 Now, the people agreed then, and I believe they agree now. They voted our way on election day. They also made their voices heard during all those crucial legislative battles or spending in taxes. I think our people are disillusioned with the policies of big government. With boom and bust, with high inflation followed by higher unemployment, I think back in 1980, interest rates, 21.5%, double digit inflation for two years in a row. Productivity and the rate of growth in the gross national product dropping for the second year in a row. Almost 8 million people were unemployed and business failures were increasing. Then came the present recession, a legacy from the years of spend and spend and tax and tax and even more Americans out of work. In the six days, our economic program will have been in place one year. It has brought down interest rates. It's gotten the gross national product going in the right direction. It's given us the first real tax cut for individuals in almost 20 years and gotten inflation only a year ago, the number one economic concern of most Americans down from 12.4% in 1980 to an annual rate of 5.1% since January. Maybe it's time to ask Speaker O'Neill and the liberal leadership of his party if they really want to return to the policies that gave us a trillion dollar debt. Are they willing to pledge to the American people that when a new Congress begins next year, they won't try to take away the income tax cuts and the historic reform of indexing taxes to inflation, which probably was the biggest tax increase over the years this nation has ever had. Let me go a step further and speak a moment about one of our major concerns right now, jobs. You might have noticed the rhetoric from our liberal critics has already reached a crescendo. The trouble is that they call their compassionate solution the perfect illustration of what they call I should say their compassionate solution is the perfect illustration of why the United States is suffering from such deep rooted problems. Last week they stampeded the house with another temporary public make work program for at best 200,000 people. It would carry all the old flaws of that wasteful discredited CETA program. Most important, it's no answer for the man or woman laid off sitting around the table at nights wondering how they'll put their future back together again. We've taken a different approach. Beginning way back in February we started working on a program that would meet criteria for a real long-term solution. The Senate House Conference just acted yesterday and I called on the entire Congress to act next week to pass this legislation that will provide job training for one million people or more per year in the private sector. So my question to the speaker is which is it going to be, tip, temporary or permanent, 200,000 or one million, make work or training for lasting jobs, a political solution of spend and spend borrow and borrow or real economic opportunity for people looking to us for effective help and leadership. We can't go back to the failed policies of the past. We must stay the course toward less inflation and more jobs. But beyond issuing this challenge and citing the statistical evidence of how far we've come, we intend to remind the American people of an even more important change. In this administration, we haven't talked about the era of limitations or no growth or learning to do with less. We've talked about instead incentive, opportunity and expansion. We're emphasizing the all-important goal of capital formation as the way to withstand and renew our industrial base. We haven't tried to get government to redistribute a shrinking economic pie. We've come up with a recipe for a bigger and better pie that all Americans can share in. Now, incidentally, let me interject with all this economic talk that this morning some of the press began speculating that somehow recent attempts on some social issues, such as the place of prayer in school, the abortion problem and all, were somehow just a political gimmick and now we discarded that and we're moving on to something else. I believe this country is hungry for a spiritual revival. I also believe that what Teddy Roosevelt said once is true, the presidency is a bully pulpit and we're not going to give up on those social issues that have to do with the morals of this country and the great standards that made this country great. We'll be working for them. One other thing, we're rebuilding America's military and strategic strength. We've adopted a foreign policy that speaks openly and candidly about the failure of totalitarianism, a foreign policy that advocates the moral superiority of Western ideals like personal freedom and representative government, a foreign policy that calls for a global crusade for freedom and democracy. It's this combination of strategic strength and rhetorical candor that for the first time in years has taken American foreign policy off the defensive. Most important is strengthen the chances for a lasting peace by providing a credible base for important new peace initiatives, especially in the arms control area and in regions like the Middle East. A new political consensus, the support of the American people has made all of this possible. Our institutions are working again and this time for the people and not against them. I don't mind saying I think that's a record to be proud of. I think it's something the American people want continued and that's the message we're going to get to them this fall and now you're going to get your dessert and I'm going to sit down and have a cup of coffee with you. And wanted it to be very successful and worked for weeks on it and then stood up for an evening service in a little church out in Oklahoma and there was only one fellow out there in all the midst of the empty pews. So he went down after the opening music and said, my friends, you seem to be the only member of the congregation that showed up and I'm just a young preacher getting started. What do you think should I go through with it? And the fellow said, I'm just a little old cowpoke out here in Oklahoma but I do know this, if I loaded up a truckload of hay to took it out in the prairie and only one cow showed up, I'd feed her. Well, the young preacher took that as a cue, got back up in the pulpit and an hour and a half later said, amen. He went down and he said, my friends, you seemed to stuck with me and as I told you I'm a young preacher getting started. What did you think? And he says, well, like I told you, I don't know about