NBC NEWS SPECIAL REPORT: PRESIDENTIAL NEWS CONFERENCE (Part 1 of 2)

NBC ID: ARIDMEEQ4E | Production Unit: Specials | Media Type: Aired Show | Media ID: S860812 | Air Date(s): 08/12/1986 | Event Date(s): 08/12/1986

Beschreibung

Event Date(s): 08/12/1986 | Event Location(s): New York City; Lake Michigan; Chicago, Illinois | Description: NBC NEWS SPECIAL REPORT: PRESIDENTIAL NEWS CONFERENCE AT NIGHT BOAT TRAVELS ON LAKE MICHIGAN AS CHICAGO SKYLINE IS SEEN IN BACKGROUND. MOVING INSERTS OF PRES REAGAN SEEN. SUPER STATES PRESIDENT REAGAN'S NEWS CONFERENCE. FROM NEW YORK REPORTER BROKAW STATES THAT REAGAN HAS BEEN IN ILLINOIS TALKING TO FARMERS & CAMPAIGNING FOR REPUBLICANS. AT THE HYATT REGENCY HOTEL IN CHICAGO PAN OF REPORTERS SEEN. REAGAN ENTERS. AT PRESS CONFERENCE REAGAN SAYS HE CAME TO ILLINOIS TO PRESENT A MESSAGE OF CONCERN & HOPE FOR FARMERS; CLAIMS FARM PROBLEMS WERE CAUSED BY GOVERNMENT-IMPOSED EMBARGOES & INFLATION; ASSERTS GOAL IS FOR ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE FOR AGRICULTURE; & CONTENDS THAT AS LONG AS HE IS PRESIDENT; FARMERS CONCERNS WILL BE HEARD & ACTED UPON. REAGAN MAINTAINS THAT THE US HAS PROPOSED DELAYING US STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE TO THE SOVIETS; ASSERTS THE AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS SUPPORTS SANCTIONS AGAINST SOUTH AFRICA BECAUSE RESULTING UNEMPLOYMENT; HUNGER; & DEPRESSION WOULD ALLOW THEM TO SEIZE CONTROL. REAGAN NOTES HIS SUCCESS RAISING FUNDS FOR GOP CANDIDATES; CLAIMS GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO TEST POSITIVE FOR DRUGS WILL NOT BE FIRED BUT WILL BE OFFERED HELP; & CONTENDS THAT HIS POLICIES HAVE ALLOWED FEDERAL GRANTS TO BE DISTRIBUTED MORE FREELY AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. REAGAN DEFENDS SUBSIDIZED US GRAIN SALES TO THE SOVIET UNION; & CONTENDS THAT BUILDING THE BERLIN WALL WAS A VIOLATION OF THE FOUR POWERS AGREEMENT; ADDING THE US COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE WALL FROM BEING BUILT IF IT HAD TAKEN IMMEDIATE ACTION. HE NOTES THAT BISHOP TUTU IS NOT A RADICAL; & CLAIMS SOUTH AFRICAN PRES BOTHA IS TALKING OF MEETING WITH LEADERS OF WEST GERMANY; FRANCE; THE UNITED KINGDOM; & THE US. HE STATES IF PEOPLE ARE AFRAID OF LAROUCHE CANDIDATES THEY SHOULD VOTE REPUBLICAN. REAGAN CONTENDS THAT THERE ARE COMMUNISTS IN THE AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS; CONTENDS THAT SANCTIONS AGAINST POLAND WOULD NOT HARM ITS CITIZENS; AND STATES NICARAGUA IS A TOTALITARIAN; COMMUNIST STATE; THAT INTENDS TO SPREAD ITS REVOLUTION THROUGHOUT LATIN AMERICA. HE SAYS THE US IS TRYING TO GET THE HOSTAGES IN LEBANON RELEASED. REAGAN ASSERTS THAT SOUTH AFRICA IS DECENT TO ITS EMPLOYEES; & HAS TRIED TO IMPROVE FAMILY LIFE AS COMPARED TO NICARAGUA; & SAYS HE IS NOT HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME FINDING A QUALIFIED BLACK TO BE AMBASSADOR TO SOUTH AFRICA. HE CLAIMS THAT MENTAL HEALTH PATIENTS CANNOT BE INSTITUTIONALIZED UNLESS THEY REPRESENT A THREAT TO OTHERS. AS REAGAN LEAVES THE PODIUM HE ASSERTS THAT HE FEELS FINE. DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY SPEAKES SEEN. REPORTERS SEEN ARE ASSOCIATED PRESS HUNT; UNITED PRESS INTNLS SANDLER; WLS-TVS HILL; CBS NEWS PLANTE; WBBM-TVS FLANNERY; ABC NEWS DONALDSON; WTTW-TVS DUMONT; CHICAGO SUN-TIMES TALBOTT; WLS-TVS GALLAGHER (MIS-SUPERED AS CHARLES GOUDIE); ABC NEWS WALKER; & WMAQ-TVS MAGERS. BROKAW RECAPS SPEECH. The President. As you know and have been told, I do have a short statement here. Before we begin, I thought I'd mention that one reason for our visit to Illinois, especially this morning at the State fair, was to bring a special message to America's farmers, one of concern and hope. Amid general prosperity that has brought record employment, rising incomes, and the lowest inflation in more than 20 years, some sectors of our farm economy are hurting, and their anguish is a concern to all Americans. I think you all know that I've always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help. A great many of the current problems on the farm were caused by government-imposed embargoes and inflation, not to mention government's long history of conflicting and haphazard policies. Our ultimate goal, of course, is economic independence for agriculture, and through steps like the tax reform bill, we seek to return farming to real farmers. But until we make that transition, the Government must act compassionately and responsibly. In order to see farmers through these tough times, our administration has committed record amounts of assistance, spending more in this year alone than any previous administration spent during its entire tenure. No area of the budget, including defense, has grown as fast as our support for agriculture. Earlier this month we announced our decisions on grain exports, and this morning we announced a drought assistance task force and, with regard to storage problems, the availability of price-support loans for all the grain in this year's crop. The message in all this is very simple: America's farmers should know