Jimmy Carter photo

Interview With the President Question-and-Answer Session With Reporters From Pennsylvania.

April 18, 1980


Q. Mr. President, the unemployment rate has risen some 5.8 percent last November, to 6.2 percent in March. Since then, there have been sizable layoffs in the auto industry and the steel, with more layoffs expected. And my question is, how high are you willing to let the unemployment rate go before you shift from an economic policy of restraint to a policy of expansion?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, for the last 18 months or more, the unemployment rate has been almost exactly 6 percent. It has been up and down, maybe two-tenths of 1 percent from that figure. Any unemployment is of deep concern to me. It is more than just statistics. It has effect on a family that has been laid off because of a slowdown; in the construction industry of homes, because of high interest rates; automobiles, because of a shift in the types of cars we make in this country; farmers, with the high charges on energy.

There is no particular level at which we can shift our basic thrust. We are trying to sustain our economic growth at a small but moderate level and, at the same time, get the extraordinary inflation rate and interest rate down. It is unbearable to continue much longer with an 18-percent inflation rate and interest rates even higher.

I think the proposals that were made to the Congress and to the American people to very carefully, very cautiously, very moderately restrain the economy to bring the inflation under control will not have a strong, adverse effect on the economic growth and jobs. We do have a few industries that have already been severely hurt. I have named the two that are most immediate in the consequences; that is automobile production and housing. Farming is not profitable at this moment, but we believe that in the summertime, we will have a reduction in the inflation rate and in interest rates.

On steel, this has been one of the biggest challenges and efforts that my administration has made. The steel industry was in desperate straits when I took office. Profits were practically nonexistent. We have seen steel profits go from a few million dollars to $1.3 billion last year—20 times greater than they were before. We have seen steel capacity, total steel plants in this country, go up from, I think, 78 percent to about 85 percent now, and we have brought down imports since 1977 about 2 million tons per year.

That doesn't mean that we don't still have problems in the steel industry. The antidumping effort that we are now undertaking in conjunction with the steel industry has been permitted in an expedited form by the actions that we took on the trade bill, and also working very closely with the steel industry who have met here in my office.

So, we are trying on a broad base to take cautious measures, and we will try to monitor these developments on a daily basis and accommodate change if it takes place.

Q. You can't say, if your unemployment gets, let's say, to 7 percent, that that is the time—or 8 percent? Are you saying that you would still concentrate on getting inflation down first, even if unemployment rose to such—to those levels?

THE PRESIDENT. I can't give a formula like that. There is no trick formula to deal with this extremely complicated question. I might add one addition to my answer, and that is that as we have restrained our Federal spending in order to bring the budget into balance and to control inflation, we have not done anything to reduce, for instance, youth employment. We still are going forward with a major youth employment bill. And I think it is good to point out that in the last 3 years, we have cut the unemployment rate two full percentage points—that is 9 million net new jobs, 430,000 of them in Pennsylvania. But we are trying in these budget cuts and in balancing the budget not to interfere with job opportunities. And we are focusing attention where it is most needed and not having a broad base—very extensive general programs.

Q. Maybe just one brief followup. Is it your belief, perhaps, that the recession will be, as you said yesterday, mild and short and that you do not expect unemployment to rise, let's say, to 7 percent?

THE PRESIDENT. I think our projections show that the unemployment rate is likely to go up as high as 7 percent at the time of the end of this year. By that time, we believe, however, that the inflation rate and the interest rates will drop enough to have stimulated the economy to put people back to work. And then, at that time, with a balanced budget and reductions in Federal expenditures assured, we would be planning for a tax reduction to improve productivity and to control inflation at the same time.


Q. I would like, Mr. President, to ask you about charges of some of your critics that you timed some of your news announcements to coincide with primaries. I know you were asked this yesterday, but I would like to focus specifically on that 7 a.m. press conference on the day of Wisconsin. Wasn't that an extraordinarily unusual time for a press conference? And wasn't it unusual to have given an optimistic report, that very soon later proved unfounded, when you yourself so often cautioned against false expectations?

THE PRESIDENT. I would be glad to explain to you why, if you like. I will repeat what I said yesterday.

