-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/3da665fe5267220361bff69575aeb228.pdf
502f71b4dc4ecbae565080122d578d3b
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2006-0469-F (2)
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Michael Waldman
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
14476
FoIderlD:
Folder Title:
State of the Union Addresses in Selected Election Years with Related Research [Binder][l]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
s
92
4
6
3
�Michael Waldman
Papers
Box No. 26
•
•
•
•
•
NAFTA speeches
Whitewater report
SOTUs election—general
FEC reform
Campaign finance reform
tNCUJSJRES FILED O E SZ A T C M N S
V RI E T A H E T
PC
�STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESSES
IN SELECTED ELECTION
YEARS
WITH RELATED RESEARCH
�TABLE OF CONTENTS
T h i s volume c o n t a i n s t h e e l e c t i o n - y e a r S t a t e o f t h e Union
Addresses by s e l e c t e d P r e s i d e n t s s i n c e 1916. A l s o i n c l u d e d i s t h e
contemporary commentary on t h e speeches from b o t h t h e
C o n g r e s s i o n a l Q u a r t e r l y Weekly (CQ) and The New York Times (NYT).
BUSH
1992
The Address - January 28, 1992 (51 minutes)
CQ:
"Bush's Economic Recovery Plan F i n d s Few
Democratic Buyers"
NYT: "State o f t h e Union; Bush Vows Economic R e l i e f and
Proposes Modest Steps i n S t a t e o f t h e Union T a l k "
"The 1992 Campaign: The Campaign; A f t e r Hoopla, a
R e p o s i t i o n i n g , Not a C a l l t o Arms"
REAGAN
1988
The Address - January 25, 1988 (41 minutes)
CQ:
" P r e s i d e n t Reagan Begins h i s Long Goodbye"
NYT: "Reagan Promises t o Pursue Agenda t o End o f h i s
Term"
REAGAN
1984
The Address - January 25, 1984 (43 minutes)
CQ:
" P r e s i d e n t Reagan Says U.S. 'Much Improved'"
NYT: "Reagan Asks 2-Party D r i v e t o c u t d e f i c i t s $100
B i l l i o n ; Democrats A s s a i l P o l i c i e s "
CARTER
1980
The Address - January 23, 1980 (31 minutes)
CQ:
" C a r t e r : America W i l l Meet S o v i e t C h a l l e n g e "
NYT: "The C a r t e r D o c t r i n e : S t e r n Warning on G u l f Area
i s i n Sharp C o n t r a s t t o Nixon's Avoidance o f
Regional C o n f r o n t a t i o n "
"Threat t o O i l C i t e d : Aide C a l l s S t a t e o f Union
Address an U l t i m a t u m on Area's S e c u r i t y "
FORD
1976
The Address - January 19, 1976 '(50 minutes)
CQ:
"Ford and Muskie Speeches Draw B a t t l e L i n e s "
�1976
(cont.)
NYT: "Ford Appeals f o r 'New Realism'; Asks Cuts i n
Taxes and Spending, Spurs f o r Jobs and Stock
Buying"
"A V i s i o n o f America: P r e s i d e n t Ford's Dreams f o r
t h e N a t i o n Appear t o be Modest and C o n s e r v a t i v e "
NIXON
1972
The Address - January 20, 1972 (30 minutes)
NYT:
"State o f Union Report C a l l s f o r A l t e r n a t i v e t o
P r o p e r t y Tax"
"A Message i n T r a d i t i o n a l Mold: Nixon Says
' N a t i o n a l I n t e r e s t ' Rules Out P a r t i s a n Role"
JOHNSON
1964
The Address - January 8, 1964
NYT:
"Drop o f $500 M i l l i o n i n Federal Spending Seen by
President"
" P r e s i d e n t P i t c h e s His Voice Low and Hopes High"
"A M o d i f i e d New Deal -- P r e s i d e n t , i n H i s Message,
Moves t o Take M i d d l e Ground o f P o l i t i c s "
EISENHOWER
1956
The Address - January 5, 1956 (read by c l e r k )
NYT:
" P r e s i d e n t , i n Remarks t o N a t i o n , Cautions on
S o v i e t 'Smiles'"
"Budget Balance i s Seen -- Improved Farm Program
Asked"
FDR
1936
The Address - January 3, 1936
WILSON
1916
The Address - December 5, 1916
NOTE:
The Congressional Q u a r t e r l y was f i r s t p u b l i s h e d i n
1956. The y e a r s 1956 t h r o u g h 1968 are a v a i l a b l e o n l y a t
t h e L i b r a r y o f Congress.
�IX)
G
CD
X
I>£
iX
PRESERVAT?ON
�Jan. 27 / Administration of George Bush, 1992
ship against drugs, where we have this marvelous media effort going on now. It's about
$1 million a day being spent on pro bono
advertising to get the message to the young
people. And that is not Government; that is
volunteers taking that message to the
people of this country.
And there are so many wonderful stories
of that nature, and I know many of the
programs that work are represented by
people right here. So I do thank you for
your commitment and your effort, and let's
continue this fight until we can say, each
one of us, that we have conquered the
scourge of drug abuse.
Thank you very much for letting me pop
in.
Note: The President spoke at 2:05 p.m. in
Room 450 of the Old Executive Office
Building. In his remarks, he referred to Bob
Martinez, Director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy, and to the Partnership
for a Drug-Free A merica.
Presidential Determination No. 92-11—Memorandum on ExportImport Bank Services for Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia
January 28, 1992
ticipate in the extension of credit in conMemorandum for the Secretary of State
nection with the purchase or lease of any
Subject: Presidential Determination under
Subsection 2(bX2XDXi) of the Export-Import product by, for use in, or for sale or lease to
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.
Bank Act of 1945, as Amended—Latvia,
You are authorized and directed to report
Lithuania, and Estonia
this determination to the Congress and to
Pursuant to subsection 2(bX2XDXi) of the publish it in the Federal Register.
Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amendG E O R G E BUSH
ed (12 U.S.C. 635(bX2XDXi)), I determine
that it is in the national interest for the
Export-Import Bank of the United States to [Filed with the Office of the Federal Regisguarantee, insure, extend credit, and par- ter, 2:35 p.m., February 13, 1992]
Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the
Union
January 28, 1992
Mr. Speaker and Mr. President,
distinguished Members of Congress,
honored guests, and fellow citizens:
Thank you very much for that warm reception. You know, with the big buildup
this address has had, I wanted to make sure
it would be a big hit, but I couldn't convince Barbara to deliver it for me. [Laughter]
I see the Speaker and the Vice President
are laughing. They saw what I did in Japan,
and they're just happy they're sitting
behind me. [Laughter]
156
I mean to speak tonight of big things, of
big changes and the promises they hold,
and of some big problems and how, together, we can solve them and move our country forward as the undisputed leader of the
age.
We gather tonight at a dramatic and
deeply promising time in our history and in
the history of man on Earth. For in the past
12 months, the world has known changes of
almost Biblical proportions. And even now,
months after the failed coup that doomed a
failed system, I'm not sure we've absorbed
�Administration of George Bush, 1992 / Jan. 28
the full impact, the full import of what happened. But communism died this year.
Even as President, with the most fascinating possible vantage point, there were
times when I was so busy managing
progress and helping to lead change that I
didn't always show the joy that was in my
heart. But the biggest thing that has happened in the world in my life, in our lives,
is this: By the grace of God, America won
the cold war.
I mean to speak this evening of the
changes that can take place in our country,
now that we can stop making the sacrifices
we had to make when we had an avowed
enemy that was a superpower. Now we can
look homeward even more and move to set
right what needs to be set right.
I will speak of those things. But let me
tell you something I've been thinking these
>ast few months. It's a kind of rollcall of
lonor. For the cold war didn't end; it was
won. And I think of those who won it, in
places like Korea and Vietnam. And some
of them didn't come back. Back then they
were heroes, but this year they were victors.
The long rollcall, all the G.I. Joes and
Janes, all the ones who fought faithfully for
freedom, who hit the ground and sucked
the dust and knew their share of horror.
This may seem frivolous, and I don't mean
it so, but it's moving to me how the world
saw them. The world saw not only their
special valor but their special style: their
rambunctious, optimistic bravery, their door-die unity unhampered by class or race or
region. What a group we've put forth, for
generations now, from the ones who wrote
"Kilroy was here" on the walls of the
German stalags to those who left signs in
the Iraqi desert that said, "I saw Elvis."
What a group of kids we've sent out into
the world.
And there's another to be singled out,
though it may seem inelegant, and I mean a
mass of people called the American taxpayer. No one ever thinks to thank the people
who pay a country's bill or an alliance's bill.
But for half a century now, the American
people have shouldered the burden and
paid taxes that were higher than they
would have been to support a defense that
was bigger than it would have been if impe-
rial communism had never existed. But it
did; doesn't anymore. And here's a fact I
wouldn't mind the world acknowledging:
The American taxpayer bore the brunt of
the burden and deserves a hunk of theglory.
So now, for the first time in 35 years, our
strategic bombers stand down. No longer
are they on 'round-the-clock alert. Tomorrow our children will go to school and study
history and how plants grow. And they
won't have, as my children did, air raid
drills in which they crawl under their desks
and cover their heads in case of nuclear
war. My grandchildren don't have to do
that and won't have the bad dreams children had once, in decades past. There are
still threats. But the long, drawn-out dread
is over.
A year ago tonight, I spoke to you at a
moment of high peril. American forces had
just unleashed Operation Desert Storm.
And after 40 days in the desert skies and 4
days on the ground, the men and women of
America's Armed Forces and our allies accomplished the goals that I declared and
that you endorsed: We liberated Kuwait.
Soon after, the Arab world and Israel sat
down to talk seriously and comprehensively
about peace, an historicfirst.And soon after
that, at Christmas, the last American hostages came home. Our policies were vindicated.
Much good can come from the prudent
use of power. And much good can come of
this: A world once divided into two armed
camps now recognizes one sole and preeminent power, the United States of America.
And they regard this with no dread. For the
world trusts us with power, and the world is
right. They trust us to be fair and restrained. They trust us to be on the side of
decency. They trust us to do what's right.
I use those words advisedly. A few days
after the war began, I received a telegram
from Joanne Speicher, the wife of the first
pilot killed in the Gulf, Lieutenant Commander Scott Speicher. Even in her grief,
she wanted me to know that some day
when her children were old enough, she
would tell them "that their father went
away to war because it was the right thing
to do." And she said it all: It was the right
157
�Jan. 28 / Administration of George Bush, 1992
thing to do.
And we did it together. There were
honest differences right here in this Chamber. But when the war began, you put partisanship aside, and we supported our
troops. This is still a time for pride, but this
is no time to boast. For problems face us,
and we must stand together once again and
solve them and not let our country down.
Two years ago, I began planning cuts in
military spending that reflected the changes
of the new era. But now, this year, with
imperial communism gone, that process can
be accelerated. Tonight I can tell you of
dramatic changes in our .strategic nuclear
force. These are actions we are taking on
our own because they are therightthing to
do. After completing 20 planes for which
we have begun procurement, we will shut
down further production of the B-2 bombers. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We
will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper missile. And we will not purchase
any more advanced cruise missiles.
This weekend I will meet at Camp David
with Boris Yeltsin of the Russian Federation. I've informed President Yeltsin that if
the Commonwealth, the former Soviet
Union, will eliminate all land-based multiple-warhead ballistic missiles, I will do the
following: We will eliminate all Peacekeeper missiles. We will reduce the number of
warheads on Minuteman missiles to one and
reduce the number of warheads on our seabased missiles by about one-third. And we
will convert a substantial portion of our
strategic bombers to primarily conventional
use. President Yeltsin's early response has
been very positive, and I expect our talks at
Camp David to be fruitful.
I want you to know that for half a century, American Presidents have longed to
make such decisions and say such words.
But even in the midst of celebration, we
must keep caution as a friend. For the
world is still a dangerous place. Only the
dead have seen the end of conflict. And
though yesterday's chaUenges are behind
us, tomorrow's are being born.
The Secretary of Defense recommended
these cuts after consultation with the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. And I make them with con158
fidence. But do not misunderstand me. The
reductions I have approved will save us an
additional $50 billion over the next 5 years.
By 1997, we will have cut defense by 30
percent since I took office. These cuts are
deep, and you must know my resolve: This
deep, and no deeper. To do less would be
insensible to progress, but to do more
would be ignorant of history. We must not
go back to the days of "the hollow army."
We cannot repeat the mistakes made twice
in this century when armistice was followed
by recklessness and defense was purged as
if the world were permanently safe.
I remind you this evening that I have
asked for your support in fimding a program to protect our country from limited
nuclear missile attack. We must have this
protection because too many people in too
many countries have access to nuclear arms.
And I urge you again to pass the Strategic
Defense Initiative, SDL
There are those who say that now we can
turn away from the world, that we have no
special role, no special place. But we are
the United States of America, the leader of"
the West that has become the leader of the
world. And as long as I am President, I will
continue to lead in support of freedom everywhere, not out of arrogance, not out of
altruism, but for the safety and security of
our children. This is a fact: Strength in the
pursuit of peace is no vice; isolationism in
the pursuit of security is no virtue.
And now to our troubles at home.
They're not all economic; the primary problem is our economy. There are some good
signs. Inflation, that thief, is down. And interest rates are down. But unemployment is
too high, some industries are in trouble, and
growth is not what it should be. Let me tell
you right from the start and right from the
heart, I know we're in hard times. But I
know something else: This will not stand.
In this Chamber, in this Chamber we can
bring the same courage and sense of
common purpose to the economy that we
brought to Desert Storm. And we can
defeat hard times together. I believe you 11
help. One reason is that you're patriots, and
you want the best for your country. And I
believe that in your hearts you want to put
partisanship aside and get the job done be-
�Administration of George Bush, 1992 / Jan. 28
cause it's therightthing to do.
The power of America rests in a stirring
but simple idea, that people will do great
things if only you set them free. Well, we're
going to set the economy free. For if this
age of miracles and wonders has taught us
anything, it's that if we can change the
world we can change America. We must
encourage investment. We must make it
easier for people to invest money and
create new products, new industries, and
new jobs. We must clear away the obstacles
to growth: high taxes, high regulation, redtape, and yes, wasteful Government spending.
None of this will happen with a snap of
tlie fingers, but it will happen. And the test
of a plan isn't whether it's called new or
dazzling. The American people aren't impressed by gimmicks; they're smarter on
this score than all of us in this room. The
only test of a plan is: Is it sound, and will it
work?
We must have a short-term plan to address our immediate needs and heat up the
economy. And then we need a longer term
plan to keep combustion going and to guarantee our place in the world economy.
There are certain things that a President
can do without Congress, and I'm going to
do them.
I have, this evening, asked major Cabinet
departments and Federal agencies to institute a 90-day moratorium on any new Federal regulations that could hinder growth.
In those 90 days, major departments and
agencies will carry out a top-to-bottom
review of all regulations, old and hew, to
stop the ones that will hurt growth and
speed up those that will help growth.
Further, for the untold number of hardworking, responsible American workers and
business men and women who've been
forced to go without needed bank loans, the
banking credit crunch must end. I won't
neglect my responsibility for sound regulations that serve the public good, but regulatory overkill must be stopped. And I've instructed our Government regulators to stop
it.
I have directed Cabinet departments and
Federal agencies to speed up progrowth expenditures as quickly as possible. This
should put an extra $10 billion into the
economy in the next 6 months. And our
new transportation bill provides more than
$150 billion for construction and maintenance projects that are vital to our growth
and well-being. And that means jobs building roads, jobs building bridges, and jobs
building railways.
And I have, this evening, directed the
Secretary of die Treasury to change the
Federal tax withholding tables. With this
change, millions of Americans from whom
the Government withholds more than necessary can now choose to have the Government withhold less from their paychecks.
Something tells me a number of taxpayers
may take us up on this one. This initiative
could return about $25 billion back into our
economy over the next 12 months, money
people can use to help pay for clothing,
college, or to get a new car. Finally, working with the Federal Reserve, we will continue to support monetary policy that keeps
both interest rates and inflation down.
Now, these are the things I can do. And
now, Members of Congress, let Yne tell you
what you can do for your country. You must
pass the other elements of my plan to meet
our economic needs. Everyone knows that
investment spurs recovery. I am proposing
this evening a change in the alternative
minimum tax and the creation of a new 15percent investment tax allowance. This will
encourage businesses to accelerate investment and bring people back to work.
Real estate has led our economy out of
almost all the tough times we've ever had.
Once building starts, carpenters and plumbers work; people buy homes and take out
mortgages. My plan would modify the passive loss rule for active real estate developers. And it would make it easier for pension
plans to purchase real estate. For those
Americans who dream of buying a first
home but who can't quite afford it, my plan
would allow first-time homebuyers to withdraw savings from IRA's without penalty
and provide a $5,000 tax credit for the first
purchase of that home.
And finally, my immediate plan calls on
Congress to give crucial help to people who
own a home, to everyone who has a business or a farm or a single investment. This
time, at this hour, I cannot take no for an
159
�Jan. 28 / Administration of George Bush, 1992
answer. You must cut the capital gains tax
on the people of our country. Never has an
issue been more demagogued by its opponents. But the demagogs are wrong. They
are wrong, and they know it. Sixty percent
of the people who benefit from lower capital gains have incomes under $50,000. A
cut in the capital gains tax increases jobs
and helps just about everyone in our country. And so, I'm asking you to cut the capital gains tax to a maximum of 15.4 percent.
I'll tell you, those of you who say, "Oh,
no, someone who's comfortable may benefit
from that," you kind of remind me of the
old definition of the Puritan who couldn't
sleep at night, worrying that somehow,
someone somewhere was out having a good
time. [Laughter] The opponents of this
measure and those who have authored various so-called soak-the-rich bills that are
floating around this Chamber should be reminded of something: When they aim at
the big guy, they usually hit the little guy.
And maybe it's time that stopped.
This, then, is my short-term plan. Your
part, Members of Congress, requires enactment of these commonsense proposals that
will have a strong effect on the economy
without breaking the budget agreement
and without raising tax rates.
While my plan is being passed and lacking in, we've got to care for those in trouble
today. I have provided for up to $4.4 billion
in my budget to extend Federal unemployment benefits. And I ask for congressional
action right away. And I thank the committee. [Applause] Well, at last.
Let's be frank. Let's be frank. Let me
level with you. I know and you know that
my plan is unveiled in a political season.
[Laughter] I know and you know that everything I propose will be viewed by some
in merely partisan terms. But I ask you to
know what is in my heart. And my aim is to
increase our Nation's good. I'm doing what
I think is right, and I am proposing what I
know will help.
I pride myself that I'm a prudent man,
and I believe that patience is a virtue. But I
understand that politics is, for some, a game
and that sometimes the game is to stop all
progress and then decry the lack of improvement. [Laughter] But let me tell you:
Far more important than my political
160
future and far more important than yours is
the well-being of our country. Members of
this Chamber are practical people, and I
know you won't resent some practical
advice. When people put their party's fortunes, whatever the party, whatever side of
this aisle, before the public good, they court
defeat not only for their country but for
themselves. And they will certainly deserve
it.
I submit my plan tomorrow, and I'm
asking you to pass it by March 20th. And I
ask the American people to let you know
they want this action by March 20th. From
the day after that, if it must be, the battle is
joined. And you know, when principle is at
stake I relish a good, fair fight.
I said my plan has two parts, and it does.
And it's the second part that is the heart of
the matter. For it's not enough to get an
immediate burst. We need long-term improvement in our economic position. We all
know that the key to our economic future is
to ensure that America continues as an economic leader of the world. We have that in
our power. Here, then, is my long-term
plan to guarantee our future.
First, trade: We will work to break down
the walls that stop world trade. We will
work to open markets everywhere. And in
our major trade negotiations, I will continue
pushing to eliminate tariffs and subsidies
that damage America's farmers and workers. And we'll get more good American jobs
within our own hemisphere through the
North American free trade agreement and
through the Enterprise for the Americas
Initiative.
But changes are here, and more are
coming. The workplace of the future will
demand more highly skilled workers than
ever, more people who are computer-literate, highly educated. We must be the
world's leader in education. And we must
revolutionize America's schools. My America 2000 strategy will help us reach that
goal. My plan will give parents more
choice, give teachers moreflexibility,and
help communities create new American
schools. Thirty States across the Nation have
established America 2000 programs. Hundreds of cities and towns have joined in.
Now Congress must join this great move-
�Administration of George Bush, 1992 / Jan. 28
ment: Pass my proposals for new American
schools.
That was my second long-term proposal,
and here's my third: We must make commonsense investments that will help us
compete, long-term, in the marketplace.
We must encourage research and development. My plan is to make the R&D tax
credit permanent and to provide record
levels of support, over $76 billion this year
alone, for people who will explore the
promise of emerging technologies.
Fourth, we must do something about
crime and drugs. It is time for a major,
renewed investment in fighting violent
street crime. It saps our strength and hurts
our faith in our society and in our future
together. Surely a tired woman on her way
to work at 6 in the morning on a subway
deserves the right to get there safely. And
surely it's true that everyone who changes
his or her life because of crime,fromthose
afraid to go out at night to those afraid to
walk in the parks they pay for, surely these
people have been denied a basic civil right.
It is time to restore it. Congress, pass my
comprehensive crime bill. It is tough on
criminals and supportive of police, and it
has been languishing in these hallowed halls
for years now. Pass it. Help your country.
Fifth, I ask you tonight to fund our
HOPE housing proposal and to pass my enterprise zone legislation which will get businesses into the inner city. We must empower the poor with the pride that comes from
owning a home, getting a job, becoming a
part of things. My plan would encourage
real estate construction by extending tax incentives for mortgage revenue bonds and
low-income housing. And I ask tonight for
record expenditures for the program that
helps children bom into want move into
excellence. Head Start.
Step six, we must reform our health care
system. For this, too, bears on whether or
not we can compete in the world. American
health costs have been exploding. This year
America will spend over $800 billion on
health, and that is expected to grow to 1.6
trillion by the end of the decade. We simply
cannot afford this. The cost of health care
shows up not only in your family budget
but in the price of everything we buy and
everything we sell. When health coverage
for a fellow on an assembly line costs thousands of dollars, the cost goes into the products he makes, and you pay the bill.
We must make a choice. Now, some pretend we can have it both ways. They call it
"play or pay," but that expensive approach
is unstable. It will mean higher taxes, fewer
jobs, and eventually a system under complete Government control.
Really, there are only two options. And
we can move toward a nationalized system,
a system which will restrict patient choice
in picking a doctor and force the Government to ration services arbitrarily. And
what we'll get is patients in long lines, indifferent service, and a huge new tax burden.
Or we can reform our own private health
care system, which still gives us, for all its
flaws, the best quality health care in the
world.
Well, let's build on our strengths. My plan
provides insurance security for all Americans while preserving and increasing the
idea of choice. We make basic health insurance affordable for all low-income people
not now covered, and we do it by providing
a health insurance tax credit of up to $3,750
for each low-income family. And the middle
class gets help, too. And by reforming the
health insurance market, my plan assures
that Americans will have access to basic
health insurance even if they change jobs or
develop serious health problems. We must
bring costs under control, preserve quality,
preserve choice, and reduce the people's
nagging daily worry about health insurance.
My plan, the details of which 111 announce
very shortly, does just that.
Seventh, we must get the Federal deficit
under control. We now have, in law, enforceable spending caps and a requirement
that we pay for the programs we create.
There are those in Congress who would
ease that discipline now. But I cannot let
them do it, and I won't.
My plan would freeze all domestic discretionary budget authority, which means no
more next year than this year. I will not
tamper with Social Security, but I would
put real caps on the growth of uncontrolled
spending. And I would also freeze Federal
domestic Government employment. And
with the help of Congress, my plan will get
161
�Jan. 28 / Administration of George Bush, 1992
rid of 246 programs that don't deserve Federal funding. Some of them have noble
titles, but none of them is indispensable.
We can get rid of each and every one of
them.
You know, it's time we rediscovered a
home truth the American people have
never forgotten: This Government is too big
and spends too much. And I call upon Congress to adopt a measure that will help put
an end to the annual ritual of filling the
budget with pork barrel appropriations.
Every year, the press has a field day
making fun of outrageous examples: a Lawrence Welk museum, research grants for
Belgian endive. We all know how these
things get into the budget, and maybe you
need someone to help you say no. I know
how to say it, and I know what I need to
make it stick. Give me the same thing 43
Governors have, the line-item veto, and let
me help you control spending.
We must put an end to unfinanced Federal Government mandates. These are the
requirements Congress puts on our cities,
counties, and States without supplying the
money. If Congress passes a mandate, it
should be forced to pay for it and balance
the cost with savings elsewhere. After all, a
mandate just increases someone else's
burden, and that means higher taxes at the
State and local level.
Step eight, Congress should enact the
bold reform proposals that are still awaiting
congressional action: bank reform, civil justice reform, tort reform, and my national
energy strategy.
And finally, we must strengthen the
family because it is the family that has the
greatest bearing on our future. When Barbara holds an AIDS baby in her arms and
reads to children, she's saying to every
person in this country: Family matters.
And I am announcing tonight a new
Commission on America's Urban Families.
I've asked Missouri's Governor John Ashcroft to be Chairman, former Dallas Mayor
Annette Strauss to be Cochair. You know, I
had mayors, the leading mayors from the
League of Cities, in the other day at the
White House, and they told me something
striking. They said that every one of them,
Republican or Democrat, agreed on one
thing, that the major cause of the problems
162
of the cities is the dissolution of the family.
They asked for this Commission, and they
were right to ask because it's time to determine what we can do to keep families together, strong and sound.
There's one thing we can do right away:
Ease the burden of rearing a child. I ask
you tonight to raise the personal exemption
by $500 per child for every family. For a
family with four kids, that's an increase of
$2,000. This is a good start in the right
direction, and it's what we can afford.
It's time to allow families to deduct the
interest they pay on student loans. I am
asking you to do just that. And I'm asking
you to allow people to use money from
their IRA's to pay medical and education
expenses, all without penalties.
And I'm asking for more. Ask American
parents what they dislike about how things
are going in our country, and chances are
good that pretty soon they'll get to welfare.
Americans are the most generous people on
Earth. But we have to go back to the insight of Franklin Roosevelt who, when he
spoke of what became the welfare program,
warned that it must not become "a narcotic" and a "subtle destroyer" of the spirit.
Welfare was never meant to be a lifestyle.
It was never meant to be a habit. It was
never supposed to be passed from generation to generation like a legacy. It's time to
replace the assumptions of the welfare state
and help reform the welfare system.
States throughout the country are beginning to operate with new assumptions that
when able-bodied people receive Government assistance, they have responsibilities
to the taxpayer: A responsibility to seek
work, education, or job training; a responsibility to get their lives in order; a responsibility to hold their families together and
refrain from having children out of wedlock; and a responsibility to obey the law.
We are going to help this movement.
Often, State reform requires waiving certain Federal regulations. I will act to make
that process easier and quicker for every
State that asksforour help.
I want to add, as we make these changes,
we work together to improve this system,
that our intention is not scapegoating or
finger-pointing. If you read the papers and
�Administration of George Bush, 1992 / Jan. 29
watch TV, you know there's been a rise
these days in a certain land of ugliness:
racist comments, anti-Semitism, an increased sense of division. Really, this is not
us. This is not who we are. And this is not
acceptable.
And so, you have my plan for America.
And I'm asking for big things, but I believe
in my heart you'll do what's right.
You know, it's kind of an American tradition to show a certain skepticism toward
our democratic institutions. I myself have
sometimes thought the aging process could
be delayed if it had to make its way
through Congress. [Laughter] You will deliberate, and you will discuss, and that is
fine. But, my friends, the people cannot
wait. They need help now.
There's a mood among us. People are
worried. There's been talk of decline. Someone even said our workers are lazy and uninspired. And I thought: Really? You go tell
Neil Armstrong standing on the moon. Tell
the men and women who put him there.
Tell the American farmer who feeds his
country and the world. Tell the men and
women of Desert Storm.
Moods come and go, but greatness endures. Ours does. And maybe for a moment
it's good to remember what, in the dailiness
of our lives, we forget: We are still and ever
the freest nation on Earth, the kindest
nation on Earth, the strongest nation on
Earth. And we have always risen to the.
occasion. And we are going to lift this
Nation out of hard times inch by inch and
day by day, and those who would stop us
had better step aside. Because I look at
hard times, and I make this vow: This will
not stand.
And so, we move on together, a rising
nation, the once and future miracle that is
still, this night, the hope of the world.
Thank you. God bless you, and God bless
our beloved country. Thank you very, very
much.
Note: The President spoke at 9.-07 p.m. in
the House Chamber of the Capitol. The address was broadcast live on nationwide
radio and television. The Executive order of
March 12 establishing the National Commission on America's Urban Families is
listed in Appendix E at the end of this
volume.
Message on the Observance of National African-American (Black)
History Month, February 1992
January 29, 1992
"When I found I had crossed that line, I
looked at my hands to see if I was the same
person. There was such a glory over everything." With these words, Harriet Tubman
described her escape from slavery during
the mid-19th century. The glory of which
she spoke was nothing less than freedom—
and the promise of better days to come.
Although African-American history begins
long before the days of Harriet Tubman,
who helped to lead thousands of her fellow
Blacks out of slavery during the Civil War,
it is filled with similar accounts of faith,
courage, and triumph in the epic struggle
for liberty and justice. This month, through
special programs and activities across the
country, we honor the many African Ameri-
cans who have helped to uphold our Nation's declaration "that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Just as all Americans
should study the words and deeds of our
Founding Fathers, so should all Americans
leam about the Black leaders who have
helped to make the promise of freedom a
reality.
The men and women whom we remember this month will long inspire others. In
addition to honoring individuals such as
Rosa Parks and other heroes of the civil
rights movement, we also recall pioneers
like George Washington Carver, who made
163
�SPECIAL REPORT
STATE OF T H E U N I O N
ush's Economic Recovery Plan
Finds Few Democratic Buyers
Desert Storm-style deadline for Hill action won't hurry those
who call president's proposal "wrong course for America"
"There is certainly no
or months, Demoneed to hurry and pass
crats on Capitol
this plan," Sen. Robert C.
Hill taunted PresiByrd, D-W.Va., the
t Bush to come home,
chairman of the Approknocked on their
priations
Committee,
front door Jan. 28 with
said of Bush's request.
his State of the Union
"It is the wrong course
address only to be
for America."
ed like an unwanted
salesman instead of the
Bush's speech came
prodigal son.
against a backdrop of
great expectations. His
Bush's speech and the
approval rating was at
Democrats' reaction prethe lowest point in his
saged a legislative agenda
presidency. For weeks, he
shaped as much by the
had waved off questions
>n as the lingering
about his economic reion. With subcovery program with a
i and rhetoric, the
wait-until-Jan. 28 res have now set the
sponse.
•tage for confrontation
taxes, health policy
The speech probably
spending priorities
will not be remembered as
— and blamesmanship
the defining moment of
d the recession conthe Bush presidency, as
8 until Election Day.
some had touted it.
In his speech, Bush
Rather, it was the opening
equated reviving the econvolley of his re-election
jmy to driving Saddam
campaign. What Bush did
nuaein from Kuwait,
not do was hurt himself.
^"us will not stand,"
Even if proposals such as
wan vowed, echoing his
modifying passive loss
Jgguage of a year ago.
rules don't set rhetorical
Bash and His Budget
we can bring the same
fires under voters, Bush
. 229
Economic package
219
Revenue
•""rage and sense of comwas alone in the spot230
Tax plans compared.
