Urgency Analysis
Arguments
- .data
A data frame, priorities data frame coded using `select_priorities()`, or text vector. For data frames, function will search for "text" variable. For priorities data frame function will search for "priorities" variable. If missing, opens the webpage containing the urgency codebook.
- summarise
How to handle multiple matches for the same dimension in the same text observation? By default, multiple matches are added together and their "sum" per text observation is returned. Users can, instead, choose the "mean" which returns the average score per dimension per text observation when there are multiple matches. The "mean" can also be used as a form of normalization per dimension and text observation in certain cases.
Details
Urgency in political discourses is an expression of how necessary and/or how soon an action should be undertaken or completed. This is measured along four dimensions, two related to necessity and two related to timing. The first two dimensions, degree of intensity and degree of commitment, relate to the necessity of taking the action, while the next two dimensions, frequency of action and timing of action, relate to the timing in which action is taken. Our dictionary includes terms in each of these dimensions. The terms included in each of these dimensions were validated and adjusted through an online survey that took place between July and August of 2024. The survey results were recorded as counts of the number of participants who selected an urgency-related word as more urgent than its pair. To analyze the survey results, we employed Bradley-Terry models for paired comparisons. A rank of the words for each dimension of urgency was obtained from the analysis, which were then used to create the urgency word scores in the dictionaries. For more information on the dimensions, scores, or the survey on urgency, please run `get_urgency()` to access the urgency codebook. For priorities (i.e. coded using the `select_priorities()`), urgency scores are calculated by multiplying the commitment scores by all other dimensions. This is done because commitment words are indicative of political priorities, For more information please refer to the `select_priorities()` function. For vectors or data frames urgency scores are calculated by adding commitment and intensity dimension scores (i.e. how necessary) and multiplying these by the sum of timing and frequency dimension scores (i.e. how soon). In both cases, zero urgency scores are indicative of no urgency but maximum scores can vary.
Examples
# \donttest{
get_urgency(US_News_Conferences_1960_1980[1:10, 3])
#> .data
#> 1 ADMINISTRATION POLICIES,THE PRESIDENT. Although attention is naturally focused on domestic politics, events around the world and here at home still demand my attention and action in ways that affect the well-being of American citizens.,Yesterday we completed the normalization of relations with the People's Republic of China with four agreements—for trade, for consulates, for normal airline service, and for textiles. We've opened a new era of normal relationships now between our two great countries.,Also yesterday, the second anniversary of the signing of the Camp David accords, I met with Israeli Foreign Minister Shamir and Egyptian Foreign Minister Hassan Ali as efforts continue in our quest for a lasting peace in the Middle East, which is so important to the future of Americans and to the entire world. They have been, since that meeting with me, conducting negotiations or discussions with our own Ambassador responsible for the discussions for peace.,We're preparing now for preliminary exchanges with the Soviet Union on the control of theater nuclear weapons in Europe. These talks should begin next month, and Secretary Muskie will be addressing this important subject in his discussions with Foreign Minister Gromyko of the Soviet Union in New York in the near future.,We've also been concentrating on the slow, difficult, diplomatic effort to free our hostages in Iran.,Here at home there are some encouraging economic signs. The unemployment rate has been steady or slightly down for the last 4 straight months. Unemployment compensation claims, which is a weekly statistic that we receive, has been encouraging. In the last 2 months we've added some 470,000 new jobs. Housing starts are up now for the third month in a row. New orders for durable goods were up sharply in July, and for the past 90 days retail sales have also shown increases. But—and this is essential—while inflation has been dampened down, it's still a major, continuing concern.,I'm standing firm against any tax reduction in this preelection political climate. But I will press ahead to strengthen our economy, to increase productivity, to revitalize our American industrial system, and to create real jobs.,A tripartite automobile committee is now attacking this industry's problems on a continuing basis. A few hours ago Japanese Minister Tanaka made an encouraging statement in his estimate of Japanese exports of automobiles to this country for the remainder of this year. At the Venice summit conference we discussed with the Japanese the automobile situation, and they are sensitive to this transition period through which America is now going in changing consumer demand for the smaller and more efficient automobiles.,I'm also pleased to note that there are some initial recalls of steelworkers. And I look forward to receiving within just a few days a strong report from our tripartite committee on steel dealing with the pressing problems that face that basic industry so important to our country.,Finally, nowhere is America's progress more important than reducing energy dependence. The results so far have been excellent, far above what we had anticipated. Our imports of oil are down more than 20 percent below last year—about 1 1/2 million barrels less oil imported each day this year. A record number of drilling. rigs are in use. The number of oil and natural gas wells that will be drilled in 1980 will exceed any other previous year. American coal production in 1980 will be the highest in history, and we are now launching the most massive peacetime effort in our history to produce energy from shale, from coal, from the Sun, from farm products, geothermal sources, and many others.,Finally, I'm working with the Congress for the passage of critical bills. I think we will have a good legislative year—in dealing with youth employment, Alaska lands, toxic wastes, pay and incentives for military personnel, deregulation of the American free enterprise system, and the enhancement of civil rights.,In domestic and international affairs, the progress of America goes on.,I will now be pleased to answer any questions that you might have for me.,Ms. Santini [Maureen Santini, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS RONALD REAGAN,Q. Mr. President, in Atlanta on Tuesday, you referred to Ronald Reagan's campaign statements about the Ku Klux Klan and States rights. And then you said that hatred and racism have no place in this country. Do you think that Reagan is running a campaign of hatred and racism, and how do you answer allegations that you are running a mean campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I do not think he's running a campaign of racism or hatred, and I think my campaign is very moderate in its tone. I did not raise the issue of the Klan, nor did I raise the issue of States rights, and I believe that it's best to leave these words, which are code words to many people in our country who've suffered from discrimination in the past, out of the election this year.,I do not think that my opponent is a racist in any degree.,AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN,Q. Mr. President, earlier this week you raised expectations on the release of the hostages, and then you seemed to back off. What is today's prospect for an early release of the hostages, and aside from the Shah's assets, over which we have no control, are all of the latest Iranian demands negotiable?,THE PRESIDENT. I've not changed my position on the prospects for the hostages release. I do not predict an early resolution of the issue, because it's not in my hands, unilaterally. It has to be done through very careful negotiations with the Iranians and quite often because of unilateral decisions to be made by them.,One of the major obstacles to progress in the past has been the absence of any viable government in Iran. Only in recent weeks, in fact in some instances in the last few days, have they had a parliament or a speaker of the parliament who could speak for them, or a Prime Minister. They have had a President for a long time. The President himself, Bani-Sadr, has been consistently in favor of the hostages being released. Now that their government is intact and now that the Ayatollah Khomeini has made a public statement for the first time outlining to some degree the demands to be pursued by Iran, obviously the situation has improved.,Our position has been consistent. We have two goals in mind that have not changed since the first day the hostages were taken. One is to preserve the honor and integrity of our Nation and to protect its interests. That's never changed. And the second goal has also never changed, and that is not to do anything here in this country that would endanger the lives or safety of the hostages nor interfere with their earliest possible release back to freedom.,This is an issue that's been constantly on my mind and on the minds of the American people.,Q. Does an apology rule out the question of honor?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. The United States is not going to apologize.,We have long said that there would be a legitimate forum provided for the Iranians, who consider themselves to be aggrieved in many ways, to present their case. We encouraged the United Nations mission to go to Iran, to investigate the situation there, to have hearings in Iran, and to let there be a public exploration of Iran's claims or complaints. At the time we filed our suit in the World Court in the Hague we also invited Iran to participate with us, not in a combative way, but in a friendly way, to give them that forum, which would have been well covered by the world press, to express their concerns or their complaints about us or others in the past. So, this is not a new development at all. Our position has been very consistent.,I cannot predict what will happen in the near future, but we are pursuing every possible legitimate avenue, as we have for many months, to reach some agreement with Iran, with those two constraints that I described to you concerning our Nation's honor and the safety of the hostages, to relieve this problem between us, which is obviously damaging to the United States and also very damaging to the people of Iran.,PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN STYLE,Q. I'd like to return to a portion of Miss Santini's question. There are people who say that in political campaigns you get mean; that you attempt to savage your opponents. They cite Hubert Humphrey, Edward Kennedy, and now Ronald Reagan. Will you tell us why you think this is not correct, and will you discuss your campaign style from that standpoint?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not raised these issues today in the press conference; it's been raised twice out of three questions. And obviously in the heat of a campaign there is give and take on both sides. An incumbent Governor or a President is almost always the subject of the most enthusiastic attacks by those who seek his office, and quite often those kinds of political verbal exchanges from those who seek to replace someone are either accepted as a normal course in a political campaign or ignored. If an incumbent, a Governor or a Congressman or a Senator or a President responds, that's immediately given the highest possible notice as an attack on one's challengers.,So, I try to keep a moderate tone; I try to discuss the issues. And I do not indulge in attacking personally the integrity of my opponents, and I hope that I never shall.,1980 CAMPAIGN DEBATES,Q. Mr. President, the big debate really concerns who will occupy this place next January 21. And since Presidential elections are now federally funded, I was just wondering whether you might consider, as President, inviting your chief opponent, Ronald Reagan, to a debate here in the White House?,THE PRESIDENT. I would be glad to have a debate with my Republican opponent either here at this very spot or in the East Room of the White House or any other forum anywhere in this Nation, and as frequently as possible. We have already accepted three invitations to debate on a one-to-one basis between the Democratic nominee, myself, and the Republican nominee. One of the networks invited us both on a man-to-man basis; I accepted. The National Press Club invited us both to attend the debate; I accepted it. And a women's magazine with its organization invited us both to meet on a one-to-one basis to debate, and I accepted these invitations. So far, Governor Reagan has not chosen to accept this one-on-one debate.,I am very eager to pursue this idea and have no concern at all about the location or the time except that I want it to be anywhere in this Nation and as frequently as possible.,PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LOANS,Q. Mr. President, on July 22, you said that it was inappropriate for your brother, Billy, to serve as a foreign agent and to accept the $220,000 loan from the Libyans. Yet from January of 1978 until March of 1980 you were personally liable for $830,000 to a Saudi-controlled financial institution. And in fact in 1978, contemporaneously with your decision to sell and advocacy of the sale of sixty F-15 jet fighters to Saudi Arabia, you accepted through Carter's Warehouse a loan accommodation from the Saudi-controlled bank which was worth $266,000 to you personally, free-tax dollars.,In light of your statement about the inappropriateness of your brother accepting a $220,000 loan accommodation, why do you think it was appropriate for you to accept what amounts to a $266,000 loan accommodation from a Saudi-controlled financial institution? And why do you think this does not represent an actual or potential conflict of interest, which you said you would rule out in your administration?,THE PRESIDENT. I have never accepted any loans from any organization—,Q. [Inaudible]—a loan accommodation—,THE PRESIDENT. Would you like for me to answer your question?,I've never accepted any loans from an organization that's owned or controlled by any foreign government or any foreign nationals. The only loans that I have gotten were loaned before I became President from American-owned banks in Atlanta, and I have so far paid those loans off as required by the bank itself.,Q. The bank was purchased by the Saudi