Interview With the President Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With American Press Institute Editors.

THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, everybody.

I would like to open by commenting on one very important issue, and that is the subject of energy, and then spend the rest of our time answering your questions about subjects that you choose.

ENERGY

Almost exactly 9 years ago, I presented to the Nation and to the Congress a description of the energy problems and a proposal for the evolution of a national energy policy that I thought would be adequate. After 18 months of debate, the Congress passed the national energy act, and it encompasses roughly 50 or 60 percent of what we did propose. It's a major and a very important beginning.

Since then, the energy problems that I described have gotten worse, not better. Recent interruption of the Iranian oil supply, the increases in OPEC oil prices-which I think are a prelude of what is going to be the case for the next number of years—have emphasized the extreme importance of our country taking firm action.

We must conserve all the energy that we can. We must shift toward a dependence on domestic production of petroleum products more than we have in the past and, of course, shift toward alternative fuel supplies on a more permanent basis.

I have a great confidence in American technology and American vision, American innovation, American courage, and the will of the American people to resolve this question ultimately in a satisfactory fashion.

But for the immediate future, we will continue to be dependent upon petroleum. And the prices and supplies of petroleum products are under the control of a cartel whose interests are not always compatible with our own. And, as you know, we now import about 50 percent of our total oil supplies.

Next week, I'll make a statement to the American people and to the Congress on this subject. And I hope and believe that the American consumers, the American energy industry, and the Congress will join in with me in a firm partnership to alleviate the threat to our Nation's economy and security and to resolve this issue as best we can.

I would be glad to answer your questions now on any matter.

QUESTIONS

SUBMARINES

Q. Mr. President, I am from New London, Connecticut, and that means nuclear accidents or whatever—I have to ask an ex-submariner about submarines.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

Q. As the cost overruns on the 688 class and Trident submarine amounted into the hundreds of millions of dollars, there have been voices in the Congress and in the Navy that have said that the submarines are overdesigned and that the Navy would be better off with a large number of smaller, less expensive boats. Do you think that the 688 and Tridents under their current dimensions are cost effective, or do you think the Navy would be better off spending the available dollars for more, smaller. submarines?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, it costs so much to change designs, as you know, that I'm not sure that even a slightly smaller or different design would give us, in the long run, more submarines or more effective submarines.

As an ex-submariner one who was in the initial program, I think I'm personally biased. But I think that if there ever has been any one single weapons system that has ensured our Nation's integrity and security, it has been the nuclear submarines, with a strategic weapon capability.

It's a great insurer of the peace. And I think the Trident and the 688 combination, as far as the immediate future is concerned, are the best that we have to offer. And, of course, we are exploring new technologies, and they'll always be available for future designs. But to change from those two designs because there have been cost overruns, based primarily on natural inflation that has occurred and an improvement in design during construction phase, I think would be an error.

So, I don't think we'll terminate those programs, change the design. I think they are very adequate, and I'm very proud of what they've already done and will do in the future.

NUCLEAR POWERPLANTS

Q. Mr. President, I realize this is probably a little premature, but I can't think of any other more pertinent question at the time. Do you feel that the near disaster in Harrisburg will constitute a reevaluation of your policy toward nuclear power as it is a part of the overall energy mix in the country?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I first went into the program, I think, in 1952, and almost a decade before that, we were involved in the production of nuclear materials. Until I became President, until just recent months, we've never had a proposal even to the Congress for the storage of spent fuel rods for possible later use, nor the disposal of waste.

We have had, and still have until this moment, a remarkable safety record in the production of nuclear power, both for our own defense systems, which we've just described, and also the production of electricity. My own experience has been that over the years, the safety standards have been greatly improved with much more stringent protection for the public.

Just this morning, I've talked to Governor Thornburgh and also to the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Dr. Hendrie, about the situation that exists in the Three Mile Island plant. We are monitoring it very closely. I think the precautionary measures that have been taken and that will be taken in the future are adequate so far as we can foresee. Based on my own knowledge of the basic design of the plants, I think everything is being done at this point to ensure the safety of our people.

But I believe that this accident certainly will make all of us reassess our present safety regulations and precautions, limitations on radioactivity levels, and will probably lead inexorably toward even more stringent safety design mechanisms and also standards.

