Dolton, Illinois Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session at a Townhall Meeting.

THE PRESIDENT. First of all, I want to thank my good friend, Marty Russo, for that wonderful introduction.

In 1974, a little bit earlier in the year than this, I was Governor of Georgia, and ibis district had an incumbent Congressman. I won't say which party he represented. But I heard way down in Georgia about a firm young man who was running for Congress for the first time. And I left Georgia and came up here and went to the VFW club just a couple blocks from here. They told me they may not have but 50 or 75 people there—it was a fairly small building—but there were six or seven hundred local citizens packed in that place, not to see me, because I was an unknown Governor, but to see Marty Russo. You've been good to him, and he's been good to this district and good to the country.

The most important thing I know of as President is, in times of trouble and challenge, in times when our Nation might even be in danger, in times when people's lives are changing very rapidly and people are concerned about their own families, to tap the tremendous strength of this country, the strength that comes from a knowledge of one another, a confidence in our neighbors, and a confidence in the future. And it's very important—[interruption from the audience]. Free country. I think you can hear me okay. It's very important for us in this country when we do have trials to rally together.

I was in Chicago last night standing on the decks of Delta Queen No. 2 with a great mayor, and we had one of the most remarkable political events that I have ever known about —12,000 people came to show their confidence in local government, their confidence in a superb new mayor, and an appreciation of what Chicago has been in the past, is now, and will be in the future.

I've come to listen to your questions and to give you the best answers I can. It's a pleasure to be here. You've honored me by letting us meet together. And now, I'd like to turn to the first questioner, and if you'll give me your name and the question, I'll be glad to try to answer.

QUESTIONS

POPE JOHN PAUL II

Q. My name is Father Al Pizza. I'm from St. George, in Tenley Park. First of all, I just feel fortunate to be able to tell you I think you're doing a fantastic job. I think you have an impossible job, and I would wish sometimes that the news media would give you an even break.

My question has to do with—it's an easy question for you, I think.

THE PRESIDENT. You can stop right there to be safe. [Laughter]

Q. It has to do with the Pope's visit. He drew millions of people around our country, and I was wondering what your personal thoughts would be about the effects he's going to have in the long range around the world with, especially, maybe in Communist countries. Do you think he is going to be able to change people or change the attitudes, maybe lift the apathy and the cynicism and things like that, along those lines? If we could just maybe hear your thoughts on that.

THE PRESIDENT. Obviously, as President, I was extremely interested in having the Pope come here to begin with. I extended him a personal invitation last spring and was delighted when he decided to accept it.

When I bad a private meeting with the pope in the Oval Office, following the North Lawn reception and before the South Lawn speeches, he and I discussed his visit. He and I were both surprised, pleasantly surprised. at the tremendous, unanticipated outpouring of affection and love for him, exemplified by the enormous crowds. I doubt that there's ever been a larger crowd assembled, for instance, than there was in Grant Park in Chicago, to see His Holiness there.

It was a great testimony, I believe, to a hunger among the American people to be reminded of and to remember those characteristics of human being's that never change truth, integrity, humility, gentleness, the strength of families, compassion, concern, unselfishness, love. Those kinds of things we don't talk much about in public life, but the Pope, in speaking of them, aroused in American people a response that was truly remarkable and very good for all our country, no matter what faith an American might espouse in his own religion or her own religion.

In our private conversations we talked about many things. We talked about families. We talked about abortion. We talked about the truth that exists in open societies and the threat of communism to stamp out peoples' deep religious beliefs. We discussed his recent trip to Poland, which is a Communist Government, but where the church is undoubtedly stronger than the government itself. We talked about the overwhelming Christian nature of the people who live in both North and South America. We talked about parts of the world where it's very difficult for the Christian message to be promulgated—in China, for instance, or in some other places throughout the world. We talked about the shift toward secularism in Western Europe add the concern that the Pope has about that development.

There was a great belief expressed by him, which I certainly share, that we've ,got to put our religious faith to action, float we can't .just talk about gentleness, we can't just talk about compassion, we can't just talk about love, and overlook the deep needs of our immediate neighbors and those who suffer from hunger or lack of clothing or lack of shelter throughout the world.

So, I believe that the message he brought, both publicly and privately, was an inspiration to me as President. It was also an inspiration to our whole country. I think his beneficent influence through out the world has been well established, not only in his trip to free countries like ours and Mexico's but also behind the Iron Curtain in Poland.

