Steubenville, Ohio Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session at a Townhall Meeting.

THE PRESIDENT. It's great to be here at Big Red.

Senator John Glenn, Congressman Doug Applegate, distinguished leaders of Ohio government, local officials, and my friends from Steubenville and the surrounding communities:

I've come as President today to say a few words to you at the beginning and then to spend what time we have together with your commenting to me and asking me questions about our Nation and our Government, our present and our great future.

I'm convinced that we live in the greatest nation on Earth.

And I'm convinced that the steel industry, being so crucial to our Nation, is strong now and will be increasingly strong and beneficial to our people in the future.

And I'm convinced that with good leadership in government and in the private sector of American life, that that partnership—free people, democratic government, free enterprise—can be successful in overcoming even the most difficult obstacles, answering the most difficult questions, resolving the most difficult problems.

ADMINISTRATION POLICIES

When I became President a little more than 2 years ago, the steel industry was in serious trouble. Profits were nonexistent. Losses on a nationwide basis were very high. Plants were closing down. People were being laid off. Excessive, unfair imports were taking away our markets. Only 78 percent of the capacity of our steel plants in this country was being utilized.

I established a task force. I was part of it, Bob Strauss was part of it, John Glenn was part of it, Doug Applegate was part of it. We had officials from your area and throughout the country, from the Congress, in all States that produce steel. And we tried to devise some comprehensive approach dealing with all the many problems of the steel industry.

It was a voluntary program. No steel executive, no steelworker was required to participate. But we approached each other in a spirit of mutual trust, without looking for scapegoats, without condemning one another, without being fearful about the future, without having lost the spirit of America, and I think we've been remarkably successful.

We set up a trigger price mechanism to cut out illegal dumping of foreign steel. We appropriated $14 million for modernization programs to make sure that obsolescent steel plants had a new incentive to modernize and to save jobs. We also introduced, for the first time, in a friendly way, the steel industry to the Environmental Protection Agency, so they could understand one another for a change and kind of work together to accommodate the law's requirements, but not to put handcuffs on the steel industry itself.

The 78-percent utilization rate of all our steel capacity has now grown to more than 90 percent. Those constant annual losses in 1977 changed in 1978 to $1.3 billion in steel industry profits that can go to new hiring, distribution of profits to owners, and new improvements to keep our steel industry vital. In 1979 my understanding is that the profits will be even higher than they were last year.

We now have 465,000 steelworkers on the job. And early this summer, the steel industry as a whole had a $1 billion payroll, the highest payroll the steel industry has ever seen in the history of our country. These kinds of achievements have been accomplished through cooperation and through using the tremendous advantages that God has given us in this country. It shows, I think, in a vivid way what we can do when we face a challenge together and with confidence in ourselves, in each other, in our Nation. It shows that there's room for jobs, there is room for profits, there's room for environmental quality, the quality of our lives, there's room for productivity, for community development, there's room for cooperation between Government and citizens.

Now we've got another challenge, and I need you to help me with that. I believe that it's better for us instead of importing more foreign oil, to use more Ohio coal. And very briefly let me tell you why, in case you need convincing.

We import about 50 percent of all the oil we use. We import, along with that oil, inflation. We import unemployment. We will send overseas this year from our country about $70 billion that we ought to keep here. We've got enough coal to last us 600 years, but in the past, in the last number of years, there has not been that dedication of industry, employees, and the Government working together. We've already made some progress. We're going to make some more.

The years ahead, I predict, will see a tremendous improvement in the utilization of American coat, including Ohio coal, and a restoration of the security of our country, because it's not good for us to have our Nation in danger because we are overly dependent on oil from an uncertain source and at an uncontrollable price. As you know, the OPEC oil prices have increased in the last few months, since December, 60 percent. That's an annual rate of inflation in energy of about 100 percent. This has got to stop, but I need your help with it.

I believe that by 1995, we can triple the amount of coal used in this country. We can honor, in the process, environmental laws. We could have an increasing sense of unity among Americans. We can enhance our Nation's security. We can have more jobs in our country, less unemployment, less inflation. Three-fourths of all the synthetic fuels that we anticipate producing in the coming years will be from coal. And the windfall profits tax, when it passes, it'll bring in about $88 billion for energy purposes over the next 10 years; $75 billion of that will be spent on coal.

