Department of State - Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Department Employees

SECRETARY VANCE. Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.

Mr. President, on behalf of all of the members of the State Department, we wish you the warmest welcome and thank you for coming to visit us here today.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much. I am glad to be here.

This has been perhaps the Department on which I've placed the heaviest responsibility for instructing me. I've got a lot to learn, and I've had superb support from all of you during this first month or so that I've been in office.

ADMINISTRATION POLICIES

I think it's accurate to say that in many parts of the world, the problem areas in particular, there was just a clinging to the status quo, waiting for a new administration to take over in our powerful and great Nation. It's not because of me. It's because of our country and because of the hope that exists among people of all kinds in all nations that we might set an example in the relationship among nations and in the search for peace, and also, I might add very strongly, in the preservation of our deep and unchanging commitments to basic human rights. I will never change that commitment, and I know that all of you will maintain this commitment with me.

I am very grateful, too, that we have achieved so quickly and so completely a harmonious relationship among the Cabinet officers who serve with me--State, Defense, Treasury, Office of Management and Budget, Commerce, and others. I can tell you in the most accurate way that there is no disharmony. We have open, frank discussions. Sometimes we have tough, sharp debate in the Cabinet meetings that take place every week. But there is no remnant after those Cabinet meetings are over of animosity or divisions or lack of an easy communication among those who are responsible, along with you, for the evolution of our 'attitude toward foreign countries or domestic affairs.

I am very grateful, too, that Cy Vance has been able to start an evolutionary process of depending in a heavier and heavier way on the superb intelligence and training and background and experience and sound judgment of professional Foreign Service officers and those who support them.

I don't want to ever see a concentration of complete authority within one person, because when that is done, there is a great neglect of that reservoir of talent and ability that exists among all of you and those who work with you in foreign countries.

I am determined that every single selection that I ever make, working with Secretary of State Vance and others, is on the basis of merit and nothing else. And I want to root out once and for all the cheap political appointments that sometimes in the past have been an embarrassment to our own country and sometimes an insult to the nations to whom we send diplomatic officials to represent us. I want this sense of professionalism and soundness and cohesiveness in a common purpose to be an integral part of this crucial Department of our Nation.

As I said earlier, I have a lot to learn and we are now probing to see what the differences are which exist between ourselves and other countries and even among other countries. And we will add our good services in those areas of the world where we are called upon to do it. We can't impose our will on the disputive nations in the Middle East, but we can search among them as a catalyst for grounds for agreement, particularly those that are expressed quietly and confidentially to us. And when we see fit, without timidity or without constraint, we will use our influence to bring together disparate ideas in nations which in the past have not been able to agree.

We will do the same thing in the Cyprus and the Turkey-Greek relationships, and in southern Africa, with our bilateral relationships with Panama, and other parts of the world who look to us for leadership. This, I think, is a proper role for our country to play.

As I said many times during the campaign, for over 2 years, I want everything that we do in dealing with other nations to be compatible with the hopes and the dreams and the attitude and the morality and the respect for individuality of each human being to be mirrored in our foreign policy.

I think in many times past, and particularly in recent years, there has been a vacuum in international affairs. For some nation which can exemplify with constant reassessment of our own position, those basic commitments that ought not ever to change.

I want to be sure that when Cy Vance speaks or when I speak that it's the absolute truth. I want over a period of time other nations to know that if our country makes a commitment, it will be honored. And I want us to tell the Saudi Arabians and the Syrians and the Egyptians and the Lebanese and the Jordanians and the Israelis the same thing, so that there never is any sense of being misled. These are the kinds of hopes that I have, that I believe can be realized.

We've got, additionally, a responsibility to let the American people know what challenges we face and the possible resolution of problems and the possible answers to complicated questions. I don't want to give anyone a false sense that the answers are easy or that the solutions will necessarily come quickly. But we will be tenacious and determined in our search for a greater world peace.