I might say one thing finally about that. It was an unprecedented thing to have the Pope visit the White House. This has never been done before. But I hear from all kinds of religious faiths—Jews, Protestants, even those who belong to the Islamic faith. I've not had any criticism at all, so far as I know, from any of those other religious faiths because the Pope did come to our country, because they all see that his ministry and his message was one that tapped the best in America. And I'm very proud that he could come, and I invited him back. He said he wanted to rest up first. [Laughter]

THE NATION'S ECONOMY

Q. Good morning, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Good morning.

Q. By the way, welcome to Dolton.

THE PRESIDENT. Good to be in Dolton.

Q. The thing that seems to be foremost in everyone's minds now is the fact that your economic program isn't working real well. We still have runaway inflation. and the only prices that seem to be coming down are gas-guzzling automobiles and pork. [laughter]

Do you think that it might be time for a change in your policies, such as strict wage and price controls?

THE PRESIDENT. I think the policies that we have established are the best, and I believe that they're going to pay off. What we've had in the past 11 years is excessive inflation. I'm the fourth President who's tried to deal with inflation. So far we've not been successful. Mandatory wage and price controls were attempted by President Nixon. They were very quickly abandoned. And we still suffer with high meat prices because of those mandatory price controls on farm products.

We also went through a time of deep recession, almost a depression, approaching the problems of the 1930's. That also did not cure inflation.

What I've tried to do is to deal at the roots of it. For instance, we've just formed a national accord, an agreement between the government, business, and labor, to work together now to hold down both wages and prices. We've been remarkably successful already with our wage and price guidelines. For instance, the wage increases in 1979 have been no higher at all than the wage increases in 1978. And the prices over which we do have some authority in our vol(rotary price controls have been going up in price only one-half as much as those over which we do not have control, like energy. We've never had this before. a voluntary cooperative effort.

Energy is the main threat and the main cause of high inflation. The oil prices raised by OPEC have caused 4 percent of our inflation rate. If it weren't for energy, if you could just set aside energy and count everything else put together food and everything else—this past summer. Of 1979, the inflation rate would be no higher at all than it was in 1978 and 1977. But OPEC oil prices have increased more than 60 percent since last December. The approach to that is to have an energy policy that cuts flown on oil imports. We now import half the oil we use. We also import, along with that, inflation and unemployment.

The Congress is finally addressing, alter long years of delay, this energy problem. We're trying to reduce imports, increase oil production in our own country, gas production, coal production, use of solar power, synthetic fuels, and also have a major emphasis on conservation.

If we can cut down on the amount of oil we import, that'll be a major step toward controlling inflation. And I predict to you that before this year is over, you will see the inflation rate begin to go down because of the action we've already taken.

The last point to a very complicated answer is that we have tried in this process not to have jobs fall off. In the first 30 months of my term—I've only been in office now less than 3 years—we have had a net increase—not decrease, but a net increase—of 8/2 million jobs in this country: a million construction jobs, 700,000 jobs for black people; a quarter of a million of those increased jobs are in Chicago alone. So, at the time we've had high inflation and high interest rates, we've also had the highest employment level in the history of our Nation.

We've tried to protect people from high job losses that have always come along in the past with high inflation. And if we turn the inflation rate down—and I'm predicting that we will-and hold those jobs up, I think it'll be a good step in the right direction. And controlling those energy costs and having cooperation between labor and business with government, I think, is a good policy.

I might say that we've (lone all we could at the Federal Government level. We've restricted spending programs, but given our people better lives. We've cut the deficit by 60 percent. Corporate profits are up 50 percent. We've got 20,000 fewer Federal employees now than we had when I took office. We've cut down paperwork by 15 percent. We've gotten the Government's nose out of the private sector by deregulating airlines. We're now moving on other sectors.

So, I believe our total package of economic policies is the best we can have. And [ think with a little patience, which everybody must bare, and a little realization that it's a common problem, not one caused by any particular person or party, I think with that understanding and strength of our country, baring confidence in it, we'll succeed.

So far, we've got problems; we can solve them together.

U.S.-CUBAN RELATIONS

Q. Mr. President, my name is Joe Penn, from Riverdale. I'm a semi-retired pharmacist, and it is indeed an honor and privilege, most sacred as far as I'm concerned, to be able to speak to the President of the United States. I'm actually awed. and therefore, I have to read my question.