that sort of thing but I do know this, if I loaded up a truckload of hay, took it out in the prairie and only one cow showed up, I sure as hell wouldn't give her the whole load. But anyway, they've given me a little time here so anyone has a question? Mr. President, before you do take questions, I would like to say thank you for sharing your time with us today. More importantly, for your significant recognition of the British press, to the best of my knowledge, you're the first President since Harry Truman who is so honest in this way and we hope that you'll find it well enough worthwhile that this will be the first. President King, thank you very much. I hope it will be too and I'm surprised that it's been so long since they had that. I would have gone back even, I happened to agree with Mr. Coolidge who said the business of America is business. Now is someone with a question? This industry is down a lot, so we just finished pulling in the executives in our ministry and I think you'd be pleased to know that the over long message that we got back in the comments was that they strongly support your position and your activities and I think that it's going to succeed and keep up their work. Well thank you very much. I don't have any answer to that. We will, we will do that. I think that what we've seen, this is probably the eighth recession since World War II and every one of them we've seen government go for the quick fix, the artificial stimulant and each time the next recession has been deeper and worse and inflation has been higher and so forth and our recovery isn't going to be as fast as those have been, but I think it's going to be lasting. There's a hand over it. We're going to have a better face with business leaders and where you get your input now, on face to face basis, are you going to do your people or are you personally talking to them in a way that will get you closer to what their problem is? Well, a little bit of all of that. Not only our people but we have a number of meetings and have had them usually, we have them in the Roosevelt room, the Roosevelt room, we now have a task force made up from the private sector of business people who are out stimulating nationwide the private initiatives, the private methods of doing things. They have acquired a data bank now of what various communities have found, partnerships between business and say their local government with regard to the problem of dropouts in school or charitable activities, whatever it might be and then they are passing this word seeing that this is distributed to all other communities so they can see what the fellow in the next town is doing and do it themselves. Over 40 states so far the governors have to work with this task force appointed their own statewide task forces. So we have that input. We have a businessman's task force similar to what we did to all the agencies and departments of government to come back and tell us how modern business practices can be put to work to make government more efficient, more economical, more effective. And so between all of those things I think we do have contact. And yesterday I met with quite a group of chief executive officers who were in here who have been working nationally on the summer jobs program and similar to in New York what they call partnership where the business community and the government got together to see how many young people could be put to work and the meeting yesterday was not only to thank them for a job well done this summer but to make sure that they were on hand to do it again next summer. The most impacted industries I applaud your efforts and Ambassador Brock's efforts to hold back the pressure of employees. I applaud your non-protectionism policy but in your capital foundation situation accelerated depreciation when can we get this when can we have to achieve this to be able to survive as a proud manufacturer in the other textile industry the proud manufacturing industry. And I'm looking desperately around here for help because I know that this is a part of our tax package. I think that Ambassador Brock I spoke with him in that place we can hold him back the pressure of the proud manufacturers to stop imports because of the globalization and non-protectionism which we agree with but in trying to do this the only way we can survive is by mechanization and we can't get them through congress and bills or anything like that so we're impacted and we're labor intense. Now I'm sorry one of my people here that don't know because I thought that this was him Mr. Feldstein. I'm not quite sure what you're asking about and certainly the tax fall was changed and accelerated depreciation is now available for all industry. Talk about something special for the textile industry. Well not textile sir that's one of the big mistakes apparently in the country we have two distinct industries and while globalization is this administration's policy which is excellent, 10-5-3-5-2 is what Plant in Germany can write off for one year and we have to still take 5 and we have third world countries and we can't mechanize until we get some parity in WEC countries. You'd like to see more incentives for capital information? Well our industry because it's so labor intense I just want to know if that is it. Well let's look into that what the situation is we'll be very happy. We'd like to have them we really would. In the face of today's economy I think we are each concerned within our own industries as to what use for C is the potential of specific taxes that would apply to industries in terms of today's economy and the need to close the budget gap. What do I see as the potential for specific taxes as they apply to industries? We recently had taxes applied to the tobacco industry in the last decade. You talked about excise taxes. Well I have to tell you having been dragged kicking and screaming into the support of reforming the tax system this time because it was the only way we could continue getting the continued reduction in government spending and all that I myself and personally opposed to any others. I believe in our tax cut program and the additional cut and the as I said that will come next July and then the indexing of the tax structure and I believe my intention is that we go further with cuts in government spending and I don't want to see any additional tax cuts as a matter of fact I look forward to a day when I mean tax increases I look forward to a day when we can cut some more. Contributions campaigns are I think there is some opposition