as briefly and simply as I can. An organization of citizens, sincerely motivated and deeply concerned about the increase in illegitimate births and abortions involving girls well below the age of consent, sometime ago established a nationwide network of clinics to offer help to these girls and, hopefully, alleviate this situation. Now, again, let me say, I do not fault their intent. However, in their well-intentioned effort, these clinics have decided to provide advice and birth control drugs and devices to underage girls without the knowledge of their parents.

For some years now, the Federal Government has helped with funds to subsidize these clinics. In providing for this, the Congress decreed that every effort would be made to maximize parental participation. Nevertheless, the drugs and devices are prescribed without getting parental consent or giving notification after they've done so. Girls termed ``sexually active'' -- and that has replaced the word ``promiscuous'' -- are given this help in order to prevent illegitimate birth or abortion.

Well, we have ordered clinics receiving Federal funds to notify the parents such help has been given. One of the Nation's leading newspapers has created the term ``squeal rule'' in editorializing against us for doing this, and we're being criticized for violating the privacy of young people. A judge has recently granted an injunction against an enforcement of our rule. I've watched TV panel shows discuss this issue, seen columnists pontificating on our error, but no one seems to mention morality as playing a part in the subject of sex.

Is all of Judeo-Christian tradition wrong? Are we to believe that something so sacred can be looked upon as a purely physical thing with no potential for emotional and psychological harm? And isn't it the parents' right to give counsel and advice to keep their children from making mistakes that may affect their entire lives?

Many of us in government would like to know what parents think about this intrusion in their family by government. We're going to fight in the courts. The right of parents and the rights of family take precedence over those of Washington-based bureaucrats and social engineers.

But the fight against parental notification is really only one example of many attempts to water down traditional values and even abrogate the original terms of American democracy. Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. When our Founding Fathers passed the first amendment, they sought to protect churches from government interference. They never intended to construct a wall of hostility between government and the concept of religious belief itself.

The evidence of this permeates our history and our government. The Declaration of Independence mentions the Supreme Being no less than four times. ``In God We Trust'' is engraved on our coinage. The Supreme Court opens its proceedings with a religious invocation. And the Members of Congress open their sessions with a prayer. I just happen to believe the schoolchildren of the United States are entitled to the same privileges as Supreme Court Justices and Congressmen.

Last year, I sent the Congress a constitutional amendment to restore prayer to public schools. Already this session, there's growing bipartisan support for the amendment, and I am calling on the Congress to act speedily to pass it and to let our children pray.

Perhaps some of you read recently about the Lubbock school case, where a judge actually ruled that it was unconstitutional for a school district to give equal treatment to religious and nonreligious student groups, even when the group meetings were being held during the students' own time. The first amendment never intended to require government to discriminate against religious speech.

Senators Denton and Hatfield have proposed legislation in the Congress on the whole question of prohibiting discrimination against religious forms of student speech. Such legislation could go far to restore freedom of religious speech for public school students. And I hope the Congress considers these bills quickly. And with your help, I think it's possible we could also get the constitutional amendment through the Congress this year.

More than a decade ago, a Supreme Court decision literally wiped off the books of 50 States statutes protecting the rights of unborn children. Abortion on demand now takes the lives of up to 1\1/2\ million unborn children a year. Human life legislation ending this tragedy will some day pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does. Unless and until it can be proven that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be protected.

You may remember that when abortion on demand began, many, and, indeed, I'm sure many of you, warned that the practice would lead to a decline in respect for human life, that the philosophical premises used to justify abortion on demand would ultimately be used to justify other attacks on the sacredness of human life -- infanticide or mercy killing. Tragically enough, those warnings proved all too true. Only last year a court permitted the death by starvation of a handicapped infant.

I have directed the Health and Human Services Department to make clear to every health care facility in the United States that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects all handicapped persons against discrimination based on handicaps, including infants. And we have taken the further step of requiring that each and every recipient of Federal funds who provides health care services to infants must post and keep posted in a conspicuous place a notice stating that ``discriminatory failure to feed and care for handicapped infants in this facility is prohibited by Federal law.'' It also lists a 24-hour, toll-free number so that nurses and others may report violations in time to save the infant's life.

In addition, recent legislation introduced in the Congress by Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois not only increases restrictions on publicly financed abortions, it also addresses this whole problem of infanticide. I urge the Congress to begin hearings and to adopt legislation that will protect the right of life to all children, including the disabled or handicapped.

Now, I'm sure that you must get discouraged at times, but you've done better than you know, perhaps. There's a great spiritual awakening in America, a renewal of the traditional values that have been the bedrock of America's goodness and greatness.

One recent survey by a Washington-based research council concluded that Americans were far more religious than the people of other nations; 95 percent of those surveyed expressed a belief in God and a huge majority believed the Ten Commandments had real meaning in their lives. And another study has found that an overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of adultery, teenage sex, pornography, abortion, and hard drugs. And this same study showed a deep reverence for the importance of family ties and religious belief.

I think the items that we've discussed here today must be a key part of the Nation's political agenda. For the first time the Congress is openly and seriously debating and dealing with the prayer and abortion issues -- and that's enormous progress right there. I repeat: America is in the midst of a spiritual awakening and a moral renewal. And with your Biblical keynote, I say today, ``Yes, let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream.''

Now, obviously, much of this new political and social consensus I've talked about is based on a positive view of American history, one that takes pride in our country's accomplishments and record. But we must never forget that no government schemes are going to perfect man. We know that living in this world means dealing with what philosophers would call the phenomenology of evil or, as theologians would put it, the doctrine of sin.

There is sin and evil in the world, and we're enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might. Our nation, too, has a legacy of evil with which it must deal. The glory of this land has been its capacity for transcending the moral evils of our past. For example, the long struggle of minority citizens for equal rights, once a source of disunity and civil war, is now a point of pride for all Americans. We must never go back. There is no room for racism, anti-Semitism, or other forms of ethnic and racial hatred in this country.

I know that you've been horrified, as have I, by the resurgence of some hate groups preaching bigotry and prejudice. Use the mighty voice of your pulpits and the powerful standing of your churches to denounce and isolate these hate groups in our midst. The commandment given us is clear and simple: ``Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.''

But whatever sad episodes exist in our past, any objective observer must hold a positive view of American history, a history that has been the story of hopes fulfilled and dreams made into reality. Especially in this century, America has kept alight the torch of freedom, but not just for ourselves but for millions of others around the world.

And this brings me to my final point today. During my first press conference as President, in answer to a direct question, I pointed out that, as good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause, which is world revolution. I think I should point out I was only quoting Lenin, their guiding spirit, who said in 1920 that they repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas -- that's their name for religion -- or ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. And everything is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of the old, exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.

Well, I think the refusal of many influential people to accept this elementary fact of Soviet doctrine illustrates an historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are. We saw this phenomenon in the 1930's. We see it too often today.

