 402 correspondents from many nations gather at the State Department in Washington, DC to attend President John F. Kennedy's news conference. Here on April 21, 1961, is President Kennedy's 10th question and answer meeting with the press. I have several announcements to make. I know that many of you have further questions about Cuba. I made a statement on that subject yesterday afternoon. We are continuing consultations with other American republics. Active efforts are being made by ourselves and others on behalf of various individuals, including any Americans who may be in danger. I do not think that any useful national purpose would be served by my going further into the Cuban question this morning. I prefer to let my statement of yesterday suffice for the present. I am pleased to announce that the United States has offered concrete support to a broad-scale attack by the United Nations on world hunger. I have instructed the Food for Peace Director to offer $40 million in food commodities towards an initial United Nations reserve of $100 million. This will be administered by the United Nations food and agricultural operation. I am informed that other United Nations members will also make similar contributions. The food will then be used to relieve hunger and to improve nutrition in underdeveloped countries of the world. Our participation in this project will complement rather than diminish our existing Food for Peace program. Third, I am pleased to announce that the Veterans Administration will pay a special insurance dividend of $230 million and the decision made this morning to approximately 5 million holders of GI life insurance beginning July 1st. These dividends have been speeded up in order to assist the economy. And lastly, I am pleased to announce that the Peace Corps is proceeding with its first project at the request of the government of Tanganyika, an African country that will gain its first independence on December 28th. The Peace Corps will send to that country a party of surveyors, geologists and civil engineers to help Tanganyika's own technicians map and construct roads. Twenty surveyors, four geologists and four civil engineers will provide some of the skills needed to accelerate the development plan. There is nothing more important in Tanganyika than the development of roads to open up the country and I am delighted that some Americans are volunteered to help in this important effort. Can you tell us anything about your talk with Vice President Nixon last night? I brought, uh, Vice President came to the White House with my invitation and I informed him of, uh, brought him up to date on the events of the past few days. President, can you tell us the status of the mid-April economic review you promised? Yes, I, uh, stated at a previous conference at the, at the end of, uh, mid-April, I think 75 days, we were going to, uh, undertake a review of the economy. That is now, uh, underway under the direction of Dr. Heller and, uh, I hope when that, uh, survey is completed that we will have a, uh, statement to make on it. Mr. President, uh, quite respecting your feeling of not going beyond your statement of yesterday on Cuba. Uh, there still is in print this morning, uh, quite widely distributed published report that you took the decision to continue training Cuban refugees with arms provided by this government and for releasing ships and fuel for launching the current operations in Cuba. And furthermore, this report says that you reached this decision against the advice of Secretary Rusk and Mr. Boll. Now, is this true? I think that, uh, the, uh, facts of the matter, uh, involving, uh, the Cuban will, uh, come out in due time, uh, and I'm sure that an effort will be made to determine the facts accurately, as for me, I'm confining myself to my statement for good reason. This is not a question about Cuba, it's a question about Castro. Could you tell us whether any intelligence that you have received can shed any light on the reports that the Prime Minister has been incapacitated, that he has not been heard from since Monday or Tuesday, or reports to that effect? No, I cannot own. I saw some, uh, I think reference was on the ticket this morning that Mr. Castro was seeing some members of the press today, so I suppose we will have a better idea of that later on. Mr. President, Mr. President, the leaders of House and Senate Republicans told us yesterday at press conference that they are setting up special study committees on the effect of automation and technological improvements in agriculture as well as industry. Are you hoping that your Democrats in Congress will set up similar study committees? Do you need them? Well, I do think that on the, uh, subcommittee on labor, a committee, uh, subcommittee headed by Congressman Hollander of, uh, Pennsylvania has been conducting, uh, studies on the effect of automation for some months. In regard to the effect of automation on, uh, agriculture, I think it is, uh, some of our most, the most serious, uh, problems which have arisen in agriculture have been because of research combined with automation, which have brought an extraordinary increase in production with far less, uh, manpower, so that I know that this problem is a matter of, uh, substantial concern to all of us. I'm glad that the Republicans are conducting this study because I think all the attention we can get by both parties into what I consider to be a genuine national problem, automation, what happens to the people who are thrown out of