TRANSFER OF NUCLEAR FUELS TO OTHER COUNTRIES

Q. Mr. Carter, last year you broke a tie vote in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by giving your approval to a shipment of nuclear fuel to India. Last week, another shipment of fuel for India was approved by the Commission. In the light of India's continuing refusal to abide by safeguard provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, do you think that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission took the right action last week in approving the shipment of fuel? And does the U.S. have any future plans to bring back from India used nuclear fuel for restorage and reprocessing in the United States?

THE PRESIDENT. I do think the NRC took the right action. We considered the assurances of the Indian Government at this point to be adequate. We would like for them and many other governments in the future to join in more and more stringent requirements for the handling of spent nuclear fuel and disposal of waste. We have no authority now and no plan for the shipment of those waste products back to our own country.

This is part of the legislation that Congress will consider this year, three major items. One is the expedition of deciding where a proper site exists for a nuclear Power plant and the decision on whether a license should be issued; secondly, how to dispose of spent fuel rods away from the site of power production; and, third, how to dispose ultimately of waste products.

I might add that more than 50 nations now are involved in an international nuclear fuel cycle evaluation study, wherein—we are a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty signers, and others who are not—those who have nuclear weapon capability, as we do, and those who do not can approach this problem in a much more equitable and understandable fashion.

We are a supplier, as you know, of nuclear fuel products to our allies and friends around the world, provided they meet very rigid standards. And quite often, we have been embroiled in altercations with very friendly governments, because their concepts are different from our own.

I might say that—to abbreviate my answer-that there are two crucial issues that our country must pursue in order to encourage countries like India—and I won't name 11 or 12 others who have nuclear weapon capability—to refrain from developing those weapons; and that is how we act on the SALT treaty, whether we can consummate and ratify an agreement with the Soviet Union to restrain atomic weapons, and how we act on the control of nuclear explosive tests and our general attitude on nonproliferation issues.

If, for instance, our own Nation should reject a SALT treaty once it's signed, it would be extremely difficult for me, as President, or for some future President to restrain nations like India or Pakistan or South Africa or, perhaps, other countries that I won't name at this point from turning to the nuclear option.

So, this is a very complicated subject. I think our Nation has taken a leadership role in constraint of nuclear proliferation. But our own actions have not yet been adequate to encourage other countries like India to meet those very high standards that we hope to make more stringent in the' future.

It's a little bit difficult for me to talk to Prime Minister Desai, who has publicly sworn that their government will never again turn to a nuclear explosive and never turn to nuclear weapons, when we ourselves have not yet restrained the spread of nuclear weapons.

So, it's difficult, sensitive, complicated, and there's an additional factor of nationalism and pride and self-autonomy. All these factors make it very difficult for us. But I think we've got to set a good example and deal in good faith with other countries and let them understand from a common perspective the dangers of unrestrained spread of nuclear production, of power, and how to handle the waste and prevent explosives from being developed.

WAGE AND PRICE GUIDELINES

Q. Mr. President, a question on the wage and price guidelines. How satisfied are you on how well they're working, particularly with regard to the fact that the Teamsters settlement appears to be shaping up somewhat in excess of what Mr. Kahn and the Council has sought?

THE PRESIDENT. I think, in general, the American working people, organized labor, organizations, and others have complied very well. I hope that their cooperation will continue. The Teamsters negotiation is a very important test case. So far, I think the truckers and the Teamsters are negotiating in good faith, attempting to find a resolution that will meet our standards.

Secondly, the major corporations, which are the first ones that we have monitored because of a very limited staff—you might say the Fortune 500—so far as I know, have complied with our price guidelines. They have some flexibility built in. And I think it's accurate to say that predictably, the companies have interpreted those guidelines technically correctly, but to their advantage, when there was some flexibility.

We've asked them to be more stringent in setting prices. Some of the middle and smaller sized companies have not felt that the guidelines applied to them. Most of them have. We are now extending our monitoring capability to companies of the middle and smaller size. We have identified maybe 15 to 20 companies in the whole Nation that we think are not in compliance. We are now giving them a chance to justify price increases that they have already initiated. If they can't justify them adequately, then we will expose those companies' names, we will take what action is necessary to stop or to curtail procurement from them, and let the American consumer know if there are violations of the guidelines so that they can take voluntary action themselves.