This doesn't mean we should isolate ourselves and refuse to seek an understanding with them. I intend to do everything I can to persuade them of our peaceful intent, to remind them that it was the West that refused to use its nuclear monopoly in the forties and fifties for territorial gain and which now proposes 50-percent cut in strategic ballistic missiles and the elimination of an entire class of land-based, intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

At the same time, however, they must be made to understand we will never compromise our principles and standards. We will never give away our freedom. We will never abandon our belief in God. And we will never stop searching for a genuine peace. But we can assure none of these things America stands for through the so-called nuclear freeze solutions proposed by some.

The truth is that a freeze now would be a very dangerous fraud, for that is merely the illusion of peace. The reality is that we must find peace through strength.

I would agree to a freeze if only we could freeze the Soviets' global desires. A freeze at current levels of weapons would remove any incentive for the Soviets to negotiate seriously in Geneva and virtually end our chances to achieve the major arms reductions which we have proposed. Instead, they would achieve their objectives through the freeze.

A freeze would reward the Soviet Union for its enormous and unparalleled military buildup. It would prevent the essential and long overdue modernization of United States and allied defenses and would leave our aging forces increasingly vulnerable. And an honest freeze would require extensive prior negotiations on the systems and numbers to be limited and on the measures to ensure effective verification and compliance. And the kind of a freeze that has been suggested would be virtually impossible to verify. Such a major effort would divert us completely from our current negotiations on achieving substantial reductions.

A number of years ago, I heard a young father, a very prominent young man in the entertainment world, addressing a tremendous gathering in California. It was during the time of the cold war, and communism and our own way of life were very much on people's minds. And he was speaking to that subject. And suddenly, though, I heard him saying, ``I love my little girls more than anything -- -- '' And I said to myself, ``Oh, no, don't. You can't -- don't say that.'' But I had underestimated him. He went on: ``I would rather see my little girls die now, still believing in God, than have them grow up under communism and one day die no longer believing in God.''

There were thousands of young people in that audience. They came to their feet with shouts of joy. They had instantly recognized the profound truth in what he had said, with regard to the physical and the soul and what was truly important.

Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness -- pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.

It was C. S. Lewis who, in his unforgettable ``Screwtape Letters,'' wrote: ``The greatest evil is not done now in those sordid `dens of crime' that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.''

Well, because these ``quiet men'' do not ``raise their voices,'' because they sometimes speak in soothing tones of brotherhood and peace, because, like other dictators before them, they're always making ``their final territorial demand,'' some would have us accept them at their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses. But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.

So, I urge you to speak out against those who would place the United States in a position of military and moral inferiority. You know, I've always believed that old Screwtape reserved his best efforts for those of you in the church. So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride -- the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.

I ask you to resist the attempts of those who would have you withhold your support for our efforts, this administration's efforts, to keep America strong and free, while we negotiate real and verifiable reductions in the world's nuclear arsenals and one day, with God's help, their total elimination.

While America's military strength is important, let me add here that I've always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith.

Whittaker Chambers, the man whose own religious conversion made him a witness to one of the terrible traumas of our time, the Hiss-Chambers case, wrote that the crisis of the Western World exists to the degree in which the West is indifferent to God, the degree to which it collaborates in communism's attempt to make man stand alone without God. And then he said, for Marxism-Leninism is actually the second oldest faith, first proclaimed in the Garden of Eden with the words of temptation, ``Ye shall be as gods.''

The Western World can answer this challenge, he wrote, ``but only provided that its faith in God and the freedom He enjoins is as great as communism's faith in Man.''

I believe we shall rise to the challenge. I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written. I believe this because the source of our strength in the quest for human freedom is not material, but spiritual. And because it knows no limitation, it must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their fellow man. For in the words of Isaiah: ``He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might He increased strength. . . . But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary. . . .''

Yes, change your world. One of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine, said, ``We have it within our power to begin the world over again.'' We can do it, doing together what no one church could do by itself.

God bless you, and thank you very much.
Remarks on Central America and El Salvador at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Manufacturers
March 10, 1983


Thank you, Bernie, for your kind introduction, and all of you for your warm welcome. Madam Secretary and distinguished guests here at the head table and you ladies and gentlemen:
I'm delighted to be here. I know that you and your president, Sandy Trowbridge, and the entire NAM organization have been an enormous help during the last 2 years, not only with advice and counsel but with a roll-up-your-sleeves effort to help pass the economic recovery programs that are ending this recession. And with your assistance, we also were able to negotiate a bipartisan compromise solution to save our social security system.

You know, we didn't come to Washington at an ideal time -- [laughter] -- and we've certainly had our share of problems. But the signs of recovery are springing up all around us, and there's no mistaking the fact that at long last America is on the mend. And the courage and the vision of the people and institutions that are represented here today deserve a big share of the credit for this hard-earned but inflation-free recovery. So, on behalf of all your fellow citizens who've been freed from the ravages of runaway inflation and can look again to a future of better times and then new opportunity, I thank you.

America is meeting her challenge here at home. But there are other challenges, equally important, that we must face. And today, I'd like to talk to you about one of them.

Late last year, I visited Central America. Just a few weeks ago, our Ambassador, Jeane Kirkpatrick, also toured the area. And in the last few days, I have met with leaders of the Congress to discuss recent events in Central America and our policies in that troubled part of the world. So, today I'd like to report to you on these consultations and why they're important to all of us.

The nations of Central America are among our nearest neighbors. El Salvador, for example, is nearer to Texas than Texas is to Massachusetts. Central America is simply too close, and the strategic stakes are too high, for us to ignore the danger of governments seizing power there with ideological and military ties to the Soviet Union.

Now, let me just show you how important Central America is. Here -- [referring to a map] -- and you can't see it from over there because I'm in the way -- but here at the base of Central America is the Panama Canal. Half of all the foreign trade of the United States passes through either the canal -- [laughter].\1\ (FOOTNOTE) I've been dying to give you all an economic lesson, and you show up for geography. [Laughter and applause] But as I say, half of that trade passes either through the canal or the other Caribbean sealanes on its way to or from our ports.

(FOOTNOTE) \1\7E7E7EThe laughter was a reaction of the audience to the rushing of photographers from one side of the podium to the other in order to photograph the President and the map.

And, of course, to the north, as you can see, is Mexico, a country of enormous human and material importance with which we share 1,800 miles of peaceful frontier.

And between Mexico and the canal lies Central America. As I speak to you today, its countries are in the midst of the gravest crisis in their history. Accumulated grievances and social and economic change are challenging traditional ways. New leaders with new aspirations have emerged who want a new and better deal for their peoples. And that is good.

The problem is that an aggressive minority has thrown in its lot with the Communists, looking to the Soviets and their own Cuban henchmen to help them pursue political change through violence. Nicaragua, right here, has become their base. And these extremists make no secret of their goal. They preach the doctrine of a ``revolution without frontiers.'' Their first target is El Salvador.

Important? Well, to begin with, there's the sheer human tragedy. Thousands of people have already died and, unless the conflict is ended democratically, millions more could be affected throughout the hemisphere. The people of El Salvador have proved they want democracy. But if guerrilla violence succeeds, they won't get it. El Salvador will join Cuba and Nicaragua as a base for spreading fresh violence to Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica -- probably the most democratic country in the world today. The killing will increase and so will the threat to Panama, the canal and, ultimately, Mexico. In the process, vast numbers of men, women, and children will lose their homes, their countries, and their lives.