work I think will be most useful. And, uh, agriculture where we have a great increase in production with around four million people less than we had several years ago, some years ago. In many ways, it's one of the most extraordinary and admirable facets of, uh, our national life. I think it's unfortunate that we're not able to bring it more to the attention of the world where so many people, including in the Soviet Union and in China, are spending most of their time on subsistence agriculture that we're able to have this extraordinary production with very few people. But like all, uh, blessings, they bring problems with them. And I'm glad they're conducting the study. At your last news conference, you expressed hope that the Soviets would agree within a few days to a ceasefire in Laos. More than a week has gone by since then and the Soviets have not agreed yet. Could you tell us how much longer you will wait before contemplating other kind of action? I understand that the British and the Soviets are conferring at the present time, using it in a general sense, and we are hopeful that a ceasefire can be obtained in Laos. Mr. President, uh, we continue to be hopeful. Mr. Nixon on the, uh, Av and Charlie show yesterday said that he was going to give you 10 days' grace to, uh, produce on your campaign promises that certain things would be done by 90 days. Did he go into this or other, uh, domestic politics in your White House? Well, there was nothing stated about, uh, on politics. Uh, Mr. Nixon and I discussed matters of, uh, national concern and, uh, it was done in a wholly, uh, non-political way. Mr. Nixon's response was, uh, most helpful. Mr. President, uh, I wonder if you will tell us what your grounds, your investigations of the, uh, Major General Ted Walker incident in Europe, if you will please tell us what grounds you found for relieving him of his command for allegedly teaching troops anti-communist doctrine? I, uh, when I saw the stories in regard to, uh, the, uh, things which, uh, had been said or at least alleged to have been said in regard to General Walker, I called Secretary McNamara and asked him to investigate. Secretary McNamara, then I believe suspended, uh, General Walker and my term may not be precise, pending a completion of the investigation, but no decision has been made in regard to General Walker until the investigation has been completed to find out, uh, exactly what, uh, was going on. I do not believe that Secretary McNamara took even that limited action, however, merely because he felt that General Walker was teaching, uh, talking against the Communist. That was not the grounds for concern, but no final decision, the best of my information, has been made on the matter of General Walker. He will be given every opportunity and those who have been critical of him will be given every opportunity to present, uh, their, uh, case, and a final decision will then be made, uh, by, uh, Mr. McNamara, who will then bring them out of my attention, and I will then review it without prejudice to General Walker. Mr. President. Oh yes, good message. Thank you, uh, Mr. President, you, uh, don't seem to be, uh, uh, pushing the space program nearly as energetically now as you suggested during the campaign that you thought it should be pushed, uh, in view of, uh, the feeling of many people in this country that we must, uh, do everything we can to catch up with the Russians as soon as possible. Uh, do you anticipate, uh, uh, applying, uh, uh, any sort of, uh, crash program or doing anything that would, uh- We have, uh, added, uh, I think it was $130 million in the, uh, budget on space several weeks ago, which provides some speed up for Saturn, some speed up for Nova, some speed up for Rover, the, uh, and I will say that the budget for space, uh, next year will be around, uh, $2 billion. Now, uh, we are now, uh, and have been for some time attempting to, uh, make a determination as to, uh, in developing larger boosters, whether the emphasis should be poured on, uh, chemical, nuclear rockets or liquid fuel, how much, uh, this would cost and, uh, some of these programs, uh, have been estimated to be between, uh, $20 and $40 billion. We are attempting to make a determination as to which program offers the best hope before we embark on it, because, uh, you may commit a relatively small sum of money now for a result in 1967, eight or nine, which will cost you billions of dollars. And therefore, uh, the space, the Congress passed yesterday the bill providing for space council, which will be chaired by the vice president. We are attempting to make a determination as to which of these various proposals offers the best hope. And when that determination is made, we will then, uh, make a recommendation to the Congress. In addition, we have to consider whether there is any program now, regardless of its cost, which offer us hope of being pioneers in a project. It's possible to spend a billions of dollars on this project in space, to the detriment of other programs and still not be successful. We are behind, as I've said before, in large boosters. We have to make a determination whether there's any effort we could make in time or money, which could put us first in any new area. Now, I don't want to start spending, uh, the kind of money that I'm talking about without making a determination based on careful scientific judgments as to whether a real success can be achieved or whether, because we're so far behind now, this particular race is, uh, we're going to