now to political action committees and my question may be a little harder than some of the ones that have been asked here is how do you feel about PACs in general? Would you like to see them abolish that some Congress would or continue? No, as a matter of fact I notice that there was nothing wrong with political action committees when they were all over on the other side only when business began having them that they became an evil. I don't think they're an evil at all. I do think that some of the things that have been injected into electioneering by the government I'm not totally in favor of a number of those things I believe that as long as there has to be publication or exposure of who contributes and who gets the contribution then I think government is going too far in their limitations as on the individual's right to do what they want to do and that's what's led mainly to the political action committees but let's be frank about this in 1968 was that wait a minute I got the right election yes and Humphrey was running shortly thereafter Cope in a magazine article written by Al Barkin the director of Cope revealed that they had spent $68 million on the presidential campaign on behalf of one candidate of candidate Humphrey and there didn't seem to be any uproar about that as a political action committee. No I think that I think this is fine I have one more question this is a personal note if I may some years back I recall a high privilege of sharing a podium with the then governor of California in San Diego prior to a oceans industry meeting that we both attended and I had the high privilege of spending about an hour prior to that affair I came away tremendously impressed with all of your philosophies and ideas and so forth I went so far as to wage or a dollar that we would be walking you to the next house for today please consider this a belated welcome and I come to your house to collect my pocket I'm afraid I still owe you the dollar because I found out since I've been here anytime I go anyplace I'm a group I'm not allowed to pause here or there as we move on I haven't had any money in my pocket since I got to that wasn't a question let me take the one more and then we'll call it yes because I have a date with Gene Kirkpatrick certainly with the help of exporters what is government hoping to do to help U.S. manufacturers export industrial product what can government do to help in the export of more products well we have been working very hard on that very subject we recognize that with all of our feeling of anti-protectionism that free trade is still not completely fair trade in the world we've been working with our allies in Europe with Japan trying to get more fair trade to get quotas and restrictions and so forth removed we've been successful to a degree as successful as we'd like to be and we also are doing our utmost to find and stimulate for in markets I know that we've we've had people from our administration in 23 different countries simply on agricultural problems alone trying to stimulate those markets in the Caribbean initiative a large part of that is based on it's not only for national security because that is really kind of our front door about 50% of everything that we import comes through by sea that area and some of us can remember back in World War II in the early days when tankers and freighters were being sunk with inside of shore off off Florida but out of that we have come forth with the Caribbean initiative which is a plan to help develop those little island states but not in the usual way of the hand out but a hand up involving private enterprise there and in that kind of investment and to build their economies and all but we're doing our utmost to strengthen foreign trade but also to meet eyeball to eyeball with those trading partners that talk free trade but don't quite have it we're against subsidizing for export as they are doing and we'll keep on that path well I wish I Karen you look there's a lady over here and that lady hadn't raised a question yet alright just this has to be one more I know because can't keep the United Nations waiting thank you Mr. President I represent Nature magazine which is a scientific magazine possibly one of the best scientific journals in the world I wanted to ask about freedom and censorship as you may be aware the Pentagon a few weeks ago caused several papers to be rejoined of major scientific media and national security and you also know because of Dr. Keen's commitment to science and technology science and technology flourishes in an atmosphere of academia do you have any views about censorship of scientific material in this realm let me just answer that but I think it's quite a coincidence that you and Jim watched and managed to get the same same table there must have been an interesting conversation let me just say this one thing and I am as opposed to censorship as anyone but a problem that is just I think now being recognized as it should have been in years past is the extent to which we have given our potential adversary the Soviet Union American technology it has been stolen by them but also it has been given to them by us just with carelessness in our own attempt to be an open society to the point that they have benefited to our detriment by the acquiring of scientific knowledge that they never well maybe they could have eventually founded by themselves but at their pace of going they couldn't have equaled what they have today so some of these things and if here and there something goes too far we'll rectify that but I think what you heard about and read about was just an attempt to close some of these avenues where just by reason of attendance at scientific forums and seminars they have gone home with things that they have then turned to military advantage and the sophistication of their military buildup for time we thought that it was all quantity and that we were the masters of technology but their technological sophistication is a real threat to the whole peace loving world and certainly to this nation and the rapid strides that they've made so that's what's back of that not any desire in our part to close off legitimate transfer of knowledge and information now I do have to go and you're going to get dessert put apart yesterday Jean so we have a letter from you to Mr. Christy which we'll thank him for that and encourage him to help you on the Middle East initiative as soon as Jean is okay he'll come in you need your bonus question I heard from everybody Clark himself called so far as I am