Interview With the President Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Members of the American Society of Magazine Editors.

THE PRESIDENT. Hi, everybody. I apologize for interrupting Jody— [laughter] -and your session.

Let me say, first of all, that it's a great pleasure and an honor for me to have you here at the White House. Since I've been in office this is the 30th session we've had with special groups who represent the major news media in our country. I know that you collectively have subscriptions of, I understand, over 100 million people. And for us to be able to let you know what we are trying to do is very important to us, as well as to our country.

ADMINISTRATION POLICIES

Domestically, the main challenge that I have on a constant, day-by-day basis is to try to get control of the Federal bureaucracy so that it can be managed in an effective and efficient way to deliver services to our people. This afternoon's vote-or perhaps it might be delayed—on civil service reform is the most important single example of that.

Another one is to control budget spending, to cut down the deficit. And we've had very good success in cutting the deficit down. In 1976, when I ran for President, the deficit was in the sixties of billions of dollars. In fiscal year '78, really the first one I prepared, it was in the fifties of billions; fiscal year '79, which will start in October, in the forties of billions. And I hope that we'll cut it down another $10 billion by the fiscal 1980 year budget. So, to control the budget is very important.

The Congress has been helpful to some degree, but there is still some old, ancient, pork barrel-type legislation that really. costs a lot of money and wastes a lot of money. One is the public works bill that is being considered by the Congress next week, which adds back the unnecessary water projects that were put out last year by Congress, doubles the number of new water projects, adds literally thousands of unnecessary Federal employees. And I think that this slow process of change from wastefulness to tight management is very important.

Energy is another area over which we are trying to get control, working very closely with the private sector of our economy. We now import nine times more dollars' worth of oil than we did 6 years ago, which is an extraordinary drag on our Nation's economy—it costs us jobs, it creates inflation—and a very difficult issue with which to deal.

And of course, inflation itself, I think, is the most important single issue that concerns me, my whole administration, the people of this country and, I know, the Congress as well.

These kinds of issues have been postponed too long. We've had inflation with us for about 13 years, at roughly a 6 percent average level. And it's crept up this first half year because of high interest rates and also high food prices. We hope that the last half, it'll come down. But we still have an underlying inflation rate that's very tenacious, very difficult to reduce.

Our adverse trade balance is caused by several factors, the most important of which is the unnecessary waste of oil and other energy in our country and the excessive imports of oil. We hope that the Congress will act on this legislation which, as you know, has been before them since April of 1977. And I think that we have made good progress. But I primarily would like to point out to you not things we've already achieved, but things we are working on now.

In foreign affairs, of course, there are a series of serious responsibilities that I have as President; others before me have had the same sorts of challenges. One of the most tenacious is the Mideast. We hope to make some progress there, but we recognize the great difficulty involved. We are going ahead with SALT negotiations on an uninterrupted basis.

We've made good progress, I think, so far in reasserting, or asserting really for the first time, American influence in Africa, particularly southern Africa. We have a tenuous agreement involving Namibia. United Nations representatives have arrived there now. We have hopes that this nation—formerly South West Africa under German control many years ago, now under South African control-will be a new, independent democracy.

We still have a serious problem with Rhodesia, trying to get the leaders of the Patriotic Front and the Salisbury Group together. We are adding our good offices under trying circumstances, working closely with the British there. In every instance, though, we are working through the United Nations with other nations, not trying to impose our will unilaterally on people, but letting majority rule prevail and letting democracy, as best we can forge it with our limited influence in some instances, be realized.

I think in the general sense—and the last thing I would like to comment—we've tried to restore the image of our country to one worthy of admiration.

I know that all of you remember just 2 years ago or 3 years ago or 5 years ago, every time the United Nations General Assembly met in New York, we were the butt of all the attacks, the butt of all the jokes, target of the vituperative speeches made by the less developed countries-small countries, black countries, new countries, weak countries. That's changed. I think they have a new understanding of our interest in them. And I think with our human rights stance, there's been a resurgence of admiration for our country, comprehension of the principles on which our Nation was founded and on which it exists.

Andy Young has done a superb job in letting those people who have formerly been excluded from consideration in many decisions made in our country—we've let them know that we care about them.

