tv 1992 Presidential Candidates Debate CSPAN November 4, 2016 4:32am-6:07am EDT
have to have in the future. i don't claim to know the answers but i've got confidence in our country. our economic strength is still there. our system of government is vietnam, cambodia, cia, water gate, is still the best government system on earth and greatest resource of all are 215 million americans we still have within us, the strength, the character, the intelligence, the experience patriotism, the idlism, the compassion, the sense of brotherhood. of which we could rely on in the future to restore the greatness to our country. we need a president who can go in, who derives his strength from the people. the special interest, nothing. i owe everything to you, the people of this country.
and we combined our wounds. i believe that we can work together and i believe that we can tap the tremendous untapped reservoir of innate strength in this country. we can once again have a government as good as our people and let the world know what we still know and hope for, that we still live in the greatest and the strongest and the best country on earth. >> on november 2nd, all of you will make a very important decision. part of the major issues in this campaign is trust. a president should never promise more than he can deliver and a president should always deliver everything that he's promised. a president can't be all things
to all people, a president should be the same thing to all people. it's another issue in this campaign, governor carter has endorsed the democratic platform, which calls for more spending, bigger deficits, more inflation, or more taxes. governor carter has embraced the record of the present congress nominated by his political party. it calls for more of the same. gorn minor carter and his acceptance speech called for more and more programs, which means more and more government. i think the real issue in this campaign and that what you must decide on november second is whether you should vote for his promises or my performance in
two years in the white house. i'm the fourth -- on the fourth of july we had a wonderful, 2 hundredth birthday for our great country. it was a superb occasion. it was a glorious day. in the first century of our nation's history, our forefathers gave us the finest form of government in the history of man kind. in the second century of our nation's history, our fore fasters developed the most productive industrial nation in the history of the globe, our third century should be the century of individual freedom for all our 215 million americans today and all that join us. in the last few years, government has gotten bigger and bigger, industry has gotten larger and larger, labor unions
have gotten bigger and bigger. and our children have been the victims of mass education. we must take this next century, the century of the individual, we should never forget that a government big enough to give us everything we want is a government big enough to take from us everything we have. the individual worker and the plants throughout the united states should not be a small cog in a big machine. the member of the labor union must have his right strengthened and broadened and our children in their education should have an opportunity to improve themselves based on their talents and their abilities. my mother and father during the depression work very hard to
give me an opportunity to do better in our great country. your mothers and fathers did the same thing for you and others, benny and i had worked very hard to give our children a brighter future in the united states, our beloved country. you and others in this great country have worked hard and done a great deal to give your children and your grandchildren the blessings of a better america. i believe we can all work together to make the individuals in the future have more and all of us working together can build a better america. >> thank you president ford. few, governor card, and thanks also to the questioners and to the audience in this theater.
we much regret the technical failure that caused 28-minute delay in the broadcast of the debate. we believe, however, that everyone will agree that it did not attract from the effectiveness of the debate or from its fairness. the next presidential debate takes place on wednesday october 6th, in san francisco at 9:30 p.m. eastern daylight time. the topics are to be foreign and defense issues. as with all three debates between the presidential candidates an the one between the vice presidential candidates it is being arranged by the women education fund in the hope of promoting a wider and better informed participation by the american people in the election in november. now, from the walnut street theater in philadelphia, good night.
