Interview With the President Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Editors and News Directors.

THE PRESIDENT. I'll insist that this is the last time I follow my wife. [Laughter] The competition is too great. Also, I'm afraid of the consequences if my statements conflict with hers. [Laughter]

I want to welcome all of you to the White House. This is one of a series of meetings that we have had with top newspaper and radio-television executives from around the country since I've been in office. It's been very helpful to me, I think to Jody Powell, and to all the members of my administration here in the West Wing of the White House. Not only have we been able to get across our positions to you privately and in some depth, but we've also had a chance to derive from your own questions a clearer sense of the attitudes and questions and concerns of the American people better than we would ordinarily from the White House news media, who do a good job in their own group, of course.

ADMINISTRATION POLICIES

I think I might take just a few minutes to outline some of my present concerns and plans, and then spend all the time available answering your individual questions. As Rosalynn may have told you, we've enjoyed this responsibility that the American people have given us. We have a good, sound, and stable family life. We have had more time together by far than when I was campaigning and certainly as much as we had while I was Governor of Georgia. We have a good partnership between her and me, and my whole family works on occasion for ceremonial affairs, including my mother and my sons as well, and their wives.

I might point out to you that we've had a wide range of challenging tasks since I have been in the White House. We've put forward some very difficult decisions for Congress to make in domestic and in foreign affairs, and I think the Congress has responded superbly.

In almost every highly controversial matter, in my opinion, the Congress has ultimately made the right decision. Some of those decisions were difficult for them because of the complexity and the disputes that arise, particularly in the field of energy legislation, for instance, on domestic affairs.

I don't think we've ever had a more complicated, far-reaching, highly debated and disputed bill in the history of the Congress than this particular package of legislation. My hope and my expectation is that next week we will have a successful vote on the natural gas bill, which is the heart of the energy package. The other three measures have already been passed relatively easily, relative to the natural gas bill, through the conference committees, and I think the Senate and the House would act on them expeditiously. We have one item concerning oil taxation that may come later or perhaps even this year.

The Congress gave me full authority to reorganize the Government under the reorganization act, and we've had unanimous acceptance by the Congress for every plan we put forward; quite a dramatic change from previous administrations, even Democratic Presidents, when about one out of three were accepted-the other two were rejected by Congress. But we learned from past mistakes that had been made. We've worked very harmoniously with the Congress, and the third reorganization plan of this year has just passed the Congress, almost unanimously, this week.

We've tried to deal effectively with some of the major problems that I inherited. I won't go into detail about them. A year ago, certainly 2 years ago, the overriding concern was about employment. We had about 10 million Americans who could not find a full-time job; between 7 and 8 million who had no jobs at an 8 percent unemployment rate, it was increasing rapidly during the last 8 years. And we've turned that corner now. We have had a net increase of 6 million jobs in the country since I've been in office. And the unemployment rate now, as you know, is slightly below 6 percent, and a very stable reduction. This has been a very good achievement.

We've inherited 10 years of inflation that's of great concern to us now. I'd say on the domestic scene, this is a matter of most concern to the American people, to the political figures in our government structure at all levels, and also to me personally as President.

We're trying to deal with this effectively. One way is to make government more efficient, to hold down budget deficits. I'm determined to work toward a balanced budget as rapidly as possible. When I ran in 1976, the budget deficit was in the high sixties of billions of dollars. My first budget preparation was for fiscal year 1978. We cut it down to the fifties of billions of dollars. This 1979 will be in the high thirties or low forties of billions of dollars, and the '80 budget will be even lower. So, we have a good, steady, downward trend, strong trend downward in the budget deficit.

Civil service reform was another task that we undertook that was predicted to be completely unsuccessful. But we mounted a massive campaign on that, and as you know, now the House and the Senate have passed the civil service reform relatively intact—first time in a hundred years, it will let American public servants, who give a career of service to other Americans, be rewarded for good service. Poor service can be corrected without unnecessary delay. Managers can manage, and I think the entire government structure will benefit. Of course, the American people will, too.

Those are a few examples on the domestic scene. One that I would like to mention as a farmer is that I think we've turned around the American farm economy. The 1977 bill, which went into effect less than a year ago, has already had very beneficial results among the farm communities and farm families of our country.