citizen, and he now owns the bank, Mr. President—,NUCLEAR WARFARE,Q. Mr. President, in the context of your decisions about the MX missile and Presidential Directive 59, I'd like to ask if it's realistic for any American President to believe that he could limit his response to a Soviet nuclear first strike against U.S. missiles if that first strike incurred, let's say, 20 to 50 million casualties. Could you limit your response under those circumstances, or would you have to fire off everything that was left?,THE PRESIDENT. When anyone decides to run for President of our country with any expectation of being elected, the question of the use of atomic weapons has to be addressed, because it's crucial for our Nation, for our allies, and for our potential adversaries to know that, if necessary, atomic weapons would be used to defend our Nation. And that knowledge is the deterrent that would prevent a potential adversary from attacking our country and therefore destroying 100 million or more American lives.,I have done everything I possibly could as President not only to maintain peace-and I thank God we've been successful so far—but to lay the groundwork for continued maintenance of peace and the avoidance of ever having to use atomic weapons. There is a likelihood—I can't say how strong it might be; it's not an inevitability but it's certainly a likelihood-that if an atomic exchange of any kind should ever erupt that it might lead to a more massive exchange of intercontinental and highly destructive weapons that would result in tens of millions of lost lives on both sides. That very knowledge, which I have very clearly in my mind, is shared by the Soviet leaders, and I have discussed this common knowledge with President Brezhnev in Vienna when we signed the SALT II.,The policy of our two countries ever since President Eisenhower and President Truman were in office and everyone since then, Democratic or Republican, has been to try to reduce the dependence on atomic weapons and to have balanced atomic forces and, lately, to reduce constantly on an equal basis the arsenals that we have. I cannot tell you what would happen if an exchange should take place. I would try to defend my Nation's integrity and its security and the integrity and security of our allies without resort to atomic weapons, but if necessary to defend the freedom and security of Western Europe and this country, then I would use atomic weapons. I pray to God that that time will never come, but it's important for our people, our allies, and the Soviet Union to know that if necessary those weapons will be used. The best weapon of any kind is one that's never used, and the best soldier is one that never dies in war.,But the only way I know to maintain peace for my country and for those who depend on me is to be strong and to let potential attackers know that if they should attack us their attack would be suicidal.,AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY,Q. Mr. President, the new K-Car Chrysler, there little itty-bitty cars are going to cost $6,000. Do we get any quid pro quo from the automobile industry, or can your administration—you've given them billions of dollars in the past year or so and, I think, a half billion dollars more today from air pollution. They've dropped the air bag. Can the consumer get any break in giving out all these Federal funds?,THE PRESIDENT. It's important to America for us to have modern-design cars, small, efficient, that comply with air pollution standards and are safe. As you know in the past, with extremely cheap gasoline, the efficiency of an automobile, its mileage per gallon, was not very important to the American consumer, because gas was so inexpensive.,Lately there has been a change in buying customs by America. There is no doubt in my mind that the automobiles produced today are much more efficient, much more clean-burning, and becoming more sate than they have been in the past, and I don't have any doubt that in 1985 they will continue that steady progress toward a clean-burning, efficient, safer car.,We have provided increasingly stringent standards for safety and for efficiency and for air pollution standards. And I think that's going to continue. But I don't look upon our Government as subsidizing or paying the automobile industry to make these changes.,We have made available loan guarantees to Chrysler because they were on the verge of bankruptcy. The reason the Congress did this, with my full support and approval, was to avoid the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs among automobile workers and to keep a highly competitive automobile industry in our country. These loan guarantees are sound investments by the American Government. We do not anticipate any loss of funds from taxpayers' money with this loan guarantee.,PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES' POPULARITY,Q. Mr. President, the opinion polls indicate that you've made quite substantial gains in recent as against Governor Reagan-according to one, marginally ahead; according to one, marginally behind—but certainly in a lot better position than you seemed to be a few weeks ago. Could you give us your analysis of why you think you've made these gains? To what extent you think now that John Anderson will be a factor and your analysis of what you expect to happen in this very volatile period of the next few months, politically speaking?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think you all have seen in the last year the extreme volatility of public opinion polls, perhaps more than has ever been the case in the past. I would guess they would be up and down between now and November 4.,My belief is that in a general election campaign for President there is a unique situation that's not extant in the election of any other official in our country nor the nominating process by the Democratic and Republican Parties even for President. As we approach November 4 there is a continual sobering among individual Americans as they approach a decision who is going to control the affairs of this Nation from the Oval Office for the next 4 years and realization that that choice is a profoundly important one for them individually, for their family, for their community, in economic life, the quality of life, war or peace. The issues begin to become paramount.,The personal characteristics of the candidates, as far as attractiveness or speaking style and so forth, in my opinion become less important and the questions come down to: Who cares more about me and my family and my future? Who can deal with the inevitable crises in a more calm and effective way, and who is most likely to keep this country at peace?,So, I don't know what's going to happen in the future. I'll just do the best I can. I think that the essence of it, though, is that the election will be decided ultimately, however, by that very calm, very reasoned, very sober analysis of the issues and the difference in the stand of the candidates on the issues, and not by the excitement or sometimes even the frivolity of the election campaign during the primary season.,THE NATION'S ECONOMY,Q. Mr. President, based on guidance you were given by your economic advisers and other information that's available to you, do you think that the country is now out of the recession or that it will be before the November 4 election?,THE PRESIDENT. Some of my economic advisers have told me within the last 2 days that the recession might very well be over. I don't know. Only in retrospect, several weeks after something occurs, can you be sure of that. The technical definition of recession with which you are familiar is really of not much significance. The point is, I believe that we'll have ups and downs during the next few months.,We still have an unemployment rate, although below 8 percent, which is too high. The chances are that it won't vary much for the rest of this year. I believe that the inflation rate, which is still too high, will stay below double-digit inflation the rest of this year. Recovery of our economic system seems to be progressing very well, with housing starts going up, investments going up, and with the number of jobs available to the American people continuing to rise. It's just hard to predict; but I believe that we will have a stable economy with statistics fluctuating from one month to another.,The thing that we must do, though, is to realize that the election pressures cannot be permitted to shape economic policy. We have got to keep inflation under control while we deal with the increase in productivity over a long period of time in the future; build permanent jobs for people in the private industry sector, not in make-work jobs that are very expensive to the American taxpayer; continue to deregulate the American free enterprise system, getting government's nose out of the affairs of American business and American families. These kinds of basic things—to increase productivity, to increase investment, and to have long-range, permanent jobs—are the major challenge that I face as President, and not to have an election-year-type quick fix by promising a major tax decrease that might simply be repaid to the working families of this country by increased inflation in the months ahead.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, yesterday, after meeting with Foreign Minister Berg of Israel and Hassan Ali of Egypt, you said without elaboration that unanticipated progress had been made in restarting those trilateral talks here in Washington on Palestinian autonomy.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. But Foreign Minister Berg said today those initial discussions would not include the issue of Jerusalem. Given the importance of that issue, what progress has been made this week, and what's the cause of your optimism?,THE PRESIDENT. When Sol Linowitz went to Jerusalem and to Egypt a few weeks ago and met with Foreign Minister Shamir and with General Hassan Ali, and also with Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat, we were pleasantly surprised after a fairly long dearth of direct contacts between Israel and Egypt to find both nations eager to get back to the negotiating table.,Yesterday, after they left my office, Sol Linowitz, Mr. Shamir, General Ali, sat down to continue top-level negotiations to try to find a basis for carrying out the comprehensive peace.,Following Sol Linowitz' trip to the Mideast, President Sadat announced, both before and after he arrived, that he was eager to see a summit conference later this year. Prime Minister Begin had not until that time made that statement. Prime Minister Begin called me on the telephone to say that the Linowitz mission had been remarkably successful, to thank us for what he had contributed, and to say that he would be eager to meet with me and President Sadat at a summit conference either before or after the American elections were concluded.,We will work that out. I am determined that the prospect for a summit meeting will not interfere with the substantive negotiations that must precede it. And I think the fact that yesterday and today the Foreign Ministers of the two countries are negotiating again in the presence of the American Ambassador assigned that task is indeed encouraging in itself.,RONALD REAGAN,Q. Mr. President, you have been asked several times about some tough language you used in Atlanta regarding Ronald Reagan, and to be fair to you, and before I ask my question, we should point out that some tough language has been used against you in the past by Mr. Reagan and other of your opponents. I recall during an interview with Mr. Reagan he said that you had let our defenses slide and that was a great danger to war. So, I'm not impugning, putting upon you the exclusive use of tough language. But nevertheless I'd like to return to Atlanta and ask this question.,You have said here today that you do not consider Mr. Reagan a racist.,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct.,Q. I believe that to be true. You have said that you do not think he's running a campaign of hatred or racism. But you used all three of those words in connection with the discussion of Mr. Reagan. Do you regret that, or could you tell me how this could happen if you don't attribute any of those characteristics to Mr. Reagan?,THE PRESIDENT. I was speaking to a group at Ebenezer Baptist Church, leaders of a black community all the way from Maryland to Texas, leaders who had been involved in the civil rights movement in years gone by in the fifties and sixties, who had endangered their very lives to bring about equality of opportunity and an end to racial discrimination. Those people understand the code words, the use of the words "Ku Klux Klan" and the use of the words "States rights" in the South, and my message to them was that the Presidential election is no place for the reviving of the issue of racism under any circumstances. And that's the way I feel about it. It ought not to be a part of the Presidential race.,I was asked later by a newsperson as I was getting on the plane, "Do you think that Governor Reagan is a racist?" And I replied, "No." And I do not. And I would hope that from now on after this news conference that we could leave out references to allegations that anybody thinks that I'm a racist or that any of the other candidates in the race for President are racists. I don't believe they are, and I believe it ought to be dropped.,Q. Mr. President, it was your own Cabinet Secretary, Patricia Harris, who first interjected the KKK into the Presidential race. She said in Los Angeles essentially that Governor Reagan was running with the endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan and raised the spector of white sheets. So then, how can you blame Governor Reagan—,The PRESIDENT. I am not blaming Governor Reagan. That's just exactly the point. The press seems to be obsessed with this issue. I am not blaming Governor Reagan.,Q. You accused him of interjecting the Ku Klux Klan into the campaign.,THE PRESIDENT. The only thing that I said Governor Reagan injected into the campaign, was the use of the words "States rights" in a speech in Mississippi.,I hate, here on national television, to go through the procedure again. What happened was that the Ku Klux Klan endorsed Governor Reagan and stated that the Republican convention could have been written by a Klansman. Governor Reagan subsequently rejected, wisely and properly, any endorsement by the Ku Klux Klan. That was what injected the Klan into the Presidential race.,I regret it. I wish it had not been done. I would like to see it eliminated from the Presidential race. I do not blame Governor Reagan at all for the fact that that endorsement was made, and I admire him for rejecting the Klan endorsements.,HELEN THOMAS [United Press International]. Thank you.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much.