>> america history's tv road to the white house rewind continues with the 1984 presidential debate, between former vice president walter. after that, the 1988 debate between vice president george h.w bush and massachusetts governor. road to the white house rewind on american history t.v. in prime time. >> friday, a discussion on the economic recovery in the u.s. since the great recession, the american enterprise institute hosts former treasury secretary larry summers and harvard university economist robert -- it's live at 9:00 a.m. eastern here on cspan 3. >> election night on cspan, watch the results and be part of
a national conversation about the out come. be on location of hillary clinton and donald trump headquarters and watch victory and concession speeches, starting live at 8:00 p.m. eastern and throughout the following 24 hours, watch live on clrks span. on demand at cspan.org. >> next road to the white house rewind and the president gerald ford and former georgia governor. this debate took place in san francisco on october 6, 1976 and focused on foreign policy and defense issues. topics included u.s. soviet relations. the credibility of the u.s. -- in the wake of vietnam and water gate and the size of the u.s. military budget. jimmy carter went on to win the general election with 58%. the league of women voters
sponsored this 90 minute debate. >> until gerald r. ford of michigan republican candidate for president and jimmy carter of georgia, jimmy carter candidate for president. thank you, president ford and thank you governor carter for being with us tonight. an estimated 100 million americans are watching on television as well. san francisco was the site of the signing of the united nations charter, 31 years ago, thus it is an appropriate place to hold this debate. the subject of which is foreign and defense issues. the questioners tonight are max frankle, associate editor of the "new york times." henry l. true et, diplomatic
correspondent and richard diplomatic correspondent of nbc news. the ground rules tonight are basically the same as they were for the first debate two weeks ago. the questions will be alternated between candidates. by the toss of a coin, governor carter will take the first question. each question sequence will be as follows, the question will be asked and the candidate will have up to three minutes to answer, his opponent will have up to two minutes to respond. and prior to the response, the questioner may ask a follow-up question to clarify the candidates' answer when necessary with up to two minutes to reply. each candidate will have three minutes for closing statement at the end. president ford and governor carter do not have notes or prepared remarks with them this evening, they can take notes during the debate and refer to them. mr. frankle you have the first
question for governor carter. >> governor, since the democrats foreign policy including many of the men who are advising you, country has been relieved of the vietnam agony and the military draft. we started arm's control negotiations with the russians. we've opened relations with china. we've arranged the disengagement in the middle east, we've regained influence without deserting israel, now we've begun a process of peaceful change in africa. you've objected in this campaign to the style with which much of this was done and you've mentioned some other things that you think ought to have been done. but do you really have a quarrel with this republican record, would you not have done any of those things? >> well, i think this republican administration has been almost all style and spectacular and not substance. we've got a chance to actually talk about, first of all,
leadership, the character of our country and a vision of the future. and every one of these instances, the ford administration has failed and i hope tonight, will have a chance to discuss a reason for those failures. our country is not strong any more. we're not respected any more. we can only be strong if we're strong at home. and when i become president, we'll not only be strong in those areas, but also in defense, a defense capability second to none. we've lost in our foreign policy the character of the american people. we've ignored or excluded the american people and the congress for participation in the shaping of foreign policy has been one of secrecy and exclusion. in addition to that, we've had a chance to become now contrary to our long-standing believes and principals, the arm's merchant
of a whole world. we're trying to bind success from enemies from the same time we've excluded from the process, the normal friendship of our allies. in addition to that, we've become fearful to compete with the soviet union on equal basis. we talk about the time. the soviet union knows what they want and they've been getting it. we have not known what we've wanted and we've been talking about in every instance. the only part i want to make is about the defense. we've got to be a nation blessed with a defense capability that's efficient, tough, capable, well organized, narrowly focused, fighting capability. the ability to fight, if necessary, is the best way to avoid the chance for or the requirement to fight. and the last point i want to make is this, mr. ford, mr. k s kissinger have continued on. even the republican platform has
criticized the lack of leadership and mr. ford and they've criticized the policy of this administration. this is one instance where i agree with, with the republican platform. i might say this in closing, and that is is, as far as foreign policy goes, mr. kissinger has been the president of this country. mr. ford has shown an absence of leadership and absence of grasp of what this country is and what it ought to be. that's got to be changed and that's one of the major issues in this campaign of 1976. >> president ford, would you like to respond. >> governor carter, again, is talking in broad generalities. let me take just one question that he raises. the military strength and capability of the united states. governor carter in november of 1975 indicated that he wanted to cut the defense budget by
$15 billion, a few months later, he said he wanted to cut the defense budget by 8 or $9 billion. more recently he talked about cutting the defense budget by 5 to $7 billion. there's no way you can be strong militarily and have those kind of reductions in our military appropriation. now, let me just tell you a little story. about late october of 1975, i ask the then secretary of defense, mr. slesinger, to tell me what had to be done if we were going to reduce the defense budget by three to five billion
dollars. we will have to reduce the construction program. we will have to reduce the research and development for the army, the navy, the air force and marines by 8%. we would have to close 20 military faces in the united states immediately. that's the kind of a defense program that mr. carter wants. let me tell you this straight from the shoulder, you don't negotiate with mr. -- from weakness and the kind of a defense program that mr. carter wants will mean a weaker defense and a poorer negotiating position. >> mr. truitt a question for president ford. >> my question is really the other side of the coin for mr. frankle. for generations united states has had a foreign policy based on containment of con ewism. yet we've lost a shoving match
in angola. communist threat tennessee to come to power and relations have cooled with the soviet union in the last few months. let me ask you first, what do you do about such cases as italy. secondly, does this general drift mean that we're moving back towards something old cold relationship between the soviet union. >> i don't believe we should move to cold war relationship. i think it's in the best interest of the united states and the world as a whole, that the united states negotiate rather than go back to the cold war relationship with the soviet union. i don't look at the picture as briefly as you have indicated in your question, mr. truitt. i believe that the united states has had many successes in recent years and recent months as far as the come muist movement has
concerned. it didn't. we have a democracy in portugal today. a few months ago, or i should say, maybe two years ago, the soviet union looked like they had continued strength in the middle east. today, according to prime minister soviet union is weaker in the middle east than they have been in many many years, the facts are, there -- the soviet union relationship with egypt is at a low level. the soviet union relationship with syria is at a very low point. the united states today according to prime minister rescreen of israel is at a peak.