that our commitment to helping them is unshakable. And as long as I am in Washington, their concerns are going to be heard and acted upon. One other brief point: Tomorrow the Senate will cast a crucial vote. The question is that of assistance to the freedom fighters who are trying to bring democracy to Nicaragua, where a Communist regime, a client State of the Soviet Union, has taken over. The question before the Senate is: Will it vote for democracy in Central America and the security of our own borders, or will it vote to passively sit by while the Soviets make permanent their military beachhead on the mainland of North America. The end of statement. And now, as is traditional with a Presidential press conference, I start by calling on the representatives of the two major news bureaus. Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press]? Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, Soviet and American negotiators just completed 2 days of top-level talks in Moscow. Did they narrow any differences on arms control, perhaps paving the way for a summit later this year? And how did the Soviets react to your offer to delay the deployment of a Strategic Defense Initiative in return for an agreement to deploy it later? The President. Well, that isn't exactly what we've proposed to the Soviet Union about delaying our Strategic Defense Initiative. And I'm not going to discuss what was in my letter, and no one who has been guessing at it has guessed right yet. But the General Secretary did not reveal his letter to me, and I'm not going to reveal mine to him. But we don't have an answer or a reply yet from our negotiators over there, and I'm waiting for their report to see where we stand. But we have no word as yet. Q. Are you more or less optimistic, sir, about the prospects for a summit in November? The President. Yes, I am optimistic. And I'm optimistic that we're going to make more progress than probably has been made in a number of years because of some of the problems that are concerning the General Secretary at this time. Norm [Norman Sandler, United Press International] Q. Mr. President, your recent speech on South Africa met with what one account called ``a bipartisan chorus of boos on Capitol Hill.'' It neither silenced your critics nor satisfied members of your own party who are pressing for a more forceful U.S. approach to that problem. At this point, are you willing to ignore those calls for firmer U.S. action and possibly see Congress seize the initiative in setting policy toward South Africa? The President. Well, I don't think that it's a case of whether it's firm action or not. I think the simple case is that punitive sanctions that would affect the economy there would not only be disruptive to surrounding states that are virtually linked to South Africa's economy but would also be very punitive to the people that we want to help. And whether the Members of the Congress were ready to accept what I said in that speech - I can tell you that in communication with some of the most prominent of the black leaders, individuals who are leaders of groups of several million, 4 1/2 million in one religious group, and are all solidly opposed to the sanctions. And the one group that is in support of them in South Africa is a group that very definitely has been the most radical and wants the disruption that would come from massive unemployment and hunger and desperation of the people; because it is their belief that they could then rise out of all of that disruption and seize control. And this has been transmitted to me personally by some of these other leaders, like Buthelezi of the largest tribal group in all of South Africa, the Zulus. And there are others. There are religious leaders. Another one, another Bishop - you never hear of him - I don't know whether I pronounce his name right, but it's, I think, Moreno or Marnarama. I'm going to have to find out what sounds they attach to some of their combination of letters. But he's the leader of 4 1/2 million Christians there. And all of them are deathly opposed to sanctions. So, I just think that up on the Hill there, well-intentioned though they may be, they're asking for something that would not be helpful. On the other hand, I think there are evidences that maybe ourselves and some of our allies could be invited to meet with their government representatives and see if we couldn't bring about some coming together of these responsible leaders of the black community. Q. Well, if I could follow it up, sir: If you're unwilling at this point to define what a reasonable timetable is for the abolition of apartheid, does the situation, in fact, reach a point at some stage where the United States is pushed to go beyond friendly persuasion to prod the South Africans for change? The President. Well, I think that's something that you face if and when that time comes. Yes, we're impatient. And, yes, we feel as strongly about apartheid as anyone does, and it should be done away with. On the other hand, President Botha himself has said the same thing, and that