In addition to that, in particular areas of supply where a particular product has gone up higher in price than we think is advisable, we are requiring companies to file with the Council on Wage and Price Stability now a record of their price increases to make it easier for us to monitor their compliance.

We have taken all these actions simultaneously in trying to set a good example in the Government itself, with control of hospital costs, with the substantial reduction in budget deficits, and other eliminations of, say, costly regulations when they're unwarranted.

So, it's a combination of business, labor, consumers, and government. We're trying to keep the partnership together and set an example in my own actions.

ADMINISTRATION'S ACHIEVEMENTS

Q. Mr. President, you've been criticized by the liberals—

THE PRESIDENT. For almost everything, haven't I? [Laughter]

Q. From a political point of view, the liberals are uncertain about supporting you, the conservatives won't support you, business has been critical, the minorities, labor. What do you think, going in the 1980 elections, are the elements of your political constituents?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm not talking as a candidate. I'm not a candidate and won't make a decision on that or an announcement until later on. But I think in the assessment by the American people of my own administration's achievements, there are some encouraging factors. I think the general public opinion poll results show that people think I'm doing the best I can, that I'm honest and well motivated. There have been some notable successes recognized at the time, but then forgotten.

In a period of a campaign, the achievements of the Democratic Party would be better publicized than they are at this point. Our Nation is at peace. We have strengthened our ties with our historical and very important alliances around the world. We have a very strong and adequate defense capability. Unemployment has been reduced drastically.

I think the equity of treatment in the government and in private society has been enhanced for minority groups. We've corrected some of the deficiencies that exist in the system of federalism. I think there's a much more harmonious interrelationship, for instance, between local government, State government, and the Federal Government.

I think I've got a much better relationship now with the business community than I had when the election took place. I'll always remember a poll that I think Business Week conducted where, after I was elected, only 5 percent of the leading businessmen thought that I would be an adequate President and/or would support me.

So, I think we've made some progress. And I hope between now and election time—if I decide to be a candidate—that I'll have more achievements to point out to the American people in a beneficial way. But there's a great doubt among the American people about the adequacy of government, the integrity of government, and this, I think, is a remnant of the Vietnam war, Watergate, the CIA revelations, and so forth, when there was legitimate reason for cynicism or concern.

I've tried to alleviate that concern by restoring integrity to the Government and openness that, quite often, encourages debate and dissension and creates an image of confusion, which is sometimes exaggerated. There are good things and bad things that the public sees in our administration, but I think, on balance, we've done a good job.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Q. Mr. President, your inflation chief, Mr. Kahn, just told us that the appeal for voluntary conservation of petroleum products is "for the birds" and that price is the only way to go, indicating that he's afraid that decontrol would aggravate inflation and that sometimes he'd like to have rationing, but he has to be honest with himself and say that price is the only way to go.

Does that reflect your feelings, that conservation appeals are for the birds? [Laughter]

THE PRESIDENT. I've had several conversations with Fred Kahn within the last week. He's not expressed his opinion to me in just those terms. [Laughter] It obviously requires a well-coordinated, broadly based, very complicated, interrelated approach. Voluntary restraint in the use of energy sources is an integral part of the overall process. Mandatory restraints are another part. We've asked Congress for authorization for that action, if necessary, in the future.

The increasing prices, which are inevitable, will certainly cause additional concern among the American people in how well they design their homes, how high they turn their thermostats, the degree of insulation, the size of their automobiles. All these things are interrelated.

Shifting away from petroleum products, whose supply is limited under the best circumstances, toward more plentiful energy sources—coal, nuclear power, ultimately, solar and other replaceable supplies—is an integral part. But I would say that voluntary compliance on the part of American people is one of the crucial elements.

If we relied on it exclusively, it would not be adequate.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BALANCE THE BUDGET

Q. Mr. President, about this time a year ago, most of us on editorial pages in California were opposing Proposition 13 on the grounds that it was rash and risky and irresponsible. And you know how much the people followed our advice.

Now Governor Brown is talking about a constitutional amendment to force a balanced Federal budget, and most editorial writers are opposed to that as rash, risky, and irresponsible. But it obviously has wide popular appeal. As we move toward 1980, what will you do, as President and/or as a candidate, to take that issue away from Brown?