>> we wanted to have the full protection of minority. we wanted to preserve human dignity in southern africa. we have taken the initiative and in southern africa today, the united states is trusted by the black front line nation and black africa, the united states is trusted by the other elements in southern africa. united states foreign policy under this administration has been one of progress and success. and i believe that instead of talking about soviet progress, we can talk about american successes. may i make an observation part of the question you asked mr. truitt. i don't believe that it's in the best interest of the united
states in the nato nations to have a communist government in na nato. i think that will destroy the integrity and the strength of nato and i'm totally opposed to it. >> unfortunately he just made a statement that's not true. i have never advocated a communist government for italy, that will be a ridiculous thing. i think that this is an instance for deliberate distortion and this is occurred also in the question about defense. as a matter of fact, i've never advocated any cut of $15 billion, as a matter of fact, mr. ford has made a political football out of defense budget. about a year ago, he cut the pentagon budget $6.8 billion. after he fired james, the
political heat go so great he added value about $3 billion. when ronald reagan won the texas primary election, mr. ford added back another $1.5 million. immediately before the kansas city convention, he added back another 1.8le billion dollars in the defense budget and his own, office of management budget testify that he had a $3 billion cut insurance added to the defense budget under the pressure from the pentagon. obviously, this is another indication of trying to use the defense budget for political purposes, which he's trying to do tonight. we went into south africa late after a great britain, black nations have been trying to solve this problem for many many years. we didn't go in until right before the election, similar to what was taking place in 1972 and mr. kiss sin jer announced
pieces at hand just before the election at that time. we have weakened opposition in nato. the other countries supported the democratic forces in portugal long before we did. we stuck before the dictator ship much longer than other democracies did in this world. >> you had a question for governor carter. >> much of what the united states does abroad is done in the name of the national interest. what is your concept of the national interest, what should the roll of the united states in the world be. and in that connection, considering your limiting experience in foreign affairs and the fact that do take some pride in doing washington outsider, don't you think it would be appropriate for you to tell the american voters before the election, people that you would like to have in key positions such as secretary of state, secretary of defense, national security of affairs adviser at the white house. >> i'm not going to name my cabinet who i got elected. i've got a little ways to go before i started doing that.
i've an adequate background, i believe. first military graduate since eisenhower. i've served as governor of georgia and traveled extensively in south america, europe, middle east and in japan. i've traveled the last 21 months among the people of this country. i've talked to them and i've listened. and i've seen it firsthand in a very vivid way, the deep hurt that's come to this country and the aftermath of vietnam and cam bode owe and chilly and pakistan and angola and water gate, and cia revelations. what we are so proud of, strength of our country, it's integrity. the representation in foreign affairs of what our people are, what our constitution stands for has been gone. and in the secrecy that has surrounded our foreign policy in the last few years, the american people has been excluded.