Make no mistake. We want the same thing the people of Central America want -- an end to the killing. We want to see freedom preserved where it now exists and its rebirth where it does not. The Communist agenda, on the other hand, is to exploit human suffering in Central America to strike at the heart of the Western Hemisphere. By preventing reform and instilling their own brand of totalitarianism, they can threaten freedom and peace and weaken our national security.

I know a good many people wonder why we should care about whether Communist governments come into power in Nicaragua, El Salvador, or other such countries as Costa Rica and Honduras, Guatemala, and the islands of the Caribbean. One columnist argued last week that we shouldn't care, because their products are not that vital to our economy. That's like the argument of another so-called expert that we shouldn't worry about Castro's control over the island of Grenada -- their only important product is nutmeg.

Well, let me just interject right here. Grenada, that tiny little island -- with Cuba at the west end of the Caribbean, Grenada at the east end -- that tiny little island is building now, or having built for it, on its soil and shores, a naval base, a superior air base, storage bases and facilities for the storage of munitions, barracks, and training grounds for the military. I'm sure all of that is simply to encourage the export of nutmeg.

People who make these arguments haven't taken a good look at a map lately or followed the extraordinary buildup of Soviet and Cuban military power in the region or read the Soviets discussions about why the region is important to them and how they intend to use it.

It isn't nutmeg that's at stake in the Caribbean and Central America; it is the United States national security.

Soviet military theorists want to destroy our capacity to resupply Western Europe in case of an emergency. They want to tie down our attention and forces on our own southern border and so limit our capacity to act in more distant places, such as Europe, the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean, the Sea of Japan.

Those Soviet theorists noticed what we failed to notice: that the Caribbean Sea and Central America constitute this nation's fourth border. If we must defend ourselves against large, hostile military presence on our border, our freedom to act elsewhere to help others and to protect strategically vital sealanes and resources has been drastically diminished. They know this; they've written about this.

We've been slow to understand that the defense of the Caribbean and Central America against Marxist-Leninist takeover is vital to our national security in ways we're not accustomed to thinking about.

For the past 3 years, under two Presidents, the United States has been engaged in an effort to stop the advance of communism in Central America by doing what we do best -- by supporting democracy. For 3 years, our goal has been to support fundamental change in this region, to replace poverty with development and dictatorship with democracy.

These objectives are not easy to obtain. We're on the right track. Costa Rica continues to set a democratic example, even in the midst of economic crises and Nicaraguan intimidation. Honduras has gone from military rule to a freely elected civilian government. Despite incredible obstacles, the democratic center is holding in El Salvador, implementing land reform and working to replace the politics of death with a life of democracy.

So, the good news is that our new policies have begun to work. Democracy, with free elections, free labor unions, freedom of religion and respect for the integrity of the individual, is the clear choice of the overwhelming majority of Central Americans. In fact, except for Cuba and its followers, no government and no significant sector of the public anywhere in this hemisphere wants to see the guerrillas seize power in El Salvador.

The bad news is that the struggle for democracy is still far from over. Despite their success in largely eliminating guerrilla political influence in populated areas, and despite some improvements in military armaments and mobility, El Salvador's people remain under strong pressure from armed guerrillas controlled by extremists with Cuban-Soviet support.

The military capability of these guerrillas -- and I would like to stress military capability, for these are not peasant irregulars; they are trained, military forces. This has kept political and economic progress from being turned into the peace the Salvadoran people so obviously want.

Part of the trouble is internal to El Salvador, but an important part is external -- the availability of training, tactical guidance, and military supplies coming into El Salvador from Marxist Nicaragua. I'm sure you've read about the guerrillas capturing rifles from government national guard units. And recently, this has happened. But much more critical to guerrilla operations are the supplies and munitions that are infiltrated into El Salvador by land, sea, and air -- by pack mules, by small boats, and by small aircraft.

These pipelines fuel the guerrilla offensives and keep alive the conviction of their extremist leaders that power will ultimately come from the barrels of their guns. Now, all this is happening in El Salvador just as a constitution is being written, as open Presidential elections are being prepared, and as a peace commission -- named last week -- has begun to work on amnesty and national reconciliation to bring all social and political groups into the democratic process.

It is the guerrilla militants who have so far refused to use democratic means, have ignored the voice of the people of El Salvador, and have resorted to terror, sabotage, and bullets, instead of the ballot box.

During the past week, we've discussed all of these issues and more with leaders and Members of the Congress. Their views have helped shape our own thinking. And I believe that we've developed a common course to follow.

Now, here are some of the questions that are raised most often.

First, how bad is the military situation? It is not good. Salvadoran soldiers have proved that when they're well trained, led, and supplied, they can protect the people from guerrilla attacks. But so far, U.S. trainers have been able to train only one soldier in ten. There's a shortage of experienced officers. Supplies are unsure. The guerrillas have taken advantage of these shortcomings. For the moment, at least, they have taken the tactical initiative just when the sharply limited funding Congress has so far approved is running out.

A second vital question is: Are we going to send American soldiers into combat? And the answer to that is a flat no.

A third question: Are we going to Americanize the war with a lot of U.S. combat advisers? And again, the answer is no.

Only Salvadorans can fight this war, just as only Salvadorans can decide El Salvador's future. What we can do is help to give them the skills and supplies they need to do the job for themselves. That, mostly, means training. Without playing a combat role themselves and without accompanying Salvadoran units into combat, American specialists can help the Salvadoran Army improve its operations.

Over the last year, despite manifest needs for more training, we have scrupulously kept our training activities well below our self-imposed numerical limit on numbers of trainers. We're currently reviewing what we can do to provide the most effective training possible, to determine the minimum level of trainers needed, and where the training should best take place. We think the best way is to provide training outside of El Salvador, in the United States or elsewhere, but that costs a lot more. So, the number of U.S. trainers in El Salvador will depend upon the resources available.

Question four: Are we seeking a political or a military solution? Well, despite all I and others have said, some people still seem to think that our concern for security assistance means that all we care about is a military solution. That's nonsense. Bullets are no answer to economic inequities, social tensions, or political disagreements. Democracy is what we want, and what we want is to enable Salvadorans to stop the killing and sabotage so that economic and political reforms can take root. The real solution can only be a political one.

Now, this reality leads directly to a fifth question: Why not stop the killings and start talking? Why not negotiate? Well, negotiations are already a key part of our policy. We support negotiations among all the nations of the region to strengthen democracy, to halt subversion, to stop the flow of arms, to respect borders, and to remove all the foreign military advisers -- the Soviets, the Cubans, the East Germans, the PLO, as well as our own from the region.

A regional peace initiative is now emerging. We've been in close touch with its sponsors and wish it well. And we support negotiations within nations aimed at expanding participation in democratic institutions, at getting all parties to participate in free and nonviolent elections.