And I believe in many ways we've had some success. At home a year ago, 15, 18 months ago, the overriding concern was unemployment. The Congress did a superb job last year in laying the basis for economic stimulation and a reduction in the unemployment rate. We've had a net increase of over 6 1/2 million jobs, never before this many added so rapidly, and the unemployment rate has dropped almost a full 2 percentage points—still pockets of very serious unemployment. And we are trying to address the inflation problem and unemployment, adverse trade balances, management of the Government-all these things as one comprehensive package.

I'll be glad to answer any questions from you now, and we'll try to break this up 2 or 3 minutes early so that I might get an individual photograph with you, all of you, if you have no objection.

QUESTIONS

ENERGY

Q. Mr. President, our magazine is releasing a survey this weekend on energy, a survey of U.S. and foreign editors, and it shows the foreigners are more concerned than Americans about energy, not only about when the oil will run out but about the devastating effects on the dollar. And my question is why you haven't tied the dollar sickness more to the energy imports we have and, also, whether you have any plans to step up your efforts to get your energy program adopted, perhaps through town meetings or those phone-a-thons that you did so well early in your administration.

THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe I've ever had a town meeting that we haven't made this basic thrust in my carefully prepared agenda for the meeting ahead of time. I answer questions, but I generally have an opening comment. I've had three fireside chats since I've been in office; two of them have been exclusively on energy. I've had one address to the Congress, other than my State of the Union message. That only address to the Congress has been on energy.

And every time I go overseas, it's obvious to me that the foreign leaders share my concern about energy. Unfortunately, we've not been able to sustain the concern among the American public about how serious overuse of energy is and oversupplies of energy from foreign sources are to the integrity of our own economic system. I think a lot of foreign leaders and people throughout the world see this as a sign of weakness on the part of our country, a lack of will to address a very difficult and challenging problem.

We have worked without ceasing, really for 20 months, even more. We began before I was inaugurated to bring to the Congress and to the people, for the first time, an energy policy. The shortage has been evident since, I'd say, no later than 1973. And the Congress is addressing it. But I think the American people, since they don't have demonstrable shortages, they don't have lines at the service station, they don't have interruptions of electricity to their homes, their houses don't get cold in the winter, in most instances they have not yet realized how serious it is.

But the deterioration of the dollar overseas is directly attributable to this factor; there are obviously some other factors. And the weakening of economic esteem for our country is directly attributable to this factor, and the high inflation rate that we experience is attributable to the same factor—overimport, overwaste of energy.

Obviously, in every case there are other factors as well. But we are trying to dramatize it. And this is one thing you can certainly do. I think your article—although I don't have any idea what it will be—will help to do this. But there's been an escalation and a waning of interest in the energy problem.

Hamilton Jordan, who is one of my chief aides, did an analysis, I think, about April or May this year. He analyzed the number of minutes on the evening network news devoted to different issues that we considered to be crucial. And with the exception of those peaks of interest when I made those major speeches, the evening news media have practically no interest in the energy problem. CBS did have one 3-hour program, and the viewership was quite low, particularly the last 2 hours and a half. [Laughter]

But I think you all have not only a legitimate interest, but also you share a responsibility with me to do what you can to keep the energy problem before the American people. I would like to see it resolved by the Congress, which will be a major step forward, before it becomes a crisis for the American people.

EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN

Q. In either May or June, depending on which statistics you read, Women's Bureau or Department of Labor statistics, the working woman became the new majority of American women; 50.4 percent, I think, was the June figure. I wonder what your administration is planning to do to support women as they undergo this extraordinary piece of social history, must learn to live with it and take part in it?

THE PRESIDENT. Let me just give you two quick statements, then perhaps you would want to ask a followup.

This morning I had a meeting around this table with a group of activists-women and men, Members of the Congress, and others—who are trying to pursue the passage of the equal rights amendment, the extension of time for its ratification, and the prohibition against the rescission of ratification already taken by some States. Not only I myself, as President, but my whole family has worked and is working on the ERA. That would be one major step forward.

Another example that I mentioned earlier is the civil service reform legislation. At this time, women are practically excluded from the senior positions in the civil service itself. Among the executive level, I think, GS-17 and 18, 65 percent of those executives are white male veterans; only 3 percent are women. And at the present time, the civil service laws and regulations still provide a major obstacle for job opportunities for women.