Q. Well, on that specific incident.

THE PRESIDENT. We had a meeting in the Oval Office that morning, beginning at 5, because of the extraordinary circumstances that surrounded the developments up until that time. The Iranian Revolutionary Council and the terrorists and the President of Iran had all given me word, and it had been made public that a decision would be made about whether or not the hostages would be transferred.

At noon, Iranian time, Bani-Sadr, the President, was to make his speech announcing their decision. He announced that the hostages would be transferred to the control of the Government, the first step to their ultimate release. I think the news media was alerted, and all of my administration was alerted; in fact, the entire world's attention was focused on Iran. And I think it was a completely appropriate thing for me to announce to the American people what the decision of Iran was.

We have always looked upon any pronouncement from Iran, from a fragmented section of authorities, as being highly suspect. But this was the first time that we had had a triple commitment to progress: the President, the Revolutionary Council, and the militant terrorists themselves.


Q. To go back to the economy, Mr. President, in Pittsburgh, our polls indicate the public expects wage and price controls to be applied at some point. You have just mentioned that there will not be a trick formula for some sort of relief. Gould you give us your current thinking on wage and price controls?

THE PRESIDENT. The same as it has always been. This is the kind of proposal that is politically attractive, until you assess the consequences of it. It is a simple, apparently easy solution to a very complicated and disturbing situation, with inflation rates high. The Congress would never pass it. No substantial group of Members of the House or Senate have introduced or pushed such legislation, to my knowledge. The fact is that even those who advocate wage and price controls admit that you cannot control interest rates, you cannot control the price of energy based on imported oil, you cannot control the price of food, and this applies to other basic necessities of life.

The easiest thing to control is wages, and if a working family in this country has its wages controlled and then has to buy the necessities of life that cannot be controlled, this puts the greatest hardship on those least able to bear the hardship. That is why it is inconceivable to me that, aside from a national emergency such as war, that the Congress or a President would be willing to impose wage and price controls.


Q. My followup, Mr. President, has to do with the steel settlement, and there seems to be some disagreement as to what that will work out to. If it is as high as 40 percent over 3 years, would we expect a statement from the Council [on Wage and Price Stability] on that?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, if a steel settlement should be a violation of the wage guidelines, then there certainly would be a statement. My understanding so far, on the first analysis, is that the settlement is not in violation of the guidelines, but it will take several weeks to analyze the data completely.

My belief is that both the steel workers and the steel industry were thoroughly familiar with the wage guidelines, and their beliefs are that the guidelines have been honored. But I don't have the ability, at this point, pending an analysis, to make a final judgment on it.


Q. Mr. President, some people in Philadelphia think you turned your back on the city this year. You haven't visited there since 1976. You have closed such installations as the Frankfort arsenal. The mayor, Bill Green, says your budget cuts will cost the city $40 to $50 million. And now the mayor is endorsing your opponent there, Ted Kennedy, and there is talk that you might even retaliate against the city later in other ways. How do you answer that kind of criticism?

THE PRESIDENT. I think I can answer fairly well by saying this: In the first place, I am deeply grateful for what the Pennsylvania people have done for my administration: the advice, the counsel, the consultation—and the support, I might add parenthetically, that they gave me in 1976 at a crucial time.

When the hostages were seized, we were on the way toward going to Philadelphia for a townhall meeting, as you may know. It was already scheduled and was imminent. It is unfortunate that we couldn't go there. I have been to Pennsylvania many times since I have been President-I think 10 times for different reasons, ranging from the Three Mile Island incident to a blizzard in Pittsburgh, and for other reasons as well.

I think it would be good to review just briefly some of the increases that we have given to Philadelphia just in the last 3 years. We have worked very closely with the local officials, in particular, throughout the country, and the overwhelming number of mayors in the Nation have endorsed me because of the close cooperation. And I think we have had a cooperative attitude even among mayors who were not politically supportive, both Bill Green and his predecessor.

In Philadelphia, for instance, the EDA grants under my administration, compared to what they were previously, have gone up over 300 percent. The Small Business Administration grants have gone up over 240 percent. The mass transit grants have gone up 88 percent. On a statewide basis, those same figures—EDA grants, over 50 percent; small business grants, over about 75 percent; mass transit grants, more than 120 percent; highway grants to Pennsylvania, more than 130 percent. And the same would apply to Pittsburgh and other cities.

