THE PRESIDENT. I have several
announcements to make.
[ 1.] First is one made at the
request of Mrs. Kennedy. Since the election, the birth of our son, and
the inauguration, Mrs. Kennedy and I have received over 100,000 letters
and telegrams of congratulations and good wishes. They are now building
up in available rooms at the White House. Unfortunately, it's not going
to be possible for us to acknowledge and answer as we would like to answer
each and every message, and therefore I wish to take this opportunity on
behalf of Mrs. Kennedy and myself to thank everyone who has been so kind
and generous.
[ 2.] Secondly, I'm happy to be able
to announce that the restrictions recently imposed on travel abroad of
dependents of service personnel will be lifted as soon as the necessary
detailed arrangements can be made in the Defense Department. Secretary
McNamara has been able to work out arrangements for equivalent savings
in personnel costs abroad, so that this change does not imply any weakening
of our determination to protect the value of the dollar.
This is a matter of great importance.
The Chiefs of Staff have been most concerned about the effect of this order
on morale and on the rate of enlistment, and therefore we have had to make
a balanced judgment as to which actions in which areas would be in the
national interest, and after giving this matter careful consideration,
it is the judgment of the Defense Department that other savings can be
made which will be more satisfactory to us and to the position of the Armed
Forces.1
[ 3.] Third, I'm announcing
that there are going to be set up five pilot projects for foodstamp distribution,
and that these will be in areas of maximum chronic unemployment. All the
areas have not yet been determined, but one will be in West Virginia, one
in Pennsylvania, one in southern Illinois, and the other in eastern Kentucky,
with a fifth yet to be determined.
[ 4.] Next, the Veterans Administration
has been instructed to speed up the payment of the National Insurance dividends.
This is a sum of over $250 million, which would be paid out throughout
this year. We're going to try to pay it out this winter in order to assist
the economy at a critical time.
This, of course - the Veterans
Administration fund has very ample reserves, very generous reserves. And
I feel that this will be of some benefit.
[ 5.] Lastly, in order to lower
the cost of housing credit and stimulate that sector of the economy, I've
directed the Federal Housing Administration to reduce the maximum permissible
interest on FHA-insured loans from 5¾ to 5½ percent.
Complementary action will be taken by the Federal National Mortgage Association.
In addition, I've asked the
Community Facilities Administration to reduce interest rates on new loans
to local public bodies for the construction of public facilities, and to
broaden their eligibility requirements.
And I've instructed the Housing
and Home Finance Agency to hasten those approved projects where a speedup
can be effected without waste.
Thank you.
[ 6.] Q. Mr. President, as you
know, Adlai Stevenson said the other day it was his guess that you would
be happy to meet with Khrushchev if he should come to this country for
the U.N. session. I wonder, was he correct in his guess that you would
be happy to meet with Khrushchev?
THE PRESIDENT. As Governor Stevenson
- Ambassador Stevenson said, I have not discussed the matter with him.
I have no idea whether Mr. Khrushchev is coming to the United States or
not. There's been no indication, either publicly or privately, that he
is planning a visit to the United States, and therefore I think it would
be appropriate to wait in regard to what plans we might have as far as
seeing him - it would be more appropriate to wait until we have some idea
whether he's going to come or not.
[ 7.] Mr. President, could you
tell us something of the reasoning and the background of the apparent restrictions
on the RB-47 fliers in publicly discussing their experiences in Russia?
We get the impression from the Pentagon that this blackout on any public
interviews or discussions of the two fliers is to be more or less an indefinite
thing. Now we are told at the Pentagon that this is in the national interest.
First of all, I wonder if you could tell us why it's in the national interest,
and second, what personal feelings you have in the matter on the reasoning
behind this decision to keep these men quiet.
THE PRESIDENT. Well I'll say
that when they've finished their short leave and when they have been debriefed
by the Air Force, and the Air Force has had an opportunity to have conversation
with them, as far as I'm concerned I'd be glad to have them talk to the
press. And therefore I would assume they would be available to the press
as soon as that leave is over.
[ 8.] Q. This may be a corollary
question, but your administration has indicated that it expects officers
of the military on active duty to support, in their public statements,
or at least not to be hostile to the foreign policy of your administration.
Does this project itself into other areas? What about the Atomic Energy
Commission? What about economists working for the executive branch who
may have differences about economic policy?