THE PRESIDENT. I was under the impression that 24 States had passed some sort of resolution before Governor Brown ever proposed it to the California Legislature. I'm not sure what the final action of the California Legislature will be. I have heard some preliminary reports on the subject already that were of interest to me.

I think the convening of a constitutional convention with the ostensible purpose of passing an amendment against any deficit spending would be one of the most ill-advised things that I can envision. This is a transient problem, and we've never cluttered up our Constitution with amendments of that kind before. And I hope we never will. The only time we tried to do it was with the 18th amendment, prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages.

My belief is that the best way to handle it is the way I've done it, to continue to cut down the deficit, to eliminate wasteful spending, to harmonize my own efforts with the inclinations of the American people and the Congress to bring about a balanced budget.

If you start writing the exemptions and the caveats to a balanced budget requirement in the Constitution, this particular amendment would of necessity be longer than all the Bill of Rights put together. And you would have to say that if an emergency existed under certain circumstances, on extremely high unemployment, or if the thirties depression times came back, or if our national security was endangered, and so forth, that you'd have to make an exception.

So, I don't think the right way to handle it is through a constitutional amendment at all, certainly not a constitutional convention, which is the original proposal of Governor Brown.

I don't think very many States have ratified—I mean have passed a resolution on this since Governor Brown came out in favor of it. Others may do so. But I have written a letter, I think, to one of the State legislators in Ohio, who asked for my opinion. And if you would ask Jody Powell later on, he can give you a copy of that letter that might explain in a little more voluminous way what my concerns would be about this.

The Congress is very interested in a balanced budget. This interest has been extant long before Governor Brown's second inauguration, and it's a concern that I shared throughout my own campaign. And I think because I pledged to reduce the deficit and work toward a balanced budget, this was a major factor in my own election.

1980 ELECTION

Q. Mr. President, how do things look for you in Alabama, with the second primary, and in the South as a whole?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. I really don't want to comment on 1980 from the perspective of a candidate. I have not crossed that bridge yet. I think the best thing for me to do is to stay out of the campaign arena until much later when I make a decision on it.

U.S.-MEXICAN BORDER FENCE

Q. Mr. President, in El Paso, Texas, we understand that the decision is now in the White House as to whether you're going to go ahead' and replace the fence that exists in various downtown areas along the border.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

Q. Is that decision to be made here and, if so, when?

THE PRESIDENT. A proposal reached me earlier—two proposals; one through the news media, when I discovered that people were considering a fence. that might damage people who tried to cross it, and I immediately vetoed that crazy idea as soon as I heard about it.

Secondly, a proposal was made to me to extend the fence substantial numbers of miles beyond the present limits of it, and I have also disapproved that.

I do approve, however, the keeping in repair of the fence which presently exists.

FOREIGN ARMS SALES

Q. Mr. Carter, in May of 1977 you pledged to strictly limit U.S. arms sales abroad. But according to the Defense Department statistics released recently, government-to-government arms sales rose from $11.3 billion to $13.5 billion by the end of fiscal year 1978, and Defense Department figures project that fiscal 1979 arms sales will reach $14 billion. How does this increase square with your promise to reduce the U.S. role as an arms supplier overseas?

THE PRESIDENT. I have absolutely kept my promise. I'd like for you to read it. The promise that I made was, outside of our NATO commitments, where we have defense alliances, that we would cut down unilaterally, whether or not other nations did the same, our total defense sales at least 8 percent per year.

Last year, we cut back in excess of 88 percent—I think a reduction of about $700 million. And this year, we'll do the same. And we have also begun working with other countries, including the Soviet Union and our own military allies who can produce weapons, to join us in this effort. But I have met my standard very accurately, even exceeded those reductions, and I'm very proud of that achievement.

UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

Q. Mr. President, what's the administration's policy now on illegal immigration? Is amnesty still a proposal?

THE PRESIDENT. We are opposed to it, as you know. When I was inaugurated, I took an oath, as have all my predecessors, to uphold the laws and the Constitution of the United States. And I'm constrained to do the best I can to enforce the laws.

We have, obvious]y, been aware of the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers who crossed the border into our country and who live here at the present time. We worked a number of months on this particular problem, with all its ramifications of sensitivity and international relationships, and made a proposal to the Congress, I think, about 18 months ago on what should be done about it. The Congress has not yet acted.