#> 2 THE PRESIDENT, This evening we will extend the press conference time to a full hour to give me an adequate opportunity to present a statement and then to answer more questions than would ordinarily be the case.,BILLY CARTER'S ACTIVITIES WITH LIBYAN GOVERNMENT,In 1976, as a candidate, I made a commitment that explains why now as a President I want to make this statement to the American people this evening. Four years ago our country was deeply shaken by an administration that had betrayed its high trust and had tried to hide the truth from public judgment. I was asked then how Americans' lives would be changed if I was elected President. I answered that I would work to restore the confidence of the American people in the integrity of their Government. Integrity has been and will continue to be a cornerstone of my administration. When questions of propriety are raised, I want to make sure they're answered fully. When the questions concern me, I want to answer them myself.,Questions have now been raised concerning my actions and those of my administration regarding my brother Billy Carter and the Government of Libya. We have made as thorough an investigation as possible, and the facts are available for the committees of Congress and for the public to examine. They will show that neither I nor any member of my administration has violated any law or committed any impropriety. I've today filed a full report with the Congress. I cannot read it all to you tonight, but here are the main points.,Let me first say a word about the U.S. policy toward the nation of Libya.,There are few governments in the world with which we have more sharp and frequent policy disagreements. Libya has steadfastly opposed our efforts to reach and to carry out the Camp David accords to bring peace to the Middle East. Our two governments have strongly different opinions and attitudes toward the PLO and toward international terrorism. Within OPEC, Libya has promoted sharply higher prices of oil and, on occasion, has advocated the interruption of oil supplies to the United States and to other Western nations.,On the other hand, we have substantial trade with Libya. Libya is one of our major oil suppliers, and its high-quality crude oil is important to our east coast refineries. Libya has publicly and privately opposed Iran's seizure and holding of our hostages, and for a time, Libya joined with other Moslem countries in opposing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.,So for many years, our policies and actions toward Libya have therefore mixed firmness with caution.,And now I'd like to say a word about my brother's relations with Libya. As all of you know by now, Billy is a colorful personality. We are personally close. I love him, and he loves me. Billy is extremely independent. On occasion he has said, "I don't tell Jimmy how to run the country, and he doesn't tell me how to run my life." When I was elected President, Billy was thrust into the public limelight. Media attention made him an instant celebrity. He was asked to make a number of television and other speaking engagements, and he even put his name on a new brand of beer.,And in the summer of 1978, Billy was invited to visit Libya with a group of businessmen and State officials from Georgia. This highly publicized trip occurred late in September 1978. I was not aware that he was planning the trip until after he had left the United States and shortly before he arrived in Libya. When I heard about it, I was deeply concerned that' there might be some serious or unpleasant incident while he was there.,Shortly after he returned from Libya, in October 1978, I saw a message from our charge in Tripoli reporting on the positive nature of the visit. I was greatly relieved, and I sent a copy of that message to Billy. This message contained no sensitive information, was never encoded, and in fact, more than a year ago it was made publicly available by the State Department to a news columnist.,Early in 1979 a Libyan trade mission came to the United States, visited several localities in our country. Billy visited with the Libyans and made a number of controversial statements, which were roundly criticized both by the press and also by the American public. I publicly deplored, in a news conference, some of those comments myself.,As a result of Billy's remarks and his new association with the Libyans, almost all of his scheduled television and other appearances were canceled. His income from these public appearances almost totally disappeared, while his financial obligations continued to mount.,I shared the general concern about Billy's relationship with Libya, and the members of our family were also concerned about some of his personal problems. During this period, Billy entered the hospital for medical treatment. On one occasion while he was hospitalized, he discussed with me the possibility of another trip to Libya, and I urged him not to go, partly because of his health and partly because of the adverse effect it could have on our Middle East negotiations, which were at a critical stage at that time.,By the late summer of 1979, Billy had successfully completed his medical treatment, and despite my advice he made a second trip to Libya. There was relatively little publicity about this trip.,I am not aware of any effort by Billy to affect this Government's policies or actions concerning Libya. I am certain that he made no such effort with me. The only. occasion on which Billy was involved, to my knowledge, in any matter between Libya and the United States was his participation, with my full approval, in our efforts to seek Libyan help for the return of our hostages from Iran. Let me discuss this incident briefly.,On November the 4th, 1979, our hostages were seized in Tehran. In the weeks that followed, we explored every possible avenue to bring about their release. We increased our military presence in the Persian Gulf, we stopped all oil imports from Iran, and we seized the assets of that country. We appealed to the United Nations Security Council and to the World Court. We asked other governments, and particularly Moslem governments, including Libya, to support our position. As is still the case, we explored every official and unofficial avenue of contact we could find to encourage the Iranians to release the American hostages.,Public statements coming out of Libya at that time were not supportive and indicated that our diplomatic efforts to secure their assistance had not been successful. During the third week in November, it occurred to us that Billy might be able to get the Libyans to help to induce the Iranians to release the American hostages. As requested, he talked to the Libyans about our hostages and arranged a meeting with a Libyan diplomat at the White House. I did not attend that meeting, and so far as I'm aware, Billy played no further role in these discussions with the Libyans.,As matters turned out, the Libyan foreign office announced that the hostages should be released, and the leader of Libya, Colonel Qadhafi, also made the direct private appeal to Ayatollah Khomeini that we requested. At least in this respect, the approach to the Libyans was successful; whether it would have been successful if Billy had not participated is a question that no one can answer with certainty.,I made this decision in good faith, with the best interests of the hostages and our Nation in mind. Billy merely responded to our request for assistance, and I believe his only motive in this effort was to seek release of the American hostages from Iran.,And now, concerning Billy's alleged Government contacts on behalf of Libya: There have been many press reports that Billy may have tried to influence U.S. policy on licensing aircraft to Libya or on other matters. I can state categorically that my brother Billy had no influence or effect on my decisions or on any U.S. Government policy or action concerning Libya. Billy has never asked me to take any step that would affect any of these actions or policies. And so far as we have been able to determine after long and extensive investigation, Billy has not made any such effort with anybody in my administration.,Concerning the Department of Justice investigation, let me say this: Under the President's supervision, law enforcement responsibility is delegated to the Attorney General. The President's power of supervision of the Justice Department was abused in the Watergate scandal, as none of us can ever forget.,When I took office, I instructed the Attorney General, Griffin Bell, that neither I nor any White House official would ever attempt to influence the Department of Justice investigations concerning any charges of law violation. When possible conflict-of-interest issues arise, as in the case of a member of the President's official family or his personal family, we take extra precautions to prevent improper interference.,This policy was followed strictly in the present case from the time the investigation began until the final papers were filed on July the 14th. There was no contact in either direction between the Department of Justice and the White House concerning the conduct of this investigation. On July 22d, the White House issued a public statement to this effect.,Two days later, I found a reference in my notes to brief comments which I had exchanged with Attorney General Civiletti about 6 weeks earlier at the conclusion of a long meeting concerning judicial appointments and other matters. I had not remembered these comments, and I decided that they should be made public. While the July 22d statement was technically correct, it clearly required amplification to disclose these brief comments.,To me, integrity does not mean that a mistake is never made; integrity means that when a mistake is made, even though it's highly technical in nature and was inadvertent, it ought to be disclosed. And that's exactly what we did.,In this brief exchange between myself and the Attorney General, which lasted just—less than a minute, I would guess, the Attorney General did not inform me of any detail as to the conduct of the investigation. He told me only about the Department's insistence that Billy file a registration statement and about the Department's standard enforcement policy.,On June 26th, after I returned from the Venice summit conference, my Counsel notified me that Billy's lawyers hoped to resolve this matter by his filing the registration statement, and I called Billy to encourage him to work harmoniously with his lawyers. He said that his lawyers were in negotiation with the Department of Justice, but that he personally did not think that he needed to file a registration statement. On July the 1st, just a few days later, I called Billy again to urge him to accede to the Department's request and to follow his lawyers' advice and make a full disclosure. He did so on July 14th.,It was not until July the 15th that I knew of the two large payments or loans of money from Libya to my brother. So far as we have been able to determine, no one in the White House had any information about the payments or about any evidence relating to such payments until Billy Carter's lawyers informed my Counsel about them on July the 11th, when the court papers were about to be filed. No one in the White House furnished information about the investigation to Billy or to anyone associated with him at any time.,Finally, there's one more rumor that I would like to lay to rest. No payments or transfers of this money have been made to me, and no such payments or transfers have been made to Carter's Warehouse. And I will also see to it that no direct or indirect benefit of any kind will ever flow to me in the future.,To summarize, Billy has had no influence or effect on my decisions or any U.S. Government policy or on any action concerning Libya. Neither I nor anyone in the White House has ever tried to influence or to affect the Justice Department's actions or decisions. Neither I nor anyone in the White House informed Billy of any leads or evidence obtained by the Department. Everything that I and the White House staff did with respect to this case was designed to serve the interests of law enforcement and justice.,I am deeply concerned that Billy has received funds from Libya and that he may be under obligation to Libya. These facts will have to govern my own relationships with my brother Billy. Billy has had no influence on U.S. policies or actions concerning Libya in the past, and he will have no influence in the future.,Our political history is full of stories about Presidential families and relatives whom other people have tried to use in order to gain favor with incumbent administrations. In most such cases, the appearance of favoritism has been much worse than the reality. My brother Billy's case is one of many such examples. To keep this problem from recurring, I've asked my Counsel to draft a rule that will bar any employee of the executive branch from dealing with any member of the President's family under any circumstances that create either the reality or the appearance of improper favor or influence.,Now I'd be glad to answer questions, if you have them.,QUESTIONS,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, on the question of propriety, do you think that it was proper for the Attorney General to tell you to urge Billy to register as a foreign agent and to tell you that he would not be prosecuted if he did so? And also, on the question of the money, you told us where the money didn't go. Do you know where the Libyan payments did go and how Billy used the money?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't know where the money went or where it might go. Billy can answer that question, and I understand he's prepared to answer any questions.,I don't think there's any impropriety at all in the conversation that I had with the Attorney General. He did not ask me to take any action. I did not ask him to take any action. He simply informed me-I believe I can quote his words from my notes—that Billy was foolish not to comply with the Department insistence that he file the registration papers. And he said that if he filed these papers truthfully that the normal procedure of the Department was not to punish or to prosecute a person in that category.,DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION,Q. Mr. President, a number of prominent Democrats, Senator Byrd and Mayor Koch of New York among them, have suggested that you might release your convention delegates to vote their preference on the first Presidential ballot. Are there any circumstances under which you would do this, and do you fear that doing so might hurt your chances of getting the nomination?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no plans to do this. I ran in all the primaries, all the caucuses. In that intense political competition, I won about 60 percent of the commitments of the delegates in accordance with the decisions that were made by the 19 million Democrats who participated actively in the primaries and the caucuses. These are not my delegates; they are the Democratic voters' delegates.,This so-called open convention, which is a phrase that's been used by Senator Kennedy and others and picked up broadly by the press, is a gross misnomer. What they actually are calling for is a brokered convention, to induce those delegates to violate their signed pledge or oath that they would go to the convention and vote in accordance with the way the voters cast their ballots back home.,There is a requirement throughout this entire electoral process, a decision made by the Democratic National Committee, unanimously, 18 months before the first caucuses, which were in Iowa, that this is the way the rule would be imposed. All the candidates agreed to it and understood it. And also, there was a requirement that in the States there be a line for uncommitted delegates, who did not want to express their preference. Some uncommitted delegates were chosen. That line was put there to give them that option.,What Senator Kennedy and others are now asking for is for those candidates who are elected by the people who wanted me to be the nominee violate their oath and that all the delegates in effect be uncommitted. This puts back 10 years of progress that the Democratic Party has made to democratize a process and to remove control of the convention from the powerbrokers and put it in the hands of people who go to the polls and vote on primary day or go to the caucuses and select delegates. That's the issue at stake. It's a very simple, clear issue.,My position is that the convention ought not to be a brokered convention, but that the delegates should vote the way the voters back home told them to vote. Others who have lost in the primaries now want to change the rules, after the primaries and caucuses are all over, to go back to the old brokered-type convention.