Henry Bellmon-Steed

A Political Discussion with Senator Henry Bellmon and Congressman Tom Steed

Lasalier: Welcome to the Oscar Rose Junior College political discussion with Senator Henry Bellmon and Congressman Tom Steed. Today we want to get some of their impressions on politics in the state of Oklahoma and the United States on the international level. The first question we might ask is who in your lifetime do you consider to have been the best President of the United States, and possibly the worst President of the United States? Who wants to start?

Bellmon: Well, Tom’s got a longer lifetime than I have, so let him go first.

Steed: I would say, because of the history that went on during his administration, that I’d choose Franklin D. Roosevelt as the best. And there’s be no problem at all to choose Jimmy Carter as the worst.

Lasalier: OK.

Bellmon: I didn’t have occasion to serve in Congress with Franklin Roosevelt, and didn’t know him too well. I can’t differ that he was a great president. Of the ones I’ve known in my adult lifetime, I would pick Dwight Eisenhower for the reason that he was a very level-headed, strong leader. And the country, during the time he served as president went through a period of great stability and progress, and I think a lot of it was due to the leadership that Eisenhower provided. I wouldn’t necessarily differ with Tom on his choice of Jimmy Carter as being the worst, although, I would put Jerry Ford also in that category. I realize that Tom and Jerry are good friends, and Jerry is a friend of mine, but he came in at a time when it was very difficult to get anything done. The result of it was he was kind of a care-taker, and maybe that’s all we could have expected, but I thought that Jerry didn’t use the office as well as he might have. And, of course, he wasn’t elected when he ran.

Lasalier: We might come back to Congressman Steed and ask him to elaborate on Jimmy Carter as the worst president in your political career.

Steed: Well, my judgment is largely influenced by the fact that I handled, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, the executive office’s budget for 20 years. And you learn a lot about what those mechanics of those departments are and the president and all his agencies, and you know how much – how badly the President of the United States needs the finest and the strongest staff that he can get. Now, one reason that Eisenhower was such a great president, he had sense enough to bring a very well-experienced staff with him. And that’s why things moved the way they should because no man’s big enough to do it all by himself. Now, Mr. Carter had some idea that anybody already in Washington was somebody he had to avoid and it was an establishment that he had condemned, so he brought a lot of outsiders in, a lot of fine Georgia boys that I sometimes wonder if they knew how to find the men’s room. Now, when they got to Washington, the pros up there took them to the cleaners. And so, no president can be any better than his staff.

There’s over 5,400 Acts of Congress that impose specific work on the President of the United States. We have laws on the books that requires the president to be in as many as 38 places at the exact same time. So, if you don’t have a capable staff, you’re just not going to perform. Now, these men that did good, had the good sense to bring people with them that knew how to keep them staffed the way they should. And, of course, Mr. Eisenhower, being a military man, he had this system of doing things through channels and it screened out all the bugs and he just – and in addition to that, he was one of the most personable presidents. See, if you go down through all the presidents from Harry Truman on up to the time when – now, you find something about all of them that you like. Now, Jimmy Carter, personably was a very likeable man, and, ah, of course, Harry Truman, I liked him because he was pretty blunt and I could understand him. He didn’t use any big words that I didn’t know. But, ah, and Jerry Ford and I, of course, are great friends, and, I agree with Senator Bellmon. He came in at a time when things were very difficult and I think he did the best he could. But now, I also served on a committee with – in my first term, with both John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon, and they became very warm friends of mine, and to this good day, I still consider Richard Nixon a very good friend. And, ah, he did some things, of course, that cost him dearly, but he also did a lot of things that history will remember, too.

Lasalier: Well, how about President Regan’s legislative program so far, Senator Bellmon?