THE PRESIDENT. I think that
the procedure which we have established is a traditional one. I think that
the Eisenhower administration made, according to the accounts that I have
seen, over 65 known efforts to make sure that speeches by members of the
military were in accordance with the general objectives of American foreign
policy.
I think - we're going to continue
to do that. If a well-known, high-ranking military figure makes a speech
which affects foreign policy or possible military policy, I think that
the people and the countries abroad have a right to expect that that speech
represents the opinion of the National Government.
Now the speech of Admiral Burke
which raised this question - when the speech was drafted Admiral Burke
may not have known, nor did any of us, whether these fliers would be released,
for example. Therefore, there is some value in coordinating statements
made by high-ranking responsible officials of our national - involving
national security - coordinating them, and making sure that the State Department,
the White House, and Defense are informed about the speeches and that they
represent national policy.
That has been the policy followed
by President Eisenhower; it is the policy which must be followed by this
administration.
Now in the question Mr. Morgan
asked, it's not intended that this will serve as a restraint on the ability
of people in this administration to speak out, particularly when those
speeches do not involve national security. I think the important point
here is when they involve national security.
[ 9.] Q. Do you consider the
current business slump serious enough to justify a tax cut?
THE PRESIDENT. I do not at this
time. I've stated that we're going to make another judgement on the state
of the economy in 2 to 3 months and will then decide what action could
be usefully taken. But I have not proposed a tax cut at this time nor do
I intend to.
[ 10.] Q. Mr. President, some
critics stated that proposals of added Federal expenditures in your State
of the Union Message may force us to "kick the bottom out of the money
barrel." Could you give us an idea, sir, of how your proposed increased
programs would be furnished and in connection with the previous question
could it possibly mean an increase in income taxes?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think
that we can spell out our proposed proposals in the series of messages
that we're going to send in the next 14 days. And as I have said, the proposals
that we will make will not of themselves unbalance the budget.
[ 11.] Q. Mr. President, your
State of the Union Message was both praised and criticized. Some of the
critics said that you painted the picture in dark colors so that should
there be any improvement you would get the credit. Would you want to comment
on that, sir?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would
- I painted the picture as I saw it. I also stated that in my judgment,
in some areas involving the national interest the news would be worse before
it gets better. And I think that the American people might just as well
realize that. So that my statement stands as my view of the problems facing
the United States at home and abroad at this time. To the best of my ability,
it is an accurate presentation. I'm not a candidate for office for at least
4 years, so that there will be many ups and downs I suppose during that
period, so that anybody who thinks that if things get better in the spring
that we'll be able to say that they're the result of the administration
policy and that's the reason that I painted them unnecessarily dark, misunderstands
completely. They are painted accurately as I understand them to be, and
anyone who makes the judgment that it was laid on thick for political reasons,
I think is making a serious mistake and I hope would give us the benefit
of the doubt of an honest view.
Now, other people may look at
the same facts and come to a different conclusion. Obviously they have
- before my speech and since my speech. But that represents my view as
President.
[ 12.] Q. Mr. President, in
the spirit of your Los Angeles campaign speech, are you prepared to move
soon by Executive action in the field of civil rights, and if so, in what
fields would you make your first step?
THE PRESIDENT. We have been
considering what steps could be taken in the field of expanding civil rights
by Executive action, and I'm hopeful that we will shortly conclude that
analysis and have some statement to make on it. It's not completed as yet.
[ 13.] Q. In connection with
a couple of a previous questions, you have stated several times since your
election that the country was in for some substantial sacrifices, or that
the year 1961 might be a difficult year to live in, and yet some of the
measures you have announced seem to be intended to improve the lot of,
let's say, more unfortunate sections of the population. Could you be more
explicit on what you mean by sacrifices and the difficulties of living
in 1961 ?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would
hope that a country as powerful as ours - I said it was the most resourceful
industrialized country in the world - would not oppose efforts which we
would take to make the life of people who live in these chronic depressed
areas - to make it easier. I do not feel that all the burdens of hardship
should be placed on them. In addition, I do believe that we are heavily
involved in critical areas of the world and I cannot today predict what
the results will be of events in those areas of the world. I merely state
that the tide has not been running with us, that we are heavily involved
- heavily committed - by public statements of the former administration
as well as by this administration, and therefore I felt that we should
inform the people that there are hazards which lurk around us and which
may place heavy burdens on us.