What we oppose are negotiations that would be used as a cynical device for dividing up power behind the people's back. We cannot support negotiations which, instead of expanding democracy, try to destroy it; negotiations which would simply distribute power among armed groups without the consent of the people of El Salvador.

We made that mistake some years ago -- in Laos -- when we pressed and pressured the Laotian Government to form a government, a co-op, with the Pathet Lao, the armed guerrillas who'd been doing what the guerrillas are doing in El Salvador. And once they had that tripartite government, they didn't rest until those guerrillas, the Pathet Lao, had seized total control of the Government of Laos.

The thousands of Salvadorans who risked their lives to vote last year should not have their ballots thrown into the trash heap this year by letting a tiny minority on the fringe of a wide and diverse political spectrum shoot its way into power. No, the only legitimate road to power, the only road we can support, is through the voting booth, so that the people can choose for themselves; choose, as His Holiness the Pope said Sunday, ``far from terror and in a climate of democratic conviviality.'' This is fundamental, and it is a moral as well as a practical belief that all free people of the Americas share.

Having consulted with the Congress, let me tell you where we are now and what we'll be doing in the days ahead. We welcome all the help we can get. We will be submitting a comprehensive, integrated economic and military assistance plan for Central America.

First, we will bridge the existing gap in military assistance. Our projections of the amount of military assistance needed for El Salvador have remained relatively stable over the past 2 years. However, the continuing resolution budget procedure in the Congress last December led to a level of U.S. security assistance for El Salvador in 1983 below what we'd requested, below that provided in 1982, and below that requested for 1984. I'm proposing that $60 million of the moneys already appropriated for our worldwide military assistance programs be immediately reallocated to El Salvador.

Further, to build the kind of disciplined, skilled army that can take and hold the initiative while respecting the rights of its people, I will be amending my supplemental that is currently before the Congress to reallocate $50 million to El Salvador. And these funds will be sought without increasing the overall amount of the supplemental that we have already presented to the Congress. And, as I've said, the focus of this assistance will remain the same -- to train Salvadorans so that they can defend themselves.

Because El Salvador's problems are not unique in this region, I will also be asking for an additional $20 million for regional security assistance. These funds will be used to help neighboring states to maintain their national security and will, of course, be subject to full congressional review.

Secondly, we will work hard to support reform, human rights, and democracy in El Salvador. Last Thursday, the Salvadoran Government extended the land reform program which has already distributed 20 percent of all the arable land in the country and transformed more than 65,000 farm workers into farm owners. What they ask is our continued economic support while the reform is completed. And we will provide it. With our support, we expect that the steady progress toward more equitable distribution of wealth and power in El Salvador will continue.

And third, we will, I repeat, continue to work for human rights. Progress in this area has been slow, sometimes disappointing. But human rights means working at problems, not walking away from them. To make more progress, we must continue our support, advice, and help to El Salvador's people and democratic leaders. Lawbreakers must be brought to justice, and the rule of law must supplant violence in settling disputes. The key to ending violations to human rights is to build a stable, working democracy. Democracies are accountable to their citizens, and when abuses occur in a democracy, they cannot be covered up. With our support, we expect the Government of El Salvador to be able to move ahead in prosecuting the accused and in building a criminal justice system applicable to all and, ultimately, accountable to the elected representatives of the people.

And I hope you've noticed that I was speaking in millions, not billions. And that, after 2 years in Federal office, is hard to do. [Laughter] In fact, there are some areas of government where I think they spill as much as I've talked about here over a weekend.

Fourth, the El Salvador Government proposes to solve its problems the only way they can be solved fairly -- by having the people decide. President Magana had just announced nationwide elections moved up to this year, calling on all to participate, adversaries as well as friends. To help political adversaries participate in the elections, he has appointed a Peace Commission, including a Roman Catholic bishop and two independents. And he has called on the Organization of American States and the international community to help. We were proud to participate, along with representatives of other democratic nations, as observers in last March's constituent assembly elections. We would be equally pleased to contribute again to an international effort, perhaps in conjunction with the Organization of American States, to help the government ensure the broadest possible participation in the upcoming elections, with guarantees that all, including critics and adversaries, can be protected as they participate.

Let me just say a word about those elections last March. A great worldwide propaganda compaign had, for more than a year, portrayed the guerrillas as somehow representative of the people of El Salvador. We were told over and over again that the government was the oppressor of the people. Came the elections, and suddenly it was the guerrilla force threatening death to any who would attempt to vote. More than 200 buses and trucks were attacked and burned and bombed in an effort to keep the people from going to the polls. But they went to the polls; they walked miles to do so. They stood in long lines for hours and hours. Our own congressional observers came back and reported of one incident that they saw themselves -- of a woman who had been shot by the guerrillas for trying to get to the polls, standing in the line, refusing medical attention until she had had her opportunity to go in and vote.

More than 80 percent of the electorate voted. I don't believe here in our land, where voting is so easy, that we've had a turnout that great in the last half century. They elected the present government, and they voted for order, peace, and democratic rule.

Finally, we must continue to help the people of El Salvador and the rest of Central America and the Caribbean to make economic progress. More than three-quarters of our assistance to this region has been economic. Because of the importance of economic development to that region, I will ask the Congress for $65 million in new moneys and the reprograming of $103 million from already appropriated worldwide funds, for a total of $168 million in increased economic assistance for Central America. And to make sure that this assistance is as productive as possible, I'll continue to work with the Congress for the urgent enactment of the long-term opportunities for trade and free initiative that are contained in the Caribbean Basin Initiative.

In El Salvador and in the rest of Central America, there are today thousands of small businessmen, farmers, and workers who have kept up their productivity as well as their spirits in the face of personal danger, guerrilla sabotage, and adverse economic conditions. With them stand countless national and local officials, military and civic leaders, and priests, who have refused to give up on democracy. Their struggle for a better future deserves our help. We should be proud to offer it. For in the last analysis, they're fighting for us, too.

By acting responsibly and avoiding illusory shortcuts, we can be both loyal to our friends and true to our peaceful democratic principles. A nation's character is measured by the relations it has with its neighbors. We need strong, stable neighbors with whom we can cooperate. And we will not let them down. Our neighbors are risking life and limb to better their lives, to improve their lands, and to build democracy. All they ask is our help and understanding as they face dangerous armed enemies of liberty and that our help be as sustained as their own commitment.

Now, none of this will work if we tire or falter in our support. I don't think that's what the American people want or what our traditions and faith require. Our neighbors struggle for a better future, and that struggle deserves our help and we should be proud to offer it.

We would, in truth, be opening a two-way street. We have never, I believe, fully realized the great potential of this Western Hemisphere. Oh, yes, I know in the past we've talked of plans. We've gone down there every once in a while with a great plan, somehow, for our neighbors to the south. But it was always a plan in which we, the big colossus of the north would impose on them. It was our idea.

Well, on my trip to Central and South America, I asked for their ideas. I pointed out that we had a common heritage. We'd all come as pioneers to these two great continents. We worship the same God. And we'd lived at peace with each other longer than most people in other parts of the world. There are more than 600 million of us calling ourselves Americans -- North, Central, and South. We haven't really begun to tap the vast resources of these two great continents.

