Jimmy Carter photo

Interview With the Magazine Publishers Association - Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Members of the Association

June 10, 1977

THE PRESIDENT. I think Jody and Rex are giving a press briefing now to the White House press corps, which they do, as you know, every day. My next press conference is, I think, Monday.

I've made my plans to have full-scale press conferences twice a month. And so far I've enjoyed it. We've had a few complaints from the news representatives here that they were too frequent. But I always look forward to them, and I think that they are constructive in letting the American people know what we are trying to do and to explain our mistakes, to form partnerships with the people.


I've now, I think, been in office long enough to get a good assessment of our Cabinet to let them form their proper interrelationships with one another. And I think our staff members have become fairly well assured about their own special responsibilities and interrelationships, as well. I've been pleased with them.

I just had lunch with Secretary of Commerce Juanita Kreps, and I told her accurately that after a 5-months' assessment there was no member of the Cabinet that I would want to change, that I was very proud of all of them. They are superb.

And this feeling is shared by, you might say, outside observers, like my own staff members, and Bert Lance, Office of Management and Budget, and others who know them. I'm really pleased with them. There's never been one discordant note that has come to my attention among the Cabinet members themselves, which I think is quite a good achievement, as well.

We've now begun our spring budget reviews. I have a total, I think, of 26 hours scheduled to meet with the heads of all the major agencies. And we spend anywhere from a half an hour to 4 hours, depending upon the complexity of the budget itself, in preliminary assessments of major programs that are ongoing to make sure they understand the full scope of the zero-based budgeting technique, which is new, and that we establish an order of priority of the major expenditures that they anticipate needing for fiscal year 1979. And on almost every occasion we have either one or two or three special studies that need to be consummated before I make a final decision on what to recommend to the Congress for fiscal year '79.

These are done sometimes within our own department, sometimes jointly between the department and the Office of Management and Budget, sometimes involving my own staff, and sometimes involving a broad-scale, blue-ribbon citizens committee working with us.

We've initiated some major objectives which have been postponed, in my opinion, too long. They create an agenda that's almost overwhelming for us, but I don't feel any doubt that we should have addressed these problems.

On domestic issues, as you well know, they involve a basic energy policy, the evolution of an Energy Department, a resolution of the very serious questions concerning social security, welfare reform, tax reform--these kinds of things have been postponed from one administration to another. And in. my opinion, their threat to our Nation's domestic well-being has grown in severity.

In foreign affairs, we've also been quite aggressive, I think, so far. We are trying to wrestle with the basic questions of southern Africa in a deeply involved fashion., working with the British and others. I have met with all the leaders in the Middle East. We've taken an innovative stand on nonproliferation of nuclear explosive capability.

We've had, I think, so far, a very successful effort to arouse the consciousness of the world about basic human rights and human freedoms. I don't think there's a foreign leader in the world who doesn't have in the forefront of his consciousness or her consciousness now, the basic question of what are we doing in our country about human rights. And this has been a very gratifying thing to us so far.

We are dealing with the questions of normalizing relationships with countries who have been our adversaries or even enemies in the past. This is one that's fraught with grave political consequences if they're not handled in a sensitive fashion. My own inclination, though, is to aggressively challenge, in a peaceful way, of course, the Soviet Union and others for influence in areas of the world that we feel are crucial to us now or potentially crucial 15 or 20 years from now. And this includes places like Vietnam and places like Iraq and Somalia and Algeria and places like the People's Republic of China and even Cuba. I don't have any hesitancy about these matters.

The other thing I'd like to mention briefly is that we've, I think, formed a much tighter alliance of consultation and mutual purpose with our friends in the Western democracies. I have the utmost confidence that their democratic systems can prevail.

I think this is somewhat of a change, maybe from some of the attitudes of our leaders that have preceded me. But I think in the long run, we have the advantage on our side, because there's an innate hunger among the human beings who inhabit this Earth for a right to make their own decisions, not to be abused by government, to be free to develop as they choose, to be treated fairly. And I think in this way, our system of government can be exemplary to others. I think this is something that is now being more clearly seen.