I will whenever I think that
sacrifices of a particular nature are required, I will go to the people.
At the present time, I merely suggest that the times are difficult.
Now, when we talk about five
and a half million people unemployed there are still over 60 million people
employed. And I think that may be one of the reasons why there is some
feeling that I overstressed the dark instead of the bright in my State
of the Union Address. But it is the function, it seems to me, of the President
to concern himself with that five and a half million unemployed particularly
when so many have been unemployed for such a long period of time.
[ 14.] Q. Mr. President, some
people have interpreted your address to the Congress as indicating that
you found conditions very much worse upon taking office than you had anticipated.
Is this interpretation correct? And, if so, can you give us some specifics?
THE PRESIDENT. I think the situation
is less satisfactory than it was last fall. And I don't - and I'm not convinced
as yet that the tide in some of the critical areas in which the United
States is involved has turned in our favor.
I think that anyone who reads
the daily papers knows of the critical events in Laos, the Communist intervention
in that area. I think they're aware of the fact that the situation in the
Congo has deteriorated sharply recently, with a steady withdrawal of troops
taking place by United Nations countries.
They're also aware of the steps
which have been taken in recent months to increase the iron control of
Mr. Castro on Cuba; the shipments of thousands of tons of arms to that
country; the expansion of the militia. Those are all factors which affect
the security of the United States.
[ 15.] Q. Mr. President, what
proposals might the United States make in regard to the Congo now that
you mentioned the situation there is deteriorating because of the pullout
of troops?
THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Timberlake
is here for consultation in Washington now, Ambassador Brown from Laos
is here, General Norstad, who's our NATO commander, is here in Washington,
and Ambassador Thompson will be coming back next week, so that we are considering
carefully what policies we should follow in all those areas of crisis.
Particularly we are considering the matter of the Congo carefully and what
useful steps might be taken which would prevent a further deterioration.
I do not have anything further to say just at this time.
[ 16.] Q. Mr. President, do
you plan any recommendations on the labor-management relations field in
your future messages to Congress since you have not covered this subject
in your addresses to date?
THE PRESIDENT. I'd have to wait
on that. We have no - it's not within the next 14 days.
[ 17.] Q. Sir, would you clarify
your intentions in the field of unemployment compensation? Do you plan
now to propose to Congress the establishment of Federal standards, wider
coverage, higher benefits, and for their greater duration?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, the
first matter which we will address to the Congress will be the question
of emergency payments to those unemployed who've exhausted their benefits.
Later in March, we will send
to the Congress - or in April - proposals dealing with a more permanent
improvement in unemployment compensation standards, duration, and benefits,
because there isn't any doubt that, based on our experience in '58, in
our experience this year, the unemployment compensation system has not
met the needs of the country satisfactorily.
So we will be sending a second
message dealing with the subjects which you discussed in your question.
[ 18.] Q. In connection, Mr. President,
with your statement on the military dependents, is this to be a complete
repeal of the existing directive?
THE PRESIDENT. Yes.
[ 19.] Q. Do you agree with the general
assessment that the narrowness of the House vote yesterday on enlarging
the Rules Committee means rough going ahead for your legislative program?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Speaker
was successful yesterday and that does mean that the House will have an
opportunity to vote on all these bills.
I do think that the House is
closely divided on a good many matters which involve legislative proposals,
and perhaps the country may be divided, too, but at least we will have
a chance to have a vote. And I consider that the most important thing.
If the House then doesn't want to support our proposals then at least I
feel that the country has indicated its judgment and not the judgment of
only a small number of Representatives.
But I would say that we're going
to have a close debate in both the House and the Senate on a good many
matters and which has always been true if the matters do anything; if they
provide for any action, there is bound to be controversy about them. The
only way we can get general agreement is when you confine yourself to general
statements.
[ 20.] Q. Mr. President, will
you ask for the same new revenues that Mr. Eisenhower asked for in his
Budget Message?
THE PRESIDENT. I will. It is
a fact, as I suggested in the State of the Union Address, that some of
those proposals are generously estimated. For example, I believe that the
President's budget calls for a - was it - $900 million deficit in the Post
Office; I think the President's budget called for revenue action by the
Congress of $843 million. In view of the fact that the Congress has been
reluctant in the past I think we have to consider carefully whether we
could expect the Congress to ever vote $843 million new revenue on mail
and postage.
