Interview With the President Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Editors and News Directors.
THE PRESIDENT. Well, I apologize for interrupting your meeting. [Laughter]
It's a pleasure to have you here. Coincidentally, you comprise a group within which the 1,000th editor or news executive sits, who've come here since we began this series shortly after I took this office. Twice a week* I have a chance to meet with the national press over here in the White House area, and twice a week* I meet with a group like yourselves from around the country. I'm very grateful that you could come.
*Twice a month. [Printed in the transcript.]
ADMINISTRATION POLICIES
What I'd like to do is to outline, as quickly as I can, just a few issues that are affecting me and our people within this country in domestic and foreign affairs and spend what time we have available answering your questions.
I'm preparing this weekend, and have been for the last couple of weeks, for a very important foreign trip to Mexico. We've got a very large number of closely interrelated subjects to discuss between myself and President Lopez Portillo and others. I think you know the closeness with which we have consulted with Mexico since I've been President. The first thing that happened when Lopez Portillo was elected was my wife went to his inauguration. His wife came to mine. My first visitor who came here representing a foreign country after I became President was President Lopez Portillo, and I've been looking forward to this visit as well.
We are continuing our negotiations on SALT. Every Friday morning when Vance and I are in town, we have an early breakfast, and we are pursuing that.
We've invited the Foreign Ministers of Egypt and Israel to come over here to this country to meet with Secretary Vance, and I'll undoubtedly be meeting with them as well while they are here. We hope that this will resolve the differences that still exist on a Mideast peace treaty.
We have ongoing negotiations now with ourselves and four other of our Western allies, through the United Nations, to bring about majority rule and independence for the nation of Namibia.
We've concluded, as you know, in the last 2 weeks, preparations and the consummation of Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping's visit. A couple more of our key Cabinet officers will be going to China very shortly—Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Treasury—and the Congress is dealing with legislation to implement the Panama Canal treaties and to continue our trade and cultural relationships with the people of Taiwan. If the Congress does not act on this legislation by the first of March, there will be problems in continuing Eximbank loans and OPIC insurance guarantees and other official functions of our Government with the corporations that we are establishing to represent our two peoples. Those are just a few items that are on the foreign affairs agenda.
I would say the overwhelming problem and question, domestically speaking, is to control inflation. This is a serious challenge. It has been with us for 10 years or more. It is not getting better. Recent price index changes are of deep concern to us and, I think, emphasize dramatically the necessity for the special interest groups and the doubting Members of Congress, the local and State officials, those who represent industry and labor, to cooperate as completely as possible in controlling inflation. It is a burning issue, an important issue, and the overriding issue on the domestic scene.
I think at this time I'll just answer your questions, and I'll try to be as brief as possible.
QUESTIONS
ETHNIC AND MINORITY GROUPS
Q. Mr. President, my name is Mike Krajsa. I publish Slovak-Amerike, which is the oldest Slovak newspaper in the country and very active in ethnic affairs. The Democratic National Committee did a survey polling 500 ethnic editors last year, which represents a circulation of about 5 million, and frankly, they're quite displeased, myself included, by your elimination of the Office of Ethnic Affairs in the White House, which your predecessors had, and the attentions that you have paid to the ethnics of this country.
Speaking as a Democrat from Pennsylvania, I was very supportive of your campaign, as well as the heavy ethnic concentration of that State, but in last year's gubernatorial election, the ethnic votes swung dramatically to the Republican side.
As the elections approach, the ethnics again are going to continue to ask you to reestablish that office and, if at all possible, to also establish some sort of council comparable to what you have with the feminists and with the black movement, to begin to advise you and have some input into a lot of the foreign policy that has escalated, especially in your administration, dealing, in my case, particularly with Central Europe.
Do you have any intention of reestablishing that? We would like to be very helpful, frankly. We represent 17 percent of the vote, and there's a number of people-my publication goes abroad, and frankly, the people behind the Iron Curtain look for us to continue to spearhead your human rights issue. And it's becoming increasingly difficult, as the polls have shown.
THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you undoubtedly recognize, our country is a nation of immigrants, and even refugees, including my own ancestors, a couple hundred years or more ago.
Yes, I am deeply concerned, and interested in the special problems that relate to ethnic Americans. I've always taken the position, however, in dealing with any particular group of Americans, whether it be the elderly or blacks or Spanish speaking or women, that it's better for them to have a President and a Vice President, and a complete Cabinet, and also a complete White House staff, members who are both interested in and sensitive to the needs, than to have a single isolated person through whom you had to channel questions relating to a particular group.
I've met in this room or in the White House with larger groups from the communities whose ancestors came from Hungary, Romania, Poland, Estonia, and many other, both major and smaller countries, and we are continuing that responsibility.
Lately, we have been talking again about how to improve the relationship with ethnics in a more conglomerate group, and not isolated individually as representatives whose families came from a particular country.
Q. Is there someone on your staff that we could talk to about coalescing?
THE PRESIDENT. I think the Kraft would probably be the best one to talk to, and Anne Wexler, either one of those. But I'd say the Kraft.
ORGANIZATION OF PETROLEUM EXPORTING COUNTRIES
Q. Mr. President, Hank Keezing, Hartford, Connecticut, Herald. On energy, more and more is being written and discussed about why isn't this country trying to break the OPEC cartel price structure. Has any thought been given to that tactical approach?
THE PRESIDENT. As you know, we've got now about half of our oil being imported; very little of our natural gas is imported, because we have an adequate supply now for those special uses that we have for it. A lot of thought's been going into how to minimize the adverse effect of the OPEC price structure.
We presented a comprehensive energy proposal to the Congress in April of 1977, about 65 percent of which was adopted. The part relating to oil pricing, unfortunately, has not yet been adopted.
The best way to deal with this question, I think, is not to have an idle hope that we can destroy the structure of OPEC. I think it's now become such an institutionalized structure that it would be very doubtful that anyone could break it down. Whenever we've challenged the authority of OPEC or tried to influence their pricing habits, we've never found much response from countries that were much more dependent on imported oil than are we. Our European allies—in France, for instance, and Japan, for instance—import sometimes 75, 80, 95 percent of their oil; whereas, we import much less, percentage-wise.
I don't think we could mount an international and successful challenge, but we can control the dependence and the adverse effect of OPEC by shifting away from imported oil, by increasing production in our own country, by shifting to coal, to solar energy, to natural gas, where we have a more adequate supply, and also by dealing with countries that are naturally bound to us historically in a spirit of friendship.
When we had the oil embargo in 1973, we got an increasing portion of our oil from countries like Nigeria, Venezuela, Indonesia, that we had to import. And of course, since then we've brought in the Alaska pipeline to start bringing in oil.
I might point out to you that right now we are in the unfortunate position that the OPEC price is not the prevailing price. The spot market price for oil now is $6 or $7 above the OPEC price. Obviously most of the oil is sold on a contract basis at the OPEC price level. But an increasing portion of the total oil in the international markets is being sold now at about $20 to $21 a barrel; whereas, the OPEC price is a little above
$14.
That's the best answer I can give you. I don't think it's possible to .destroy OPEC. The best way to do it is to cut down on our dependence on imported oil.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Q. Mr. President, you have just announced you are planning to form a Cabinet-level department of education. And educators that I've talked to this past week tell me that they think this is going to just be more government control over education and more paperwork for them. What's your thinking behind this?
THE PRESIDENT. That's not the case. Obviously, I wouldn't do that if I thought that. I've been a Governor for 4 years, and before that I was on the local school board, the county school board, for 7 years. I've had a deep interest in education.
I think it's important to have a department in the Federal Government responsible for education and not have it buried in a much larger department that's dominated by interests of a welfare and health nature. I sit around this table and meet with my Cabinet every week or every 2 weeks, and I would say that outside of hotly disputed segregation lawsuits and things of that kind, we don't spend half of 1 percent of our time discussing what we can legitimately do to make education of our children and adults in this country better.