The final point I want to make before I answer your questions is this: We have some potential adversaries and some past adversaries with whom we want to have better relationships. And that applies to Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia. It applies even to North Korea and to Cuba. It applies to the People's Republic of China and to Russia and to countries like Iraq. With some we have relations; some, as you know, we do not. But our constant search will be to find common ground on which we can reach agreement so that we can set an example for the rest of the world in a friendly and mutually respectful attitude.

I have been pleased so far at the response that has been received from our embryonic efforts to carve out grounds for understanding and peace. I think so far the Soviet Union has responded well. And we will continue these kinds of efforts, sometimes anticipating discouragements. But we will not be deterred, and we will not be discouraged ourselves.

I want the American people to be part of it. I am going to have a press conference at least twice a month. I will have frequent fireside chats. My next one will be devoted exclusively to foreign affairs and defense matters. And I am going to have trips around our country where I might meet in town meeting forums. And we will have call-in type radio programs so that people can ask me questions about domestic and foreign affairs and so that to the best of my ability I can give them straight answers.

I think that when our country speaks, it ought to speak with a strong voice. And when a foreign policy is evolved, even though it might be the right foreign policy, exclusively by the President and the Secretary of State, and then promulgated to the world without the understanding or participation of the Congress, the other Cabinet members or the people of our country, the rest of the world knows that the President and the Secretary of State, powerful people, still speak with a hollow voice. So to the extent that you are involved in the evolution of an idea or a new approach or a consistent old approach, to that extent, we will all be strengthened.

We are partners. I can't succeed as President unless you succeed. And if you make a serious mistake, I am the one who will be the focal point for that criticism and that despair and that disillusionment that will follow. I think when we do make a mistake we ought to be frank about it and say we erred and this is the corrective action that we will take. And we will try to correct our error, and we will try to do better next time.

I think the American people will respond well. And I think other nations that look to us for leadership will respond well, also.

I want to make sure that we eliminate in our own country those vestiges of hatred or discrimination or deprivation of human rights that we still retain so that when we do criticize other countries, or when we do speak out to deplore the loss of those rights in other nations, that we, ourselves, might be free of justified criticism.

Well, all these matters that have just come to my mind as I stand here before you are important to us all. And I just want to be sure that we work in harmony to alleviate tensions and to reinspire those who can legitimately, I hope, in the future look to us for justified inspiration.

I would be glad to answer any questions that you might have or I will refer the questions I can't answer to these notable people behind me.

QUESTIONS

FEDERAL PAY INCREASE

Q. Mr. President, my question is: According to the news media, you wholeheartedly supported the congressional and top Government employees' raise. Will you not now give low Government employees the same support in their raise?

THE PRESIDENT. As an example of my sensitivity to the needs and yearnings of our people, I can detect that this question is very interesting to all of you. [Laughter] Well, I can't promise that whatever proposal is put forward that I would support it. But I know that I can't succeed as President without your cooperation and your trust in me.

As you know, my salary was not raised. I didn't think it ought to be. [Laughter] We do have in some instances excessive grade creep, too many people in the higher levels of the pay grades. And that has got to be corrected over a period of time. I want to be sure that the correction is made without hurting any of you.

And rather than demoting those who have been promoted too high, I would rather, through normal attrition--that is, resignations, transfers, and retirements on your own initiative--let those vacancies be created in the higher levels where they are overloaded at this point.

Additionally, I want to be sure that we have, as a result of reorganization, no one who is a professional damaged in your own family lives, in your own economic status, or seniority position. And we have enough attrition within the Federal Government, about 10 percent a year, to take care of those changes.

So, I would say with those qualifications, my answer would be yes. I am very eager to see those who serve well, as do you, rewarded in a financial fashion and also in recognition of your good work.

So, I did feel that there was one mistake made in the recent pay increases, the way the law is written. I don't think that the pay increases for Federal Judges, Members of Congress, or top-level employees in the Federal Government ought to go into effect until after the next general election. I think that that would be a reassuring thing to the American people because quite often they don't think that the high level pay level increases should be changed. And I think if it was consummated after the next general election that one problem would be alleviated.