But nevertheless, we are going
to go ahead in general with perhaps - there may be one or two changes but
they'll be relatively minor - we are going ahead with the revenue requests
of the previous administration.
Q. Have you thought of any new
sources of revenue?
THE PRESIDENT. We will be discussing
the sources of revenue for any additional programs we suggest, because
we will with every program we send suggest a source of revenue for it.
[ 21.] Q. Mr. President, your
predecessor in office called himself a political moderate - said he believed
in a middle-of-the-road approach. What do you call yourself politically
and how do you define your political philosophy?
THE PRESIDENT. Well I don't
call myself anything except a Democrat who's been elected President of
the United States and I hope I am a responsible President. That's my intention.
[ 22.] Q. Mr. President, are
there plans afoot now for Prime Minister Macmillan or President de Gaulle
or any of the others to meet with you personally in the next few months?
THE PRESIDENT. I would not be
able to answer that because any announcement on proposed visits should
be timed with the countries that are involved and we have - we're not able
to make that timing at this time.
[ 23.] Q. Mr. President, in
connection with your references to a sound dollar, will you give us your
ideas as to whether there is any danger of inflation?
THE PRESIDENT. There has been
a steady inflationary rise in - throughout the history of the United States.
I'm not able to make any judgment as to what would happen to the cost of
living in the next 12 months.
We do have the problem - which
is before us - of whether the only way we can prevent any increase in the
cost of living is to have five and a half million people unemployed, and
have only a limited - and have a substantial percentage of our capacity
unused.
The question is whether we can
maintain a reasonable balance between increase in purchasing power and
the cost of doing business with full employment. That is the basic problem.
I'm not satisfied to have the cost of living remain constant only by having
the economy restrained.
What I was referring to is that
we have no intention - two things: first, we have no intention of devaluing
the dollar; secondly, we are concerned with price stability. And in all
of the programs that we will put forward we will pay due care to the problem
of preventing any stimulation of the economy resulting in an excessive
increase in the cost of living.
[ 24.] Q. Mr. President, your
budget - your State of the Union Message to Congress was taken by some
to mean a rather sharp criticism of President Eisenhower's military policy
and judgment. Would you care to comment on that?
THE PRESIDENT. We are making
an assessment of whether the plans we now have for the defense of the United
States are matched by the military strength to implement those plans. That
preliminary judgment will be finished by the end of February. It may result
in some different budget requests and some different command decisions.
But until the Secretary of Defense completes that analysis I would not
attempt to make any criticisms or suggest that we are going to have to
change the plans made by President Eisenhower.
But I do think that the situation
grows more serious. The Chinese Communist strength increases. The intervention
by the Communists in these critical areas which I mentioned has grown greater
and therefore we have to consider whether in the light of this additional
threat the strength we now have, not only our nuclear deterrent but also
our capacity for limited war, is sufficient. It's not intended as a criticism
of any previous action by any previous administration. It merely is an
attempt to meet our own responsibilities at this time.
[ 25.] Q. Mr. President, when
you say that your spending proposals by themselves do not unbalance the
budget, can you tell us whether you plan to spend more than Mr. Eisenhower
proposed spending in fiscal 1962, and if so, how much more?
THE PRESIDENT. I will send to
the Congress when the Budget Bureau has completed its analysis our proposals,
but they have not been completed as yet.
[ 26.] Q. Mr. President, Senator
Pastore during hearings held yesterday and today on amending section 315
of the Communications Act, raised the question of whether an incoming presidential
candidate would agree to debate a so-called outsider on television. And
the present Attorney General in postelection remarks expressed some doubt
that one who is already President would agree to debate with one who wants
to be President. Could you help us clear the air on this, sir, and tell
us whether if you're a candidate in 1964 you would agree to debate?
THE PRESIDENT. I would, yes.
[ 27.] Q. Mr. President, you described
the agricultural problem as one of the most serious in our economy. And
yet you didn't speak of it at any length in the State of the Union Message.
Could you tell us what your present plans are for a new farm program?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, we are
going to send to the Congress within the next 7 days, I believe, legislation
on feed grains and we're going to send to the Congress within the month
of February legislation on wheat. And we are also - we had, of course,
the meeting in New York; we had the meeting organized by the Secretary
of Agriculture of various farm groups and we had our task force report
yesterday on cotton, feed grains, and wheat and I must say that the Secretary
of Agriculture is working overtime.