And I believe that it will be very helpful to have a single person that's identified by students, parents, county, State officials as the person responsible for education in this country working with me. We've eliminated enormous quantities of unnecessary paperwork, reports, forms, at the suggestion of and with the cooperation of both college presidents, who have met in this room with me, and the representatives of the States, State school superintendents, who've met over in the larger room with me for that particular purpose. I believe it'll be a much cleaner relationship in eliminating confusion and overlapping and redtape and the duplication of reports if we can have a separate department.
We've been very careful in drafting the legislation. We've not tried to abuse anyone. But for those reasons, I think it would be a step in the right direction, not backwards. As you know, the NEA, the largest organization of teachers, thinks it'd be very good. And although Joe Califano has not been an enthusiastic supporter of it, he agrees with my decision. [Laughter]
Q. Do you have anybody in mind to head the department?
THE PRESIDENT. Not yet. But I think the Congress is very likely to pass that legislation, and when they do, I think it'll be a step in having better education for our children. I would certainly never do anything as President to usurp the clear responsibility for the curriculum and for other aspects of education away from the local officials primarily and, obviously, the State officials secondarily. And I would put the Federal Government as a level of educational administration that ought to be removed from decisions concerning the students themselves as much as possible.
GAMBLING
Q. Mr. President, there are now at least five States considering legalized gaming to alleviate their financial conditions. Have you or will you consider a national gaming policy, or would you consider intervening in gaming in any way?
THE PRESIDENT. I'm not in favor of it. When I was Governor, I opposed any form of legalized gambling, and I still have the same conviction that it's not well-advised.
Q. Would you intervene at all in gambling policy?
THE PRESIDENT. No. Obviously, the Federal Government has responsibility through the Internal Revenue Service and through the Justice Department and other agencies to assure that legalities are followed. This is a prerogative of the States, in accordance with constitutional delineations of responsibility. And only when we deal with foreign governments does the Federal Government have a direct influence on gambling.
No, I wouldn't want to sponsor a constitutional amendment giving the Federal Government the authority to prohibit it, but my own personal opinion is that gambling is not good.
INFLATION AND TAXATION
Q. Mr. President, Dave Willmott, Suffolk Life Newspapers, Westhampton, [New York]. Indexing has been brought up as a method of controlling inflation, tying indexing inflation to taxes. Your administration, I understand, has opposed it. Could you tell us why?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, most of the indexing means that you have to do it both ways. If the inflation rate goes up, then all the other prices, payments to retirees, pension payments, and everything go up with it.
I think to have an automatic connection between the inflation rate and the rate of taxation, or the rate of payment of Federal funds for different programs, is ill-advised. Quite often you need some flexibility to decide on an annual basis the best way to expend both tax privileges and also to distribute tax funds once they are collected.
Q. Doesn't indexing give the Federal Government, though, an automatic tax increase on a regular basis every time we have inflation because of the progressive income tax system that we're on?
THE PRESIDENT. The trends are certainly in the right direction. When you have a higher inflation rate at a given-for, if everything else stays the same, people move into a higher income level to get the same real wage, and therefore, they pay a higher rate of taxation. That's what you are talking about, a higher percentage of our income?
Q. Right.
THE PRESIDENT. Yes. And the Congress and the incumbent President, whoever it might be, take that into consideration by modifying the tax laws generally through reductions. But I think it's better since it's done on an annual basis—sometimes it's considered several times during the year—to do it in that respect rather than to have an automatic formula.
U.S. FORCES IN SOUTH KOREA
Q. Mr. President, Virginia Reuss, Gouverneur, New York. Do you have any plans to bring back the troops from Korea in the near future, and if you do, have you an idea where they will be stationed, just what will be considered?
THE PRESIDENT. Over a period of time, I think the troops ought to be brought back from Korea. We've had our troops there for 30 years, and I've made a basic decision that the troops should be brought back.
The rate of returning them to the United States is constantly being assessed. We've already brought back a few. Right now we are holding in abeyance any further reduction in American troop levels until we can assess the new intelligence data on the buildup of North Korean force levels, the impact of the normalization with China, and the new peace proposal or discussions for peace that have been put forward by both the North Korean and the South Korean Governments.
