Interview With the President Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Members of the International Labor Press Association.

THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon everybody. How are you doing? I hope I'm not interrupting your meeting. [Laughter] Have you had a nice day so far?

I'd like to outline very briefly some of the things that have been accomplished and some of the problems that we still face, and then spend what time we have available answering your questions.

ADMINISTRATION POLICIES

As you well know, when I was inaugurated President a year and a half ago the prime concern of our Nation was unemployment. The Congress cooperated well, and with your help we were able to put into effect an economic stimulus package that's been very productive in providing jobs. We now have about 95 million Americans on the job, the highest it's ever been. We've had a net increase of 6 1/2 million jobs just in the last year and a half. We've had about 5 million people added to the work force. As they became sure they could get a job, more have applied for jobs, and we've had a net reduction in those who are unemployed of 1.5 million.

This has been a very gratifying experience. Some key types of workers have had notable reductions. Among blue-collar workers the unemployment rate is down 30 percent. Among Vietnam veterans the unemployment rate is down 40 [33] percent. And among construction workers the unemployment rate is down 40 percent.

We have, at the same time, a continual problem with inflation that's been pressing upon us now for about 10 years, an underlying inflation rate of around 6 1/2 percent. The only way I know to deal with this is by very tough management of the Government. Someone's got to get control of the bureaucracy, control of the energy problem, control of the economy. And there needs to be an inspiration so that all of us work together—in the private sector, labor and business, individual citizens; local, State, and Federal Government leaders, certainly myself as President, and the Congress. There is an awareness, I think, that the bureaucracy itself needs to be more effective, and we have tried to deal with some of the more controversial issues that affect us all.

Energy is now the most important as a single issue. Last night there was signed, as you know, finally, a conference report between the House and the Senate on the natural gas issue. We still have a very tough battle on our hands to get this legislation approved by the House and Senate and implemented into law.

This would leave us with one remaining item, and that's the crude oil equalization tax. It's imperative that we raise the price of crude oil up to the world market price, to stabilize markets and also to reduce the waste brought about by excessive use. And what we want to do is to impose the tax, but return the tax collected directly to consumers, so that we won't have inflation and we won't have any reduction in overall stimulus to the economy and the buying power of the American people.

The alternatives to that are not good at all. By a very thin hair, I and my predecessors, all the way back to Harry Truman, have been faced with the prospect of complete deregulation of oil and/or gas. I think Harry Truman vetoed back as far as 1950 a bill that was passed by the Congress deregulating natural gas. We've tried to make sure that the consumers are protected in this respect.

I believe that we have also a very good chance to pass the civil service reform legislation. I know this is of concern to some of you.

We would like to change into law the Executive order under which Federal employees now carry out their legitimate bargaining rights. As you know, as long as it's only an Executive order, in case of an emergency or if we had a President in office who was not friendly with labor, just by the stroke of a pen the order could be renounced and terminated. And we are trying to put this into law. There are some who are opposing the civil service reform and they might prevent this happening at all.

I think rather than my outlining to you the problems that we have and the opportunities we have with defense and foreign affairs, it might be better for me to spend the rest of the time answering your questions.

I'd be glad to answer any questions that I can, and then following that, if you don't mind, for about 3 minutes or so I would like to ask my staff to call time so that you can come by, and it might give me a chance to have an individual photograph made with you.

Yes?

QUESTIONS

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS

Q. Mr. President, I am Jerry Archuleta, editor of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers newspaper, from Denver, Colorado.

As far as my union is concerned, one of the greatest achievements of your administration is the change you have made in the Labor Department, and particularly in the direction that OSHA is taking.

Your appointment of Ray Marshall and Dr. Bingham have been nothing but beneficial as far as working people of this country are concerned. And thousands of lives have been saved, and many more thousands of lives have been lengthened and prolonged as a result of the changes that have taken place.

My question is: Do you think the economic impact on companies such as the textile industry or the inflationary impact on the U.S. economy should serve as constraints on your administration when it comes to protecting the well-being and the health and safety of American workers?

THE PRESIDENT. Belatedly in our country we have had an aroused citizenry influence government at all levels to give us protection that we formerly have not had—the general public in air pollution, water pollution, for instance, and the workers themselves in health and safety.