So, I will certainly be very much aware of your needs. And, in general, with those qualifications I will be supportive of treating you as fairly as we have the higher levels of Government.

FEDERAL REORGANIZATION

Q. This question regards your talk about reorganization and reform. As you probably know, the State Department has been the object of so-called attempts at reform during the last 25 years many more times than any other part of Government--on the average of once every 2 years we estimate it. Most of the times these efforts at reform have failed because of certain problems in their conceptualization and their implementation. They've been quick fixes, developed in isolation from the real problems of the operational side of the organization, lacking commitment on the part of the leadership to follow up on them and let them flounder without follow-through.

I wonder, as you approach the question of reorganization and reform in Government, how you propose to avoid these pitfalls and, specifically, how do you propose to engage the career services in the process of designing your reorganization and reform?

THE PRESIDENT. I presume that other than the things you mentioned you liked the previous efforts, right? [Laughter]

You may be surprised to know that the last three reorganization proposals for the State Department I have studied myself. And I agree with your analysis of them. There were some excellent ideas in some of those reorganization proposals. They were not carried out for several reasons that you have described very well.

In the first place, under the zero-base budgeting technique, which I think all of you will like and which will be used in its entirety to prepare the next budget, you will in a mandatory way be involved in the evolution of the next budget, the establishment of priorities for expenditure of your own human and financial resources, the elimination of obsolete programs, the change and modification of those that have been in effect for a long time, and the promulgation of new ones that might take place for the first time next year.

At the foreman level--speaking in business terms--an analysis would be made, using one side of one sheet of paper, what you think can be done to make your own professional careers more effective. As a result of those first studies, which will be completed I would say no later than this August, we will have a fairly clear picture within this Department of what you think your Department ought to be like. And any sort of reorganization effort that Cyrus Vance recommends to me I would like for you and him and the other leaders in this Department to know that it ought to start with you, so that you might say this is what we think ought to be done and work its way up in that fashion.

I am deeply committed to the principle that we ought to have an efficient, economical, well-organized, well-managed Federal Government, so that it can be sensitive to our people's needs, so that excessive secrecy might be stripped away, and so that we can take maximum advantage of your own talents and abilities.

So, with the zero-base budgeting and that concept of reorganization, I think I can assure you that the next reorganization proposal that comes for the State Department will be originated by you, it will be well advised, and it will also be implemented.

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE

Q. Mr. President, speaking of reorganization, do you see a specific direction for the U.S. foreign aid program or any new emphasis on new programs?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we do need a substantial change in our foreign aid programs. They are so diverse--some, as you know, with institutional aid through the World Bank and regional banks, through IMF loans and so forth, some strictly bilateral aid to individual countries, some for a region, some with loans, some with direct grants--that the whole thing has gotten confused.

Cy Vance and I were talking about this very subject on the way up on the elevator, and we are now going to the Congress to ask the Congress Members to honor this Nation's commitment for our pro rata share of support for some of these multilateral aid programs.

We have up until now defaulted on the word of honor of our country. We have promised in effect that if Great Britain and Germany, and France and other countries will contribute a certain amount to an international lending institution that we will also contribute a certain amount.

Other countries have kept their word. We have broken our word so far. So we are going now to the Congress and say: "Would you just honor the commitments that our Nation has made?" I think the American people that can understand that will go along with it.

Governor John Gilligan, who has good experience in management and who has a great sensitivity, has now come to help us with this program. And the analysis of the entire aid program will be presented to me, looking at it in an overall fashion. And I believe that it can be, within the present levels of funding and perhaps with an expanded level of funding in the future if it's saleable to the American people and the Congress, be much more effective.

So, I think I understand the problem. I don't understand the answers yet. But I believe that, with these people behind me with your help, we can have a comprehensive aid program, that will be of great help to the nations who need it and which will also be coherent and understandable, and which will be a source of pride and not embarrassment to the American people and the Congress.

I believe in that way we won't have to worry in the future about a constant annual fight just to meet our commitments that have already been made in the past.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT

Q. During one of the debates you were asked how you were going to create more jobs. You mentioned a program similar to the Civilian Conservation Corps with Government funding.