There is hardly a more vigorous and successful economic system in the world than South Korea, and over a period of time they've built up their capacity to both finance and construct their own military weapons systems. But I think that there won't be any rapid withdrawal of troops, and we don't have any plans yet for where they will be placed when they come back.
The major problem that we've had to face since I've been in office has been how to reinvigorate the NATO Alliance and how to make sure that the forces that we do have standing in a reserve capacity on active duty could be deployed rapidly to different parts of the world when they are needed.
So, we are cautiously carrying out a basic policy of withdrawing troops from South Korea, letting South Korea be more self-sufficient in defending themselves, analyzing recent changes in the international situation. And I don't know where the troops will be placed.
U.S. RELATIONS WITH CHINA
Q. Mr. President, Kent Collins, from Quincy, Illinois. The other day on Capitol Hill, Senator Danforth of Missouri warned that the American people and maybe your administration were putting too much faith in what he described as an elderly, twice-purged Vice Premier from China. Is there any validity to that warning? Do you worry that the Vice Premier could be ousted and the tide turned?
THE PRESIDENT. I don't, obviously, predict that that's going to happen; I don't think it's going to happen. It's always inevitable, though, that leaderships will change.
The policy that has been adopted by the People's Republic of China recently, leading toward normalization, is, so far as I know, a unanimous decision among the leadership within China. Premier Hua, who I think is only a little bit older than I am—57, 58—strongly supports this policy. Deng Xiaoping, the Vice Premier, one of the Vice Premiers, is in his early seventies. But I think it's accurate to say that the young leadership and the more elderly leadership are all unanimous in thinking this is a good idea.
There's another facet to it, and that is that their relationship with us has not been unique. They have reached out their influence and also their partnership in trade, peace, normalization, to many other countries around the world in the last couple of years, with Japan. And I noticed in the paper this morning that it was announced that they've now normalized relationships with Portugal. And Portugal will continue the administration of Macao.
But we've got an awareness that it's to China's advantage in their major modernization program which affects every one in China to retain these newly formed diplomatic, political, and trade relationships with countries throughout the world. Ours is perhaps the most important in their eyes. As far as the consequences to us, if they should change their policies in the future, I don't see any serious consequence that could evolve.
If a catastrophe should occur in China or any other country, and the existing government should be changed, then we'd have to reassess our relationships with them anew. But that's a constant responsibility that a President has. We have protected our ability to deal with the people of Taiwan in a continuing, constructive, supportive basis—trade, cultural affairs, and defense. There's nothing to prohibit a future President or a future Congress, if we feel that Taiwan is unnecessarily endangered, from interposing the American Pacific Fleet between the island and the Mainland. And there's certainly nothing to prevent a future President or Congress from even going to war, if they choose, to protect the people of Taiwan, or to protect any other people in the country [world] 1 that we look on with favor. So, we still have complete flexibility to deal with that kind of conjectural possibility if
we choose.
1 Printed in the transcript.
FARM PRICES
Q. Mr. President, Jeanie Stream, KSIB Radio, Creston, Iowa. Quite obviously, the farmers came to Washington this week. Can you tell me if you think the demands for 90 percent parity are reasonable?
THE PRESIDENT. Obviously, I think the farmers have a right not only to come to Washington but to demonstrate when they disagree with Government policy, or feel that they've been abused in getting an equitable treatment in our economic system.
I think the American Agricultural Movement, a year or two ago, when it was first formed, effectively dramatized the plight of farmers. The new agriculture bill went into effect in October of 1977. It has worked very well. There is no possibility of the Congress or I approving action which would lead to an across-the-board 90 percent of parity payment for all crops.
Did I answer your question?
REGISTRATION FOR THE DRAFT
Q. Mr. President, Howard Kelley from WTLV in Jacksonville, [Florida]. Ten days ago, Secretary Brown indicated that we ought to start considering registering 18-year-old men in case we need them for the military. He said while we're at it, we ought to start registering women, too. Do you agree?
THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think I agree. If we register persons for future use in some form in our country, it would probably be inevitable that we'd register both. But that doesn't mean that women will be drafted, or that men will be drafted to go into the Armed Forces. Secretary Brown gave me a brief memorandum and said that we ought to explore the advisability in some way of having a record for possible drafting during any emergency of people in certain age groups. And I think if we register men, that the women should be registered as well. But I don't anticipate this happening.
FEDERAL AID TO CITIES
Q. Mr. President, Rick Beyer, from Gary, Indiana. Gary and other mid-sized American cities are in an economically depressed time. And they have a feeling that because while their costs rise, they have very little control over taxes and control over their revenues, that they are very dependent upon the Federal Government. And this is particularly true in Indiana, where the State has imposed a tax—
THE PRESIDENT. You're talking about the city government officials now?
Q. Yes, I am—for instance, the mayor and deputy mayor of Gary. They feel it's especially true in Indiana now, where there's a State-imposed tax freeze, and the city cannot raise its income from any sort of taxes. They feel that they are dependent upon the Federal Government and that when the Federal Government gives a lot of money to cities, that they are better off when the money stays the same or increases in real terms, and you still have inflation, that they become somewhat worse off.
I have a two-part question. Given that very strong feeling on the part of the city officials, can you tell me what basis you disagree with that—as you have said that you do in the past—and that your 1980 budget, which includes some of these decreases, will not hurt cities? And the second part of the question is, do you think there might ever come a time in 4, 5, 10 years, when cities would be more independent of the Federal Government, and if so, what would it take? I guess that's about four questions, all in one.
THE PRESIDENT. I noticed that. [Laughter]
First of all, I agree that the cities are better off the more Federal funds they get. Secondly, I see the difference between cities and county governments on the one hand, and State governments on the other. State governments have complete flexibility under the Constitution to levy what taxes they choose, very few exceptions involving international trade, for instance. City and county governments can only levy the kinds of taxes that the State legislatures permit them to.
During my campaign years, I advocated-and when I was Governor, as well—that revenue sharing funds should be channeled to cities and local governments and not to State governments. And certainly if there's a choice between them, the cities and counties should get the priority.
We have substantially increased allocation of funds for local governments since I've been in office, including the fiscal year 1980 budget. This includes some—many requests that I've made to the Congress that were carried out, plus some that have not yet been carried out, like countercyclical funds. But there will be another increase next year in things like water and sewage funds, recreation funds, and a continuation of large amounts of money for CETA jobs, and others that will help the cities directly.
So, the trend has certainly, strongly, in the last few years, been in the direction of increasing Federal aid. There might be an inclination on the part of the Congress to kind of level off the increase, but I don't see any possibility in the future of eliminating Federal aid for the cities.
Q. Is your answer to the second part of my question then that there is probably not a possibility in the next 5 or 10 years of cities becoming more independent from the Federal Government or from the States, even?
THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe so, but I'll have to say that that's a two-way responsibility. If the States should give city governments an unlimited right to levy whatever taxes they choose, I think that would be a serious mistake. I would not do it as Governor. Secondly, the Congress is intensely lobbied by local government officials at the county and city level, and I think the Congress and my predecessors here in the White House have been very sensitive to the needs of local governments.
So, I don't see any prospect at all of the cities having to become more independent of financial aid from the Federal Government. The trend has been just the opposite, an increasing allocation of Federal aid for local governments.
MS. BARIO. Thank you, sir.
THE PRESIDENT. Well, one more question.
EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI PEACE NEGOTIATIONS
Q. Mr. President, a policy question with regard to the upcoming Middle East talks, if I may. On the one hand, it's argued that a separate Israel-Egyptian peace would generate irresistible psychological momentum for a broader, comprehensive settlement, and such that explicit linkage would not be required. The other hand, pragmatists say that a separate peace would so tip the political and military balance in Israel's favor that there would be very little likelihood of progress in the future toward a comprehensive peace.
Which of these approaches would you press upon Israel and Egypt when they come here?