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, I've been around a long time, but there are still some questions of a personal nature that are painful to ask. And yet, I feel there is one that must be asked.,THE PRESIDENT. I'll be happy to answer any question.,Q. Accepting your statement that you did not know until mid-July that your brother Billy was getting money,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. —you say that you are personally very close to him; you love him, and he loves you; and you know him very well. Having known since September 1978 that he was involved in some way doing some work for the Libyan Government, having known more recently through an intelligence report that he was trying to get oil allocations for an oil company in the United States, did it never occur to you, knowing his penchant for get-rich-quick schemes and making money—did it never occur to you that he might be seeking financial gain from that relationship?,Mr. PRESIDENT. Yes, it occurred to me—not as early as you described.,We have several hundred—I think more than 2,000 Americans who live in Libya. As I said, we have major trade relationships with Libya. It's not a completely outcast nation. There are people who go from this country to Libya on a daily basis.,Billy did go to Libya without my knowledge or approval. I think it was in September of 1978. At that time, I don't believe from what I know now that Billy had any idea of becoming anything as a representative for or a special friend of Libya. He went there with some businessmen from Georgia and some members of the State legislature—not secretly, unfortunately; it was a highly publicized trip.,The first special relationship Billy had with Libya was when a Libyan trade delegation came to the United States, in effect to reciprocate that visit by the Georgians. They came to Atlanta; they came to Washington and some other places. Billy, in effect, acted as their host in Georgia. This was an extremely highly publicized and controversial time, and Billy was severely castigated in the press and by many American citizens, as I said, including myself in one news Conference, for some of the remarks he made.,Following that, I tried to encourage Billy not to go to Libya. In the documents that I filed with the congressional committees this afternoon, there's one letter that I wrote to Billy while he was in the hospital in California—the letter is a matter of record— encouraging him not to go to Libya. Obviously, I was concerned. But I don't have authority to order Billy to do something. It's not illegal for him to make a trip to Libya, for instance. I had no knowledge at all of any payment that was made to Billy. But of course, I was concerned about his relationship with Libya, wish he never had any relationship with Libya.,So, I can't condone what he has done. I'm not trying to make excuses. Anyone who knows Billy knows that no one can push him around. And I think that we used an adequate amount of personal persuasion, when I had the opportunity, then the telephone call from Dr. Brzezinski, warning Billy not that his action was illegal, as known, but that he might cause embarrassment to our country and embarrassment to me. I don't believe that there's anything further that I could have done that would have been effective.,Q. Mr. President, you said just a few minutes ago, sir, in your opening remarks, that neither you nor any member of your administration had violated any law or committed any impropriety.,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct.,Q. But, sir, don't you think that by using your brother, Billy Carter, at least as an emissary to make a contact with a foreign government—don't you feel that perhaps it might have been better judgment to have used a trained diplomat in that capacity?,THE PRESIDENT. No, not in that particular instance concerning the hostages. We were using trained diplomats. Immediately after the hostages were seized, this became an absolute, total obsession of mine, to get those hostages released. We inventoried every possibility of influence on the Iranians to induce them to release our hostages, safely and immediately. We sent messages—and had our diplomats in those countries and contacted their diplomats in Washington—to almost every nation on Earth, every one that we thought might have the slightest semblance of influence with Iran. We especially thought that the Moslem countries, believing in the Koran, having the same religion as the Ayatollah Khomeini, might have a special influence.,We had tried through diplomatic means to get Libya to give us some support in condemning the Iranian action and calling for the release of the hostages. Up through the 18th of November, the public statements coming out of Libya-and these are documented in Dr. Brzezinski's report had been negative, against our position, in effect supporting the holding of the hostages. Some private comments from Libyan diplomats to our diplomats in the United Nations, for instance, had said, "We would like to help you," but the public comments, which were the important ones, were contrary to that.,Under those circumstances, I decided to use Billy to see if he could have some special influence to get the Libyans to help. I had no reticence about it.,That was the same day that the religious fanatics attacked the mosque in Saudi Arabia. It was the same day, I believe, that Khomeini announced that the hostages, American hostages, would be tried and, if convicted, Khomeini said, "Jimmy Carter knows what's going to happen to them." We thought that the hostages' lives were directly in danger.,I saw then and see now nothing wrong with asking Billy and other private citizens to try to help if it's appropriate and legal. The only thing Billy did was to contact the Libyans, whom he knew personally-he does not know Qadhafi, but he did know the charge in Washington—and say, "We would like very much to have your help in having the hostages released. Will you meet with Dr. Brzezinski at the White House," a week from then, which was the 27th day of November.,Billy then met a week later with Dr. Brzezinski and the charge, and we believe that some progress was made. As I said in my opening statement, I cannot say for sure that Billy had anything in the world to do with the progress that was made. But 2 days after Billy contacted the charge, they made a public announcement for the first time, Libya did, calling for the release of the hostages. After that meeting, Colonel Qadhafi himself sent a personal emissary to Khomeini, asking Khomeini for the first time to release our hostages, and then he sent me word that he had done so.,I'm not trying to claim great things from that small involvement of Billy. But Billy came up to Washington, so far as I know, at his own expense on two occasions. He went back to Plains. He never told anybody publicly that he had done it. He never bragged about it. And I have enough judgment to know that that may have enhanced Billy's stature in the minds of the Libyans. That's the only down side to it that I can understand. And that may have been bad judgment, but I was the one that made the judgment. I did what I thought was best for our country and best for the hostages, and I believe that that's exactly what Billy was doing.,COMPETENCE OF ADMINISTRATION,Q. Aside from the questions of legality and propriety, some of your critics say that this Billy Carter case is another example of a general aura of incompetence that hangs over your Presidency—the fits and starts with which the case came out, the corrections, the records, the recollections that had to be refreshed. Do you recognize that there is this charge of incompetence that settles over you, and if so, what are you going to do about it?,THE PRESIDENT. I've heard you mention that on television a few times, but I don't agree with it. No, I think the historic record of this administration, years looking back, will show that it was a competent administration, that it accurately represented the ideals of the American people and had many notable achievements. I need not enumerate those now.,But I don't believe that this is a comedy of errors or that we have made many errors—a few, yes. We've made some mistakes, because we were in a hurry to get all the information out. It was much better to have the information come out as we determined it than it would be if we had withheld all information and, in effect, stonewalled the question for 2 or 3 weeks.,It might very well be that in the future we discover some new fact or someone comes up and makes a statement that we didn't know about. If so, we will immediately make that information available to you and the other news media. But I think that's the best way to handle it, and I don't have any concern about having acted other than competently in this case.,PRESIDENT'S REELECTION CAMPAIGN,Q. Next week you go before the Democratic Convention to seek renomination, as we all know.,THE PRESIDENT. I remember. [Laughter],Q. Not only given the state of the press conference tonight but looking ahead to such matters as the economy, inflation, growing unemployment, recession, troubles abroad, will you offer yourself to the delegates of the Democratic Convention as a man proposing changes or will you simply say the country should have 4 more years of the same?,THE PRESIDENT. Four more years of the same President, with changes and progress to be achieved during those 4 years.,We have economic problems. I think every nation on Earth has them—some much worse than we. We've made some progress. We've never had as many jobs added, for instance, in the first 3 1/2 years, in any period of our history as we have since I've been in office. Lately we've seen a substantial lowering of interest rates and inflation rate. I think we'll see some more progress made on inflation in the next few months. I believe that we have established a very good working relationship between our country and other nations, opened up new friendships, maintained this country at peace, and so forth. I need not enumerate what I think we've done that is good.,But I believe that the most important part of an election year is to give the American people an opportunity to hear the issues debated, the record assessed for the incumbent, and then to let the American people choose: Do we want the Nation for the next 4 years to be led by the Republicans, or do we want it led by the Democrats? And specifically, do we want it led by Ronald Reagan, or do we want it to be led by the Democratic nominee? And I am expecting it to be myself. And in that process, with, I hope, numerous debates between me and Ronald Reagan on all the issues that are important to the American people, the American people will make a judgment.,This is the way I've always run for office, the way I ran in 1976. I think we have an excellent record to take to the American people and an excellent prospect for an even better life in this country in the years ahead.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, you say you and your brother Billy are close. Have you had any conversations with him since the July 1 phone call, when you urged him to register, and can you characterize those conversations?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not had any conversations with Billy since July the 1st except in a crowd of people at a softball game in Plains, and I went into his service station one day to invite him to play softball the following day. I've never discussed this case or Libya or government or anything of that kind and have not spoken a word to Billy in private since July the 1st, the conversation that I've described to you.,You can ask a followup question, if you like.,Q. Mr. President, do you think you should be discussing it with him?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think it's improper for me now to be having a direct conversation with Billy. There have been some communications between us through our attorneys, through my Counsel in the White House and through his attorneys. But they've been completely proper, and records have been maintained of them. And I believe that's the best way to handle this matter until it is resolved.,As I said in the closing part of my statement, even in the future, regardless of the outcome of this occurrence, I will not accept any benefit from the funds that Billy has received. And also, as long as I have the slightest suspicion that Billy is still involved with Libya, I will exclude any sort of relationship between myself and Billy that relates to government matters that could possibly impact on Libya.,Q. Mr. President, I have talked to hundreds of Democrats, and I think that in the White House you have more fear of this affair than there is need for. All people tell me that they have great confidence in you, although they might consider that you had a little bit more heart for your brother than for the Presidency. In your own assessment, did you act as a President or as a brother?,THE PRESIDENT. I think Billy would say that I acted more as a President than a brother, and I think I have. My responsibility, uniquely, is to the Presidency and the upholding of the principles of our Nation, and I'm sworn by oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws of our Nation. If any member of my family should violate those laws, then I'm charged with the responsibility, which I would not avoid, to see that the law is carried out, no matter if my own family members should suffer. And this is the process that is presently ongoing: an investigation and the decision to be made by the Justice Department, without my involvement.,I have not promoted this incident; in fact, I wish that it had never been promoted by the press and by the interest of the American people. But since it has become a burning issue in the minds of many people, with headlines and evening news stories, sometimes even dominating the day's news events, my commitment has been, the last 2 or 3 weeks, to search out all the facts that I could find and lay them before the American people in two ways: one, through the investigating committees in the Congress, House and Senate; and secondly, here, with a brief statement telling the facts and then to answer your questions. But this group is at liberty to ask me questions about other matters as well as this.,Q. Mr. President, regarding your mention of your responsibility to enforce the laws, since your adviser, Dr. Peter Bourne,1 was never prosecuted for his phony drug prescription taken across the State line, how can you expect the Justice Department to be taken seriously by Billy, regarding admitting he's an agent and telling the truth about the money they gave him?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you could ask Billy whether or not he takes the Justice Department seriously. My belief is that he does. And I don't think anyone in this Nation who has any confidence in our country's laws and the enforcement of them would take the Justice Department any way but seriously. It's a serious matter, and it'll be handled accordingly.,1 Former Special Assistant to the President for Health Issues and Director of the Office of Drug Abuse Policy.,PRESIDENT'S FINANCES,Q. Mr. President, you referred to rumors about some of this money going to you—,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I've read that in the paper, and allegations have been made by Members of the Congress. That's why I wanted to answer it.,Q. Do you have any joint economic investments with Billy? I think of the Carter trust or what's left of the warehouse holdings or property. Have you tried to help Billy financially through the blind-trust arrangement, through Mr. Kirbo, and the blind-trust arrangement in—I think he's got tax liens on his house that sort of thing?,THE PRESIDENT. When I became President, I announced to the American people that I was putting my financial affairs into a trust, under a trustee. Legally, it's not a blind trust, because it's impossible for me, as President, not to read news stories and other reports that come from Plains and from the warehouse affairs. But to the best of my ability, I've stayed aloof from that. I've not made any decisions, and they've been handled in accordance with the law, sometimes publicly by my trustee. Also, I pledged myself, as President, annually to release my income tax return, which is prepared by other people—but I have to sign it—and also my financial statement, which I've done each time.\nBut within that boundary, I have not been involved in financial affairs of the warehouse. There is still a relationship between Billy and the warehouse and myself and the warehouse. That Carter's Warehouse has been rented out now ever since the first year I was in office, and I have had absolutely nothing to do with it or its financial condition.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, you have answered our questions very openly. You have said that there were no instances in this matter of illegality, wrongdoing, impropriety. You told one of my colleagues that this was really not a question of bad judgment. You told another colleague it's not a question of incompetence. Given all of that, simply put, how do you think you got into this big mess?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the American press and the public will have to judge how big a mess it is. It's been a highly publicized affair. But if the facts, as I have given them to you, are confirmed, if no one in my administration-and if I myself—have committed any illegal act or impropriety, then I think that's been an investigation and a report that's served itself well.,The Justice Department is investigating still. There have been literally dozens and dozens of people who have searched their telephone records and appointment records and their memoranda of conversations. And the Congress is going to investigate it. So, I believe that this is a good way to go about resolving a question once it's raised.,I do not approve of the fact that my brother has gotten involved in a controversial relationship with an extremely unpopular government. He has, still, certain legal and constitutional rights. If he is found to have violated the law, my belief is and my hope is that he will be treated properly in accordance with the law-punished if he's guilty, exonerated if he's innocent.,But I have seen these things sweep across this Nation every now and then, with highly publicized allegations that prove not to be true. And you and others have participated in the raising of these questions. One incident that comes to mind is Hamilton Jordan, where people, later found to have lied, told stories about Hamilton Jordan, and a thorough investigation, absolutely independently of me, with a special prosecutor involved from the Justice Department, found that the allegations were not true. But for a time it was a highly publicized case, which damaged Hamilton Jordan quite a lot.,I don't know what the outcome of this case will be. But I can tell you that no one in my administration—and I have not been guilty of an illegality or an impropriety in any way, and I believe that the facts in the future will determine that to be the case.,ROLE OF PRESIDENT'S FAMILY,Q. Mr. President, you said in the report that you issued tonight—you confirmed the fact that your wife, Rosalynn Carter, was the first person to initiate the idea of using your brother Billy as the contact regarding the Iranian hostages—,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that's correct.,Q.