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

THE PRESIDENT. First of all, let me say that I'm very glad to have you at the White House. This has been a good experience for us to have the editors and executives from the electronic media come to visit with our Cabinet members, on occasion, the White House staff members, and with me. And in some instances, the Members of Congress have invited the individual editors to come to the Hill.

I'd like to say just a few words and then spend the time we have answering your questions.

ADMINISTRATION POLICIES

This past week has been a fairly busy one for us, primarily because of the visit by President Sadat, the initiation of the Panama Canal treaty debates, and continuing efforts—not so far successful—on the energy legislation.

We have, now, the Congress ready to recess. And we'll be working this weekend for an arms package to go to the Hill concerning the Middle East. I think we have made some good progress in the last 12 months in the Middle East.

Foreign Minister Dayan is in our country now. Prime Minister Begin is in Europe. And Dayan will be meeting with Secretary of State Vance and, perhaps, with me when he gets to Washington.

Roy Atherton, ¹ who's been chief negotiator in the Middle East, will go back within a week or so to continue the preparation of a statement of principles that might be adequate, we hope will be adequate enough, for King Hussein to come into the discussions on the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian question.

¹ Alfred L. Atherton, Jr., Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs.

President Sadat has made it clear to us that there will be no signing of a separate agreement between himself and Prime Minister Begin unless the resolution that I've described on the West Bank and with the Palestinians is concluded. We have benefited greatly as a nation in seeing some progress made on the Middle East, and particularly with the new direct negotiations between Egypt and Israel.

It's a very discouraging and frustrating thing to be the intermediary or the messenger boy between a group of leaders in the Middle East who won't even speak to each other. And when you carry a message from one to another, the one who receives it doesn't like it and blames the adverse message partially on the messenger. And then when the reply gets back, there's always an allegation that the United States didn't do its best to get a favorable answer. So, it's been a very constructive thing just to get direct negotiations begun.

I think the recognition by Egypt, publicly, of Israel's right to exist, right to exist permanently, right to exist in peace, is very good. And the offer by President Sadat that if a peace treaty can be worked out, that there will be full peace and not just a cessation of belligerency, is a step in the right direction.

I think Prime Minister Begin has been very forthcoming in receiving Sadat. His proposal for self-rule on the West Bank, Gaza Strip area, as presented to us here around this table, was a step in the right direction. So, we have some hopes there that we'll be successful.

The vote on the Panama Canal treaties will be, perhaps, the most important vote that I will face during my own term of office. A loss or rejection of the treaties would be, I think, a very serious blow to our Nation's interests. This is a patently bipartisan effort. All the Joint Chiefs of Staff who were appointed by Republican Presidents, the past Republican Secretaries of State, as well as the Democratic Secretaries of State, are for it, and the business community is almost unanimously for it. It's a difficult political question.

I think the news media has done an excellent job in explaining the reasons for the treaties, arguments pro and con, effectively to the public. Last year at this time the Foreign Affairs Institute, using, I think, George Gallup, showed only 8 percent of people were for the treaties; I think 70-something were against. The rest were undecided.

And the recent Gallup poll showed that a plurality for the first time was in favor of the treaties, I think 45 to 42. That was before my fireside chat. We are interested to see whether we gained or lost support as a result of my explanation to the people.

I've enjoyed this first year in office. It's been, obviously, an exciting and challenging responsibility.

Our home life has been good and pleasant. I think one of the best things that I can do as President is to keep close relationships with the people throughout the country. So, this initiation of a series of meetings with you and others like you has been very helpful to us.

One of the interesting things has been that your questions, in my opinion, have been much more substantive and pertinent in many instances than the ones I get from the White House news correspondents, because they are encaptured here in the Washington environment and you bring a fresh and a parochial approach. And I use the word "parochial" in a positive way, because you initiate questions that haven't and wouldn't ordinarily be detected or initiated here in Washington.

I'd be glad to answer a few questions now for you.

QUESTIONS

FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

Q. Mr. President, Ray Rosenblum from WMOA, in Marietta, Ohio. My cousin, Jay Solomon ¹ encouraged me to ask you this question. In view of the profound economic hardships already suffered in Ohio and the Northeast due to killer blizzards and massive snows, what do you think of expanding the statutory definition of major disasters, as opposed to the other definitions of major disasters, to permit more Federal economic assistance more rapidly to such hard-hit areas?