THE PRESIDENT. The United States does not have a position to put forward on a peace treaty. There's not a word or a phrase or a sentence or a paragraph that I want to see put in a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. What we do is to encourage Israel and Egypt to put forward their ideas.
In 95 percent of the total cases, they have now reached agreement. In those remaining 5, we add our good offices to propose to them, when a deadlock exists between Israel and Egypt, alternative wording and substance, hoping that they'll accept some of our proposals. If they don't, we go back to the drafting board.
But at Camp David, there was evolved a description of a comprehensive peace settlement for Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestinians who live on the West Bank and Gaza. That was one document. The other document outlined the basic principles of a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt unilaterally. But the Israel and Egypt treaty terms were also mentioned very clearly within the comprehensive settlement outline.
I think that the commitment of both Begin and Sadat was to a comprehensive peace settlement. And I've heard Prime Minister Begin say several times to President Sadat in my presence, when only the three of us were there, "I am not looking for a separate peace treaty with Egypt."
The way the negotiations have evolved, with the Palestinians and the Jordanians unwilling to participate, this has of necessity led to the bilateral discussions between Israel and Egypt. Egypt is very insistent that Israel comply with the agreement at Camp David that a comprehensive peace settlement be sought, and Israel, on the other hand, is very insistent that the peace treaty that's being evolved between Israel and Egypt not be abrogated because of factors beyond their control—for instance, the refusal of the Palestinians to participate in future negotiations.
So, I think that's where the basic deadlock exists. I, therefore, am very deeply committed to carrying out, if I can, the principles of the Camp David accords, which encompass a comprehensive settlement.
Q. You believe in linkage?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the word "linkage" has become kind of a code word, where Israel says no linkage, Egypt says linkage. I think it's better to talk about the need for a comprehensive settlement. That's language that both sides can accept without violating the honor of their own nation.
We hope that in the privacy of the upcoming discussions at the Foreign Minister level that we can make additional progress. One of the worst ways to negotiate is through the news media, because once a negotiator makes a public statement—"This is our position"—it almost becomes, to repeat myself, a violation of one's word of honor to be flexible and actually to negotiate. And I think the privacy of Camp David was the key factor in the success that we had.
So, when Dayan and Khalil come back over here, maybe around the end of this month, to meet with Secretary Vance, one of the things that we'll try to do is to have the meetings conducted in privacy so that the negotiators don't have to go out and repeat to the news media and to the public every day what their latest negotiating position might be.
I read your articles, by the way, very carefully, relating to the United Nations and other matters, and I enjoy them.
Let me say this in closing: I'm very grateful that you could come. I think the breadth and variety of your own questions is indicative of the kind of decisions that I have to make every day. I've enjoyed the job very much. I've learned in the process.
I think one of the things that gets lost because we deal with daily crises and debates and disharmonies and arguments is the basic strength and soundness of our country militarily, economically, politically, I hope, ethically. There is no country as strong as ours—no other country as strong as ours—and I think that we sometimes lose a sense of the cohesiveness that's so crucial to us.
We've learned a great deal from the visits of editors and other executives from around the country who come here. You have a different perspective from the perspective of news media representatives who stay in Washington full-time, and it's a good educational process for me to have to listen to your questions and to try to think of an accurate answer. But I'm grateful that you could come.
If you have no objection, I would like to get an individual photograph with each one of you. And I see some around the room that I've known for a long time; and I'd like to thank you for coming again. So, if you'd come by, and let me just shake hands, we'll get a photograph. I don't have time for another question as you go by though, that's the only thing.
I think you'll be meeting this afternoon with Barry Bosworth. I think you'll be impressed with him. We hope that when you leave you'll have a little clearer picture of what we do here at the White House for you.
Note: The interview began at 1:15 p.m. in the Cabinet Room at the White House. Patricia Y. Bario is an Associate Press Secretary and Barry P. Bosworth is Director of the Council on Wage and Price Stability.
The transcript of the interview was released on February 10.
Jimmy Carter, Interview With the President Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Editors and News Directors. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/248644