These two matters - feed grains
and wheat - we are going to move ahead right away. The situation in cotton
is different.
[ 28.] Q. Mr. President, will
you increase price supports?
THE PRESIDENT. I think we -
I'd better wait until the Secretary of Agriculture sends the bill and we
will then at that time announce what our decision will be on controls and
also on what the dollar value will be of the price supports.
[ 29.] Q. Mr. President, can
you explain what our policy and purpose is in connection with the Portuguese
liner Santa Maria and whether it goes beyond the safety of the passengers
and whether you've had any notes from the Portuguese Government in connection
with this?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Portuguese
Government and the Ambassador, of course, have expressed their great interest
in securing the control of the ship again. We've been concerned about the
lives of the American passengers aboard. There are also other passengers
aboard. We're concerned about their lives. We're also well aware of the
interests of the Portuguese Government in securing control again of the
ship and I'm hopeful that all these interests can be protected.
Now we have no information that
the Portuguese Government has protested or threatened us with a withdrawal
of our air rights in the Azores. I believe the Portuguese Government also
has denied that, but they are most concerned about it and they've made
their concern known to us.
[ 30.] Q. Mr. President, have
you encountered any one particular problem in being the President that
you had not anticipated ?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, yes, I've
- I think the problem of course is the difficulty in securing the clear
response between decisions that we might make here which affect the security
of the United States and having them effectively instrumented in the field
under varying circumstances. It's easier to sit with a map and talk about
what ought to be done than to see it done. But that's perhaps inevitable.
[ 31.] Q. The Germans are reported
to be somewhat unhappy because in your State of the Union Message, in speaking
of critical areas, you did not mention Berlin or Germany, and this afternoon
when you were talking of critical areas you did not mention Berlin and
Germany. Is there any significance to your omission? In other words, last
fall you anticipated the possibility of some new crisis in Berlin and Germany
in the spring. I'm wondering if there has been some change in the situation
that has altered your assessment of it?
THE PRESIDENT. No, my view,
and I think the United States Government's view, which is the same as the
view expressed by the previous administration, remains constant. And it
is very difficult to name every area. There is no change in our view on
Berlin.
[ 32.] Q. Mr. President,
there are six Americans who have been convicted to 30 years' imprisonment
in Cuba, and there are five Americans who have been jailed for more than
6 years in China. Could you say what efforts the United States might possibly
make on behalf - what new efforts the United States might make on behalf
of the six in Cuba and the five in Communist China?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have
asked - the Swiss Minister is representing our interest in regard to this
trial. We've asked for complete information and we are going to attempt
to, within the limits imposed by the nature of the regime in Cuba, to protect
the interest of American citizens who are there.
Now, the previous administration
on many occasions brought before the Chinese representative - in fact,
there were many conversations in Geneva as well as in Warsaw, on the problem
of the Americans who have been detained, some of them way back since 1951.
This is a matter of continuing concern. And as long as those men are held,
it will be extremely difficult to have any kind of normal relations with
the Chinese Communists.
There are other matters which
affect those relations too. But this is certainly a point of the greatest
possible concern.
Now, we have asked for a delay
in the meetings which take place in Warsaw, between the United States representative
and that of the Chinese Communists, from February to March, because they
have become merely a matter of form and nothing of substance happened.
But I'm going to make it very
clear that we are concerned about those men in China. The Americans who
have been detained in Cuba, and all the circumstances around their arrest,
that is a matter which the Swiss Minister is continuing to keep us informed.
[ 33.] Q. Mr. President, does
your statement about the Warsaw talks mean that you propose to have some
matters of substance taken up there in March when the talks are resumed,
and can you tell us in general what sort of matters you would deal with?
THE PRESIDENT. No, it just meant
that we had no business to discuss in the February meeting that made the
talk at this time worthwhile.