This is the kind of vision that I have for the future, but it's going to require action by the Congress. And your Congressmen and your Senators support this, but are dealing with the question in a confident and courageous way. In the process, we have enhanced mine safety and the health of miners, and I believe there's a growing sense of cooperation between mineworkers and mineowners.

Our country is strong enough to withstand any challenge if our people are willing to do two things: make a common sacrifice, not losing our confidence, and work in a spirit of unity. The synthetic fuel process is going to take a good while, 8, 10 years. In the meantime, we need to save energy, stop wasting energy, use more coal, which you've already got. And I believe with that kind of program, we will prevail.

Now I would like to answer the questions that you've prepared for me. I have no idea what they are. I'll do the best I can in answering them.

And I am very glad to be with you. Thank you for coming.

Now, the first question.

QUESTIONS ENERGY PRICES

Q. Mary Albritton, project director from the city nutrition program in Jefferson County. I would like to know what are you going to do about the utility bills for the seniors in the low-income in this area? We do not have any funds at this time for that purpose.

THE PRESIDENT. We're doing several things, the first one of which is to continue our crisis financing program that we've had in the last 2 years since I've been in the White House to give low-income families some help with their energy bills if they were too high. In the last 2 years, working through the State governments, we've allocated $250 million for that purpose. If the family's health was in danger, because they were going to get too cold and couldn't afford the bills, that's been helped. We intend to expand that this coming winter by a hundred and fifty more million dollars.

And in addition to that, we are asking for a special program, because energy costs have gone up so much—home heating oil, for instance, is likely to double in price. Propane is likely to double in price. Under the windfall profits tax, we'll have additional funds available to help those families that can't afford to pay for their rapidly increasing bills.

The most important thing for all families in our country is this: We've already approved a tax credit, up to $300 per home, for you to insulate and to make your own homes more efficient.

I was in Baltimore just a few days ago—a few weeks ago, and they have winterized or weatherized or insulated 3,000 homes in that one city; next year, 5,000 homes. The average cost per home was only $175. They'll save that much on their heating bill the first year, or if the house was pretty well insulated to start with, it might take 2 years. But if you do that, you have a direct tax credit when you pay your income tax to pay that back to you.

So, saving through winterizing your homes, help for low-income families to overcome a very high, uncontrollable energy bill, plus your need to save in every way you can what energy you consume, in the setting of your thermostats, the closing off of unused rooms in your house, and that sort of thing, I believe, will help us get through the winter.

And, of course, we need to keep the lowest possible kinds of energy used. The EPA and the Jay Rockefeller Coal Commission report have identified 100 electric powerplants in our country that ought to shift and can shift from the burning of fuel oil over to coal. And that will be continued in the future as rapidly as we can.

Those three things, very briefly, are part of the steps that you can take and we can take to get us through a difficult winter.

In the second microphone.

FUEL SUPPLIES

Q. Scott Campbell from Steubenville. With the energy crisis so severe, why do we supply other products to other foreign countries so cheaply, when they are only holding the fuel while we are holding their food products and other type of products? Also, with the energy crisis so severe, why can't the EPA loosen some of their regulations so that we can move more coal through this area and get the steel production going a little bit more burning Ohio coal and not to raise the unemployment here? We'd get a few more people employed in this area.

THE PRESIDENT. Those are good, I think, three questions, and I'll try to answer them briefly.

First of all, I think it's to our advantage whenever we can sell American coal overseas to do it, and I hope to increase exports of American coal in the future.

In the past we've had good markets in Japan. Three or four years ago those markets were lost. Now we're trying to get them back and to get other markets for our coal. We've got enough to use and also to export. If there ever comes a time when we don't have enough for both purposes, obviously we would meet our own needs first.

There's been some—you may be referring to the sale of a million barrels of home heating oil to Iran. Let me explain that to you.