And I feel--like in the competitive world of, say, among the African nations or in Asia or in Latin America--that we ought not to be timid in putting our best foot forward and that we ought to be sure that our own system here is clean and decent and honest and open and that there is a general sense among the world's people that when I speak I don't speak as an isolated voice; that as best I can, my Cabinet understands and supports what I say, that the Congress understands and supports what I say, and as best I can, again, that the American people understand and support what I say.

We've been criticized to some degree by injecting some of the controversial issues into the public domain for debate. Obviously, one of them is concerning the Middle East and another one is nonproliferation, where we've aroused the displeasure of Germany and France and Pakistan and Brazil. The other one is human rights. But I think that if we stand for something we ought to be forceful about it. And we might win some and lose some in the relationships with other countries, but in general, though, I've been pleased.

So, in a thumbnail sketch, lasting about 5 or 6 minutes, those are some of the things that press on my mind.

I've enjoyed being President so far. I've got a lot to learn, but I'm learning in a hurry, because I spend a lot of time at it and I've got superb support.

I talked to Rosalynn this morning. She's in her sixth country now. She says she thinks that five countries are enough on one trip. [Laughter] She's leaving Colombia today and going to Venezuela, which will be her last visit on this trip.

Her response has been remarkably good in the countries where she's visited. And no one can understand how much time and effort she's spent in preparing for this trip, and the degree of acceptance she's had among the leaders.

She was supposed to spend about 45 minutes or an hour with each leader. She spent 7 hours with the Prime Minister of Jamaica. She spent 5 hours with the President of Costa Rica, 5 hours with the military junta in Ecuador, 3 1/2 hours with the leader, with President Bermudez in Peru, about 3 1/2 hours with the president of Brazil, Geisel. And I think this is a tribute to their high opinion of our own country and an eagerness to present their views directly to me and, also, to the fact that they found her to be capable of representing accurately what our people and what our Nation are.

She probably has a better sensitivity about the hopes and dreams and aspirations of the average American than I do, and I had no trepidation in letting her go to represent us. She's not a negotiator; she doesn't have any official position, but she's been received with open arms and I am very grateful for it.

I look forward to getting her back Sunday. I think five countries is enough.

Perhaps now I could answer a few questions in the time we have available, if you have any.


Q. Mr. President, my name is Harry Thompson [To the Point International, Westport, Conn.]. I wonder whether you could articulate for us the U.S. policy toward Africa, both black and southern, and who really speaks out, Vice President Mondale, Secretary Vance, or Ambassador Young?

THE PRESIDENT. I'll try. In the southern part of Africa we have three basic simultaneous problems. One is to deal with the question in Rhodesia, or Zimbabwe.

We are working closely with the British, who just finished a circle of bilateral discussions with the so-called frontline nations, the leading black nations around Rhodesia, and with Ian Smith and with Vorster. We'll now have our negotiators come back to this country to explain to me and Secretary Vance, the Vice President, Andrew Young, what the results of those discussions were.

One of the hopes is we might evolve, primarily with the British in the leadership role, a constitution that would be acceptable to the black and whites, future citizens of Rhodesia who have not been discouraged. I cannot tell you that we anticipate any easy resolution.

The second question, of course, is how to deal with what was formerly known as Southwest Africa, now known as Namibia. This is a nation that is, to a great degree, under the purview or control of the United Nations as far as legalities go.

The South Africans have not been willing to relinquish their tight control over the future of Namibia. And we have tied to induce Mr. Vorster to join with us in establishing an interim government that is broadly representative, to lead to democratic elections for a permanent, independent governing structure for Namibia.

As you know, he had put his eggs in what you might call a turnhalle basket a turnhalle is a school gymnasium. That is a kind of a hand-selected group by Vorster to deal with the future of Namibia. This has not been acceptable to the rest of the countries in south Africa, nor to the United Nations members, including ourselves.

Under Andy Young's leadership, we've joined with Canada, England, France, and Germany and have now concluded two detailed importunities or requests or discussions with Vorster, asking him to resolve the Namibian question without delay.

The other question, obviously, is related to some degree; and that is, the future attitudes of South Africa itself. We don't feel an inclination to intrude into their internal policies, but we are committed as a nation to having equality of treatment of citizens.

As you know, South Africa is in very bad repute in many regions of the world. We are not trying to overthrow their government, but we do feel that there ought to be some equality of hiring practices, equality of pay for the same kind of work done, promotion opportunities for black citizens--which is not there--an end to the highly discriminatory pass system that exists in Africa.