Without sacrificing our national sovereignties, our own individual cultures or national pride, we could, as neighbors, make this Western Hemisphere, our hemisphere, a force for good such as the Old World has never seen. But it starts with the word ``neighbor.'' And that is what I talked about down there and sought their partnership, their equal partnership in we of the Western Hemisphere coming together to truly develop, fully, the potential this hemisphere has.

Last Sunday, His Holiness Pope John Paul II prayed that the measures announced by President Magana would ``contribute to orderly and peaceful progress'' in El Salvador, progress ``founded on the respect,'' he said, ``for the rights of all, and that all have the possibility to cooperate in a climate of true democracy for the promotion of the common good.''

My fellow Americans, we in the United States join in that prayer for democracy and peace in El Salvador, and we pledge our moral and material support to help the Salvadoran people achieve a more just and peaceful future. And in doing so, we stand true to both the highest values of our free society and our own vital interests.

Thank you, and God bless you.
Address to the Nation on Defense and National Security
March 23, 1983


My fellow Americans, thank you for sharing your time with me tonight.
The subject I want to discuss with you, peace and national security, is both timely and important. Timely, because I've reached a decision which offers a new hope for our children in the 21st century, a decision I'll tell you about in a few minutes. And important because there's a very big decision that you must make for yourselves. This subject involves the most basic duty that any President and any people share, the duty to protect and strengthen the peace.

At the beginning of this year, I submitted to the Congress a defense budget which reflects my best judgment of the best understanding of the experts and specialists who advise me about what we and our allies must do to protect our people in the years ahead. That budget is much more than a long list of numbers, for behind all the numbers lies America's ability to prevent the greatest of human tragedies and preserve our free way of life in a sometimes dangerous world. It is part of a careful, long-term plan to make America strong again after too many years of neglect and mistakes.

Our efforts to rebuild America's defenses and strengthen the peace began 2 years ago when we requested a major increase in the defense program. Since then, the amount of those increases we first proposed has been reduced by half, through improvements in management and procurement and other savings.

The budget request that is now before the Congress has been trimmed to the limits of safety. Further deep cuts cannot be made without seriously endangering the security of the Nation. The choice is up to the men and women you've elected to the Congress, and that means the choice is up to you.

Tonight, I want to explain to you what this defense debate is all about and why I'm convinced that the budget now before the Congress is necessary, responsible, and deserving of your support. And I want to offer hope for the future.

But first, let me say what the defense debate is not about. It is not about spending arithmetic. I know that in the last few weeks you've been bombarded with numbers and percentages. Some say we need only a 5-percent increase in defense spending. The so-called alternate budget backed by liberals in the House of Representatives would lower the figure to 2 to 3 percent, cutting our defense spending by $163 billion over the next 5 years. The trouble with all these numbers is that they tell us little about the kind of defense program America needs or the benefits and security and freedom that our defense effort buys for us.

What seems to have been lost in all this debate is the simple truth of how a defense budget is arrived at. It isn't done by deciding to spend a certain number of dollars. Those loud voices that are occasionally heard charging that the Government is trying to solve a security problem by throwing money at it are nothing more than noise based on ignorance. We start by considering what must be done to maintain peace and review all the possible threats against our security. Then a strategy for strengthening peace and defending against those threats must be agreed upon. And, finally, our defense establishment must be evaluated to see what is necessary to protect against any or all of the potential threats. The cost of achieving these ends is totaled up, and the result is the budget for national defense.

There is no logical way that you can say, let's spend x billion dollars less. You can only say, which part of our defense measures do we believe we can do without and still have security against all contingencies? Anyone in the Congress who advocates a percentage or a specific dollar cut in defense spending should be made to say what part of our defenses he would eliminate, and he should be candid enough to acknowledge that his cuts mean cutting our commitments to allies or inviting greater risk or both.

The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression -- to preserve freedom and peace.

Since the dawn of the atomic age, we've sought to reduce the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking genuine arms control. ``Deterrence'' means simply this: making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won't attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.

This strategy of deterrence has not changed. It still works. But what it takes to maintain deterrence has changed. It took one kind of military force to deter an attack when we had far more nuclear weapons than any other power; it takes another kind now that the Soviets, for example, have enough accurate and powerful nuclear weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the ground. Now, this is not to say that the Soviet Union is planning to make war on us. Nor do I believe a war is inevitable -- quite the contrary. But what must be recognized is that our security is based on being prepared to meet all threats.

There was a time when we depended on coastal forts and artillery batteries, because, with the weaponry of that day, any attack would have had to come by sea. Well, this is a different world, and our defenses must be based on recognition and awareness of the weaponry possessed by other nations in the nuclear age.

We can't afford to believe that we will never be threatened. There have been two world wars in my lifetime. We didn't start them and, indeed, did everything we could to avoid being drawn into them. But we were ill-prepared for both. Had we been better prepared, peace might have been preserved.

For 20 years the Soviet Union has been accumulating enormous military might. They didn't stop when their forces exceeded all requirements of a legitimate defensive capability. And they haven't stopped now. During the past decade and a half, the Soviets have built up a massive arsenal of new strategic nuclear weapons -- weapons that can strike directly at the United States.

As an example, the United States introduced its last new intercontinental ballistic missile, the Minute Man III, in 1969, and we're now dismantling our even older Titan missiles. But what has the Soviet Union done in these intervening years? Well, since 1969 the Soviet Union has built five new classes of ICBM's, and upgraded these eight times. As a result, their missiles are much more powerful and accurate than they were several years ago, and they continue to develop more, while ours are increasingly obsolete.

The same thing has happened in other areas. Over the same period, the Soviet Union built 4 new classes of submarine-launched ballistic missiles and over 60 new missile submarines. We built 2 new types of submarine missiles and actually withdrew 10 submarines from strategic missions. The Soviet Union built over 200 new Backfire bombers, and their brand new Blackjack bomber is now under development. We haven't built a new long-range bomber since our B - 52's were deployed about a quarter of a century ago, and we've already retired several hundred of those because of old age. Indeed, despite what many people think, our strategic forces only cost about 15 percent of the defense budget.

Another example of what's happened: In 1978 the Soviets had 600 intermediate-range nuclear missiles based on land and were beginning to add the SS - 20 -- a new, highly accurate, mobile missile with 3 warheads. We had none. Since then the Soviets have strengthened their lead. By the end of 1979, when Soviet leader Brezhnev declared ``a balance now exists,'' the Soviets had over 800 warheads. We still had none. A year ago this month, Mr. Brezhnev pledged a moratorium, or freeze, on SS - 20 deployment. But by last August, their 800 warheads had become more than 1,200. We still had none. Some freeze. At this time Soviet Defense Minister Ustinov announced ``approximate parity of forces continues to exist.'' But the Soviets are still adding an average of 3 new warheads a week, and now have 1,300. These warheads can reach their targets in a matter of a few minutes. We still have none. So far, it seems that the Soviet definition of parity is a box score of 1,300 to nothing, in their favor.