Iran had an interruption of the production of their home heating oil because of sabotage or because one of their plants broke down. They asked us to let them have a million barrels, because, as was the case when I was a child growing up on the farm and didn't have electricity, they use kerosene or home heating oil for almost everything, for lamps and for heat, for cooking. So, we let them have a million barrels of home heating oil. They sell to us every day 750,000 barrels of crude oil. And I thought it was a good idea for humanitarian purposes and to make sure we keep that market for us open.

Last spring, when we had serious shortages of fuel oil, heating oil, gasoline, distillate for trucks, it was because they had a revolution in Iran and that supply was interrupted. Now they produce about 4 million barrels each day. We get about 20 percent of that.

The EPA standards—I think it's best for me to be frank with you—there are laws that bind the entire Nation on air pollution standards and water pollution standards. I don't think you would want to see those laws stricken down. Fortynine of the States have submitted and have had approved an environmental program. One State in the Nation has not had an environmental program approved. That State happens to be Ohio.

It's much better for the enforcement of environmental laws, or any other law, when you can have the cooperation of the State government and let basic management of a program be done by local and State officials instead of by the Federal officials. But the law requires that until the State gets an approved plan, the Federal Government has to be involved in it almost a hundred percent. We don't like this. I'll be eager to see Ohio have an approved plan very shortly, I hope, just like the other 49 States have already done.

We have interpreted in the EPA—it's an independent agency, I can't control it—but we've interpreted that law as best we can within the legal framework to permit the continued and increased use of Ohio coal.

I was in a plant in Kentucky recently that uses very high sulfur coal. It's a modern plant, meets all the standards, has no problem with EPA, because they've made the change to a more efficient use of the coal in the scrubbing in the smokestacks.

Now, we have had some problems recently, as you know, with Cleveland Electric, and they are now authorized to burn high-sulfur Ohio coal. Most of the plants in Ohio have shifted so that they are qualified to burn Ohio coal. Others will be qualified by October 19. We'll do all we can, within the bounds of the environmental standards, to let Ohio coal be used. I hate to see Ohio importing coal for your own electric power production, and I'm as eager as you are to obey the laws, which I'm sworn to uphold, to turn over the responsibility to the State and local officials to enforce the environmental laws and to see a maximum use of Ohio coal. I think my goal and yours in that respect are identical.

Thank you very much for that question.

ENERGY PROGRAMS

Q. Mr. President, my name is David Hawkins, and I'm from Mingo Junction, Ohio. And my question is, what steps or procedures do you hope to see implemented within the upcoming year to reduce unemployment due to the energy problems we are experiencing?

THE PRESIDENT. We've proposed to the Congress three things on energy. One is the passage of the windfall profits tax. This is a tax that will be levied on the unearned profits of the oil companies. Oil prices are going up. The oil companies are getting a higher price for their oil. The question is, who's going to get that money? We believe that enough should be left for the oil companies to increase their production of American oil and American natural gas. But we think that about half of that money ought to come to be used for synthetic fuels, for conservation, for solar energy, for the improvement of our rapid transit systems, or mass transit systems, and also to help families to overcome the difficulties of increased costs of energy. And it's imperative for the energy program for the windfall profits tax to pass.

Secondly, we are setting up a corporation, a security corporation that will have the authority to implement 80 new projects all over this country to produce synthetic fuels, to work on solar power, to do things concerning conservation, which will generate tremendous numbers of new jobs. And in the process of having energy produced in our own country and stopping the sending of $70 billion, like this year, overseas, we'll generate more jobs for Americans, not only in synthetic fuels, solar power, the weatherization of homes, but also in the increased production of coal. And I think that this new energy program is a very effective way to deal with potential unemployment and to keep our country strong.

The other thing that has hurt us in the past has been the unnecessary delay in making decisions. We expect to institute in the Congress—and we got good news from one of the major committees this morning—a board, a mobilization board that will cut through redtape. Now when you have a decision to make about building a new Power plant or a new oil refinery or a place to produce electricity or a pipeline, you have to wait 5 or 6 or 7 or, sometimes, 8 years to get a decision to either build it or don't build it. What we are trying to do is to get the Congress to shortcircuit that long delay and let the decision be made without delay. If it ought to be built, build it. If it ought not to be built, don't build it. But the thing is to make the decision and get moving.