—that she called him directly and then informed you later, and you asked Dr. Brzezinski to pursue the matter. I want to ask you what you think that says about her role in this administration and what the public should conclude about it? And secondly, given this regulation that you have asked your Counsel to draft on members of the family and the staff-THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q.—whether you have any second thoughts in hindsight about family diplomacy and the virtues of that, and members of the President's family going to represent him or the country abroad at ceremonies and the like?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't have any trepidation about continuing the policy that I have pursued in that respect.,I think it's completely appropriate for Rosalynn to have thought about how we could get the hostages released and to have called Billy to see if he thought he could possibly help. When he said that he might be able to help, she informed me of that idea. I considered it. I'm the one that made the decision, not my wife or Dr. Brzezinski or anyone else. And I decided that it was a good idea. And I told Dr. Brzezinski to call Billy and pursue it, which he did. That was the limit of her role in the entire process.,But I think it's very important that my mother on occasion, my sons on occasion, my wife on occasion participate in international affairs. When Golda Meir, former Prime Minister of Israel, died, my mother went to represent me at her funeral. She also went to the funeral of Marshal Tito, President Tito, and so forth.,So, this is the kind of thing that a President's family legitimately ought to be able to do. With many cultures in the world, many countries in the world, a President's family member plays an extremely important role in demonstrating an important personal relationship, particularly in the inauguration of a new President if I cannot go, for instance, or the death of a prominent member of that national community. I think these kinds of things are completely appropriate.,What I want the Counsel to draft is a rule that would bar any employee of the executive branch from dealing with any member of my family under any circumstances that create either the reality or the appearance of improper favor or influence. That doesn't mean that all the members of my family have to be locked up in a closet and never appear in public, because they play a very useful role. But I believe that their appearances have been proper, when Rosalynn or my mother have attended these kinds of state affairs. And I expect that they will continue to do so.,SECRETARY OF STATE EDMUND S. MUSKIE,Q. Mr. President, Edward Bennett Williams, as you know, is taking a leading role in seeking to undo the faithful delegate rule. Mr. Williams is a close personal associate of the Secretary of State. And we see now signs of the draft Muskie movement—bumper stickers, I wonder whether this has caused some kind of strain between you and the Secretary of State.,THE PRESIDENT. No, it has not. Secretary Muskie has actively attempted to stop this effort to subvert the rules of the Democratic Party and to violate the oath or the promise or the pledge that the delegates have made to follow the mandates expressed in the primaries and caucuses. He has not promoted himself; he's tried to discourage that. He's issued a public statement on the subject. And I have no doubt that this effort is not only independent of him but I doubt whether they are genuinely interested in the promotion of Secretary Muskie. They are probably interested in the promotion of someone else.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, on June 17th, Mr. President, which was 15 days after Attorney General Civiletti found out about the payments and a month before you say you found out about the payments to your brother, you have said tonight that the Attorney General told you, informed you of the seriousness of the possible charges against your brother and told you that it would be foolish, in your own words, foolish for him not to file papers. Was he, do you not.,THE PRESIDENT. That's not exactly what he said, but go ahead.,Q. Well, let me just ask the question.,THE PRESIDENT. Okay.,Q. Do you not see an impropriety there, in the sense of your being told between the lines, even if you weren't told directly about the money, that your brother was in trouble and unless somebody got the word to him to come in voluntarily and file, there could be serious charges filed against him? Is that not the impropriety here?,THE PRESIDENT. No, there is no impropriety. That's not what the Attorney General told me, by the way, exactly. He said, first of all, that he could not reveal to me and would not reveal to me any detail or any facts about the investigation that was ongoing. Secondly, he said he thought that Billy was foolish not to comply with the registration act, and third, he said that if Billy did not comply truthfully, then he would not be prosecutable or, I think I jotted down in my notes, punished.,At that time, my understanding is—and this should be confirmed by you from other sources—at that time, my understanding now is that the Justice Department was already relaying this exact same information to Billy's attorneys and therefore to him. I never revealed the conversation to anyone. As a matter of fact, it was a very brief conversation—I have said probably less than a minute in all—at the end of a long meeting with the Attorney General, and several other items were taken up in the privacy of that meeting. But I didn't think about it until days later, and I never revealed any of that information to anyone else and never acted on any information I got.,Q. So if the Justice Department was informing Billy at the same time that you were learning of this from the Justice Department, you're saying, in effect, that there was no need, even, for anyone in the White House to let Billy know that he should come in and voluntarily admit that he was an agent?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm not sure-I don't know of any allegation that hasn't been refuted. Nobody in the White House, myself or anyone else, ever gave Billy any information that related to his case, any evidence, or any leads or anything else. So, that question didn't cross my mind.,But from what I know now, looking back on it, after we've investigated thoroughly and I have seen the order of events that did take place, I can tell you that the Attorney General was telling me the same thing, in effect—I've just outlined to you the totality of the conversation, according to my notes—that they were telling the lawyers of my brother prior to that time. I think Billy got those lawyers the 11th or 12th, which was about a week before this conversation took place.,Q. it didn't occur to you that the Attorney General was saying to you between the lines, "Your brother has taken a lot of money," or maybe,THE PRESIDENT. No. No, I never had any indication that Billy was taking any money until I read about it in the newspaper on July the 15th. And the first person, so far as I know, in the entire White House that knew about any money payments was my Counsel, who was informed on the 11th of July, just before those official papers were completed for filing with the Justice Department.,AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN,Q. Mr. President, you said that you were obsessed with the hostages and that's why you called your brother in. Do you have any new ideas for freeing the hostages now?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we are pursuing the same kind of degree of effort that we were then.,I think I tried to point out, as best I could remember, a couple of things that were happening at that time—the threat by Khomeini that the hostages might be killed and the fact that the Grand Mosque in Jidda was—in Mecca, I think was attacked by radical believers in the Moslem faith. Those were the kind of things that were causing me great concern.,The approach to Libya, although now it has taken on great significance, here, 9 or 10 months later, was one of a broad pattern of things that I was doing, the National Security Council was doing, everyone in the State Department assigned to this task was doing, and many private citizens were doing. And there was nothing extraordinary about it. It was just one of a broad gamut of things that we were attempting to do in every possible way to get word to Khomeini that it was better for Iran to release those hostages.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, were you aware, sir, of the arrangement with the Charter Oil Company that would have given your brother a commission on oil imported-that he got imported from Libya, when you talked with his friend, Jack McGregor, in the Oval Office?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I was not. The only information I had about Jack McGregor was I talked to Billy in the hospital; he told me that his former commanding officer in the Marine Corps was scheduled to come to the White House for a briefing on hospital cost containment. There were about 400 business leaders who had been chosen by my staff without my participation at all.,McGregor, on that hospital cost containment briefing day, came by the Oval Office, had an appointment for a stand-up photograph. We never sat down, even. We stood over by my desk. The records show that he was there a total of 9 minutes. We discussed some of his and Billy's experiences in the Marine Corps, and we discussed Billy's illness and how he was responding well to treatment in the hospital. And McGregor mentioned Billy's financial problems and said he hoped that he would be successful in working out of them. No reference was ever made to anything concerning oil companies or anything of that nature.,AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN,Q. Mr. President, your spokesman, Mr. Powell, has said, in defending your use of your brother as an intermediary—and you have alluded to this as well—that we'd be very surprised some day when we hear of some of the other unorthodox emissaries you've used, channels to other countries to try and secure the release of the hostages. Can you surprise us a little and tell us who they are, who some of them might be? And might we be embarrassed by the revelations of any of their names?,THE PRESIDENT. No, you wouldn't be embarrassed, but I think maybe the surprise ought to come later.,DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE,Q. Mr. President, you have about 300 more delegates than are required for the nomination. And so for another candidate to get the Democratic Presidential nomination, he would need to attract some of these delegates.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Yet you've said if someone did that, they would be subverting the rules of the Democratic Party. And you said last week—,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, they would.,Q.—that it would be a travesty if any of these delegates wandered away. So, if someone else is nominated at the convention in New York, would you be able to support that nominee, or would you only be able to support yourself?,THE PRESIDENT. I have always pledged, since the very beginning of my effort, to support the nominee of the Democratic Party if it should not be myself.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, in going back to the conversation with Attorney General Civiletti on June the 17th, you said that the knowledge of—let me say, Justice Department policy in handling foreign agents was general knowledge. Why then, sir, did you need to inquire of the Attorney General whether your brother would be prosecuted if he went ahead and registered as a foreign agent?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't say it was general knowledge. I was not familiar then with the exact policy that the Attorney Generals down through history had followed.,I think this Foreign Registration Act was passed in the 1930's. I noticed an article in one of the Washington papers not too long ago that said that since the 1960's there had been no criminal prosecutions under that act. Ordinarily, what the Department does, I now know, is to confront a person who is suspected or believed to be an agent of a foreign country, present them with the alternatives if they do not file, and require them to file. And that's what Billy's lawyers finally advised him to do, was to file as an agent—I don't know if my brother ever admitted it or acknowledged that he was an agent-but to file as an agent and if he had extenuating remarks to make, to put those remarks in the registration papers. That's what Billy did.,At the time the Attorney General talked to me, I did not know what I have just described to you as a standard policy of the Department in handling these kinds of cases.,Q. Mr. President, what kind of information did our intelligence agencies gather about Billy's activities trying to set up the oil deal with Libya? And specifically, were they concerned that Billy was part of a wide-ranging and massive effort by the Libyans to influence the public opinion and the Government here?,THE PRESIDENT. That intelligence information has been delivered to the Senate intelligence committee. It's of a highly sensitive nature, and I'm not at liberty to reveal it in public.,PRO-KHOMEINI TERRORISTS,Q. Mr. President, you have some more trouble coming, I'm sorry.,THE PRESIDENT. I'm sure I do. [Laughter],Q. [Inaudible]—this week with that Bayh committee over there. It's been told to about a half-dozen Senators by an intelligence organization from New York City that you and the State Department-,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. —and Brzezinski are conniving with Nazarian, the rug dealer, to let pro-Khomeini people come in here and engage in certain terrorist activities in exchange for getting the hostages home. Any truth to that?,THE PRESIDENT. No, ma'am.,DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION,Q. Mr. President, if you were to look at the convention from a slightly different point of view, and you were a delegate heading up to New York next week and you had an incumbent President who's as low as you are in the polls and has the difficulty of a congressional investigation facing him, how would you feel about the prospect of renominating that same President?,THE PRESIDENT. I would feel okay. [Laughter] I would take my written pledge to be very seriously binding on me. If I was from Plains, Georgia, and the voters who went to the ballot box in Plains had voted for a candidate, candidate A, and I was later chosen as their delegate, then I would feel bound to go and cast my vote at the convention in accordance with the way people had voted in Plains, regardless of whether I personally thought at that moment that the candidate I was chosen to support was above the Republicans in the public opinion polls.,I think this time 4 years ago, I was much further ahead of President Ford than I am behind, as I saw in a Newsweek poll, today. But polls go up and down. And when President Ford wound up the campaign, he was very close to me. Also, I think you'll remember that last October the polls showed that I was three or four to one behind Senator Kennedy and if he ran, the almost sure prospect was that he would win the nomination. That has not proven to be the case.,So, the polls ought not to be the deciding factor. The pledge on a written document that a delegate will comply with the votes cast in his own district or area is important. Also, the fact that the Democratic Party, through its national committee, unanimously voted to institute these rules before the primary season even started is also a very important factor. That's what we're trying to protect.,MINORITIES,Q. Thank you, sir.,Mr. President, the problem of oppression of blacks in this country is extremely serious. We've had riots in Miami; we've had riots in Chattanooga. Is there any way that you can begin to address this problem? If you think Billy has problems, you'd better be glad he's not black. But the real issue becomes one of, is there something that you, as President of this country, would do to begin to address these problems before it blows up?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. In the Miami case, I went to Miami, as you know, met with the leaders in Liberty City, and helped to put together a package, working with those black leaders there, that would give them some economic assistance. Through the Community Services Agency and others, we provided food, for instance, at about 35-percent less cost than the supermarket charges. And we've tried to provide jobs. And we've tried to work also—I have personally—with the white and Cuban leaders in Miami, to make sure that there was harmony between the three races.,In addition to that, I sent the Attorney General to Miami to make sure that the apparent absence of complete application of justice for highly publicized cases concerning black citizens was corrected. And the Attorney General directed his people to go into Miami and to make sure that the trials involved were fair.,In addition to that, on a much more broad basis, I have tried to put black citizens in my administration to administer those areas of the Federal Government that were particularly important to a black or minority citizen. We have required by law, with the help of the Congress, that a certain portion of all Federal contracts and the deposit of Federal funds in banks and the allocation of charters for new radio stations and so forth, that have long been withheld from blacks and other minorities, be assigned to them. I've also tried to appoint black Federal judges, who will be here long after I'm gone, to administer justice, to make sure that we didn't have a further deprivation of our black citizens.,So, on a broad range of issues, I've tried to do the best I can and will continue to do the best I can to eliminate any discrimination or any injustice in this country for minority citizens.\nThank you all very much.
