 The other guest is a trustee of AEI, the chairman and CEO of the FMC Corporation, Bob Malott, and the upward trend has continued. We welcome today as our guest of honor that distinguished American, the Vice President of the United States. Mr. Vice President. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. President, thank you all very, very much. Mr. President, the outset of these remarks, let me just pay my respects to you, and thank you for all you do for this wonderful institution, AEI, an institution for which I have so much respect, and I'm delighted to see you, Bob Malott too, and of course I was invited some time ago by Paul McCracken to come here, and I hope that you'll all be interested in the topic that Paul asked me to address, special drawing rights, the snake, and its effect on disintermediation. I am delighted to be here at this AEI forum, and you couldn't have scheduled a better time to discuss public policy. A great many citizens currently are troubled about recent revelations, and I'm grateful for this chance to address some of those concerns of the American people. There's been much criticism and confusion in recent weeks over the administrations, our policies regarding Iran, and I understand the skepticism of the American people. The result, as you all know, according to these opinion surveys, is that the administration's credibility has been hurt. This is especially painful to the President and to me as well, and after all we're in the White House because of the trust that the American people placed in us, and we must restore that trust. And so today I'd like to discuss some of the basic concerns that the American people rightfully have about our policy toward Iran. Questions of why we tried to open channels, open channels with a regime that all of us Americans despise, questions of how we can have a policy of not sending arms to Iran and then seemingly do just the opposite, and questions about the operation of the National Security Council staff. Let me start with a basic concern. Why did we open a dialogue with Iran? There was a country that deeply humiliated the United States by kidnapping our diplomats, burning our flag, and we still have vivid memories of blindfolded Americans being paraded around our embassy there in Tehran, and there is in the hearts of the American people an understandable animosity, a hatred really, to Khomeini's Iran. I feel that way myself to be very honest with you. And so do the President, who has been vilified time and time again by Iran's radical leaders. We're told that most Iranians feel the same way about us, the country that they call the Great Satan. And so why have anything to do with them? I'm sorry I didn't bring a map, but if you look at a map, Iran is all that stands between the Soviets and the Gulf oil states. It's all that stands between the Soviets and a warm water port. Either a disintegrating Iran or an overly powerful Iran could threaten the stability of the entire Middle East, and especially those moderate Arab states, our friends, whose stability and independence are absolutely vital to the national security of the United States. We may not like the current Iranian regime, and I've said we don't, but it would be irresponsible to ignore its geopolitical and strategic importance. And that doesn't mean we should simply appease any Iranian regime. It does mean, however, that we can't ignore this looming transition that will soon take place in Iran. Homeini will pass from the scene. A successor regime will take power. And we must be positioned to serve America's interests, and indeed the interests of the entire free world. Apart from the strategic reasons, humanitarian concern about American hostages in Lebanon provided another reason to open a channel to Iran. The Iranians themselves are not holding our hostages, but we believe they have influence over those who do hold some of our hostages. But let me add something very important. In spite of our bitter feelings toward Iran's leadership, we would have tried to begin a dialogue with Iran whether we had hostages in Lebanon or not. In fact, for three years prior to the first hostage kidnappings, this administration attempted to find reliable, hopefully moderate Iranian channels through which to conduct a responsible dialogue. And more recently, we've been receiving intelligence that pragmatic elements within Iran were beginning to appreciate certain sobering realities. To the east in Afghanistan, we estimate 115,000 Soviet troops are committing atrocities on Iran's Islamic brothers. To the north, 26 Soviet divisions. Right there on Iran's border for whatever opportunities might arise. To the west, Iran is engaged in a war of unbelievably horrible human dimensions. War with Iraq, 12-year-old kids, 14-year-old kids pressed into service, and then ground up in combat. And at home, Iran is teetering on the economic brink right there in its own front yard, 40-percent unemployment rate. Many Iranian leaders understand that their own survival and certainly the rebuilding of their economy may depend on normalizing ties with their neighbors and with the Western world. And so we, for our reasons, and certain elements in Iran for their reasons, in spite of this mutual hatred, began a tentative, probing dialogue which brings us to another question. How can the United States government have a policy against countries sending arms to Iran and then turn around and itself send arms? I know the American people simply don't understand this. And when we started talking to the Iranians, both sides were deeply suspicious of each other, and remain so, I might say. Those Iranians who were taking enormous personal risks by just talking to us felt that they needed a signal that their risks were worth it. And we were told the signal that they required, and we gave them that signal by selling a limited amount of arms, about one-tenth of one-percent of the arms that had been supplied by other countries. And likewise, we needed proof of Iranian seriousness. We required signs of a cessation of Iranian use of terrorism and help in gaining the release of our hostages in Lebanon. And we did see certain positive signs, we have seen them. They opposed, for example, a Pan-American hijacking in Karachi. And immediately after, they denied landing rights. They interceded with the TWA hijackers in Beirut. And of course, three hostages, once held in Lebanon by the Islamic jihad, are today with their families here in the United States of America. And I perhaps President Ford would agree with this, but