¹ General Services Administrator.

THE PRESIDENT. My own experience in the last number of months—we've had all kinds of disasters—has been that the present statutes are adequate. I think in the aftermath of floods or tornadoes or heavy snowstorms or extreme drought, the reports back to me, following the alleviation of suffering, have been very good.

Obviously, local business persons or homeowners or Governors or mayors who have been through that trying an experience always can accept more aid. But I think the present disaster program is adequate.

WATER AND SEWAGE PROGRAMS

Q. Mr. President, the Chicago suburbs have faced a rather severe and growing water supply crisis. They recently have been given allocations of Lake Michigan water, but the cost of financing distribution systems seems almost irresolvable by some of these communities. Are there any Federal mechanisms that they could rely on to finance these over a period of decades?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, obviously, you're familiar with the present local public works programs, the EDA programs, the CETA programs, which give help in constructive labor opportunities, and the existing water and sewage programs already and historically in existence.

We have a supplementary budget request that has been before the Congress for months, which has been held up by the repeated votes on the B-1 bomber cancellation. The Senate has voted with me on several occasions to terminate construction of the B-1 after the first four are completed, and the House is now facing another vote on this issue.

I think there's a $4 1/2 billion program in there for water and sewage programs. And this would be an additional help. We hope that that will be resolved very quickly. Obviously, I want it resolved so that we don't waste another half a billion dollars or so building the fifth and sixth B-l's which will never be useful to our country.

But there's an historic commitment among many Members of Congress to support the B-1 program, but that's the present holdup on additional help. But I think whenever we have expanded allocations of funds for education or for transportation or for housing, to some degree it relieves the local governments of a financial burden that they can then channel into special needs, obviously including drinking water in the Chicago area.

ALLOCATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAM FUNDS

Q. Some southern officials and southwestern officials are concerned that the so-called Sunbelt/Snowbelt controversy is going to mean fewer Federal dollars for them in the coming years—the Community Housing and Development Act of 1977, for an example. Are these fears justified, and does your administration plan to do anything to allay these fears?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't think they are justified. I have taken a different philosophy from some of my predecessors in trying to concentrate Federal program funds in the most intensely needful areas. I think in the past there has been a tendency—for instance, in housing, just to use one example, where money is allocated by the Congress with the intention of helping the most destitute regions—that the money is channeled out into the more affluent suburban areas because of the higher educational level, the better organizational structure, the more effective political presentation to program administrators and, quite often, also to a better understanding of what the Federal programs offer.

So, we're trying to correct that—I wouldn't say circumvention, but that distortion of congressional intent.

The way the committee chairmanships and the voting patterns are ranged, I think there's going to be an inherent balance in the allocation formulae for Federal programs. I cannot imagine any unfairness evolving as a pattern between the Snowbelt and the Sunbelt regions. If it should develop and was detected by me, then I would move in an executive way to try to correct that.

THE COAL STRIKE

Q. Mr. President, do you have any timetable for intervening in the coal strike, in view of the emergencies in Indiana and West Virginia?

THE PRESIDENT. No. We have helped in some way without invoking Taft-Hartley, both by the transfer of coal from excessive supply areas to those where the coal is not available, within States, and also to try to preserve peace by the use of the FBI and other Federal means.

We have encouraged the parties to continue to negotiate when they seem to be disappointed and inclined to stop their effort. And on one occasion, we asked Arnold Miller ² to delay a decision for 24 hours—I think he decided 48 hours—to let there be a more careful consideration of the proposed agreement before it could be rejected out of hand.

² President, United Mine Workers.

The Taft-Hartley law gives me the authority to bring the Federal Government into the discussions only if the national security is threatened, and that point has not yet been reached. We monitor on a daily basis the reserve supplies of coal, both geographically and industry by industry.

So, I will continue to keep aware of the specific needs; transfer of coal from one point to another, now, that's already available. And we still have a fairly heavy production of coal in the nonstrike areas.

NATIONAL WATER POLICY

Q. Mr. President, Craig Lesser from Charlottesville, Virginia, formerly of Cartersville, Georgia.

THE PRESIDENT. Oh, really? Well, I'm glad to hear from you.