Candidates' views
220
•K* Purpose to the econlight, taking action and
Budget highlights
233
Budget overview
222
^ f t a t we brought to
issuing commands on doHealth: No details
249
"«««t Storm." (799/ odmestic matters.
Budget rules
224
Defense: How deep?.
253
**««. 1991 Weekly ReGlossary
225
In the Democratic reBudget by agency
243
P- 282)
sponse, Speaker Thomas
Deficit
226
Budget by function.... .... 244
Much as he did then,
S. Foley of Washington
Economic assumptions
227
Text of speech
264
•"anaetagoalandadeadpromised that Democrats
Democratic response.
267
Forecasts compared
228
J^; He asked Congress to
would work with the
measures he said
president — but only to a
point. "We will also stand our ground
•JJUW revive the economy, including a
likely to prove more apt than the preswhen basic principles are at stake,"
~P«{Mtial cut in the capital gains tax,
ident intended. Much as a majority of
Foley said. "We will not agree to do
"OMdemanded action by March 20.
Democrats stridently opposed authe wrong thing simply for the sake of
"om the day after that, if it must
thorizing the war, they will now seek
doing something. In short, we seek a
" battle is joined," Bush said.
to substitute their economic solutions
fundamental change from the unsucPersian Gulf metaphor is
for Bush's. And they are free to ignore
cessful economic policies of the past
his D-Day timetable, although Bush
12 years."
could make that perilous.
By Chuck Alston
F
«
CQ
FEBRUARY 1, 1992 — 217
�STATE OF THE UNION
Congress' Latest Deadline
"/ submit my plan tomorrow: And I am asking you to
pass it by March 20. And I ask. the American people to
let you know they want this action by March 20. From
the day after that, if it must be: The battle is joined."
But with the economy limping along and an election less'
than 10 months away, the Democratic majority in Congress^
will ignore the latest deadline at its own political
Indeed, the House Ways and Means and Budget commit,
tees plan to work through the February recess, to ready taxi
—President Bush
and budget legislation for floor action. Even so, the pad
Congress sends Bush probably will not be the one lie
ith these words, President Bush demonstrated in
requested; Democrats have their own ideas about tax relie£
his State of the Union address on Jan. 28 how easy
And the bill won't arrive by March 20.
it is for a president to set Coiigress' agenda and even
establish the terms for its consideration.
Rep. Mickey Edwards, R-Okla., a member of the Hoiaje
The deadline is a particularly effective tool, and this
GOP leadership, said the deadline isn't firm. "All we need
is the second time in a year the president has used it.
by March is a commitment from the Democrats to have's
Last year, after the Persian Gulf War, he challenged
vote on the president's tax package, or whatever Republif
Congress to send him anti-crime.and transportation legiscan tax package emerges from Ways and Means," he said!
lation in 100 days. It took considerably longer than that for
The White House probably never expected Congress to
the transportation bill to arrive at the White House. As for meet its deadline; there is no explanation for March 20^
the crime bill, it still hasn't arrived, held up, ironically, by
beyond the president's say-so. If anything, the deadline was
Senate Republicans who don't\iike what's in it.
selected because it won't be met; failure will transfer tlM>
Congress generally bristles at such presidential interheat generated by the recession from Bush to Congresa:
ference. "The truth of it is, thejjpresident has taken two
"Now it's up to Congress to produce," White House Chief!
months to figure out what he wjints to do, and he's just
of Staff Samuel K. Skinner said. "And if they don't, they ~ ®
changed it," Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., said. "He is not giving going to go into the fall having failed the American
Congress as long as he took himself.... The legislative
And if they fail the American people, they won't be coming?
process should be given, on average, at least twice as long as back in January."
one man has to make up his mind."
This is the type of talk that leads Rep. Byron L. Dorgan,''
Senate Majority Leader George
D-N.D., to conclude that the "pres-.
J. Mitchell, D-Maine, said if Conident's plan has a made-in-Newj
gress moves expeditiously, it will be
Hampshire label on it." Any doubts'
because the times demand it.
disappeared Jan. 30. Bush's reSpeaker Thomas S. Foley, Dr
election campaign began airing a
Wash., has pressed House chair30-second television spot that feamen with jurisdiction over tax afid
tured the president's challenge to^
budget legislation to move quickly,
Congress. The president, who ac- £
but he also has said the presidents
knowledged the recession only twp^
"swaggering" attitude isn't helpful.
months ago, urged voters "to send al
Even Senate Republican leader
real message to Congress to get this*?
R. MICHAEL JENKINS
Bob Dole of Kansas has expressed
job done."
doubt about a March 20 deadline. A packed chamber listens to Bush's speech.
—Chuck Alston
W
4
Victory in Cold War
Before surveying the state of the
union, Bush surveyed a world wrought
by "changes of almost biblical proportion." It is a safer place to live, he said,
where strategic bombers no longer
stand on constant alert. "Communism
died this year," Bush said, and he
didn't hesitate to claim credit for its
demise in the name of the nation. "By
the grace of God, America won the
Cold War."
Referring to the Persian Gulf War,
he said: "We liberated Kuwait. Soon
after, the Arab world and Israel sat
down to talk seriously and comprehensively about peace — an historic
first. And soon after that, at Christmas, the last American hostages came
home."
218 — FEBRUARY 1, 1992
CQ
The end of the Cold War, Bush
said, means that military spending can
be cut by $50 billion over five years.
Such cuts would bring the total reduction in the defense budget since he
took office to 30 percent.
Of the cuts, he continued, "You
must know my resolve: this deep and
no deeper. To do less would be insensible to progress — but to do more
would be ignorant of history." He
warned against the "recklessness"
that has followed past armistices,
against a "hollow army," and he called
for continued development of the
space-based anti-missile system, the
Strategic Defense Initiative.
The size of the peace dividend will
be one of the most controversial issues
in the coming days. Rep. John R.
Kasich, R-Ohio, a' member of the
Armed Services Committee, called $50
billion "a good, solid cut, and it's going to be hard to argue against." However, Senate Majority Leader George
J. Mitchell, D-Maine, has already proposed $100 billion in cuts over five
years. Bush "has opened the door; the
bottom has fallen out on defense expenditures," Rep. Thomas J. Downey,
D-N.Y., said after the speech.
Bush also laid down markers for
spending the peace dividend, peripherally in his speech and more fully the
next day when he proposed a fiscal
1993 budget. He ruled out transferring
the money into domestic discretionary
spending, per the rules established by
the 1990 budget deal. However, budget director Richard G. Darman said
�f
STATE OF THE UNION
What the Candidates Are Saying
P
resident Bush's State of the Union address laid out
his positions! on issues central to the presidential
campaign. Here *are a few of those stands, with a sampling of views from the president's challengers.
•t
Tax C u t Capital Gains
Bush called for a cut in the capital gains tax rate from
the current 28 percent maximum to 15.4 percent.
Bush: "Sixty'percent of the people who benefit from
lower capital gains have incomes under $50,000. A cut in
the capital gains'^tax increases jobs and helps just about
everyone in our country."
Bush's main GOP challenger, Patrick J. Buchanan, would
go further, lowering the tax rate to 14 percent and eliminating
capital gains taxes for those with incomes of $50,000 or less.
But most of the Democratic candidates say too many of
the benefits from.a broad-based capital gains tax cut would
benefit the rich. $
Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin: "Bush's capital gains cut is a giveaway to the very
wealthy without helping the economy.
[On] average, those with over $200,000
[in income] will get $100 for every quarter going to average taxpayers."
Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton: Favors
reducing the capital gains tax for gains
from long-term investment in small and
new businesses.
Former Massachusetts Sen. Paul
E. Tsongas: Supports taxing the gain
Harkin
on long-term business investments at
progressively lower rates the longer an investment is held.
Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska: Favors a narrowly targeted capital gain's tax cut.
Former California Gov. Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown: Supports abolishing almost all federal taxes and replacing them
with a 13 percent'flat tax on all individual and corporate
income.
Tax Cut: Middle Class and Families
Bush put no special emphasis on tax changes for the
middle class, using the phrase only once in his speech.
But Bush proposed increasing parents' personal exemption for dependent children by $500 (to $2,800 per child).
And he said he would lower withholding rates — a move
that would not change the ultimate tax bill but would put
more money in the taxpayers' pockets in the short run.
Buchanan: Favors replacing current exemption with a
tax credit of up to $1,000 per child.
Most, but not all, of Bush's Democratic opponents strongly
favor a tax cut targeted to the middle class.
Clinton: Favors middle-class tax breaks totaling 10 percent
of current federal tax burden, to be paid for by raising taxes on
incomes over $200,000. (He also wants to expand tax credits for
the working poor.)
Harkin: " I favor far larger personal income tax exclusions,
but they must be paid for progressively, not by adding to the
deficit."
Kerrey: " I support a tax cut that will provide relief.... We
need to relieve the strain on families who are trying to make
ends meet and to provide for their children."
Tsongas: " I do not favor increasing the personal tax
220 — FEBRUARY 1, 1992
CQ
exemption for children for two reasons. First, I thii
basis is in political, not economic, policy. Second, it .
1
result in no net savings for families [who] would be* fo '
finance a deficit already growing out of control" *
Healthcare
Bush came out strongly against the two
.
favorites: a national health-care plan similar to thSFi
dian approach and the "play or pay" plan of coiign
Democrats. That plan would require employers to.i
health insurance for their employees or pay into a^
fund covering uninsured workers.
But Bush favors expanded coverage through;tia\.
(up to $3,750 for a low-income family) and reform?c
private insurance market.
Buchanan: Opposes national health-care plans^
Kerrey: Supports universal coverage based on a variety of federal taxes.
Clinton: Favors universal coverage
through the reform of the current
health-care system and drastic changes
in its financing.
Brown: Proposes a plan modeled on
the Canadian system in which the gov- • J
ernment buys all coverage.
Harkin: Calls for universal health
care that emphasizes prevention,
while controlling costs and reducing
the bureaucracy.
*l'^
Tsongas: Proposes a universal coverage plan thaf 1
require most businesses to give their employees a <
insurance plans. He would also institute a payroll t
fund health care for seasonal and part-time
W f ,
135
Defense Spending
^
Bush called for cutting sophisticated weapon!
such as the B-2 bomber, the Peacekeeper missile!
Cruise missile. He said his cuts would save $50.1)
five years, an 18 percent reduction, but warned: ' | ]
and no deeper."
; ^jSj^jL,
Bush said nothing about reducing pmimMpji
chanan would stress reductions in personnel if he were {
the defense budget.
Democrats generally call for much deeper cuts than doSI
Bush in personnel and much deeper cuts in weapon s y s t p i l
than either of the Republicans.
*" "
Clinton: Proposes cutting systems and personnel t o ' l ^ - ^
$100 billion more than Bush proposSIJ
by 1997. Clinton has supported ^
specified reductions in the numbeyj
iJ.S. troops in Europe. He would <
eel the B-2.
Harkin: Supports cutting
funding by 50 percent ($140 bfllionff^
10 years, mostly by cutting personndBjfe!]
withdrawing from Europe and
Kerrey: Supports cutting 30 (
to 40 percent over 10 years.
Tsongas: Supports cutting
Clinton
30 percent over five years.
Brown: Supports reducing military aid to Gennanjyu,
transferring some military spending to space —•
ut-a
�STATE OF THE UNION
29 that the administration was
g to negotiate using defense savo pay for tax cuts.
•
The bulk of the new savings Bush
proposed, about $32 billion, would
come from eliminating two programs,
the B-2 bomber and the Seawolf submarine.
Bush mentioned the B-2 shutdown
in his speech, but not the Seawolf, a
politically delicate issue in New England.
The B-2 cancellation was one of
several unilateral steps Bush announced to reduce the nuclear arsenal.
And he held out the prospect of more.
He said he would propose a swap to
Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin.
If the Commonwealth of Indepent States would eliminate all multiple warheads from land-based ballistic
missiles, the United States would: 1)
eliminate Peacekeeper missiles; 2)
hold Minuteman missiles to one warhead each; 3) reduce the deployment
of warheads on the Trident submarine
force by about one-third; and 4) convert a number of strategic bombers to
conventional use.
The two presidents were set to talk
t the arsenals at a Feb. 1 meeting
imp David,
lomic Plan
The centerpiece of Bush's speech
a three-tiered plan for the econr- initiatives he would take on his
own; short-term items Congress
should pass by March 20; and longterm initiatives.
• Bush said he was ordering a 90-day
ratorium on new regulations that
could retard economic growth; a halt
to "regulatory overkill" by banking
regulators that is contributing to a
"credit crunch"; and an adjustment to
. withholding tables to give workers
• slight increase in take-home pay.
«
•To boost the economy in the short
torn. Bush proposed letting business
depredate certain plant and equipment
{JJ^cliMes faster; givingfirst-timehome
"Jjyere a tax credit of up to $5,000;
•jw^ing withdrawals from Individual
TOtownent Accounts for a first-time
"ooie purchase; permitting commercial
*al estate developers to use losses from
j*»*tal properties to offset non-rental
~
> the so-called passive loss proviandfinally,cutting the tax rate on
<»pital gains to 15.4 percent.
has sought to lower the capilains tax rate for three years. "This
r this bour, I cannot take no for
answer; you must cut the capital
••""a tax for the people of our counr
loatae
a t
try," he said.
• For the longer term, Bush urged
Congress to hew to free trade. He
called for passage of his New American Schools program; for a permanent
research and development tax credit
(it must now be extended each year);
for more R&D spending by the government; for more money to enroll
preschoolers in Head Start; and for
regulatory and tax relief to businesses
that invest in poor neighborhoods.
"I swear, if the
president had
said God bless
America... the
Democrats
would have sat
there sulking and sucking their
thumbs."
—Rep. Mickey Edwards, R-Okla.
Bush engaged the Democrats in the
election year bidding for middle-class
votes on several fronts but not headon. Beyond the accelerated withholding and first-time home purchase incentives, he proposed raising the
personal exemption for dependent children by $500, making the interest on
student loans deductible and allowing
penalty-free withdrawals from IRAs
for medical and educational purposes.
Various Democratic proposals
would extend tax credits of $300 and
more to all "middle-income" taxpayers
or to those with children. Those credits
would be worth more than the increased
exemption Bush proposes — and would
also cost the government more.
Bush sketched his health-care plan
only in broad strokes, leaving the details for a speech expected in early
February. Still, his remarks left the
battle lines clear. He said he will oppose expanding government health insurance beyond Medicaid and Medicare with the "play or pay" system
favored by many Democrats. That
proposal would require employers who
do not offer health insurance to pay
fees into a government-run insurance
plan for those workers. Instead, Bush
said, the private health insurance system should be modified and tax credits extended to help people purchase
insurance.
House Majority Leader Richard A.
Gephardt, D-Mo., criticized the president's economic proposals as a "list of
Band-Aids and political ideas that will
help the rich." Bush would not "give
the middle class the tax cuts they deserve and have earned," he added.
An Eye on New Hampshire
Bush avoided the abortion issue.
He also said nothing about the environment, a touchy subject for Republicans in good times but a highly
charged issue in a recession when
regulations clash with jobs.
But not all of the political maneuvering in Bush's speech was directed
toward November or the Democrats.
He also sought to keep peace with Republicans in Congress and stare down a^
challenge on his right from political
commentator Patrick J. Buchanan.
Buchanan has molded his campaign
around the theme "America First,"
saying the country should curtail
sharply its obligations abroad in the
post-Cold War era. That echoes the
isolationism of the 1930s.
Bush argued that America's obligations do not end with the Cold War
and that it must continue its world
leadership role "not out of arrogance,
not out of altruism, but for the safety
and security of our children." With a
nod to phrasing once used by Barry
Goldwater, he added, "This is a fact:
Strength in the pursuit of peace is no
vice; isolationism in the pursuit of security is no virtue."
Bush's capital gains proposal was
partially directed at House Republicans, who had complained in the days
before the speech that Bush was not
asking for generous enough capital
gains relief. Bush dispatched aides to
hear them out, and in his speech
showed that he had listened, asking for
his lowest rate ever. He followed up
with a visit to Capitol Hill on Jan. 29,
where he held pep rallies with Republicans in each chamber.
"Frankly, I think there's more unity
right now behind the president than
there's been for two years," said Rep.
Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., referring
to the GOP conference.
No such help is expected from
Democrats. Indeed, if the Democrats'
response to the speech is any indication, a bitter, partisan season lies
ahead. " I swear, if the president had
said God bless America, it's the greatest nation on earth, the Democrats
would have sat there sulking and sucking their thumbs," said Rep. Mickey
Edwards, R-Okla.
•
CQ
FEBRUARY 1, 1992 — 221
�PAGE
15TH
5
STORY o f Level 1 p r i n t e d i n FULL f o r m a t .
C o p y r i g h t 1992 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
January 29, 1992,
SECTION: S e c t i o n A;
LENGTH: 1734
Wednesday, Late E d i t i o n - F i n a l
Page 1; Column 6; N a t i o n a l Desk
words
HEADLINE: STATE OF THE
UNION;
BUSH VOWS ECONOMIC RELIEF AND
PROPOSES MODEST STEPS IN STATE OF THE
BYLINE: By ANDREW ROSENTHAL,
S p e c i a l t o The New
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Jan.
UNION TALK
York Times
28
BODY:
S t a k i n g h i s p o l i t i c a l f o r t u n e s on advice t h a t the economy w ' i l l r i g h t i t s e l f
by summer, P r e s i d e n t Bush d e l i v e r e d a S t a t e o f the Union Message t o n i g h t t h a t
o f f e r e d modest p r o p o s a l s t o ease t h e immediate p a i n o f m i d d l e - c l a s s t a x p a y e r s
and erase any i m p r e s s i o n t h a t he i s i n s e n s i t i v e t o America's economic burdens.
Mr. Bush used h i s own powers t o g i v e some q u i c k r e l i e f t o t a x p a y e r s and
i n j e c t about $20 b i l l i o n i n t o the economy i n t h e next s i x months. He d i r e c t e d
t h a t t a x - w i t h h o l d i n g r u l e s be changed immediately, meaning t h a t some money
n o r m a l l y g i v e n back l a t e r i n r e f u n d s w i l l be l e f t i n paychecks so i t can be
q u i c k l y . The change i s expected t o i n j e c t some $2 b i l l i o n a month i n t o the
my when f u l l y e f f e c t i v e . Mr. Bush a l s o o r d e r e d F e d e r a l spending on some
ams a c c e l e r a t e d .
C
Rewarding t h e Taxpayer
C h a l l e n g i n g Congress t o a c t w i t h i n e i g h t weeks and p r o m i s i n g a " b a t t l e " i f
i t does n o t , Mr. Bush proposed s h o r t - t e r m r e l i e f measures l i k e an i n c r e a s e i n
t a x exemptions f o r c h i l d r e n , t a x breaks f o r f i r s t - t i m e home buyers and t h e
housing i n d u s t r y and t a x c r e d i t s f o r the purchase of h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e by those
e a r n i n g low wages. [A t r a n s c r i p t of t h e P r e s i d e n t ' s address i s on page A16.]
I n a t e l e v i s e d address t h a t a t n e a r l y an hour was l o n g e r t h a n most S t a t e o f
the Union messages, t h e P r e s i d e n t d e c l a r e d t h a t i t was t i m e t o reward t h e
American t a x p a y e r f o r decades of p a y i n g f o r c o l d war arms programs. He proposed
$50 b i l l i o n w o r t h o f Pentagon c u t s over the next f i v e years and o u t l i n e d new
a r m s - c o n t r o l measures, i n c l u d i n g a p r o p o s a l t h a t the U n i t e d S t a t e s and t h e
r e p u b l i c s o f t h e former S o v i e t Union e l i m i n a t e a l l m u l t i p l e - w a r h e a d n u c l e a r
m i s s i l e s based on l a n d . Mr. Bush d i d not make c l e a r whether t h e money saved from
the Pentagon would be plowed i n t o domestic programs.
T r y i n g t o Regain S t a t u r e
But t h e b u l k o f Mr. Bush's t h i r d S t a t e o f t h e Union Message was d e d i c a t e d t o
p i n g t h e P r e s i d e n t ' s s l i d e i n the p u b l i c o p i n i o n p o l l s and s t r e n g t h e n i n g him
he r e - e l e c t i o n campaign. Mr. Bush's speech was i m m e d i a t e l y c r i t i c i z e d by
c r a t s , some of whom s a i d i t was t o o l i t t l e and t o o l a t e .
�PAGE
The New
•
York Times, January 29,
(
1992
E a r l i e r today, t o s i d e s t e p a b i t t e r e l e c t i o n - y e a r i s s u e , Mr. Bush and House
e r s agreed t o spend $2.7 b i l l i o n on another 13 weeks o f unemployment
f i t s f o r about two m i l l i o n o f the l o n g - t e r m unemployed. [Page A18.]
W i t h h i s p o p u l a r i t y a t t h e lowest ebb o f h i s t h r e e years i n o f f i c e , Mr. Bush
sought t o r e c a p t u r e t h e s t a t u r e he enjoyed j u s t one year ago as Commander i n
Chief i n t h e war a g a i n s t I r a q and as the l e a d e r o f t h e f r e e w o r l d d u r i n g t h e
c o l l a p s e o f Communism. He even borrowed h i s own P e r s i a n G u l f war o r a t o r y i n an
e f f o r t t o persuade v o t e r s t h a t he c o u l d b r i n g t h e l e a d e r s h i p he demonstrated i n
b a t t l e t o bear on t h e economy.
"We are g o i n g t o l i f t t h i s n a t i o n out o f hard times i n c h by i n c h and day by
day, and those who would s t o p us had b e t t e r s t e p a s i d e , " Mr. Bush d e c l a r e d i n a
l i n e t h a t drew l o u d applause i n the packed chamber o f t h e House o f
R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . "Because I l o o k a t hard t i m e s , and I make t h i s vow: T h i s w i l l
not s t a n d . " The pledge echoed h i s promise t h a t I r a q ' s i n v a s i o n o f Kuwait would
not s t a n d .
The Speaker o f t h e House, Thomas S. Foley, p o l i t e l y applauded Mr. Bush as the
P r e s i d e n t spoke t o t h e j o i n t s e s s i o n o f Congress. But a f t e r w a r d , he c r i t i c i z e d
the P r e s i d e n t ' s p r o p o s a l s as t o o l i t t l e , t o o l a t e . "For t o o l o n g , we were t o l d
t o w a i t , t h a t t h i n g s would get b e t t e r on t h e i r own," he s a i d i n t h e Democrats'
o f f i c i a l response. "There was even an e f f o r t t o t a l k us out o f t h e r e c e s s i o n , or
t o t e l l us t h a t i t wasn't r e a l l y happening a t a l l . "
A f t e r h e a r i n g t h e address, some o f the Democratic P r e s i d e n t i a l
s ^ ^ l t h e y were d i s a p p o i n t e d w i t h the P r e s i d e n t ' s economic p l a n s .
candidates
^ ^ i e n a t o r Tom H a r k i n o f Iowa, who was campaigning a t a s c h o o l i n F r a n k l i n ,
N.H., o f f e r e d t h i s : " A l l I can say a f t e r w a t c h i n g h i s speech i s t h e S t a t e o f
the Union i s coming from someone who i s t o t a l l y out o f t o u c h w i t h what i s
happening i n America." I n c o n g r u o u s l y f o r a speech t h a t had been b i l l e d as h i s
moment t o d e f i n e not o n l y h i s campaign agenda but t h e second t e r m he hopes t o
win i n November, Mr. Bush began h i s remarks i n the chamber o f t h e House o f
R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t o n i g h t w i t h two j o k e s .
Poking Fun a t H i m s e l f
"You know, w i t h t h e b i g b u i l d u p t h i s speech has had, I wanted t o make sure
i t would be a b i g h i t , but I c o u l d n ' t convince Barbara t o d e l i v e r i t f o r me," he
s a i d , as t h e chamber e r u p t e d i n t o l a u g h t e r and applause.
He s m i l e d a g a i n and s a i d : " I see the Speaker and t h e Vice P r e s i d e n t are
l a u g h i n g . They saw what I d i d i n Japan, and t h e y ' r e j u s t happy t h e y ' r e s i t t i n g
behind me."
The p o l i t i c i a n s i n t h e House chamber i n t e r r u p t e d Mr. Bush's speech dozens o f
times f o r applause. Sometimes the applause came from b o t h s i d e s o f t h e a i s l e , as
i t d i d f o r p o l i t i c a l l y p o p u l a r themes l i k e Head S t a r t and t h e war i n t h e P e r s i a n
G u l f . At o t h e r t i m e s , t h e applause was Republican o n l y , as when Mr. Bush spoke
of c u t t i n g t h e c a p i t a l g a i n s t a x on p r o f i t s from i n v e s t m e n t s .
r . Bush t r i e d t o p a i n t h i m s e l f as P r e s i d e n t i a l and Congress as p a r t i s a n .
i n g a compromise between aides who urged him t o be c o n c i l i a t o r y and those
wanted him t o s t a r t b a t t l i n g the Democrats r i g h t away, Mr. Bush c h a l l e n g e d
�PAGE
The New
York Times, January 29,
1992
lawmakers t o pass h i s p r o p o s a l s by March 20.
'From t h e day a f t e r t h a t , i f i t must be: the b a t t l e i s j o i n e d , " Mr. Bush
d. "And you know, when p r i n c i p l e i s a t s t a k e , I r e l i s h a good f a i r f i g h t . "
Says He Shunned 'Gimmicks'
Mr. Bush p o r t r a y e d h i s p l a n as a f i s c a l l y and p o l i t i c a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e e f f o r t
t o speed t h e r e c e s s i o n ' s end, a l t h o u g h i t came 18 months a f t e r t h e r e c e s s i o n
began and one year t o the day a f t e r he promised America t h a t i t would soon end,
and he a s s e r t e d t h a t he had r e s i s t e d t h e t e m p t a t i o n f o r "new and d a z z l i n g "
p r o p o s a l s o r "gimmicks."
But the P r e s i d e n t spoke a g a i n s t t h e backdrop o f an e x t r a o r d i n a r y b u i l d u p f o r
t h e annual speech, which the P r e s i d e n t has promoted i n v i r t u a l l y every p u b l i c
u t t e r a n c e f o r t h e past s i x weeks. Concerned t h a t t h e advance b i l l i n g was t o o
a m b i t i o u s , and s t i l l caught up i n d i s p u t e s t h a t kept a major p r o p o s a l on
h e a l t h - c a r e r e f o r m from b e i n g i n c l u d e d t o n i g h t , t h e White House t r i e d t o lower
e x p e c t a t i o n s a t t h e l a s t minute.
Heeding t h e a d v i c e of moderate a d v i s e r s who c a u t i o n e d a g a i n s t t o o sharp a
break w i t h t h e p a s t , Mr. Bush made no r a d i c a l d e p a r t u r e from t h e economic
p o l i c i e s he has pursued f o r t h r e e years, nor d i d he remake the p o l i t i c a l
p h i l o s o p h i e s t h a t he i n h e r i t e d from Ronald Reagan i n t o h i s own images.
D e t a i l s o f the P r e s i d e n t ' s programs w i l l become c l e a r e r on Wednesday when he
m i t s h i s budget t o Congress. Then the White House and Congress b e g i n t h e
l i c a t e d process of n e g o t i a t i o n s and t r a d e o f f s i n i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e dozens of
es o f t h e package i n t o l e g i s l a t i o n .
m
While economists suggested t h a t Mr. Bush's s h o r t - t e r m p r o p o s a l s c o u l d h e l p
the economy, t h e P r e s i d e n t o f f e r e d no d e t a i l e d v i s i o n o f the f u t u r e of t h e
c o u n t r y t o n i g h t . Many of the p r o p o s a l s he o u t l i n e d were programs t h a t he o f f e r e d
i n t h e p a s t and t h a t Congress r e j e c t e d .
Among these was a c a l l f o r a r e d u c t i o n i n the r a t e of taxes on c a p i t a l g a i n s ,
which Mr. Bush has made the c e n t e r p i e c e o f h i s economic p o l i c y , t o as low as
15.4 p e r c e n t on the p r o f i t s from t h e s a l e o f assets h e l d more t h a n t h r e e y e a r s .
The c u r r e n t c a p i t a l gains t a x r a t e i s 28 p e r c e n t .
"This t i m e , a t t h i s hour, I cannot t a k e 'No'
f o r an answer," he s a i d .
O u t l i n i n g h i s economic programs, many o f which had found t h e i r way i n t o news
r e p o r t s i n r e c e n t weeks, Mr. Bush s a i d he was i s s u i n g e x e c u t i v e o r d e r s t h a t
would impose a 90-day moratorium on a l l new Federal r e g u l a t i o n s t h a t c o u l d
h i n d e r g r o w t h , and he pledged t o change banking r e g u l a t i o n s t o s t i m u l a t e
lending.
To pump money i n t o the economy, he s a i d , the Federal Government w i l l
a c c e l e r a t e spending on e x i s t i n g programs, f o r a t o t a l o f $10 b i l l i o n i n t h e next
s i x months. He a l s o proposed a budget " f r e e z e " t h a t would keep spending on
d i s c r e t i o n a r y programs i n the budget f o r t h e 1993 f i s c a l year a t t h e same l e v e l
^:he c u r r e n t budget. That p r o p o s a l would produce l e s s than $5 b i l l i o n i n
Lngs.
�PAGE
8
The New York Times, January 2 9, 1992
Money Back Sooner
•
Mr. Bush o r d e r e d the Treasury Department t o r e v i s e t h e method by which taxes
w i t h h e l d from paychecks. This would have no e f f e c t on Americans' t a x
burdens, b u t would s i m p l y g i v e them back t h e i r own money sooner. Income taxes
are now w i t h h e l d a t a r a t e h i g h e r than t h e a c t u a l t a x r a t e i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e
e x t r a money t o t h e F e d e r a l c o f f e r s d u r i n g t h e year, and many t a x p a y e r s r e c e i v e
refunds.
Mr. Bush a l s o proposed an i n c r e a s e o f $500 i n t h e p e r s o n a l t a x exemption f o r
each c h i l d , t a x c r e d i t s and p e n a l t y - f r e e w i t h d r a w a l s from i n d i v i d u a l r e t i r e m e n t
accounts f o r f i r s t - t i m e home buyers, t a x breaks f o r t h e r e a l e s t a t e i n d u s t r y ,
tax c r e d i t s and d e d u c t i o n s f o r medical i n s u r a n c e .
D e c l a r i n g t h a t "by the grace o f God, American won t h e c o l d war," Mr. Bush
p l a y e d t o t h e s t r o n g l y i n w a r d - l o o k i n g t r e n d s t h a t are e v i d e n t i n p o l l s o f
American v o t e r s i n t h i s e l e c t i o n year.
He s a i d : "For h a l f a c e n t u r y now, t h e American people have s h o u l d e r e d t h e
burden and p a i d t a x e s than were h i g h e r than t h e y would have been t o s u p p o r t a
defense t h a t was b i g g e r than i t would have been i f i m p e r i a l Communism had never
e x i s t e d . But i t d i d . Doesn't anymore."