In foreign affairs, I've devoted perhaps more time of all to the Mideast. It's been the most all-encompassing problem that I've addressed. This has been a highly controversial matter, because I felt at the beginning that we ought to put the controversial issue on the table, in the public consciousness, and let an open debate take place.

As you well know, I was highly criticized by many for this. It was a political risk. But I think the fact that the American people were aware of questions like Palestinian rights, for instance, addressing the problems, the sensitive problems of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, dealing with the leaders of the Arab world, a recognition of Israel's right to exist, actual peace treaties, open borders, diplomatic relations, these are phrases and terms that had never been addressed before.

The Israeli recognition of the fact that U.N. Resolution 242 and all its parts apply to these things were highly controversial when proposed. But we've had good success on that so far, and I predict a rapid conclusion of the agreement between Egypt and Israel in the Sinai and hopefully open up possibilities for increased relationships between Israel, Jordan, the Palestinians, and their other neighbors.

The Panama Canal Treaty debate was the most bitter and unpleasant experience of my Presidency. It was the most difficult political undertaking that I have ever assumed, including my campaign for President. And the Congress, I think, the Senate made a very courageous decision about this. It opened up a new era for our relationship with the entire Latin American community, and removes the onus—which we certainly didn't deserve, but which did exist in many people's minds around the world—of the last remnants of a colonial inclination on the part of our country. It was a difficult thing to do and perhaps the most troubling vote of the Members of the Senate.

The Turkey arms embargo has now been lifted will be shortly. We hope this will lead to a resolution of the Cyprus dispute. We've opened up an avenue of better trade relationships, better defense relationships with Egypt and Saudi Arabia with the airplane sale. I think it's leading toward Israeli peace, not against Israeli peace. We've been negotiating without ceasing with the Soviet Union on SALT and other matters.

So, I think we've had some successes along the way; still have some difficult tasks ahead of us. But I believe that in general we've had good coordination of effort in the White House and a very good cooperation with the Congress, quite often on a highly bipartisan basis, particularly in foreign and defense affairs.

I'd like to answer your questions now.

QUESTIONS

NEWSPAPERS AND THE COURTS

Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you have any thoughts that you would like to share with us on the big problems of the newspaper industry now, arising, for instance, in the New York Times Farber case or the Stanford Daily raid, you know, the search warrants instead of subpoenas—or possibly the feeling in the newspaper industry that the judiciary is becoming imperialistic in their attitude towards the press?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I might say I don't believe the judiciary is becoming imperialistic or abusive toward the press. I think all of American society, almost without exception, including the judiciary, believe that we need to carefully preserve the right of freedom of speech and the right of the news media to report accurately the news and to protect their sources.

The Hartford [Stanford] case, I think, can be resolved either by subsequent rulings or by administrative decisions through the Attorney General—he's professed a desire to do this—or perhaps even by legislation in Congress. The Farber case is one that has confused issues in it. As you know, it will now be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. I think the New York Times and the defendants in the criminal case are perfectly willing to submit the case to the Supreme Court of the United States for final resolution. But I really don't feel, as President, observing these issues very carefully, having talked to the Attorney General, when appropriate, and to key congressional leaders, that there is a trend in our country away from protecting the right of freedom of speech or freedom of reporting the news.

My belief is that these particular issues may have dramatized an existing problem which can be resolved quite readily by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Farber case, perhaps' by corrective legislation or administrative decision in the other.

INFLATION

Q. Mr. President, as you are aware from the result of the newest polls, the wonderful job you did at Camp David with Mr. Begin and President Sadat was received royally. I live in a little mountain village of 2,900 people, and not many of them know Sadat from a hole in the ground, or Begin either. They talk to me about the price of bread and inflation in general.

So, my question is, you did so well on this foreign issue, why can't you get Fitzsimmons and George Meany ¹ and the president of General Motors, get them up to Camp David and knock heads together to do something about inflation? [Laughter]

¹ Frank E. Fitzsimmons, president, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and George Meany, president, AFL-CIO.