Q. Mr. President, I was at the seminar in Denver, where we heard about water.

THE PRESIDENT. I remember.

Q. You, at that time, I believe, said that all kinds of decisions or discussions were going to be in public. How far along the road are you on a national water policy?

THE PRESIDENT. It'll be finished within the next couple of weeks and presented to me. And then I'll assess the recommendations that are derived from the different agencies of the Federal Government—the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Interior, EPA, and others—and then I'll make a decision on it. I can't tell you yet how long it would take me to decide, but the deadline for them to present it is within a couple of weeks.

Q. How comprehensive do you anticipate that's going to be?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't know yet. But I am insistent upon the fact that the Federal Government is not going to take over the responsibility for allocating water within States.

POSTAL REFORM BILL

Q. Mr. President, my name is Walter Grunfeld from Marathon, New York. I am 1 of 10,000 publishers in the weekly community field in the United States. And I'm sure that you are aware of H.R. 7700. I would like to tell you that we are wholly dependent in the weekly newspaper business on the United States mail service.

I would ask you to give the bill every consideration, and perhaps you would give us some comment on how you feel about the postal reform bill at this time.

THE PRESIDENT. My hope is that the postal reform bill as presently drafted will not get out of the Rules Committee and, if it does, that it won't pass.

Q. Mr. President, do you suggest that perhaps—is there any way that we as an association or as community publishers, since it's so important to us, can urge our association or the sponsors to modify that bill in any way?

THE PRESIDENT. It's a very complicated bill and far-reaching in its impact. It would have a very adverse effect on the Federal budget. I think that in general-I don't mean conclusively—but in general, the Congress and the President ought to stay out of the administration of the Post Office itself.

My own concern, among others, is that if the bill is approved and another $1 1/2 or $2 billion is allocated to the Post Office, that this might be an encouragement to channel that money not into better services, necessarily, but into immediate, additional increases in salaries for the postal employees.

They already receive a higher level of pay than the average Federal employee. And as you know, this has to be negotiated according to standard management-labor contract terms. Those are some of the concerns that I have.

My guess is that the majority of the Members of Congress agree with the position that I've outlined to you.

SCHOOL DESEGREGATION

Q. Mr. President, HEW has expressed displeasure with integration of the University of North Carolina school system in addition to, perhaps, Virginia. And HEW has also said it's going to monitor other States, including my State of South Carolina.

They're using the stick approach of threatening to cut off, perhaps, new Federal funds to the universities who don't desegregate and shuffle programs from mostly white schools to mostly black schools.

Do you think it proper for HEW to get into the curriculum program of the universities of, say, North Carolina, and take this approach?

THE PRESIDENT. As I'm sure you know, HEW got into the question because of a direct order from the Federal courts to ensure two primary things. One is a proper acceptance of black students in the predominantly white colleges and vice versa, so that there wouldn't be a 95- or 96-percent black or white student body.

And the second thing is to ensure that the State legislatures and State boards of regents in the predominantly black colleges didn't give them a lower level of physical and educational service as contrasted with the white colleges.

I don't think anybody could argue with those two basic principles. I think that, as you describe it, the punitive aspect of the HEW decision is quite modest. In other words, there won't be any massive withholding of Federal funds that would hurt all the students in a university system or even a single college.

But funds will only be withheld if the States are adamant against complying with the Federal court ruling. And in those cases, the funds would be withheld only for specific, narrowly defined programs that relate to the nonsegregation act.

So, I think that Joe Califano has done a very good job in dealing with that difficult question. As you know, so far as I know, South Carolina and Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida have all done quite well. The States, I understand from Secretary Califano as being a problem, are Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Q. HEW just told us the other day that in the next year or so they intend to look at other States, such as South Carolina, just to make sure they're complying.

THE PRESIDENT. I understand. Well, I'd like to reemphasize one more time, I don't deplore nor do I disagree with the action HEW is taking. But it is in direct compliance with the Federal court order.