The gentleman before me stole the thunder, and you answered it very well. I was going to ask you about putting an immediate freeze on wage, prices, et cetera. So, my alternate question is in regards to Cuba.

In view of the fact that we've finally come to recognize Communistic countries such as Russia, Red China, and others, why can't we accept the fact that our neighbor Cuba and its form of government is here to stay and end the futile and useless embargo once again and give Monroe Doctrine a chance to work?

THE PRESIDENT. Okay. I'll be glad to answer that. I'll be glad to answer that.

We are not at war with Cuba. We have no intention of being antagonistic toward the people of Cuba. The fact is that Cuba's policies, within their own nation and relating to other countries, make them a very difficult government to recognize officially. Also, they are almost completely subservient to the Soviet Government. They're kind of a surrogate of the Soviets. The Cubans have over 45,000 troops in countries overseas where, in my opinion, they have absolutely no business. It's the most highly militarized country on Earth per capita.

They are constantly interfering in the affairs of adjacent countries or other people, for instance, Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rican people voluntarily choose the form of government they want. They are now a commonwealth of our country. They may prefer to be a State, the 51st State; they may prefer to be independent. Whatever the Puerto Rican people want suits me fine. Castro is constantly trying to stir up the people of Puerto Rico to seek independence from the United States, which the Puerto Rican people do not want. He points out the advantages of independence. But when people leave one country and go to another, the people leave Cuba and go to find a better life in Puerto Rico.

I think we've got to have a firm policy on Cuba.

The last point is this: There's no way that Cuba could survive economically, with their Communist experiment 90 miles from our country, without the Soviets propping them up. Every day the Soviet Union sends to Castro $8 million just to keep the Cuban people alive economically and to keep Castro in power. And they send them large quantities of arms, military weapons—and don't even charge Cuba for it. All the other satellite countries in Eastern Europe, for instance, when they get arms from the Soviet Union, they have to pay for it.

So, I believe that until Cuba can bring their own troops back from unwarranted involvement in the internal affairs of other countries, until they release the hundreds and hundreds, even thousands of political prisoners they have in jail-and some of them have been there over 20 years—and until they stop interfering in the internal affairs of countries, even in this hemisphere, we will not recognize Cuba. After that, we'll consider it.

Q. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Doctor, very much.

OIL IMPORTS AND GRAIN EXPORTS

Q. Hello, Mr. President, my name is Harvey Harris, and I attend school here at Thornridge High School.

THE PRESIDENT. Right on. [Laughter]

Q. The question that I would like to ask you is, what do you plan to do about the rising prices of gasoline, and what do you plan to do about the OPEC nations keep raising the prices of barrels of oil? Do you plan to raise the price of wheat or the imports that go over there?

THE PRESIDENT. I see. We don't have any control, Harvey, over the prices that are charged to us for oil from overseas. What we must do is to cut down on our overdependence on that oil. So, what we want to do is to cut down on imports and produce more energy in our own country.

The most important thing that we can do, everyone in this room can do, is to save energy. The more we save, the more our families benefit and the more the security of our country is protected.

Every family represented here, I hope, later on today will meet together, either at suppertime or at lunch, and just talk over how you, in your own homes, on your own jobs, traveling back and forth, can cut down on the consumption of energy. The more we save, the better off we all are.

We're also trying to shift toward the use of energy sources that never give out—solar power—and the use of growing crops like trees or farm crops, like to make gasohol out of. If we can do that, then year after year, for thousands of years, we'll have an adequate supply of energy.

Another thing that we can do is to use the kinds of energy in our own country that we have most of. The number one State in the Nation on coal reserves—you know what it is?

AUDIENCE. Illinois.

THE PRESIDENT. Illinois, right. And we can increase the use of coal. So, the more we can move away from dependence on those foreign countries, the better off we are.

You mentioned wheat and corn. I would rather have what God has given us, in the way of land and the ability to produce food, than I would to have all the oil deposits in Saudi Arabia and all the OPEC countries put together, because we've got a permanent, very fine strategic export that the rest of the world needs, they will get, and is profitable for us.

The number one State in the export of farm products—you know what it is?

AUDIENCE. Illinois.

THE PRESIDENT. Illinois. Right. Very wise audience.