[ 34.] Q. Mr. President, what
sort of reaction have you had from the Latin American countries to the
five-point program that you proposed, that you outlined in your State of
the Union Message to help the Latin American countries, and could you be
a little bit more specific about when you expect your food-for-peace mission
to sort of go into action in Latin America?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, the food-for-peace
mission will be leaving very - in the next few days. We have announced
the appointment of Mr. Berle who's had long experience as head of that
interdepartmental task force as an assistant to the Secretary. Mr. Berle
headed the task force of ours during - between the election and January
20, and I'm very hopeful that under his leadership, of course with the
Secretary and the Assistant Secretary, Mr. Mann, that we will be able to
implement our commitments to Latin America.2
[ 35.] Q. You said in your State
of the Union Message, sir, that you planned to accelerate the missile program.
I wonder within that framework if you could say whether that includes the
possibility of providing funds in fiscal 1962 to start production on the
Nike-Zeus antimissile missile?
THE PRESIDENT. Well the Nike
Zeus - there are, of course, funds which have been spent in research on
the general area of antimissile missile - that is a matter which is now
being considered by the Department of Defense and also by the President's
Science Advisory Committee - as to whether the amount of money which we
are devoting, which is considerable. Unfortunately, in all of these weapons
systems the amounts of money that become involved get into the hundreds
of millions and then billions, so very careful judgments have to be made.
And the - as a matter of fact, I discussed that particular matter with
Mr. Wiesner yesterday, so I can't give you a more precise answer than to
say that we are considering it.
[ 36.] Q. Mr. President, in
your State of the Union Message, you spoke of juvenile delinquency. There
is growing concern expressed by parents, clergy, and J. Edgar Hoover about
the effect on young people of crime and violence in movies and on the air,
and the Senate committee is investigating this. Is there anything you can
do about it, or may you ask for legislation?
THE PRESIDENT. I will have to
wait, Mrs. Craig. We - as I said at the time in the State of the Union
that we are considering what legislation could be enacted. Now when you
get into movies, it's very limited - the amount of influence which the
Federal Government can exert is quite limited, as you know - quite properly
limited. But at least we are concerned with the general problem.
All the steps we take in urban
renewal and housing also affect, of course, the kind of atmosphere, the
kind of schools we have, the kind of housing we have, the kind of health
conditions we have - all affect the atmosphere in which younger people
grow up.
We are very much concerned with
that area and we also have - are informed about what the Congress is doing.
But this is a matter which goes to the responsibility of the private citizen.
The Federal Government cannot protect the standards of young boys or girls
- the parents have to do it, in the first place.
We can only play a very supplemental
role and a marginal role. So that we can't put that problem on the - Mr.
Hoover or on the White House or on the Congress. It rests with the families
involved - with the parents involved. But we can do something about the
living conditions and the atmosphere in which these children grow up, and
we are going to do something about it.
[ 37.] Q. Mr. President, in
your State of the Union Address you said, "I shall withhold from neither
the Congress nor the people any fact or report past, present, or future
which is necessary for a free and informed judgment of our conduct and
hazards." Does this apply, sir, to the Gaither report and will you make
that available amongst other studies of a critical nature?
THE PRESIDENT. I've been reading
the Gaither report. I think there are two matters involved. First, some
of its provisions are quite dated and rest on assumptions which are no
longer valid. Secondly, some portions of it do involve security information.
So that we will make a judgment, I hope, shortly, whether overall it would
be possible to release those parts of it which would not adversely affect
the security of the United States and which would assist us at our present
time.
That is really the question.
Does the release of this and the material in it, of a report 3 years old,
benefit our security position today and help the people make a judgment
on it? And I would have to finish the study of the Gaither report before
we give you an answer on that.
[ 38.] Q. Mr. President, how
soon do you expect to submit to Congress your slate of new ambassadors?
I'm thinking of posts like London or Paris.
THE PRESIDENT. We are - have
of course informed the countries involved and asked for their agreement,
which is customary, and as soon as those agreements come back to us we
will send the names to the Senate.
Q. Do you plan to do that singly
or in a bloc?
THE PRESIDENT. As quickly as
possible and if we can get the agreements back en bloc we'll send them
en bloc.
Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President.
2. A White House release of February 8 announced the departure of George McGovern, Director, Food for Peace, accompanied by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., for Argentina and Brazil on February 13. The release also stated that another mission headed by James Symington, Deputy Director, Food for Peace, and Stephen Raushenbush, a staff member, would leave at the same time for discussions in most of the Latin American countries.
NOTE: President Kennedy's second news conference, broadcast
over radio and television, was held in the State Department Auditorium
at 4 o'clock on Wednesday afternoon, February 1, 1961.