We patterned our entire urban program after recommendations made by mayors themselves and, for that reason, the allocation of funds has grown and the cooperation that has existed has been extraordinary. I would never punish Philadelphia or any other city because the mayor or other officials did not endorse me politically.

The two major city mayors who have endorsed my opponent were in Chicago and Philadelphia, but I would not let that interfere with my responsibility to the people of those two cities, who are my constituents as well.

One of the most difficult battles that we had with the Congress and other interest groups was to put the Saratoga into Philadelphia for repairs. This preserves between 8,500 and 9,000 jobs and will probably add about 2,500 new jobs during this multi-hundred million dollar overhaul. And this is a very important matter. But I have never let any sort of political considerations affect my support for and service to people of a city and never will.

Q. I understand that when you aid distressed cities to make up for inflation cuts, New York State is supposed to get $14 billion and Pennsylvania is only supposed to get $4 billion. Have you read those figures, and are you familiar with those figures?

THE PRESIDENT. No, those figures are not accurate at all, but the additional amount of money we are advocating should come to—to come to the cities around the country—the $500 million extra above what the House and Senate budget committees have advocated would bring $14 million to Philadelphia alone-$14 million.

Q. $14 million?


Q. I have a similar question dealing with Scranton, the paper I'm representing today.


Q. Scranton, like a lot of cities, is worried about the budget cutting, both in your proposal and in the ones in Congress. They rely heavily on CETA. They have a large UDAG grant. They are applying for funds for a major development downtown, and it may be stopped; they're not sure. They also rely heavily, the city budget, on their share of State revenue sharing funds. There's a real possibility of a tax increase to supplement their income at a time when they're being hit by, like everyone, recession and inflation.

I guess they're wondering and want me to ask you why you think, given all these problems, why should the budget be cut, especially at these times?

THE PRESIDENT. We all share the same problems. I am in the same boat, as President, that your Governor's in—and the different mayors. I've been reading news stories recently, for instance, out of Philadelphia. I know Bill Green is desperately trying to cut budget expenditures in a fair and equitable way, and that's what I'm trying to do.

We have given to the Congress a very well balanced proposal to bring about a balanced budget for 1981. My prediction to you is that the local and State officials who are concerned about—the same people who are concerned to me—will be up here before too many weeks go by, fighting for the administration proposal as a substitute for the proposals passed by either the House or the Senate budget committees, because our proposals do include substantial commitments to the kinds of programs that you just described. This would include, for instance, the $500 million that would be allocated, in addition to local revenue sharing, to cities of all sizes who have a special need. And the targeted assistance that we are now working to get in the 1980 budget, $250 million, will again go to the communities in our country, regardless of size, who are most adversely affected by the high interest rates and high inflation rates.

We have a very fine record, I think, in the UDAG grants. This is a program that we initiated, and we have not cancelled the UDAG program. We have had to cut back to some degree, but I don't want to mislead anyone. I can't give you a commitment that no one will have to have a reduced allocation of Federal funds. We have to be cautious and united and have to show self-discipline in bringing about restraints on expenditures, in order to cut down the inflation rate. And it's a common approach that has to be shared by all Americans.

But there will be people who want their own particular allocation of funds to be left untouched. Many of them may not want to vote for me because of the decisions I made. But when our Nation has a problem on housing or transportation, on agriculture, on steel, on coal, on cities, on any other element of our life, that the problem winds up here on this desk—and the same problems relate to national defense, the same problems relate to American hostages, the same problems relate to national security—the problems wind up on this desk, and I am the only person who is elected in this Nation that can match all those problems with possible solutions, tap the tremendous strength and resources of our Nation and make judgments accordingly. And I make my recommendations on budget matters to the Congress, and they act with their particular insight. But I can't promise you an easy solution to very difficult problems. It would be misleading.


Q. You mentioned last night that part of your anti-inflation program was working.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think so.

Q. And it's a real problem in the Scranton area and other parts of the State, of course, and other parts of the country, in homebuilding, with the interest rates spiraling. Is there any progress that you've seen yet in Pennsylvania and other States in that regard or that you see coming up? You mentioned, I think, something last night about the possibility of interest rates going back down. Do you know how soon and by how much?