#> 3 RESCUE MISSION FOR AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN,THE PRESIDENT. Before answering questions this evening, I would like to say a few words about the rescue mission in Iran.,I share the disappointment of the American people that this rescue mission was not successful, and I also share the grief of our Nation because we had Americans who were casualties in this effort to seek freedom for their fellow citizens who have been held hostage for so long.,But I also share a deep pride in the commitment and courage and the integrity and the competence and the determination of those who went on this mission. They were prepared to do their duty, and they did their duty. I can think of no higher compliment for a Commander in Chief to pay to brave men.,It was my responsibility as President to launch this mission. It was my responsibility to terminate the mission when it ended. This was a decision that was shared completely by the field commander in charge of the rescue team and by the officer in charge of the overall force that was involved in the rescue effort.,There is a deeper failure than that of incomplete success, and that is the failure to attempt a worthy effort, a failure to try. This is a sentiment shared by the men who went on the mission.,Sunday I met with a large group of men who were the core of this effort, and yesterday I visited, in San Antonio area, the five men who were most seriously wounded. They all shared a common message to me and to the American people.,The first message was one of regret, deep regret, that they failed to carry out the mission as planned. The second one was an expression of thanks to me for giving them the honor to attempt to deliver to freedom the American hostages. And the third was a request, expressed almost unanimously by them, to be permitted to try again.,Our Nation does face serious challenges, serious problems, and the meeting of those challenges and the solution of those problems require sacrifice. Sometimes we who are safe consider the sacrifices to be onerous, but I forgot those sacrifices when I looked into the face of these men who are not only willing but eager to give their lives as a sacrifice for others, whom they did not know personally, but in a determination to grant freedom to them.,Our goal in Iran is not to conquer; neither was theirs. Their goal was not to destroy nor to injure anyone. As they left Iran, following an unpredictable accident during the withdrawal stage, with eight of their fellow warriors dead, they carefully released, without harm, 44 Iranians who had passed by the site and who were detained to protect the integrity of the mission.,This is in sharp comparison to the ghoulish action of the terrorists and some of the Government officials in Iran, in our Embassy this weekend, who displayed in a horrible exhibition of inhumanity the bodies of our courageous Americans. This has aroused the disgust and contempt of the rest of the world and indicates quite clearly the kinds of people with whom we have been dealing in a peaceful effort to secure a resolution of this crisis. They did not bring shame and dishonor on those fallen Americans; they brought shame and dishonor on themselves.,We will continue to try for a peaceful solution. As we see the consequences of the actions that we've already taken, economic and diplomatic actions continue to punish Iran, a nation that is suffering from economic deprivation and from political fragmentation because they persist in this inhuman act.,We will not forget our hostages, and we will continue to take whatever steps are necessary and feasible to secure their safe release and their return to their homes and to freedom.\nI'd be glad to answer questions.,Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,POSSIBILITY OF FOREIGN POLICY SUMMIT MEETING,Q. Mr. President, would you consider an early summit meeting with your principal allies, who seem to seek some reassurance about the basic thrust of your foreign policy? And I'm talking about a meeting prior to the Vienna [Venice] summit in June.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I see no need for this. There is no doubt among our allies about our basic foreign policy, nor have they indicated any such doubt to me. I'm sure of that.,When we do meet in Venice in June, the primary purpose of this annual meeting is to discuss economic matters-energy, inflation, unemployment, the development of our common resources and a better life for our people. But we have an adequate time for political discussions and for discussions about diplomatic matters, and I see no urgency nor need to meet prior to that time.,TIMING OF HOSTAGE RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, after so many months of restraint, why did you undertake a mission that involved, endangered so many lives, a mission that you said was not feasible all along? And with all due respect, has national pride taken precedence over the safety of the hostages, that is the need to end this problem?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think the time that we chose was a proper time.,We devoted those months of our hostages' incarceration to repeated and varied diplomatic efforts directly and through intermediaries, through the United Nations, through our friends and others. We were promised repeatedly by Iranian officials, by the President, the Prime Ministers, Foreign Minister, by a unanimous vote of the Revolutionary Council, even by the terrorists themselves, that the hostages would indeed be released by the terrorists and turned over to control of the Government, at which time further steps could be taken to secure their complete release and their return home.,Beginning back in November when the hostages were first taken; we began preparations for a rescue mission which would have had to be undertaken had the hostages been injured in any way. At the time we began final plans for this particular rescue mission, we had concluded repeated exercises and training of both men and equipment and technique and procedure and had honed it down to a fine operation, which everyone believed had a good chance for success.,Had we waited later, it would have been much [more] difficult to conclude the mission successfully, because of the increasingly short nights and because of the prevailing winds being likely to change, making strong headwinds against our planes and helicopters, and because the temperature of the air made it much more difficult to lift large loads required in this long and very complicated process.,So, we exhausted every peaceful procedure; we waited until the proper moment; we could not logically have waited much longer. And I think the decision was made properly.,TERMINATION OF HOSTAGE RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, this is a Monday morning quarterback question.,THE PRESIDENT. It's not the first one, but go ahead.,Q. This is from the side that says you went too far: What were the odds on the success of the mission? And then the second question, that you didn't go far enough: Why didn't you press ahead with only five helicopters, overrule the guy on the ground?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the mission had to be planned with an optimum number of both men and with the equipment they required in order to ensure secrecy, incisiveness, staying on a very rigid schedule, accommodating unforeseen circumstances. And at the time the mission was terminated, we did it with great regret. There had been a prior understanding among all of us involved in the detailed planning that if we got below six functioning helicopters, the mission to actually go in for the rescue attempt would have been very doubtful of success and ill-conceived. The recommendation came back from the refueling operation in the desert area that since they were down to only five helicopters, that the mission should not be undertaken—the actual rescue attempt. The commanding officer of the entire operation agreed, made this recommendation to me, and I agreed myself.,The people who were on the ground in charge of the rescue team were extremely eager, courageous, dedicated, and determined to succeed. When they recommended that it not be done, that was a major factor in my decision. But I made the final decision.,IRANIAN GUILT AND RESOLUTION OF HOSTAGE SITUATION,Q. Mr. President, you said a great nation like the United States can be forgiving of its enemies without losing face or bringing insult on itself.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. In view of the painful bloodshed and loss of life suffered by so many Iranian people under the Pahlavi rule, by the 53 hostages and their families, and now by the families of the American soldiers killed in the rescue attempt, isn't there some honorable way that the mutual sorrow of the Iranian people and now the American people can resolve this crisis without further confrontation? Can you now, will you now, make a gesture to the people of Iran so that the bloodshed and suffering can be put behind after 27 years?,THE PRESIDENT. It's important for American people and for all the world to realize the tremendous restraint that we have demonstrated. We have tried every possible and feasible effort to resolve this crisis by humanitarian and peaceful means. We are still continuing those efforts.,The fact is, though, that a horrible crime, as measured by international law, by diplomatic custom, and against humanity itself, is being perpetrated at this very minute. The 53 hostages being held are not guilty of any crime. The crime is being committed by terrorists who are kidnaping innocent victims, sponsored by and approved by Government officials themselves. In two votes in the Security Council of the United Nations, unanimous votes, Iran was condemned for this action. And in the International Court of Justice, that decision was confirmed.,We have nothing against the Iranian people, and we still want to see this issue resolved successfully and peacefully. But there is no guilt that I feel on behalf of our Nation for what occurs in Iran.,We were very careful on this particular operation to cause no harm or injury or death to any Iranians. It is a very troubling thing for me that Americans, because of an accident, did lose their lives and were injured. They were not met by any Iranian forces. No Iranian officials discovered the presence of the American rescue team until several hours after the last one had left Iranian soil.,So, we want this issue to be settled, but we cannot deal with inhumane people who have no respect for international law, who violate the tenets of their own religion, and who persecute innocent people who are American citizens and deprive them of their freedom for 6 months. There is no equality about it at all.,We are eager to see this issue resolved, but Iran is the nation which is committing a crime. We have tried to settle this in accordance with international law and peacefully, and we will continue to do so.,AMERICANS KILLED DURING HOSTAGE RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, you have noted that Iranian leaders joined in the desecration of the bodies of American servicemen.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that's right.,Q. Do you think that this will affect our negotiations to try to free the hostages, and what effect do you think it will have?,THE PRESIDENT. The man who supervised the desecration of the bodies was a member of the Revolutionary Council. I think it is accurate to say that other members of the Iranian Government did publicly condemn this abhorrent act and have now promised to deliver the American bodies to intermediaries, to be delivered, ultimately, back to our country. We hope that this commitment will be kept, and I pray that it will.,But the fact that the terrorists participated in the desecration is an indication of the kind of people they are and a vivid indication of the difficulties that we have experienced in getting what seems to be required—a unanimous decision by terrorists, the top officials, the Revolutionary Council, and the Ayatollah Khomeini-before this crime can be terminated.\nJudy [Judy Woodruff, NBC News].,SITUATION IN IRAN AND OTHER PRESIDENTIAL RESPONSIBILITIES,Q. Mr. President, why have you permitted the taking of the hostages in Iran to continue to monopolize your time and your attention, when there are other international crises that are equally important to the security of this country and when your preoccupation with what has happened in Iran only seems to make the Iranian leaders more stubborn?,THE PRESIDENT. There is no way that I could possibly confine my activities or my attention to one single facet of American life or diplomacy to the exclusion of others. It has been a major preoccupation of mine and the American people that these hostages are held. But we've had to deal with simultaneous domestic and international problems concurrently.,We have, for instance, met, I think as forcefully as is practicable and advisable, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, mounting economic sanctions against the Soviet Union, marshaling support of other nations for the boycott of the Olympics, letting the Soviets know, with 104 members of the U.N. condemning their action in the invasion of Afghanistan.,I've spent a great deal of time the last couple of weeks, for instance, continuing our negotiations for peace between Israel and Egypt and the establishment of autonomous government in the West Bank and Gaza area. I've worked on inflation problems in our Nation and also on the problem of employment and the dealing with the diplomatic relationships of a routine nature with other countries.,So, we have an ongoing program in this Government that is being well cared for. It's unfortunate that the hostage situation has been the human kind of concern that has been dominant in our consciousness even when we were doing our duties in other matters.,NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AND SECRETARY OF STATE,Q. Mr. President, there seems to be a growing impression in this town that your National Security Adviser is gaining influence at the expense of your Secretary of State, even speculation that that may have been a factor in Mr. Vance's resignation. Would you care to comment on this?,THE PRESIDENT. That's an erroneous report. I think we have a very good and proper balance of advisers who comprise the National Security Council, who work with me on military and foreign affairs.,I think that Secretary Vance expressed, as an honorable man, very meticulous in his language, his reason for resignation. I regretted his decision. Under the circumstances, I think it was the proper one.,But never in the past and never in the future while I'm here will there be any unwarranted intervention in the carrying out of the foreign policy under the aegis of the State Department. But I reserve the right to receive advice and counsel from my advisers. That's the best way I can make the proper decision once I have all the facts and all the advice that I seek.,Mr. Schorr [Daniel Schorr, Cable News Network].,PHASES OF HOSTAGE RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, you've been widely applauded, judging by the polls, for having made this effort with regard to freeing the hostages. And it seems to me that if there are any lingering misgivings among the American people, it is among those who wonder whether the whole plan could have worked without serious danger to some of the hostages and perhaps to our international interests. Secretary Vance has been too meticulous, in your words, to have expressed objections, but he's supposed to have had objection to the whole operation.,Within the limits of security, could you tell us enough about the further planned phases of this operation, so that Americans will understand that it could have worked?,THE PRESIDENT. It would be inadvisable for me to describe the operation beyond the point that actually did occur. We had intended to place the rescue team in an isolated region within a proper distance of Tehran. And then if everything was satisfactory, if they were undetected, if there was no apparent change in the circumstances within the compound itself, if the weather conditions warranted and equipment was in a satisfactory condition, only then were we to undertake the actual rescue operation.,There's a general consensus, with which I think no one disagrees, that the actual rescue operation would have been the easiest of the three phases; the most difficult, the intrusion into Iran and the placement of those forces; and the second most difficult, the actual extraction of our hostages and men from Iran after the rescue itself from the compound.,But the details of what would have been undertaken is something that I would prefer not to comment on since it did not occur.,MINORITIES AND THE ECONOMY,Q. Mr. President, on the economy, the U.S. economy is basically in a recession, and to black Americans that means that we're in a depression. I'm wondering if you would consider naming an advisory team or a special commission to look into resolving some of the problems of blacks in this depressionary state.,THE PRESIDENT. We have such an advisory group, made up of both black Americans who serve in positions of authority and others who happen not to be members of minority groups, who work intimately on this problem in a continuing way.,The decisions to be made in an economy that is suffering from too high interest rates and too high inflation rates is a very complicated one. We have made our decisions based on as thorough an analysis as we could within the Government and with the advice and the counsel of many around the Nation who are not part of the Federal Government. This includes, for instance, the mayors of some of our major cities, who happen to be black, and other minority groups, like those who speak Spanish.,I think the most cruel kind of suffering that is perpetrated economically on a minority citizen and others is the combination of unemployment in a community and inflation, which afflicts every American who is employed or not.,I think the proposals that we have put forward, early last month, to arrest the inflation rate and to start driving down interest rates and the inflation rate is going to work. And we have carefully targeted programs that have not been disturbed, to maintain as high a level of employ. ment as possible during this transition phase from a rapidly growing economy with extremely high inflation and interest rates, to one that is growing not so fast, where employment does tend to creep up and requires Government programs focused upon that unemployment problem.,It's not going to be an easy transition phase, but we've already seen interest rates start dropping very rapidly lately. I think the inflation rate is going to go down this summer, if we are moderately fortunate, and we're going to do the best we can to prevent any adverse effect on those who suffer from unemployment at the same time.,Mr. Schram [Martin J. Schram, Washington Post].,SECRETARY OF STATE VANCE AND HOSTAGE RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, I'd like to follow up an earlier question. Were there aspects of the military plan that we are not familiar with that perhaps provided the basis for Secretary Vance's dissent—perhaps air strikes—and if not, could you tell us what your understanding is of just what his dissent was about?