These are the kind of things that the South went through 15, 20, 25 years ago, and just some demonstration of good faith on the part of the South African officials is what we would like to see.

We're not in the position to make them do this. But we've been trying to let South Africa know that we are not abusive, that we recognize their value as a stabilizing influence in the southern part of Africa to the extent that they work with us and resolve these other questions.

There is actually no disparity of opinion or responsibility among myself, Cyrus Vance, the Vice President, or Andy Young. We communicate freely. We have open and unrestricted debates with one another. When Andy Young goes to South Africa or to any of the other many countries that he can now go--which Kissinger could not go into--and when he speaks for our country, he speaks with my full authority and my complete support.

I had a meeting with Andy this past week to point that out to him. I think that one of the things that Andy presented to me with which I did agree is that there's been too much of a concentration of attention on his interest in Africa; that this needs to be spread more widely to the Caribbean, for instance, to the developing countries in South and Central America, perhaps to some of the Asian countries. And I approved that change in his emphasis.

And the other thing is that it's very hard on our country and on Andy, in particular, for him to spend 17 days on a broad scale, very successful trip--and I think in some instances very courageous trip through Africa--and then on the way back home to make a statement about the Swedish Government being racist and having that being the focal point of what he is about and what he is. It was unfortunate. And he recognizes the fact that it did detract from the effectiveness of his past and future service.

But there is no incompatibility among us. I would have no reason to mislead you about that. We are completely compatible in our hopes.

The other part of Africa that we are quite concerned about that you did mention is in the Horn of Africa with Somalia, Afars, and Issas, Ethiopia, Sudan, and, to some degree, Ethiopia on the southern part of the Red Sea and, of course, the Arab countries to the north. But we are working very closely there with the Saudi Arabians in particular, trying to cement relationships with South Yemen, trying to improve relationships with Somalia, trying to understand the conflict within Ethiopia concerning the Eritreans. That's where the other potential troublespot is in Africa.

Q. Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, sir, go ahead. I'll get you next.


Q. I am Emory Cunningham, publisher of Progressive Farms in the southern half of Birmingham. And I had a very enjoyable and helpful visit with you in your home in Plains last fall. You pointed to the fact that your mother's father, James Gordy, wrote the letter to Georgia's Tom Watson that led to legislation starting rural free delivery in the United States. And you said roughly that you thought that the Postal Service should continue to be largely a public service to all the people. And I wonder, after 6 months as Chief Executive--during which the electorate gives you very high marks, I might add--from that observation point, what is your view now on the Postal Service?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm still proud of the fact that my grandfather-[laughter]--was the first one who advocated rural free delivery of mail. He was a postmaster in Richmond, Georgia, when Tom Watson was a Congressman. Tom Watson introduced the legislation which was passed. And it was funded about 20, 25 years later.

I had a meeting this week, coincidentally, with the Postmaster General, and met last week with the new president of the association representing all the postmasters in our country--I think about 22,000 of them--John Dalton, who happens to be from Georgia, coincidentally.

I don't know how to respond to that question. The Post Office is now completely independent of me. I don't have any authority over the selection of the Postmaster General and have some authority, of course, in approving appropriations made by the Congress for fulfilling the requirements to meet the deficit. Although the Post Office is right now in the black, there's a prospective deficit of about $200 million a month.

The options now are to increase rates substantially and/or to do away with Saturday deliveries. The Post Office, I think, needs a substantial amount of improvement. And my own hope is that we can refrain from substantial increases in the postal rate. What we don't meet with rate increases and reduction of services, though, we'll have to make up in direct appropriations of funds to meet the deficit.

I would rather not try to speak for Mr. Bailar and others, because they have a Post Office Board who will make a recommendation shortly. They met this month and did not address this question. My understanding from him is that next month they will make recommendations accordingly.

So, I'm disturbed about the Post Office, about its potential reduction in service and increase in rates and its deficit. But I don't have any way to answer your question about what ought to be done about it yet.

Q. Mr. President---

THE PRESIDENT. I promised him, but I'll get you next.