There are cases where women score 100, a perfect score, on a very tough, competitive civil service examination, and they still would rank, in an order of priority for that job, higher than a hundred-they have more than a hundred people ahead of them. And we are limited at the present time by civil service regulations that only let us consider the top three. So, we are trying to make some changes in that respect.

We've consolidated, with one of our successful reorganization plans, the equal employment opportunity groups in the Government. We had seven when I became President, and now we've narrowed it down so that Eleanor Holmes Norton has, in effect, the dominant role to play there. We have, as you know, through the EEOC and also through the Justice Department, initiated several suits that are test cases that might set a standard for the resolution of the large backlog of cases where women had filed legitimate complaints about being excluded, not only from Government employment but private employment. Those are some of the things that we are doing already.

ROSALYNN CARTER

Q. A personal question, if I may. How much influence would you say Mrs. Carter has on you? Do you talk things over profoundly?

THE PRESIDENT. I would hate to admit how much. [Laughter]

Q. And do you fight?

THE PRESIDENT. Oh, no, we don't. We get along well. Sometimes we have arguments about things that at the time seem important, but later on, we realize are not important. But this would involve things like how late Amy can stay up at night and whether she can see a PG-rated movie or not, those kinds of things. But that's the limit.

Rosalynn is an extremely knowledgeable and sensitive person, is very strongwilled. I think she understands the consciousness of the American people and their attitudes, perhaps better than do I. She's a full partner with me in every sense of the word. And with the exception of top-secret material, where security restrains me, I share almost everything with her.

I seek her advice on matters. She is even involved in foreign affairs, and needs to be. She accompanies me on my trips. She's made several overseas trips independently of me. And I think that when a foreign leader has, in effect, underestimated her before she arrived, after they leave and they see how well she understands our Nation and how close she is to me, they are very gratified that she has come. This is particularly applicable in Latin America. She happens to speak Spanish.

She's now representing me this morning in Rome at the funeral of the Pope. I just attended a mass for the Pope at St. Matthew's Cathedral, and when I arrived there, they were very complimentary about the arrival statement that Rosalynn had made.

So, in all those ways and many others, she's a full partner with me and is an extension of myself.

When I can't go to visit a certain country for the inauguration of a President or for a substantive discussion about issues with which she is familiar, she goes and represents me. So, I'd say in many ways she's a full partner with me.

SENATOR EDWARD KENNEDY

Q. If I could ask a political question, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT. Of course.

Q. It seems to me, reading the publications we're representing, well, that there's a resurgence of interest in the Kennedy family. Many of us have published stories involving members of that family, to the point where it seems possible that Senator Kennedy is being groomed for a challenge to you in 1980. My question is, are you—

THE PRESIDENT. You mean, by the news media? [Laughter]

Q. My question is, are you prepared for a challenge by Senator Kennedy or some other Democrat in 1980?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I take Ted Kennedy at his word. He has said he's not going to run in 1980. He said, if I run, he will support me, and I have no reason to doubt him. He's said this many times in the past. Sometimes his word has been doubted. He's always done what he said he would.

I might say that I don't fear any competition that I might get in 1980. And when I began my plans to run for President fairly early in 1972—April, as a matter of fact, of '72—I thought that my two opponents would be Senator Kennedy and Governor George Wallace. And I was perfectly willing, even eager, to meet both of them, even when I was an absolutely unknown candidate with practically little money and no nationwide organization.

So, he's a great person and a good, close friend of mine. I say that with a little bit of caution, because I don't want to exaggerate the number of close friends I have. He's one of them. I had lunch with him yesterday. I think that if you would analyze the Members of the Senate and who supported us on controversial issues when my administration had a clear preference, that he would be at the top. I don't know of another Senator among the hundred who has a higher record of support for my programs. And I appreciate this very much.

There are some times when we differ, but it's a difference with a mutual degree of respect. So, if he should decide to run, I would certainly not let that influence my decision as to whether or not I would run. But my belief is that he will not.

ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Q. The Energy Department and EPA appear to be at rather sharp odds on protecting air and water quality, while increasing coal production. How much environmental quality is the administration willing to sacrifice to meet your stated energy goals?