i believe i know what this country ought to be. i have been one who has loved my nation as many americans do and i believe that there's no limit placed on what we can be in the future if we could harness a tremendous resources, militarily, economically, and stature of our people meaning of the constitution in the future. every time we've made a serious mistake in foreign affairs, it's been because the american people have been exclude frd the process. if we can just tap the intelligence and ability, the sound common sense and a good judgment of the american people, we can, once again, have a foreign policy to make us proud instead of ashamed. i'm not going to exclude the american people from that process in the future as they have done. this is what it takes to have a sound foreign policy, strong at home, strong defense, permanent commitments, not destroy the principals of country and the shaping of foreign policy.
every time mr. ford speaks from a position of secrecy in negotiations and secret treaties have been pursued and achieved and supporting dictator ship and ignoring human rights, we are weak and the rest of the world knows it. so these are the ways that we can restore the strength of our country and they don't require a long experience in foreign policy, nobody has that except a president who served a long time and secretary of state. my background, my experience, my knowledge as the people of the country. my commitment to the principals that don't change, those are the best to correct the whole of the mistakes of this administration and restore our own country to position of leadership in the world. >> how, specifically, governor, are you going to bring the american people into the decision-making process in foreign policy, what does that mean. >> first of all, i would -- i would conducting the decision-making process in
secret, as has been characteristic of mr. kissinger and mr. ford. in any instance we've made agreements in vietnam that have been revealed later on to embarrassment, recently smith, the president of -- announced that he had unequivocal commitments that he could not reveal, the american people don't know what those commitments are. we've seen in the past a destruction of elected governments like in chilly and the strong support of military dictator ship there. these kind of things have hurt us very much. i would restore the concept, which was a integral part of the administration. and i will also restore the involvement of the congress when harry true man was president. he was not afraid to have a strong secretary of defense. he also made sure that there was a bipartisan support, the members of congress, author,
walter jorng, part of the process and before our nation made a secret agreement or before we made a bluffing statement, we were sure that we had the backing, not only the president and secretary of state, but also the congress and the people, this is a responsibility of the president and i think it's very damaging to our country for mr. ford to have turned over this responsibility to the secretary of state. >> president ford, do you have a response. >> governor carter contradicts himself. he complains about secrecy, and yet he is quoted as saying that in the attempt to find a solution in the middle east that he would hold unpublicized meetings with the soviet union, i presume for the purpose of and imposing a settlement on israel and the arab nation. but let me talk just a minute about what we've done to avoid secrecy and the ford administration. after the united states took the initiative and -- in working with israel and with egypt and
achieving the sinai agreement, and i'm proud to say that not a single egyptian or israeli soldier has lost his life since the signing of the sinai agreement. but at the time that i submitted the sinai agreement to the congress of the united states, i submitted every single document that was applicable to the sinai agreement. it was the most complete documentation by any president of any agreement signed by a president on behalf of the united states. now, as far as meeting with the congress is concerned, during the 24 months that i've been the president of the united states, i have averaged better than one meeting a month with responsible groups or committees of the congress, both house and senate. the secretary of state has
appeared in the several years that he's been the secretary before 80 different committee hearings in the house and in the senate. the secretary of state has made better than 50 speeches all over the united states explaining american foreign policy. i have made, myself, at least 10 speeches in various parts of the country where i have discussed with the american people defense and foreign policy. >> mr. frankle, a question for president ford. >> i would like to explore a little more deeply our relationship with the russians. they use to brag back in the day because of their greater patience and because of our greed for business deals, that they would sooner or later get the better of us. is it possible that despite some setbacks in the middle east, they've proved their point. our allies in france and italy are now flirting with communism. we've recognized a permanent
communist regime in east germany. we've virtually signed an agreement that the russians have dominance in eastern europe. we bailed out soviet agriculture with our huge grain sales. we've given them access to best technology and the senate had not interfered with the jackson amendment, maybe you would have given them larger loans, is that what you call a two-way streak of traffic in europe. >> i believe that we have negotiated with the soviet union since i've been president from a position of strength. and let me site several examples. shortly after i became president in december of 1974, i met with secretary, and we agreed to a mutual cap on the ballistic missile launchers at a ceiling of 2,400 which means that the
soviet union, if that becomes a permanent agreement, will have to make a reduction in their launchers that they now have or plan to have. i negotiated a limitation on the merging of their ballistic missiles at a figure of 1320, which is the first time that any president has achieved a cap, either on launchers or on merge, it seems to me that we can go from there to the green sales. the green sales have been a benefit to american agriculture. we have achieved a 5.75 year sale of a minimum of 6 million metric tons, which means that