be second in in this decade. So I will say to you that it's a matter of great concern, but I think that before we break through and begin a program which would not reach a completion, as you know, until the end of this decade, for example, trips to the moon, maybe 10 years off, maybe a little last, but are quite far away and involve, as I've said, enormous sum, I don't think we ought to rush into it and begin them until we really know where we're going to end up. And that study is now being undertaken under the direction of the vice president. Mr. President, don't you agree we should try to get to the moon before the Russians, if we can? If we can get to the moon before the Russians, we should. Isn't it your responsibility to apply the vigorous leadership to spark up this program? When you say spark up the program, we first have to make a judgment based on the best information we can get, whether we can be ahead of the Russians to the moon. We're now talking about a program which may be, which are many years away. The Saturn is still on a 40-hour week, isn't it, Mr. President? We have, as I say, appropriated $126 million more to the Saturn, and we are attempting to find out what else we can do. The Saturn is still going to put us well behind. Saturn does not offer any hope of going to the being first to the moon. The Saturn is several years behind the Soviet Union. I can just say to you that regardless of how much money we spend on the Saturn, the Saturn is going to put us, we're still going to be second. The question is whether the nuclear rocket or other kinds of chemical rockets offer us a better hope of making a jump forward. But we are second, and the Saturn will not put us first. I want, however, to speed up if we can the Saturn, and the Vice President is now leading a study to see what we ought to do in this area. President, do you anticipate that there will be a vote in both houses of Congress this year on your medical care program? I don't know. If we had a vote in the House, it would depend of course on the action of the Ways and Means Committee so that I'm not, I haven't any information yet as to whether we'll get a vote in the House. It's possible there'll be one in the Senate, which is not constricted by the same rules. There have been reports on Capitol Hill that this administration has reconciled itself to no vote on medical care this year. In either House? In the House, yes. In either body, in either House? Yes, sir. Well, I haven't seen the reports, and I would not make that assumption. I'm hopeful that we are dependent in the House on committee action. There can't be a vote in the House without action by the committee because of the rules of Germanus. The Senate, however, there's a somewhat different situation where there's no rule of Germanus. So it's possible that somebody might offer the bill in the Senate as an amendment to another bill. I don't know that yet, but there is very possible that you could get a vote in the Senate this year. The House is a different problem because we can't get a vote unless the Ways and Means Committee acts. President, your order to investigate General Walker suggests that you look at scans at the teachings of the John Burt Society. Can you tell us how you feel about that organization? Well, I don't think that their judgments are based on accurate information of the kinds of challenges that we face. I think we face an extremely serious and intensified struggle with the Communist. But I'm not sure that the John Burt Society is wrestling with the real problems which are created by the Communist advance around the world. I would hope that all those who are strongly are concerned about it would address themselves to the kinds of problems which are created by Laos, Vietnam, by internal subversion, by the desperate life lived by so many people in this hemisphere and in other places which the Communists exploit. These are the kinds of problems which we are dealing with. I said something about them yesterday. The use which the Communists make of Democratic freedoms and the success which they are able to, once they've seized power, the success with which they are able to maintain their power against dissent. This seems to me to be the problem we've talked about in red stories of seven to 15,000 guerrillas operating in Vietnam killing 2,000 civil officers a year, 2,000 police officers a year, 4,000. Now, there's been an election in Vietnam in which 75 percent of the people are 80 percent to endorse the government and yet we read how Vietnam is in danger because of guerrilla operations carried on by this small, well-disciplined, well-supplied across the border group of guerrillas. How we fight that kind of a problem which is going to be with us all through this decade seems to me to be one of the great problems now before the United States. And I would hope all those who are concerned about the advance of communism would face that problem and not concern themselves with the loyalty of President Eisenhower, President Truman, or Mrs. Roosevelt, or myself, or someone else. Mr. President, would you speak yesterday before the editors intended to suggest another approach or new departure in the administration's dealing with the Russians? No, I didn't, no. You have practiced what has been described as a quiet diplomacy approach and your speech yesterday seems to suggest that you have to decide about another approach. No, I wouldn't attempt to make a judgment or response to that. I think that I'm concerned about