And every year since I've been in office, we have tried to increase the exports of grain. We set world records in 1977, world records in 1978, world records in 1979. I believe in 1980, next year, we'll set world records again on the total amount of grain exported.

We don't want to punish our farmers by raising the prices of our grain so it cannot sell on foreign markets. The OPEC countries have very small populations; they don't buy much food. And if we cut off all our shipments of wheat and corn to the OPEC countries, they could very easily get that wheat or corn from France or from European countries or from Argentina or some other country aside from us. It would only hurt our farmers. So, I would rather see our exports be sure, so customers could depend on us and to have this tremendous benefit from getting new customers for our grain.

When I ran for President, I promised that there would never be any grain embargoes put on the farmers as there were several times just before I became President. So, I think for us to export our beautiful product of food and to import less oil from overseas because we save and produce more energy at home, is the best approach. That's what we're doing. I need all of you to help me with it.

Thank you very much, Harvey.

DEFENSE AND NATIONAL SECURITY

Q. Mr. President, my name is Gerald Reilly. I reside in South Holland, Illinois. I would like to add my words of welcome to you for coming to our area and express my appreciation for the wonderful job you are doing under conditions as they exist today.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, sir.

Q. Mr. President, do you feel that the money appropriated for defense in your 1980 budget is really for defense or a step towards the possible conflict with another nation?

THE PRESIDENT. I'll be glad to answer that.

The most important responsibility that I have as President is to guarantee the security of our Nation. It comes above everything else—above inflation, employment, energy, agriculture—to preserve the security of our country, because unless our Nation is secure, unless our Nation is free from the constant threat of a successful attack by other countries, then everything that we stand for would be lost.

I have no apology for the defense budget request. I believe in a strong defense, and as long as I'm President, the strength of our military forces will be second to none. I want to be sure that if any other country is tempted to attack the United States, that they will realize that they are committing military suicide.

We only spend about 5 percent of our gross national product on defense. In the past, this is the lowest we've ever spent. In the past, we've spent 8, 9, 10, 11 percent. The Soviet Union spends 13 percent of their gross national product on defense. Our military is still better than theirs, and we're going to keep it that way. But I hope that every American will realize that it's not a sacrifice when we pay our military personnel a good salary, when we give them high training, when we give them the best weapons.

What I want to be sure of is that all of our nuclear submarines, all of our airplanes, all of our tanks, all of our artillery pieces, are never used—are never used-and the way to do this is to let the world know that we are strong, not only in weapons and service people but also in our national will.

If the other countries on Earth—our allies, our friends, our potential adversaries -know that the United States is a strong country, then we'll have peace. If they ever believe that the United States is weak, either because we don't have adequate weapons or because we don't have the courage and the unity to defend ourselves, that's when we'll have to use our weapons and that's when we'll have loss of life.

One of the greatest things that I've experienced as President—the first time in 40 years—is that since I've been in the White House, we have not lost a single life of a young American in combat, and I pray to God that we'll have that record when I go out of office.

So, to summarize: peace with all nations on Earth, through strength here at home.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Q. Good morning, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Good morning.

Q. I'm Pershing Broome, of Phoenix, Illinois. I'm also on the faculty here at Thornridge High School. And I, too, would like to welcome you to Thornridge.

THE PRESIDENT. It's a pleasure.

Q. I believe during your campaign for the Presidency some 3 years ago, you proposed to take the "E" out of HEW. I also believe that the Congress has voted to do just that. Do you plan to sign the bill to make this effective?

THE PRESIDENT. Absolutely. I'm very proud of that legislation. I'll tell you why, just briefly.

When I was in State politics, my main interest was in education. When I was elected to the State Senate, I had one request when I got to Atlanta. That was to be put on the education committee. I was on a local school board for 7 years before I went to the State Senate. And when I became Governor, I spent about 25 percent of my time trying to make sure that education for our students was improved.

Since I've been President, that has not been the case. Education in Washington gets lost. I doubt that 2 percent of the people in this room could tell me who is specifically responsible for better education from the Federal point of view.

So, I believe that a separate department that can focus not on social programs, not on arguments and so forth and lawsuits, but on better classroom education is a very important step forward.

The second thing is this: We wrote into the law a requirement that the bureaucracy be reduced. The law says that we've got to have 500 fewer employees in the new department of education than we have now. With increased efficiency, we can do that. The law also requires that no increase in personnel in the new department can be approved unless the President, the Office of Management and Budget, and also the Congress specifically votes to increase personnel. So, we've tried to build in there a protection against increased bureaucracy.