they're bound to buy 2 million to take the grain and corn and wheat that the american formers -- farmers have produced in order to have full production and these grain sales to the soviet union have helped us tremendously in meeting the cost of the additional oil and the oil that we have brought from overseas. i'm glad you raised it mr. franklin. in the case, 35 nations signed in agreement, including the secretary of state for the vatican, i can't, under any circumstances, believe that the -- is holding us the pope, would agree by signing that agreement that the 35 nations have turned over to the warsaw packed nations, the domination of eastern europe, it just isn't
true and if mr. carter alleges that is holding us by signing that has done it, he's totally inaccurate. now, what has been accomplished by the sinking agreement. number one, we have an agreement where they notify us and we notify them of any military maneuvers that are to be undertaken. they have done it in both cases where they've done so. there is no soviet domination of eastern europe and there never will be under ford administration. >> can i -- did i understand you to say, sir, that the russians are not using eastern europe as their own spirit of influence and occupying more most of the countries there and making sure with their troops that it's a communist zone, on where as our side of the line, the italians or the french are still flirting. >> i don't believe mr. frankle, that the they consider
themselves dominated by the soviet union. i don't believe that the romainians consider themselves dominated by the soviet union. i don't believe that the polos consider themselves dominated by the soviet union. each of those countries is independent or aton mouse. it has its own territorial integrity and the united states does not concede that those countries are under the domination of the soviet union. as a matter of fact, i visited poland, and romania to make certain that the people of those countries understood that the president of the united states and the people of the united states are dedicated to their independence, their atonmy and their freedom.
>> in the case of the agreement, it might have been an agreement. but we have failed to enforce the bachelor's degree, which ensures a right of people to migrate, the families to be free, speak out, soviet union is still freeing europe, radio free europe is being jammed. we've also seen a very serious problem -- and/or ganic linkage between the eastern european countries and the soviet union and i would like to see hungaryian americans in the country. we also have seen.
he hasn't had a cross examination type press conference in over 30 days. one press conference he had was without sound. the soviet union put pressure on mr. ford and he refused to see, a symbol of human freedom recognized around the world. . he's permitted a boycott by the arab countries of american businesses who trade with israel, who have american jews. his own secretary of commerce had to be subpoenaed by the congress to reveal the name boycott. they didn't volunteer the information. he had to be subpoenaed. and the last thing i would like to see is this -- secretary and
three embargoes one against the wild life in japan. >> a question for governor carter. >> i would like to pick up on that point only and on your greater measure of american idlism. foreign affairs come home to the american p public pretty much grain sales, that sort of thing. would you be willing to risick on embargo to hold it for the same purpose. i think, as a matter of fact, you perhaps answered this final, but would you withhold grain in order to promote civil rights. >> i would never single out whom as a trade embargo item because of a crisis in international relationships, it would include all shipments of all equipment,
for instance, if the arab country ever again declare embargo, i would consider that not military or economic declaration of war. and i would respond instantly and in kind. i would not ship that arab country anything. no weapons, no scrap ups of weapons, no oil plant, no nothing. i wouldn't single out just food. >> this republican administration gave me one about it overseas. now, ten to $12 billion worth of arms overseas to quite often use these weapons to fight each other. the shift in emphasis has been disturbing to me, speaking about the middle east.
60% of all weapons that went into the middle east are provision, now 75%. now 60% go to the arab countries this does not include iran. if you include iran, our present shipment of weapons to the middle east, only 20% goes to israel. . it's yielding to economic pressure on the part of the arab, on all issue. and it's also a tremendous indicati indication. we have not addressed the kmrge, policy, adequate. we still have no comprehension in this country. it's an overall sign of weakness, economically. hi unemployment, confused government, wasteful defense establishment. this encourages the kind of pressure that's been put on us. it it would have been
inconceivable for us to be brought to our knees with an arab oil embargo. but it was done three years ago our priorities to meet the own. and second to meet the needs of allies and friends and only -- military equipment the foreign country. as a matter of fact, iran is going to get 80 f 14s before we meet our own air force orders and the shipments class destroys to iran, a much more highly sophisticated than. >> if i understand you correctly, you would withhold arms from iran and saudi arabia
and if it was should be securing those arms from somewhere else. if the embargo came, you would respond in kind, do i have it correctly. >> if iran is not in arab countries, you know. but if saudi arabia so there would be no doubt in their mind. i think under the circumstances, they would remain from pushing us to our knees, as they did in 1973 with their previous embargo. >> president ford. >> since i've been president, we have eve sold the israelis in military hardware. we have made available to the israelis over 45%.