The corrective action that has been implemented has been long overdue, and we still are feeling our way along about how this can be made more effective. One thing we did, for instance, with miners, was to put the administration of the health and safety regulations under the Department of Labor itself. I think it'll be more attuned to the specific needs of workers.

We've tried to do this in such a way that it could get the approval of employers and the general public. I think for a long time, because of an inadequate commitment to what OSHA stands for, the previous administration got bogged down in sometimes frivolous and ridiculous writing of rules and regulations that not only did not protect the workers adequately but turned the general public and the employer against the program itself. Dr. Bingham and Ray Marshall have tried to bring some order out of that chaos.

They spent too much time trying to write specific descriptions of what a safe chair might be or what a safe ladder might be or a safe handrail. And if you took this whole group and spent a week, you couldn't write all the characteristics of what is a safe ladder or chair.

Instead, we need to have strict standards enforced about the kinds of health threats that are not easily detectable by an employee or even a trained scientist-chemicals and other health threats. I think in the distinction between health on the one hand and safety on the other, we've made a great step forward.

There's a much more general acceptance now of what OSHA is trying to do. I don't think that we should ever endanger the lives of American workers, but I believe it is very healthy that Dr. Bingham, Ray Marshall, myself, all of us, as we impose improved regulations, for instance, in the cotton dust standards, that we do it in the most efficient way and the least disruptive way.

We have not backed off at all on the quality of protection of the workers' health in breathing air with cotton dust in it. At the same time, we've cut down tremendously on the potential cost of these regulations. The workers are pleased, the Department itself is pleased, and the employers are able, I think, now to make the corrective action without having to close down plants that may have been closed if the burden on them financially was just more than they could bear.

So, to summarize, we need not ever to reduce the high standards that are being set for air pollution, water pollution, safety and health of workers. At the same time, we need to have a cost-effective program and one where the regulations are practical and make common sense. This is better for the workers; it's better for the employers; it's better for our overall economy. I think it arouses support from the American public.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE

Q. Mr. President, I'm Don Stillman from the United Auto Workers magazine, Solidarity. We've seen the hospital/doctor/insurance company lobby fight vigorously against your cost containment proposals in the health care area. We are very much in favor of a national health insurance proposal, as you are. Yet, while we're in favor of phasing, we have questions about whether or not it's a practical matter to break national health insurance proposals into a number of components, one not going into effect or not going to the Congress unless the health care industry has an inflation rate that's limited in some manner.

Why do you think that breaking up of national health into a number of components would have success in the Congress?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, we've had some success already in imposing, through the Congress, improved legislation on our Nation. At the same time, I've learned about the high fragmentation of legislative responsibility within the House and Senate and the difficulty of getting comprehensive bills passed.

We would never have gotten the energy bill passed through Congress had not the Speaker of the House set up an ad hoc committee that brought together all the various committees that were responsible for energy. A typical example is the one you mentioned that creates a problem. Hospital cost containment is a relatively simple concept, certainly much simpler than energy, welfare reform, tax reform, or national health insurance in its totality.

But even that legislation—which I don't think was adequately supported, by the way, from labor—has not been passed because of the gamut it has to run. It's got to go through the Health subcommittee and committee, the Commerce subcommittee and committee, the Ways and Means subcommittee and committee, the Rules committee, then to the House floor, and then to be voted on.

And the special interest groups, the medical profession and the hospital associations, are so intense and effective in their lobbying effort to protect their enormous and unwarranted profits that they prevail in the absence of a common American interest.

I am strongly in favor, as you know, of a comprehensive and universal health insurance program for our country. My belief is that it can only be passed if the Congress and the American public are convinced that it will work, that it can be administered, that it will have a net saving for a given level of health care, compared to what we presently have, and that overall costs can be controlled.

I would hope that as the proposals are made for prevention of disease, for more universal coverage of those who are ill and need medical care, for further use of paramedical personnel rather than just medical doctors themselves, for hospital cost containment, that I would have the full support of Members of the Senate like Senators Nelson and Kennedy, for instance, who would prefer one bill implemented at one time in its totality without the involvement of the private insurers and with a price tag that would seem to be very high, although the net cost above and beyond what we are going to spend might be still to be determined and be in doubt.