The third thing that the law says is that local people, not the Federal Government, shall have control over the policy and the curriculum of the schools. I want to keep the Federal Government's nose out of the business of the local school system.

So, I'm proud of the new law, as you can well see, and I believe it's going to be better for education all over the country.

Thank you, sir.

SCHOOL BUSING

Q. Mr. President, I am Marcella Kuersten, of South Chicago Heights. And it is indeed a privilege to be here today.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, ma'am.

Q. Young families, when they buy homes or go out to rent, usually buy a home that is near a school. Then they find out when their children go to school, they are bused maybe on the other side of the city or to other parts of the county. Now, you mentioned a few minutes ago, we should learn how to cut back on our gas situation. Do you think it's feasible to continue the busing of students? And it's also a tremendous tax burden on the taxpayer.

THE PRESIDENT. My own experience has been and my own belief is that mandatory busing ought to be minimized.

There are requirements under the law, as you know, against any sort of discrimination or preventing students from getting the same quality of education within a given city or within a given school district. That's got to be honored.

My hope is that the present dispute concerning the integration of the schools or the elimination of discrimination in the schools in the Chicago region can be solved harmoniously. And I don't know where the best place might be to do it.

I have a feeling that to have the decision made by the local Federal court might very well be better for Chicago and the preservation of its neighborhoods and the honoring of the civil rights of people than to have it as a debate between the local school system and the Department of HEW. I'm not sure; that's my belief. I don't know what will come out.

We are operating under Federal laws concerning school districts and busing and integration, the elimination of deprivation of basic civil rights, and we're trying to work out an agreement. If that agreement can't be worked out between HEW and the local school board, then the normal transfer would be to the Federal court. And I've seen the Federal courts in the South, 10, 15 years ago, do outstanding jobs in trying to relieve these conflicting tendencies and pressures for the best interests of the students. I have confidence that that will be done in this case.

I don't have any authority over it, as you know, as President. But I believe that everyone wants to work it out so that there can be a satisfactory solution for black parents, for those who speak Spanish or other languages, for those who have strong ethnic commitments, and for those who want to preserve neighborhoods, those who want higher quality education.

So, what happens in the future will be very closely observed by me, and I'll do the best I can to reach the ultimate goal of honoring people's rights and having better education. But don't consider it to be a catastrophe if the case is moved into court. I think there it can be considered very calmly, very carefully, and I believe that ultimately the solution will be satisfactory to you.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR HIGHER

EDUCATION

Q. Good morning, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Good morning.

Q. I'm Arlene Zuiker, from Dolton, Illinois. And as an elementary schoolteacher, on behalf of the children, I'd like to thank you for coming to Dolton so they can see participatory democracy in action.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much.

Q. Mr. President, my husband and I are both employed, and our combined incomes put us in the above-average group, which does not allow for grant-in-aid eligibility for our four college-age children. Yet by the time we pay tuition for these four children, our income drops to the poverty level, practically. Question: Is there any hope in this inflationary period to have a tax credit for educating our most important natural resource, the youth of America?

THE PRESIDENT. The question is not whether to give assistance to a family with college-age children, but what form that assistance should take.

I decided—before I became President, as a matter of fact, but after long experience in education and financing—that the best approach was the one that we've taken. We've increased the Federal contribution to education, in the first 2 years I was in office, by 60 percent above what it had been in the past. We implemented last year, 1978, a $12 billion* increase in aid to make sure that every family in this country, even one like your own, would have an opportunity to put their children through college, if the students are academically qualified and do their work.

* The President meant to say $1.2 billion. [Printed in the transcript.]

We've approached it on a broad base. First of all is direct grants to students if their parents don't have the financial ability to put them through; secondly is a loan program to guarantee that the students, on their own initiative, can finance their college tuition and other costs and then repay afterwards when they are able to sustain their own income; and the third one, of course, is a work-study program, where the students can work part-time and go to school part-time or go to the classroom part-time, combining those two efforts so that the work part of their life is related in some way to the actual courses that they are taking. But we've tried to increase this tremendously.