his goal is to eliminate apartheid. Now, we'll go over to the home side here. Q. I'm Hugh Hill, from WLS - TV in Chicago. You came here today on behalf of Republican candidates. And 2 years ago you had a landslide victory in Illinois, and yet the man you campaigned with over and over, Senator Percy, lost. And I'd like to ask you this: What value do you place on a Presidential trip, particularly in an off year, with the exception of drawing crowds to these fundraisers? The President. Well, I don't know. If there is a dissatisfaction with some candidate, I don't think that someone else's coattails can do that individual any good. But there is another facet you haven't even mentioned. May sound crass, but you can also help them raise the funds they need for campaigning. And so far, I've been rather successful in that area. Q. Mr. President, you've said that you would support voluntary drug testing in the workplace and, perhaps, mandatory drug testing for those with sensitive government jobs. I'd like to ask, sir, how any form of drug testing, voluntary or not, which is subject to peer pressure can be truly voluntary? And also, what that does to our constitutional rights of not to incriminate ourselves and the presumption against self-incrimination and the constitutional guarantee and the presumption of innocence? The President. Well, I think I made it plain on one count: They won't be incriminating themselves. Because what I have said is that in voluntary testing these individuals that might turn up and that are found to be drug addicts - I would say that there should be no threat of losing their job or of any punishment. There should be an offer of help, that we would stand by ready to help them take the treatment that would free them from this habit. So, it's not a case of saying that we're now going to find a way to, as you say, have people incriminate themselves so that they can be fired or anything else. And I just have to believe that the time has come, as it did once around the turn of the century in this country, and again, cocaine was the villain. We had a great drug epidemic around the turn of the century, and it really was eliminated simply by the ranks of the people - suddenly said, ``Enough already.'' And then, whether it was peer pressure, whether it was friend helping friend or whatever, that disappeared for a very long time. Well, now we have the thing back again. We have done all - and are doing - and are going to continue to do all that we can to intercept the drugs. And you might be interested to know that since we've been here we have increased by 10 times over the seizure of narcotics with our drug enforcement. But that isn't going to do it. The only answer is going to be taking the customer away from the drugs, turning them off. Q. But, sir, how can it be truly voluntary, though? If a member of your staff declines to take a voluntary drug test, aren't you, or is not someone on your staff, likely to be a little suspicious? The President. Might be suspicious, but nothing's going to happen to him in the sense of firing or anything else. What would you have thought of me if I'd refused to voluntarily do it? Q. Mr. President, at least once a week the mayor of Chicago, Harold Washington, says that your tax and fiscal policies are destroying cities like Chicago. And he points out that, despite having laid off several thousand employees over the past few years, the city is still projecting a $65 million budget gap for next year, and he blames that on your policies. He says it could force the layoff of essential service employees, like police and fire, or a tax increase. Is he correct? The President. And he wants what? Q. Is he correct that your policies are leading to the destruction of basic services in America's cities? The President. No, as a matter of fact, several hundred million dollars come here in grants, and a good share of that - at least half, if not more - is for rapid transit. And we have tried, as a matter of fact, in a number of the helpful grants and so forth that the Federal Government has been giving to States and local communities. Speaking from experience as a Governor, I can tell you that in many of those instances the administrative overhead of the so-called compassionate programs that were to help the needy amounted to more than the money that was actually reaching the needy, in some instances costing $2 to deliver $1 to a needy person. Now, what we've tried to do is take the red tape off these grants, to put them together, and to allow the local communities more power to determine how the money will be used. I found as a Governor that many times I had to look at a program, and I had to follow the Federal rules and regulations for the administering of the program. And this made for great waste and fraud, well, I call it waste fraud. And if we had been allowed to do what we felt was best for our people and our State, we could have managed the program at far less cost. So, since I've been in Washington, we have tried to put things together in block grants, take off the restrictions, and