Our country's basic security—I'm not exaggerating this—is in danger. So, we've got to have a stronger America, we've got to cut down our overdependence on foreign oil, and we've got to make sure at the same time that American jobs are created and American energy is used to give our country back its strength, its confidence and its unity and its prosperity and a good life. That's what we're trying to do, not only for energy but for jobs and also inflation at the same time.

It's a good program. I need you all to help me with it. Will you help me with it? [Applause] Thank you.

COAL SUPPLIES

Q. Mr. President, I'm a mineworker from Hyatt Point, Ohio, North American Coal Number 6, Local 1810. And my mine's been shut down since August 31—there's 900 people employed down there—and the reason, on account of our stockpiles are too big; they're not burning our Coal.

And all your plans seem fine, you know, for the future, but us coal miners, we want to work now, not 10 years from now. And I'd like to suggest that you put a task force to solve the steelworkers' problems, put a task force together now to solve our problems, because we want to work. We're proud people down here. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. Is this particular mine shut down because Cleveland Electric is ordinarily buying the coal from your mine?

Q. Our contract's with Cleveland.

THE PRESIDENT. That's right. Now, Cleveland Electric has promised us in writing that they would purchase the coal derived from your mine. We understand that the shutdown is likely only to last about 4 weeks. That may or may not be true. I'm not vouching for that. That's the information I got this morning. And we are very eager to remove every obstacle so that within the law, of course, on environmental quality, that Cleveland Electric, its two plants, and all the other plants can begin to use more and more Ohio coal.

We are going through a changing time, because for years these particular questions have not been addressed and the energy industry—oil, coal, natural gas, and others; coal miners, coal workers, powerplants, electric-generating plants-have not known what to expect next. We've never had an energy policy in this country. But I believe that after this year, after the Congress acts and after we work out a relationship with the State of Ohio and the power companies, that you won't have this off-again, on-again kind of production of coal.

I would like to see your mine working full-time, all the mineworkers employed, Cleveland Electric using your coal on a sustained, permanent basis, with a clear working-out of the problems that presently exist.

We're working on it. It can't be done instantaneously, but I guarantee it will not take 10 years to do it if we all work together.

EMPLOYMENT IN THE COAL INDUSTRY

Q. Mr. President, Kathleen Jones from Bellmont, Ohio. Do you consider over 4,000 Ohio coal miners out of work a minimal effect, as the U.S. EPA has stated is their reason not to invoke Section 125 of the Clean Air Act?

THE PRESIDENT. You know, I don't want to see any Ohio coal miners or other employees out of work.

I noticed in the statistics concerning the Steubenville area that the unemployment rate has gone down in the last 12 months, and I'm very glad to see that. The unemployment rate in Ohio is fairly good. And I think the combined employment opportunities for both coal and steel have been greatly improved since I've been in the White House.

I don't claim to you that we have solved all the problems with coal, but we are working out the environmental problems in spite of the absence of an agreement with the State government of Ohio. I hope that'll be solved soon. I'm not criticizing anybody.

Secondly, as I said earlier, we'll have $75 billion, about 3 or 4 billion dollars a year, once the windfall profits tax is passed, to take coal and use it for new things that we presently do not use it for, either finely pulverized coal to be burned as it is, coal to be refined so that it is very clean-burning, coal to be used in electric powerplants that presently use crude oil or oil. and other means.

I believe that by 1995, as I say, we will triple the use of coal, and that obviously has to come from Ohio as well as other places.

I'm very concerned about the unemployment rate among coal miners, but I believe that they are getting in better shape now. And I will devote my full time working on this energy question with John Glenn, Doug, and others in Washington. I need you all to help me, though, to get this program through the Congress.

Let me add one other thing that you didn't ask me about, but it's important for you to understand. I really govern two countries, as far as energy is concerned. One is a producing nation on oil, and the other is a consuming nation on oil.