THE PRESIDENT. Very little. We assessed very carefully the degree of air pollution and water pollution that would result from our energy package in its totality. And we're very cautious not to expect any sort of coal used to cause a deterioration in the quality of our environment.

We are insistent that coal, when burned, be burned as cleanly as possible. There's a specific legal limit on how much air pollution can be accommodated in industrial centers, and until a point source of pollution is retired, a new one cannot be instituted.

I think the coal industry is very eager to see this done, as well. The techniques are being improved as time goes on. And I don't think there's any difference in opinion between the Department of Energy and the EPA. Obviously, there are some times when they disagree, but I, if necessary, resolve those differences.

We have a need to shift strongly toward increased use of coal. One of the results of the recent coal workers contract that has not been adequately assessed is the stability that it is bringing to the coal industry, that the number of wildcat strikes are going down. I think people who would be inclined to use coal now see much more clearly that their supply in the future would be more assured than was the case before the contract was negotiated.

So, I think with a complete commitment on the part of this administration and the Congress to maintain the quality of our environment, with technology being exerted to a maximum degree to make coal burning even more efficient and cleaner, and with more assured supplies of regular deliveries of coal because of better contracts and, obviously, better engineering techniques, I believe all these factors will increase the use of coal in the future. We hope to have a billion tons a year used, I think, by 1985, which is about a 40- or 50-percent increase.

RELATIONS WITH THE CONGRESS

Q. Mr. President, do you feel that under our system it's almost inevitable, or perhaps even mandatory, that an effective President have strong clashes with Congress and its dominant personalities? THE PRESIDENT. Well, I would think so. There is an historical delineation of responsibility and perspective. The average Member of Congress has a very narrowly focused, parochial interest—not just geographical; certainly each one is interested in his or her own district—but Congress leaders tend to specialize after a period of years. They become a member of a committee or two. They then become chairman of a subcommittee. They then become, perhaps, chairman of a committee if they are quite senior. And their concentrated knowledge about a subject is highly valuable to our country, to the Congress, and certainly to me, as President.

But that means that on occasion there will be differences of opinion. I wouldn't criticize, for instance, any Member of Congress who was instrumental in passing the public works bill, which has excessive spending, excessive numbers of Federal employees required, and which authorizes projects that I think are unnecessary. These Members of Congress have been working with those projects for years. And I just think that it's time for us to save money and to have a more efficient government and to spend our money where it's needed, not wasted. So, I think the answer is that it is inevitable.

We've had good success, though, with the Democratic Congress. The news media and the people themselves have an exaggerated interest in the combat, the debate, the differences, the disputes, even the adverse votes in Congress. The positive reaction of Congress to many of my proposals, the achievements when Congress approves the proposals and even the positive votes after a subcommittee votes no-in the morning paper this will be on the headline. If the full committee the next day votes yes, this will not be on the front page in the headlines. I don't say that to criticize the news media, but to emphasize that the general public's interest is in the negative votes and the disputes.

So, even though we do have differences, we achieve an adequate degree of harmony. I'm very jealous of the prerogatives of the President; the congressional leaders are jealous of the legislative prerogatives. And when we have a serious difference, of course, the courts make a decision or the laws are changed. But this is part of our system of government. I think it's a good system.

VIEWS ON THE PRESIDENCY

Q. If tapes had been running all during the 2 years of your administration, which 18 minutes would you choose to erase? [Laughter]

THE PRESIDENT. Well, let me say first of all that no tapes have been running- [laughter] —except when the microphone is obvious, and the tapes will be made public. We don't have tapes. I would rather not answer that question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me. [Laughter] But it's a good question.

U.S. PRODUCTIVITY RATES

Q. Mr. President, on the topic of productivity, what principal actions might the U.S. take to stimulate innovation and productivity?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, the productivity rate is still going up, quite slowly, unfortunately, 1 percent or less, whereas 7 or 8 years ago it was 3 percent per year.

Our country is going through an inevitable historical period when the productivity rate of increase is low. One reason is that we have begun to correct a longstanding defect in air and water pollution, where now, available supplies of financial investment funds are being spent not to increase production, but to improve the quality of air and water and to lessen the pollution effects. Once this is caught up, then that same amount of money can be used to increase productivity. Other countries will have to do this later on if they haven't already come to that awareness.