when you're president, any American held captive against his will anywhere in the world is like your own son or daughter. I know that's the way our president feels about it. But you must remain true to your principles, and I can tell you that the president is absolutely convinced that he did not swap arms for hostages. And still the question remains of how the administration could violate its own policy of not selling arms to Iran. Simple human hope explains it perhaps better than anything else. The president hoped that we could open a channel that would serve the interests of the United States and of our allies in a variety of ways. Call it leadership. Given 2020 hindsight, call it a mistaken tactic if you want to. It was risky, but potentially of long-term value. The shaping of the Iranian policy involved difficult choices. As complex as the public debate on the issue would be, the matter was further clouded by the way in which the president's goals were executed. Specifically, allegations about certain activities of the National Security Council staff, clearly mistakes were made. Our policy of conducting a dialogue with Iran, which was legitimate and arguable, has become entangled with the separate matter of this NSC investigation. A week ago Monday afternoon, the president learned of possible improprieties. A week ago Monday, on Tuesday, he disclosed the problem to the public and instructed the Attorney General to go forward with a full investigation. On Wednesday, he created a bipartisan commission, three outstanding individuals, to review the role of the NSC staff and make recommendations for the future. And just yesterday, he moved to a point, have the court appoint an independent counsel to ensure a full accounting for any possible wrongdoing. The president pledged full cooperation with the United States Congress, urging it to consolidate and expedite its inquiries. Yesterday, he also named Frank Carlucci a seasoned professional with broad experience, so well known to many people here, to serve as his National Security Advisor. This is fast action in anybody's book. These are actions I fully support, in which I believe the American people will judge commendable. The president has moved swiftly, strongly, but let me add this. I am convinced that he will take whatever additional steps may be necessary to get things back on track and get our foreign policy moving forward. As the elected representatives of all the people, he and I have a duty to preserve the public trust and uphold the laws of this country, and we take that duty very, very seriously. I'd like to say something about my own role in all of this. I was aware of our Iran initiative, and I support the president's decision. And I was not aware of, and I oppose, any diversion of funds, any ransom payments, or any circumvention of the will of the Congress, the law of the United States of America. And as the various investigations proceed, I have this to say, let the chips fall where they may. We want the truth, the president wants it, I want it, and the American people have a fundamental right to it. And if the truth hurts, so be it. We've got to take our lumps and move ahead. Politics do not matter. Personalities do not matter. Those who've served the president haven't served the president well don't matter. What matters is the United States of America. And we mustn't allow our foreign policy to become paralyzed by distraction. There can be no denying that our credibility has been damaged by this entire episode. And it's aftermath. We have a critical role to play internationally. And I intend to help the president tackle the challenges that lie before us in the last two years of this administration, putting U.S.-Soviet relations on a new footing, pursuing a breakthrough in arms reduction, building on the potential that I saw so clearly just this past summer for making new strides for peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, working to end apartheid, and creating a more hopeful future for all Africans, solidifying the remarkable changes taking place in Asia, combating international terrorism in close conjunction with our allies, and of course, fostering the development of democracy in Central America. And let me add, the freedom of the people of Central America should not, must not, be held hostage to actions unrelated to them. This nation's support of those who are fighting for democracy in Nicaragua should stand on its own merits, not hang upon events related to Iran. The Marxist-Leninist regime in Managua must not benefit from the errors of some people in Washington, D.C. Our administration has a duty to follow a foreign policy that reflects the values of its citizens. This sounds simple, and yet it is often, as so many of you here know, a very complex matter. It's not easy translating general values into specific foreign policy programs. And this is why there's always so much internal debate over our nation's role in world affairs, from Iran to arms reduction. The Reagan administration has two years left, in which to pursue our particular vision of how America's foreign policy should fit America's values. There's one thing, however, on which critics and supporters would agree, U.S. foreign policy must move forward. The U.S. has obligations as leaders of the free world. It has opportunities and responsibilities unmatched by any other country to bring stability to the world. And we must move forward with the trust of the American people, to the extent that that trust has been damaged, it must be repaired. And only the truth can repair that. Our government rules not by force or intimidation, but by earning the confidence and respect of the American people. Our duty must be to uphold that confidence and restore that respect. Sometimes true bipartisanship is really called for. And in my view, now is just such a time, and I have been very pleased that Republicans and Democrats alike have pledged to help get the facts out and move on. A storm is now raging, but when the full truth is known, and it will be, and when the people of American people come to understand that this strong and honest president moves swiftly to correct what might have been wrong, then a forgiving American people, in spite of their misgivings about Iran and weapons and diverted funds, will say, our president told the truth. He took action. Let's go forward together. Thank you very much. All of you to be seated while the Vice President and President Ford leave. Mr. Vice President, we're deeply indebted to you for that very moving address.