In the past, in Washington, whenever there was an argument about energy, the oil companies won. They had the best lobbyists; they were the most effective; they were well-organized; and nobody ever challenged them, until 2 years ago. And now there's an aroused interest on the part of the coal industry and other energy-producing areas, and also consumers.

We've made good progress. We've already cut our potential imports of foreign oil by 4 million barrels—got still a long way to go. But if we don't get the windfall profits tax passed on the oil companies, we won't have a synthetic fuels program; we won't have a conservation program; we will not have a program to help poor families overcome a high energy cost in their homes. We will not have an ability to change over into coal-burning plants instead of oil-burning plants. The whole thing depends on action by the Congress.

I predict to you that we will win this fight. But it's not a sure thing. And I hope that all of you realize that it's not the time for scapegoats or to blame me for what I've not done or what my predecessors have not done. Now's the time for us to marshal our efforts. And I believe that we can be just as successful in Ohio coal areas with new uses and presently known uses as we have been in steel— perhaps even more. But it's going to require that same degree of cooperation.

I'll do the best I can, but I really need for all of you to help me with this challenge to the oil companies. They do not want to see the windfall profits tax passed. They want to keep all the money themselves. They have not earned the money. We need that money for other purposes, including coal.

Help me. We'll prevail. And I think that you will see inevitably the present unemployment rate in the coal mining area go down sharply.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Q. Hi. I like your smile. I'm Peggy Wilt from Bratenahl, Ohio, and I have an energy-related question. But first I'd like to ask you another question. I believe in your commitment to the people of the United States and to the people of Ohio to hear them out. And on September 8 and 7, hundreds of telegrams were sent to you from the tiny village of Bratenahl, and I'm wondering if you're intending to respond to the people there.

My energy-related questions are, since it appears that uranium ore located in the United States will probably be depleted between 1985 and 1990, and since the Federal Government is still encouraging the building of nuclear powerplants, will not the United States become doubly dependent on foreign sources of energy? And also, would you support the creation of a nuclear ombudsman program? Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. I will reply to the telegrams.

We will not see our uranium supplies depleted anytime this century. We've got enough uranium to last us probably through the next century.

Until the Kemeny report is in to me—and that'll be later on this month concerning the causes of the incident that we had at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania, it will not be possible for us to make a policy decision on the use of nuclear power in the future.

We want to be sure that as nuclear power is an integral part of our energy production society now, that it will be in the future, but the design of plants, the training of personnel, the operation standards, the modification of existing plants will be adequate to reassure the people that they are safe.

I was in Connecticut earlier this morning. About 60 percent of all their electricity comes from nuclear powerplants; in Chicago, more than 50 percent. We can't close down those nuclear plants, but we need to make them safe.

I think that other nations will move much more aggressively and quickly toward the dependence on nuclear power than we will in order to escape from dependence on OPEC oil. Because we are so fortunate—we have geothermal supplies: we have natural gas supplies; we have enormous coal supplies; we have very good crude oil supplies in our country; we've got the highest developed scientific and technology base to move into new areas, like photoelectric ceils and so forth, of any country on Earth; and we've got a free enterprise system and free people who can be innovative and show a lot of initiative on our own to deal with changing circumstances.

So, I would say that we are very likely to escape any sort of major disappointment or increasing dependence on the OPEC countries in the future. I think if we work together, the plan that I've laid out to the Congress will work and we will be successful. I don't have any doubt about that.

Q. What about the nuclear ombudsman program? Would you support something like that?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think that at this moment the Kemeny Commission, which has got full authority from me, is looking into the entire nuclear question. At the end of that, I will assess their recommendations and then make a full report to the American people about what I will and will not do. The ombudsman idea is a good one. But let me reserve judgment on making that promise to you. There will be someone in the Government at a high and identified level who will be responsible for answering any questions asked about nuclear power or resolving any problems that exist for an American citizen concerning nuclear power, or receiving suggestions on how the use of nuclear power can be made more acceptable. Whether we call it a separate ombudsman, I can't say yet.

COAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS

Q. President Carter, I'm Sondra Downend from Orville, Ohio. I'm the wife of a small coal mine operator, and I'm the secretary and bookkeeper for our company. We spent 2 months without shipping coal, and I spent a lot of sleepless nights and sent you lots of letters. I got one back from the Department of Energy that spoke of Federal leases on Federal land and spoke of western coal. But my letter came from Ohio. And I wasn't interested in western coal, nor federally leased lands.

You talked about how slow Ohio was in presenting their clean air act. And I spoke with them because I was interested in next month what's going to happen to our mine, because we're afraid that we won't have any place to ship our coal. And in talking with them, he told me that they felt that the Federal law was too restrictive and they didn't have proof. So, they wanted to take their time and not make the mistakes the Federal bureau had made and that they had made in the past, and go very slow and do their modeling and their monitoring and measuring'. He told me of places that they have in the State of Ohio where they measure the air control. And they have measured the air quality from utilities and other industries, and they feel that Ohio can still burn the high-sulfur coal and still come within the numbers required by the Federal EPA.

And, I'd like to ask, then—the Ohio EPA that I talked to was so certain that their plan now meets everything the Federal would require of them, I would like to ask, why won't the Federal EPA approve Chapter 3745 18 of the Ohio Administrative Code and allow the utilities to burn the high-sulfur coal?

And this is something' that is causing a great deal of concern to us, a lot of anxiety. We're trying to stay in business. We're trying to ship the coal. We lost our orders to Ohio Edison because of the high sulfur in our coal. We have two customers now. And in meeting with the Wash plant, they tell us that next month they don't know if they'll be able to take our coal or not because of the Clean Air Act.

THE PRESIDENT. Let me try to answer as best I can. [Representative] Doug Applegate is coming to Washington Friday morning at 10 o'clock to meet with my staff and some members from EPA and the Department of Energy. Doug, could you bring her with you to Washington?

Q. Thank you. I love ya.

THE PRESIDENT. I think the obviously sincere way that you've described the problem and asked the question would be very helpful to us in Washington.

Q. I'll do everything I can. [Laughter]

THE PRESIDENT. Secondly, let me point out to you that I'm not trying to criticize the State of Ohio; I don't want anybody to get that impression. But, you know, with a given Federal law which the Congress is highly unlikely to change, it's much more advantageous for you and for your husband and for your coal mine to have a cooperation between the Federal and State Government, as we have in all the other 49 States, rather than to have a continued confrontation. And I believe that the best thing to do to alleviate problems and to make sure we've got a real local input when a decision is made is to have the Ohio environmental program approved and implemented. If there are some differences between the Federal requirements tinder the law and Ohio will just have to—

Q. Just work them out.

THE PRESIDENT. —they'll just have to work them out, or Ohio will have to amend it's proposal.

But it doesn't help anything for 2 1/2 years to go by and for Ohio still to maintain, "We don't like the Federal law, therefore we're not going to comply." What it means is that there's no State input, and you're faced with well-meaning people from Washington who are trying to administer that law. In all the other States, we've got State people who understand your problems much better-who might know you personally—working alongside of the Federal administrators to ensure compliance.

So, I believe that if you will come to Washington and meet with Stu Eizenstat and others add also use your influence to encourage the State of Ohio and I'll encourage EPA to work together, we'll make a great stride forward.

That's one of the reasons, by the way, that I wanted to come to Steubenville. It's not an accident that I came here. I'm proud of what we've done in steel. I'm concerned about what we have not yet accomplished on coal, and you are a highly motivated, very knowledgeable group about both these areas of American life. And I think your kind of question is very helpful to me as President. It'll be helpful to you and your coal mine in a personal way; I think it'll be helpful to the whole country, and I thank you for it.

COAL PRODUCTION

Q. Mr. President, my name is Bob Houston, and I'm a UMWA coal miner from Local Union 1810. Effective August 31, as Larry Bussey's told you, our mine was shut down. But in your energy message you have declared the moral equivalent of war in your energy policy, and coal was included in that policy.