Another factor is the health and safety of our workers. In the past, I think we've seen evolving a much deeper concern for the health and safety of our workers, and the strength of the organizations of workers, the labor unions have let their voices be heard. That's another factor that causes us to have low productivity rate increase compared to other countries.

Another one is that our Nation has been prosperous for a long time. And we've tended to shift to a style of life that not only has a shorter work week than many nations, but which also has more of an investment or interest in service—one human being working in a career to make the life of another human being more pleasant or more healthy, and so forth. And this doesn't show up in productivity. If someone takes, say, a million dollars and builds a recreation center or a Broadway theater or a motion picture theater or produces phonograph records or has a national symphony organized, that doesn't show up in the productivity of our Nation, but it gives our people a better life.

My understanding of the statistics is that even when you have a dry-cleaning establishment, that that doesn't show up in productivity, although it lets us have a better life and more freedom.

So, those are some factors that can't very well be changed. I would say that labor-management harmony, longstanding contracts, a creation of more financial capital through tax measures, and so forth, so that it's very efficient, would increase investment; it would provide more jobs and more capital investment per worker. One, for instance, would be the comparison between, say, accelerated depreciation rates, which would encourage immediate investments, compared to a ridiculous capital proposal like the Steiger amendment, which only lets very rich people avoid paying their share of taxes.

So, I would say in all those factors, we will have an opportunity to improve production rates.

One other difference between our country and others—I don't want to give you too long an answer—is that we don't depend nearly so much on international trade, exports, as do other nations. I think that the percentage of our GNP devoted to exports is maybe 6 or 7 percent. Germany would be 30 percent, for instance. And it's life or death for their business community, in its totality, to be highly competitive in production so they can compete on the international market. Obviously, we have some firms in the United States who do the same thing and do it very well. But we don't have that driving force behind our whole consciousness of business and professional leaders in this country—exports, exports, exports; whereas in Germany and Japan, that is the battle cry.

And the last factor that I'll say is that in many ways, our heaviest industry is not so modern as is the case in, say, Japan and Germany, where their industrial fabric was destroyed in the Second World War and has recently been built back. This would apply, for instance, to steel production.

So, those are some of the factors that have to be improved to increase productivity.

MR. WURFEL. Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. I didn't mean to give you a dissertation. I will answer one more question.

Q. Do you think that we are investing enough in basic research to ensure our future in this area of productivity?

THE PRESIDENT. No. That's another factor that I should have mentioned. In the last 10 years, in particular—I'd say 15 years, in particular—the percentage of GNP or business income spent on basic research and development has dropped substantially; the same with government.

One of the substantial changes that I have made in preparing the Federal budget has been to increase the portion of each major agency's budget that goes into basic research and development. This is carried out not only within government in laboratories and so forth but with direct grants to colleges and universities, in addition to that, in some appropriate ways, to encourage business through government sharing of costs to improve research and development.

I would say that the countries that have maintained a high commitment to research and development have a tendency to have much higher productivity. I think we might be suffering in 1978 because 15 years ago, there was a lessening in research and development commitment among business.

One reason, of course, is the extreme incentive that permeated the American scientific and technological industries with the space program, when during the sixties, we had a major thrust there. And this permeated the whole structure of our economy, not only in electronics, computers, but also in health care and other factors.

So, I'd say research and development is a very fruitful investment. And we're trying to turn that trend around.

We have an opportunity in some areas to do this again. I don't mean to put another man on Mars instead of the Moon, but in the energy field, for instance. And we are exploring now how we can have a composite, focused R. & D. program to alleviate our energy shortage and to make us more self-sufficient. But that, in itself, would stimulate our whole economy, would give a spirit of adventure and entrepreneurship to leaders in business and the professions and, I think, would pay rich dividends in the future in the rate of increase of our own productivity.

We've got a stable country. We've got a very strong country. And although we sometimes tend to emphasize, through the news media and through the statements of farmers like myself, through statements that come out of Wall Street or major corporations, the temporary aberrations or the temporary disappointments or the temporary statistics that show a negative factor, in general, ours is still the strongest nation on Earth, the best nation on Earth.

We're blessed with natural resources that many others don't have. And our system of government, I think, is obviously the best in the world. So, we've got a lot to be thankful for, even though we do suffer on occasion from temporary setbacks that are transient in nature.

Thank you very much.