the kind of problem which I just described. I don't feel satisfied that we have an effective answer to it yet. And I think it's a matter of the greatest possible concern to all of us because I think events are moving with some speed. The use which the Communists make of democracy. And then when they seize power, the effectiveness with which they manage the police apparatus so that dissent cannot arise and so that the people can no longer express their will, the liquidation by gunfire of the opposition or by forcing them out of the country to be refugees. This suggests the kind of problem which we're going to have in this decade. And in my judgment, it's an extremely difficult matter for the free nations to deal with. But I must say that it's a matter to which we must address all of our energy and all of our attention. How would you evaluate the present state of your domestic program in Congress? I think we've done better recently. Yesterday the Senate passed the $1.25 minimum wage. There was action on aid to dependent children and on Social Security. The vote in the Senate was very ample on the minimum wage. I think there were only 28 votes against it. So that I think that at least yesterday there was a we made progress. How important, sir, do you think needs to be done in order to give you a satisfactory score on your on your hopeful legislative program? Well, I'm hopeful that we can move ahead on the various other parts of the program, including education and housing. We are making progress on Social Security, distressed areas and minimum wage. There may be other proposals which we might make to the Congress after we've considered completed our review of the economy and made a judgment as to exactly what peak or plateau the economy is going to reach this year. And that is what we're attempting to do now and to see whether any additional governmental programs may be necessary to encourage it. Since last Saturday, a certain foreign policy situation has given rise to many conflicting stories. During that time, reporters in Washington have noticed that there's been a clamming up of information from formerly useful sources, to my knowledge, the State Department and the White House has not attempted to take a representative group of reporters and say, these are the facts as we know them. And this morning, we are not permitted to ask any further questions about this foreign policy situation. In view of the fact we're taking a propaganda lambasting around the world, why is it not useful, sir, for us to explore with you the real facts behind this or our motivations? Well, I think in answer to your question that we have to make a judgment as to how much we can usefully say that would aid the interest of the United States, one of the problems of a free society, problem not met by a dictatorship is this problem of information. A good deal has been printed in the paper. I wouldn't be surprised if those of you who members of the press will be receiving a lot of background briefings in the next day or two by interested people or interested agencies. There's an old saying that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan. And I wouldn't be surprised if information is poured into you in regard to all the recent activities. Now, I think we see some of the problems to move from this particular case in the problem of space where the Soviet Union and no reports were made in regard to any experiments that they carried out our man in space. I saw in a national magazine about some student said the Americans talk a good deal about their man in space. The Soviet Union says nothing and yet it wins. That is one of the problems of a democracy competing and carrying on a struggle for survival against a dictatorship. But I will say to you, Mr. Van Oker, that I have said as much as I feel can be usefully said by me in regard to the events of the past few days through the statements, detailed discussions and not to conceal responsibility because I'm the responsible officer of the government, and that is quite obvious. But merely because I do not believe that such a discussion would benefit us during the present difficult situation. But as I say, I think you'll be informed and some of the information based on what I've seen will not be accurate. Have you any assurance your tax investment incentive plan will be supported in Congress? No, I think it will be a hard fight because the plan when it was sent up was intended to secure as much revenue as it may have been lost because of the tax credit plan. The tax credit plan put special emphasis on stimulating a new industry and therefore a new employment. But in order to make up the revenues we lost by the tax credit plan, we've had to take control of other revenues. And of course those people are going to object the expense accounts and the dividend credit and so on so that I think it will have a hard fight. You've asked for it this session. Do you think your educational program will be persuasive this session? I hope so because I really believe that the tax credit program, in fact the whole tax bill was carefully considered by people in the Treasury as well as the Council of Economic Advisers, had the strong support of Mr. Dillon and others who have given this matter great consideration. I'm hopeful the Congress will respond favorably, but it is a technical matter and involves important interests and I think it will have a very soberly considered, which I hope it will be. But I am hopeful it will pass and I think it would