How do you plan to cut Government spending and streamline the bureaucracy if you add to it programs such as the CCC? Do you not think it would be better to stimulate the private sector by giving them tax incentives to create more jobs, especially--[ inaudible ].

THE PRESIDENT. The question was that during the campaign I promised to create a job opportunity program for young people similar to what the CCC did--the Civilian Conservation Corps--during the depression years. And how can I carry out that promise without creating an additional bureaucracy, and wouldn't it be better through tax incentives and other means to create new jobs in the private sector.

I think the answer to that question, which is quite complicated and of great concern to me, can best be answered in our own economic stimulus package that has been presented to the Congress. This package, which consists of about $30 billion over a 2-year period, I think, is carefully balanced. It's a program that does consist of tax reductions. For the average family in our country that makes about $10,000 a year, their tax bill for 1976 will be reduced about 30 percent with a direct and hopefully quick rebate. This will provide about $11.5 billion of new spending capacity in our country which will encourage the production of goods, particularly consumer goods, which are highly labor-intensive and will put a lot of people to work, all in the private sector.

We've also pursued good housing programs. We've added about $15 billion in our budget which will be spent over the next 40 years to increase construction of housing. Of course, houses are all built within the private sector.

We've increased our allocation of funds also to things like better water pollution control. Although part of the money comes from the Federal Government, the jobs are created in the private sector.

We have created some public service jobs. These in many instances are temporary, sometimes they are permanent. They will be taking place among young people, for instance, in our National Park system, where we have a real need for additional employment. I hope that these will lead to permanent employment in areas where your employees are needed after a training program.

But I saw from my own very early life, I was not old enough to participate, that the CCC program did permit young people to have a job experience. It removed the necessity for them to be permanently dependent on the Government for welfare payments--at that time there was no unemployment compensation payments.

And I believe this is a better alternative. We are supporting these people anyhow, young people, 20, 25 years old, who have left their own home. They are eating; they are sleeping; they are wearing clothes; they are getting medical care. That help is coming to them in many instances through Government handouts.

And my own approach to it is to spend approximately the same amount of money giving them a useful job, which will restore their own self-respect and hopefully lead to permanent independence on the part of that person.

I am determined to hold down the total Government employment. On the first day of January this year it was about 1,902,000 employees, full-time employees. It's been growing very rapidly the last few years. I can't say that there won't be any more growth, but I've asked all the Cabinet members to hold down their inclination to increase employment in the Federal Government structure.

So, my own basic political philosophy is toward the private sector. In some instances, though you have to use Government programs to instigate new growth in the GNP.

As you know--to close this long answer-I've set three or four goals for my own administration. I am working toward them very hard. One is to have a balanced budget by fiscal year 1981; secondly, to cut down the unemployment rate to 4.5 percent over the 4-year period. This is predicated on the hope that our GNP might increase about 6 percent a year and that business confidence might be restored so they will invest in new factories, in new plants, in new job opportunities. And of course it also is based on the fact that we are going to have a very strong anti-inflation effort. And very shortly, within the next couple of weeks, we will publicize a comprehensive list of things that do contribute to inflation. Many of them are hard to detect. I had never thought about a lot of them when I saw the first draft of this proposal.

So, inflation, employment, balanced budget, long-range projections of plans, a more efficient use of our resources are all parts of our program. So, I think that if you study the proposal we made to the Congress, it has a pretty good picture of the answer to your question. It's a difficult question to answer. And I can't say that we will meet all our goals; I believe we have a good chance to meet them all.

But I am determined to try.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

Q. Mr. President, I am looking at your statement saying something to the effect of openness and frankness. And I know that you have only been in office for a short time, but the State Department--I am with AID--has been committed for several years to an affirmative action program. I don't know about the State Department, but it has been a dismal failure in AID. And if I looked at the 35 people across there, and I don't see a black face, I don't think it's been very effective in the State Department.

I would like to know, can you--or what will you do to get at least the Department to show some semblance of sensitivity toward this program?