The problem with going to tax credits is that we have not found any formula by which you could help the low- and middle-income families. You have a much greater financial benefit to the very wealthy families at the expense of the other taxpayers. So, this direct focusing of help on grants, loans, and work-study programs is a much better and fairer way to guarantee that the students can go to college.

I believe that if you have a thorough knowledge of what we do offer that there won't be any reason for all four of your children or the ones that you might have in the future—I don't know how many that would be—[not] to go to college and get a good education.

Good luck in the future and also now.

HOUSING CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCING

Q. Good morning, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Good morning.

Q. I'm Pat Adamski, and I live here in Dolton. My question—

THE PRESIDENT. What's your first name?

Q. Pat.

THE PRESIDENT. Pat.

Q. My question this morning is—as you know, the mortgage market is getting very tight. Fourteen States now either are running short of or have no money. How are you going to ease this problem, because this is going to affect people countrywide-real estate agents, builders, and people who buy and sell.

THE PRESIDENT. It's hard to answer that question about the future. My hope is that interest rates have peaked, along with inflation, and will now be going down.

High interest rates are caused by high inflation. It's very difficult to have interest rates lower than the inflation rate. So, the best attack on interest rates is to do what I've described earlier—to get the inflation rate back down, with high yield of farm products, adequate farm storage, the working relationship between labor, business, and .government, for a change, to hold down wages and price increases, and to decrease the imports of oil.

As far as the homebuilding is concerned, we've taken some action since I've been President that has paid off very well. In the past, when interest rates got up above 9 or 10 percent, the homebuilding industry took a nosedive, because it was almost impossible to get financing. That has not happened. I can't say that in the next few months it may not happen, but so far we have sustained a remarkable record of home construction. We've averaged about 1.8 million homes per year in this country so far, in spite of high interest rates, because we've made available to homebuilders and to families new sources of financing for homes.

I don't know what will happen in the future. I can't guarantee that there won't be some drop-off in that level, but it set records for the first 2 years, even in spite of high interest rates. In my opinion, the purchase of a home is still a good investment for a young couple that can afford the monthly payments.

I think real estate, including land, homes, and oilier things, will continue to go up at least a moderate rate, and I believe that when we get inflation under control with the policies that I've described, we'll alleviate that pressure. But we are doing everything we can with savings and loan bankers, the people who help us with finances, Government programs for low- and middle-income families, FHA, Farm Home Administration loans, to make sure that there is no drop-off in home construction or availability of homes. There may be local problems. I'm not trying to mislead you, but we have really held down the historic drop-off in home construction.

I might say, as another indication of that—I spoke to the building and construction workers union meeting in San Diego this past week—and since I've been in office, we've put an extra million construction workers on the job; we've cut the unemployment rate in that industry down by 40 percent. That's another indication that homebuilding and other construction is still a very strong element in our society.

I hope it will stay the way it has been. So far, we've got a good record. I just pray it'll hold.

ENERGY

Q. Good morning, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Good morning.

Q. My name is Christopher Stevo. Could you please tell me how we are progressing in developing new energy sources?

THE PRESIDENT. I couldn't hear you. Come up here a minute. [Laughter]

When I get supporters and allies his age trying to help me resolve the energy question, I think we're on sound ground and we've got the right road filled out for us. We're doing several things at one time. First of all, the Congress has very wisely required that all the automobiles produced now and in the future would have to be much more efficient, get a lot more miles for every gallon. That's the first step. By 1985 all the automobiles produce(1 in our country would have to average 27 1/2 miles per gallon, a big improvement over what we have had in the past.

Secondly, automobile buyers, with the high gasoline prices and with the few gasoline lines that took place this summer, have rapidly shifted toward the smaller and the more efficient automobiles.

All of you can help. I said earlier that I hope the families would have a consultation about how you can save energy.

When you go home from this meeting, look at how many cars you meet on the road that only have one passenger—sometimes two, very rarely three or four. And if you would change your driving habits, and five people could ride in your car to and from work, instead of five automobiles going to and from work, that saves a tremendous amount of fuel.

Another thing that we can do is to shift toward the use of gasohol and other automobile fuels that come not from oil, which is going to run out on Earth, but which can be sustained on a permanent basis. We've made a move in that direction in the Congress in the last year, and it's going to have tremendous influence. Brazil, for instance, now produces about 10 percent of all its automobile fuel from growing plants, through gasohol, and I think our country is moving very rapidly toward that.