THE PRESIDENT. That sounds like a fate worse than death— [laughter] —to go back to Camp David, and particularly with that particular group. [Laughter] I never thought in my life that I would be glad to leave Camp David and come back to Washington. [Laughter] I told the steelworkers the other day that one of the reasons we solved, at least to a limited degree, the Mideast problem was because Begin came to see me and said, "Mr. President, I will get out of the Sinai if you'll let me get out of Camp David." And perhaps if we shut them up long enough, we might. [Laughter]

We are now planning another step that will be a tough, strong step in controlling inflation. That will be revealed as soon as the final decisions are made on it. That will be, I think, almost all we can do within the present statutory bounds. I'm not in favor of mandatory price and wage controls, and I don't have any intention of putting them in unless our country reaches an extreme emergency, certainly not any prospect of that at all.

I believe that the international unions will be receptive to a fair .and balanced inflation control policy if they feel that others will share the burden with them. And I think it's accurate to say that this is such a wide-ranging question, with many culprits, including Presidents and Congresses, including private citizens who are just homeowners and through purchasing practices encourage inflation, including the employees and employers, those who set prices, those who determine protectionist import policies, that there has to be a general sense that in the entire package of inflation control that it's balanced, that there are no special sacrificial lambs, but that everyone is making an equal sacrifice. That's my responsibility. And I think it would be a mistake to try to blame it, for instance, on a single element in that group, like labor.

I have talked privately, and in some instances publicly, including this week, with large labor groups. And as you well know, when I speak to a convention of farmers or teachers or lawyers or steelworkers or other labor organizations, they are first and foremost Americans. They are people who have families who have to go to the store themselves, who are trying to put their kids through school or through college. They're trying to buy a house or pay for a car. And they are intensely concerned about inflation, and I think the fact is that recent polls have shown that even among union members, they would be willing to forgo any wage increase if they felt that inflation could be controlled.

And I think the balancing of that package is a difficult thing, but my responsibility. Had it not been for my 2 weeks' vacation— [laughter] —I would have already issued these new points to the public. But I'll do that very quickly.

MINNESOTA DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Q. Mr. President, Congressman Fraser just lost the primary election in Minnesota, and there's a better than an even chance that the Republican will win the Senate seat in the November election. And one of the national news magazines has said that Senator Wendell Anderson will also lose that seat to a Republican. That would be quite a switch for Minnesota.

Do you see that as a trend in the future, and do you plan to campaign in Minnesota?

THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't see it as a trend in the future.

Ordinarily, when a President has served for 2 years in a term, even though his popularity in the polls might be extremely high, we've had a 30- to 40-seat loss in the House, for instance. And my guess is that the Congress and I have worked harmoniously enough and that this will be realized, as the Congress Members get down to the last few days or weeks of their campaigning, by the public, that the change will be much less than that. And I feel good about it.

I think also there has been an extraordinary circumstance in Minnesota, perhaps unprecedented, where I think every statewide office is up for election, and where the death of Senator Humphrey has created confusion. And as you know, Mr. Short, I think, was one of Humphrey's closest friends and supporters, which clouded the issue. He is much more conservative than Don Fraser.

But I don't see any trend at all against Democrats this fall. And I think after the first week in November, you will see that my prediction is accurate.

Q. Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT. Otis [Otis A. Brumby, Jr., Marietta (Georgia) Daily Journal]?

U.S. ARMS SALES

Q. Mr. President, you speak of imports. I'd like, if I could, to ask you a question about exports, as you know, are very important to our State. We've had stories in our papers; I've seen in other papers in the area that some of your policies, the unilateral policies involving exports, have not, perhaps, had their desired effects. And I'm thinking of the major defense contracts in my area, to transport planes overseas.

What do you say to these people who have lost their jobs, who can't be hired, but they say that several thousand jobs could be created, but they can't go sell because of the unilateral actions you have taken in this area of arms sales?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't have any apology to make for constraining the sale of arms. I think the type of planes, for instance, that Lockheed makes near your home, Mr. Brumby, is one of the items that have been sold with relatively slight constraint.

The C-130 or the Hercules transport plane is one that's used both for defensive purposes, for patrolling, and also in many ways for civilian use. I know when I happened to be Governor of Georgia, I took a trip through South America and saw these same planes being used to haul construction materials into the interior of Brazil, on the Amazon River. I saw the planes being used to haul fish to the inland mountain areas of Peru and to haul breeder cattle into Colombia.

So, I think that the sale of defensive arms, as you've described, have not hurt the prospect for exports, even in this particular industry to which you refer.