FEDERAL REGIONAL OFFICES

Q. Mr. President, given the path that your administration has taken relative to implementing domestic programs which address the negative impact of high unemployment levels among our cities, specifically the intention of the Economic Development Administration Public Works program and the $400 million Housing and Urban Development Urban Action Grants program, it seems that many key Carter appointments within these two agencies have yet to be made. How does this situation affect the delivery of these well-intended programs? I'm referring to the Indianapolis head area office directorship, and the Chicago EDA regional office directorship.

THE PRESIDENT. Just before lunch, I came back from a conference, that has been underway now for 2 days, of all of our top regional officers representing the agencies that you've described and others. It's the first time this has ever been done.

When I came into office, I was very disappointed, as a past Governor, with the effectiveness of regional offices. And one of the options that we assessed was to eliminate these offices altogether. After 8 or 10 months of study at the Cabinet level and out in the field, we decided to put them together in a much more effective fashion, to keep them informed about basic thrusts not only of legislation itself but of implementing procedures.

We've eliminated the disharmonies among Cabinet officers that previously were mirrored at the regional level. And I've asked these regional leaders of 10 regions this morning, plus, I guess, a hundred or so others, at the end of a year to give me a report on how well they were doing to work closely with the State add local officials, to have innovative programs on their own, and to call me directly if there was ever any obstacle to good administration at the Cabinet level or at the White House staff level.

I think that we have gone through a 12-month period of complete reassessment. But I feel confident that now the regional offices will have a rapidly increasing degree of both autonomy and responsibility.

NATIONAL ENERGY PLAN

Q. Mr. President, I've been a believer in the energy program from the start. And in our house, which is 50 years old, between last year and this year, in the same month, we saved 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas through insulation measures and other measures, putting in a new furnace and this and that. Where do we stand on the energy program right now?

THE PRESIDENT. I proposed a comprehensive energy plan last April 20. The House passed it in August—a very good program which was completely acceptable to me. The Senate passed an unacceptable program, which they acknowledged to be unacceptable, just to get to conference last October or November. And since then, the conference committee of the Senate has been split 9 to 9, and not a single member has changed his vote. Senator Lee Metcalf died, which left the committee 9 to 8.

And we have not been able to get a full committee meeting even in the Senate. Senator Jackson is the chairman of the Senate conferees. He's been working literally day and night since Christmas, trying to work out some resolution of the question that's been the major obstacle, and that is the pricing of natural gas.

They've now agreed in principle on deregulation with an initial price of natural gas, an increase in natural gas, with a certain percentage per year, complete deregulation to exist some years in the future. I'm being vague because the position of the Senators is vague. They've worked out at least alternate proposals on the definition of new gas, both on land and in the Outer Continental Shelf areas.

I met this morning with Senator Howard Baker. I met the day before yesterday with Senator Jackson. And both of them feel that we will have an energy bill. After we finish the natural gas deregulation discussion in the Senate, then before there's an actual vote, there would be a meeting with the House conferees and Dr. Schlesinger, who would represent me, and there would be a fairly general consensus that this is what we will support.

Then the conference committee will send their recommendations back to the House and Senate. That would leave the oil pricing legislation as the only remaining issue. And I've had indications from the Senators, Senator Long and others, that once the natural gas problem is resolved, there would be a fairly rapid decision on the crude oil equalization tax question—whether or not they have a reserve fund to enhance oil production and how the collected taxes would be distributed.

So, I've been very disappointed at the delay. The first veto of a natural gas deregulation bill was in 1950, 28 years ago. And I have never seen in my own experience, and the Members of Congress tell me that they've never seen such a complicated subject with so many highly conflicting and intensely held opinions and with such a repeated and ancient commitment expressed for conflicting points of view by previous votes.

It's very hard for a Congress Member to vote five times in a row for deregulation instantly and then decide that he'll wait 8 years before it's deregulated, or 5 years, and so forth. The inability to compromise has been very hard. But I would say that we will have bills. It's of crucial importance. And I think the Congress is feeling an increasing desire to resolve this issue once and for all. My understanding from the Senate leaders is that as soon as the Panama Canal treaties are completed, that energy will be the number one item on the agenda.

TAX REFORM

Q. Mr. President, you've recommended a $25 billion tax cut program. The Republicans on the other hand have the Kemp-Roth bill, which would cut taxes by about 33 percent over a 3-year period. Why do you think your package is better than theirs?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, you know, as President, I had all the options to choose from. We assessed tax packages all the way from $10 billion to $50 billion. And I felt that we needed several things related to taxes: One was a reform of some of the inequities that seemed to me to be obvious to provide more fairness; secondly, a substantial simplification of the tax laws and, therefore, the tax forms to be filled out; and an overall tax reduction.