THE PRESIDENT. We think the interest rates, in general, peaked the 4th of April. The trends since then have been generally downward. Most of the interest rate reductions have preceded the prime rate and, in addition to that, we have increased substantially the federally assisted housing program for 1981 in the revised balanced budget proposal, an increase of 25 percent next year compared to this current year, a total of 300,000 federally assisted units.

In addition, yesterday I announced that we would have, we would support, a program that would give us 100,000 more homes. That's a 10-percent increase, even above the rate that we're building homes now. That would be in addition to the 300,000 units I have just described to you.

Getting the Federal Government out of the borrowing business and taking the pressure off revolving credit and other borrowers from a limited supply of funds will open up opportunities that have not previously existed to homebuilders and home buyers for that limited amount of financing.

So, I think that all these actions that I've taken have been carefully designed to protect the homebuilding industry-and small business and farmers, in particular-in tiding them over this high interest rate period.

Q. What is the average rate of homeowner's loans going to be in another year, say? What is the interest rate people can count on if they want to buy a home, say, in the next year or two?

THE PRESIDENT. I can't answer that question. We think the interest rates next year will be below the 10-percent level and what the—I mean that's inflation rate, excuse me. I don't know what the interest rates might be, but I noticed an article this morning in the Washington Post, that for the first time, home mortgage interest rates had dropped a half percentage point. This is a good trend in the right direction that's compatible with other trends in the broad financial markets.


Q. Mr. President, how concerned are you that the economic and diplomatic sanctions against Iran and the military action, if it comes to that, will drive Iran into the Soviet orbit? And a second part of the question is, what would you do if Soviet troops, which are now on the border of Iran and more active, in larger numbers than usual, moved into Iran?

THE PRESIDENT. We do have a concern, obviously, that Iran stay united and secure and free and independent as a nation. We share that desire with the people of Iran, even including those that have condoned the taking of our own hostages. We have cautioned Iran directly and through every possible intermediary about the adverse consequences on their own Government and on their own nation if they continue this act of international terrorism against the American hostages. This is a concern that's been expressed by the United Nations Security Council, unanimously, twice, by the International Court of Justice, and by the general world opinion.

Now, of course, our allies are beginning to decide that because of the threat to their own interests and the supplies of oil from the Persian Gulf region, that they themselves should apply cautionary sanctions against Iran. I don't know what their actions will be next week.

I don't think it would be appropriate for me to describe to you all the options that we would have militarily if a Soviet invasion took place. It would be even more serious than was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and you know what our actions have been there, and you know the condemnation of the world has been aroused against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, in my opinion, would suffer very severe consequences of a broad kind if they should invade another country.


Q. Mr. President, if you're to defeat Ted Kennedy in Pennsylvania next Tuesday, and given the fact that John Anderson may run as an independent, and it seems that your likely Republican opponent will be Ronald Reagan and that he is growing in strength, do you think it might soon be appropriate for Ted Kennedy to get out of the race so that the party can bind up to face a stiff challenge in the fall?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any way to influence what Senator Kennedy might do or might not do. What I've been doing this year, in addition to my regular duties and the extraordinary duties brought about by the Iran and Afghanistan crises, is to try to run the campaign as best I could—not in carefully selected States, but nationwide.

Next Tuesday, we have Missouri and Vermont and Pennsylvania choosing delegates. We've done the best we could in all the primaries and caucus States so far, and this is the way I'll continue to do. But—I'd like very much to win Pennsylvania—but I can't predict it, because I've had to make some very unpopular and difficult choices in recent weeks, and I am familiar and deeply concerned about the same things that concern the Pennsylvania voter.

But I can't predict what will happen after the Pennsylvania primary if I win or lose. My only source of information about Senator Kennedy's plans are from him, personally, and he says he will stay in the race until the end, and I presume he will.


Q. Do you share the assessment of some of your supporters that an Anderson candidacy would hurt you more than it would hurt Mr. Reagan?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I personally think that the two-party system is the best approach. We've had a lot of third party candidates run in the past. I don't know, at least in my political memory, when they have had an effect on the outcome of the election.

I noticed a CBS poll the other night on television that showed that with Anderson not in the race, and in the race, the relationship between me and Governor Reagan did not change. But the volatility of the American voter this year has been demonstrated time and time again, and I have no way to know what might be happening many months in the future. I also am not assuming that either Governor Reagan nor I will be the nominee. We've got a long way to go yet, and I think that we'll just have to wait and see.