Q. Mr. President, we heard this morning from Mr. O'Leary, and he seemed to be, in spite of the vote yesterday in Ways and Means, seemed to be rather optimistic that--and he specifically repeated this--by the end of this session in October, that your program would be--I've forgotten his exact wording--largely achieved as far as the energy program is concerned, which is something that I, personally, and I think most of us in this room, pray will take place. I certainly support it and very disappointed yesterday--do you share that optimism?

THE PRESIDENT. I've been deeply concerned and somewhat surprised at the extraordinary influence of the automobile companies and the oil companies in Washington.

Yesterday was a demonstration of that. The subcommittee in the commerce committee voted to deregulate so-called new discoveries of natural gas, which include almost all new wells--no matter if it was new discoveries or not--which would add unnecessarily about $86 billion to the cost to the American consumer and put that into the income of the oil companies between now and 1985.

I feel that the proposal that we have put forward, with a fairly strict definition on new discoveries and with a $1.75 price level, is adequate and an adequate incentive to future exploration. The Ways and Means Committee also took action which concerns me very much. The major lobbyist there was the automobile companies. It's easy to criticize specifics of the energy package, and even the American people have concern about specifics. But I think in an overwhelming degree, the American people want the Congress to take bold, strong, adequate action to give us a comprehensive energy policy.

And my opinion is that the American people are willing to make a sacrifice if they feel that the package is complete, comprehensive, and fair.

We had some very serious and difficult decisions to make during the 3 months after I was in office that we studied it, plus several months before I was inaugurated. And I think that the balancing that we put forward was very good. And to see the Congress in its initial stages, subcommittee level, begin to chip away at individual component parts of the package, that's very disturbing to me.

I don't think it's time yet for me to consider castigating the Members of Congress. I know the pressures under which they are functioning. And I know that John Dingell, the chairman of the commerce subcommittee, did the best he could to prevent the action in his own committee. I think it's true that Al Ullman did the same thing in his committee to hold the package together.

But there has to be some compensatory interest and pressure from the general public in a constructive fashion on the Members of Congress, demanding strong action to counterbalance the intensely focused and highly visible pressure that's put on the Members of Congress by special interest lobbyists here on a daily, hourly basis.

And I am concerned. I'm not quite as sanguine about it as Mr. O'Leary apparently is.

I've got assurances from the Speaker. I talked to him this morning. He's quite concerned about the action yesterday. I met with Bob Byrd yesterday morning for breakfast. And they're determined to have an adequate energy package.

It's too early to be discouraged, but I think it's premature to be at ease. And unless the American public can be aroused to help me and others who believe that this is extremely important, and that the American public are willing to accept some sacrifice if it's fair, I'm afraid that we are not going to have an adequate program when it's over.

But later on, I'll go more and more public in my own expressions of concern and congratulations. But I think the issue is in doubt. And unless the American people speak up, the special interests are going to prevail.


Q. Mr. President, going back to Mr. Cunningham's question on the Post Office, the members have asked me, as chairman, to say to you that the Hanley-Wilson bill that was introduced yesterday is one whose provisions we can pretty generally support and will.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you. That's good to know. I might point out that a couple of weeks ago I directed my staff to start concentrating on the Post Office question. And we've not ignored it. It's just a matter of time sequence. And Stu Eizenstat and others, Bert Lance in the OMB, are working now with me to try to come up with a reasonable opinion of our own.

I don't know the provisions of the bill yet, but I'll learn. There's the tradeoff that I described earlier between reduction in deliveries, the Saturday deliveries, compared to increases in postal rates for first class and other rates, which I know is of great interest to you, is one that I'll have to address. And of course, I will have a great deal of influence on what the Congress ultimately decides.

Thank you. Yes, sir?


Q. Mr. President, I wonder if I could ask you a conceptual question in terms of the way in which the last 8 months--3 months after the election, prior to the Inauguration, 5 months since--you've been able to identify a strategy--and we heard Charlie Schultze express it very well this morning--in terms of reduction of unemployment and inflation, balance the budget by 1981, increase capital spending.

At the same time, as you said, I think at the outset, particularly you've initiated many objectives, much work that should've been done a long time ago.

THE PRESIDENT. That's right.