However, in the State of Ohio, mines are being shut down because of the U.S. EPA standards. I have attended these EPA hearings; I've testified, as well as many other coal miners. And we have always stated that we thought that the answer, the solution to this problem was a compromise. But we seem—our words have never been heard, because our mine shut down and there are approximately 5,000 coal miners laid off in the State of Ohio. And what we would like to know is, when can we expect some concrete solutions to these sulfur dioxide problems, and to get 5,000 coal miners back to work and the energy program on the road to make us energy independent from foreign oil sources?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I need to repeat what I've already said about the proposal. But let me make one point more clear.

My proposing an energy policy to the Congress is just the first step. Until the Congress adopts it, we don't get the benefits from it. And the Congress has not yet passed a single line of legislation concerning oil because of the power in the past of the oil companies. I think now it's about an even contest in the Congress, in Washington, between the oil companies' influence and the influence of the rest of the country. I'm not particularly trying to criticize the oil companies, but the fact is that the Congress has not yet acted on the energy proposal that I described Monday morning in Kansas City after my Sunday night address. As soon as the Congress acts, we'll have all the benefits that I described then for the increased use of coal.

In the meantime, we've got to depend on two things—conservation and shifting away from fuel oil use onto the use of coal. That will help a great deal. The President's Coal Commission had some good recommendations. One, which has already been approved by EPA, by the way, is to transform a hundred electric utility companies away from using oil to the use of coal. And every time in our whole Nation you start using more and more coal, you create more and more jobs for United Mine Workers, and I believe we make that progress. But this cannot be done instantaneously, because it's been too long in getting America aroused about energy.

I made that speech about the moral equivalent of war in April of 1977, and as you probably noticed, the news media mostly made fun of it—there was a lot of fun made of it—and said that it's too serious, we're just not going to get serious. It was really this summer, when the gas lines started developing in California and on the east coast, that the people got aroused. You, as a coal miner, have been aroused for a long time.

I think the settlement that was made between UMW and the coal operators is a very major step forward. I'm not trying to predict what's going to happen in the future. I'll knock on wood. But the shutdown and the uncertainty of delivery of coal has now been substantially alleviated, and people who want to depend on coal permanently don't have to worry about frequent interruptions of production. I think it's a much more stable industry. That's been accomplished in the last 2 years.

We are making progress, got a long way to go, but I feel like you and I are partners in making that progress. I'll help you if you'll help me.

Q. You have my help, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. That's a deal.

RENEWABLE ENERGY SUPPLIES

Q. Hello, Mr. President. I'm Peter McGee from Steubenville, Ohio. I'm a social studies instructor at the Jefferson County Joint Vocational School, and I asked my students to submit to me some questions that they would ask you of energy. And I picked one from here to ask you.

This is from a student named David Ramsey. He would like to know, why isn't gasohol and other agricultural fuels being researched and used more extensively?

THE PRESIDENT. It is being researched, and it is being used more extensively than it was 3 months ago or 6 months ago or 12 months ago or 2 years ago. There's a great deal of interest in gasohol and other energy from so-called biomass, replenishable supplies.

Biomass is a resource in our country that's not yet been tapped, except to a very minor degree. It consists of growing things and what energy you can get from those products.

I'll give you one example. Georgia has about 65 percent of its area covered with trees. We produce in Georgia just with growing trees three times as much energy as we use, all put together. And when we harvest pine trees to make lumber and paper pulp, and so forth, we presently waste in some plots of timberland one-half of all the parts of a tree that we don't use now. So, we've got a potential there to produce energy from growing plants.

One obvious example is gasohol, where you make ethanol from corn—you can use other products as well—mix it with gasoline, and make gasohol. There's a great deal of interest in it. We are encouraging that in every possible way with research and development.

The Iowa legislature, for instance, has passed a bill that encourages individual farmers to put in a gasohol plant on their farm. At first it would be too expensive to use sound, marketable grain for the production of ethanol. Good corn costs too much. But the waste corn, the corn that's been contaminated with crotalaria seeds or with weevils or that has rotted, and so forth, is very good for making ethanol. And in Iowa, in many communities, you can go there and buy gasohol.