>> so they've done a good job in helping our good ally israel and we're dedicated to the security of israel. i believe that governor carter doesn't realize the need and necessity for the soviet union and communist dominated government of iraq, neighbors of iran and iran is an ally of the united states. it's my strong feeling that we ought to sell to iran.
the history of our relationship with iran goes back to the days of president true man. when he decided we should help that country and iran has been a good ally. in 1973 when there was an oil embargo, iran did not participate. iran continued to sell oil to the united states. i believe that it's in our interest and in the interest of israel. >> the policy of your administration is normalize relations with chie thana. that means doing something about the mutual defense treaty with
taiwan. if you are elected, would you move to establish full diplomatic relations and aggregate and much wa-- would y provide mainland china with military equipment if the chinese were to ask. >> our relationship with the people's republic of china is based upon the shanghai communique of 1972. that calls for the normalization between the united states and the people's republic. it doesn't set a times schedule. it doesn't make and obligations to the taiwanese government. it does say that the differences between the people's republic on the one hand and taiwan on the
other shall be settled by peaceful means. that result is this administration and during my time as the president for the next four years, we will continue to move for normalization of relation in the traditional sense and we will insist that the disputes between taiwan and the people's republic be settled peacefully as was agreed in the shanghai communique of 1972. the ford administration will not let down, will not eliminate or forget our obligation to the people of taiwan. we feel that there must be a continued obligation to the people to some is the or 20 million people in taiwan. and as we move during the next four years, those will be the policies of this administration.
i do not believe that we should sell, give, ore wise or transfer military hardware to the people's republic of china or any other communist nation such as the soviet union and the like. >> mr. carter. >> i would like to go back to the previous moment where mr. ford said we're shipping 40% of our aid. we're shipping iran, contracted to ship to iran about $7.5 billion worth of arms and saudi arabia $7.5 billion worth of arms in 1975 we brought
visuals to their needs. after the war, the so-called reassessment of our relationship to israel, we ineffect tried to make israel the scapegoat for the problems in the middle east and weakened our relationship with israel a great deal and put a cloud on the total commitment that our people fill toward the israelis. there ought to be a unequivocal commitment without change. it ought to be inclination to friendship. i would never let that friendship with people's republic of china stand in the way of preservation of independence and freedom of the people of taiwan. >> mr. frankle, question of
government cart ir. i think you two gentlemen settle roughly on the same strategy in the world. how bad do things have to get in our own economy? or how much backwardness or hunger would it take in the world to persuade you that our national security and our survival require very drastic cutbacks in armed spending in dramatic new efforts in other directions?
these characteristics ouf our country have been endangered under many ford. we're no longer respected and show down vote in the united nations or any other international counsel, we're lucky to get 20% of the nations to vote with us. the so-called history shocked weakened our relationships there under this administration we had to keep separate the european countries thinking if they're separate we can dominate them and proceed with long range in type diplomatic efforts. i would also like to point out that we, in this country, have led our economy -- let our economy go down the drain. the worst inflation since the great depression, the highest unemployment of any developed nation in the world. we have a higher unemployment rate in this country than great britain, west chairman, unemployment rate is twice as high as it is in italy.
>> weakened of all our allies. that weakens the whole free world. strong economy is very important. another thing that we need to do is re-establish the good relationship that we ought to have between the united states and our natural allies. they have felt neglected. the integrity of our country, that's where our strengths lie.