Bellmon: Well, most of President Regan’s program has revolved around his efforts to change the way our revenues are collected. He’s done some good things in other areas. Tom mentioned earlier, privately, the way he handled the air controllers’ strike, which I certainly feel was done well and its brought about a kind of new era in the whole country so far as the relationship between organized labor and management is concerned. Also, he, I think, has done a great job as being a communicator – helping people understand what’s going on in government and understanding better where some of the changes need to be made. But I feel that President Regan has probably erred rather seriously in bringing on tax cuts too quickly. His idea of cutting government – the cost of government – and giving that, in effect, back to taxpayers through tax cuts on the surface sounds good, but the problem is the cuts he’s made are not as great as the tax cuts, and therefore the deficits have soared. This year, 1982, the deficit will almost certainly exceed $100 billion, which is some kind of a record. And next year, unless some major changes are made, it will be $150 billion deficit. And the next year beyond that, it’s $160 billion. So, to me, this means that we’ve set the stage now for another runaway inflation, and, ah, high interest, which is more or less paralyzing the economy. I feel that if President Regan had taken a more leisurely and more orderly approach to changing the tax base and be certain he was going to get the cuts in spending before he cut revenues, he would have been in great shape, but as it is now, I believe he’s going to have to change some of his program and try to get some of these revenues back.

Lasalier: How will the New Federalism of President Regan’s legislative program – how will that affect the State of Oklahoma? Congressman?

Steed: Well, I only know what I read in the papers about that, but apparently Oklahoma is very fortunate right now – much more so than most states. We have incomes to the state that have put us in a surplus position. And, as a matter of dollars and sense I think we can probably cope with it better than most states. But, it, ah, it has it goods sides and its bad sides. It has a good side in the fact that a lot of states that are getting federal funds now that use them because they are there, and they probably know better than anyone whether they can do without them or not. There has to be a number of things done, I think, in order to squeeze out this runaway federal spending thing that we’ve been faced with for so long. We – last time I checked, we had 947 federal programs where there was money being dished out for one reason or another. You make a pretty good case for any one of them by itself, but when you get down to which one is the most important, or which one can you afford, and which one you can’t, you get a very mixed up batch. And so, I think that we’ve just got to let these things have their trial and let each state make the best of it they can, because, ah, Senator Bellmon, I think, will tell you same thing I have – we’ve sat in many conferences together and tried to do the job for Oklahoma, and I think we did a pretty good one. But, ah, we had all sorts of pressure for more and more and more, but none at all for less and less and less.

Bellmon: One of the things that the Regan so-called New Federalism would do is give the states greatly flexibility in the way federal funds are used. At the present time, I know there are at least 16 so-called categorical programs that send money back to the state for child nutrition or for feeding programs. And this same is true in the field of education. One of the things he’d do, I believe, is simply give the money back as kind of a lump sum and let each state tailor its program to fit its needs. I believe that would be a very great improvement over the present system.

Lasalier: Some observers are quite critical of the New Federalism, saying that the state’s income eventually with the loss of oil, would put Oklahoma place as auto-producing states eventually – that we could not afford the cost of the New Federalism. How would one respond to that criticism?

Steed: Well, you know, when you look at the national picture, you don’t build a road into the Everglades of Florida the same way you do in the Rocky Mountains. And there have to be some variations so that local conditions can be handled best by the local people. And, ah, the, ah, the way we got these programs set up, it just made our airline business for people from city, county, school and every other level heading for Washington to try to cut a piece of the pie. And, ah, I think, that, ah, without regard whether some states will fare well or not, I think putting more of the responsibility back on the people that are going to spend the money instead of the ones that, ah, ah, you know, how its going to be raised and handled. What I’m trying to say is that the more responsibility you can put on the folks back home, the better program you’re going to get. As long as they say, “Well, it’s just free money and we can do as we please,” why, there’s not going to be that incentive. I think all public officials are alike – when they have to answer to some people, they take more care about what they do and don’t do.

Lasalier: OK, in answering to the people, when can we expect to see a change from or through the Regan programs? Economic turnaround?