I am determined, though, to hold down the overall sale of offensive weapons. We have a very strict arms sales policy not to introduce a high technology weapon in an area where it doesn't presently exist, to cut down year by year the total volume of American arms sales, where in the past this volume has been going up. And this policy is constraining some of our allies and friends so far.

We've also been negotiating, talking to our friends and allies, those like France, Belgium, Great Britain, who have the ability to produce and to sell weapons, to get them to join us in this effort. And we have had several meetings with the Soviet Union—I think three so far—to try to get them to join with us in holding down the volume of weapons sales around the world.

We obviously continue to meet the requirements in a defense way of nations with whom we have mutual defense treaties, like NATO, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and so forth. But I don't think that this necessary constraint on the volume of arms sales is at all indicative of our policy towards greatly enhancing the export of American manufactured products.

REGULATORY REFORM

Q. Mr. President, in talking to our readers, preparing for this trip, I have heard what amounts to a cry from the small business people that they are being strangled by excessive regulations, that even an owner of a small grain elevator has people coming out from the Department of Labor, from EPA and OSHA. And we wonder if you have further plans to cut down on the bureaucratic

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I'm a small businessman myself, was before I came here. My son runs a grain elevator, a small one in Calhoun, Georgia. And one of the campaign commitments that I made was to cut down on unnecessary regulations.

We've done this very well, I think. And almost any small business person would tell you that within the last 20 months, those regulations and investigations that were obviously unnecessary have been eliminated. We've got a long way to go. It's very difficult to change this process.

We've also issued a directive, which is being carried out, to cut down on the volume of paperwork. The goal that we set for ourselves was a 10-percent reduction this past year. HEW, which was the biggest violator in the past, cut theirs this past 12 months by 17 percent.

We've done this by asking college presidents, small business people and others, State school superintendents—all of whom have been in this room to meet with me—to go back to their own offices and to give me a specific list of the forms and reports they have to file with the Federal Government, to detail for me and for the Office of Management and Budget where duplications exist, where they send the same information to several Federal agencies; also when they think in their own mind that a report can be abbreviated, and when it's a weekly report or a monthly report, how it might be changed into one filed every 6 months or perhaps every year. This has paid rich dividends.

We also now are writing regulations in plain English so that they can be understood. We require the authors of the regulations now to sign them. And for about a month I required every member of my Cabinet to read all the regulations that came out of their department. [Laughter] Two of them said that's all they did the whole— [laughter] —every weekend, all the weekends for a month. But I think they got a new appreciation of what people have had to face in the past.

In OSHA we've got a remarkable woman, Dr. Eula Bingham, who is completely dedicated to cutting down on the volume of these unnecessary regulations. She's tried to emphasize writing regulations to protect workers health, like the description of requirements to eliminate chemical substances or fumes that can't be detected by the worker. That needs to be monitored very carefully.

But on safety regulations, we've tried to get away from written directives. I would challenge any of you with your superb professional capabilities to write me a regulation on what is and is not a safe chair, for instance. [Laughter] And that was what OSHA was trying to do.

In 1 day this year Eula Bingham terminated the application of 1,100 OSHA regulations. And although a few of those are still on the books—she has to go through a procedure to eliminate them-they are not being enforced. And I know Billy, at his service station, says that the OSHA inspections and regulations are much less onerous than they were before. [Laughter]

EDUCATION

Q. This has to do with the reorganization of government and, specifically, the creation of the department of education. I've talked to several self-styled and appointed-type experts in the field of education. And to pinpoint it, they're talking about education by choice, which has several other names. I realize they have two bills pending that would assist education, both at the college level for the middle income, and both at the other intermediate school level.

The question is, it seems to me that there may be a third bill that is needed to look at the overall deterioration of education and if reorganization, if that department of education will not answer that question in several ways.

THE PRESIDENT. We've had by far the greatest increase in allocation of Federal funds for education since I've been in office, than ever before, even under the halcyon days of Lyndon Johnson, when the new elementary and secondary education acts and the higher education acts were passed. I think that was in 1965. This is an achievement in itself.

We've tried to make the administration more effective, and we've tried to constrain some of the unwarranted expenditures like the very high allocation of impact aid to very rich counties. We haven't had complete success, but we are making some progress.