We're also encouraging automobile manufacturers to shift toward other kinds of propulsion. You've probably noticed that one of the major automobile producers, the biggest one in the world, has just come out with an experimental automobile that uses batteries that can run 30,000 miles on one set of batteries, about a hundred miles before it has to be recharged. You can drive your car a hundred miles during the day, put it in the garage, plug it into the plug in your garage; the next day you can go a hundred more miles. And you can do that 300 times before you have to change batteries.

So, new design of automobiles, more efficient driving habits on the part of Americans, and new forms of energy, like gasohol, can all help to make sure that we have a better efficiency in the future and that we use our fuel more wisely.

That was a great question, and I thank you for it very much.

I might say that it doesn't hurt people to ride bicycles instead of cars. I was out early this morning before the Sun came up, and I ran 4 miles. And it doesn't hurt people to walk to work every now and then.

And I hope that you'll see, in general, that when our country faces a problem like energy shortages, that we need not shrivel up and be fearful about the future or start lashing out against one another and try to take some selfish advantage. It may be that the new awareness on the part of Americans that we have limited amount of energy will be the best thing that ever happened.

I think our country can be stronger, not weaker. I think our family life might be coordinated rather than more fragmented. I think neighborhoods might be preserved a little bit more. I think people might be healthier, because they get more exercise. And we might pause a little bit in our lives and enjoy the beauty of the places that we live, instead of dashing from one place to another and not even recognizing what God's given us. So, I think in general we might be a better people because of it.

FEDERAL-LOCAL RELATIONS

Q. Good morning, Mr. President. My name is Ralph Spencer. I'm from Calumet City, Illinois. I am involved there in local politics, somewhat. I'm an alderman in Calumet City, and being involved in the local politics, I do get concerned and have a lot of people asking, is the return and the balance of money that goes into Washington from a particular area and the amount that comes back to this—particularly Illinois.

One of the things that is very important in the financing of local government is Federal revenue sharing. It has developed into a very, very important function or very, very important source of revenue. I understand that very shortly Federal revenue sharing, as it stands right now, is destined to cease.

What is your feeling, and what is your stand towards balancing out the payments to the local people, and what is the future of Federal revenue sharing?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe there's any chance that Federal revenue sharing would be in danger for local governments. That answers part of your question.

Secondly, when you start balancing how much Federal money comes back into a community, compared to how much goes from that community to the Federal Government, you get into some very complicated economics.

The best way I know to make sure you get more money back than you pay in is not make so much money yourself, to start with, because the rich communities, where the people have high income and pay more income tax, don't ever get back as much as you paid in, whereas a poorer community, with income very low or perhaps very serious problems on housing and a high unemployment rate, they're the ones that do get Federal money back to let their lives be better. So, I think you live in one of those very fortunate communities, apparently, where you have a fairly good life and a fairly high income, fairly high employment, not any serious housing problems, and so forth.

We have always believed that the Federal Government should provide aid and have a minimum control over the lives of people. One of the best things that we can do to control inflation, by the way, that I have not mentioned so far, is to get the Federal Government's nose out of the affairs of private citizens or out of the affairs of the free enterprise system. We've tried to do this, and we've been successful in some areas. I'll give you one quick example.

We made a move to deregulate the airline industry. It was opposed by almost every airline company in the Nation, but Marty Russo and others helped, and we got that legislation passed. It's been a great benefit. Airline fares have dropped remarkably low. The airplanes now, instead of their being a quarter full, are almost filled to capacity, passengers have gone up in number tremendously, and the profits of the airlines have also gone up. We're trying to do the same thing now with other elements of the American free enterprise system.

In some cases, too many cases, the Federal regulatory agencies that are supposed to regulate an industry have become protectors for that industry at the expense of the American people. And I think the more we can get the Federal regulatory agencies' nose out of the business of the free enterprise system and let competition work, the better off our country will be.

So, there are many ways that you can make sure that the Federal Government does have a more effective relationship to the people in your own community.

One other thing that I've tried to do is to cut the Federal deficit. We've slashed the Federal deficit by more than 60 percent, $36 billion, and at the same time, we've cut down on the percentage of our total Nation's income that's collected from people and spent by the Federal Government. When I became President, it was about 23 1/2 percent. We've cut that down now to 21/2 percent, and we've got it going in the right direction.