Bellmon: Well, that’s the great question. That’s the big question as we’re here today – is the when and if the turnaround will actually occur. You want to remember something, and that is that a new president has a relatively short time to get his policies in place and get them working because two years after he goes into office, well, actually less that two years – about 20 months after he goes into office, there’s a new Congressional election. This one’s coming up in November. And if the Regan program hasn’t produced rather dramatic results by then, it’s likely that the next Congress, and particularly the House of Representatives will be an unfriendly Congress – quite unfriendly. I saw a recent Gallup poll which showed that if the election were being held now that Regan’s side would lose about 50 seats in the House of Representatives, which would pretty much put Tip O’Neil in control of the situation, which he hasn’t been up to now. And that could mean – could be a stalemate or a very negative situation for the president over the next two years, so when you ask me when it’s going to come, I’m not sure I know, but I would have to say it has to come quickly or President Regan and the Republican Party are in deep trouble.

Steed: There’s another insidious thing that gets into this off-year election for the House and Senate. We – we’ve had the bicentennial census and the seats in Congress have been allocated and some states have lost and some have gained. Now, this and redistricting, like in California, is going to make a whole lot of political things happen that normally wouldn’t happen. So, you see, you have to add that in to this picture to find out just what the changes next November can actually add up to.

Lasalier: So 1984 can be a very – will be a very interesting presidential campaign year. Care to make any predictions about possible candidates for the Democratic Party, Congressman, that might emerge as a front-runner?

Steed: Well, I wish I had some hero of mine that I could blurt out right here, but I haven’t got one yet.

Lasalier: Assuming that Ronald Regan is tired of the battle, who would you see, Senator?

Bellmon: Well, the obvious front-runner in the Republican presidential sweepstakes right now is the vice president, George Bush. He’s able to travel around and make good impressions on party faithful wherever he goes and gets a lot of media attention. George is not the most dynamic campaigner, or the most dynamic personality that you’ve seen, although he’s a very fine gentleman, and I’m sure a good friend to both the Congressman and myself. The man, frankly, that I’d like to see president. He’ll probably be challenged by Jack Kemp, who is a more dynamic, more charismatic type, except Kemp has been closely identified with what’s called Reganomics, and if Reganomics proves to be a disaster, which at the present time, seems to be what’s happening, then Mr. Kemp is going to be very badly discredited. There will be others. Jim Thompson, who’s the governor of Illinois, is a potential candidate. Howard Baker, made a preliminary try for the presidency in 1980. He didn’t get very far and whether or not he’d try again, I don’t really know. He’s now majority leader of the Senate and I’m sure he enjoys that position. There are probably no other Republicans in the Senate who would aspire to the job, with the exception maybe of Bob Dole, but when Dole ran last time he didn’t get very far, and I assume he won’t try it again. So I think it will come down to a race between Bush and Kemp.

Lasalier: Congressman, you don’t see any Democrats that you would like to . . .

Steed: Well, Walter Mondale, of course, I think is a very certain seeker after the nomination, and might be the front runner in it, but I don’t think that any other Democrats have come up far enough in public view right now to be very important. It may – it may hinge a whole lot on what happens in the next two years as to whether we will have any rising star that will come around and capture the public fancy.

Lasalier: Well, as we say, there’s some economists who say late summer we’ll begin to see a turn-around. What if there is no turn-around, say, within the next year. Can the Republicans win, and if they can’t for their traditional policies, would they go to price and wage controls? Would you see that out in the Regan Administration?

Bellmon: It would certainly be a 180 degree turn for Regan if he opted for a controlled economy. I really don’t expect it to happen. Although, if the economy continues to slide and if the situation gets serious enough, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see wage and price controls after the next presidential election. As a matter of fact I heard Father Drinan on one of the talk shows recently – he is former Congressman and now head of ADA – Americans for Democratic Action – he had a, I believe, a 40-point program he was pushing and wage and price controls were a part of that. So, it’s fairly plain that if President Regan is discredited by the 1984 elections, and if a person of the Drinan persuasion were president, then wage and price controls become a real possibility.