>> individualized, regardless of the sign and establish world of the politics through strength. we also want to revert back and stature and respect now, i can't say when this can come, i can guarantee it will not come and gerald ford is re-elected and present policies continue, it will come if i'm elected. >> if i hear you right, president johnson, also, had trouble keeping up both vietnam and domestic program, really asking when do the and more needy countries take precedence over some of our military
spending, ever. >> let me say quickly under president johnson i can say the number one responsibility of any president, is to guarantee the security of our nation. and ability to be free of the threat and attack. and carry obligation to allies and friends and carry out, they must go hand in hand and security of this nation has got to go first. >> president ford, let me say very categorically, you cannot
maintain a security in the strength of the united states reductions of that kind will not permit the united states to be strong enough. governor carter, apparently, doesn't know the facts. as soon as i became president, i initiated meetings with the nato heads of state and met with them in brussels to discuss how we could improve the defense relationship in western europe. i met for the purpose of seeing
what we can do acting together to meet the problems of becoming recession. in puerto rico, this year, i met with six of the leading industrial nations heads of state to meet the problem of inflation so we would be able to solve it before it got out of hand. i have met with the heads of government bilaterally, as well as multi laterally. our relations with japan have never been better. i was the first united states president to visit japan. and we had the -- of japan here, this past year and then that result is japan and united states are working more closely together now.
the president said our relationships are never better. >> mr. truett, the president for president ford. >> you referred earlier in 1974, you agreed on that occasion to try to continue strategic arms limitation assault agreement within the year, nothing happened 1975 or not very much publicly, at least, those talks are still dragging and things got quieter as the current approached. is there a bit of politics involved there, perhaps more important. >> and i'm thinking of such things as a cruise missile and soviet ss 20. making salt irrelevant, bypassing the negotiations. >> first we have to understand that salt, one, expires october 3rd, 1977.
>> as i indicated earlier we did agree on 2,400 ballistic missiles that would mean a cut back in the soviet program. it would not interfere with our own program. at the same time we put a limitation of 13120 our technicians have been working since that time trying to put into technical language a -- an agreement that can be verified by both party wills. in the meantime, there has developed the problem of the soviet backfire, their high performance aircraft which they
say is not a long range aircraft, in which some of our people say is a intercontinental aircraft. in the end there has been the cruise missiles, that can be launched from land based mobile installatio installations, cruise missiles that can be launched from high performance aircraft like the b 52s or b 1s, cruise missiles which can be launched from either circus or submarine naval vessels. those gray area weapon systems are creating some problems in the in the agreement for assault to negotiation. but i can say that i am dedicated to proceeding and i meant just last week with the foreign minister of the soviet
union and he indicated to me, that the soviet union was interested in narrowing the differences and making a realistic and a sound compromise. i hope and trust in the best interest of both countries and in the best interest of all people throughout this globe, that the soviet union and the united states can make a mutually beneficial agreement because if we do not insalt one expires on october 3, 1977, you will unleash again and call out nuclear arms with the potential of a nuclear haol to do just thi intend to do so. >> mr. president, let me follow that up by i'll submit that the cruz missile adds a whole new dimension to the arms
competition. then a statement by your office to the arms control association a few days ago in which you said that the cruz missile might eventually be included in a comprehensive arms limitations agreement. but in the meantime it was an essential part of the arsenal. are you intending to exclude the cruz missile from the next agreement, or is it negotiable in that context? >> i believe that the cruz missiles which we are now developing in research and development across the spectrum from air, from the sea, or from the land can be included within a salt 2 agreement. they are a new weapons system that has a great potential. both conventional and nuclear arms. at the same time we have to make certain that the soviet union's
backfire which they claim is not an intercontinental aircraft, and that some of our people contend is, if we are to get the kind of agreement which is in the best interests of both countries. i really believe that it's far better for us and for the soviet union and more importantly for the people around the world that these two super powers find an answer for a salt 2 agreement before october 1977. i think goodwill on both parties, and a reasonable compromise will be in the best interests of all parties. >> governor carter? >> mr. ford almost acts like he's running for president for the first time. he's been in office for two years. there's been absolutely no progress made toward a new salt agreement.