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it would be better to ask him about the specifics. I think I can say accurately that Secretary Vance preferred that we not take any kind of action inside Iran that might have had any connotation of a military nature. His preference was to wait longer instead of mounting the rescue operation. But I made the decision based on the overwhelming recommendation and concurrence with other advisers. I have no doubt at all in my mind that it was the right decision.,Had the operation been successful or even had it been concluded without complete success, it would have ended a continuing crisis that is destabilizing for the people of Iran, that's causing them immense political and economic suffering at this very moment, and it would have made unnecessary the upcoming economic pressures on Iran, which will be much more severe when our major allies impose those same kinds of economic sanctions on Iran the middle of next month. It would also have meant that we could have begun restoring Iran as an accepted nation in the world structure and remove the reasons for condemnation of them.,So, in my opinion the operation had a very good chance of success, and it would have brought to a conclusion this unfortunate holding of our hostages and ended what is a very destabilizing political situation in that region of the world.,Q. Mr. President, could I follow up on that?,THE PRESIDENT. You may.,Q. Just to be specific, there was no other aspect of the plan with which we are not familiar that provided the basis of his dissent; it was just a broad and general dissent?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that's accurate, but you might want to follow that up with Secretary Vance later. But I believe that to be a completely accurate statement.,RISKS OF HOSTAGE RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, following up on your statement just now, when you were planning the rescue attempt, did you believe that all the hostages could have been removed from Iran safe]y, or did you feel that some could have been killed in the process? And second]y, do you think that the United States would be better off to end the crisis now, even if it means extreme danger to the hostages?,THE PRESIDENT. Obviously an operation of this kind would have had some risk, but we were convinced that the hostages could be removed successfully and safely.,HOSTAGE SITUATION AND PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL PROSPECTS,Q. Mr. President, does it seem to you that if you cannot resolve this crisis soon it may cost you your renomination or reelection? And does it seem to you that, as Harry Truman said and as you have said, the buck stops there, that that would be a fair judgment?,THE PRESIDENT. The political connotations of the holding of our hostages is not a factor for me. I've had to make decisions that on occasion might very well have been unpopular, and some that I have made may prove to be well advised in the judgment of the American people. But I've had to make those decisions under the most difficult circumstances, dealing with a nation's leaders who cannot speak for their own country and who constantly change their position and even constantly change their own identity.,But I see no relationship to this effort that I am continuing with the prospects or lack of prospects of political benefit to me or approval in a political circumstance.,EFFECT OF SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN,Q. Mr. President, as we look at the situation in Iran in terms of what they may understand you might do, what have you led Iran's leaders to believe would happen if they harmed the hostages? Do you think such fear is saving the hostages' lives now? And if there is such fear, does that encourage you to refrain from further military action that could endanger them?,THE PRESIDENT. In November, I think it was November the 20th, we were constantly hearing from the terrorists who held our hostages that they would be immediately tried for war crimes and executed. We spelled out to the public, and therefore to Iran, the extreme adverse consequences to them if such action should be taken, without being overly specific, but letting them know that there would be serious consequences for their nation and their people. We specifically spelled out one step in that process short of military action, and that was the interruption of commerce to Iran.,Our Nation is firm in its resolve. It's remarkably united. Our people have been surprisingly patient. But I don't think there's any doubt among the leadership in Iran, in the Government or among the terrorists themselves, that it is to their advantage not to physically harm the hostages whom they hold. And I hope they will be convinced as time goes by—not much time, I pray—that the adverse consequences of the action that we have already taken, with diplomatic and political isolation and with economic sanctions, is fragmenting their own structure of government and dividing their own nation and preventing Iran from making the progress that was envisioned when they had the revolution itself.,It's a remarkable commentary on this fragmentation that in spite of the deep commitment of their new constitution, the Ayatollah Khomeini, and their public officials, they have not even been able to hold an election in Iran after months of effort.,So, I believe that being joined by our allies in similar kinds of economic sanctions might very well be a factor that would bring the Iranians to realize that it's much better for them to release the hostages unharmed and to resolve this crisis.,U.S. MILITARY CAPABILITY AND HOSTAGE. RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, can you tonight assure the American people that there is no connection between the inability of the American military to retain highly skilled maintenance and technical personnel and the abnormally high failure rate of the helicopters on the rescue mission? And in a broader sense, does this high failure rate worry you if it came to a showdown between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in the .Persian Gulf?,THE PRESIDENT. There is no connection, because we focused the enormous resources of our Nation and its elaborate military capability on this particular equipment that was used in this operation. Had there been some shortage of either technicians or spare parts or maintenance capability, it would not have been permitted in the particular case of the helicopters, the C-130's, or the equipment the men took in for the rescue operation. So, there is no connection between those at all.,SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE,Q. Mr. President, could you explain why you appointed Senator Edmund Muskie to succeed Cyrus Vance, when Senator Muskie has limited foreign policy experience and holds only a secondary position on the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate?,THE PRESIDENT. Senator Muskie has more than 20 years experience in the Senate. He's been heavily involved in foreign affairs there as a member, as you point out, of the Foreign Relations Committee. He's played an active role in nationwide campaigns throughout this country as a Vice-Presidential candidate and also as a Presidential candidate himself.,He's familiar with our entire Nation. I think he's highly sensitive about the aspirations and ideals of our country that ought to be mirrored in its foreign policy.,He's also had a remarkable position in the Senate as the chairman of the Budget Committee, where every single proposal made for the expenditure of Federal funds in the foreign affairs field or the military field or the domestic field has to come before his committee for careful analysis before it goes to the appropriations committees.,So, because of that broad range of experience and the esteem with which Ed Muskie is held in this country by Democrats and Republicans and, indeed, because of his international reputation, I consider him to be extremely well qualified to serve as Secretary of State.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Frank.
#> 4 SITUATION IN IRAN,THE PRESIDENT. Since last November, 53 Americans have been held captive in Tehran, contrary to every principle of international law and human decency. The United States began to implement a series of nonviolent but punitive steps, designed to bring about the release of our hostages.,In January, we received information and signals from the Iranian authorities that they were prepared to enter into serious discussions to bring about the release of the hostages. At that time the United States decided to defer additional sanctions, and then these discussions resulted in commitments from the top authorities in Iran, including a transfer of the hostages to Government control, to be followed by their release.,These commitments were not fulfilled. Earlier this month, April the 7th, I announced a series of economic and political actions designed to impose additional burdens on Iran because their Government was now directly involved in continuing this act of international terrorism.,This process is moving forward. We've imposed economic sanctions, and we have broken diplomatic relations with Iran. Recently a number of other nations have recalled their ambassadors, and these countries are now considering sanctions they may be prepared to invoke in the near future.,Even while these deliberations continue, officials in Iran talk about not resolving the hostage issue until July or even later. We are beyond the time for gestures. We want our people to be set free. Accordingly, I am today ordering an additional set of actions.,First, I am prohibiting all financial transfers by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to any person or entity in Iran, except those directly related to the gathering of news and family remittances to the hostages. * As of today, any such transaction will become a criminal act.,Second, all imports from Iran to the United States will be barred.,*The sentence should end with the word "remittances." [White House correction.],Third, I intend to exercise my statutory authority to protect American citizens abroad by prohibiting travel to Iran, and by prohibiting any transactions between Americans and foreign persons relating to such travel or the presence of Americans in Iran. Again, this authority will not now be used to interfere with the right of the press to gather news. However, it is my responsibility and my obligation, given the situation in Iran, to call on American journalists and news-gathering organizations to minimize, as severely as possible, their presence and their activities in Iran.,Fourth, I am ordering that all military equipment previously purchased by the Government of Iran, which I had previously impounded, be made available for use by the United States military forces or for sale to other countries.,And finally, I will ask Congress for discretionary authority to pay reparations to the hostages and to their families out of the more than $8 billion in frozen Iranian assets in the United States. These assets will be available to satisfy contract and other commercial claims of American firms against Iranian Government entities and to reimburse claims of the United States for the heavy military and other costs we have incurred because of Iran's illegal actions.,If a constructive Iranian response is not forthcoming soon, the United States should and will proceed with other measures. We will legally forbid shipments of food and medicine, and the United Nations Charter, as you know, stipulates interruption of communications as a legitimate sanction. Accordingly, I am prepared to initiate consultations with the member nations of Intelsat [International Telecommunications Satellite Consortium] to bar Iran's use of international communications facilities.,The measures which I am announcing today are still nonbelligerent in nature. They are a continuation of our efforts to resolve this crisis by peaceful means. The authorities in Iran should realize, however, that the availability of peaceful measures, like the patience of the American people, is running out. I am compelled to repeat what I have said on previous occasions: Other actions are available to the United States and may become necessary if the Government of Iran refuses to fulfill its solemn international responsibility. The American hostages must be freed.,Let me say just a few words about our economy before I answer questions.,THE NATIONAL ECONOMY,We have been going through difficult times with high inflation and with extremely high interest rates. We are taking steps to bring these under control, and we are beginning, after only a month of the anti-inflation programs being announced, to make some progress.,However, we are now entering a very difficult transition period when recent economic statistics suggest that our economy has slowed down and has probably entered a period of recession. I believe that any recession will be mild and short, but I'm deeply concerned about how it affects the people of our country.,When I see automobile plant closings or a sharp drop in housing construction or very high interest rates for farmers during the planting season, I know the pain and I know the disruption and the heartache that lie below the cold statistics. But I also know that we cannot substantially reduce interest rates and we cannot make jobs secure until we get the inflation rate down.,A month ago, I set a series of tough anti-inflation measures. The Congress has been doing an excellent job in carrying out its part by cutting down the prospects for Federal spending, leading toward a balanced budget for next year. If we maintain self-discipline, all of us, this program will work to cut inflation, to reduce interest rates, and to restore the conditions for healthy growth, both in jobs and in economic output.,Certain sectors of our economy, of the American people, are particularly hard hit, and within our budget constraints, we are taking steps available to meet those hard times for them.,For farmers—a new emergency credit bill, higher target prices for wheat and corn, and opening up of farm reserves to those previously unable to participate in the storage of grain. This will provide some relief for them.,For housing, I will support an effort to expand the section 235 program, which will build an additional 100,000 units, again within our budget spending limits.,To sustain employment for autoworkers, we are working to encourage more overseas automakers to invest