So, together with our NATO allies, we decided in 1979 to deploy new weapons, beginning this year, as a deterrent to their SS - 20's and as an incentive to the Soviet Union to meet us in serious arms control negotiations. We will begin that deployment late this year. At the same time, however, we're willing to cancel our program if the Soviets will dismantle theirs. This is what we've called a zero-zero plan. The Soviets are now at the negotiating table -- and I think it's fair to say that without our planned deployments, they wouldn't be there.

Now, let's consider conventional forces. Since 1974 the United States has produced 3,050 tactical combat aircraft. By contrast, the Soviet Union has produced twice as many. When we look at attack submarines, the United States has produced 27 while the Soviet Union has produced 61. For armored vehicles, including tanks, we have produced 11,200. The Soviet Union has produced 54,000 -- nearly 5 to 1 in their favor. Finally, with artillery, we've produced 950 artillery and rocket launchers while the Soviets have produced more than 13,000 -- a staggering 14-to-1 ratio.

There was a time when we were able to offset superior Soviet numbers with higher quality, but today they are building weapons as sophisticated and modern as our own.

As the Soviets have increased their military power, they've been emboldened to extend that power. They're spreading their military influence in ways that can directly challenge our vital interests and those of our allies.

The following aerial photographs, most of them secret until now, illustrate this point in a crucial area very close to home: Central America and the Caribbean Basin. They're not dramatic photographs. But I think they help give you a better understanding of what I'm talking about.

This Soviet intelligence collection facility, less than a hundred miles from our coast, is the largest of its kind in the world. The acres and acres of antennae fields and intelligence monitors are targeted on key U.S. military installations and sensitive activities. The installation in Lourdes, Cuba, is manned by 1,500 Soviet technicians. And the satellite ground station allows instant communications with Moscow. This 28-square-mile facility has grown by more than 60 percent in size and capability during the past decade.

In western Cuba, we see this military airfield and it complement of modern, Soviet-built Mig-23 aircraft. The Soviet Union uses this Cuban airfield for its own long-range reconnaissance missions. And earlier this month, two modern Soviet antisubmarine warfare aircraft began operating from it. During the past 2 years, the level of Soviet arms exports to Cuba can only be compared to the levels reached during the Cuban missile crisis 20 years ago.

This third photo, which is the only one in this series that has been previously made public, shows Soviet military hardware that has made its way to Central America. This airfield with its MI - 8 helicopters, anti-aircraft guns, and protected fighter sites is one of a number of military facilities in Nicaragua which has received Soviet equipment funneled through Cuba, and reflects the massive military buildup going on in that country.

On the small island of Grenada, at the southern end of the Caribbean chain, the Cubans, with Soviet financing and backing, are in the process of building an airfield with a 10,000-foot runway. Grenada doesn't even have an air force. Who is it intended for? The Caribbean is a very important passageway for our international commerce and military lines of communication. More than half of all American oil imports now pass through the Caribbean. The rapid buildup of Grenada's military potential is unrelated to any conceivable threat to this island country of under 110,000 people and totally at odds with the pattern of other eastern Caribbean States, most of which are unarmed.

The Soviet-Cuban militarization of Grenada, in short, can only be seen as power projection into the region. And it is in this important economic and strategic area that we're trying to help the Governments of El Salvador, Costa Rica, Honduras, and others in their struggles for democracy against guerrillas supported through Cuba and Nicaragua.

These pictures only tell a small part of the story. I wish I could show you more without compromising our most sensitive intelligence sources and methods. But the Soviet Union is also supporting Cuban military forces in Angola and Ethiopia. They have bases in Ethiopia and South Yemen, near the Persian Gulf oil fields. They've taken over the port that we built at Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam. And now for the first time in history, the Soviet Navy is a force to be reckoned with in the South Pacific.

Some people may still ask: Would the Soviets ever use their formidable military power? Well, again, can we afford to believe they won't? There is Afghanistan. And in Poland, the Soviets denied the will of the people and in so doing demonstrated to the world how their military power could also be used to intimidate.

The final fact is that the Soviet Union is acquiring what can only be considered an offensive military force. They have continued to build far more intercontinental ballistic missiles than they could possibly need simply to deter an attack. Their conventional forces are trained and equipped not so much to defend against an attack as they are to permit sudden, surprise offensives of their own.

Our NATO allies have assumed a great defense burden, including the military draft in most countries. We're working with them and our other friends around the world to do more. Our defensive strategy means we need military forces that can move very quickly, forces that are trained and ready to respond to any emergency.

Every item in our defense program -- our ships, our tanks, our planes, our funds for training and spare parts -- is intended for one all-important purpose: to keep the peace. Unfortunately, a decade of neglecting our military forces had called into question our ability to do that.

When I took office in January 1981, I was appalled by what I found: American planes that couldn't fly and American ships that couldn't sail for lack of spare parts and trained personnel and insufficient fuel and ammunition for essential training. The inevitable result of all this was poor morale in our Armed Forces, difficulty in recruiting the brightest young Americans to wear the uniform, and difficulty in convincing our most experienced military personnel to stay on.

There was a real question then about how well we could meet a crisis. And it was obvious that we had to begin a major modernization program to ensure we could deter aggression and preserve the peace in the years ahead.

We had to move immediately to improve the basic readiness and staying power of our conventional forces, so they could meet -- and therefore help deter -- a crisis. We had to make up for lost years of investment by moving forward with a long-term plan to prepare our forces to counter the military capabilities our adversaries were developing for the future.

I know that all of you want peace, and so do I. I know too that many of you seriously believe that a nuclear freeze would further the cause of peace. But a freeze now would make us less, not more, secure and would raise, not reduce, the risks of war. It would be largely unverifiable and would seriously undercut our negotiations on arms reduction. It would reward the Soviets for their massive military buildup while preventing us from modernizing our aging and increasingly vulnerable forces. With their present margin of superiority, why should they agree to arms reductions knowing that we were prohibited from catching up?

Believe me, it wasn't pleasant for someone who had come to Washington determined to reduce government spending, but we had to move forward with the task of repairing our defenses or we would lose our ability to deter conflict now and in the future. We had to demonstrate to any adversary that aggression could not succeed, and that the only real solution was substantial, equitable, and effectively verifiable arms reduction -- the kind we're working for right now in Geneva.

Thanks to your strong support, and bipartisan support from the Congress, we began to turn things around. Already, we're seeing some very encouraging results. Quality recruitment and retention are up dramatically -- more high school graduates are choosing military careers, and more experienced career personnel are choosing to stay. Our men and women in uniform at last are getting the tools and training they need to do their jobs.

Ask around today, especially among our young people, and I think you will find a whole new attitude toward serving their country. This reflects more than just better pay, equipment, and leadership. You the American people have sent a signal to these young people that it is once again an honor to wear the uniform. That's not something you measure in a budget, but it's a very real part of our nation's strength.

It'll take us longer to build the kind of equipment we need to keep peace in the future, but we've made a good start.