I think my approach is a better one, and on most of the elements of our proposal, Senator Kennedy and, I think, UAW were both in agreement. But it's just a matter of political judgment. I doubt that you could find any appreciable portion of the Members of the House or Senate who would favor a single proposal, implemented all at once, with a substantial price tag on it.

You can find pretty broad support, which is increasing, I think, for the type of complete concept, but sequential implementation program that we propose.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Q. Mr. President, your administration has made substantial progress in reducing unemployment. In the past few months the rate seems to have stagnated a little bit. Are you afraid that the tight money, high interest rate policies of the Federal Reserve might lead to a further increase in the unemployment rate in the near future?

THE PRESIDENT. That's always a possibility. So far, we don't have any evidence of that. For instance, just to give you one example, housing construction is quite often the first industry to be affected adversely by higher interest rates. We've been able to sustain housing construction throughout the last 12 months or more at an annual rate of production of more than 2 million units per year.

The reduction in unemployment rate among construction workers—which I've already mentioned—is another direct indication of this sustained growth and high demand for housing. I would prefer lower interest rates, but obviously you have to have an honoring of the independence of the Federal Reserve. That's built into law. and it can't be breached.

I don't believe that the present Chairman of the Federal Reserve has any substantial difference in philosophy than my own about the proper balancing of inflation control and keeping full employment in our country.

I meet with him frequently. He and I both preserve our individuality and our mutual independence, and I think we have a very good attitude of mutual support.

We have to be careful. I think one thing that might be pointed out is that our unemployment rate now, which is hovering very close to the 6-percent level, is about as low as we anticipated would be the case at the end of 1979. What we need to guard against now is that as we reduce inflation below what it is, that we don't see a trend upward in the unemployment rate, but a continuing, at least some trend downward.

So, I think that judging by our past experience in the last 12 months or less that we've not seen any indication that the higher interest rates charged are heading us toward a recession and high unemployment.

FOOD PRICES

Q. Mr. President, Mel Stack, Retail Clerks Union. As you know, our union has taken a positive stance on the question of inflation.

THE PRESIDENT. And I thank you for it.

Q. Well, we strongly feel that wages are not at the root of the rising costs, and especially of rising food costs.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that's true.

Q. I must say that we were very disturbed that Barry, Bosworth singled out our industry and told the Food Market Institute that he would monitor our negotiations closely. Naturally we were happy last week to hear that Mr. Bosworth was not speaking for the administration and that pronouncements about collective bargaining would henceforth be coordinated by a top-level committee.

Mr. President, would you care at this time to comment about the inflationary factors that have an impact on food prices, especially such ones as imports, grain and cattle supplies, and energy?

THE PRESIDENT. The most serious, long-range threat to our economy is the rapidly increasing import of energy. In the last 6 years our energy imports have increased more than 800 percent, an almost unbelievable amount. In 1972 oil imports were $4.7 billion; this past 12 months, they've been $42 billion—likely to be even more in the future. That has very serious results in unemployment in our country and also a higher rate of inflation.

We have experienced last winter and last year a very unusual season, and the beef industry and other agricultural production was severely hurt—beef over a long period of time, other production of food, particularly vegetables and shortlife growing crops, very adversely. So, the first 6 months of this year food prices went up 18 1/2 percent. My guess is, my prediction is, based on the economic advisers' analyses, is that the last half of this year food prices will rise much more slowly.

There's going to be a shortage of beef for the next 3 or 4 years, possibly on a worldwide basis, because it takes so long to build up a beef herd. You have to save a heifer that would have been slaughtered, let that heifer reach maturity, have the heifer bred. The heifer ultimately has a calf—the gestation period is about 9 months—and then the calf has to grow up large enough to be slaughtered, which is 30 months, at least, in that interval.

We're trying now to encourage beef producers to build up the size of their herds and to let them know that there will be some stability in market prices. I would guess the rest of this year beef prices would hover in the neighborhood from $50 to $60 a hundredweight.

I did increase the import level of beef products, and I don't have any apology to make for it. I think it was the right decision, although many beef producers thought it was a very bad decision for me to make. I feel a responsibility, though, not to try to look at each individual decision on the basis of just whether it's politically popular or not. There's got to be a common approach to inflation, how to deal with it, and sometimes even my closest friends, sometimes among labor, sometimes among farmers—and I'm a farmer-will not like exactly what I do.