Mr. Bush announced t h a t t h e enormously expensive B-2 S t e a l t h bomber program
would be stopped a f t e r the 20 planes a l r e a d y b e i n g purchased.
arde Fewer Warheads
'Mr. Bush a l s o s a i d he was c a n c e l i n g p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e Midgetman n u c l e a r
•m i s s i l e and would h a l t manufacture o f new warheads f o r sea-based n u c l e a r
m i s s i l e s . No more m u l t i p l e - w a r h e a d MX m i s s i l e s w i l l be b u i l t , and t h e m i l i t a r y
w i l l not buy any more advanced c r u i s e m i s s i l e s , Mr. Bush s a i d .
He s a i d t h a t on Saturday, when he meets w i t h P r e s i d e n t B o r i s N. Y e l t s i n o f
Russia, he would propose t h a t i f Russia e l i m i n a t e s a l l land-based m i s s i l e s w i t h
more than one warhead, he w i l l e l i m i n a t e the m u l t i p l e - w a r h e a d MX m i s s i l e and
reduce t h e number o f warheads on the Minuteman m i s s i l e t o one from t h r e e .
O f t e n c r i t i c i z e d f o r seeming deadpan i n the f a c e o f a s t o n i s h i n g events, Mr.
Bush s a i d , "Even as as P r e s i d e n t , w i t h t h e most f a s c i n a t i n g p o s s i b l e vantage
p o i n t , t h e r e were t i m e s when I was so busy h e l p i n g t o manage p r o g r e s s and l e a d
change t h a t I d i d n ' t always show the j o y t h a t was i n my h e a r t . "
GRAPHIC: Photos: P r e s i d e n t Bush b e i n g c o n g r a t u l a t e d l a s t n i g h t as he l e f t t h e
House chamber a f t e r d e l i v e r i n g h i s S t a t e o f t h e Union Message, (pg. 1 ) ;
P r e s i d e n t Bush d e l i v e r i n g h i s S t a t e o f the Union message. A t r e a r was Speaker
Thomas S. Foley, (pg. A15) (Jose R. Lopez/The New York Times)
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
^j^D
- DATE : January 29, 1992
�PAGE
1ST
2
STORY o f Level 1 p r i n t e d i n FULL f o r m a t .
C o p y r i g h t 1992 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
January 29, 1992,
Wednesday, Late E d i t i o n - F i n a l
SECTION: S e c t i o n A; Page 17; Column 1; N a t i o n a l Desk
LENGTH: 94 6 words
HEADLINE: THE 1992
CAMPAIGN: The Campaign;
A f t e r Hoopla, a R e p o s i t i o n i n g , Not a C a l l t o Arms
BYLINE: By ROBIN TONER,
S p e c i a l t o The New York Times
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Jan. 28
BODY:
B i l l e d f o r weeks by t h e White House as the k i c k o f f t o h i s r e - e l e c t i o n
campaign. P r e s i d e n t Bush's S t a t e o f the Union Message t o n i g h t was, by e x t e n s i o n ,
a l s o i n t e n d e d t o b e g i n h i s comeback from an a s t o n i s h i n g tumble i n t h e p u b l i c
opinion p o l l s .
D e s p i t e t h e b u i l d u p though, t h e r e was l i t t l e r e v o l u t i o n a r y i n t h e speech. I t
was more a c a r e f u l a t t e m p t a t r e p o s i t i o n i n g , w i t h Mr. Bush r e m i n d i n g v o t e r s o f
past accomplishments w h i l e s i g n a l i n g h i s concern over t h e s t a t e o f domestic
affairs.
The u n u s u a l l y l o n g speech was i n c r e m e n t a l i n most o f i t s domestic p o l i c y
f s c r i p t i o n s and d e f e n s i v e i n tone. I t amounted t o a P r e s i d e n t i a l
acknowledgement o f t h e sweeping changes on the p o l i t i c a l scene s i n c e Mr. Bush
stood b e f o r e Congress a year ago, t h e p o p u l a r Commander i n Chief o f a n a t i o n
consumed w i t h t h e war i n the P e r s i a n G u l f .
Were Mr. Bush f a c i n g a s t r o n g Democratic opponent, t h e speech would p r o b a b l y
be c o n s i d e r e d f a r s h o r t o f what he needed i n the c u r r e n t p o l i t i c a l c l i m a t e . But
i n s t e a d he faces a Democratic P a r t y whose message may be g a i n i n g i n t h e o p i n i o n
p o l l s b u t whose f i e l d o f c a n d i d a t e s i s s t i l l s o r t i n g i t s e l f o u t . So f o r t h e
moment he has some b r e a t h i n g space as he s e t s about r e p a i r i n g h i s Presidency.
I n h i s 51-minute address, Mr. Bush acknowleged i t was t i m e f o r him t o " l o o k
homeward," a bow t o a l l t h e p o l l s t h a t show the American people angry and
d i s c o n t e n t e d w i t h h i s r e c o r d on domestic p o l i c y . He was a l s o f o r c e d t o
acknowledge t h a t i n h i s t h r e e years as P r e s i d e n t he had seen t h e c o u n t r y move
from p r o s p e r i t y t o "hard t i m e s . "
But even as he t r i e d t o address an e l e c t o r a t e t h a t has changed so
d r a m a t i c a l l y from t h e 1980's, t h a t appears i n c r e a s i n g l y eager f o r a more a c t i v e
Federal Government and f o r b o l d a c t i o n on the economy, he seemed t o c l i n g t o h i s
e a r l i e r p o l i c y p r e s c r i p t i o n s . Democrats q u i c k l y denounced h i s p l a n f o r t h e
economy as i n c r e m e n t a l and inadequate.
C a p i t a l Gains Tax,
Again
While he c a l l e d f o r t a x c u t s f o r a v a r i e t y o f groups, he a l s o r e p e a t e d h i s
1 f o r a c u t i n t h e t a x on c a p i t a l g a i n s , a s s e r t i n g t h a t "never has an i s s u e
�PAGE
The New
•
York Times, January 29,
3
1992
been more demagogued by i t s opponents." He argued, once a g a i n , t h a t t h e c u t
d spur i n v e s t m e n t and c r e a t e j o b s , an argument h i s c r i t i c s d i s m i s s more and
v o c a l l y as d i s c r e d i t e d " t r i c k l e - d o w n economics."
On h e a l t h c a r e , an i s s u e t h a t has soared t o t h e t o p o f t h e p u b l i c agenda, Mr.
Bush c a l l e d f o r a c t i o n b u t o f f e r e d few d e t a i l s . I n s t e a d , he s a i d , "we can r e f o r m
our own p r i v a t e h e a l t h care system, which s t i l l g i v e s us, f o r a l l i t s f l a w s , t h e
best q u a l i t y h e a l t h care i n t h e w o r l d . "
Across t h e domestic p o l i c y f r o n t , from e d u c a t i o n t o t a x e s t o urban problems,
Mr. Bush seemed i n t e n t on t r y i n g t o defuse h i s c r i t i c s on t h e l e f t , much as he
d i d d u r i n g t h e 1988 campaign, when he promised t o be t h e " e d u c a t i o n P r e s i d e n t "
and t h e "environment P r e s i d e n t . "
But now he
the edge on a
P o l l . And now
mere g e s t u r e s
faces an i n c r e a s i n g l y s k e p t i c a l p u b l i c , which gave t h e Democrats
v a r i e t y o f domestic i s s u e s i n l a s t week's New York Times/ CBS News
he f a c e s a Democratic o p p o s i t i o n q u i c k t o denounce him as g i v e n t o
when i t comes t o domestic p o l i c y .
Gibes From Democrats
Speaker Thomas S. Foley o f Washington sounded t h e Democratic l i n e t o n i g h t i n
h i s p a r t y ' s response t o t h e P r e s i d e n t . Democrats, he s a i d , are s e t t i n g f o r t h an
agenda o f "fundamental change" w i t h t a x c u t s f o r t h e middle c l a s s , comprehensive
n a t i o n a l h e a l t h care and new t r a d e p o l i c i e s .
ormer Senator Paul E. Tsongas o f Massachusetts, a c a n d i d a t e f o r t h e
c r a t i c P r e s i d e n t i a l n o m i n a t i o n , a s s e r t e d t h a t Mr. Bush's speech was "voodoo
omics c o n t i n u e d . "
"George Bush j u s t o f f e r e d promises, promises, promises," Mr. Tsongas s a i d .
On C a p i t o l H i l l , R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Robert G. T o r r i c e l l i o f New J e r s e y s a i d : " I t
was l i k e a Chinese meal. I t t o o k f o r e v e r , you got a thousand courses, b u t a t t h e
end you were s t i l l hungry."
S t i l l , Robert M. T e e t e r , Mr. Bush's campaign chairman, argued t h a t t h e
P r e s i d e n t ' s economic program would p u t him back on t h e p o l i t i c a l o f f e n s i v e
the b a l l deep i n t h e Democrats' c o u r t . "
"and
Mr. Bush, k e e n l y aware o f t h e p u b l i c ' s d i s c o n t e n t w i t h Congress, urged
lawmakers t o a c t q u i c k l y and p u t a s i d e p a r t i s a n p o l i t i c s . I f t o n i g h t ' s speech
was a p r e v i e w t o h i s campaign, i t w i l l i n c l u d e some Congress-bashing.
There were a l s o o t h e r themes f o r t h e campaign year: pledges t o promote f a m i l y
v a l u e s , t o f i g h t s t r e e t crime and t o change t h e w e l f a r e system. And, perhaps
most i m p o r t a n t , t h e r e was t h e emphasis on t h e a t t r i b u t e s o f a t e s t e d Commander
i n C h i e f , expected t o be an i m p o r t a n t l i n e o f a t t a c k a g a i n s t whomever t h e
Democrats nominate.
Mr. Bush spoke o f t h e t r i u m p h o f America i n t h e c o l d war, b u t a l s o o f t h e
c h a l l e n g e s t h a t remain. He warned o f t h e dangers o f i s o l a t i o n i s m , a s l a p b o t h a t
iv o f t h e Democrats who are c a l l i n g f o r a renewed emphasis on t h e home f r o n t
• a t t h e "America F i r s t " campaign o f P a t r i c k J. Buchanan, t h e c o n s e r v a t i v e
mentator who i s c h a l l e n g i n g him i n the New Hampshire p r i m a r y .
•
�PAGE
4
The New York Times, January 2 9, 1992
And t h e P r e s i d e n t s i m p l y reminded t h e p u b l i c o f t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y t u r m o i l i n
w o r l d over t h e l a s t t h r e e years.
Mr. T e e t e r argued, "The P r e s i d e n t i s unique i n t h a t n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y and
f o r e i g n p o l i c y a r e h i s r e s p o n s i b l i t y . " Down t h e road, i t i s a message t h a t i s
l i k e l y t o be heard, a g a i n and again, a g a i n s t a Democratic f i e l d t h a t i s s h o r t on
foreign policy credentials.
S t i l l , t h e e l e c t o r a t e i s focused on o t h e r m a t t e r s a t t h e moment. And i t was
t e l l i n g t h a t when Mr. Bush r e c a l l e d one o f h i s d e f i n i n g moments -- t h e f l a t
d e c l a r a t i o n a f t e r t h e I r a q i i n v a s i o n o f Kuwait t h a t " t h i s w i l l n o t s t a n d " - - h e
f e l t compelled t o a p p l y t h e phrase t o t h e l a g g i n g economy.
GRAPHIC: Photo: House Speaker Thomas S. Foley as he p r e p a r e d y e s t e r d a y f o r a
speech he d e l i v e r e d i n response t o t h e P r e s i d e n t ' s S t a t e o f t h e Union Message.
(Reuters)
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE: January 29, 1992
�w
td
>
>
CO
O
O
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
�Jan. 25 / Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1988
firm of Thompson, Mann and Hutson.
Mr. Salem graduated from Emory College
(B.A., 1975), Emory University School of
Law 0.D., 1977), and Georgetown Universi-
ty Law Center (L.L.M., 1984). He was bom
December 24, 1953, in Jacksonville, FL. He
is married, has two children, and resides in
Springfield, VA.
Address Before a Joint Session of Congress on the State of the Union
January 25, 1988
Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, and distinguished Members of the House and Senate:
When we first met here 7 years agomany of us for the first time—it was with
the hope of beginning something new for
America. We meet here tonight in this historic Chamber to continue that work. If
anyone expects just a proud recitation of
the accomplishments of my administration,
I say let's leave that to history; we're not
finished yet. So, my message to you tonight
is put on your workshoes; we're still on the
job.
History records the power of the ideas
that brought us here those 7 years ago—
ideas like the individual's right to reach as
far and as high as his or her talents will
permit; the free market as an engine of
economic progress. And as an ancient Chinese philosopher, Lao-tzu, said: "Govern a
great nation as you would cook a small fish;
do not overdo it." [Laughter] Well, these
ideas were part of a larger notion, a vision,
if you will, of America herself—an America
not only rich in opportunity for the individual but an America, too, of strong families
and vibrant neighborhoods; an America
whose divergent but harmonizing communities were a reflection of a deeper community of values: the value of work, of family,
of religion, and of the love of freedom that
God places in each of us and whose defense
He has entrusted in a special way to this
nation.
All of this was made possible by an idea I
spoke of when Mr. Gorbachev was here—
the belief that the most exciting revolution
ever known to humankind began with
three simple words: "We the People," the
revolutionary notion that the people grant
government its rights, and not the other
way around. And there's one lesson that has
84
come home powerfully to me, which I
would offer to you now. Just as those who
created this Republic pledged to each other
their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred
honor, so, too, America's leaders today must
pledge to each other that we will keep foremost in our hearts and minds not what is
best for ourselves or for our party but what
is best for America.
In the spirit of Jefferson, let us affirm that
in this Chamber tonight there are no Republicans, no Democrats—just Americans.
Yes, we will have our differences, but let us
always remember what unites us far outweighs whatever divides us. Those who sent
us here to serve them—the millions of
Americans watching and listening tonight—
expect this of us. Let's prove to them and to
ourselves that democracy works even in an
election year. We've done this before. And
as we have worked together to bring down
spending, tax rates, and inflation, employment has climbed to record heights; America has created more jobs and better, higher
paying jobs; family income has risen for 4
straight years, and America's poor climbed
out of poverty at the fastest rate in more
than 10 years.
Our record is not just the longest peacetime expansion in history but an economic
and social revolution of hope based on
work, incentives, growth, and opportunity;
a revolution of compassion that led to private sector initiatives and a 77-percent increase in charitable giving; a revolution that
at a critical moment in world history reclaimed and restored the American dream.
In international relations, too, there's only
one description for what, together, we have
achieved: a complete turnabout, a revolution. Seven years ago, America was weak,
and freedom everywhere was under siege.
�Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1988 / Jan. 25
Today America is strong, and democracy is
everywhere on the move. From Central
America to East Asia, ideas like free markets and democratic reforms and human
rights are taking hold. We've replaced
"Blame America" with "Look up to America." We've rebuilt our defenses. And of all
our accomplishments, none can give us
more satisfaction than knowing that our
young people are again proud to wear our
country's uniform.
And in a few moments, I'm going to talk
about three developments—arms reduction,
the Strategic Defense Initiative, and the
global democratic revolution—that, when
taken together, offer a chance none of us
would have dared imagine 7 years ago, a
chance to rid the world of the two great
nightmares of the postwar era. I speak of
the startling hope of giving our children a
future free of both totalitarianism and nuclear terror.
Tonight, then, we're strong, prosperous,
at peace, and we are free. This is the state
of our Union. And if we will work together
this year, I believe we can give a future
President and a future Congress the chance
to make that prosperity, that peace, that
freedom not just the state of our Union but
the state of our world.
Toward this end, we have four basic objectives tonight. First, steps we can take this
year to keep our economy strong and growing, to give our children a future of low
inflation and full employment. Second, let's
check our progress in attacking social problems, where important gains have been
made, but which still need critical attention. I mean schools that work, economic
independence for the poor, restoring respect for family life and family values. Our
third objective tonight is global: continuing
the exciting economic and democratic revolutions we've seen around the world.
Fourth and finally, our nation has remained
at peace for nearly a decade and a half, as
we move toward our goals of world prosperity and world freedom. We must protect
that peace and deter war by making sure
the next President inherits what you and I
have a moral obligation to give that President: a national security that is unassailable
and a national defense that takes full advantage of new technology and is fully funded.
This is a full agenda. It's meant to be. You
see, my thinking on the next year is quite
simple: Let's make this the best of 8. And
that means it's all out—right to the finish
line. I don't buy the idea that this is the last
year of anything, because we're not talking
here tonight about registering temporary
gains but ways of making permanent our
successes. And that's why our focus is the
values, the principles, and ideas that made
America great. Let's be clear on this point.
We're for limited government, because we
understand, as the Founding Fathers did,
that it is the best way of ensuring personal
liberty and empowering the individual so
that every American of every race and
region shares fiilly in the flowering of
American prosperity and freedom.
One other thing we Americans like—the
future—like the sound of it, the idea of it,
the hope of it. Where others fear trade and
economic growth, we see opportunities for
creating new wealth and undreamed-of opportunities for millions in our own land and
beyond. Where others seek to throw up
barriers, we seek to bring them down.
Where others take counsel of their fears, we
follow our hopes. Yes, we Americans like
the future and like making the most of it.
Let's do that now.
And let's begin by discussing how to
maintain economic growth by controlling
and eventually eliminating the problem of
Federal deficits. We have had a balanced
budget only eight times in the last 57 years.
For the first time in 14 years, the Federal
Government spent less in real terms last
year than the year before. We took $73
billion off last year's deficit compared to the
year before. The deficit itself has moved
from 6.3 percent of the gross national product to only 3.4 percent. And perhaps the
most important sign of progress has been
the change in our view of deficits. You
know, a few of us can remember when, not
too many years ago, those who created the
deficits said they would make us prosperous
and not to worry about the debt, because
we owe it to ourselves. Well, at last there is
agreement that we can't spend ourselves
rich.
Our recent budget agreement, designed
to reduce Federal deficits by $76 billion
85
�Jan. 25 / Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1988
over the next 2 years, builds on this consensus. But this agreement must be adhered to
without slipping into the errors of the past:
more broken promises and more unchecked
spending. As I indicated in myfirstState of
the Union, what ails us can be simply put:
The Federal Government is too big, and it
spends too much money. I can assure you,
the bipartisan leadership of Congress, of my
help infightingoff any attempt to bust our
budget agreement. And this includes the
swift and certain use of the veto power.
Now, it's also time for some plain talk
about the most immediate obstacle to controlling Federal deficits. The simple but
frustrating problem of making expenses
match revenues—something American families do and the Federal Government
can't—has caused crisis after crisis in this
city. Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, I will say
to you tonight what I have said before and
will continue to say: The budget process has
broken down; it needs a drastic overhaul.
With each ensuing year, the spectacle
before the American people is the same as
it was this Christmas: budget deadlines delayed or missed completely, monstrous continuing resolutions that pack hundreds of
billions of dollars worth of spending into
one bill, and a Federal Government on the
brink of default.
I know I'm echoing what you here in the
Congress have said, because you suffered so
directly. But let's recall that in 7 years, of
91 appropriations bills scheduled to arrive
on my desk by a certain date, only 10 made
it on time. Last year, of the 13 appropriations bills due by October 1st, none of them
made it. Instead, we had four continuing
resolutions lasting 41 days, then 36 days,
and 2 days, and 3 days, respectively.
And then, along came these behemoths.
This is the conference report—1,053 pages,
report weighing 14 pounds. Then this—a
reconciliation bill 6 months late that was
1,186 pages long, weighing 15 pounds. And
the long-term .continuing resolution—this
one was 2 months late, and it's 1,057 pages
long, weighing 14 pounds. That was a total
of 43 pounds of paper and ink. You had 3
hours—yes, 3 hours—to consider each, and
it took 300 people at my Office of Management and Budget just to read the bill so the
Government wouldn't shut down. Congress
shouldn't send another one of these. No,
and if you do, I will not sign it.
Let's change all this. Instead of a Presidential budget that gets discarded and a
congressional budget resolution that is not
enforced, why not a simple partnership, a
joint agreement that sets out the spending
priorities within the available revenues?
And let's remember our deadline is October 1st, not Christmas. Let's get the people's work done in time to avoid a footrace
with Santa Glaus. [Laughter] And, yes, this
year—to coin a phrase—a new beginning:
13 individual bills, on time and fully reviewed by Congress.
I'm also certain you join me in saying:
Let's help ensure our future of prosperity
by giving the President a tool that, though I
will not get to use it, is one I know future
Presidents of either party must have. Give
the President the same authority that 43
Governors use in their States: the right to
reach into massive appropriation bills, pare
away the waste, and enforce budget discipline. Let's approve the line-item veto.
And let's take a partial step in this direction. Most of you in this Chamber didn't
know what was in this catchall bill and
report. Over the past few weeks, we've all
learned what was tucked away behind a
little comma here and there. For example,
there's millions for items such as cranberry
research, blueberry research, the study of
crawfish, and the commercialization of
wildflowers. And that's not to mention the
five or so million [$.5 million] that—so that
people from developing nations could come
here to watch Congress at work. [Laughter]
I won't even touch that. [Laughter] So, tonight I offer you this challenge. In 30 days I
will send back to you those items as rescissions, which if I had the authority to line
them out I would do so.
Now, review this multibillion-dollar package that will not undercut our bipartisan
budget agreement. As a matter of fact, if
adopted, it will improve our deficit reduction goals. And what an example we can
set, that we're serious about getting our financial accounts in order. By acting and
approving this plan, you have the opportunity to override a congressional process that
is out of control.
�Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1988 / Jan. 25
There is another vital reform. Yes,
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings has been profoundly helpful, but let us take its goal of a
balanced budget and make it permanent.
Let us do now what so many States do to
hold down spending and what 32 State legislatures have asked us to do. Let us heed
the wishes of an overwhelming plurality of
Americans and pass a constitutional amendment that mandates a balanced budget and
forces the Federal Government to live
within its means. Reform of the budget
process—including the line-item veto and
balanced budget amendment—will, together with real restraint on government spending, prevent the Federal budget from ever
again ravaging the family budget.
Let's ensure that the Federal Government never again legislates against the
family and the home. Last September I
signed an Executive order on the family
requiring that every department and
agency review its activities in light of seven
standards designed to promote and not
harm the family. But let us make certain
that the family is always at the center of the
public policy process not just in this administration but in all future administrations.
It's time for Congress to consider, at the
beginning, a statement of the impact that
legislation will have on the basic unit of
American society, the family.
And speaking of the family, let's tum to a
matter on the mind of every American
parent tonight: education. We all know the
sorry story of the sixties and seventies—
soaring spending, plummeting test scores—
and that hopeful trend of the eighties,
when we replaced an obsession with dollars
with a commitment to quality, and test
scores started back up. There's a lesson here
that we all should write on the blackboard a
hundred times: In a child's education,
money can never take the place of basics
like discipline, hard work, and, yes, homework.
As a nation we do, of course, spend heavily on education—more than we spend on
defense. Yet across our country, Governors
like New Jersey's Tom Kean are giving
classroom demonstrations that how we
spend is as important as how much we
spend. Opening up the teaching profession
to all qualified candidates, merit pay—so
that good teachers get A's as well as
apples—and stronger curriculum, as Secretary Bennett has proposed for high
schools—these imaginative reforms are
making common sense the most popular
new kid in America's schools. How can we
help? Well, we can talk about and push for~
these reforms. But the most important
thing we can do is to reaffirm that control
of our schools belongs to the States, local
communities and, most of all, to the parents
and teachers.
My friends, some years ago, the Federal
Government declared war on poverty," and
poverty won. [Laughter] Today the Federal
Government has 59 major welfare programs
and spends more than $100 billion a year
on them. What has all this money done?
Well, too often it has only made poverty
harder to escape. Federal welfare programs
have created a massive social problem.
With the best of intentions, government
created a poverty trap that wreaks havoc
on the very support system the poor need
most to lift themselves out of poverty: the
family. Dependency has become the one
enduring heirloom, passed from one generation to the next, of too many fragmented
families.
It is time—this may be the most radical
thing I've said in 7 years in this office—it's
time for Washington to show a little humility. There are a thousand sparks of genius in
50 States and a thousand communities
around the Nation. It is time to nurture
them and see which ones can catch fire and
become guiding lights. States have begun to
show us the way. They've demonstrated
that successful welfare programs can be
built around more effective child support
enforcement practices and innovative programs requiring welfare recipients to work
or prepare for work. Let us give the States
more flexibility and encourage more reforms. Let's start making our welfare
system thefirstrung on America's ladder of
opportunity, a boost up from dependency,
not a graveyard but a birthplace of hope.
And now let me tum to three other matters vital to family values and the quality of
family life. The first is an untold American
success story. Recently, we released our
annual survey of what graduating high
87
�Jan. 25 / Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1988
school seniors have to say about drugs. Cocaine use is declining, and marijuana use
was the lowest since surveying began. We
can be proud that our students are just
saying no to drugs. But let us remember
what this menace requires: commitment
from every part of America and every
single American, a commitment to a drugfree America. The war against drugs is a
war of individual battles, a crusade with
many heroes, including America's young
people and also someone very special to
me. She has helped so many of our young
people to say no to drugs. Nancy, much
credit belongs to you, and I want to express
to you your husband's pride and your country's thanks. Surprised you, didn't I?
[Laughter]
Well, now we come to a family issue that
we must have the courage to confront. Tonight, I call America—a good nation, a
moral people—to charitable but realistic
consideration of the terrible cost of abortion
on demand. To those who say this violates a
woman's right to control of her own body:
Can they deny that now medical evidence
confirms the unborn child is a living human
being entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Let us unite as a nation
and protect the unborn with legislation that
would stop all Federal funding for abortion
and with a human life amendment making,
of course, an exception where the unborn
child threatens the life of the mother. Our
Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes the
right of taking a life in self-defense. But
with that one exception, let us look to those
others in our land who cry out for children
to adopt. I pledge to you tonight I will work
to remove barriers to adoption and extend
full sharing in family life to millions of
Americans so that children who need
homes can be welcomed to families who
want them and love them.
And let me add here: So many of our
greatest statesmen have reminded us that
spiritual values alone are essential to our
nation's health and vigor. The Congress
opens its proceedings each day, as does the
Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment
of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied
the right to set aside in our schools a
moment each day for those who wish to
pray. I believe Congress should pass our
88
school prayer amendment.
Now, to make sure there is a full ninemember Supreme Court to interpret the
law, to protect the rights of all Americans, I
urge the Senate to move quickly and decisively in confirming Judge Anthony Kennedy to the highest Court in the land and to
also confirm 27 nominees now waiting to
fill vacancies in the Federal judiciary.
Here then are our domestic priorities. Yet
if the Congress and the administration work
together, even greater opportunities lie
ahead to expand a growing world economy,
to continue to reduce the threat of nuclear
arms, and to extend the frontiers of freedom and the growth of democratic institutions.
Our policies consistently received the
strongest support of the late Congressman
Dan Daniel of Virginia. I'm sure all of you
join me in expressing heartfelt condolences
on his passing.
One of the greatest contributions the
United States can make to the world is to
promote freedom as the key to economic
growth. A creative, competitive America is
the answer to a changing world, not trade
wars that would close doors, create greater
barriers, and destroy millions of jobs. We
should always remember: Protectionism is
destructionism. America's jobs, America's
growth, America's future depend on
trade—trade that isfree,open, and fair.
This year, we have it within our power to
take a major step toward a growing global
economy and an expanding cycle of prosperity that reaches to all the free nations of
this Earth. I'm speaking of the historic free
trade agreement negotiated between our
country and Canada. And I can also tell you
that we're determined to expand this concept, south as well as north. Next month I
will be traveling to Mexico, where trade
matters will be of foremost concern. And
over the next several months, our Congress
and the Canadian Parliament can make the
start of such a North American accord a
reality. Our goal must be a day when the
free flow of trade,fromthe tip of Tierra del
Fuego to the Arctic Circle, unites the
people of the Western Hemisphere in a
bond of mutually beneficial exchange, when
all borders become what the U.S.-Canadian
�Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1988 / Jan. 25
border so long has been: a meeting place
rather than a dividing line.
This movement we see in so many places
toward economic freedom is indivisible
from the worldwide movement toward political freedom and against totalitarian rule.
This global democratic revolution has removed the specter, sofrighteninga decade
ago, of democracy doomed to permanent
minority status in the world. In South and
Central America, only a third of the people
enjoyed democratic rule in 1976. Today
over 90 percent of Latin Americans live in
nations committed to democratic principles.
And the resurgence of democracy is owed
to these courageous people on almost every
continent who have struggled to take control of their own destiny.
In Nicaragua the struggle has extra meaning, because that nation is so near our own
borders. The recent revelations of a former
high-level Sandinista major, Roger Miranda,
show us that, even as they talk peace, the
Communist Sandinista government of Nicaragua has established plans for a large
600,000-man army. Yet even as these plans
are made, the Sandinista regime knows the
tide is turning, and the cause of Nicaraguan
freedom is riding at its crest. Because of the
freedom fighters, who are resisting Communist rule, the Sandinistas have been forced
to extend some democraticrights,negotiate
with church authorities, and release a few
political prisoners.
The focus is on the Sandinistas, their
promises and their actions. There is a consensus among the four Central American
democratic Presidents that the Sandinistas
have not complied with the plan to bring
peace and democracy to all of Central
America. The Sandinistas again have promised reforms. Their challenge is to take irreversible steps toward democracy. On
Wednesday my request to sustain the freedom fighters will be submitted, which reflects our mutual desire for peace, freedom,
and democracy in Nicaragua. I ask Congress
to pass this request. Let us be for the
people of Nicaragua what Lafayette, Pulaski, and Von Steuben were for our forefathers and the cause of American independence.
So, too, in Afghanistan, the freedom fighters are the key to peace. We support the
Mujahidin. There can be no settlement
unless all Soviet troops are removed and
the Afghan people are allowed genuine selfdetermination. I have made my views on
this matter known to Mr. Gorbachev. But
not just Nicaragua or Afghanistan—yes, everywhere we see a swelling freedom tide
across the world:freedomfightersrising up
in Cambodia and Angola, fighting and
dying for the same democratic liberties we
hold sacred. Their cause is our cause: freedom.
Yet even as we work to expand world
freedom, we must build a safer peace and
reduce the danger of nuclear war. But let's
have no illusions. Three years of steady decline in the value of our annual defense
investment have increased the risk of our
most basic security interests, jeopardizing
earlier hard-won goals. We must face
squarely the implications of this negative
trend and make adequate, stable defense
spending a top goal both this year and in
the future.
This same concern applies to economic
and security assistance programs as well.
But the resolve of America and its NATO
allies has opened the way for unprecedented achievement in arms reduction. Our recently signed INF treaty is historic, because
it reduces nuclear arms and estabUshes the
most stringent verification regime in arms
control history, including several forms of
short-notice, on-site inspection. I submitted
the treaty today, and I urge the Senate to
give its advice and consent to ratification of
this landmark agreement. [Applause] Thank
you very much.
In addition to the INF treaty, we're
within reach of an even more significant
START agreement that will reduce U.S. and
Soviet long-range missile—or strategic arsenals by half. But let me be clear. Our approach is not to seek agreement for agreement's sake but to settle only for agreements that truly enhance our national security and that of our allies. We will never put
our security at risk—or that of our allies—
just to reach an agreement with the Soviets.
No agreement is better than a bad agreement.