Steed: The mixture of having a newspaper background and political background has always made problems for me. Now, I handled the budget for the economic advisors to the president for 20 years. And I’ve heard every one of them present their plea for money and what – their work and everything. I’ve had members on my subcommittee that studied economics in college, which I didn’t do, and I’d listen for hours and hours and hours. And I finally came to the conclusion after looking at the results of their predictions that I could have said everything they said in one sentence, which adds up to about like this: If we had some eggs, we’d have some ham and eggs if we had some ham. So I’m not right sure what these predictions are like anyhow, just like some of the polls. They don’t come out right either.

Bellmon: Well, you may remember, I know the Congressman does, that when Nixon was president, we had wage and price controls for a time. And it didn’t work. It created – when he finally took them off there was a big – what we call a notch there – things jumped up – prices jumped up the full range that they hadn’t during the time they had been in place. In addition to that, when you put wage and price controls in place, you’re certain to lock certain people in at too low a level and some at too high. If you locked in farm prices now, and kept them where they are for five years, we’d be out of food in this country, because farmers are losing their shirt on about everything they grow. So you couldn’t – I don’t see how a wage and price control system could work, but that doesn’t mean some far-out group might not try it.

Lasalier: Recently there were elections in El Salvador. Your views on the United States policies toward Latin America – Central America?

Bellmon: You want me to go first? El Salvador is an important problem for us. It’s not a big country – they only have 4.7 million people. It had, now, some 32,000 people killed by what is sometimes called a civil war. It’s more a case of where a small, well-armed band of guerillas is attacking the civilian population and trying to do all they can to disrupt the economy of the country and kill people to gain control of the government through force of arms. The election – the outcome of which is not totally determined yet – seems to have indicated that the majority down there don’t really want anything to do with the left-wing policies the guerillas are espousing. The idea behind it now is to have a constitution then they’ll be an election of a, of a government. But, ah, the big turnout in the force and the threats of violence which the guerillas had made shows that the people of the country are willing and – to take the risk to govern – to have self-government. I believe, and I hope that our government now will provide economic and military aid that the government that is being formed down there can resist and not let Cubans and the Russians who are pouring arms into the Central America, take over those countries one by one and in effect establish a communist colony south of Mexico.

Steed: I’d like to take advantage of this opportunity – I don’t pretend to be any expert on Central America, but there is one thing that hinges on Central America that my friend here, Senator Bellmon, had to make a decision one time and he got a lot of criticism for it. And that’s when it was to turn the Panama Canal back to Panama. I happen to agree with him on it. I’d been down there two or three times and I think he did a very important and a very courageous thing and I think that the abuse he got was absolutely uncalled for, and I think the passage of time has proved he was right. Panama is one of the most stable countries down there today. We are having none of this sort of problem we’re having in these others. And I’ve been told by people from Panama that the action we took did more to build goodwill for the United States and influence for us than any single thing that’s happened in a 100 years. Now, the Panama Canal today is being operated by a nine-man board, four Panamanians, four Americans, and it’s presided over by an American general. And the first thing they did was to take the privilege away from the Board of Governors that was running the thing and – I was on the Transportation Committee that had to help fund their deficits every year. They raised the rates now so the Panama Canal is paying itself out, and it’s not costing the United States anything. So, I just always resented you having to take such a beating, Senator, and I welcome this opportunity to put the record straight, because I think you just got an awful lot of unfair abuse.

Bellmon: Well, I think you, Tom. I appreciate that.

Lasalier: What about the United States’ policy toward Cuba? Should it begin to undertake talks with the Castro regime? Attempt to isolate it even further?

Steed: What worries me about Cuba is, of course, Castro is everything that his enemies say he is and then more. And he is a pain in the neck and a threat. And he’s meddling all around down there and trying to be the best tool that the Russians have. But he isn’t going to last forever, and what I wonder is where are we going to be when he goes, because I don’t think they’ll ever find anybody else that can stoop as low and be as sorry head of a government as he proved. And, and, they’ve got involved so much that, ah, I see an opportunity for some very bad chaos.