We haven't built a new long-range bomber for 21 years. Now we're building the B - 1. We hadn't launched one new strategic submarine for 17 years. Now we're building one Trident submarine a year. Our land-based missiles are increasingly threatened by the many huge, new Soviet ICBM's. We're determining how to solve that problem. At the same time, we're working in the START and INF negotiations with the goal of achieving deep reductions in the strategic and intermediate nuclear arsenals of both sides.

We have also begun the long-needed modernization of our conventional forces. The Army is getting its first new tank in 20 years. The Air Force is modernizing. We're rebuilding our Navy, which shrank from about a thousand ships in the late 1960's to 453 during the 1970's. Our nation needs a superior navy to support our military forces and vital interests overseas. We're now on the road to achieving a 600-ship navy and increasing the amphibious capabilities of our marines, who are now serving the cause of peace in Lebanon. And we're building a real capability to assist our friends in the vitally important Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf region.

This adds up to a major effort, and it isn't cheap. It comes at a time when there are many other pressures on our budget and when the American people have already had to make major sacrifices during the recession. But we must not be misled by those who would make defense once again the scapegoat of the Federal budget.

The fact is that in the past few decades we have seen a dramatic shift in how we spend the taxpayer's dollar. Back in 1955, payments to individuals took up only about 20 percent of the Federal budget. For nearly three decades, these payments steadily increased and, this year, will account for 49 percent of the budget. By contrast, in 1955 defense took up more than half of the Federal budget. By 1980 this spending had fallen to a low of 23 percent. Even with the increase that I am requesting this year, defense will still amount to only 28 percent of the budget.

The calls for cutting back the defense budget come in nice, simple arithmetic. They're the same kind of talk that led the democracies to neglect their defenses in the 1930's and invited the tragedy of World War II. We must not let that grim chapter of history repeat itself through apathy or neglect.

This is why I'm speaking to you tonight -- to urge you to tell your Senators and Congressmen that you know we must continue to restore our military strength. If we stop in midstream, we will send a signal of decline, of lessened will, to friends and adversaries alike. Free people must voluntarily, through open debate and democratic means, meet the challenge that totalitarians pose by compulsion. It's up to us, in our time, to choose and choose wisely between the hard but necessary task of preserving peace and freedom and the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly hope for the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day by day.

The solution is well within our grasp. But to reach it, there is simply no alternative but to continue this year, in this budget, to provide the resources we need to preserve the peace and guarantee our freedom.

Now, thus far tonight I've shared with you my thoughts on the problems of national security we must face together. My predecessors in the Oval Office have appeared before you on other occasions to describe the threat posed by Soviet power and have proposed steps to address that threat. But since the advent of nuclear weapons, those steps have been increasingly directed toward deterrence of aggression through the promise of retaliation.

This approach to stability through offensive threat has worked. We and our allies have succeeded in preventing nuclear war for more than three decades. In recent months, however, my advisers, including in particular the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have underscored the necessity to break out of a future that relies solely on offensive retaliation for our security.

Over the course of these discussions, I've become more and more deeply convinced that the human spirit must be capable of rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by threatening their existence. Feeling this way, I believe we must thoroughly examine every opportunity for reducing tensions and for introducing greater stability into the strategic calculus on both sides.

One of the most important contributions we can make is, of course, to lower the level of all arms, and particularly nuclear arms. We're engaged right now in several negotiations with the Soviet Union to bring about a mutual reduction of weapons. I will report to you a week from tomorrow my thoughts on that score. But let me just say, I'm totally committed to this course.

If the Soviet Union will join with us in our effort to achieve major arms reduction, we will have succeeded in stabilizing the nuclear balance. Nevertheless, it will still be necessary to rely on the specter of retaliation, on mutual threat. And that's a sad commentary on the human condition. Wouldn't it be better to save lives than to avenge them? Are we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful intentions by applying all our abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a truly lasting stability? I think we are. Indeed, we must.

After careful consultation with my advisers, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I believe there is a way. Let me share with you a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that we embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the very strengths in technology that spawned our great industrial base and that have given us the quality of life we enjoy today.

What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?

I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet, current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it's reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts. There will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and breakthroughs. And as we proceed, we must remain constant in preserving the nuclear deterrent and maintaining a solid capability for flexible response. But isn't it worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is.

In the meantime, we will continue to pursue real reductions in nuclear arms, negotiating from a position of strength that can be ensured only by modernizing our strategic forces. At the same time, we must take steps to reduce the risk of a conventional military conflict escalating to nuclear war by improving our nonnuclear capabilities.

America does possess -- now -- the technologies to attain very significant improvements in the effectiveness of our conventional, nonnuclear forces. Proceeding boldly with these new technologies, we can significantly reduce any incentive that the Soviet Union may have to threaten attack against the United States or its allies.

As we pursue our goal of defensive technologies, we recognize that our allies rely upon our strategic offensive power to deter attacks against them. Their vital interests and ours are inextricably linked. Their safety and ours are one. And no change in technology can or will alter that reality. We must and shall continue to honor our commitments.

I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations and raise certain problems and ambiguities. If paired with offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy, and no one wants that. But with these considerations firmly in mind, I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.

Tonight, consistent with our obligations of the ABM treaty and recognizing the need for closer consultation with our allies, I'm taking an important first step. I am directing a comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term research and development program to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles. This could pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate the weapons themselves. We seek neither military superiority nor political advantage. Our only purpose -- one all people share -- is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war.

My fellow Americans, tonight we're launching an effort which holds the promise of changing the course of human history. There will be risks, and results take time. But I believe we can do it. As we cross this threshold, I ask for your prayers and your support.

Thank you, good night, and God bless you.
Remarks to the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors
April 11, 1983


President Meed, Chairman Wiesel, the other distinguished leaders of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, participants in the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, members of the second generation, friends, survivors:
Tonight we stand together to give thanks to America for providing freedom and liberty and, for many here tonight, a second home and a second life.

The opportunity to join with you this evening as a representative of the people of the United States will be for me a cherished memory. I am proud to accept your thanks on behalf of our fellow Americans and also to express our gratitude to you for choosing America, for being the good citizens that you are, and for reminding us of how important it is to remain true to our ideals as individuals and as a nation.

We are here, first and foremost, to remember. These are the days of remembrance, Yom Hashoah. Ours is the only nation other than Israel that marks this time with an official national observance. For the last 2 years I've had the privilege of participating personally in the Days of Remembrance commemoration, as President Carter did before me. May we take a moment to pause and contemplate, perhaps in silent prayer, the magnitude of this occasion, the millions of lives, the courage and dignity, the malevolence and hatred, and what it all means to our lives and the decisions that we make more than a generation later.

Would you please join me and stand in a tribute to those who are not with us for a moment of silence.

[At this point, the audience stood for a moment of silent prayer.]

Amen.

In the early days of our country, our first President, George Washington, visited a Hebrew congregation in Newport, Rhode Island. In response to their address, he wrote them a now rather famous letter reflecting on the meaning of America's newly won freedom. He wrote, ``All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens.''

Well, certainly our country doesn't have a spotless record, but our fundamental beliefs, the ones that inspired Washington when he penned that letter, are sound. Our whole way of life is based on a compact between good and decent people, a voluntary agreement to live here together in freedom, respecting the rights of others and expecting that our rights in return will be respected.