Q. Mr. President, one more question on Iran. Would you employ military force in that situation even if you knew you were endangering or, perhaps, would cost the hostages' lives?

THE PRESIDENT. We have two interrelated concerns that can't be separated: One is to protect the national honor and the interest of the United States, and the other is to protect the lives of the hostages and to secure their freedom. And it's not possible in my own mind to separate those two, nor do I attempt to separate them.

So far, we have been successful in two of those elements—protecting our Nation's honor and the lives of the hostages. We have been unsuccessful in gaining their freedom. This is a constant preoccupation of mine. I never spend a waking moment without being concerned about those hostages and their families. But I can't separate the two, one from another.

Q. Are you saying there'll come a point where national honor is more important than the hostages' lives?

THE PRESIDENT. What I have said is-to you just then—I don't see how I could separate the two and say one is more important than the other. The hostages are in danger, and they have been in danger since the very beginning. There have been some very radical statements made by the militants in recent weeks, concerning the death of the hostages and so forth, that have not been contradicted immediately by either the Government officials or Ayatollah Khomeini.

In the past, when the terrorists made some threat of that kind, either the President of the country or Khomeini have always immediately made a contradictory statement. That change in apparent attitude there concerns me deeply, but I am not predicting, of course, that the hostages will be killed or injured. I hope and pray that they won't.


Q. Mr. President, from the reports I get from some of our local politicians-you've had a number of them down at the White House and some on the phones-and I know this is the pattern that we've seen in other States where there are primaries, and we'd all agree that this is political activity and fair game. But it raises a question, I think, in the minds of the voters in Philadelphia if you have time for that kind of political activity, why don't you have time to come out on the stump and sell your programs in person?

THE PRESIDENT. There are many times when I have spare minutes or hours when there is no particular decision I have to make about international affairs or domestic affairs and, during those times, at my own convenience, I can place a few phone calls or many phone calls at the time and talk to people throughout the country. I do this and have done it ever since the first day I was in this office, not just during the campaign year.

It's difficult for me to schedule ahead of time a full day's trip away from Washington, 3 weeks in advance or more, and then expect to keep those appointments. That's one element of the problem. The other one is I consider this Nation to be in a state of crisis just as much today as it was in the first week in November when our hostages were captured.

I'm the symbol of our country. We are trying to convince not only American people but also leaders of nations around the world that they should not forget that 53 American hostages are being held by terrorist kidnapers at this very moment and that their freedom is gone and that their lives are in danger. For me to resume campaigning as though no crisis existed and to resume business as usual as though the hostages were not in prison would be, I think, contrary to the best interests of the hostages.

It's important for the world to know that Americans and the American President and the American Congress and the American news media and all of our allies and friends are deeply concerned about these hostages, and that's another very important reason why I have not campaigned as I ordinarily would have, and as I would like to, and as would be very beneficial to me politically.

It has certainly not helped me politically in the last few weeks or months to be away from Pennsylvania, where I could be campaigning among the people who are going to vote in the primary.

Q. How many points do you think it would be, Mr. President, if you were to visit Pennsylvania over the last couple of months? Is that gaugeable?

THE PRESIDENT. I hope good. In 1976 I was all over Pennsylvania—

Q. Right.

THE PRESIDENT—in every medium or large-size community, and on the farms, and in the bottom of the coal mines, and everywhere else. And I think it helped me a great deal to overcome what appeared to be an insurmountable obstacle at the beginning. So, it is obviously good for a candidate to be on the scene. But I just feel that I have to take that political sacrifice now in order to maintain my duties here to the hostages and to the country.

Q. But might there come a time, if the situation persists through the fall campaign, that you might abandon that position?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I've always left that option open. And if a crisis should arrive in this Nation somewhere, and it requires the presence of the President, even tomorrow, I'll have to make a judgment accordingly. But just to resume normal activities, I believe, would be contrary to my concept of duty.


Q. While we're talking about the campaign, a couple of the editors who I was talking to before I came down mentioned recent stories about the loan to Murdoch. There's also a Senate committee thinking about holding hearings on this. Given the chronology of the loan being granted, how do you feel? I tried to see if you had commented on this before. I don't know what you have to say about this. Do you think there was politics involved? Are you concerned? Are you going to be doing anything about this? Are you just—would you rather wait and see what the Senate comes up with?