Bellmon: I don’t have an answer to the Castro problem. I don’t suppose you could go so far as the CIA plan to have him assassinated – that just doesn’t work. So I assume what we’ve got to do is suffer along with that situation until, as Tom says, he finally leaves the scene and be ready to, hopefully, help rebuild the country and maybe get in that way a government that’s friendly and one that’s not dedicated to creating chaos the way Cubans are trying to do in Latin America.

Lasalier: It seems an area that has much greater meaning for the entire world is the Middle East, and that the United States has recently seemed to be shifting toward more cooperation with the Arab states. That the United States has sold the AWACs type aircraft to Saudi Arabia and is in the process of becoming solidly entrenched with some military bases in that region. What are your views on American policy in the Middle East?

Bellmon: Well, like it or not, the United States as well as Japan and Western Europe is heavily dependent upon oil from the Middle East. Our policy over there is intended to maintain stability in that part of the world and keep the oil flowing to the countries that depend upon it so heavily. We have also the policy of guaranteeing the survival of Israel. It’s a very difficult tightrope to walk. The Begin Administration in Israel has made it more difficult by their policy in developing the West Bank and in taking a hard line in their relationship with countries like Syria and, I think, we’ve done a pretty good job of accomplishing our objective up to now. The Soviets are in Afghanistan, they’re in North Yemen, they’re in Ethiopia, and they had the area very well surrounded. If they ever choose to make a move, we’re going to be in a difficult position. But what we’re doing now in shoring up the Saudis and Egypt and Jordan is helping us be in a position to resist Soviet advances if and when they come.

Steed: Well, I don’t know what the top people in these governments know that we don’t know, but, ah, I was on a subcommittee that handled military construction and I happen to know some very secret information about some of the things we have done and what we’re prepared to do over in that part of the country, and what bothers me is that everything we’ve done could not possibly hurt Israel. If there ever comes a time when they need – really need our help, we’ll be in a much better position from what we’re doing, and why they keep on giving us trouble about it is – I can’t understand. Now, they, ah – I can’t see anything wrong with what we’ve done over there. I think that, like the Senator says, we can’t afford to let ourselves get in the position where one raid can blow up oil fields and put us on our knees, and, ah, I think the whole program of what we’ve been trying to do is to fix it so that can’t happen. Now, ah, talking about the AWACs, the – I’m not an expert on that, either, except the first ones they put in service was down here in my district at Tinker Field, and I got a check-out on them and know what they can do. But there are two AWACs. And the one they’ve got over there is not the one that the Russians already have, and the English, too, what the AWAC we sent over there has. But the other things we have, they don’t know and we didn’t send those. Now, see, what the president’s up against, he can’t defend himself effectively because so much of this he can’t afford to discuss. And if you’re not willing to take some of the things your leaders have on faith, then, ah, you’re just going to make their job even worse and tougher than it really is. I don’t know any other way to ask people to, to ah, live with this sort of thing except they just have faith that our leaders don’t want anything that you and I don’t want, and if we don’t give them some elbow room, why, they, they’re going to have an impossible situation.

Bellmon: The AWACs is not an offensive weapon, it’s a defensive weapon. It’s really no threat to Israel.

Steed: As a matter of face, information it can bring puts us in a much sounder position to help Israel if we ever need to than we otherwise could possibly be. That’s what makes me wonder why they raise such fuss about it.

Lasalier: Congressman Steed, Senator Bellmon, we appreciate your coming today and we have an Oscar Rose Junior College lapel pin that we would like to present to both of you in appreciation of your time and views this afternoon. Thank you very much.

Bellmon: Thank you. Does this mean we can matriculate here if we choose?

Lasalier: Yes, indeed!

Steed: Ah, it’s always been one of my favorite institutions and I appreciate this.

Lasalier: Thank you very much.