But the freedom we enjoy carries with it a tremendous responsibility. You, the survivors of the Holocaust, remind us of that. Good and decent people must not close their eyes to evil, must not ignore the suffering of the innocent, and must never remain silent and inactive in times of moral crisis.

A generation ago, the American people felt like many others in the Western World -- that they could simply ignore the expanding power of a totalitarian ideology. Looking back now, we must admit that the warning signs were there, that the world refused to see. The words and ideology of the Nazis were rationalized, explained away as if they had no meaning. Violations of religious freedom, the attacks on Jewish property, the censorship, the heavy taxes imposed on those who wished to emigrate, even the first concentration camps -- all this ignored, as was the incredible expansion of Germany's war machine.

A few brave voices tried to warn of the danger. Winston Churchill was driven into the political wilderness for speaking the unpleasant truth. There were also those who in their sincere desire for peace were all too ready to give totalitarians every benefit of the doubt and all too quick to label Churchill a warmonger. Well, time has proven that those who gloss over the brutality of tyrants are no friends of peace or freedom.

Tonight, let us pledge that we will never shut our eyes, never refuse to acknowledge the truth, no matter how unpleasant. If nothing else, the painful memory we share should strengthen our resolve to do this. Our Founding Fathers believed in certain self-evident truths, but for truth to prevail we must have the courage to proclaim it.

Last week we reaffirmed our belief in the most meaningful truths of our Judeo-Christian heritage -- Passover and Easter. These two religious observances link our faiths and celebrate the liberation of the body and soul. The rites of Passover remind us of the freeing of our common ancestors from the yoke of Pharoah's bondage and their exodus to freedom. And today, you bear witness to a modern-day exodus from the darkness of unspeakable horror to the light and refuge of safe havens -- the two most important being America and what soon became the State of Israel.

As a man whose heart is with you and as President of a people you are now so much a part of, I promise you that the security of your safe haven here and in Israel will never be compromised. Our most sacred task now is ensuring that the memory of this greatest of human tragedies, the Holocaust, never fades; that its lessons are not forgotten.

Although so much has been written and said, words somehow are never enough. If a young person, the son or daughter of a neighbor or friend should die or suffer a terrible illness, we feel the sorrow and share the pain. But how can we share the agony of a million young people suffering unspeakable deaths? It's almost too great a burden for the human soul. Indeed, its very enormity may make it seem unreal. Simon Weisenthal has said, ``When a hundred people die, it's a catastrophe. When a million people die, it's just a statistic.''

We must see to it that the immeasurable pain of the Holocaust is not dehumanized, that it is not examined clinically and dispassionately, that its significance is not lost on this generation or any future generation. Though it is now a dry scar, we cannot let the bleeding wound be forgotten. Only when it is personalized will it be real enough to play a role in the decisions we make. Those victims who cannot be with us today do a vital service to mankind by being remembered. But we must be their vessel of remembrance. This reunion is part of our duty to them.

Ben Meed, by serving as the catalyst for this historic event, you exemplify the meaning of good citizenship. America is lucky to have you. Elie Wiesel, you have done so much for so many years now, for all you've done, thank you for your noble effort.

Americans can be proud that with the help of these two men and many others, we're moving forward to build a Holocaust Memorial, a living museum here in the Nation's Capital. And it is being financed, as is this gathering, by voluntary contributions by Jews and Gentiles, by citizens from every walk of life, of every race and creed, who grasp the importance to our soul and to our well-being of seeing, of understanding, and of remembering.

Imparting the message of the Holocaust, using it to reinforce the moral fiber of our society is much more than a Jewish responsibility. It rests upon all of us who, not immobilized by cynicism and negativism, believe that mankind is capable of greater goodness. For just as the genocide of the Holocaust debased civilization, the outcome of the struggle against those who ran the camps and committed the atrocities gives us hope that the brighter side of the human spirit will, in the end, triumph.

During the dark days when terror reigned on the continent of Europe, there were quiet heroes, men and women whose moral fiber held firm. Some of those are called ``righteous Gentiles.'' At this solemn time, we remember them also.

Alexander Rozlan and his wife, for example, now live in Clearwater, Florida. But during the war, they lived in Poland, and they hid three Jewish children in their home for more than 4 years. They knew the terrible risk they were taking. Once, when German soldiers searched their home, the Rozlans kept serving wine and whiskey until the troops were so drunk they forgot what they were looking for. Later, Rozlan's own son was in the hospital with scarlet fever. The boy hid half of the medicine under his pillow so he could give it to the Jewish children his family were hiding, because they, too, had scarlet fever.

There are many such stories. The picturesque town of Assisi, Italy, sheltered and protected 300 Jews. Father Rufino Niccacci organized the effort, hiding people in his monastery and in the homes of parishoners. A slip of the tongue by a single informant could have condemned the entire village to the camps, yet they did not yield.

And, of course, there was Raoul Wallenberg, one of the moral giants of our time, whose courage saved thousands. He could have remained in his native Sweden, safe from the conflagration that engulfed the continent. He chose to follow his conscience. Yes, we remember him, too.

I would affirm, as President of the United States and, if you would permit me, in the names of the survivors, that if those who took him from Budapest would win our trust, let them start by giving us an accounting of Raoul Wallenberg. Wallenberg and others who displayed such bravery did not consider themselves heroes. I understand that some of them, when asked about why they risked so much, often for complete strangers, replied, ``It was the right thing to do.'' And that was that. It was just their way.

That kind of moral character, unfortunately, was the exception and not the rule. But for that very reason, its a consciousness we must foster.

Earlier, I described our country as a compact between good and decent people. I believe this, because it is the love of freedom, not nationalistic rituals and symbols, that unites us. And because of this, we are also bound in spirit to all those who yearn to be free and to live without fear. We are the keepers of the flame of liberty.

I understand that in Hebrew, the word for ``engraved'' is charut. It is very similar to the word for ``freedom,'' cheyrut. Tonight, we recognize that for freedom to survive and prosper it must be engraved in our character, so that when confronted with fundamental choices we will do what is right -- because that is our way.

Looking around this room tonight I realize that although we come from many lands, we share a wealth of common experiences. Many of us remember the time before the Second World War. How we and our friends reacted to certain events has not faded from our memory. There are also in this room many young people, sons and daughters, maybe even a few grandchildren. Perhaps some of the younger ones can't understand why we're making so much of a fuss. Perhaps some of them think we're too absorbed by the heartaches of the past and should move on.

Well, what we do tonight is not for us; it's for them. We who are old enough to remember must make certain those who take our place understand. So, if a youngster should ask you why you're here, just tell that young person, ``because I love God, because I love my country, because I love you, Zachor.''

I can't close without remembering something else. Some years ago, I was sent on a mission to Denmark. And while there, I heard stories of the war. And I heard how the order had gone out for the Danish people, under the Nazi occupation, to identify the Jews among them. And the next day, every Dane appeared on the street wearing a Star of David.

Thank you all, and God bless you.