As I mentioned earlier, our efforts are to
give future generations what we never
89
�Jan. 25 / Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1988
had—a future free of nuclear terror. Reduction of strategic offensive arms is one step,
SDI another. Our funding request for our
Strategic Defense Initiative is less than 2
percent of the total defense budget. SDI
funding is money wisely appropriated and
money well spent. SDI has the same purpose and supports the same goals of arms
reduction. It reduces the risk of war and
the threat of nuclear weapons to all mankind. Strategic defenses that threaten no
one could offer the world a safer, more
stable basis for deterrence. We must also
remember that SDI is our insurance policy
against a nuclear accident, a Chernobyl of
the sky, or an accidental launch or some
madman who might come along.
We've seen such changes in the world in
7 years. As totalitarianism struggles to avoid
being overwhelmed by the forces of economic advance and the aspiration for
human freedom, it is the free nations that
are resilient and resurgent. As the global
democratic revolution has put totalitarianism on the defensive, we have left behind
the days of retreat. America is again a vigorous leader of the free world, a nation that
acts decisively and firmly in the furtherance
of her principles and vital interests. No
legacy would make me more proud than
leaving in place a bipartisan consensus for
the cause of world freedom, a consensus
that prevents a paralysis of American power
from ever occurring again.
But my thoughts tonight go beyond this,
and I hope you'll let me end this evening
with a personal reflection. You know, the
world could never be quite the same again
after Jacob Shallus, a trustworthy and dependable clerk of the Pennsylvania General
Assembly, took his pen and engrossed those
words about representative government in
the preamble of our Constitution. And in a
quiet but final way, the course of human
events was forever altered when, on a ridge
90
overlooking the Emmitsburg Pike in an obscure Pennsylvania town called Gettysburg,
Lincoln spoke of om- duty to government of
and by the people and never letting it
perishfromthe Earth.
At the start of this decade, I suggested
that we live in equally momentous times,
that it is up to us now to decide whether
our form of government would endure and
whether history still had a place of greatness for a quiet, pleasant, greening land
called America. Not everything has been
made perfect in 7 years, nor will it be made
perfect in seven times 70 years, but before
us, this year and beyond, are great prospects for the cause of peace and world freedom.
It means, too, that the young Americans I
spoke of 7 years ago, as well as those who
might be coming along the Virginia or
Maryland shores this night and seeing for
the first time the lights of this Capital
City—the lights that cast their glow on our
great halls of government and the monuments to the memory of our great men—it
means those young Americans will find a
city of hope in a land that is free.
We can be proud that for them and for
us, as those lights along the Potomac are
still seen this night signaling as they have
for nearly two centuries and as we pray
God they always will, that another generation of Americans has protected and passed
on lovingly this place called America, this
shining city on a hill, this government of,
by, and for the people.
Thank you, and God bless you.
Note: The President spoke at 9:07 p.m. in
the House Chamber of the Capitol. He was
introduced by Jim Wright, Speaker of the
House of Representatives. The address was
broadcast live on nationwide radio and
television.
�State of the Union
President Reagan Begins His Long Goodbye
f'
lent Reagan, trying to der^w ht» administration's legacy with«s* making it sound like a posttold Congress in an upbeat
yiMt ol the Union address that he
»«nud hi* final year in office to be
liw "hrti of eight."
Hi* Jan. 25 speech set the stage
U* ui election year in which both poirt«f al parties are looking ahead to the
pc*i Reagan era, and Reagan himself
hm> hu sight* on his place in history.
The president insisted he still has
a full agenda, replete with unfinished
buuneas of the Reagan revolution —
uding such live issues as aid to the
Nicaraguan contras and such lost
causes as the line-item veto.
" I don't buy the idea that this is
the last year of anything," Reagan told
an audience that included the House
•nd Senate, the Supreme Court, the
d i p l o B M ^ corps and Reagan's Cabin r V ^ ^ ^ B s e we're not talking here
t o n i H ^ ^ u t registering temporary
». Out ways of making permanent
successes." (Text, p. 220)
But as far as most Democrats are
«>nc*med, it is time to slam the door
on Reagan's presidency.
J'We've come to the end of an
er*." said Senate Majority Leader
Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., in a tele«*»*dresponseto the address that was
» sharper, more direct attack on Reagan than last year's Democratic retponse. "The 'feel-good' slogans have
e flat with time." (Text, p. 224)
The State of the Union speech
**med aimed to start the year on a
contentious note than Reagan's
i six addresses. He urged members
set aside partisan differences and
prove that "democracy works even in
" i election year." And he received biMrtisan standing ovations at two imXTtam pointe: when he called for an
>verhaul of the budget process and for
•at'fication of a pending U.S.-Soviet
»uclear arms treaty.
But any glimmering of bipartisan nip probably will soon be extin'shed as both parties jockey for elec<>ral adajntage and pursue agendas
" d e p ^ ^ o f Reagan.
r
u
—By Janet Hook
The sparks of confrontation were immediately rekindled by the
first issue facing the second session of the 100th
Congress. Another showdown over contra-aid
policy awaits members
the week of Feb. 1.
(Contras, p. 198)
1989 Speech Unlikely
The White House
indicated that this would
be Reagan's last State of
the Union address. He
could choose to deliver
another before leaving
office next January, but
is expected to deliver
only a written message.
The speech marked
the beginning of what
likely will be a yearlong
farewell to the political
decade Reagan has dominated.
Although
Reagan
told Congress he would
"leave [it] to history" to
record his administration's accomplishments,
he repeatedly returned to
the major themes of his
tenure and harked back to the state of
affairs he found when taking office
seven years ago.
"Our record is not just the longest
peacetime expansion in history, but an
economic and social revolution of hope,
based on work, incentives, growth and
opportunity," Reagan said.
On the international scene, the
last seven years have brought nothing
less than "a complete turnabout," he
said, pointing to progress in world democracy and improvements in the
stature of the United States.
"We've replaced 'Blame America'
with 'Look up to America,'" he said.
The upbeat assessment of the
Reagan era carefully skirted developments that left him a shadow of his
former political self by the end of 1987
— the Iran-contra scandal, the loss of
GOP control of the Senate, failure to
win approval of two Supreme Court
n wfcol, or in port ••(•pt
bp tdMonol ttmrtl.
nominees and a record of legislative
losses unparalleled among postwar
presidents. (CQ Vote Studies, Weekly
Report p. 91)
Defense, Foreign Policy
Reagan said surprisingly little
about the 1987 accomplishment that
probably did the most to help him
jump-start his stalled political momentum: the INF treaty to ban intermediate-range nuclear missiles, signed
by Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail
S. Gorbachev in December. The pact
was discussed in only one paragraph
out of an eight-page speech.
"The treaty's a major accomplishment," said Rep. Martin Olav Sabo,
D-Minn. " I thought he'd use the State
of the Union address to rally both the
Senate and public opinion for i t . "
Reagan's brief call for the treaty's
ratification did draw one of the most
Jan. 30, 1988—PAGE 189
�State of the Union - 2
Reagan's Attack on Pork-Fed Mega-Billsf
m
i
Scoring Congress for its cumbersome budget process
and its appetite for pork-barrel projects, President Reagan in his State of the Union address took aim at two
elements of legislative life that everyone loves to hate.
During his Jan. 25 address, Reagan plopped on the
podium a bulky copy of last year's governmentwide
appropriations bill, putting his flair for media stunts in
service of growing criticism — and self-criticism — of how
Congress writes budgets. (Address, p. 189)
He threatened a veto if he is again sent such a bill,
which was crammed with spending for most of the government and a raft of extraneous provisions. And he
challenged Congress to take back the funding for such
parochial projects as cranberry research and commercialization of wildflowers buried in that catchall "continuing
resolution" (H J Res 395 — PL 100-202).
It is a time-honored Washington sport to attack budget processes and pork. But they have survived the best
efforts of reformers to change them.
However, Reagan's slap comes at a time when congressional leaders already are under pressure to ensure
that there is no repeat of the 1987 year-end crunch, when
Congress|adjourned after passing two stupendously large
bills in tbe middle of the night.
"A picture is worth a thousand words," Sen. John W.
Warner, RjiVa., said of Reagan's hoisting the bills for television view|n5 to see. "It was probably the first glimpse Americans had^ever had" of a continuing resolution.
Houfe Speaker Jim Wright, D-Texas, and Senate
MajorityiLeader Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., have pledged
to expedite the appropriations process. But they said the
same thing last year.
enthusiastic rpunds of applause to interrupt the speech — with notable abstentions fromftreaty opponents such
as Sen. Mafeolm Wallop, R-Wyo.
(INF treaty, $192)
Deliveredjjust days before Reagan
made a formalSrequest for more aid to
the Nicaraguan contras, his speech
treated the subject in a relatively lowkey manner. Some read that as a sign
that the speech was geared to keeping
partisan differences in check.
"He was smart in ducking it,"
said Assistant Senate Minority Leader
Alan K. Simpson, R-Wyo. "If he had
announced anything in terms of more
aid, half of 'em would have booed and
half of 'em would have cheered."
Brandishing Big Budget Bills
Reagan slipped closer to the kind
of Congress-bashing that helped sour
his relations with Capitol Hill last
year when he turned to the budget —
with the help of eye-catching props.
Calling for overhaul of the budget
process, Reagan hoisted 43 pounds of
PAGE 190—Jan. 30, 1988
If Congress does avoid another omnibus bill j
it may have as much to do with broader
political forces as with politicians' breast-beating^
Picking O u t Pork
A measure of the frustration many m e m l ^ ^
about the budget process in general — and about^'
of last year's session in particular — was the
Congress gave to Reagan's threat to veto another i
ing resolution. It was one of a handful of points!
State of the Union address where he was interrup "
standing ovation:
For some members, budget frustration was"
pounded by embarrassment during the recess
sessions, when media reports fueled constituent i
plaints about special-interest projects.
The most heat and light flashed around a
secured by Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawaii, who
$8 million to build schools in Paris for North African <
Sens. Ernest F. Hollings, D-S.C, and Edward M. Ker
D-Mass., drew fire for a provision that could force
magnate Rupert Murdoch to sell some of .•his holdn
Reagan said that within a month, he] would _.
Congress a package of rescissions to exciJ||iFrom the
the pork and policies he considers unnedsssary.
How likely is it Congress will take bacmhe goodies i
granted itself? Not very.
*
" I don't think it will go anywhere," said Hollings|;
"There are rabbits in every bill."
An effort to repeal Hollings' amendment wa8|
mounted, but defeated, during Jan. 27 Senate floor de-^
bate on a civil rights bill (S 557). fSfory, PA214)
unwieldy stacks of papers: the text of
far-reaching budget bills that Congress
passed in the waning hours of the 1987
session. Dropping the stacks with a
thud for effect, Reagan said, "Congress
shouldn't send another one of these.
No — and if you do, I will not sign it."
Nonetheless, Reagan's complaint
was relatively well received, tapping
into a growing concern among members themselves about lumping all
sorts of business into huge bills. (Box,
this page)
"He zapped Congress pretty good
with his little'show-and-tell — legitimately, I think," said Rep. Dan Glickman, D-Kan.
In his legislative message, Reagan
proposed new budget procedures, such
as requiring that tax increases be approved by more than a simple majority.
He resurrected such longstanding
pieces of the untouched Reagan
agenda as a constitutional amendment
to require a balanced budget and a
proposal to give the president a lineitem veto enabling him to excise indiCoprrighf 1988 CongrMfconol Quan«rly IfK
R a p " " * * * * * piohtefed in wfcoW ot in p a n • . ( • p i
•drtpnot ctrtntv
vidual items from appropriations bills.
Democrats generally dismi 1
Reagan's proposals, saying that snarls
in.the budget process areta product of
deep political divisions, which cannot
be bridged by procedural gimmicks.
"It's not process, it's priorities"
that create delays, said House Budget
Chairman William H. Gray III, D-Pa.
Hardy Perennials
Other domestic policy issues spotlighted by the president's address and
his relatively detailed legislative message read more like an inventory of
causes lost in the Reagan era than a
pragmatic plan for legislative action.
He revived such hardy perennials
as proposals to allow prayer in schools,
to create low-tax "enterprise zones" in
low-income areas and to ban abortions.
Some new items did surface in the
speech, such as Reagan's call for congressional approval of an important
trade agreement with Canada.
(Weekly Report p. 87)
Reagan said in his legislative mes-
�State of the Union - 3
Strikes a Responsive Chord in Congress
\krf» than two dozen House members, led by Harris
* F«rU. R-Hl., have introduced a bill (HR 3846) to
»».« k th* $8 million expenditure for the Parisian schools.
Bandwagon
K*ajan called on lawmakers to produce all 13 regular
t^fsfuftnations bills to finance the government, rather
L'JJI lumping them
•OA* a MOfle measure.
Mouw members
iur«ad> had been agi'^jsjat for a commitswd (rum their leaderttep that a continuing
mtiuUoti will not be
vn»d again as an end-ofMMOA catchall A let-
u* to that effect, signed
49 House Democzcu. was sent Jan. 27
to WrighC f^eeAiy
Alport p. 126)
Wright had alrvady jumped on the
by announcing,
• l a Jan. 22-24 retreat
of House Democrats
• i a. West Virginia re•-^P^Umetable for
individual appropriations bills this year.
Speaker vowed that all 13 bills would be re'•d by the Appropriations Committee by mid-May;
Mge that he would soon unveil/a new
'
policy to increase commercial
•otcrpriaes in space, and he called for
continued support for a manned space
nation.
But some initiatives were ext described by administration
«"
as little more than statements
« principle that may never be transtonned into a formal administration
P'opwaL Such was the ambiguous stap
l k ! LJL*
r e c o i n m e n d
a t i o n , buried in
wgislative message, to cut federal
^
on capital gains. (Taxes, p. 218)
Renewing his call for anti-drug eflorts, for giving states more leeway to
^ . I welfare programs and for im>
proving education, Reagan peppered
n«s comments on domestic policy with
references to strengthening the family.
ywt put him, rhetorically, on a
"owded piece of political real estate.
"«Be Democrats had just come from
• JM. 22-24 weekend retreat that fo^ on the subject of selling a Demagenda around the "family"
\(Family issues, p. 183)
most will be approved by the House by July; and all will
be approved by August.
Bills generally are subject to more delays in the Senate, but Byrd said Jan. 26 that he, too, hoped Congress
would write individual bills this year. Byrd maintained,
however, that last year's end-bf-session crunch was
largely a product of administration obstinance. Had Reagan been willing to negotiate a budget deal sooner, he
said, there might have been time to pass individual bills.
Others pointed out that last year's package approach
had been agreed to by administration officials and congressional leaders in the budget summit that crafted the
year's deficit-reduction compromise.
This year's budget debate already is getting off to a
late start. The White House is not sending its budget
request to Congress until Feb. 18. But it may be easier to
move the appropriations process along this year because
major decisions about spending priorities already have
been made, as part of the two-year agreement produced
by the 1987 summit. And members eager to spend October campaigning will want to finish work early. (Summit,
1987 Weekly Report p. 2860)
Many members say that omnibus spending bills are
an inevitable product of the political dynamics of the
Reagan era, in which vast differences between White
House and congressional priorities have to be bridged,
"People who think the problem is process are wrong
— it's lack of political consensus," said Rep. Martin Olav
Sabo, D-Minn. If the summit breaks down and that basic
disagreement re-emerges, Sabo said, " I don't think there's
any alternative" to an omnibus bill.
— By Janet Hook
Democrats Respond
In the Democratic response to the
president, Byrd and House Speaker
Jim Wright of Texas argued that the
legislative initiative already had
passed from the White House to the
Democratic-controlled Congress.
Wright reviewed the legislative
accomplishments of the 1987 congressional session, singling out bills affecting highway, clean-water and housing
programs that were passed over Reagan's objections.
Speaking from the Senate chamber, Byrd said, "Over the last year, the
course of America has begun to change
— right on this very floor."
Byrd's comments came in an unusually personal talk that discussed
Democratic principles as reflected in
his own career and life, which began in
West Virginia poverty.
That retrospective of Byrd's life
came at a time when many colleagues
assume he, too, may be in his last year
in a key office. Many expect Byrd to
step down as majority leader next year.
C o p r " * * * I 9 U CongrniOTol Quortarir Inc.
RaprodlXfMn proJlitHtod m whott or " port Mr«p* far tdWonol clanft
:
"The Byrd legacy" was how one
Democratic Senate aide described the
speech, paralleling the view that Reagan was describing his own legacy.
Byrd differed sharply from Reagan in his assessment of the president's accomplishments.
"The dark side of the Reagan
years has only begun to loom," said
Byrd, referring to the growth of budget and trade deficits in the 1980s.
But Republicans hailed the president's speech as a new sign of political
life from a figure who, at his 1987
State of the Union address, seemed to
be on the ropes.
" I remember where we were a
year ago, in the middle of the Irancontra thing," said Rep. Dick Cheney,
R-Wyo.
"What we see here tonight is not a
lame duck," said Cheney, chairman of
the House Republican Conference.
"He's going to be, at least through the
[presidential nominating] conventions, the major player on the world
stage."
I
Jan. 30, 1988—PAGE 191
�PAGE
2ND
10
STORY o f L e v e l 1 p r i n t e d i n FULL f o r m a t .
C o p y r i g h t 1988 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
January 26, 1988,
Tuesday, Late C i t y F i n a l
Edition
SECTION: S e c t i o n A; Page 1, Column 6; N a t i o n a l Desk
LENGTH: 1323 words
HEADLINE: REAGAN PROMISES TO PURSUE AGENDA TO END OF HIS TERM
BYLINE: By JOEL BRINKLEY, S p e c i a l t o the New York Times
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Jan. 25
BODY:
P r e s i d e n t Reagan s a i d t o n i g h t he would remain a v i g o r o u s , a g g r e s s i v e
P r e s i d e n t ' ' r i g h t t o t h e f i n i s h l i n e ' ' o f h i s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a y e a r from now.
I n h i s seventh S t a t e o f the Union Message, t h e l a s t he w i l l g i v e i n person he
urged Congress t o show America ' ' t h a t democracy works, even i n an e l e c t i o n
year. ' '
Mr. Reagan pushed f o r renewed a i d t o the c o n t r a s , a l t h o u g h a s e n i o r o f f i c i a l
s a i d t h e P r e s i d e n t would ask f o r l e s s than $50 m i l l i o n , not as much as t h e
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n has s a i d i t wanted. He a l s o asked f o r a p p r o v a l o f t h e arms t r e a t y
t h e S o v i e t Union and c a l l e d f o r an end t o Federal Government f i n a n c i n g o f
tions.
•
'We're Not F i n i s h e d Yet'
I n f i r m and c o n f i d e n t tones, he requested Congress t o g i v e him a l i n e - i t e m
v e t o , a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment r e q u i r i n g a balanced budget and a n o t h e r
amendment a l l o w i n g o r g a n i z e d p r a y e r i n schools, l o n g s t a n d i n g A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
goals t h a t even Mr. Reagan's aides acknowledge he i s u n l i k e l y t o a c h i e v e .
' ' I f anyone expects j u s t a proud r e c i t a t i o n o f accomplishments o f my
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , ' ' Mr. Reagan s a i d a t the o u t s e t o f h i s 41-minute n a t i o n a l l y
broadcast speech t o a j o i n t s e s s i o n o f Congress, ' ' I say l e t ' s leave t h a t t o
h i s t o r y ; we're n o t f i n i s h e d y e t . ' ' [ T r a n s c r i p t , page A16.] But t h e agenda Mr.
Reagan o u t l i n e d f o r h i s f i n a l year i n c l u d e s no s u r p r i s i n g new promises o r b o l d
i n i t i a t i v e s . For t h e most p a r t , h i s S t a t e o f t h e Union Message t o n i g h t c o u l d
have been g i v e n l a s t January o r the January b e f o r e .
'They Love You'
At t h e o u t s e t , Democrats and Republicans i n Congress g r e e t e d Mr. Reagan w i t h
u n u s u a l l y l o n g and s u s t a i n e d applause; House Speaker Jim W r i g h t bent t o Mr.
Reagan, s a y i n g , ''They l o v e you, Mr. P r e s i d e n t . ' '
•
A l s o i n t h e House chamber were t h e J u s t i c e s o f t h e Supreme Court and n e a r l y
a l l t h e s e n i o r members o f Mr. Reagan's Government. His audience i n t e r r u p t e d him
applause 2 9 t i m e s i n a l l , r o u g h l y once every two minutes, though Democrats
n s a t w i t h t h e i r hands f o l d e d i n t h e i r l a p s .
�PAGE
The New
York-Times, January 26,
11
1988
The P r e s i d e n t ' s themes were f a m i l i a r - he c l o s e d c a l l i n g America ' ' t h i s
i n g c i t y on t h e h i l l ' ' - and so, t o o , were n e a r l y a l l o f t h e programs he
e t o promote.
' ' I t would be e x t r a o r d i n a r y indeed,'' a s e n i o r White House o f f i c i a l s a i d t h i s
evening, ' ' f o r a man who has l e d the n a t i o n f o r seven years t o s t r i k e out now i n
grand new d i r e c t i o n s . ' '
Mr. Reagan pledged t o f i g h t f o r Federal budget r e f o r m , improvements i n p u b l i c
e d u c a t i o n and new i n t e r n a t i o n a l t r a d e agreements - a l l p r o p o s a l s he has made
many times b e f o r e .
He c a l l e d f o r ' ' i m a g i n a t i v e r e f o r m s ' ' i n p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g m e r i t
pay f o r t e a c h e r s and i n v e n t i v e new c u r r i c u l u m s . White House o f f i c i a l s have been
s a y i n g changes i n e d u c a t i o n would be one o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s major domestic
p o l i c y i n i t i a t i v e s t h i s year, and Mr. Reagan's accompanying l e g i s l a t i v e message
t o Congress today d i d i n c l u d e r e q u e s t s f o r i n c r e a s e d s p e n d i n g _ i n t h a t area.
But Mr. Reagan p l a c e d most o f t h e burden f o r change on t h e s t a t e s . ''We
can
t a l k about and push f o r these r e f o r m s , ' ' Mr. Reagan s a i d . ''But t h e most
i m p o r t a n t t h i n g we can do i s t o r e a f f i r m t h a t c o n t r o l o f our schools belongs t o
the s t a t e s , l o c a l communities and, most o f a l l , t o the p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s . ' '
Few Q u a r r e l s W i t h Congress
Mr. Reagan a l s o promoted changes i n Federal w e l f a r e programs, s a y i n g t h e y
ave c r e a t e d a massive s o c i a l problem.'' But a g a i n , he l e f t most o f t h a t t o
1 governments, s a y i n g ' ' l e t us g i v e the s t a t e s even more f l e x i b i l i t y and
burage more r e f o r m s . ' '
Mr. Reagan was l e s s quarrelsome w i t h Congress t h a n he has been a t t i m e s p a s t ,
though he d i d p o i n t t o a few programs ''tucked away behind a comma here and
t h e r e ' ' i n t h e c a t c h a l l spending b i l l s Congress approved, and he s i g n e d i n t o
law, j u s t b e f o r e Christmas.
''There's m i l l i o n s f o r items such as c r a n b e r r y r e s e a r c h , b l u e b e r r y r e s e a r c h ,
the s t u d y o f c r a w f i s h , ' ' as w e l l as $500,000 ''so t h a t people from d e v e l o p i n g
n a t i o n s c o u l d come here t o watch Congress work.'' That l a s t i t e m , t h e P r e s i d e n t
j o k e d , ' ' I won't even t o u c h . ' '
He even brought a l o n g copies o f s e v e r a l o f the ''behemoth'' b i l l s passed l a t e
l a s t year and, t o l a u g h t e r and applause, h e l d s e v e r a l o f them up.
A Veto Threat
To p r e v e n t b i l l s so complex t h a t unusual programs can be hidden i n them, he
promised t o work c l o s e l y w i t h Congress t h r o u g h o u t t h e budget process t h i s year.
But he a l s o vowed t h a t i f t h e Congress sends him a huge c a t c h - a l l spending b i l l
next December, ' ' I w i l l not s i g n i t . ' '
A s e n i o r A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f f i c i a l p r e d i c t e d t h a t ''you're g o i n g t o see some
r e a l f i g h t s w i t h Congress'' t h i s year.
i f t i n g up t h e v a r i o u s budgets was ' ' v i n t a g e Reagan'' and ''I'm sure i t was
'ry p o p u l a r w i t h the people v i e w i n g from home,'' s a i d R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Leon E.
�PAGE
The New
York Times, January 26,
12
1988
Panetta, a C a l i f o r n i a Democrat who i s known i n t h e House f o r h i s budget
r t i s e . But, he added, ''What I always r e s e n t i s Reagan's a b i l i t y t o a v o i d
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e budget process and what went wrong w i t h i t . ' '
•
Mr. Panetta added, however, t h a t t h e r e was enough d i s p l e a s u r e i n Congress
w i t h t h e way t h e process was handled so t h a t Mr. Reagan's goading might spur an
e f f o r t t o make changes t h i s year.
Mr. Panetta was among t h e group of lawmakers who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n l a s t year's
c o m p l i c a t e d budget n e g o t i a t i o n s between Congress and t h e White House and i n the
f i n a l n e g o t i a t i o n s on the c a t c h - a l l spending b i l l t h a t P r e s i d e n t Reagan c i t e d i n
h i s message t o n i g h t .
C r i t i c i s m From Wright
I n h i s response t o the speech, Mr. W r i g h t , a Texas Democrat, c r i t i c i z e d t h e
P r e s i d e n t f o r h i s p o l i c y on C e n t r a l America and h i s vetoes o f s e v e r a l b i l l s the
Democrats have deemed i m p o r t a n t . At the same t i m e , Mr. Wright a l s o s a i d :
''We
cannot s o l v e a l l our problems by January 1989, b u t t h a t doesn't mean we don't
have t o t r y . ' '
T h i s evening, a s e n i o r A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f f i c i a l , d i s c u s s i n g t h e White House's
l e g i s l a t i v e package f o r the year, s a i d Mr. Reagan had decided t o request ''under
$50 m i l l i o n ' ' f o r t h e c o n t r a s , and no more t h a n 10 p e r c e n t o f t h a t would be f o r
t h e purchase o f weapons. That money would s u s t a i n t h e c o n t r a s f o r s e v e r a l
months, he s a i d , and a f t e r t h a t t h e White House w i l l p r o b a b l y ask f o r more, The
c i a l s a i d Mr. Reagan i s c o n s i d e r i n g a s k i n g Congress t o p u t p a r t or a l l o f
a i d i n escrow, u n t i l the outcome o f n e g o t i a t i o n s seeking a c e a s e - f i r e
mes c l e a r . But he s a i d no f i n a l d e c i s i o n had been made.
•
Of t h e c o n t r a s , Mr. Reagan s a i d , ' ' T h e i r cause i s our cause:•freedom,'' and
t o t h a t he g o t e n t h u s i a s t i c , s u s t a i n e d applause, most of i t from Regpublicans.
But Democrats and Republicans a l i k e gave a s t a n d i n g o v a t i o n t o h i s c a l l f o r
r a t i f i c a t i o n o f the i n t e r m e d i a t e n u c l e a r arms c o n t r o l t r e a t y w i t h t h e S o v i e t
Union.
C a p i t a l Gains
Proposal
Mr. Reagan has t h e o p t i o n t o g i v e one more S t a t e o f Union speech next year,
j u s t b e f o r e he leaves o f f i c e . The White House has s a i d he w i l l n o t , though he
may send a w r i t t e n message.
I n a w r i t t e n message d e l i v e r e d t o Congress t o n i g h t , Mr. Reagan c a l l e d f o r
r e d u c t i o n s i n t h e c a p i t a l g a i n s t a x , which he s a i d was ''the most i m p o r t a n t
p i e c e o f u n f i n i s h e d business'' needed f o r f u t u r e economic growth. He d i d n o t
mention t h e p r o p o s a l i n h i s speech.
A l t h o u g h Mr. Reagan promised a t t h e o u t s e t t h a t t h e S t a t e o f t h e Union
Message would not recount h i s accomplishments, much of t h e speech d i d j u s t t h a t .
For example, he mentioned improvements i n t h e n a t i o n ' s economy t h a t he has
r e c i t e d many times b e f o r e .
^^^^
'We have worked t o g e t h e r t o b r i n g down spending, t a x r a t e s and
a i d , ''and employment has climbed t o r e c o r d l e v e l s . ' '
inflation,''
�PAGE
13
The New York Times, January 26, 1988
The P r e s i d e n t applauded t h e r e c e n t Federal f i g u r e s showing t h a t cocaine use
begun t o d e c l i n e among t h e n a t i o n ' s young, and s a i d ''much c r e d i t ' ' belongs
i s w i f e , Nancy, and he thanked her. ''She has h e l p e d so many o f our young
_ l e t o say 'no' t o drugs,'' he s a i d , and t h e audience gave Mrs. Reagan a
*
standing ovation.
' ' S u r p r i s e d you, d i d n ' t I ? ' ' Mr. Reagan s a i d .
GRAPHIC: Photo o f Pres. Reagan b e i n g s a l u t e d by Jim W r i g h t (NYT/Jose R. Lopez);
photo o f Pres. Reagan b r i e f i n g t h e Cabinet on h i s S t a t e o f t h e Union Address
(pg. A17) (NYT/Paul Hosefros)
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
�2
10
CD
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
�Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984 /Jan. 25
Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the
Union
January 25, 1984
•
Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, distinguished
Members of the Congress, honored guests,
and fellow citizens:
Once again, in keeping with time-honored tradition, I have come to report to you
on the state of the Union, and I'm pleased
to report that America is much improved,
and there's good reason to believe that improvement will continue through the days
to come.
You and I have had some honest and
open differences in the year past. But they
didn't keep usfromjoining hands in bipartisan cooperation to stop a long decline that
had drained this nation's spirit and eroded
its health. There is renewed energy and optimism throughout the land. America is
back, standing tall, looking to the eighties
with courage, confidence, and hope.
The problems we're overcoming are not
T
heritage of one person, party, or even
generation. It's just the tendency of
ernment to grow, for practices and programs to become the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth. [Laughter] And there's always that well-intentioned chorus of voices saying, "With a litde
more power and a Utile more money, we
could do so much for the people." For a
time we forgot the American dream isn't
one of making government bigger; it's
keeping faith with the mighty spirit of free
people under God.
As we came to the decade of the eighties,
we faced the worst crisis in our postwar
history. In the seventies were years of rising
problems and falling confidence. There was
a feeling government had grown beyond
the consent of the governed. Families felt
helpless in the face of mounting inflation
and the indignity of taxes that reduced
reward for hard work, thrift, and risktaking. AU this was overlaid by an evergrowing web of rules and regulations.
On the international scene, we had an
uncomfortable feeling that we'd lost the respect of friend and foe. Some questioned
whether we had the will to defend peace
and freedom. But America is too great for
small dreams. There was a hunger in the
land for a spiritual revival; if you will, a
crusade for renewal. The American people
said: Let us look to the future with confidence, both at home and abroad. Let us
givefreedoma chance.
Americans were ready to make a new
beginning, and together we have done it.
We're confronting our problems one by
one. Hope is alive tonight for millions of
young families and senior citizens set free
from unfair tax increases and crushing inflation. Inflation has been beaten down from
12.4 to 3.2 percent, and that's a great victory for all the people. The prime rate has
been cut almost in half, and we must work
together to bring it down even more.