allow them to use it to the best of their ability. Q. My name, by the way, is Mike Flannery with Channel 2 News here in Chicago. The mayor says that the net result of your programs have been large tax increases in Chicago. And from where he sits, he says it looks like your tax breaks at the Federal level amount to a shell game, forcing larger corresponding tax increases at the local level. Do you think that's a fair assessment? The President. No, it isn't a fair assessment. Because in some instances what we set out to do did involve local and State governments with regard to taxes, in the sense that the Federal Government had so usurped the tax sources that local and State governments - there wasn't anything left where they could turn to without disruption of their economies and certainly distress to their people. So, we thought that if we could reduce that Federal burden that this would then open areas to where a local government or a State government that had a need for additional revenues could take those revenues. The Federal Government had simply monopolized and grabbed off all the resources, and then the Federal Government turned and said: Oh, you poor people back there, you haven't got the money to do things. You'll have to take our programs. We'll do them for you. And every place that there was government help, there was government control, Washington control. So, they're just painting it wrong. Sam [Sam Donaldson, ABC News]? Q. Mr. President, after you announced your decision to subsidize grain sales to the Soviet Union, Secretary of State Shultz was extremely critical. And I'd like you to reply to his criticism. He said the Soviet Union must be chortling at having sales to them subsidized and scratching their heads about a system that says we're going to fix it up so that American taxpayers make it possible for Soviet housewives to buy American-produced food at a price lower than an American housewife. Now, that's Secretary Shultz; what do you have to say about that? The President. Well, you fellows all caught Secretary Shultz - he'd been away, and you caught him before he'd had a chance to talk to us and find out what it was we really had done. Now, we're not out as a matter of policy to continue subsidizing the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has a long-term grain agreement with us, and it calls for a purchase of four metric tons of grain this year. They have not yet bought that. This measure that I employed was in the bill that the Congress passed. And what we did was say for this one crop, and for this one season, that we would offer this subsidy to the farmers. We didn't do it for the Soviet Union. We did it for our farmers, who are, as you know - and we hope temporarily - but in a real bind, a very severe one. This amounted to a subsidy for them, but allowed the Soviet Union to buy that 4 million. If they came in and wanted to buy 5, the other million would be back at the regular price. And I think George has mellowed considerably since he found out what it is that we did. Q. A lot of people just simply think you were trying to buy votes in the fall elections. Because, sir, the American taxpayer is going to pay about 20 cents a bushel for this subsidy. The President. No, we're trying to help in a situation that I believe was originally created by the Federal Government, when the Federal Government, back in the days of the Depression, started invading the farm community. And with all its various programs, it has brought on most of the problems that bother the farmers today. Now I have to go back over here to the home side. Yes. Q. Mr. President, Bruce DuMont from WTTW Television in Chicago. Yesterday you offered strong words of encouragement to those who would like to see the Berlin Wall torn down. I am wondering if at some point in the future you might be willing to go beyond rhetoric and perhaps put it on a future agenda for negotiation with the Soviet Union? (Continued...)

NICHT EXKLUSIVE DATEI
Dieses Video gehört zu unserem Analog-Archiv und ist daher nicht auf unserer Webseite gespeichert. Der Zugriff auf den Inhalt kann einige Zeit in Anspruch nehmen und es können zusätzliche Gebühren anfallen. Zulassungen und Freigaben richten sich nach dem Verwendungszweck.
Treten Sie bitte mit uns in Kontakt, um uns von Ihrem Projekt zu erzählen oder eine Vorschau anzufordern.

DETAILS

Einschränkungen:
KEINE WERBUNG ODER GESCHÄFTLICHE NUTZUNG OHNE VORHERIGE GENEHMIGUNG. BITTE KONTAKTIEREN SIE IHREN GETTY IMAGES-KUNDENBETREUER VOR ORT. Darf nicht als vollständiges Programm oder aufeinanderfolgend mit anderen NBC News Archives Clips verwendet werden. Zusätzliche NBC News Archives-Einschränkungen gelten – siehe Ziffer 3.g. der Lizenzvereinbarung für Getty Images Inhalte.
Bildnachweis:
NBC News Archives
Redaktionell #:
1279378897
Kollektion:
NBC News Archives Offline
Übertragungsdatum:
12. August 1986
Hochgeladen am:
Lizenztyp:
Rights-ready
Releaseangaben:
Kein Release verfügbar. Weitere Informationen
Ort:
United States
Quelle:
NBC News Archives Offline
Objektname:
ARIDMEEQ4E