I think that our proposal reduces the taxes of a four-person family, for everyone in the country who makes less than $100,000 or $200,000. And it more than compensates in almost every instance for the increase in social security taxes.

The primary people that are having to pay increased social security taxes are those who make $20,000, roughly, or above. They deliberately ignore the fact that although they are paying more for social security, their retirement benefits under social security will be substantially enhanced because they'll have a higher level of income on which to base their ultimate monthly retirement benefits. So, I think that in balance that the purposes are met.

As far as the choice between $20 billion and $30 billion or $25 billion or $15 billion or $35 billion—that's somewhat of an arbitrary figure. I wanted to be sure that our deficit this year, this coming year, was no larger than the one this year, in spite of the tax decrease. A $25 billion tax reduction shows up as a $15 billion or $20 billion net increase in the deficit. Without that, we would have had a substantial reduction. That's one factor.

Next year, the deficit would be much less than it is in the '79 budget. I wanted to be sure we didn't contribute to increased inflation. And this is another important matter. I think that we wanted to have some economic stimulation.

Our goal is to continue a downward trend in unemployment, although it would be a slight downward trend as we project it in 1978. And I wanted to try to have a target of 4 3/4 to 5 percent on increasing the GNP in real terms.

In our judgment, mine and the economists who work with me—the Secretary of Treasury, Commerce, and others—the $25 billion figure was the one that best fit all those requirements.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Q. Mr. President, it was mentioned earlier this morning that there may be some reconsideration being given to the social security bill. Can you comment on that? Are you reconsidering or do you know if the Members of Congress are reconsidering?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think all of the Members of Congress are concerned. As you know, the bill that was passed by Congress was much more costly to the working families, the taxpayers, than the one we proposed.

We thought that there ought to be some shift of funds from one social security reserve fund to another when needed, and that when the inflation rate and the unemployment rate had an exceptionally high drain on the social security system, that general funds should be used and triggered for those transient times.

The Congress rejected both those elements and put all the burden of paying the social security increase on the working families themselves. I think there will be a continuing reassessment of how to better balance the origin of the funds.

With a lowered unemployment rate and, I guess, more specifically, a much higher participation in the labor force, you tend to build up the reserve funds for a given level of taxation. That will help. I think the unemployment compensation payments are dropping off.

So, a growing economy will help us to protect the integrity of the social security system. The present level of social security payments is completely attributable not to this past year's legislation, but to previous legislation that had built in automatic increases. And that's something that the public has forgotten, as well. But I don't see any substantial change in the social security income and payment.

The system has got to have fiscal integrity on a permanent basis. And I think this will provide it. There may be some modification by the Congress in the future of exactly where the origin of those funds might be and more flexibility in shifting money from one fund to another.

MR. WURFUL. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank all of you. I've really enjoyed being with you and hope you've had a good time coming to the White House. It was an experience that I never had. [Laughter]

And I want to express my thanks again for the great coverage that we've gotten from you—both approbation and criticism -it's very helpful. Every night about 9:30 or 10 o'clock, I get a news summary of, I guess, 8 or 10 pages, that comes upstairs to the White House. And it has selected editorial comments from, I think, about 200 papers in the Nation.

We have a summary of each item on the evening network news and how many seconds were devoted to that subject. And we have the AP and UPI reports that come to me that evening. And of course, I read a lot of newspapers and magazines myself. But the feedback from around the country on a daily basis, or even more frequently, serves as a great guide to us about what the needs of our people are.

We quite often detect the unsuccessful administration of a program or an undetected need from what you report to your own readers and listeners and viewers. And I just want to thank you for giving me this chance to reestablish a good relationship with you, at least as far as communications goes.

You know, I don't know all the answers. I've learned a lot in this past year. And I think we've got a good working relationship with the Congress that perhaps did not exist 8 or 10 months ago. I've learned about them. They've learned about me. And there's an ease of communication and exchange of ideas that didn't exist this time last year.

Thank you very much.