Together, we passed the first across-theboard tax reduction for everyone since the
Kennedy tax cuts. Next year, tax rates will
be indexed so inflation can't push people
into higher brackets when they get cost-ofliving pay raises. Government must never
again use inflation to profit at the people's
expense.
Today a working family earning $25,000
has $1,100 more in purchasing power than
if tax and inflation rates were still at the
1980 levels. Real after-tax income increased
5 percent last year. And economic deregulation of key industries like transportation
has offered more chances—or choices, I
should say, to consumers and new
changes—or chances for entrepreneurs and
protecting safety. Tonight, we can report
and be proud of one of the best recoveries
in decades. Send away the handwringers
and the doubting Thomases. Hope is reborn
for couples dreaming of owning homes and
for risktakers with vision to create tomorrow's opportunities.
The spirit of enterprise is sparked by the
sunrise industries of high-tech and by small
businesspeople with big ideas—people like
Barbara Proctor, who rose from a ghetto to
build a multimillion-dollar advertising
agency in Chicago; Carlos Perez, a Cuban
87
�Jan. 25 / Administration cf Ronald Reagan, 1984
refugee, who turned $27 and a dream into
a successful importing business in Coral
Gables, Florida.
People like these are heroes for the eighties. They helped 4 million Americans find
jobs in 1983. More people are drawing paychecks tonight than ever before. And Congress helps-^or progress helps everyone—
well, Congress does too—[laughter]—everyone. In 1983 women filled 73 percent of all
the new jobs in managerial, professional,
and technical fields.
But we know that many of our fellow
countrymen are still out of work, wondering what will come of their hopes and
dreams. Can we love America and not
reach out to tell them: You are not forgotten; we will not rest until each of you can
reach as high as your God-given talents will
take you.
The heart of America is strong; it's good
and true. The cynics were wrong; America
never was a sick society. We're seeing rededication to bedrock values of faith,
family, work, neighborhood, peace, and
freedom—values that help bring us together as one people, from the youngest child to
the most senior citizen.
The Congress deserves America's thanks
for helping us restore pride and credibility
to our military. And I hope that you're as
proud as I am of the young men and
women in uniform who have volunteered
to man the ramparts in defense of freedom
and whose dedication, valor, and skill increases so much our chance of living in a
world at peace.
People everywhere hunger for peace and
a better life. The fide of the future is a
freedom tide, and our struggle for democracy cannot and will not be denied. This
nation champions peace that enshrines liberty, democratic rights, and dignity for
every individual. America's new strength,
confidence, and purpose are carrying hope
and opportunity far from our shores. A
world economic recovery is underway. It
began here.
We've journeyed far, but we have much
farther to go. Franklin Roosevelt told us 50
years ago this month: "Civilization can not
go back; civilization must not stand still. We
have undertaken new methods. It is our
task to perfect, to improve, to alter when
88
necessary, but in all cases to go forward."
It's time to moveforwardagain, time for
America to takefreedom'snext step. Let us
unite tonight behind four great goals to
keep America free, secure, and at peace in
the eighties together.
We can ensure steady economic growth.
We can develop America's next frontier.
We can strengthen our traditional values.
And we can build a meaningful peace to
protect our loved ones and this shining star
of faith that has guided millionsfromtyranny to the safe harbor offreedom,progress,
and hope.
Doing these things will open wider the
gates of opportunity, provide greater security for all, with no barriers of bigotry or
discrimination.
The key to a dynamic decade is vigorous
economic growth, our first great goal. We
might well begin with common sense in
Federal budgeting: government spending
no more than government takes in.
We must bring Federal deficits down. But
how we do that makes all the difference.
We can begin by limiting the size an
#
scope of government. Under the leadership^
of Vice President Bush, we have reduced
the growth of Federal regulations by more
than 25 percent and cut well over 300 million hours of government-required paperwork each year. This will save the public
more than $150 billion over the next 10
years.
The Grace commission has given us some
2,500 recommendations for reducing wastefid spending, and they're being examined
throughout the administration. Federal
spending growth has been cut from 17.4
percent in 1980 to less than half of that
today, and we have already achieved over
$300 billion in budget savings for the
period of 1982 to '86. But that's only a little
more than half of what we sought. Government is still spending too large a percentage of the total economy.
Now, some insist that any further budget
savings must be obtained by reducing the
portion spent on defense. This ignores the
fact that national defense is solely the responsibility of the Federal Government;
indeed, it is its prime responsibility. And
yet defense spending is less than a third of
�Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984 / Jan. 25
the total budget. During the years of President Kennedy and of the years before that,
defense was almost half the total budget.
And then came several years in which our
military capability was allowed to deteriorate to a very dangerous degree. We are
just now restoring, through the essential
modernization of our conventional and strategic forces, our capability to meet our
present and future security needs. We dare
not shirk our responsibility to keep America
free, secure, and at peace.
The last decade saw domestic spending
surge literally out of control. But the basis
for such spending had been laid in previous
years. A pattern of overspending has been
in place for half a century. As the national
debt grew, we were told not to worry, that
we owed it to ourselves.
Now we know that deficits are a cause for
worry. But there's a difference of opinion as
to whether taxes should be increased,
spending cut, or some of both. Fear is expressed that government borrowing to fund
pre:
ie deficit could inhibit the economic reery by taking capital needed for business
d industrial expansion. Well, I think that
iebate is missing an important point.
Whether government borrows or increases
taxes, it will be taking the same amount of
money from the private sector, and, either
way, that's too much. Simple fairness dictates that government must not raise taxes
on families struggling to pay their bills. The
root of the problem is that government's
share is more than we can afford if we're to
have a sound economy.
We must bring down the deficits to
ensure continued economic growth. In the
budget that I will submit on February 1st, I
will recommend measures that will reduce
the deficit over the next 5 years. Many of
these will be unfinished business from last
year's budget.
Some could be enacted quickly if we
could join in a serious effort to address this
problem. I spoke today with Speaker of the
House O'Neill,. Senate Majority Leader
Baker, Senate Minority Leader Byrd, and
House Minority Leader Michel. I asked
them if they would designate congressional
representatives to meet with representatives of the administration to try to reach
prompt agreement on a bipartisan deficit
reduction plan. I know it would take a long,
hard struggle to agree on a full-scale plan.
So, what I have proposed is that we first see
if we can agree on a downpayment.
Now, I believe there is basis for such an
agreement, one that could reduce the deficits by about a hundred billion dollars over
the next 3 years. We could focus on some of
the less contentious spending cuts that are
still pending before the Congress. These
could be combined with measures to close
certain tax loopholes, measures that the
Treasury Department has previously said to
be worthy of support. In addition, we could
examine the possibility of achieving further
outlay savings based on the work of the
Grace commission.
If the congressional leadership is willing,
my representatives will be prepared to
meet with theirs at the earliest possible
time. I would hope the leadership might
agree on an expedited timetable in which
to develop and enact that downpayment.
But a downpayment alone is not enough
to break us out of the deficit problem. It
could help us start on the right path. Yet,
we must do more. So, I propose that we
begin exploring how together we can make
structural reforms to curb the built-in
growth of spending.
I also propose improvements in the budgeting process. Some 43 of our 50 States
grant their Governors the right to veto individual items in appropriation bills without
having to veto the entire bill. California is
one of those 43 States. As Governor, I found
this line-item veto was a powerful tool
against wasteful or extravagant spending. It
works in 43 States. Let's put it to work in
Washington for all the people.
It would be most effective if done by constitutional amendment. The majority of
Americans approve of such an amendment,
just as they and I approve of an amendment mandating a balanced Federal
budget. Many States also have this protection in their constitutions.
To talk of meeting the present situation
by increasing taxes is a Band-Aid solution
which does nothing to cure an illness that's
been coming on for half a century—to say
nothing of the fact that it poses a real threat
to economic recovery. Let's remember that
�Jan. 25 / Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984
a substantial amount of income tax is presently owed and not paid by people in the
underground economy. It would be immoral to make those who are paying taxes pay
more to compensate for those who aren't
paying their share.
There's a better way. Let us go forward
with an historic reform for fairness, simplicity, and incentives for growth. I am asking
Secretary Don Regan for a plan for action
to simplify the entire tax code, so all taxpayers, big and small, are treated more fairly.
And I believe such a plan could result in
that underground economy being brought
into the sunlight of honest tax compliance.
And it could make the tax base broader, so
personal tax rates could come down, not go
up. I've asked that specific recommendations, consistent with those objectives, be
presented to me by December 1984.
Our second great goal is to build on
America's pioneer spirit—[laughter]—I said
something funny? [Laughter] I said America's next frontier—and that's to develop
that frontier. A sparkling economy spurs initiatives, sunrise industries, and makes older
ones more competitive.
Nowhere is this more important than our
next frontier: space. Nowhere do we so effectively demonstrate our technological
leadership and ability to make life better on
Earth. The Space Age is barely a quarter of
a century old. But already we've pushed
civilization forward with our advances in
science and technology. Opportunities and
jobs will multiply as we cross new thresholds of knowledge and reach deeper into
the unknown.
Our progress in space—taking giant steps
for all mankind—is a tribute to American
teamwork and excellence. Our finest minds
in government, industry, and academia
have all pulled together. And we can be
proud to say: We are first; we are the best;
and we are so because we're free.
America has always been greatest when
we dared to be great. We can reach for
greatness again. We can follow our dreams
to distant stars, living and working in space
for peaceful, economic, and scientific gain.
Tonight, I am directing NASA to develop a
permanently manned space station and to
do it within a decade.
A space station will permit quantum leaps
90
in our research in science, communications,
in metals, and in lifesaving medicines which
could be manufactured only in space. We
want our friends to help us meet these challenges and share in their benefits. NASA
will invite other countries to participate so
we can strengthen peace, build prosperity,
and expand freedom for all who share our
goals.
Just as the oceans opened up a new world
for clipper ships and Yankee traders, space
holds enormous potential for commerce
today. The market for space transportation
could surpass our capacity to develop it.
Companies interested in putting payloads
into space must have ready access to private sector launch services. The Department of Transportation will help an expendable launch services industry to get off
the ground. We'll soon implement a
number of executive initiatives, develop
proposals to ease regulatory constraints,
and, with NASA's help, promote private
sector investment in space.
And as we develop the frontier of space,
let us remember our responsibUity to preserve our older resources here on Earth.
Preservation of our environment is not a
liberal or conservative challenge, it's
common sense.
Though this is a time of budget constraints, I have requested for EPA one of
the largest percentage budget increases of
any agency. We will begin the long, necessary effort to clean up a productive recreational area and a special national resource—the Chesapeake Bay.
To reduce the threat posed by abandoned
hazardous waste dumps, EPA will spend
$410 million. And I will request a supplemental increase of 50 million. And because
the Superfund law expires in 1985, I've
asked Bill Ruckelshaus to develop a proposal for its extension so there'll be additional
time to complete this important task.
On the question of acid rain, which concerns people in many areas of the United
States and Canada, I'm proposing a research
program that doubles our current funding.
And we'll take additional action to restore
our lakes and develop new technology to
reduce pollution that causes acid rain.
We have greatly improved the conditions
�Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984 /Jan. 25
of our natural resources. We'll ask the Congress for $157 million beginning in 1985 to
acquire new park and conservation lands.
The Department of the Interior will encourage careful, selective exploration and
production on our vital resources in an Exclusive Economic Zone within the 200-mile
limit off our coasts—but with strict adherence to environmental laws and with fuller
State and public participation.
But our most precious resources, our
greatest hope for the future, are the minds
and hearts of our people, especially our
children. We can help them build tomorrow by strengthening our community of
shared values. This must be our third great
goal. For us, fiaith, work, family, neighborhood, freedom, and peace are not just
words; they're expressions of what America
means, definitions of what makes us a good
and loving people.
Families stand at the center of our society. And every family has a personal stake in
promoting excellence in education. Excellence does not begin in Washington. A 600cent increase in Federal spending on
ication between 1960 and 1980 was acipanied by a steady decline in Scholastic
Aptitude Test scores. Excellence must begin
in our homes and neighborhood schools,
where it's the responsibility of every parent
and teacher and the right of every child.
Our children come first, and that's why I
established a bipartisan National Commission on Excellence in Education, to help us
chart a commonsense course for better education. And already, communities are implementing the Commission's recommendations. Schools are reporting progress in
math and reading skills. But we must do
more to restore discipline to schools; and
we must encourage the teaching of new
basics, reward teachers of merit, enforce
tougher standards, and put our parents back
in charge.
I will continue to press for tuition tax
credits to expand opportunities for families
and to soften the double payment for those
paying public school taxes and private
school tuition. Our proposal would target
assistance to low- and middle-income families. Just as more incentives are needed
within our schools, greater competition is
needed among our schools. Without stand-
ards and competition, there can be no
champions, no records broken, no excellence in education or any other walk of life.
And while I'm on this subject, each day
your Members observe a 200-year-old tradition meant to signify America is one nation
under Cod. I must ask: If you can begin
your day with a member of the clergy
standing right here leading you in prayer,
then why can't freedom to acknowledge
God be enjoyed again by children in every
schoolroom across this land?
America was founded by people who believed that God was their rock of safety. He
is ours. I recognize we must be cautious in
claiming that God is on our side, but I think
it's all right to keep asking if we're on His
side.
During our first 3 years, we have joined
bipartisan efforts to restore protection of
the law to unborn children. Now, I know
this issue is very controversial. But unless
and until it can be proven that an unborn
child is not a living human being, can we
justify assuming without proof that it isn't?
No one has yet offered such proof; indeed,
all the evidence is to the contrary. We
should rise above bitterness and reproach,
and if Americans could come together in a
spirit of understanding and helping, then
we could find positive solutions to the tragedy of abortion.
Economic recovery, better education, rededication to values, all show the spirit of
renewal gaining the upper hand. And all
will improve family life in the eighties. But
families need more. They need assurance
that they and their loved ones can walk the
streets of America without being afraid.
Parents need to know their children will
not be victims of child pornography and
abduction. This year we will intensify our
drive against these and other horrible
crimes Uke sexual abuse and family violence.
Already our efforts to crack down on
career criminals, organized crime, drugpushers, and to enforce tougher sentences
and paroles are having effect. In 1982 the
crime rate dropped by 4.3 percent, the biggest decline since 1972. Protecting victims
is just as important as safeguarding the
rights of defendants.
91
�Jan. 25 / Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984
Opportunities for all Americans will increase if we move forward in fair housing
and work to ensure women's rights, provide
for equitable treatment in pension benefits
and Individual Retirement Accounts, facilitate child care, and enforce delinquent
parent support payments.
It's not just the home but the workplace
and community that sustain our values and
shape our future. So, I ask your help in
assisting more communities to break the
bondage of dependency. Help us to free
enterprise by permitting debate and voting
"yes" on our proposal for enterprise zones
in America. This has been before you for 2
years. Its passage can help high-unemployment areas by creating jobs and restoring
neighborhoods.
A society bursting with opportunities,
reaching for its future with confidence, sustained by faith, fair play, and a conviction
that good and courageous people will flourish when they'refree—theseare the secrets
of a strong and prosperous America at
peace with itself and the world.
A lasting and meaningful peace is our
fourth great goal. It is our highest aspiration. And our record is clear: Americans
resort to force only when we must. We
have never been aggressors. We have
always struggled to defendfreedomand democracy.
We have no territorial ambitions. We
occupy no countries. We build no walls to
lock people in. Americans build the future.
And our vision of a better life for farmers,
merchants, and working people, from the
Americas to Asia, begins with a simple
premise: The future is best decided by ballots, not bullets.
Governments which rest upon the consent of the governed do not wage war on
their neighbors. Only when people are
given a personal stake in deciding their
own destiny, benefiting from their own
risks, do they create societies that are prosperous, progressive, and free. Tonight, it is
democracies that offer hope by feeding the
hungry, prolonging life, and eliminating
drudgery.
When it comes to keeping America
strong, free, and at peace, there should be
no Republicans or Democrats, just patriotic
Americans. We can decide the tough issues
92
not by who is right, but by what is right.
Together, we can continue to advance
our agenda for peace. We can establish a
more stable basis for peaceful relations with
the Soviet Union; strengthen allied relations
across the board; achieve real and equitable
reductions in the levels of nuclear arms; reinforce our peacemaking efforts in the
Middle East, Central America, and southern
Africa; or assist developing countries, particularly our neighbors in the Western
Hemisphere; and assist in the development
of democratic institutions throughout the
world.
The wisdom of our bipartisan cooperation
was seen in the work of the Scowcroft commission, which strengthened our ability to
deter war and protect peace. In that same
spirit, I urge you to move forward with the
Henry Jackson plan to implement the recommendations of the Bipartisan Commission on Central America.
Your joint resolution on the multinational
peacekeeping force in Lebanon is also serverving the cause of peace. We are makinn ^ ^
ci
progress in Lebanon. For nearly 10 ye
the Lebanese have lived from tragedy
tragedy with no hope for their future. No'
the multinational peacekeeping force and
our marines are helping them break their
cycle of despair. There is hope for a free,
independent, and sovereign Lebanon. We
must have the courage to give peace a
chance. And we must not be driven from
our objectives for peace in Lebanon by
state-sponsored terrorism. We have seen
this ugly specter in Beirut, Kuwait, and
Rangoon. It demands international attention. I will forward shortly legislative proposals to help combat terrorism. And I will
be seeking support from our allies for concerted action.
Our NATO alliance is strong. 1983 was a
banner year for political courage. And we
have strengthened our partnerships and our
friendships in the Far East. We're committed to dialog, deterrence, and promoting
prosperity. We'll work with our trading
partners for a new round of negotiations in
support of freer world trade, greater competition, and more open markets.
A rebirth of bipartisan cooperation, of
economic growth, and military deterrence,
�Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984 /Jan. 25
and a growing spirit of unity among our
people at home and our allies abroad underline a fundamental and far-reaching
change: The United States is safer, stronger,
and more secure in 1984 than before. We
can now move with confidence to seize the
opportunities for peace, and we will.
Tonight, I want to speak to the people of
the Soviet Union, to tell them it's true that
our governments have had serious differences, but our sons and daughters have
never fought each other in war. And if we
Americans have our way, they never will.
People of the Soviet Union, there is only
one sane policy, for your country and mine,
to preserve our civilization in this modem
age: A nuclear war cannot be won and must
never be fought. The only value in our two
nations possessing nuclear weapons is to
make sure they will never be used. But
then would it not be better to do away with
them entirely?
People of the Soviet, President Dwight
Eisenhower, who fought by your side in
World War II, said the essential struggle "is
not merely man against man or nation
^against nation. It is man against war."
ericans are people of peace. If your govmment wants peace, there will be peace.
We can come together in faith and friendship to build a safer and far better world for
our children and our children's children.
And the whole world will rejoice. That is
my message to you.
Some days when life seems hard and we
reach out for values to sustain us or a friend
to help us, we find a person who reminds us
what it means to be Americans.
Sergeant Stephen Trujillo, a medic in the
2d Ranger Battalion, 75th Infantry, was in
the first helicopter to land at the compound
held by Cuban forces in Grenada. He saw
three other helicopters crash. Despite the
imminent explosion of the burning aircraft,
he never hesitated. He ran across 25 yards
of open terrain through enemy fire to
rescue wounded soldiers. He directed two
other medics, administeredfirstaid, and returned again and again to the crash site to
carry his woundedfriendsto safety.
Sergeant Trujillo, you and your fellow
service men and women not only saved innocent lives; you set a nation free. You inspire us as a force forfreedom,not for des-
potism; and, yes, for peace, not conquest.
God bless you.
And then there are unsung heroes: single
parents, couples, church and civic volunteers. Their hearts carry without complaint
the pains of family and community problems. They soothe our sorrow, heal our
wounds, calm our fears, and share our joy.
A person like Father Ritter is always
there. His Covenant House programs in
New York and Houston provide shelter and
help to thousands offrightenedand abused
children each year. The same is true of Dr.
Charles Carson. Paralyzed in a plane crash,
he still believed nothing is impossible.
Today in Minnesota, he works 80 hours a
week without pay, helping pioneer the field
of computer-controlled walking. He has
given hope to 500,000 paralyzed Americans
that some day they may walk again.
How can we not believe in the greatness
of America? How can we not do what is
right and needed to preserve this last best
hope of man on Earth? After all om- struggles to restore America, to revive confidence in our country, hope for our future,
after all our hard-won victories earned
through the patience and courage of every
citizen, we cannot, must not, and will not
tum back. We will finish our job. How
could we do less? VVe're Americans.
Carl Sandburg said, "I see America not in
the setting sun of a black night of despair
. . . I see America in the crimson light of a
rising sun fresh from the burning, creative
hand of God . . . I see great days ahead for
men and women of will and vision." .
I've never felt more strongly that America's best days and democracy's best days lie
ahead. We're a powerful force for good.
With faith and courage, we can perform
great deeds and take freedom's next step.
And we will. We will carry on the tradition
of a good and worthy people who have
brought light where there was darkness,
warmth where there was cold, medicine
where there was disease, food where there
was hunger, and peace where there was
only bloodshed.
Let us be sure that those who come after
will say of us in our time, that in our time
we did everything that could be done. We
finished the race; we kept them free; we
93
�Jan. 25 / Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984
the House Chamber of the Capitol. He was
kept the faith.
Thank you very much. God bless you, and introduced by Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., Speaker of the House of Representatives. The adGod bless America.
dress was broadcast live on nationwide
Note: The President spoke at 9:02 p.m. in radio and television.
Message to the Congress Transmitting the United States-Bulgaria
Fishery Agreement
January 26, 1984
To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976
(Public Law 94-265; 16 USC 1801), I transmit herewith a governing international fishery agreement between the United States
and the People's Republic of Bulgaria,
signed at Washington on September 22,
1983.
This agreement is one of a series to be
renegotiated in accordance with that legislation. I urge that the Congress give favorable consideration to this agreement at an
early date.
RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
January 26, 1984.
Message to the Congress Transmitting the Proposed United States
Norway Agreement on Nuclear Energy
January 26, 1984
To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to transmit to the Congress,
pursuant to section 123 d. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2153(d)), the text of the proposed revised
Agreement for Cooperation Between the
United States of America and Norway Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy
with an accompanied annex and agreed
minute. The Agreement is accompanied
by my written approval, authorization and
determination concerning the agreement
and the memorandum of the Director of
the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency with the Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement concerning the
Agreement. The joint memorandum submitted to me by the Secretaries of State
and Energy, which includes a summary of
the provisions of the Agreement, and the
views and recommendations of the Director
of the United States Arms Control and Dis-
94
armament Agency and the Members of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission are also enclosed.
The proposed revised agreement with
Norway has been negotiated in accordance
with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act and
in order to strengthen the basis for continuing and close cooperation between our
countries. In my judgment, the proposed
revised agreement for cooperation, together
with its accompanying agreed minute,
meets all statutory requirements.
I am pleased that this agreement is with
Norway, one of the strongest supporters of
the Non-Proliferation Treaty and of international non-proliferation efforts generally.
We have a long history of close cooperation
with Norway, particularly in nuclear research and in the critical area of reactor
safety work. The agreement reflects our
deep interest in strengthening international
nuclear safety and in supporting Norway's
�Administration of Ronald Reagan, 1984 /Jan. 26
important work in that area. The agreement will, in my view, further the nonproliferation and other foreign policy interests of the United States.
I have considered the views and recommendations of the interested agencies in reviewing the proposed agreement and have
determined that its performance will promote, and will not constitute an unreason-
able risk to, the common defense and security. Accordingly, I have approved the
agreement and authorized its execution,
and urge that the Congress give it favorable
consideration.
RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
January 26, 1984.
Message to the Congress Transmitting the Proposed United StatesSweden Agreement on Nuclear Energy
January 26, 1984
To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to transmit to the Congress,
pursuant to section 123 d. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2153(d)), the text of the proposed Agreement for Cooperation Between the United
States of America and Sweden Concerning
Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy and accompanying annexes, agreed minute, and
exchange of notes; my written approval, authorization and determination concerning
the agreement; and the memorandum of
the Director of the United States Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency with the
Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement
concerning the agreement. The joint
memorandum submitted to me by the Secretaries of State and Energy, which includes
a summary of the provisions of the agreement, and the views and recommendations
of the Director of the United States Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency and the
Members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are also enclosed.
The proposed revised agreement with
Sweden has been negotiated in accordance
with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act,
which sets forth certain requirements for
new agreements for peaceful nuclear cooperation with other countries. In my judgment, the proposed agreement for coopera-
tion between the United States and
Sweden, together with its accompanying
agreed minute, meets all statutory requirements.
The proposed bilateral agreement between Sweden and the United States reflects the desire of the Government of the
United States and the Government of
Sweden to establish and confirm a framework for peaceful nuclear cooperation between our two countries in a manner which
recognizes both the shared non-proliferation objectives and the friendly and harmonious relations between the United States
and Sweden. The proposed agreement will,
in my view, further the non-proliferation
and other foreign policy interests of the
United States.
I have considered the views and recommendations of the interested agencies in reviewing the proposed agreement and have
determined that its performance will promote, and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to, the common defense and security. Accordingly, I have approved the
agreement and authorized its execution,
and urge that the Congress give it favorable
consideration.
RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
January 26, 1984.
95
�State of the Union
President Reagan Says U.S. 'Much Improvei
President Reagan offered his upbeat view of the nation^Jan. 25, telling
Congress that "America is back —
standing tall," and setting the tone for
his anticipated re-elecjion campaign.
Four days before Kis expected announcement that he will seek a second
term, Reagan delivered a State of the
Union address that was predictably
long on political rhetoric and short on
legislative substance.
Reagan's third State of the Union
speech to a joint session of the House
and Senate was applauded by Republicans as an optimistic blueprint for
the election year, arid derided by
Democrats for ignoring the troubles in
Lebanon.
$
Reagan used the address to tout
the achievements of |u8 first three
years in office, while^sharing credit
with Congress for stemming the nation's "long decline." {iText, p. 146)
In a last-minute 'addition to the
speech, Reagan asked Congress to join
him in a bipartisan e'ffort to reduce
the federal deficit by-$100 billion in
the next three years. His appeal came
one week before the release of his fiscal 1985 budget, a document that will
project huge deficits forlyears to come.
*
—BWDiane Granat
Democratic leaders quickly appointed representatives to the negotiating panel, although they told Reagan he must relent somewhat on his
insistence for more defense spending.
Republicans were ready to meet immediately after the speech, but Democrats demanded to see Reagan's 1985
budget first.
The president touched on a surefire campaign theme when he departed from his standard anti-spending stance and called for a new thrust
into outer space, which he called
"America's next frontier." And he
tried to blunt criticism of his administration's environmental policies by
asking for more money to clean up
hazardous wastes.
Reagan also tried to moderate his
hawkish image by declaring that "a
nuclear war cannot be won and must
never be fought," a phrase that drew
an ovation from Republicans and
Democrats.
Otherwise, Reagan's ideas were
aimed mostly at his conservative constituency. He called once again for
constitutional amendments allowing
school prayer and requiring a balanced budget — ideas Congress has
shunned in the past and is likely to
reject again this year.
Ac •
He also asked Congress
him the right to veto individ
in appropriations bills wi
to veto the total bill. But
said there is no chance i
relinquish control over spem
the House took a vote Jan.
spurned the "line-item veto"
(Story, p. 134)
Other key pointe in
dent's address included a
simpler tax code, discipline'
schools, tuition tax credite,
against child abuse, equity in
benefits and job-creating enj
zones.
On foreign policy, he said
propose legislation to combat
ism and urged adoption of the
ger commission's recommendal
more aid to Central America.
Lebanon, he claimed that '
making progress" helping that
break its "cycle of despair."
Reagan's journey to Capr
was made amid unusual securi
sures, largely in reaction to the
ist bomb blast in the Capitol
vember. Spectators were reqi
pass through checkpoints at
tol's outer rim and police offi
stationed every few feet
the building. (1983 Weekly fiej
2355;
The president demonstn
theatric know-how when he
Army Sgt. Stephen Trujillo for
roic rescue of wounded sol"
Grenada. Trujillo was sitting
gallery next to Reagan's wif
daughter. And he used one of
vorite tactics, selecting single
dotes to make a» broader point,
he praised a priest who runs a
for the homeless and an em
Cuban refugee.
In contrast to Reagan's goodri
tone, the Democrats emphasized'
bad news in their televised res'
the president's address. They f<
on the "fairness" issue, claiming'
Reagan's policies have hurt a
Americans. (Story, p. 122)
Reagan's cheerful approach?
also a striking difference froin|t]
somber attitude in his 1983 State,
the Union speech. That speech ^
1
1
PAGE 120—Jan. 28, 1984
COPfttiGHl 1984 C O N G M S S I O N M Q U A M M n INC.
»*prodixii<xi pfohibtttd m whole w m p a n ••<•*» by •ditorio) <b«ntt
�State of the Union - 2
unemployment was at 10.8
jpublicans had just suf!m election losses. Today
br j BG S rate is 8.2 percent, and
oIS
\ff»n only briefly mentioned that
of "our fellow countrymen are
till out of work."
C
< icuously absent from the
tesident's speech was any mention of
M "New Federalism" proposal to reun power to the states. This idea was
bt centerpiece of his first State of the
message, but it ran into politi•1 trouble with Congress and the nai governors and went nowhere.
Congressional Reaction
Reagan's speech was interrupted
spplause 40 times, mostly from his
COP colleagues. When Reagan said
"•t
bring federal deficits down"
Ito
Democratic cheers. And when
bi finished the sentence by saying
Tawwedo that makes all the differ* Republicans signaled their apcrats had few kind words to
sfter the president's speech.
I
Speaker Thomas P.
Jr., D-Mass., blasted Reagan
.*» •Pending so little time on Lebanon.
"Ia aJ^wge speech he devoted only
j ^ H k 8 hb, eburied on page eight,
u
c t
S c t
)
'3BF
A U m
31
i
' " O'Neill said. "If
' * x is Back' as the president
then why are our boys still stuck
of
iL
U b a n o n ?
"
Minority Leader Robert
D-W.Va., said the speech "elZ ^ u y "et forth the goals and hopes
^JJ^Wans. But it lacked specific
^ji**™ about how he would deal
^
serious problems confronting
r
Jpesident's rosy picture was
by rank-and-file Demo^ • d l as their leaders. "There
j f c a / i g ^ u d s in his picture," said
H ^ J r ^ P h e r J. Dodd, D-Conn.
the horizon and he failed
j * camera in that direction."
^••Congressional Black Caucus
•««tement that said black un^
remains at 18 percent
8 ^ . f j j j f f i * Rowing. " I f you are
" ^™ *» Hispanic, or a woman
^a?,^? ""^ng for you in the presi!2b» t*.^?* ^
Union message,"
said.
'W'o? k
eder, D-Colo.,
*w Hfo^^, Congressional Caucus
H a t ^ T ? ^ues, called Reagan's
• a ^ S ^ t i c and said he failed to
"^^^BJ '
economic ineq>ffect women. "Women
^^
» Republicans. Women
e
0
e!fc
a
t b e
i C i a Schro
8
1 6 8
0 0 r
8 U c b
0 9
State of the Union Highlights
Following are the highlights of President Reagan's Jan. 25 State of
the Union address:
Economic Policy. The administration will negotiate with key members
of Congress over a "down payment" to reduce the deficit. Congress
should pass constitutional amendments to give the president a lineitem veto on appropriations bills and to require a balanced federal
budget. The Treasury Department will develop a plan to simplify the
entire tax code.