We have no Federal tax on gasohol. The total amount of present supplement in a gallon of ethanol is about $60 a barrel. It's good that we are interested in it. In other countries, like Brazil, they use, I think, cassava roots, which are grown very cheaply and which have a very high substance to them. And about 10 percent of all their fuel in automobiles is presently alcohol from those cassava roots, or from sugarcane byproducts. We are moving in that direction very rapidly.

Gasohol will be a major industry, in my opinion, in this Nation in the future.

ENERGY-EFFICIENT AUTOMOBILES

Q. My name is Bill Lane, and I'm from Wheeling, West Virginia. And, Mr. President, my question: Although the large, poor mileage automobiles are not selling very well right now, I think that when the gasoline becomes more available, I'm afraid that people are going to start buying them again. I just wonder if you favor any heavy luxury tax to put on these cars.

THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think it's going to be necessary. I don't believe that we will ever see a time in our Nation when gasoline is both plentiful and cheap. And the problem that we have now in our automobile production industry—with GM and Ford and Chrysler and American Motors—is that they have not shifted toward a more efficient automobile.

Chrysler today is in serious trouble. They could sell hundreds of thousands of small Chrysler automobiles if they had planned accordingly, but they've insisted on producing the large, so-called gas-guzzling automobiles. I don't think we'll ever go back to a time in the future when those large, inefficient automobiles are popular.

I had a meeting, within the last month, with Tom Murphy, who's the president-or chairman of the board of General Motors. In the past, they have fought the requirement of more efficient automobiles, that they would have to have 27 1/2-miles-per-gallon average by 1985. He came to tell me that they're giving up that fight; they're going to meet that standard and then some. And this year, we'll have an average nationwide of 1-mile -per-gallon more efficiency just because the American public is more energy conscious and is shifting toward the smaller and more efficient automobiles.

What I would like to do is to see American producers of automobiles stay with the efficient cars. And I believe we can meet anybody in competition and therefore cut down the dependence that Americans presently have on imports.

I believe that's the avenue of the future. I don't believe that we will go back, in the American preference, for the large, gas-guzzling, inefficient automobiles. So, I don't think we'll need any luxury tax on them. We've got standards now that they'll meet. I think the American industry, American free enterprise system, can meet this challenge and have new prosperity and keep our United Automobile Workers employed and also meet the needs of the American people.

There's a change taking place in our country, and if you will think back 2 or 3 years ago at your habits and what bothered you and what questions you asked political leaders and what you wrote Congress about and what you heard discussed in the evening news, now it's completely different. Our country has become aware of the fact that for the first time we have a limit on what God has given us and what we have a right to waste.

I believe that conservation is not an unpleasant chore for Americans, but is an exciting and enjoyable opportunity. It is a challenge, yes, but it tests American ingenuity and commitment on an individual basis. Everybody in here can help with conservation. If you will, in your own home, sit down with your children, your 6-year-old children, or your grandmother and say, "What can we do in our family to save energy in our driving habits, in our homes, in our jobs" and just make a list of the things you can do.

Every time you save energy, you save money. Every time you save energy, you cut down on the cost of the energy that you are using, because you have less competition for it and the price is going to be cheaper. And every time you save energy, you're doing a patriotic thing. And in a test like this, which took place in World War I, World War II, the Great Depression, there's a tendency for divided Americans to be unified. Families will be closer together; communities will be closer together; our Nation will be more united.

I have no doubt in my mind at all that we can meet any challenge with the ingenuity and the commitment and the courage and the freedom and the cooperation and the free enterprise system of our Nation.

And I would like to remind you in closing that our Nation is so great, it's so powerful, it's so strong. We're so blessed that we're still the strongest nation on Earth militarily—no one can challenge us there. We're the strongest nation on Earth economically. We're the strongest nation on Earth politically. We're the strongest nation on Earth morally, ethically, and we have the greatest freedom. And when we talk about problems—with the coal mine shutdown, serious; with the steel industry' challenge, serious; with increased inflation, serious, yes—but we're the kind of people that can meet those serious challenges.

I just want us never to forget the blessings that God has given us in the greatest nation on Earth. Let's keep it that way. I will if you will.

Thank you.