Q. You built a staff, you got a committee to work together to identify issues and to identify options on those issues, alternatives, and to identify tradeoffs, not just within a department but within multi-departments. What gives you, and what you give the public, any sense of confidence that as you develop the ways in which you hope to accomplish the strategy, which you already have articulated, that it can indeed be accomplished? I'm particularly concerned about how the business community perceives this entire process, which is so very, very different and done entirely in public from what would exist within a corporation if one identified the strategy, again, to look at the objectives needed to accomplish it and to set up some task forces, study groups, one didn't have a Congress, didn't have the kinds of pressures that you have.

And I just wonder how certain you are that by the time you have stipulated you want these things to happen, the ways in which to do it, particularly working with Congress, can be worked out? This is not--


Well, there's no way that I can guarantee that ahead of time. I think the track record so far has been very favorable, although the consequence that's highly publicized is always the disharmony and the most abrasive debates and the most controversial amendments that are proposed and the subcommittee action, if it's adverse.

When I met at Blair House with all of the Members of Congress in small groups to lay out my immediate objectives, I had five. One was the adoption by the Congress of strong ethics legislation. I think they've done very well in this.

Second was an adequate economic stimulation package. And I think they've done very well in this. I've been pleased with it. They've done almost to the letter what I have asked them to do.

Another one was a creation, in an expeditious way, of a Department of Energy. It took 2 solid years of hard debate and in-fighting and a great deal of watering down before Johnson was able to establish a Department of Transportation many years ago. We have almost accomplished this 3 months after the legislation was initiated, and it cuts across departmental lines perhaps even more severely than a Department of Transportation.

The other one is to give me authority to reorganize the executive branch of government. And the Congress acted on that very quickly and completely compatibly with what I had advocated.

And the other major item that I described to them was the energy plan itself, and the Congress is just beginning to act on it.

Now, as far as balancing the budget is concerned, if we can maintain a strong economy and meet the goals that Charlie Schultze described to you, I think we can balance the budget. It's going to be an almost unprecedented thing. No President in history, so far as anyone remembers, has ever met with the departments during a spring budget review. Many Presidents have never met with the departments even in the final budget review.

Well, we're now setting down for them very tight, very strict guidelines that they can be permitted to propose to me on spending within their own departments. We .are not just working on the 1979 budget. We are working on the 1981 budget. Every slide projection that's been shown to me in hours and hours of discussion--and we've now been through about 70 percent of the budget--has shown all the way out through 1981 or 1982.

This, combined with a zero-base budgeting technique, which is a mandatory constraint for them to determine how much money they will have as outlined by me--the relative priority of the different programs, putting old programs on exactly the same priority level as ones that have been there 15 years or 20 years--I think is a very good disciplinary action for them to take.

I think in the reorganization process we'll save a good bit of money. I would guess that by September of 1978 that our total employment in the Federal Government would not be in excess of what it was the day I took office. And I hope and I expect that the degree of delivery of services will be greatly improved.

We are setting specific goals and hard business management principles into effect that have been absent for a long time in the past. We've got some serious threats to our economy in the future that I haven't mentioned yet. One of them is retirement.

We've got the most horrible conglomeration of retirement programs that overlap and are wasteful and are sometimes unfair to deserving employees that you've ever imagined. It's shocking when you go into it. And I don't know any way to address this terrible complexity without appointing a special blue-ribbon commission to look into it.

We've got people now who are drawing sometimes three retirement payments and they're still fairly young. And they're excessive, in my opinion, in some instances. Other employees who have served equally well find themselves deprived of .an adequate retirement benefit or they find that their retirement fund is only 40-percent funded when they're getting ready to quit work in their older age.

So, this is the kind of question that has been delayed. I can't guarantee that everything that we have set forth as a goal will be achieved. But the only thing I can do is to set the goal to put the mechanism for achievement into effect, to describe to the American people periodically and without evasion our progress or our retrogression. And if we do fail in some instances with an enormously ambitious program, then I think the American people will understand that we've done our best.

That's all I can say to answer--you might have a specific question.

Q. Without being pretentious, the only thing that I would suggest is that I think that the function thus far in explanation has been on a shorter term process, particularly zero-based budgeting, rather than the processes which are going to be involved in moving toward a set of goals in 1981. And I think particularly the business community, perhaps not the general population, would be impressed by knowing what executive actions have taken place which have applied the kind of logic that they apply day to day to the kind of problems that they know that you're faced with.