Space Station. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration will
develop a permanent manned space station to be operational within a
decade. Other countries will be invited to participate in the program
and the government will promote private-sector development of outer
space.
Environmental Initiatives. The budget for the Environmental Protection Agency will Be increased and money will be provided to help
clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Funding for research on acid rain will be
doubled and the administration will seek a reauthorization of the
superfund law designed to clean up hazardous waste dumps. The
budget will include money to purchase new park lands.
Foreign Policy. Congress should implement the Kissinger commission
recommendations on Central America. The U.S. Marine presence in
Lebanon is serving the cause of peace and should continue. Increased
defense spending has made the United States safer, stronger and more
secure. The administration will send Congress initiatives to combat
terrorism.
Family Values. American family values should be strengthened. More
discipline is needed in public schools. A constitutional amendment
should be enacted to allow voluntary prayer in schools and tuition tax
credits should be provided to parents for private school costs. Unborn
children must be protected by law.
weren't born Democrats and women
weren't born yesterday," she said.
On the Republican side, lawmakers praised Reagan's themes of spirit
and unity, and his focus on the economic recovery.
Senate Majority Leader Howard
H. Baker Jr., R-Tenn., said Reagan's
words reminded him of President Eisenhower, "who made being president
look easy but who gave us peace and
prosperity and progress on every
front. That's the kind of president
Ronald Reagan has been."
Rep. Guy Vander Jagt, R-Mich.,
chairman of the National Republican
Congressional Committee, said "the
progress cited by Reagan proves that
our program has worked, and I believe
that proof will be translated into victories on Election Day."
But a Democratic political
spokesman took another view. Referring to Reagan's use of the John
COP'KlGHl 1984 C O N O f S S P O N A l O U A B l f B H INC
Lennon song line to "give peace a
chance," Democratic National Chairman Charles T. Manatt said Reagan is
operating "not only on borrowed
money for the deficit, but borrowed
lines and borrowed time."
The Deficit
Most Capitol attention focused on
Reagan's proposal to convene a bipartisan group to cut the record-high deficit, now estimated at about $200 billion a year.
Several congressional leaders
have been calling for such a panel for
weeks. But until the day of the speech,
Reagan had been reluctant to endorse
the concept.
Around noon on Jan. 25, Reagan
telephoned O'Neill, Byrd, Baker and
House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel, R-Ill., and asked them to back
the idea.
Jan. 28, 1984—PAGE 121
�State of the Union - 3
Democrats Contend Reagan Policies Un ait
Responding to President Reagan's State of the
Union speech Jan. 25, Democrats focused on broad
themes of fairness and a vision of the future rather than
specific alternatives to administration policies.
The Democrats followed Reagan on prime time
with a polished, 30-minute television show mixing live
reaction with taped segments from around the country.
"Are the policies of this administration fair to all
Americans and what do these policies mean to our future?" asked Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis,
who moderated the Democratic response. "We'd like
you to ask those questions with us, not just tonight but
in the coming months."
The program also provided a national spotlight for
several lawmakers who are either seeking to replace
Republican senators in
1984 or are facing tough
re-election
races.
Among those responding live, for example,
was Rep. Tom Harkin of
Iowa, who is locked in a
close
Senate
race
against incumbent Republican Roger W. Jepsen. Another was Sen.
Carl Levin of Michigan,
who GOP strategists
feel can be beaten in
1984.
Senate
Minority
Gov. Michael S. Dukakis
Leader Robert C. Byrd
of West Virginia and House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill
Jr. of Massachusetts also appeared on the telecast, although both were taped before Reagan delivered his
speech.
"Our view of the state of the union is different from
the president's," said O'Neill. "In case after case, we
find this administration's policies unfair to working men
and women, to the elderly, to our^children. In case after
case, we see current policies that may have a disastrous
consequence for our future."
House Majority Leader Jim Wright of Texas set the
Democratic tone in a Jan. 24 speech to the National
Press Club. "In a world of distorted values, the United
States — whose example should be leading the world to
sanity — begins 1984 with our own priorities cruelly
deranged," said Wright.
In their televised response, Democrats concentrated
on issues that they hope to use to.recapture the White
House. These included foreign policy, the economy,
jobs, education and the environment.
Rep. Dante B. Fascell, D-Fla., chairman of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee, accused Reagan of
threatening world peace through a massive military
buildup. "Military strength is not the only answer to
peace and security," he said. "Aggressive military action
is no substitute to seeking peace aggressively."
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., criticized Reagan's stance on keeping U.S. Marines in Lebanon. "The
PAGE 122—Jan. 28, 1984
1
president, who says America is back, still has Marines
Lebanon and it's time to bring those Marines back. lyj
time for us to have a coherent foreign policy. We d
have one," said Biden.
Reagan, however, upstaged the Democrats in
attempt to portray him as having his finger on
nuclear trigger. "There isn't a winnable nuclear wa^
said one man during a portion of the Democratic
gram taped several days earlier in Lincoln,
"There's extermination and that's all there is."
But before millions of viewers heard that line,
saw Reagan solemnly declare, "A nuclear war cannotwon and must never be fought."
Reagan also stole some of the thunder from
Democrats' charge that the White House has been lax
cleaning up hazardous waste sites. Reagan singled
the hazardous waste problem in his speech and di
will ask Congress for a supplemental increase of
million this year to aid in the cleanup effort.
That took some of the sting out of the Demi
showing Rep. Norman E. D'Amours of New Hamj
visiting a family in North Hampton, N.H., whose hi
is located near a waste dump.
Democratic officials had hoped their i
would pin many of the nation's problems, such as
tinued unemployment and soaring federal deficits, 'i
Reagan and the Senate's Republican majority.
Dukakis, for example, reminded viewers of
gan's 1980 campaign promise to eliminate federal
ink by 1984. "Well, it's 1984. The budget isn't bal
and the deficits have soared," said Dukakis.
And while some Democrats on the show rail.,
against Reagan's domestic spending cuts, others acr '
him of adding further to the deficits with calls for
defense spending and for a manned space station.
In preparing their response, Democratic officu
were painfully aware of Reagan's famed television
ents. "We know what we are up against — a si
media master," said a Democratic official.
Selecting the handsome and well-polished D'
to moderate their show, as a result, was no accid
During the 1970s, Dukakis hosted the popular PI
show "The Advocates" and is himself an experienced
television performer. "He is probably the best TV Democrat we've ever had," said one party official.
Jj
The show, produced by Washington media consul^
tant Jill Buckley at a cost of about $80,000, was paid forj
by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee^
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Demjs
ocratic National Committee.
.||
While the program largely came off without a hitchtj
winter weather forced one little-noticed change. Aj
Washington snowstorm kept O'Neill from flying to his^
Boston district to be filmed greeting constituents. In-;S
stead, the burly O'Neill strolled down Pennsylvania Av-^
enue near the Capitol, where there was enough snow
the ground to resemble a wintry Boston day. Film editors then cut the scenes with Washington Redskins',
S3
pennants plastered in nearby windows.
—By Steven Pressman^
v
C O M R I C H I 19B4 CONGRtSSiONAl Q u A R l f R i v INC
R e p . o d u c t i o " p i o h . b . l * d .n - h o t *
o r in p a r i e i t e p t b y r d i t o n a l
flrtnM
�State of the Union - 4
^ ^ ^ • U and Byrd said "we are
•rHPw sit down and consider any
pnip
he wants to make for getting
•.M+t frightening deficits under con'•..ul." But the Speaker asked Reagan
u-- publicly promise "that he does not
jtwid to treat the defense budget as a
i*cr«d cow."
The Democrats said they were
• «ry about getting involved in a
White House "public relations ploy"
t&t would pin the deficit blame on
i i * Democrats, and they told Reagan
M» personal leadership is needed to
=Uk* any headway. They also said
wanted to see Reagan's fiscal
: 3iiS budget before they would negotiDespite these reservations, they
•pointed Majority Leader Jim
D-Texas, to represent House
Miocnts, and Democratic Confer*** Secretary Daniel K. Inouye, Dto speak for Senate Demo1
The day after the speech. Baker
" Paul Laxalt, R-Nev., to be his
'JP*««rtative, and Michel appointed
J g » Minority Whip Trent Lott, RT J ^ ^ * b" chief spokesman. Baker
' • ^ • t t t l also asked the senior Re^ ^ ^ B on the Budget, Appropria^^^^Wanate Finance and House
tjaP* and Means committees to par8
--^•IWoposed by Reagan, the group
TJWjMrt.with White House desig
5 * » wvelbp a $100 billion "dowi
^
- — T _ ^.^v,
down
^ • " " S ® the deficit over the next
¥
digested that the down payout of non-controversial
pending in Congress,
. close tax loopholes and
a eliminating government
the recommendations
^cwnmission. (Grace comkly Report p. 47)
'.'administration official
not bend in his oppo^taxes. "Taxes are only
under the heading of
ng," said the official,
^ rennain unidentified,
-reduction team has
Jo the "Gang of 17" conwnic leaders and White
. . that met in the spring
«irti J*£
budget strategy
JJIl T » » » Knificant deficit
S k ^ J f ' l e f f o r t s collapsed when
^ » a d to touch Social Seand Republicans
eF **^ the third year of
,l
0ut a
1
1 0 8i
0
cut
^
budgete were ap•*Wi>
Watching President Reagan from the House gallery are Reagan's wife Nancy, right,
his daughter Maureen and Army Sgt. Stephen Trujillo, whom Reagan praised as a hero.
proved in both the House and Senate
that year, and reconciliation savings
were made. But it was an arduous task
that took almost eight months —
more time than Congress will have
this year. (7982 Almanac p. 187)
O t h e r Economic Ideas
Besides the deficit-cutting panel,
Reagan suggested these economic
steps:
• A constitutional amendment creating a line-item veto to allow presidents to eliminate funds for particular
programs contained in appropriations
bills passed by Congress.
Reagan said he found this veto to
be a "powerful tool" against wasteful
spending when he was governor of
California. But when other presidents
have suggested it on a national level,
Congress has refused to give up its
spending control. (Weekly Report p.
114)
• A balanced budget constitutional
amendment, which Reagan has endorsed in past years. The Senate in
1982 approved the amendment requiring a balanced federal budget, but the
House rejected the measure. (1982 Almanac p. 391)
• An effort to simplify the federal
tax code. Reagan directed Treasury
Secretary Donald T. Regan to present
specific recommendations that would
make the tax system fairer, the tax
base broader and bring the underCOmiGHl r*8< CONGttSSIONAi OUAKnmr IHC
Rrp'oduclion prohibited in - h o i * o i m part t . c a p i by t d r t c o i CIMA*
•J
ground economy "into the sunlight."
Democrats'iijeered when Reagan
set a post-election date of December
1984 for the treasury's study. With
false naivete;jMeagan ad-libbed, " I
said somethingpunny?"
The Treasury already has started
to look at twofbasic kinds of tax reform. One would impose a flat, or uniform, tax ratejoh income while eliminating most "of all deductions and
credits. The other would replace the
current income tax system with a
"consumptiori?l|'tax intended to encourage savings by taxing spending.
(1983 Weekly Report p. 2731)
Space and Environment
One of Reagan's new initiatives
was to ask the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration to build a
permanently planned space station
within a decade.
The space] station could be used
for scientific experiments, communications and possibly as a launching
point for flights to other planets. It
would be shared by government and
industry and open to "other friendly
countries," Reagan said.
NASA Administrator James M.
Beggs said it would cost $8 billion to
put the laboratory into orbit by 1991
or 1992. More money would be needed
to maintain and expand the facility,
which could initially house six or eight
Jan. 28, 1984—PAGE 123
�State of the Union - 5
people but eventually could handle 30
or more people, he said.
Reagan said he also will ask
NASA to promote private investment
in space by relaxing regulations.
Rep. Lindy (Mrs. Hale) Boggs, DLa., a member of the Appropriations
subcommittee that oversees NASA,
said she supports the idea of a
manned space station, but said it may
be difficult to convince Congress to
spend money for it this year.
"The difficulty you encounter
when talking about the space program,"
Boggs said, "is to relate to colleagues
that for every $1 spent on space, we have
received $7 to $14 in return."
Environmental Policies
Since Reagan took office, environmentalists have accused his administration of weak enforcement of pollution control laws and of disabling the
Environmental Protection Agency by
cutting its budget.
In his State of the Union message,
Reagan tried to refute that image by
proposing an extension of a program
to fight toxic wastes and a larger budget for acid rain research.
Reagan proposed doubling acid
rain research, from a fiscal
1984 appropriation of $28.8
million to a fiscal 1985 level
of $55.5 million, according
to the EPA. Critics noted,
though, that he would only
pay for more research,
rather than for actual acid
rain controls.
Reagan called for renewal of the law creating the
$1.6 billion "Superfund" to
clean up hazardous waste
dumps — a switch from administration policies under
former EPA Administrator
Anne M. Burford. The program expires in 1985.
Rep. James J. Florio, DN.J., the chief sponsor of the
original law, commended
Reagan's position. "Now
that the administration is on
board, we intend to move
forward and enact a bill this
year," he said.
Reagan's other environmental proposals called for
the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay and more money
to acquire new park lands.
Reagan also said he
would be more sensitive to
state concerns about offshore oil drilling.
PAGE 124—Jan. 28, 1984
Family Values
Under the theme of "strengthening traditional values," Reagan outlined a set of goals that reflect his
standard conservative philosophy.
• On education, Reagan said excellence must begin at home and in neighborhood schools, not with extra federal
spending. He urged tougher school discipline, merit pay for teachers and
"putting parents back in charge."
• Reagan called for tuition tax
credits for parents who send their children to private schools. But that idea
was defeated 59-38 by the Senate last
year. (7983 Weekly Report p. 2424)
• Reagan asked for a constitutional
amendment permitting voluntary
school prayer. Two such amendments
are pending in the Senate, but they are
opposed by most major religious organizations and civil liberties groups.
• On women's issues, Reagan said
he favors equitable pension treatment
and enforcement of delinquent childsupport payments. Legislation on both
these matters is pending in Congress,
and likely to be enacted this year.
(Weekly Report p. 2627)
• Reagan repeated his commitment
COPVRIGH1 1 9 8 * CONGRESSIONAL QUARTfRlY INC.
R.piodutiion piohibiiad « - h o i * o< .n port c r e p t b, .d.ionol tlienn
to "restore protection of the."
unborn children" but he did i
cifically ask for a con
amendment banning abortio
• On crime, Reagan said his^
istration will fight sexual abof
family violence, and contifi
crackdown on career crimii
nized crime and drug pu
anti-crime package is awaiting^
floor action, but it does not inc
the elements Reagan mentic
1
Peace
Reagan offered the
agenda for peace" he said waf
because of U.S. economic
restored military deterrence.]
"The United States is safi
ger, and more secure in 1984
fore," the president said. "We*
move with confidence to
opportunities for peace — andij
Reagan's peace agenda "'
stronger allied relationships;"
equitable reductions" in nu "
reinforced peace efforts in tha
East, Central America and
Africa; assistance for
Western Hemisphere coun
aid in the d
of democratic
around the world.
Reagan asked
to accept the recoi
tions of the Ki:
mission on Central
bipartisan group
for more than $8
economic aid to the;
through 1989 and a
tial increase in military
El Salvador. The
sion's report has come]
fire in Congress by
critical of Reagan's
Central America.
Report p. 39)
Oh Lebanon,
said Congress'
last fall to keep
Beirut through mid-1!
"serving the cause of
"There is hope for a
independent and
Lebanon. We musthavei
age to give peace a
said. (Lebanon, p. J25j^
Vowing not to be d r i *
from America's peace ol
tives by state-sponsored
rorism, Reagan said he!
send Congress legislativspi*
posals to help combat ten*
ism.
�PAGE
2ND
15
STORY o f L e v e l 1 p r i n t e d i n FULL f o r m a t .
C o p y r i g h t 1984 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
January 26, 1984,
Thursday, Late C i t y F i n a l E d i t i o n
SECTION: S e c t i o n A; Page 1, Column 6; N a t i o n a l Desk
LENGTH: 1944
words
HEADLINE: REAGAN ASKS 2 - PARTY DRIVE TO CUT DEFICITS $100
ASSAIL POLICIES
BILLION; DEMOCRATS
BYLINE: By STEVEN R. WEISMAN, S p e c i a l t o the New York Times
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Jan. 2 5
BODY:
P r e s i d e n t Reagan, d e c l a r i n g t h a t b i p a r t i s a n c o o p e r a t i o n i n Congress had
a l r e a d y h e l p e d a r r e s t t h e n a t i o n ' s ' ' l o n g d e c l i n e , ' ' appealed t o Republicans and
Democrats t o n i g h t t o j o i n i n a new attempt t o reduce the p r o j e c t e d F e d e r a l
d e f i c i t by $100 b i l l i o n i n t h e next t h r e e y e a r s .
for
I n h i s annual S t a t e o f the Union Message, Mr. Reagan mixed h i s renewed appeal
b i p a r t i s a n c o o p e r a t i o n on
T r a n s c r i p t o f message, page B8. taxes and spending w i t h a n e a r l y e v a n g e l i c a l
a t i o n o f t h e p r o g r e s s and renewed hope he s a i d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s had
ved s i n c e he t o o k o f f i c e .
''There i s renewed energy and optimism throughout t h e l a n d , ' ' Mr. Reagan
d e c l a r e d . ''America i s back - s t a n d i n g t a l l , l o o k i n g t o the 80's w i t h courage,
c o n f i d e n c e and hope.''
' e W i l l F i n i s h Our Job'
W
I n a sweeping summation t h a t sounded almost l i k e an appeal f o r a n o t h e r
i n o f f i c e , Mr. Reagan s a i d :
term
' ' A f t e r a l l our s t r u g g l e s t o r e s t o r e America, t o r e v i v e c o n f i d e n c e i n our
c o u n t r y and hope f o r our f u t u r e ; a f t e r a l l our hard-won v i c t o r i e s earned t h r o u g h
the p a t i e n c e and courage o f every c i t i z e n - we cannot, must not and w i l l n o t
t u r n back. We w i l l f i n i s h our j o b . ' '
Among t h e p r o p o s a l s Mr. Reagan made i n h i s address were t h e s e :
- D e c l a r i n g t h a t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s was ' ' s a f e r , s t r o n g e r and more secure''
t h a n b e f o r e , he s a i d h i s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n was ready t o n e g o t i a t e i n e a r n e s t w i t h
the Russians on a l l i s s u e s . ' ' I want t o speak t o t h e people o f t h e S o v i e t
n, ' ' he s a i d , d e c l a r i n g t h a t t h e ' ' o n l y sane p o l i c y ' ' f o r t h e two c o u n t r i e s
t o assure t h a t ''a n u c l e a r war cannot be won and must never be f o u g h t . ' '
e B7. )
•
�PAGE
The New
•
York Times, January 26,
16
1984
- On o t h e r f o r e i g n p o l i c y i s s u e s , he endorsed t h e i d e a o f l a r g e i n c r e a s e s i n
i t a r y and economic a i d t o C e n t r a l America i n t h e next s e v e r a l y e a r s and s a i d
the presence o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Marine Corps f o r c e was h e l p i n g secure p r o g r e s s
toward peace i n Lebanon.
- W i t h o u t p r o v i d i n g d e t a i l s , Mr. Reagan s a i d he would submit l e g i s l a t i o n ' ' t o
h e l p combat t e r r o r i s m . ' ' White House o f f i c i a l s s a i d t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n would
p r o v i d e money f o r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s t o improve c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h o t h e r
governments on i n t e l l i g e n c e , s t e p up p r o t e c t i v e measures a t home and d e a l w i t h
''domestic t e r r o r i s m . ' '
- Reversing t h r e e years o f p o l i c i e s c r i t i c i z e d by e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s , Mr.
Reagan s a i d he would seek a s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e i n t h e budget o f t h e
Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e cleanup o f t o x i c wastes and
e f f o r t s t o ease t h e e f f e c t s o f a c i d r a i n . A l s o announced was new money f o r
a c q u i s i t i o n o f p a r k l a n d s and a cleanup o f Chesapeake Bay.
tf
- U r g i n g t h a t Americans work t o develop ''our n e x t f r o n t i e r , ' ' Mr. Reagan
l e d f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a permanently manned space s t a t i o n o r b i t i n g t h e
h w i t h i n a decade. White House o f f i c i a l s s a i d t h i s would c o s t $8 b i l l i o n ,
t h a t Mr. Reagan would seek $150 m i l l i o n i n t h e budget f o r next year.
- The P r e s i d e n t proposed t h a t T r e a s u r y S e c r e t a r y Donald T. Regan propose next
December ''a p l a n f o r a c t i o n t o s i m p l i f y t h e e n t i r e t a x code.'' He a l s o s a i d he
would seek two C o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendments, one t o l e t t h e P r e s i d e n t v e t o
i n d i v i d u a l items i n b i l l s , the o t h e r t o r e q u i r e a balanced F e d e r a l budget.
- Under a s e c t i o n o f the speech l a b e l e d ' ' t r a d i t i o n a l v a l u e s , ' ' Mr. Reagan
renewed h i s appeals f o r r e s t o r a t i o n o f d i s c i p l i n e i n s c h o o l s , t a x c r e d i t s f o r
p a r e n t s sending c h i l d r e n t o p r i v a t e s c h o o l s , and Government-sponsored s c h o o l
p r a y e r . He a l s o c a l l e d again f o r o u t l a w i n g a b o r t i o n and f o r e f f o r t s t o combat
c h i l d pornography, sexual abuse, f a m i l y v i o l e n c e , c a r e e r c r i m i n a l s , o r g a n i z e d
crime and drug t r a f f i c k e r s .
Thus t h e P r e s i d e n t ' s speech, which White House o f f i c i a l s s a i d would ' ' s e t the
tone'' f o r t h e upcoming P r e s i d e n t i a l campaign, served t o underscore Mr. Reagan's
i n t e n t i o n t o speak t h i s year t o s o c i a l i s s u e s as w e l l as s p e c i f i c governmental
reforms.
'arm
Reception
�PAGE
The New
York Times, January 26,
17
1984
Mr. Reagan drew a warm r e c e p t i o n a t t h e b e g i n n i n g and end o f h i s 43-minute
r e s s a t t h e C a p i t o l , where s e c u r i t y o u t s i d e was heavy. He spoke smoothly,
fi some stumbles. More t h a n t h r e e dozen t i m e s , t h e audience i n t e r r u p t e d him
h applause, most n o t a b l y when he c a l l e d f o r s c h o o l p r a y e r and denounced
n u c l e a r war.
f
By f a r t h e b i g g e s t o v a t i o n came when t h e audience rose and cheered Sgt.
Stephen T r u j i l l o a f t e r Mr. Reagan c i t e d t h e Army man's r e c o r d o f heroism i n
Grenada l a s t October and s a i d : ''God b l e s s you.'' Sergeant T r u j i l l o , s i t t i n g
w i t h Mr. Reagan's f a m i l y , rose t o accept t h e g r e e t i n g .
At o t h e r moments, the applause had a more p a r t i s a n f l a v o r . Democrats
applauded l u s t i l y when Mr. Reagan s a i d , ''We must b r i n g F e d e r a l d e f i c i t s down.''
Then Republicans applauded when Mr. Reagan f i n i s h e d the sentence, ''but how we
do t h a t makes a l l t h e d i f f e r e n c e . ' '
The audience a l s o found humor i n the obvious p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f Mr.
Reagan's p r o p o s a l f o r a s t u d y t o ' ' s i m p l i f y ' ' t h e t a x code. A f t e r t h e P r e s i d e n t
s a i d he expected recommendations by December 1984, one month a f t e r t h e e l e c t i o n ,
t h e r e was a r i p p l e o f l a u g h t e r . ' ' I s a i d something funny?'' Mr.
Reagan
responded, w i t h a sheepish s m i l e .
'Down Payment' on D e f i c i t
The P r e s i d e n t d e s c r i b e d h i s p r o p o s a l on t h e budget as an appeal t o make a
''down payment'' on t h e Federal d e f i c i t , which i s p r o j e c t e d a t n e a r l y $200
^ ^ y . i o n n e x t y e a r . White House o f f i c i a l s s a i d he had i n mind a package o f
^ ^ ^ l a t i v e l y l e s s c o n t r o v e r s i a l ' ' spending c u t s and t a x i n c r e a s e s t h a t might
a ^ a n t t o $20 b i l l i o n i n t h e next f i s c a l year, b u t which would be w o r t h $100
over t h r e e y e a r s .
He announced t h a t he had spoken e a r l i e r today w i t h b o t h R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Thomas
P. O ' N e i l l J r . , t h e Speaker o f the House, and Howard H. Baker J r . , t h e Senate
m a j o r i t y l e a d e r , t o secure t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n i n s e t t i n g up a w o r k i n g group t h a t
might n e g o t i a t e modest d e f i c i t - r e d u c t i o n measures t h i s year.
The tone o f Mr. Reagan's address was c o n c i l i a t o r y . There was a f a m i l i a r
c a s t i n g o f blame f o r the n a t i o n ' s problems on 50 years o f government expansion,
but t h e r e was l i t t l e o f Mr. Reagan's past d e n u n c i a t i o n s o f Democrats.
I n k e e p i n g w i t h t h i s s p i r i t , Mr. Reagan o u t l i n e d h i s budget p r o p o s a l but d i d
not p r o v i d e many d e t a i l s . White House o f f i c i a l s , i n a b r i e f i n g b e f o r e t h e
speech, s a i d t h e P r e s i d e n t d e l i b e r a t e l y d i d not c a l l f o r a b i p a r t i s a n commission
t o t a c k l e t h e budget d e f i c i t , which was an i d e a he had c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e l a s t
two weeks.
I d e o l o g i c a l Issues
Avoided
I n s t e a d , t h e y s a i d , Mr. Reagan wanted the Democratic and Republican l e a d e r s
of b o t h t h e Senate and the House t o name r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t o a s p e c i a l group o f
n e g o t i a t o r s . T h i s group would then work out a modest package o f spending c u t s
and t a x i n c r e a s e s w i t h o u t a d d r e s s i n g some o f t h e l a r g e r , more i d e o l o g i c a l issues
have p r e v e n t e d compromise i n the p a s t .
�PAGE
The New
York Times, January 26,
18
1984
Responding t o t h e p r o p o s a l , Speaker O ' N e i l l r e f e r r e d t o i t as a
e s i d e n t i a l commission on d e f i c i t r e d u c t i o n ' ' and s a i d he was ''determined'
i t not become ''a p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s p l o y t o take t h e heat o f f those p r o p e r l y
ponsible'' f o r the d e f i c i t .
Mr. O ' N e i l l s a i d he would d e s i g n a t e R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Jim W r i g h t o f Texas, t h e
House m a j o r i t y l e a d e r , t o j o i n w i t h Senator D a n i e l K. Inouye o f Hawaii t o serve
as the Democratic r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t o t h i s b i p a r t i s a n group.
But he s a i d t h e group c o u l d not work i f Mr. Reagan kept m i l i t a r y spending o f f
l i m i t s i n the discussions.
No Repeal o f Tax
Cuts
At t h e o f f i c i a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n b r i e f i n g , a White House o f f i c i a l s a i d Mr.
Reagan would be w i l l i n g t o d i s c u s s r e s t r a i n t s on the g r o w t h o f m i l i t a r y spending
as l o n g as n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y was not j e o p a r d i z e d . But he made ^ i t c l e a r t h a t Mr.
Reagan would be u n w i l l i n g t o d i s c u s s r e p e a l i n g t h e core o f his* economic program,
i n c l u d i n g the b a s i c t a x c u t s t h a t were enacted i n 1981.
The o f f i c i a l s a i d Mr. Reagan would propose h i s own spending c u t s and
' ' l o o p h o l e - c l o s i n g ' ' t a x i n c r e a s e s i n the budget next week, amounting t o $50
b i l l i o n i n s a v i n g s over t h r e e y e a r s .
Up f o r d i s c u s s i o n w i t h t h e Democrats, he s a i d , would be such measures as
curbs on t a x breaks i n l e a s i n g , curbs on the s a l e o f tax-exempt i n d u s t r i a l
elopment bonds and changes i n a c c o u n t i n g r u l e s g o v e r n i n g t h e use o f t a x
kters.
•
On spending, t h e White House o f f i c i a l mentioned t h a t t h e r e c o u l d be
d i s c u s s i o n on p l a c i n g a cap o f 3.5 p e r c e n t on Federal pay i n c r e a s e s , and
suspending t h e payment o f c o s t - o f - l i v i n g adjustments f o r t h e v e t e r a n s and c i v i l
s e r v i c e r e t i r e m e n t programs. These p r o p o s a l s have won b i p a r t i s a n s u p p o r t , he
said.
E l e c t i o n Year C i t e d
The o f f i c i a l n o t e d t h a t , i n t h e past year, Democrats as w e l l as Republicans
i n Congress have c a l l e d f o r s i m i l a r b i p a r t i s a n e f f o r t s t o t a c k l e t h e d e f i c i t .
These have t a k e n t h e form o f p r o p o s a l s f o r commissions, economic ''summit
meetings'' and t h e l i k e .
The A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s p r o p o s a l was acknowledged by a i d e s t o r e p r e s e n t a
r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t t h e d e f i c i t o f n e a r l y $200 b i l l i o n c o u l d not be c l o s e d i n one
s t r o k e , e s p e c i a l l y i n an e l e c t i o n year.
The idea o f making a ''down payment'' came, i n f a c t , from Congress. Senator
Baker used t h e t e r m Sunday i n s a y i n g t h a t the e l e c t i o n year s h o u l d n o t p r e v e n t
some e f f o r t t o reduce t h e d e f i c i t and i n s u r e t h a t the c u r r e n t economic r e c o v e r y
i s not t h w a r t e d .
Mr. Reagan s a i d t o n i g h t t h a t ''we know d e f i c i t s are a cause f o r w o r r y , ' ' and
t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e o f o p i n i o n as t o whether t a x e s s h o u l d be i n c r e a s e d ,
d i n g c u t , o r some o f b o t h . ' ' He c a l l e d f o r l o n g - t e r m ' ' s t r u c t u r a l reforms t o
the b u i l t - i n g r o w t h o f spending,'' but seemed t o suggest he would not
�PAGE
19
The New York Times, January 26, 1984
propose these now.
B i l l i o n D e f i c t a Goal
He c a l l e d f o r ''prompt agreement'' on t h e d e f i c i t - r e d u c t i o n p l a n . The White
House o f f i c i a l suggested i t c o u l d come by m i d - A p r i l . He s a i d f u r t h e r t h a t i f the
p l a n were p u t i n p l a c e , t h e d e f i c i t c o u l d be reduced t o below $100 b i l l i o n by
1989 - ''a range t h a t most people are c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h . ' '
The A d m i n i s t r a t i o n i s now p r o j e c t i n g d e f i c i t s t o s t a y i n the $200 b i l l i o n
range t h r o u g h 1987, b u t t o d i p s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f t e r t h a t because o f economic
growth, p r o j e c t e d lower i n t e r e s t r a t e s on the n a t i o n a l debt and t h e e f f e c t o f
new S o c i a l S e c u r i t y t a x e s .
Most o f Mr. Reagan's address was focused not on t h e d e t a i l s o f d e f i c i t s o r
o t h e r programs b u t on broad themes, p a r t i c u l a r l y on t h e concept o f t h e 1980's
b e i n g a p e r i o d o f change and growth f o r which t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s must p r e p a r e
i t s e l f . The term ''the 80's'' was used a g a i n and a g a i n .