THE PRESIDENT. I looked at them too when I came in. There are not many women behind me and there are not many minority groups. When I've gone to other departments, there have been a much greater percentage. We've tried hard to do this, and I think we are making some good progress. In the number of women, for instance, who occupy the top five grade levels, the executive levels of our Government, we will have, I would say, four or five times as many as any administration has in the past. In the number of black citizens who serve in those top positions, we will have four or five times as many as we've had in the past--three times as many; in Spanish speaking Americans, three or four times as many. But that's a relatively small total number, although the percentage is great.

I think that the appointment of toplevel position employees who are in minority groups or who are women will help in the long run to change that around.

In the Commerce Department, 50 percent of the top-level positions are now filled by women, for instance; several of them black. I think Griffin Bell has done a superb job in the Attorney General's office by bringing in top-level minority groups and women. It's a slow thing.

We now have a handicap in the lower levels of employment over which we presently have very little control as you know, because we have such a confused responsibility within the Federal Government for guaranteeing equal employment opportunities. I think we have seven different Federal agencies responsible for equal employment. We have a backlog of 130,000 cases. The average time from the initiation of a complaint to the resolution of a case is about 3 years. And by that time, obviously the aggrieved party and the witnesses, and so forth, have moved or have dropped the case or it's become very expensive for them.

I hope to bring some order out of that chaos. I am waiting until I get authority from the Congress to reorganize to bring that into being. But my own commitment is totally to the resolution of this problem.

And I think, to be perfectly frank, that the State Department is probably the Department that needs progress more than any other. And I am determined that this will be done. It has historically been the case. And I think that Secretary Vance has made a great deal of progress already. But he and I will work together to bring a better answer to your question the next time I come over here in the future.

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

Q. I am concerned about the policy of openness in regard to intelligence activities. And I was wondering if it doesn't make it more difficult for our friends to confide in us and for those who are not our friends to take advantage of us?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't guess you had time to watch the press conference yesterday, which was during the working hours. I didn't get a chance to see it myself. I was shocked when I took office to learn about the number of different people who have access to highly secret, sensitive information on which the security of our Nation depends. There are about 75 people on Capitol Hill who have access to this very sensitive material. There are too many in the executive branch of Government. At the same time, I know that there is a need for checks and balances to be sure that we don't repeat the illegalities and improprieties that were revealed with the CIA and other intelligence community agencies in the past.

I am conducting now a very careful analysis of the entire intelligence community. Admiral Stan Turner is going to be the new Director. He shares my commitment. But working with Cyrus Vance, with Admiral Turner, with Dr. Brzezinski, with the Attorney General, and with Harold Brown and myself, we are trying to evolve very rapidly what the intelligence community ought to be, what the limit of divulging of this material ought to be, .and how can we at the same time guarantee to the American people that the abuses will be permanently eliminated.

In the last 2 or 3 days, I've had a chance to meet with the congressional leaders. I have hopes, which may or may not be realized--it's not in my control-that we can have one joint congressional committee with a limited membership to whom we can reveal what is going on in its entirety within the confines of the intelligence community. So, we will have a key group of Congress-very small-myself, the Intelligence Oversight Board, which is an independent agency to whom anyone can come and give complaints or revelations, the Attorney General, and let that be it.

We are not in the position where some of our key intelligence sources are becoming reluctant to continue their relationship with us because of the danger of their being exposed in the future.

Now, I also pointed out to the press yesterday that many of the recent public revelations have been erroneous. I have written two letters to foreign leaders apologizing for them after I checked the CIA files to find that the published reports were completely in error. Others had some degree of accuracy within them.

I have reviewed all of the correspondence between the Intelligence Oversight Board and President Ford last year. The Attorney General was involved. I have not detected any instance of an impropriety or an illegality that is presently being conducted or that was conducted in the last 6 or 8 months, as far back as my study went.