I personally believe that we need a department of education and committed to this when I was campaigning for President. Some of the teachers organizations who are very highly influential, as you know, in Washington and the State legislatures are divided on this issue. The American Federation of Teachers, in general, are opposed to it; the National Education Association and their affiliates around the country are in favor of it.

The reason that I feel that we need a separate department of education, among other things, is that around this table when I meet with my Cabinet, we very seldom have a question concerning education arise.

When I was Governor, I probably spent 25 percent of my time on education. Here I don't spend 1 percent of my time on education. And then quite often when the subject does come up, it involves a controversial lawsuit about the application of Federal regulations concerning civil rights and other important issues in a college or a school, and not on how to give our children a better education, using the substantial amount of Federal funds available.

Another thing that's been highly controversial is the thrust around the country of testing achievement. One of the first things I did as Governor of Georgia, was to implement a comprehensive testing program for students at the fourth grade level, the seventh grade level, and the eleventh grade level—at the fourth grade level, basically to see if the children could read and write and were prepared to go on into the higher grades; at the seventh and eighth grade level, to give them some guidance on their high school career choices; and at the eleventh grade level to give them some guidance on what they could do after they left high school.

I notice North Carolina has just done the same thing. And I strongly believe that there ought to be a testing program available for those States that want it. I am not in favor of a mandated Federal program to be conducted nationwide.

This is a matter in which I differ with some of my own administrators in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. But I believe the establishment of a separate department can deal more effectively with our children's needs.

I think by any measurement, our schools are not doing a good enough job, compared to the amount of money we are putting into them. This is proven, at least to some degree, by the results of the SAT tests as children get ready to go into college and so forth. But I believe the increase in expenditure of money carefully focused on basic needs, a proper sharing of State, Federal and local and private funds for children's education, and control of the schools at the local and State level—not at the Federal level—a separate department of education; perhaps some increase in testing programs around the country to encourage better performance by students; analysis of their needs; better performance by teachers—all these things, very briefly, are what I would favor seeing done.

MICHAEL DUKAKIS

Q. Michael Dukakis, the Democratic Governor of Massachusetts, has been defeated in the recent primary. The rumor is rampant in Massachusetts that you'll appoint him to a high Federal post. Is this true?

THE PRESIDENT. I have no idea. [Laughter]

Mike Dukakis, in my opinion, is one of the best Governors I have ever known. He's a hard-working, brilliant young man, who perhaps was not quite sensitive enough about political issues. He says what he thinks. He tries to fight for what he believes in. He's had some very difficult challenges as Governor, bringing the budget under control and so forth.

I think he's done an outstanding job. I don't know his opponent well enough to comment on the comparison between the two; Massachusetts Democrats have chosen. But I've never discussed any sort of employment with Mike Dukakis. I don't have anything in mind at all. He would be well qualified to serve in any capacity, in my opinion.

Ms. BARIO. Thank you, Mr. President. THE PRESIDENT. Yes, sir? One other question.

POSTAL REFORM LEGISLATION

Q. Mr. President, I'd like to know if postal reform legislation now making its way through Congress meets your administration's restrained budget philosophy as described by Mr. Cutter ² this morning?

THE PRESIDENT. No. [Laughter]

Q. Why not?

² W. Bowman Cutter, Executive Assistant for Budget, Office of Management and Budget.

THE PRESIDENT. I just said one more question. [Laughter]

I'm really out of time. I've got another meeting with a group of editors who are here, at the Woodrow Wilson Institute, studying Latin America. And these are people who are constrained to write and to study about Latin America, but have come here for 2 days, I think, to learn more about that subject. And I have to go and meet with them.

I would like to take just a moment to ask each of you, if you have no objection, to come by and let me get a quick photograph with you, and again, to express my thanks for your willingness to come to the White House and, particularly, to learn about our Government.

We don't know all the answers. I'm sure we've made a lot of mistakes. We'll make a lot in the future. But there's a good kind of a sense, I think—at least in the White House—that we are making adequate progress, a good, cooperative attitude between Capitol Hill and the White House. And of course, the most important element is how well we understand and serve the American people represented by you.

So, again, thank you very much for letting me be with you and to have the benefit of your questions and your suggestions.