O f f i c i a l s who worked on the speech s a i d t h i s was an e f f o r t t o c a p i t a l i z e on
t h e f e a r among many v o t e r s t h a t the f u t u r e was a time o f p e r i l and u n c e r t a i n t y .
'Sunrise I n d u s t r i e s ' C i t e d
Mr. Reagan spoke o f the f u t u r e i n s p e c i f i c terms by t a l k i n g about i m p r o v i n g
s c h o o l s , embarking on the space s t a t i o n and c l e a r i n g t h e way f o r
i v a t e - s e c t o r i n v e s t m e n t ' ' i n space. I n more g e n e r a l terms, he spoke o f t h e
f o r c o n t i n u i n g on t h e p a t h o f economic growth as t h e best way t o meet t h e
re's challenges.
•
He spoke a l s o o f t h e ' ' s u n r i s e i n d u s t r i e s o f h i g h t e c h ' ' and mentioned two
e n t r e p r e n e u r s who he s a i d had r i s e n from p o v e r t y and become ''heroes f o r t h e
80's.''
He made few comments about what he had i n mind f o r ' ' t a x r e f o r m , ' ' but s a i d
i t would be ''immoral t o make those who are p a y i n g taxes pay more t o compensate
f o r those who a r e n ' t p a y i n g t h e i r share.''
T h i s appeared t o be a d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t he would not countenance t a x i n c r e a s e s
except i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a c h i e v i n g ' ' s i m p l i c i t y ' ' and ' ' i n c e n t i v e s f o r growth.''
His statement a l s o made i t c l e a r t h a t such improvements would not be c o n s i d e r e d
u n t i l next year, a t i m e when h i s a d v i s e r s hope Mr. Reagan w i l l s t i l l be i n
office.
GRAPHIC: photo o f Sgt. Stephen T r u j i l l o
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
(page B7); photo o f P r e s i d e n t Reagan
�o
>
X
X
a
c
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
�Jan. 23
Administration of Jimmy Carter, 1980
sist members of our armed forces as well
as veterans and their families, to instruct
us and our families infirstaid and water
safety, and to provide a vast array of
community health services.
We in the federal employ can be of
great assistance to the Red Cross by providing it withfinancialsupport, by volunteering our free time as volunteers, and
by donating blood for the ill and injured.
Although the Red Cross is part of the
Combined Federal Campaign within the
Federal Government, approximately half
of its 3,000 chapters raise all their funds
in March. Additionally, all chapters use
this period to inform the public of available Red Cross services and to recruit new
volunteers and blood donors.
As President of the United States and
Honorary Chairman of the American Red
Cross, I urge all members of the Federal
establishment and members of the Armed
Forces to support this vital voluntary organization.
JIMMY CARTER
Nobel Laureate
Andrei Sakharov
While House Statement. January 23, 1980
The decision by Soviet authorities to
deprive Nobel laureate Andrei Sakharov
of his honors and to send him into exile
arouses worldwide indignation. This
denial of basic freedoms is a direct violation of the Helsinki Accords and a blow
to the aspirations of all mankind to establish respect for human rights. The
American people join with free men and
women everywhere in condemning this
act
We must, at the same time, ask why
the Soviet Union has chosen this moment
194
to persecute this great man. What has
he done in the past few months that is
in any way different from what he was
doing for the past 20 years? Why the need
to silence him now? Is it because of the
invasion and occupation of Afghanistan?
Just as we have welcomed Solzhenitsyn,
Brodsky, Rostropovich, and thousands of
others who havefledSoviet oppression, so
we would welcome Dr. Sakharov. It is
part of our proud and sacred heritage.
The arrest of Dr. Sakharov is a scar
on their system that the Soviet leaders
cannot erase by hurling abuse at him and
seeking to mask the truth. His voice may
be silenced in exile, but the truths he has
spoken serve as a monument to his courage and an inspiration to man's enduring
quest for dignity and freedom.
The State of the Union
Addrest Delivered Before a Joint Seition of
the Congress. January 23,1980
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of
the 96th Congress, fellow citizens:
This last few months has not been an
easy time for any of us. As we meet tonight, it has never been more clear that
the state of our Union depends on the
state of the world. And tonight, as
throughout our own generation, freedom
and peace in the world depend on the
state of our Union.
The 1980's have been bom in turmoil,
strife, and change. This is a time of challenge to our interests and our values and
it's a time that tests our wisdom and our
skills.
At this time in Iran, 50 Americans are
still held captive, innocent victims of terrorism and anarchy. Also at this moment,
massive Soviet troops are attempting to
�Administration of Jimmy Carter, 1980
subjugate the fiercely independent and
deeply religious people of Afghanistan.
These two acts—one of international terrorism and one of military aggression—
present a serious challenge to the United
States of America and indeed to all the
nations of the world. Together, we will
meet these threats to peace.
I'm determined that the United States
will remain the strongest of all nations,
but our power will never be used to initiate
a threat to the security of any nation or
to the rights of any human being. We seek
to be and to remain secure—a nation at
peace in a stable world. But to be secure
we must face the world as it is.
Three basic developments have helped
to shape our challenges: the steady growth
and increased projection of Soviet military power beyond its own borders; the
overwhelming dependence of the Westem democracies on oil supplies from the
Middle East; and the press of social and
religious and economic and political
change in the many nations of the developing world, exemplified by the revolution in Iran.
Each of these factors is important in its
own right. Each interacts with the others.
All must be faced together, squarely and
courageously. We will face these challenges, and we will meet them with the
best that is in us. And we will not fail.
In response to the abhorrent act in
Iran, our Nation has never been aroused
and- unified so greatly in peacetime. Our
position is clear. The United States will
not yield to blackmail.
We continue to pursue these specific
goals: first, to protect the present and
long-range interests of the United States;
secondly, to preserve the lives of the American hostages and to secure, as quickly as
possible, their safe release, if possible, to
avoid bloodshed which might further endanger the lives of our fellow citizens; to
Jan. 23
enlist the help of other nations in condemning this act of violence, which is
shocking and violates the moral and the
legal standards of a civilized world; and
also to convince and to persuade the Iranian leaders that the real danger to their
nation lies in the north, in the Soviet
Union and from the Soviet troops now in
Afghanistan, and that the unwarranted
Iranian quarrel with the United States
hampers their response to this far greater
danger to them.
If the American hostages are harmed, a
severe price will be paid. We will never
rest until every one of the American hostages are released.
But now we face a broader and more
fundamental challenge in this region because of the recent military action of the
Soviet Union.
Now, as during the last SJ/fc decades, the
relationship between our country, the
United States of America, and the Soviet
Union is the most critical factor in determining whether the world will live at
peace or be engulfed in global conflict.
Since the end of the Second World
War, America has led other nations in
meeting the challenge of mounting Soviet
power. This has not been a simple or a
static relationship. Between us there has
been cooperation, there has been competition, and at times there has been confrontation.
In the 1940's we took the lead in creating the Atlantic Alliance in response to
the Soviet Union's suppression and then
consolidation of its East European empire
and the resulting threat of the Warsaw
Pact to Western Europe.
In the 1950's we helped to contain further Soviet challenges in Korea and in
the Middle East, and we rearmed to assure the continuation of that containment.
In the 1960's we met the Soviet challenges in Berlin, and we faced the Cuban
195
�Jan. 23
Administration of Jimmy Carter, 1980
missile crisis. And we sought to engage the
Soviet Union in the important task of
moving beyond the cold war and away
from confrontation.
And in the 1970's three American Presidents negotiated with the Soviet leaders
in attempts to halt the growth of the nuclear arms race. We sought to establish
rules of behavior that would reduce the
risks of conflict, and we searched for areas
of cooperation that could make our relations reciprocal and productive, not only
for the sake of our two nations but for
the security and peace of the entire world.
In all these actions, we have maintained
two commitments: to be ready to meet
any challenge by Soviet military power,
and to develop ways to resolve disputes
and to keep the peace.
Preventing nuclear war is the foremost
responsibility of the two superpowers.
That's why we've negotiated the strategic
arms limitation treaties—SALT I and
SALT I I . Especially now, in a time of
great tension, observing the mutual constraints imposed by the terms of these
treaties will be in the best interest of both
countries and will help to preserve world
peace. I will consult very closely with the
Congress on this matter as we strive to
control nuclear weapons. That effort to
control nuclear weapons will not be
abandoned.
We superpowers also have the responsibility to exercise restraint in the use of
our great military force. The integrity and
the independence of weaker nations must
not be threatened. They must know that
in our presence they are secure.
But now the Soviet Union has taken a
radical and an aggressive new step. It's
using its great military power against a
relatively defenseless nation. The implications of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
could pose the most serious threat to the
peace since the Second World War.
196
The vast majority of nations on Earth
have condemned this latest Soviet attempt
to extend its colonial domination of others
and have demanded the immediate withdrawal of Soviet troops. The Moslem
world is especially and justifiably outraged by this aggression against an
Islamic people. No action of a world
power has ever been so quickly and so
overwhelmingly condemned. But verbal
condemnation is not enough. The Soviet
Union must pay a concrete price for their
aggression.
While this invasion continues, we and
the other nations of the world cannot conduct business as usual with the Soviet
Union. That's why the United States has
imposed stiff economic penalties on the
Soviet Union. I will not issue any permits
for Soviet ships to fish in the coastal
waters of the United States. I've cut
Soviet access to high-technology equipment and to agricultural products. I've
limited other commerce with the Soviet
Union, and I've asked our allies and
friends to join with us in restraining their
own trade with the Soviets and not to replace our own embargoed items. And I
have notified the Olympic Committee
that with Soviet invading forces in Afghanistan, neither the American people
nor I will support sending an Olympic
team to Moscow.
The Soviet Union is going to have to
answer some basic questions: Will it help
promote a more stable international environment in which its own legitimate,
peaceful concerns can be pursued? Or will
it continue to expand its military power
far beyond its genuine security needs, and
use that power for colonial conquest? The
Soviet Union must realize that its decision to use military force in Afghanistan
will be costly to every political and
economicrelationshipit values.
�Administration of Jimmy Carter, 1980
The region which is now threatened
by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great
strategic importance: It contains more
than two-thirds of the world's exportable
oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to
within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and
close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway
through which most of the world's oil
must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat
to the free movement of Middle East oil.
This situation demands careful thought,
steady nerves, and resolute action, not only
for this year but for many years to come.
It demands collective efforts to meet this
new threat to security in the Persian Gulf
and in Southwest A^sia. It demands the
participation of all those who rely on oil
from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability.
And it demands consultation and close
cooperation with countries in the area
which might be threatened.
Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course,
military capability. We must call on the
best that is in us to preserve the security
of this crucial region. .
Let our position be absolutely clear: An
attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be
regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and
such an assault will be repelled by any
means necessary, including military force.
During the past 3 years, you have
joined with me to improve our own security and the prospects for peace, not only
in the vital oil-producing area of the
Persian Gulf region but around the world.
We've increased annually our real commitment for defense, and we will sustain
this increase of effort throughout the Five
Jan. 23
Year Defense Program. It's imperative
that Congress approve this strong defense
budget for 1981, encompassing a 5percent real growth in authorizations,
without any reduction.
We are also improving our capability
to deploy U.S. military forces rapidly to
distant areas. We've helped to strengthen
NATO and our other alliances, and recently we and other NATO members have
decided to develop and to deploy modernized, intermediate-range nuclear forces
to meet an unwarranted and increased
threat from the nuclear weapons of the
Soviet Union.
We are working with our allies to
prevent conflict in the Middle East. The
peace treaty between Egypt and Israel is
a notable achievement whichrepresentsa
strategic asset for America and which also
enhances prospects forregionaland world
peace. We are now engaged in further
negotiations to provide full autonomy for
the people of the West Bank and Gaza, to
resolve the Palestinian issue in all its
aspects, and to preserve the peace and
security of Israel. Let no one doubt our
commitment to the security of Israel. In a
few days we will observe an historic event
when Israel makes another major withdrawal from the Sinai and when Ambassadors will be exchanged between Israel
and Egypt.
We've also expanded our own sphere
of friendship. Our deep commitment to
humanrightsand to meeting human needs
has improved ourrelationshipwith much
of the Third World. Our decision to normalizerelationswith the People's Republic of China will help to preserve peace
and stability in Asia and in the Western
Pacific.
We've increased and strengthened our
naval presence in the Indian Ocean, and
we are now making arrangements for key
naval and air facilities to be used by our
197
�Jan. 23
Administration of Jimmy Carter, 1980
forces in the region of northeast Africa
and the Persian Gulf.
We've reconfirmed our 1959 agreement to help Pakistan preserve its independence and its integrity. The United
States will take action consistent with our
own laws to assist Pakistan in resisting any
outside aggression. And Pm asking the
Congress specifically to reaffirm this
agreement. I'm also working, along with
the leaders of other nations, to provide additional military and economic aid for
Pakistan. That request will come to you in
just a few days.
In the weeks ahead, we will further
strengthen political and military ties with
other nations in the region. We believe
that there are no irreconcilable differences
between us and any Islamic nation. We
respect the faith of Islam, and we are
ready to cooperate with all Moslem
countries.
Finally, we are prepared to work with
other countries in the region to share a
cooperative security framework that respects differing values and political beliefs, yet which enhances the independence, security, and prosperity of all.
All these efforts combined emphasize
our dedication to defend and preserve the
vital interests of theregionand of the nation which werepresentand those of our
allies—in Europe and the Pacific, and also
in the parts of the world which have such
great strategic importance to us, stretching especially through the Middle East
and Southwest Asia. With your help, I
will pursue these efforts with vigor and
with determination. You and I will act as
necessary to protect and to preserve our
Nation's security.
The men and women of America's
Armed Forces are on duty tonight in many
parts of the world. I'm proud of the job
they are doing, and I know you share that
pride. I believe that our volunteer forces
198
are adequate for current defense needs,
and I hope that it will not become necessary to impose a draft. However, we must
be prepared for that possibility. For this
reason, I have determined that the Selective Service System must now be revitalized. I will send legislation and budget
proposals to the Congress next month so
that we can begin registration and then
meet future mobilization needs rapidly if
they arise.
We also need clear and quick passage
of a new charter to define the legal authority and accountability of our intelligence
agencies. We will guarantee that abuses do
not recur, but we must tighten our controls on sensitive intelligence information,
and we need to remove unwarranted restraints on America's ability to collect
intelligence.
The decade ahead will be a time of
rapid change, as nations everywhere seek
to deal with new problems and age-old
tensions. But America need have no fear.
We can thrive in a world of change if we
remain true to our values and actively
engaged in promoting world peace. We
will continue to work as we have for peace
in the Middle East and southern Africa.
We will continue to build our ties with
developing nations,respectingand helping to strengthen their national independence which they have struggled so hard to
achieve. And we will continue to support
the growth of democracy and the protection of human rights.
Inrepressiveregimes,popular frustrations often have no outlet except through
violence. But when peoples and their governments can approach their problems together through open, democratic methods,
the basis for stability and peace is far more
solid and far more enduring. That is why
our support for human rights in other
countries is in our own national interest
�Administration of Jimmy Carter, 1980
as well as part of our own national
character.
Peace—a peace that preserves freedom—remains America's first goal. In
the coming years, as a mighty nation we
will continue to pursue peace. But to be
strong abroad we must be strong at home.
And in order to be strong, we must continue to face up to the difficult issues that
confront us as a nation today.
The crises in Iran and Afghanistan have
dramatized a very important lesson: Our
excessive dependence on foreign oil is a
clear and present danger to our Nation's
security. The need has never been more
urgent. At long last, we must have a
clear, comprehensive energy policy for the
United States.
As you well know, I have been working
with the Congress in a concentrated and
persistent way over the past 3 years to
meet this need. We have made progress
together. But Congress must act promptly
now to completefinalaction on this vital
energy legislation. Our Nation will then
have a major conservation effort, important initiatives to develop solar power,
realistic pricing based on the true value
of oil, strong incentives for the production of coal and other fossil fuels in the
United States, and our Nation's most
massive peacetime investment in the development of synthetic fuels.
The American people are making progress in energy conservation. Last year we
reduced overall petroleum consumption
by 8 percent and gasoline consumption by
5 percent below what it was the year
before. Now we must do more.
After consultation with the Governors,
we will set gasoline conservation goals for
each of the 50 States, and I will make
them mandatory if these goals are not
met.
I've established an import ceiling for
1980 of 8.2 million barrels a day—well
Jan. 23
below the level of foreign oil purchases in
1977. I expect our imports to be much
lower than this, but the ceiling will be enforced by an oil import fee if necessary.
I'm prepared to lower these imports still
further if the other oil-consuming countries will join us in a fair and mutual reduction. If we have a serious shortage,
I will not hesitate to impose mandatory
gasoline rationing immediately.
The single biggest factor in the inflation
rate last year, the increase in the inflation rate last year, was from one cause:
the skyrocketing prices of OPEC oil. We
must take whatever actions are necessary
to reduce our dependence on foreign oil—
and at the same time reduce inflation.
As individuals and as families, few of
us can produce energy by ourselves. But
all of us can conserve energy—every one
of us, every day of our lives. Tonight I
call on you—in fact, all the people of
America—to help our Nation. Conserve
energy. Eliminate waste. Make 1980 indeed a year of energy conservation.
Of course, we must take other actions
to strengthen our Nation's economy.
First, we will continue to reduce the
deficit and then to balance the Federal
budget.
Second, as we continue to work with
business to hold down prices, we'll build
also on the historic national accord with
organized labor to restrain pay increases
in a fairfightagainst inflation.
Third, we will continue our successful
efforts to cut paperwork and to dismantle
unnecessary Government regulation.
Fourth, we will continue our progress
in providing jobs for America, concentrating on a major new program to provide training and work for our young
people, especially minority youth. It has
been said that "a mind is a terrible thing
to waste." We will give our young people
199
�Jan. 23
Administration of Jimmy Carter, 1980
new hope for jobs and a better life in the
1980's.
And fifth, we must use the decade of
the 1980's to attack the basic structural
weaknesses and problems in our economy
through measures to increase productivity, savings, and investment
With these energy and economic policies, we will make America even stronger
at home in this decade—just as our foreign and defense policies will make us
stronger and safer throughout the world.
We will never abandon our struggle for
a just and a decent society here at home.
That's the heart of America—and it's the
source of our ability to inspire other people to defend their own rights abroad.
Our material resources, great as they
are, are limited. Our problems are too
complex for simple slogans or for quick
solutions. We cannot solve them without
effort and sacrifice. Walter Lippmann
once reminded us, "You took the good
things for granted. Now you must earn
them again. For every right that you
cherish, you have a duty which you must
fulfill. For every good which you wish to
preserve, you will have to sacrifice your
comfort and your ease. There is nothing
for nothing any longer."
Our challenges are formidable. But
there's a new spirit of unity and resolve in
our country. We move into the 1980's with
confidence and hope and a bright vision
of the America we want: an America
strong and free, an America at peace, an
America with equal rights for all citizens—and for women, guaranteed in the
United States Constitution—an America
with jobs and good health and good education for every citizen, an America with
a clean and bountiful life in our cities and
on our farms, an America that helps to
feed the world, an America secure in filling its own energy needs, an America of
justice, tolerance, and compassion. For
200
this vision to come true, we must sacrifice,
but this national commitment will be an
exciting enterprise that will unify our
people.
Together as one people, let us work to
build our strength at home, and together
as one indivisible union, let us seek peace
and security throughout the world.
Together let us make of this time of
challenge and danger a decade of national
resolve and of brave achievement.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9 p.m. in the
House Chamber at the Capitol. He was introduced by Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., Speaker
of the House of Representatives. The address
was broadcast live on radio and television.
Visit of Prime Minister Francesco
Cossiga of Italy
Remarks at the Welcoming Ceremony.
January 24, 1980
T H E PRESIDENT. On this beautiful day
it is a great honor for me, representing the
United States of America and its 220 million people, to welcome to our country
Prime Minister Francesco Cossiga, Prime
Minister of the Republic of Italy.
There is no need for me to remind
Americans about the close and long and
historical friendship and the alliances
which bind our people together, not only
military alliance, which has permitted us
to share with one another the responsibility for the maintenance of peace, but
also close political consultation and mutual support, cultural exchanges, rapidly
increasing levels of trade, and the enormous kinship, blood kinship, which binds
more than 7 million Americans to their
ancestors and to their present families in
Italy.
�State of the Union
garter: America Will Meet Soviet Challenge
jlDeclaring that "we muat face the
idias it is," President Carter, in his
MState of the Union message,
caUiragfor a renewed commitment to
the|mjiitary and economic security of
the|United States, and for a new commitment to defend U.S. oil supplies in
thelpwsian Gulf. (Text, p. 200)
|~jSe president told Congress that
the holcling of 50 American hostages in
f|Ind the Soviet invasion of Af|tan "present a serious challenge
to tfie|United Stetes of America and
mdefdlto the other nations of the
worita^Together, we will meet these
threats to peace."
Ipe most direct challenge comes
- fronmhe Soviet Union, Carter said,
because its "radical and aggressive"
invasion of Afghanistan "could pose
the .most serious threat to the peace
smcgfthe Second World War."
JjiMieet the threats to U.S. securty^^^k called on Congress to boost
def^^Mending, reinstate draft registratioi!; provide military and economic
aid to Pakistan, remove restrictions on
intelligence-gathering agencies and
Pass legislation toreduceU.S. dependence on imported oil.
i
df
Warning to Moscow
And Carter bluntly warned the
Soviet Union to stay out of the oil-producing nations along the Persian Gulf:
"An attempt by any outside force to
gain control of the Persian Gulf region
will be regarded as an assault on the
; vital interests of the United States,
; tod such an assault will be repelled by
: toy is necessary, including mili: «*ry force."
' • C a r t e r did not specifically say,
however, at what point and under
,
conditions the United States
| would use military force.
^
Ifl' his speech Jan. 23, the presif Oent stopped short of setting forth a
' T »? "P^fcd "Carter doctrine" on
k
: w Middle East. Administration offit oau had predicted that Carter would
outline a sweeping policy setting forth
wtailed U.S. interests and future ac«!^lIL
&
the world. InsteadAkp speech listed actions the
ites has taken in response to
the hostage crisis, the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan and the overall "Soviet
threat." (U.S. responses, p. 180)
Carter did not mention one other
action that is certain to be controversial. The day after his speech, the Defense Department announced that the
United States is willing to sell military
equipment — including trucks and
communications gear, but not weapons — to the People's Republic of
China.
The president, according to his
advisers and some members of Congress, sought to warn the American
people of the steps that are necessary
to meet the Soviet threat to peace,
without whipping up a cold war hysteria. While Democrats called that approach "carefully-balanced," some
Republicans said Carter merely promised "something for everyone."
Turning Point
In many respects, the speech represented the formal turning point in
Carter's foreign policy. During his first
three years in office, his approach to
the world centered on such elements
as limiting strategic arms, promoting
human rights, reducing arms sales
abroad, and stopping the spread of nu-
clear weapons, ^ose goals remain,
but for the m s|gart they have been
relegated to th lack burner,
The most
lificant reflection of
Carter's new
sment of the world
situation was a auest that the Senate delay consi Btionofthe SALT II
treaty. Carter
the SALT treaty
last among his Kt priorities for congressional actio: ' foreign policy legislation in 1980. {e had asked Senate
Majority Leade: obert C. Byrd, DW.Va., on Ja £3 that SALT be
shelved for the
being. (Weekly
Report p. 3)
In place of ||5b8e policies, Carter
emphasized def^njjie spending, strategic arms develomnent, rapid deployment capability^ or U.S. forces, and
increased militajg$ aid to America's
allies.
jffi|<
Even more tjjgn in his speech before Congress, Cwter's comprehensive
written State oflHie Union message
emphasized thej^jeed for higher military spending, "^e must pay whatever price is required to remain the
strongest nation jm the world," the
Jan. 21 written message said. (Text, p.
203)
Buoyed by hisj victory in the Iowa
caucuses just two days earlier, Carter
seemed determined, forceful and self-
;
t h a t
re
ion
o f
—B\ John Felton
CO^YtlGMT 19«0 C O N G t l S S O N A t O U M T i i t v INC
^production
proh.btod
.n « h e U o r m p a r i i M C p t
b y •drtOMOl
cbwitt
Jan. 26, 1980—PAGE 171
�State of the Union • 2
assured. ^He entered and left the
packed House chamber to thunderous
applause^ enthusiastically shaking
hands on^both sides of the aisle like a
campaigning politician. (Iowa results,
p. 187) *[
Career's
tough talk won
widepsrean applause from both Republican^and Democrats in Congress,
many of^hom have already labeled
this sessicjlj the "security-minded Congress." But some Republicans expressed sfiepticism about Carter's new
emphasisfjon national security. Rep.
Bill GooMng, R-Pa., labeled Carter a
"bom agfiin" convert to "a strong national defense." (Reaction of presidential candidates, box, p. 175)
The clay after Carter's speech, the
House overwhelmingly adopted a resolution calling for a boycott of the Moscow Summer Olympics, and both the
House and Senate approved a most-favored-nation trade agreement with
China.
Carter's message was devoted almost exclusively to the state of the
world, as. a result of the turmoil in the
Middle -East. The speech contrasted
sharply iwith Carter's 1979 address,
which concentrated on inflation. This
year, the; president mentioned inflation onlj^in passing.
Carts! proposed only one new domestic ^hture: a "major new program
to provid| training and work for our
young Mpple." This was outlined in
the writ'tgh message, (p. 177)
Thejjjresident repeated his call for
CongresS^o complete action on pend-
ing energy legislation. He announced a
1980 oil import ceiling of 8.2 million
barrels: a figure much higher than the
expected level for this year. And Carter called on the American people to
"conserve energy, eliminate waste,
make 1980 the year of energy
conservation."
Soviet Invasion
Carter vigorously condemned the
Dec. 27 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which he portrayed as a potential
threat to the Persian Gulf.
"The Soviet effort to dominate
Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the
Indian Ocean and close to the Straits
of Hormuz — a waterway through
which much of the world's oil must
flow," he said. "The Soviet Union is
now attempting to consolidate a strategic position that poses a grave threat
to the free movement of Middle East
oil."
The president reviewed the widespread condemnation of the Soviet action, including the overwhelming passage of a United Nations General
Assembly resolution calling for the removal of all foreign troops from
Afghanistan.
"But verbal condemnation is not
enough," he said. "The Soviet Union
must pay a concrete price for their aggression. While the invasion continues, we and other countries cannot
continue business as usual with the
Soviet Union."
New Period of Cold War?
^denouncing the Soviet Union's Dec. 27, 1979, invasion of Afghanisident Carter revived memories of the cold war period in U.S.-Soations. The implications of Moscow's latest military action, he
in his address, posed "the most serious threat to the peace since the
World War." The invasion, Carter implied in charting the recent
of relations between the powers, had seriously jeopardized the
postw ir efforts of the United States to move "beyond the cold war and away
from! l^nfrontation."
cold war — the
open hostility short of
connjjje labelWashington and period of — came into common armed soon
i&ween
Moscow
usage
flictl)
afterj$rorld War II ended and the alliance between the Western powers and
the flwiet Union broke up.
'New power relationships were formed after 1945 that transformed the
United States and. Russia into the undisputed superpowers of the world.
Mlbording to Elisabeth Barker, in her book The Cold War, the phrase
wasscmned by Bernard Baruch, a confidant of President Harry S Truman,
in tHjgspring of 1947. Baruch had proposed a plan for the international control of nuclear weapons. Even before 1947, it was apparent that the Soviet
Union was determined to subjugate the Eastern European countries it had
occupied during the war rather than cooperate in the postwar economic recovery of Europe.
PAGE 172—Jan. 26, 1980
COP*«lGHT I9B0 CONGHESSlONAt QUARTERLY INC.
J V C M A prohibited .n w h o l * or in port t i c t p t by •diteriol clwnn
Carter recited the "severe economic penalties" he||iad already im.
posed on the Soviet .Union, including
the ban on Sovietfisfiingwithin U.8.
territorial waters, thejthreatened boy.
cott of the Moscow GJlympics and the
embargo on sales of grain, other agricultural goods and^gigh technology
items to the Soviet UAion.
Although the grain embargo is the
most forceful action Ihe has taken api,
far, Carter quickly ^ssed over thijftfr
controversial move during his speech/
The grain embargo has stirred of)"
substantial antagonism in Congress,*
especially from members representing
grain-producing states. Most other
presidential candidates also have critli
cized the embargo as an ineffective ac^
tion which will penalize AmericaQ-.
farmers more than the Soviet Ui
A i d to Pakistan
<:
Carter affirmed the 1959 U.i.
commitment to the "independent ,
and integrity" of Pakistan, a longtiaofl
U.S. ally that staifds between Ai^
ghanistan and the Indian Ocean. Spe||
cifically, he said he will ask Congressf
to "reaffirm" the Agreement undo;'
which the United States promised to."
come to Pakistan's tiid if threatened; •
(Text of agreement',^. 176)
"%
The president iaicl he also will
Congress to approvl^special military,
and economic aid tSfPakistan, but hijj
did not give any details. Administra^
tion officials had saSf Carter pi
to ask Congress for $400 million in
to be spread over twcfyears. But Pafctfy.
stani leaders have aMed for billions of!
dollars of aid, ancfcjyjthe request
t
been delayed.
In his speech, Cjuter did not mea^;
tion that Congress'^will have to sub-'
stantially weaken tJjS. nuclear
proliferation policwin order to aid
Pakistan. ChargingUHat Pakistan
attempting to buildjmuclear weapons.
Carter had cut off tn%to that nation in
April 1979.
|p
The 1978 Nuclear Non-proliferation Act prohibits tpj. aid to nations
that are engaged u^Jhe develops t
of nuclear weapons^/978 Almanac p.
350)
Draft Registration/Defense
Although he declared his faith in
the all-volunteer army, and exp
I
the hope that it *nll?not be necessary
to reimpose the draft, Carter said the
Selective Service System "must now
be revitalized." He said he would
Congress to authorize resumption of
registration of 18 to 26 year olds so the
�Sfofe of the Union - 3
iW
Military Draft Registration No Cure-all
President Carter's call for reinstituting mandatory
draft registration will, if backed by Congress, give the
Pentagon a manpower pool from which it can either expand the size of U.S. forcesfpr replace casualties in a
full-blown war lasting several months.
But it still would be a long way from resumption of
peacetime conscription, which requires separate congressional approval.
^
Nor would registration ?remedy the two problems
that most severely undermine^ U.S. forces' readiness:
• Too few technically trained officers and enlisted
personnel are remaining in the service to provide a core
of experienced grass-roots leaders.
• Too few persons with previous military training are
joining the reserve units on!which the Pentagon must
rely for immediate reinforcements and casualty replacements in wartime. (Manpowkr problems, 1979 Weekly
Report p. 735)
;
Carter Proposal
Who Will it Affect? By a law still in effect, men 1826 are eligible for conscription', but initially the administration may register only persons bom in a particular
year. (There are about 2 million men in any one of these
year-of-birth groups.)
Carter will decide soon
perhaps by Feb. 9 when
he is due to send Congress aareport on registration —
^whether to ask for legislation that would require registration of women. When the Armed Services committees
onsidered registration proposals in 1979, some members
of Congress opposed drafting >women while some members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff favored including women
in any registration. But they emphasized that they
hoped simply to avoid legal challenges to the registration
process on grounds of sex discrimination.