we've seen in this world a development of a tremendous threat to us. as a nuclear engineer myself, i know the limitations and capabilities of atomic power. i also know that as far as the human beings on this earth are concerned, that the nonproliferation of atomic weapons is number one. only the last few days with the election approaching, has mr. ford taken any interest in a nonproliferation movement. i advocated last may in a speech at the united nations that we move immediately as a nation to declare a complete moratorium on the testing of all nuclear devices, both weapons and peaceful devices, that we not ship any more atomic fuel to a country that refuses to comply with strict control over the waste which can be reprocessed into explosives. i've also advocated that we stop
the sale by germany and france of reprocessing plants to pakistan and brazil. mr. ford has not moved on this. we need to make an adequate supply of uranium. mr. ford has insisted this reprocessing, or rather enrichment be done by private industry, and not by the existing government plants. this kind of confusion and absence of leadership has let us drift for two years with an increasing threat of atomic threats throughout the world. we now have five nations that have atomic bombs that we know about. if we continue under mr. ford's policy, by 1985 or '90, we'll have nine nations that have weapons for explosive weapons. that is one of the major undertakings i will assume as the next president. >> governor carter, earlier
tonight you said america is not strong anymore. america is not respected anymore. and i feel i must ask you, do you really believe united states is not the strongest country in the world? do you really believe that the united states is not the most respected country in the world? or is that just campaign rhetoric? ? no, it's not just campaign rhetoric. i think militarily, we are strong as any nation on earth. i think we've got to stay that way. and continue to increase our capabilities to meet any potential threat. but as far as as strength derived from commitment to principles, as far as strength derived from the unity within our country, as far as strength derived from the people, the congress, the secretary of state, the president sharing in the evolution and carrying out of a foreign policy. as far as strength derived from the respect of our own allies and friends, their assurance that we will be staunch in our commitment, we will not deviate, and that we'll give adequate attention. as far as strength derived from
doing what's right, caring for the poor, providing food, becoming the bread basket of the world instead of the arms merchant of the world, in those respects, we're not strong. also, we'll never be strong again overseas unless we're strong at home. with our economy getting worse by the month, we've got 500,000 more americans unemployed today than we had three months ago. we've got 2.5 million more americans out of work now than we had when mr. ford took office. this kind of deterioration is bound to weaken us around the world. and we not only have problems at home, but we export those problems overseas. as far as the respect of our own people, toward our own government, as far as participation in the shipping of concepts and commitments, as far as the trust of our country among the nations of the world, and meeting the needs and obligations to our allies, even
among our potential adversaries, we're weak. potentially we're strong. under this administration, that strength has not been realized. >> president ford? >> governor carter brags about the unemployment during democratic administrations, and condemns the unemployment at the present time. i must remind him that we're at peace, and during the period that he brags about unemployment being low, the united states was at war. now, let me correct one other comment that governor carter has made. i have recommended to the congress that we develop the uranium enrichment plant at portsmouth, ohio, which is a publicly owned u.s. government facility. and have indicated that the private program which would follow on in alabama is one that may or may not be constructive. but i am committed to the one at
portsmouth, ohio. the governor also talks about morality in foreign policy. the foreign policy of the united states meets the highest standards of morality. what is more moral than peace. and the united states is at peace today. what is more moral in foreign policy than the administration to take the lead in the world food conference in rome in 19734. when the united states committed 6 million metric tons of food. over 60% of the food committed for the disadvantaged and underdeveloped nations of the world. the ford administration wants to eradicate hunger and disease in our underdeveloped countries throughout the world. what is more moral than for the united states under the ford administration to take the lead
in southern south africa, in the middle east. those are initiatives in foreign policy which are of the highest moral standard. and that is indicative of the foreign policy of this country. >> mr. frankel, a question for president ford. >> mr. president, can we stick with morality. for a lot of people it seems to cover a bunch of sins. mr. nixon and mr. kissinger used to tell us that instead of morality, we had to worry in the world about living with and letting live all kinds of governments that we really didn't like. north and south korean dictators, chilean fascists. they said the only way to get by in a wicked world is treat others on the basis of how they treated us, and not how they treated their own people. but more recently, we seem to have taken a different tact.
we seem to have decided that it's part of our business to tell the roo deesh ans, for instance, the way they're treating their black people is wrong and we put pressure on them. we were rather liberal in our advice to the italians on how to vote. is this a new ford foreign policy in the making? can we expect that you are now going to turn to south africa and force them to change their government, to intervene in similar ways to end the bloodshed as you called it, say, in chile or c c