So, we're trying to cut the Federal deficit, balance the budget, reduce the amount of your money that the Federal Government collects and sends back to somebody, and also, we're trying to get the Federal Government's nose out of your business. All those things, in the long run, will pay off.

TRAFFIC STOP SIGNS

Q. Mr. President, my name is Larry Cast, and I'm a mechanical engineer. I live in Dolton, and I work for the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago. I'm going to address myself to conservation of energy. I know it's a very good subject of yours.

Four-and-a-half years ago, I was picked by the late Mayor Daley to run for Cook County commissioner, and Mayor Jane Byrne, at that time, was our chairman of the nominating committee. And I ran. But during the campaign, I made a study on where are we wasting energy or where can we save energy, and I found out that we-I addressed myself to the 1,200,000 cars, automobiles that are in use today on a day-by-day basis, 110,000 trucks that are running around every day, mostly 8 hours a day, and I addressed myself to kinetic energy, which is energy of motion.

And when you see these automobiles with a 2-ton vehicle coming to a stop sign, an unnecessary stop sign, and stopping, to get that car going 30 miles again requires an awful lot of energy, not to mention a 78,000-pound truck, approximately 40 pounds [tons] fully loaded, 40 miles an hour coming to a stop light, an unnecessary stop light, or a stop sign, and then to get that car or that truck going again, 40 tons, 40 miles an hour, you eat gasoline or fuel up by the gallons. And this is where we are losing or wasting fuel.

I also make these statements, and I have calculations to prove it. Four-and-a-half years ago, during that campaign, I calculated it. And would you believe, by the time I—

THE PRESIDENT. I think the people are going to want you to ask a question.

Q. All right, fine. I took kinetic energy, I converted it to Btu's; Btu's to gallons of gas; gallons of gas to crude oils; crude oils to number of barrels. And it came out to be we could conserve 7 million barrels a day—fantastic—exactly what we were importing 4 1/2 years ago. Today it's 8.3 million or more barrels.

All right, my question is: Do you think that system of reducing or eliminating one-third of the stop signs has merit across the country?

THE PRESIDENT. Good question. It was a long question, but I think it's worthwhile, because this is one of the few questions that I get for which I'm not responsible. [Laughter] Nobody can accuse me of putting in those extra stop signs, right? [Laughter]

You know, I believe that this is one area that we have not adequately addressed. And I will relay your question to the Secretary of Transportation, Neil Goldschmidt, and tell him, in working with local people and also in the Federal highway system, to see if we can't reduce the number of unnecessary stop signs. And I think that that is a very worthy suggestion.

We get a lot of good thoughts and a lot of good ideas from coming out to meet with people like you, and I think the sense that I get is that we are all partners. Every one of your constituents, as a local official, is also my constituent, and every one of Marty Russo's constituents in this district is my constituent. We represent the same people. And what I do as President that benefits our Nation is exactly what you want, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican. You want the President to do a good job.

I don't have time for another question, I'm sorry. But I would like to say this in closing.

When we read the local newspapers or see the evening television or listen to the radio, what we get at that moment of that day is a picture, most often an accurate picture, of the problems of our society. The inconveniences are multiplied in their importance, and the debates that take place on controversial issues, like taxes or housing or interest rates or inflation or legislation concerning education—we see and we think about the difficulties and the arguments and the temporary failures.

What we don't see on the news, but what we ought to remember, is the blessings that we have in this country. I think we ought to be sure to inventory for our own reassurance and then just comment every now and then to people that listen to your voice about what God's given us in this Nation.

We're a nation of freedom. Our people can stand on our own feet, make our own decisions, be different, be individuals, be innovative, be hard-working, be lazy if we want to, get a good education, choose our own jobs, choose a place to live, choose our own officials, criticize the government, make comments, make suggestions, influence our neighbors. We have a country that lets each person take whatever talent we have and express that talent and let that talent grow to a maximum degree.

We also have a nation that's strong. We're the strongest nation on Earth. Militarily, we're the strongest; economically, we're the strongest; politically, we're the strongest; morally, ethically. Deep religious beliefs all exist within us. We've got our faults; we make our mistakes; we're not perfect. And as I mentioned to the Pope on the South Lawn of the White House the Saturday before last, we're responsible for our own actions. But let's don't ever forget that the United States of America is the best place on Earth to live. It's the greatest nation on Earth, and I believe that you and I together can make it even greater.

Thank you very much. God bless you all.