THE PRESIDENT. At the time Mr. Murdoch came to visit me, I had never heard of any loan that might go to any business in which he was involved at all. And during the time he was with me, and subsequently, neither he nor anyone who represents him has ever mentioned any loan of any kind to me. And none of the people involved in the Eximbank decision consulted with me on any loan for Mr. Murdoch, and I have never advocated any loans for Mr. Murdoch or for any other person with whom I am acquainted under these circumstances.

MR. POWELL. 1 Maybe one more question.

1 Jody Powell, Press Secretary to the President.


Q. Senator Kennedy's people have spoken of a scenario at the convention where they come into the convention and try to change the convention rules and swing your delegates to their side. Have you heard of and thought of this script?

THE PRESIDENT. I've heard of it. I hadn't thought much about it. I am a Democrat, and I've always voted for Democrats, and if I'm not the nominee I intend to support the Democratic nominee. It does concern me that Senator Kennedy has refused to say that he would support me and Fritz Mondale if we are the nominees of the party. It also concerns me that Senator Kennedy said that he would not abide by the rules of the party, which have been evolved over 10 or 12 years of a massive reform effort long before I got involved, became involved, in public affairs at the national level.

For a candidate to say that he will disrupt the convention, try to change the basic rules of the electoral nominating procedure, subvert the will of the voters of States like Pennsylvania who will decide how many delegates I get and how many the other opponents get is, I think, a mistake. I don't know if he will go through with it should the occasion arise, but that's his present plan as expressed through the news media, and I don't believe the Democrats will permit that kind of thing to happen.

I saw a similar situation arise in 1968, when Vice President Humphrey got a majority of the delegates and the nomination, but because of the divisive nature of the convention, it was very difficult for him to mount an adequate campaign with a unified party and with the support of former Senator Gene McCarthy and others who had challenged him at the convention. That's what we would like to avoid at the time of this convention, and if Senator Kennedy or someone else should get more delegates than I, my hope would be to unite the party and to face the challenge of the Republican opposition in November, and I would hope that he would do the same. His statements to the contrary do cause me concern.


Q. Mr. President, I know Milt asked you about steel trigger pricing, and I think you answered, but I am not sure if I do understand. Are you considering reimposing that, if that's the right word? I'm sorry. Milt knows much more about this than I do. Did I fail to understand something you said or is there something stirring on this?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, we evolved the trigger price mechanism at the urging of and with the cooperation of the steel industry—

Q. Right. I understand.

THE PRESIDENT.—and the steel workers themselves, as a substitute for the antidumping effort that they were contemplating early in my administration.

Q. Right, right.

THE PRESIDENT. We notified U.S. Steel, the primary one, that if the antidumping suits were filed, that it would not be feasible to continue both trigger price mechanisms and antidumping suit efforts at the same time. As you know, now, the Commerce Department has certified the legitimacy of the antidumping suits, and we are now working with the U.S. steel industry to prevent further dumping of European steel in the American market.

If the court should throw out that suit because it fails, or if U.S. Steel should withdraw the suit, we will immediately reinstitute the trigger price mechanism to prevent dumping of European steel in the American markets.

I might point out one other thing.

Q. All right. I'm glad I asked.

THE PRESIDENT. The present antidumping suit and procedure being followed by U.S. Steel is under the expedited procedures that were negotiated primarily by Bob Strauss, when he was the Special Trade Representative. So, my administration has consistently supported the prevention of dumping, and I think, recently in Pittsburgh, the president of U.S. Steel certified exactly what I have just told you, that it's a cooperative effort and that he's well satisfied with the past and present commitment of this administration of preventing dumping of foreign steel in this country.

Thank you all very much.

Note: The interview began at 2 p.m. in the Oval Office. Participants were Sandy Grady, Philadelphia Bulletin, Paul Taylor, Philadelphia Inquirer, Ted Knap, Pittsburgh Press (Scrips-Howard News Service), Milton Jaques, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, and Dan Haar, Scranton Times.

The transcript of the interview was released on April 21.

Jimmy Carter, Interview With the President Question-and-Answer Session With Reporters From Pennsylvania. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/249613

Filed Under



Washington, DC

Simple Search of Our Archives