But I think that we can sustain food prices at a much lower rate of inflation the balance of this year. And the longer we have experience in this administration, the better off we are.

I might add one other thing. We've tried to get the Government out of the farm business and to let there be more stability in marketing. We have world record levels of agricultural export. We set a record last year, even with very low prices per unit. We'll break that record this year. And instead of having the surplus supplies of, say, food grains, wheat, for instance, in the hands of elevator operators and grain speculators, we've increased the farm storage capacity substantially so that farmers themselves who are keeping their own grain off the market, so that they can sell it at an orderly fashion, get the profits themselves and not have the wild fluctuations in the market caused by speculation.

I think whenever food prices go up and down wildly, other prices as well, food especially, the farmers don't benefit, because the prices generally go up because other people are holding farm products off the market deliberately or because the farmers have had a very low yield. And when prices go up, the consumers pay more. When the prices come down, consumer prices come down very, very slowly.

I think all these things that I've described to you would prevent a continuation of the high increases in food prices, and I believe that the action that I've taken to level off those prices in beef is typical of the proper attention we are giving to this question.

Ms. BARIO. Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. Maybe one more.

WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS

Q. Mr. President, my name is Diane Curry, Railway and Airline Clerks Union. Administration officials have indicated that consideration is being given to some sort of incomes policy, whether guidelines, controls, or selective measures in highly unionized industries.

Would you comment on what form that policy might take?

THE PRESIDENT. Any policy we work out concerning inflation questions or employment questions would be done very carefully and with close consultation of a wide range of people. This would apply to prices as well.

I would guess that a majority of the American people would prefer to have mandatory wage and price controls. I'm philosophically opposed to it and will not impose such controls unless our Nation faces a very serious emergency or crisis. There are no plans for any such measures as you've described.

Barry Bosworth was mentioned earlier. We do think it's better to have better consultation among my top economic advisers, including Barry Bosworth, who has a unique responsibility to hold down inflation, Charlie Schultze, who's my closest economic adviser. I have economists, as you know, who are head of the Commerce Department and the Labor Department, and of course, Mike Blumenthal, as Secretary of Treasury, is another one who's very important in shaping my own policies. The Vice President has served on both the Budget Committee and the Finance Committee in the Senate. He's familiar with the congressional aspect of that question.

But whatever we might do in the future, it would be short of any mandatory wage or price controls, and it would be carefully worked out if things should get worse on inflation so that the interests of working people and consumers would be protected. I don't have anything to predict for you, because we don't have any plans along those lines.

Let me say this in closing: I'm very grateful that you would come here to talk to me and from your questions let me learn what matters are of interest to you.

So far as I know, in almost every instance the proposals that we have made to the Congress have been compatible with the desires of your organizations whom you represent. We've worked in close harmony, and we've not always been successful, as you know.

I was quite disappointed that the labor reform bill did not pass. That was the one bill since I've been in office that I sat down and, in effect, wrote, with the help of my advisers, myself, every paragraph of it. I think it was a very moderate bill which would have brought benefits not only to working people of the country but also to employers. There was an unwarranted outpouring of distortion and political pressure from some business organizations and some rightwing organizations, highly effective, that caused the defeat of that good legislation. But we've lost some battles of that kind.

But in general, almost without exception, we have worked in harmony. And I'm grateful for that support that you've given me, and I'm grateful for the chance that we've had to support programs that you yourselves have initiated.

Our country is basically very strong and very sound economically; obviously it is, politically and militarily. And I hope that in the future that you all will stay close to the White House staff, to Jody Powell and others that you will meet today, and if you have a specific question that comes up that you won't hesitate to call and ask.

This is a rare occasion when I have a chance to sit down with a group because of the pressures on me of time, but your opinions are very valuable to me. And I would hope that in the future, not only your questions and inquiries but also your advice and counsel and even your tough criticisms will be made available to me so that we can work in better harmony for the people that we represent. Your readers are my constituents, and I want to serve them well. And I think you can help me do it.

I thank you for coming and let me meet with you.