And I think it's good for the American people to know this. But we have got to have a good intelligence system in order to protect the security of our country. We sometimes relax too much in peacetime. We've got to establish this relationship on a permanent, workable basis while we are at peace. It's one of the best means to make sure we don't have war. And if we should ever be in danger in a time of crisis, it's too late to 'build up an adequate intelligence community, including our worldwide system of information.

So, your question is a very good one. And this is a matter that presses on me in a very personal way. And I think I can tell you that within the next couple of months your questions will be answered satisfactorily. I've had good response from the Members of Congress. There are now six committees in the House that have access to this information by law. The Speaker has indicated yesterday to the Vice President that he would favor one joint committee. Whether that will be feasible, I don't know, but that's our hope in the Congress.

And I will do the same thing in the executive branch of Government to make sure we do have adequate oversight, but also at the same time an adequate degree of privacy and secrecy in things that ought not to be revealed.

Maybe one more question.

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Q. I would like to know how can AID, with all the reorganization that is going on in the Federal Government, with the lowering of Government spending, how can AID be allowed to spend a quarter of a million dollars to move a portion of its agency into buildings when the overall object of AID is to get the people into two buildings rather than have them scattered all over the Washington area?

THE PRESIDENT. That's a question that I can't answer. [Laughter]

The question was that when we am short of money for the AID program, how can we, as was expressed, waste a quarter of a million dollars moving AID personnel to a building when the purpose ought to be to bring the AID people together.

I don't know the background of the question. I don't know the answer. But if you would permit Secretary Vance to give you an answer to your question later on, I will pass that question on to him.

Since I couldn't answer that question, I will try another one. I hate to end up on a question I can't answer. [Laughter].

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Q. Mr. President, I would like to know if you are aware of the increased amount of requests for freedom of information material that is going to be released or will be released which I think in the future might come back to haunt us?

THE PRESIDENT. I am familiar with the problem. In general, I favor the freedom of information laws. I think that one thing that we might do within the bounds of the law, which I doubt could be repealed even if we wanted it to be, is to restore the trust of the American people in us.

When there is a sense among American citizens that they are being misled or that illegalities are taking place within our own Government, like the plotting of assassinations or murders and so forth, or when they feel that their own rights are not being protected by their own Government, I think under those circumstances that there is an excessive pressure on Government for information. If that same citizen had a sense that he could trust us, there would be much less inclination to demand access to the files.

I am not sure that I've answered your question adequately but that's one approach to it.

And I think I might, as President, assume more responsibility in that field. When I learn more about it, when I have a little more time in office, when the people have a more accurate sense of what I am and what I stand for,. I might very well point out to the American people in a press conference or otherwise that this has become a problem for us, and just as a matter of idle curiosity or just to test the law, for them to refrain from asking for this information. If they genuinely need it, we will provide it. But I think that the first few months of a new law like that, there is an inclination on the part of those who have fought for it just to test it, to see if they ask for something, can they really get it.

So, I hope that with those two or three approaches that we might take within the bounds of the law that we can minimize the burden on us in months to come. I hope so.

Let me say this in closing: I think we've made good progress in the first month in learning about one another and in my learning about the Federal Government, in seeing the extent and the limitation of my own influence in the White House, in learning about foreign countries and their inclinations toward us, the problem areas that we can address and those that we ought to avoid addressing for a while. I think that we've got a good sense around the world of what we are trying to do already.

I can't think of any time in human history, for instance, when there has been such a worldwide concern about human rights. And both nations that are founded on freedom and those that are founded on totalitarian governments are now doing some reassessments and saying, what are our policies toward our own citizens and what does the rest of the world think about us?

So, even in these early, few days, we are making some progress. I've got to be careful not to make a serious mistake. At the same time, I've got to be careful not to be too timid, and when I make a judgment, that it's a proper one. And that's where you come in, because collectively, you have a sense of what the world is and what the world might be.

I want to be a good President. And I want to serve in such a way that you won't be disappointed in me. But my good relationship with you and the other senior officials in this Department are the basis on which I might succeed.

So, we are partners, and I believe together we can give the American people an accurate sense that they have 'a good government in what is and always has been the greatest nation on Earth.

Thank you very much.