be useful if it would. President, are you contemplating visiting any other countries besides France that you're on your trip at the end of May to see General De Gaulle? I'm planning, my only present plan is to go to France. There has been some talk going to London I understood to Chris and the Ratchable baby. Well that has been considered but I've not reached any judgment on it. I think there's some interest by the family and it would really be a question of whether we could, whether it would be the best thing to do. Would you explain the reason for the dropping of espionage charges in Chicago recently against the Russian spy Melik and was that a part of a bargain for the RB-47 flyers? In answer to the last part of the question it was not. There was no connection. The dropping of the charges was made after an examination of the details of the case and of the national interest and it was felt that it would be useful to take the action we took. Sorry it's a little more responsive but I will say it was not in regard to the RB-47 flyer. Mr. President we have demonstrated a great capability in space and communications and meteorology. While these are not as dramatic as a man orbiting in space there has been a strong feeling among scientists the world over that the country that would first develop a space telecommunication system to bring communications within the reach of every nation in the world at the price they could afford would make an even greater impact than the country that orbited manned first in space. Are you considering putting more funds because you have cut some in both communications and meteorology. Are you considering adding more I believe that we have or are about to if we haven't already done so put an additional and I just have to go from memory now of something a decision made several weeks ago I was under the impression that we decided to put another 25 to 27 million dollars into a communication satellite so that as part of this general program industry also has been interested in putting its funds in it and there was a statement by Mr. Webb that we weren't going to at this point put any of this program into industry's hands till we had investigated further since they're willing to spend money are you considering perhaps allowing them to share the cost and well if they want to I don't know enough about the matter to give you a detailed answer except I do know that we did put an additional sum of money for a communication satellite amounting to the sum that I suggested there now if there are any other further things that can be done or if anybody else wants to put their money into it I'm sure that Mr. Webb would be agreeable but I must say from examining this and other programs I find that the government puts most of the money into them do you intend to send vice president Johnson to southeast Asia soon we have been considering uh the vice president going to southeast Asia and I think a decision will be reached on that in the next year perhaps over the weekend of the next few days Mr. Roberts uh given the stress that he puts this morning and recent days on this problem of fighting the indirect communist tactics do you still and also given the rather harsh language out of Moscow including Mr. Khrushchev's note to you do you still feel that it is useful to go ahead with efforts at the diplomatic level to negotiate formal agreements with the Soviet well we still continue to hope that some agreement could be reached on the cessation of nuclear tests we are of course very discouraged by the newest insistence of the Soviets on a veto quite obvious that the senate would not accept such a treaty nor would I send it to the senate because the inspection system then would not provide any guarantees at all now I notice the language used by Mr. Khrushchev himself not merely one of his representatives in Mr. Lipman's article that uh and his strong uh insistence on the tripartite and on unanimous agreement in regard to the inspection system I'm hopeful that there may be a change in that but if there isn't a change in that position it's going to be very hard to get an agreement and uh but I believe that Mr. Dean should continue because uh if this the test conversations should break up then of course our hopes of getting any agreement on disarmament would be substantially lessened and uh we could look for a proliferation of atomic testing in other countries so that I feel Mr. Dean should continue though we have been discouraged by uh the Russian position do you feel sir that it's that it is possible to have really a two-level operation here an undeclared kind of warfare which you've been talking about and yet a formalized effort not only in the test ban negotiations but in terms of exchanges and other type of negotiations are these two things compatible the uh incompatibility may rest in the fact that it's hard to get an agreement on any matter when there is a suspicion and uh between the two systems and when uh one of the systems of pressing their interest uh with great vigor around the world makes the chances of getting any agreement far less I thought the best uh hope was the nuclear testing even though that was always true that uh the obstacles were large but if there is any chance at all of getting an agreement on a cessation of nuclear tests regardless of what appears to be the obstacles I think we should press on so an answer to your question I still believe that Mr. Dean should continue to work at Geneva thank you Mr. President thank you