When I was in Mexico recently, I discussed this matter with President Lopez Portillo and other members of the Mexican Government and have now set up an immigration commission, which will be headed by Governor Reubin Askew from Florida. Governor Askew will add his own judgment and his results of consultations to my own and make a recommendation on a permanent solution, we hope, to this problem, that will be satisfactory.

But there has been no one who's discovered an adequate answer. My own belief is that ultimately the rapidly improving economic circumstances in Mexico will be the best answer. But when people can find a job—and I am very proud of the new potential prosperity for Mexico that seems to be in prospect because of discoveries, unanticipated discoveries of oil and natural gas. But we are working harmoniously within the Government itself, U.S. Government, working harmoniously with the Mexican Government now, and trying to enforce the boundary laws of all kinds.

I think we've had excellent success in dealing with the illegal or illicit drug traffic. The Mexicans point out that we have not had adequate success in controlling contraband from the United States going into Mexico on which duty is not paid.

And we are working together to resolve the problem of the undocumented workers. But it's something that no one has found an adequate answer to. But we're still trying.

MR. WURFEL. Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. I'll get one more question.

U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

Q. Mr. President, the new relationship that we have with Red China, our policy at the present, pursuit of the peace on the Mideast, and the deterioration of the situation in Iran suggest a major reshuffling of global foreign policy as far as the United States is concerned. And some of us feel that it's not going to stop here, that Turkey might be next for an enhancement of an alliance. May we ask, what next; in what general direction you intend to go?

THE PRESIDENT. My own feeling is that in the last 10, 15 years, even lesser period of time, that our influence around the world has been substantially enhanced. One of the things that I look at, for instance, is our relationship with countries that formerly were not friends of our Nation, vis-a-vis the Russians.

This is the first time in my memory, for instance, that we've had really a better relationship with India, Japan, and China than has the Soviet Union. Egypt is a major new friend and ally of ours, formerly completely in the Soviet camp. I think we've improved the relationship with the Eastern European nations—excellent relationships with countries like Romania, Yugoslavia, Poland, and others. The NATO Alliance has been substantially strengthened in the last couple of years.

For the first time in our Nation's history, we are now playing a viable role, an influential role in Africa in a very constructive way—not trying to dominate anyone. But in the past, the United States had practically no role to play among the black African nations.

Indonesia is now a very excellent friend of ours; in the past, this was not the case. I believe that our relationship with the Philippine Government has improved recently. The ASEAN nations look upon us as a major ally and friend. Last year I met around this same table with the foreign ministers of those countries.

The Soviets did have some success in Afghanistan, compared to what their previous relationship was with that government, although Afghanistan has always been very close to the Soviet Union. Now very serious problems have arisen in Afghanistan with their present government. We are concerned that the Soviets might play an excessive role there in trying to interfere in the internal affairs of Afghanistan.

We were disappointed, obviously, in the change in Iran. But this was a matter that concerned the people themselves. We had no desire nor capability of perpetuating the Shah's government against the will of the Iranian people. We tried this, as you know, a few years ago in Vietnam and were not successful in doing it. We do not intend to interfere in the internal affairs of another country unless our own direct security is threatened.

I think the recent achievement of a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt is a major step in the right direction.

So, in balance, I think, we've got a very good, well-rounded progress that's been proven in our relationship with other countries around the world.

We are treating all of the Latin American nations as individuals, as equals. I've traveled extensively in Latin America, so has my wife, other officials of our Government. For the first time, a Vice President or a Secretary of State or a President can go to almost any nation in Latin America now, and there are no demonstrations against us. There are expressions of friendship and good will and harmony.

The Caribbean—we have a new interest in the economic and social stability and prosperity in the Caribbean that was not there in the past.

We, obviously, see many countries as equals, whereas formerly we had a dominant position, and that dominance was overt. I look on Mexico, for instance, and Canada and many other countries around the world as our equals in every sense of the word.

So, I think that our competition with potential adversaries has been very well consummated. And I think that the good will that the American people have towards other peoples is very exemplary. Our absence of any desire to dominate other countries gives us an advantage. So, I think the future will be even better than it has in the past.

Thank you very much.