THE PRESIDENT. That's a good point. I have to say that we're doing the best we can with that. It would be interesting, I'm sure, to you to know how many hours a month Mike Blumenthal and Bert Lance and Juanita Kreps and Charlie Schultze and others spend meeting with business groups, chambers of commerce groups, manufacturing groups, to explain to them what we are doing. And I think that to that particular audience, the impact is very good. But to achieve an adequate news coverage of their presentations is not always a sure thing. But I think your question and your cautionary comment is very pertinent.

Q. I've heard them--I'll get off the floor--and they are tending to talk and the questions are tending to be directed to the shorter range issues---

THE PRESIDENT. I understand.

Q. ---how's energy going to work in 1979.

THE PRESIDENT. Of course, all of our projections, like on energy, are for 1985. When we present our budget to the Congress in '79, we'll go through 1981 and 1982 as far as impact is concerned. But as you pointed out very accurately, we've only been in office yet 5 months. A lot of these programs are still in the embryonic stage as far as we are concerned.

You can do a lot of talking, a lot of studying, a lot of question-and-answering and speaking during a 2-year campaign, but until you have the authority to demand confidential information and the cohesion of a staff to pull together accurate information, it's hard to bring yourself to comprehend a problem well enough to get a potential answer.

So, we are still working on it. And I wouldn't want to exaggerate what we hope to accomplish. But our goals, as you can see, are very ambitious.

Q. Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. Maybe one more quick question.


Q. Mr. President, I am Earl Graves of Black Enterprise Magazine.

And in listening to Chairman Schultze this morning as he described--and new have also--moving towards 1981 and a balanced budget, and going back to some of the promises that were made prior to your election in terms of looking at a comprehensive program for the revitalization of the cities, can you have the four-point program that you described this morning and you alluded to here and still point and move towards a revitalization of the cities that is so needed?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think so. Where are you from?

Q. New York City.


Q. We have one or two problems in New York. [Laughter]

THE PRESIDENT. I've heard. I think that this is such a broad question that I don't have the time to answer it and couldn't give you a definitive answer anyhow. But in almost every proposal that we have made to the Congress--and we've been making good progress there in their acceptance-we are shifting the impact of limited Federal funds--and they'll always be limited--to the redressing of problems in the older and more dilapidated and deteriorating neighborhoods where the need is greatest.

I think it's accurate to say, just to give you one example, that the housing programs in the past have been not only inadequately financed, that's being beefed up, but also when the financing was available, it quite often went to the rapidly growing new areas of the country. It went to the suburbs where the more affluent citizens live, where they are better organized, more articulate, and where they understand the Federal laws best, and the central city areas where the needs are greatest were deprived. Well, we're trying to change that in a generic sense. I just use that as one example.

But I think in the overall thrust of our programs concerning energy, transportation, welfare reform, tax reform, housing, education, that you will see a constant pattern to try to rebuild the strength of the cities. When I mentioned a few minutes ago the retirement problem, this has been one of the questions in New York City, in Philadelphia, and other places where inadequate long-range projections of cost are proving to be sometimes an almost financial catastrophe. Now some cities have taxed themselves heavily to maintain the integrity of a retirement fund. Others have simply approved the very liberal retirement benefits and haven't funded it at all.

And so we are having to deal with this to the extent that the law prescribes, from the Federal point of view. But I think in a generic and an adequate sense, the goals that we've established on the budget being balanced under normal, healthy, economic circumstances is completely compatible with redressing some of the long, unmet needs of the downtown urban areas.

I want to say in closing that I thank you for coming by to see us. We can't give you a complete understanding of the Federal Government in one day and neither have they been able to give me a complete understanding of the Federal Government in 5 months. [Laughter] But I'm learning and so are you. But I think that this program that we've established to let you come in and meet with some of our people and cross-examine us and learn is very healthy for us, because your questions are very instructive to me. And we're always eager to let your readers and your viewers, your listeners, know how we are running your Government.

Thank you again.

Q. Thank you.

Note: The interview began at 1 p.m. in the Cabinet Room at the White House.

The transcript of the interview was released on June 11.

Jimmy Carter, Interview With the Magazine Publishers Association - Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Members of the Association Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/243671

Filed Under



Washington, DC

Simple Search of Our Archives