How Will it Work? Under Carter's plan, all eligible
persons would fill out a form at their local post office giving the Selective Service System their name and current
address. With this data entered into computers, the
draft agency will have a current inventory of the nation's
draft-age manpower pool.
The registrants will not be classified in terms of
their eligibility for induction, nor will they be given
medical examinations. In 1979 the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) estimated that medical examinations
alone would add $13 million tothe annual cost of a registration program. And CBO said there was no real benefit
United States "can meet future mobiUiation needs rapidly if they sttse."
However, he did not say whether he
*ould recommend registration of-;both
©en and women. (Draft registration
details, above)
That proposal is likely tt> be
among the most controversial iri tartar's new national security package.
Liberals such as Sens. Edward M.
Jfenned; D-Mass., and GeorgeVMcnnedy,
», D-S.D., insisted that registra^ ^ V v vould be the first step toward reoi
^^H> of ithe draft.
of
1
to warrant that cost since registrants would have to be
re-examined anyway if they were drafted.
Timetable for Induction. The Pentagon's current
goal for any future draft is to receive the first draftee on
30 days notice, the first 100,000 within 60 days and
650,000 within six months.
As recently as mid-1979, the administration insisted
that the schedule could be met by a one-time, mass-registration of eligible persons on the 10th day after a decision to mobilize. The CBO had discussed an alternative
approach that would let the draft agency compile its inventory of eligible persons from the existing records of
several government agencies: the Social Security System, the Internal Revenue Service and state motor vehicle bureaus.
But in their reports accompanying thefiscal1980
weapons procurement bill, the Senate and House Armed
Services committees denounced the one-time plan as a
dangerous gamble. And proponents of active registration
warned that reliance on the computer files of other federal agencies would be vulnerable to a wide range of legal challenges. (1979 Weekly Report p. 1975)
Legislation Needed. Carter already has authority
to reinstitute registration, but Congress will have to appropriate the necessary funds to carry out that policy.
The administration will request a $10 million supplemental appropriation to add to the $10 million already
appropriated for the draft agency for fiscal 1980. For fiscal 1981, the president will request about $23 million.
%
m
h
•YW
•sp
Military Pay Raise
Before recessing in December, the Senate agreed to
vote early this session on a proposal by Sens. William L.
Armstrong, R-Colo., and Spark M. Matsunaga, D-Hawaii, that would increase military pay by 3.4 percent.
But on Jan. 22 John W. Warner, R-Va., proposed a
substitute measure that would give the raise only to
those middle-level officers and enlisted persons the Pentagon is trying to induce to remain in the service. During
a closed meeting of the Armed Services Committee Jan.
24 to discuss the issue, Sam Nunn, D-Ga., offered a
third proposal that would funnel into various military
fringe benefits the same amount of money the Armstrong plan would spend on the pay raise.
No date for floor action on the various proposals had
been set by Jan. 25. (1979 Weekly Report p. 2785)
—By Pat Towell
Especially pleased by Carter's
proposal was Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga.,
who had unsuccessfully pushed in 1979
for some form of draft registration.
(Previous action, 1979 Weekly Report
p. 2895)
The president also reaffirmed his
commitment to a fiscal 1981 defense
budget that will provide a 5 percent
increase in new budget authority, after
taking inflation into account. Carter
demanded that Congress approve the
budget request "without any reduction."
COfniGMt I MO CONGMUKMAt OUAIWHr INC
dvclwn praMbiWd tn whote <K * port neap* br •drtoriol ckann
Carter listed a series of steps he
said he initiated last year to beef up
U.S. and allied defense forces, including: development of the cruise missile
and the M-X mobile intercontinental
missile; the commitment to a "rapid
deployment force;" the agreement
among NATO countries to deploy intermediate-range nuclear weapons;
the increased U.S. naval presence in
the Indian Ocean; the search for
permanent air and naval facilities in
the Middle East and strengthening
ties with U.S. allies.
Jan. 26, 1980—PAGE 173
SI
�Sfofe of the Union - 4
Repeal of Some Restraints on CIA Sought
President Carter's call for repeal of various limitations on the CIA may force Congress to confront several
issues that emerged during the 1975-76 congressional
hearings into questionable U.S. intelligence activities.
(Congress and the Nation Vol. IV, p. 182)
Between 1961 and 1975, the CIA conducted 900 major covert action projects abroad, according to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee's final report, issued
in 1976. These ranged from financial support of anticommunist labor movements in Europe to assassination
plots against foreign heads of government and a "secret
war" in Laos.
The committee concluded that covert operations
tended to be successful when they had been launched in
support of "policies which have emerged from a national
debate and the established processes of government."
Covert assistance to anti-communist forces in Western
Europe in the late 1940s were an example of such operations, it said.
But the committee warned against "a temptation
on the part of the executive branch to resort to covert operations in order to avoid bureaucratic, congressional
and public debate." It pointed to the CIA's secret war in
Laos and the campaign against the government of
Chilean President Salvador Allende as cases in which
covert action had been used as a "convenience."
Three key issues are likely to dominate any debate
over legislative controls on covert action:
• Who must authorize covert operations? The socalled Hughes-Ryan amendment to the 1974 foreign aid
bill requires presidential approval of every covert action
project. Carter reportedly will propose that the president's personal involvement be limited to those operations which entail "substantial" risks, costs or consequences. No attempt will be made to define what
"substantial" risks are. (1974 Almanac p. 538)
• How many congressional committees must be advised? The Hughes-Ryan amendment requires that the
president report covert actions to "appropriate" congressional committees, including Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs. In practice, "appropriate" has been interpreted to also include the Appropriations, Armed Services and Intelligence committees.
The Carter bill would require reports only to the Senate
and House Select Intelligence committees, which operate under special rules of secrecy.
Olympics
Members of Congress gave their
most enthusiastic applause to Carter's
call for a boycott of the Summer
Olympics in Moscow, unless the Soviet Union pulls its troops from
Afghanistan.
If the troops are not removed, he
said, "neither the American people nor
I will support sending an Olympic
team to Moscow."
Congress followed the applause
with action. The next day, Jan. 24, the
House passed H Con Res 249, calling
for an Olympics boycott. The vote was
PAGE 174—Jan. 26, 1980
• What covert activities are prohibited? Reports on
Carter's proposed intelligence charters have concentrated on provisions that would remove restrictions on
CIA activities rather than impose new ones. But during
the mid-1970s congressional investigations of intelligence agencies, a basic contention of the agency critics
was that certain actions simply were incompatible with
basic U.S. values.
In ah executive order reorganizing the intelligence
agencies, issued Feb. 18,1976, President Ford prohibited
political assassinations, except in wartime, and endorsed
legislation to outlaw them.
Later that year, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee proposed statutory bans on assassinations, on efforts to subvert democratic governments and on internal
security forces that systematically violate human rights.
Protection of Secrets
Since 1975 the CIA has been subject to the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) on essentially the same terms
as any other federal agency. While the agency can invoke national security as a reason for withholding information under the act, that claim is subject to challenge
in courts.
The administration's proposed changes in FOIA,
while allowing persons to use the act to demand their
personnel records from the CIA and to seek "finished national intelligence products" that did not harm national
security, would not allow use of the act to obtain many
other documents produced by the agency.
In a related move, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, DN.Y., Malcolm Wallop, R-Wyo., and several other senators have proposed legislation that would prohibit public
disclosure of the identity of any CIA agent.
Intelligence Charters
Carter's proposals are embedded in legislation to establish new "charters" defining the powers and limitations on the CIA and other intelligence agencies.
But the Moynihan-Wallop proposal simply repeals
the Hughes-Ryan amendment, establishes the partial
exemption from FOIA and prohibits disclosure of agents'
names. The broader issue of defining the CIA's proper
scope of authority would be left for later.
386-12. The Senate Commerce Committee approved a similar resolution
Jan. 25, and the Foreign Relations
Committee was to take up the issue
the week of Jan. 28.
Iran
Carter attempted to focus attention on the fate of the 50 Americans
still held hostage in the U.S. Embassy
in Tehran. "We will never rest until
every one of the hostages is released,"
he said.
Because of the hostage situation,
"our nation has never been aroused
COnHJOHT imd CONGKSSIOMM OUMTHm INC.
Reproduction proh.b*Md * " W o o* io port ticapi by •drtoHol clwoh
—By Pat Towell
and unified so greatly in peacetime,"
he said. "Our position is clear. The
United States will not yield to
blackmail."
Carter repeated his threat that "a
severe price will be paid" if the hostages are harmed. But he did not
threaten specific action. Last November, shortly after the hostages were
taken, administration officials openly
threatened military reprisal against
Iran if the hostages were hurt. (Chronology of Iranian events, Weekly Report p. 9)
And the president again attempted to tell Iran that its greatest
�State of the Union - 5
quarrel is with the Soviet Union, not
e United States.
One of his goals, he said, is to
"persuade the Iranian leaders that the
real danger to their nation lies to the
north, in the Soviet Union, and from
Soviet troops in Afghanistan, and that
the unwarranted Iranian quarrel with
us hampers their response to this
greater danger."
SALT II Treaty
Virtually lost in the shuffle was
the SALT n treaty, which until the
Afghanistan invasion was one of the
president's highest legislative
priorities.
Carter said he is committed to the
goal of strategic arms limitation, and
insisted that both the United States
and the Soviet Union should adhere to
the terms of the SALT n treaty.
But his only reference to the future of the treaty was a promise to
"consult closely with Congress as we
strive to control nuclear weapons."
On Jan. 22, in its first action of
the session, the Senate rejected a Republican-sponsored motion asking
Carter to withdraw the SALT treaty.
The vote against that move was 50-36.
essional Reaction
Carter's toughened stance against
let
^•PEoviet expansionism won general applause on Capitol Hill. But Republicans complained that Carter's actions
were too little, too late.
Congressional leaders said most of
Carter's proposals, especially aid to
Pakistan and increased defense spending, will face little serious opposition.
However, liberals may be able to delay
action on resumption of the draft and
the loosening of congressional controls
on intelligence agencies.
A typical Republican reaction
came from Rep. Goodling, a member
of the House Foreign Affairs Committee: "Had I not been in Congress the
last three years, I would have said it
was an outstanding speech," he said.
"But I've been here three years, trying
to convince the president not only to
say what he said, but to do what he
said he will do."
Goodling said Carter "appears to
be a born again convert to a strong national defense. What he's proposing is
basically a Republican blueprint."
And Edward J. Derwinski, R-Ill.,
a senior Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, called the speech "a
lairs m
ition of [Carter's] own three
of inadequate leadership."
could be expected, leading
rats staunchly defended Car^^»moci
ter's speech as a clear commitment to
American strength in the world.
Lee H. Hamilton, D-Ind., influential chairman of the House Middle
East Subcommittee, said the speech
was important because "the country
and the rest of the world need to know
where we are headed."
Hamilton said he was especially
pleased that Carter wamed the Soviet
Union about U.S. intentions in the
Persian Gulf. " I have: thought for some
time that it would be^ necessary for us
to be quite specific about our intent,
that we were prepared to defend the
Persian Gulf oil." , ^
Although he saicLhe supports aid
to Pakistan, Hamilton warned of the
risks involved in pumping aid to a potentially unstable regime.
"The problems are formidable,"
he said. "We are taking the chance
that India will be pushed toward the
Soviet Union and that the government
>
of Pakistan, which is confronted with
strong separatist groups, will use
American assistance not against the
Soviets, but against dissidents within
Pakistan. But if we fail to do it — to
make an effort to shore up Pakistan —
then that would send a very clear,
blunt signal that we are not going to
put obstacles in the way of Soviet aggression. If we act strongly now, then I
think the Soviet Union is not likely to
move into Pakistan and Iran."
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, acting Senate minority leader, offered a
cautious note about Carter's pledge to
defend the Persian Gulf. Such a
policy, he said, could commit the
United States to defend "every inch of
the Persian Gulf."
"If the Carter doctrine had been
in effect before Afghanistan, we'd beat war with the Soviet Union now," he
said. "We're attempting to speak
strongly while carrying a short stick."I
Reaction by Presidential Candidates
Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls charged that President Carter showed little regard for pressing domestic issues in his State of
the Union address. ^
Carter's opponents generally approved his strong anti-Soviet stand, but
maintained that the.president's concentration on foreign affaire was simply
a smokescreen to obscure his inability to solve the serious internal problems
facing the country.
Former Texas Gov. John B. Connally said the domestic issues on which
"the nation will rise and fall" were not addressed, and he criticized the
president for "choosing rhetoric as opposed to dealing with reality."
"The president has reversed the logic" of the address, said Rep. John B.
Anderson, R-Ill. "The state of the world depends on the state of the Union.
It does not have to do with Iran and Afghanistan, but with economic issues.
So much discussion of Iran and Afghanistan obscures the deeper issues of
the economy."
George Bush said it took Carter "a long time to wake up." Bush has
long favored reinstituting draft registration and taking a tougher stand
against the Soviet Union.
Rep. Philip M. Crane, R-Ill., referred to Carter as "a modem Rip Van
Winkle," and said the United States should have "shredded SALT fi and
detente a long time ago."
Sen. Howard H. Baker Jr., R-Tenn., said, " I think the president's
statement is late, but it's a good statement." A spokesman for Baker said he
would support draft registration for both men and women and a revitalization of the U.S. intelligence system.
"The president^ssentially reflected Republican policy as put forward
by our party for the. past three years," said Sen. Robert Dole, R-Kan.
Former California Gov. Ronald Reagan said President Carter is either
"deceitful or a fool" if he believed Iranians soon might want American protection against the Soviet Union. Reagan also called for stationing U.S.
troops in Pakistan, saying "we have every reason to be there."
California Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. called on Carter "not to repeat
the Vietnam experience," and said a return to draft registration was a "very
serious error."
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., declined to comment immediately, but was reported as indicating he opposes draft registration in
peacetime.
COFYtlGHT I W CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.
Jwction protabaMd .n wfcoU or in pan OKopt b, aditortal clwnH
Jan. 26, 1980-PAGE 175
�cuy is ciosea to lor-
greeted by Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. and Vice President Mondale amid a s
lie president of the
f Sciences said that
linst Dr. Sakharov
loubts that Soviet^Khanges could
iaSarov'sWIfe
other of Dr. Sakhaceived a telegram
lame reporting that
fely and indicating
assigned an apartght," the telegram
i cold outside. Just
Address: Gorky,
ina214, Apt. 3."
iburb of Gorky and
lamed for the first
\. Gagarin,
irked urgent, took
r.
g the bell but said:
good telegram,'
• related.
i long article accusdivulging state senats and journalists
/iet Union,
luded: "The
«
ge A l , Column 2
1
The Carter Doctrine
Stern Warning on Gulf Area Is in Sharp Contrast
To Nixon's Avoidance of Regional Confrontation
By HEDRICK SMITH
Special to The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 — It was a serious warning that President Carter issued
to the Soviet Union tonight, an echo of
President Truman facing Soviet threats
to Greece and Turkey in 1947 and President Eisenhower dealing
News
'
y of the
Middle East a decade later.
Analysis
,
doubtedly come to be known
as the Carter Doctrine marked a dramaticrevgjcSfllfrom the strategy enunciated by Presl35hVNixon in July, 1969,
that Washington woUW not be enticed into
regional conflicts butVupuld count on the
regional powers to take thread in protecting themselves and American interests. In those years, Iran was to be the pbliceman in the Persian Gulf.
Tonight, Mr. Carter put the world on
w
t h
B u t
t h e
i n s t a b i l , t
w h a t
i n
t i m e
w i l l
u n
nmuters Ride It Out
notice that while he hoped to promote a
regional framework for cooperation, he
regarded the Gulf area with its oil fields
as one of vital interest to the United
States and any outside attempt to gain
control there would be "repelled by use of
any means necessary, including military
force."
The White House took pains tonight to
emphasize that in spite of this very stern
language, the President's message and
his panoply of other actions were intended as "a long haul response" to the
new Soviet threat and "not a bugle call"
to the nation for some quick confrontation
with Moscow. But one official characterized the President's words as an ultimatum to the Kremlin.
Call for Draft Registration
The tough tone of his State of the Union
Address, far more ominous than his
earlier two annual addresses, underscored the gravity of the message. And
the warning, delivered in firm and measured cadence, drew the strongest applause from members of Congress.
Moreover, in this speech, Mr. Carter
plunged immediately into the nation's
foreign problems, for the first time in
three years relegating dometic affairs to
the second half of his agenda.
And if the nation needed concrete evidence of his seriousness, it came in his
call for peacetime draft registration, possibly including women, although officials
say that it is still an open question. For
the moment, these officials say, the draft
registration is a standby move. But it is
certain to spur controversy in the 1980
campaign. Several Republican candidates, as well as Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, his chief Democratic rival, have opposed such a move.
\ Mr. Carter may run into controversy as
Weaver his basic premise that Moscow's t)irust into Afghanistan puts Soviet
Continued nn Page A12, Column 4
N n
Oi
FP
O
Current
- -P
B?
WASH1
Carter ai
ask Cong
begin rej
possible!
In his :
Presiden
the Selec
revitalize
sentative
Unden
dress, Mi
lation an
gress ne:
registrat
zation ne
Fore
The Pi
our volur
current •
hope thai
reimpose
prepared
Mr. Cf
posal, at
would be
tion offu
made th
generate
The o
Cont
Pan
Is ii
PAN A!
Govemm
sent a cai
�i
determined that the Selective Service
System must now be revitalized. I will
send legislation and budget proposals
to the Congress next month so that we
can begin registration and then meet
.
_
... .
.
...
v v,ivsjs-
ment of synthetic fuels.
The American people are making
progress in energy conservation. Last
year we reduced overall petroleum
consumption by 8 percent and gasoline
throughout the world.
Together let us make of this time of.
challenge and danger a decade of national resolve and of brave achievement. Thank you very much.
Carter Doctrine Is in Contrast With Strategy of '70s
Continued From Page Al
military force so close to the mouth of the
Persian Gulf that it now "poses a grave
threat to the free movement of Middle
East oil." Some European countries, for
example, have reacted with much less
alarm to the Soviet move than has Washington, giving some private indications
that they think Mr. Carter may be overreacting. Tonight, he prodded them by asserting that Moscow's thrust "demands
the participation of those who rely on oil:
in a collective effort to meet the radical
and aggressive new Soviet threat."
Politically, the Administration has already found dividends in itsfrnew tough
line. The diplomatic calculation is that a
clear warning — though Mr. Carter deliberately did not state which countries
were covered by his warning — may
deter Moscow and make the actual use of
force unnecessary in the Middle East.
More specifically than before, Mr. Carter threw the umbrella of American protection over Pakistan. But, officials said,
he was deliberately vague about the kind
of military links he had in mind with his
proposal for a new "cooperative security
framework" in the Middle East region.
Again, White House officials said that
the Administration did not have in mind
"mechanically repeating" the kind of
firm jnilitary arrangements that the ing military spending, withdrawing
United States has in Western Europe, but troops from South Korea, restraining
wanted to be flexible enough to work out American arms sales, demilitarizing the
relationships as situations develop.
Indian Ocean or curbing the spread of nuThe Administration is also sensitive to clear technology.
the likelihood that the President's latest
And yet, in another election year and in
moves may be interpreted as a return to a a vastly changed election climate, the
cold war attitude in the White House, and President spoke tonight with the fresh
thus it is eager to be sure that the Ameri- knowledge from the Iowa caucuses that
can public and the nation's Western allies the nation^jiTjat-teasithose who voted
note Mr. Carter's reaffirmation of his Monday night in the aghicultural heartcommitment to arms control and East- land, are prepared to answer his call fora
firm response to the Kremlin, even at the
West cooperation.
price of personal sacrifice.
, But his speech was studded with evidence of his disillusionment with past
American efforts, including his own, to
reduce the risks of conflict and "establish Soviet Ship Leaves Post
rules of behavior" for detente with Moscow. And it illustrated the enormous shift
At Entry to Persian Gulf
in thinking and policy that has marked
this winter in Washington.
. Indeed, the language of detente was
largely replaced by the language of con- MUSCAT, Oman. Jan. 23 (Reuters) —
tainment, as the President evoked memo- A Soviet surveillance ship has left the
ries of past American actions to face the Strait of Hormuz where it was monitoring
Soviet threats of the IWO's, 1950's. and all traffic into and out of the Persian Gulf,
a British naval officer said today.
1960's.
Lieut. Paddy Watson, on assignment to
The address also seemed to mark Mr. Oman, said another was expected to take
Carter's gradual transformation from its place. "It must have slipped away bethe optimism in his first two years of tween 8 P.M. last night and 3 A.M.." he
dealing with Moscow and the world, to said. "Another Russian ship should rethe realism of power politics. Gone was place it in the next 24 hours. They alwavs
candidate Jimmy Carter's talk of reduc- do."
�Aide Calls State of Union
Address an Ultimatum
on Area's Security
ByTERENCE SMITH
Sptfial lu The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 — President
Carter, asserting that the Soviet forces in
Afghanistan pose a "grave threat" to the
Middle East oilfields, declared tonight
that the United States would use "any
means necessary, including military
force" to repel an attack on the Persian
Gulf.
In a 31-minute State of the Union Message to a joint session of Congress that
was interrupted 20 times with applause,
Mr. Carter also announced that he would
Transcript of the speech, page A12.
shortly seek authority to resume Selective Service registration to insure that
the nation can "meet future mobilization
ils State of the Union"Message, President Carter was
needs rapidly if they arise." The Presiesldent Mondale amid a standing ovation.
dent added,,however, that he hoped it
would not become necessary to reimpose
the draft itself.
Mr. Carter delivered his third State of
the Union Address in firm but subdued
tones to a packed House chamber. In
addition to the Supreme Court Justices,
mtrast
Cabinet members and foreign ambassadors attending, Mr. Carter's chief rival
for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, folCurrent Forces Termed Adequate lowed a prepared text of the speech.
Reaction Sgllt on Partisan Lines
— Preparedness Is Stressed
ed to promote a
The initial reaction to the speech split
cooperation, he
along partisan lines, with Democrats
vith its oil fields
generally approving the President's reBy RICHARD HALLORAN
t to the United
Sprclal lo Thr New York Tim*-?*
marks and Republicans finding them
attempt to gain
WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 — President wanting. Representative John J. Rhodes
-epelled by use of
of Arizona, the House Republican leader,
•eluding military Carter announced tonight that he would contended that the speech contained "a
ask Congress for legislation and funds to
lot of saber rattling, but not much in the
pains tonight to begin registering the nation's youth for saber." [Page A12.]
)f this very stem possible military conscription.
A White House official said that the
In his State of the Union Address, the
t's message and
President said, " I am deiermmed that President's statement about protecting
ictlons were lnresponse" to the the Selective Service System must nowta^ The House Foreign Affairs Committee
not a bugle call" revitalized." The Senators and Repre- ^supported President Carter's request
ilck confrontation sentatives applauded that statement.
Underscoring a militant tone in his ad- mat I hp U.S. Olympic Committee boyfftcial charactercott frfe Olympic Games in Moscow undress. Mr. Carter said, " I will send legisrds as an ultimaless the Soviet Union withdraws from
lation and budget proposals to the Con- Afghanistan within a month. Page A6.
gress next month so that we can begin
iglstration
registration and then meet future mobili- the Persian Gulf oilfields amounted to an
State of the Union zation needs rapidly if they arise."
"unmistakable ultimatum" to the Soviet
mlnous than his
Forces Called Adequate for Now
Union not to threaten the oil supplies of
iddresses, underThe President said he believed "that the Western world.
ihe message. And
Implicit in the President's speech was
in firm and meas- our volunteer forces are adequate for our
current defense needs" and added. "1 concern that the Soviet military interventhe strongest aphope that it will not become necessary lo tion in Afghanistan might lead to further
>f Congress,
peech, Mr. Carter reimpose the draft. However, we must be Soviet moves in such countries as PakiMr.
peecn,
stan and Iran.
nation's prepared for that possibility."
The Russians have maintained that
Mr. Carter gave no details of his protime in
^ ^ F a f f a l r s to posal, and did not say whether women they intervened in Afghanistan at the rewould be subject to a draft. Administra- quest of the Soviet-backed regime there.
g e irS I^^
ge i
eded concrete evi- tion officials said no decision had been They have said that once their mission is
iss. It came In his made that question, which will surely over the troops, now estimated at H5,000,
will be withdrawn. Moscow has also said
ft registration, pos- generate a vigorous national debate.
The officials said that registration it has no designs on any of Afghanistan's
i, although officials
open question. For
The New York Tlmft/Tcreja Zabala
N I MDT NE
O M EI E ED
A
FR C LU I SE
O AL P S EN
-
Continued on Pa Re AI2, Column I
�our country, tne unitedSlates Of AfntfIca. and the Soviet Union Is the most
critical factor In determining whether
the world will live at peace or be engulfed In global conflict.
Times of Confrontation
Since the end of the Second World
War. America has led other nations In
meeting the challenge of mounting
Soviet power. This has not been a simple or a static relationship. Between us
there has been cooperation — there has
been competition — and at times there
has been confrontation.
,
. «Jln the IWO's. we took the lead In
creating the Atlantic Alliance In re-
ghahlstata wll 1 be 'costly to every pOllt l.
cal and economic relationship It
values.
The region which Is now threatened
by Soviet troops in Afghanistan Is of
great strategic Importance. It contains
more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet
military forces to within 300 miles of
the Indian Ocean and close to the
Straits of Hormuz — a waterway
through which most of the world's oil
must flow. The Soviet Union Is now attempting to consolidate a strategic
position therefore that poses a grave
Impot
throui
Asia.
Wit
forts
tion. j
prote<
curit)
The
armed
many
the jot
share
volunt
currer
it will
thedr
Hov.
thatpc
deterr
Syster
send I
Mr. Carter reminded his audience that legitimate, peaceful concerns can be pur- to the
American hostages were still being held sued? Or will i l continue to expand its can h
in the United States Embassy in Teheran military power far beyond its genuine seas he spoke and repeated earlier warn- curity ne«ds. and use that power for coings that if they were harmed, "a severe lonial conquest?" he asked.
price will Repaid."
The President cited the recent economic sanctions and grain embargo imConciliatory Note Sounded
posed against the Sovet Union in response
But the President also struck a concila- to the military intervention in Afghanitory note by repeating that the United stan and appeafed to toughen his lanStates had no quarrel with Islamic na- guage regarding the previously imposed militar
tions, including Iran, and declared that limits on Soviet fishing in American Persiai
"the real danger to their nation lies to the waters. " I will not issue any permits for threat
north in the Soviet Union and from the Soviet ships to fish in the coastal waters East oi
Soviet troops now in Afghanistan." Ad- of the United States," he declared.
examp
ministration officials have adopted this
alarm
approach in recent days in an effort to
Focus Is Almost Entirely Foreign
ington,
convince the Iranian authorities that it is
Mr—Cartel 's spew^i was remarkable that thi
in their interest to free the hostages.
acting,
A ranking Administration official, for a State of the Unioh Address in that it setting
focused almost exclusively on foreign afbriefing reporters before the speech,
the pai
stressed that the President's statements fairs. He took note of this in his opening in a co
remarks when he observed: " I t has never
were not in response to an "acute crisis."
and ag
Nor, he said, is there any threat of "an been more clear that the state of our
union depends on the state of the world."
Polii
immediate confrontation." Mr. Carter's
A central theme in the speech was the ready
declaration is intended to signal "a longterm response" to potential Soviet ac- prospect of turmoil and challenge facing line. T
the United States in the coming decade. clear v
tions, the official said.
eratelj
The official, who could not be identified JVtr. Carter described it as a "time that were <
tests our wisdom and our skills."
under the ground rules of the briefing, deHe linked his warnings about the Soviet deter I
clined to specify the exact geographic
force u
limits of the Persian Gulf region. He ex- threat to Middle Eastern oil with a reMon
plained that the President wanted to be newed appeal to Congress to adopt his
flexible in responding to different situa- energy program. "To be strong abroad, ter thr
we must be strpng at home," he said, tec tion
tions that might arise.
adding that the Nation's dependence on he was
'Some Basic Questions' Raised
foreign oil was "a.dear and present dan- of mili
pflDpo.'
In his address, Mr. Carter said that the ger to our nation's security."
Soviet Union must answer some "basic
Mr. Carter also reiterated the need to frame
questions" in defining its relationship continue the fight against inflation, reAga
duce Federal spending and eventually
with the West in the 1980'.s.
"Will it help promote a more stable in- balance the Federal budget in order to the Ad
"meel
.
ternational environment in which its own strengthen the economy.
We are working with our allies to prevent conflict In the Middle East. The
peace treaty between Egypt and Israel
is a notable achievement which represents a strategic asset for America and
which also enhances prospects for regional and world peace. We are now engaged In further negotiations to provide full autonomy for the people of the
West Bank and Gaza, to resolve the
Palestinian issue in all Its aspects, and
to preserve the peace and security of
Israel.
Let no one doubt our commitment to
the security of Israel. In a few days we
will observe an historic event when Is7
Carter Warns U.S. Would Act to Repel a Soviet Thrust
Continued From Page Al
neighbors, but this has not eased concern
in Pakistan, a country with which the
United States has a defense commitment
dating from 1959.
The President announced in his speech
that in providing requested military and
economic aid to Pakistan, Congress
would be asked to reaffirm the 1959 commitment.
Mr. Carter charged that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan constituted an attempt "to consolidate a strategic position
that poses a grave threat to the free
movement of Middle East oil."
Soviet Forces Near Key Strait
Noting that the Soviet forces in Afghanistan were now within 300 miles of
the strategic Strait of Hormuz. which
guards the entrance to the Persian Gulf,
Mr. Carter declared:
"Let our position be absolutely clear:
"An attempt by any oOtside force to
gain control of the Persian Gulf region
will be regarded as an assault on the vital
interests of the United States of America.
And such an assault will be repelled by
use of any means necessary, including
military force."
With this declaration, Mr. Carter in effect extended the American security umbrella to the Persian Gulf. Heretofore, it
has been explicitly committed only to
Western Europe, the Far East and Israel.
American officials said that there had
been "some consultations" with other
governments about the American security guarantee in the Gulf, but they did
not specify which governments had been
involved.
Ca
r
I
JAN
24
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Michael Waldman
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Michael Waldman was Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting from 1995-1999. His responsibilities were writing and editing nearly 2,000 speeches, which included four State of the Union speeches and two Inaugural Addresses. From 1993 -1995 he served as Special Assistant to the President for Policy Coordination.</p>
<p>The collection generally consists of copies of speeches and speech drafts, talking points, memoranda, background material, correspondence, reports, handwritten notes, articles, clippings, and presidential schedules. A large volume of this collection was for the State of the Union speeches. Many of the speech drafts are heavily annotated with additions or deletions. There are a lot of articles and clippings in this collection.</p>
<p>Due to the size of this collection it has been divided into two segments. Use links below for access to the individual segments:<br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+1">Segment One</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+2">Segment Two</a></p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Michael Waldman
Office of Speechwriting
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-1999
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
Segment One contains 1071 folders in 72 boxes.
Segment Two contains 868 folders in 66 boxes.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
State of the Union Address in Selected Election Years with Related Research [Binder] [1]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Michael Waldman
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 50
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36404"> Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763296">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F Segment 2
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Preservation-Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
6/3/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
7763296
42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg2-050-001-2015