here in the United States. Honda has already announced a large plant. Just today, the makers of Datsun announced their plans to construct a very large plant in the United States. And I hope to sign a bill soon that will enable Volkswagen to open a plant in Michigan. Between this fiscal year and next, we .are budgeting over a billion dollars extra to provide trade adjustment assistance to tide the autoworkers over until new jobs can be provided for them, as American automobile manufacturers produce more of the energy efficient automobiles which are now in such great demand by the American consumer.,We've been working with the Nation's food and drug chains and we now have more than 6,500 food stores and more than 2,500 drug sales outlets who have committed themselves to voluntary freezing of prices on literally thousands of basic items.,In the last several weeks, interest rates have begun edging down, and yesterday they fell more steeply, but they are still very high. And there will be no substantial nor sustained reduction in interest rates until the growing demand for credit is assuaged and until we get inflation under control.,But—and this is very important—the next couple of months, in spite of the good news recently, we will continue to see bad news on inflation. There are some cost increases still in the pipeline that have not yet been reflected in prices to the consumer. After that, starting early this summer, the chances are very good for a sizable drop in the inflation rate. We should have much smaller increases in energy prices this year compared to last year, and mortgage interest rates should no longer be rising—indeed, I hope to see them fall.,There are no quick and easy answers, but there is no reason for fear or despair. Our programs are good, our American economy is strong and sound, and our people are united and determined to meet these challenges together.,QUESTIONS,IRAN: SANCTIONS, DEADLINES, AND ALLIED SUPPORT,Q. Mr. President, what have you accomplished with these sanctions so far? And have you set a deadline before summer for a new belligerent stand? And also, do you have any reason to believe that the allies are going to back up our actions, or are they fair weather friends?,THE PRESIDENT. From the very beginning of the crisis in Iran, brought about by the seizure of our hostages, I have had two goals in mind from which we have never deviated: first of all, to protect the interests of our country and its principles and standards; and secondly, and along with it on an equal basis, to protect the lives of the hostages and to work as best I could under the most difficult possible circumstances to secure the release of our hostages safely and to freedom.,We have had three options available to us: economic, political, and military. So far, we have only exercised the economic and the political measures—in the Court of Justice, in-the United Nations, in our own economic actions which are now inflicting punishment on Iran's economy, and in the marshaling of support among other countries.,I can't predict to you exactly what other nations will do. In recent days, I have communicated with almost all of the major nations' leaders, asking them to take peaceful action, economic and political, to join with us in convincing Iran that they are becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of the civilized world and increasingly vulnerable to dissension and fragmentation within and to danger from without, particularly the Soviet Union-the north of Iran.,Recently, our allies and friends have withdrawn their ambassadors to decide what they should do in the future. I understand from some of the leaders that next week they will have another meeting to decide what further steps to take, now that Bani-Sadr, the President of Iran, and others have refused to take action to release the hostages after our allies had demanded directly that Iran take this action.,If this additional set of sanctions that I've described to you today and the concerted action of our allies is not successful, then the only next step available that I can see would be some sort of military action, which is the prerogative and the right of the United States under these circumstances.,IRAN: POSSIBILITY OF FOOD EMBARGO,Q. Mr. President, why didn't you embargo food right now, as some of us had been led to believe you had already decided to do?,THE PRESIDENT. We have considered extending the embargo to food and drugs, which is obviously an item that we could include. We, first of all, are complying with the United Nations Security Council definition of sanctions, and we are encouraging, now, our allies to take similar action.,Secondly, because of decisions made by us, the attitude of the American people, the attitude of shippers of food and drugs, this trade is practically nonexistent. As I pointed out to you today, unless there is immediate action on the part of Iran, these items and the interruption of communications are still available to us for a decision by me.,MOBIL OIL COMPANY,Q. Mr. President, after Mobil was cited as out of compliance with voluntary wage and price guidelines, they still received two multimillion dollar Federal contracts. This seems to indicate that sanctions against noncompliance, especially with regard to the oil companies, can be waived. My question, sir, is: Are further sanctions being considered against the Mobil Oil Company and other companies, and if so, when will that announcement come?,THE PRESIDENT. The previous contracts given to Mobil were decided before Mobil was cited by the Council on Wage and Price Stability. Sanctions against Mobil are being considered. We are negotiating now with Mobil on a daily basis to try to force them, through persuasion and because of the pressure of public opinion on Mobil, to refund to the American people the overcharges that resulted from their pricing policies in 1979.,We have not yet been successful in convincing Mobil to comply with these voluntary price standards so important to the American people and, in my judgment, so important to the stature and the reputation of Mobil Oil as a responsible\nmember of the American economic community.,I cannot predict to you what Mobil will do. If they do not act, we will continue to let the American people know about the irresponsibility of Mobil, and we will also take actions, as necessary, to restrain Mobil, within the bounds of the law, from benefiting from Government contracts.,IRAN: AMERICAN MILITARY OPTIONS,Q. Mr. President, there's been some ambiguity, perhaps partly deliberate, about the circumstances and timing of military measures, if they are to be taken, against Iran. One element of that ambiguity was a remark you made in an interview with the European television last week that suggested that if our allies support us sufficiently in taking sanctions, then it might be less necessary for you to take unilateral military measures. My question is, to what extent does the timing of military measures depend on what our allies do, and to what extent does it depend simply .on the Iranian response?,THE PRESIDENT. It depends on three factors. One is the effectiveness of the accumulation of economic and political sanctions that we have taken against Iran. Secondly, it depends upon the effectiveness of the sanctions to be imposed upon Iran by other nations in the world, including some of our key allies. And thirdly and most importantly, of course, it depends upon the response of Iran to these actions and the condemnation of the rest of the world.\nI do not feel it appropriate for me to set a specific time schedule for the imposition of further actions, which may include military action, but it's an option available to me.,I think our key allied leaders understand the time frame under which we are acting and making our plans, and their decisions next week, I think, will be colored, perhaps, by the messages that I have exchanged with them, both by cable and by direct telephone conversations, which continue.,HAMILTON JORDAN,Q. Mr. President, there have been reports that you have designated Hamilton Jordan as your special envoy on Iran to negotiate on the hostages and that, generally, he has become one of your top foreign policy advisers. Could you explain to us some of these new functions of his and his qualifications for them, and also confirm a report that on one or more of his secret missions he wore a wig and other disguises?,THE PRESIDENT. I've never known about any disguises or wigs. Hamilton is not one of my major foreign policy advisers. He does not claim to be an expert on foreign policy. Hamilton is very valuable to me in the proper interrelation of foreign policy decisions with domestic decisions. He does attend most of our high-level discussions on both domestic matters and foreign policy matters.,Almost every member of the White House staff who is involved directly or indirectly in international affairs and, also, those in the State Department and, perhaps, even those in the Justice Department have been involved at various times in the attempt that we have made to convince the Iranian Government and their officials to release the hostages. This does include Hamilton, but he's not designated exclusively at all to play this role.,IRAN; TIMING FOR RELEASE OF HOSTAGES,Q. Mr. President, you mentioned that there's a statement from Iranian officials that they may not consider the hostage question until July. Without talking about a deadline, is that acceptable? Could it go on that long?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think that would be an excessive time for us to wait.,IRAN: EFFECTS OF BLOCKADE ON ALLIED OIL SUPPLIES,Q. Mr. President, despite the compelling objective of obtaining the release of the hostages, what is the possibility that a future military action by the United States, even including a blockade, might be too high a price to pay in terms of the damage to the Allied oil supplies and the further risk of war?,THE PRESIDENT. That's a balance that I will have to assess and on which make the ultimate decision. I have not discussed specific military steps with our allies that I might take. I think they are familiar, through news reports and through just commonsense analysis of those available to us, that the interruption of commerce with Iran is a kind of step that would be available. We announced in November, I think November the 20th, that this was one of those steps that we would reserve for ourselves to take in the future. I think we used the phrase, "interruption of commerce with Iran.",It would be severe in its consequences for Iran and much less severe for any particular customer of Iran. Because of sanctions against Iran and because of the fragmented nature of their own economic system and because of their inability to buy adequate spare parts and continue their exploratory operations of the production of oil, their shipments of oil in the international markets have dropped precipitously.,So, a total interruption of Iranian oil shipments to other countries would not be a devastating blow to those countries. It would certainly be an inconvenience; it would certainly be serious. And we have been trying to avoid that kind .of action, and we are still attempting to avoid that kind of action. But I cannot preclude that option for the future if it becomes necessary.,IRAN: TIMING OF U.S. ACTIONS WITH PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES,Q. Mr. President, some of your critics, especially those who work for Senator Kennedy, have suggested that your announcements and actions on Iran, many of them seem timed to influence the Presidential primaries. They cite the announcement the morning of the Wisconsin primary and I'm sure will point out that today's announcements and this press conference come just a few days before the Pennsylvania primary. What's your response to that?,THE PRESIDENT. I would like for you to look at the calendar since the first of January and find a time that wasn't immediately before or immediately after primaries. As you know, we have 35 primaries this year in a period of about 5 months, which is an average of 7 primaries per month. And I have never designed the announcement of an action to try to color or modify the actions of voters in a primary. These occurrences are too serious for our Nation.,And the particular instance to which you refer in Wisconsin was a time when we had negotiated for many weeks in anticipation of such an announcement that the hostages would be transferred to control of the Government and subsequently released. That decision came through official action by the Iranian Government, the Revolutionary Council. President Bani-Sadr made the announcement himself early in the morning our time, about noontime Iranian time. It was a completely appropriate time for it to be announced.,But I do not make, and have not made, and will not make decisions nor announcements concerning the lives and safety of our hostages simply to derive some political benefit from them.,RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PRESIDENCY,Q. Mr. President, it seems a lot of people we've seen don't find your effectiveness too great these days. We find this in the polls and elsewhere. And at least, it's not as high as they'd like, as good as they'd like. My question is this: Is the job today of being President too big, too complex for a President, any President? Are there too many factors outside of your control to be effective?,THE PRESIDENT. The job is a big one; there's no doubt about that. Under any normal circumstances, being President is not an easy task. The greatness and strength of our country, the support of the American people, the derivation, through democratic processes, of authority and responsibility and the ability to act is a reassuring thing to me and all my predecessors who've served in this office and lived in this house.,This year, almost in a unique way, we've had additional responsibilities. I think it's been 25 or 30 years, for instance, since an incumbent Democratic President had to run a political campaign while he was in office. I don't deplore that. The right of my opponents to run is theirs. But that's an additional complicating factor. It was obviously an additional burden for our entire Nation, not just for me, to have American hostages captured in Iran and to have the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan, which was a departure from 25 years of policy on their part not to use their own military forces to cross the borders into a previously undominated country.,The combination of these three factors, in addition to very high interest rates and inflation rates, brought about primarily by worldwide escalation in oil prices, has made this an extremely difficult job even compared to normal times. I don't deplore it; I'm not trying to avoid the responsibilities.,And I believe that the action of the American people so far during the electoral process has not been a complete endorsement of what I have done or what I have accomplished. But I think the results so far, compared to what was anticipated 6 months ago, in spite of these unpredictable kinds of crises that have afflicted our Nation, have been very gratifying to me and an indication that the American people are fairly well satisfied. We've got problems, yes. But I am not despairing, and I am not fearful; I don't think the American people should be either.,IRAN: PROHIBITION ON TRAVEL,Q. Mr. President, do the sanctions that you announced today, sir, bar the families of hostages and other humanitarian-minded Americans from traveling, assuming of course that the terrorists will allow them into the Embassy?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, it would unless they had received a specific permit either from the State Department or the Attorney General [Treasury Department]. *,* White House correction.,AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY,Q. Mr. President, you have just recently encouraged foreign automakers to invest in plants in this country, presumably to hold more jobs here. But in recent days the autoworkers are complaining they've lost a significant number of jobs. They are suggesting putting restrictions on foreign imports, at least as a short-term remedy, and they're planning to be here and lobby for this. I wonder how you feel about restrictions on imports.,THE PRESIDENT. I'd like to respond to your question without it being characterized as a criticism of anyone. I remember the first few months that I was President, sitting in the Cabinet Room, over just adjacent to the Oval Office, talking to the leaders of the American automobile manufacturers, manufacturing firms, all of the leaders there, all the firms represented, encouraging them to comply with the impending legislation in the Congress to require the production of small and efficient automobiles for the American market.,Their unanimous reply was that this was an inappropriate thing for them to do, that the market was not there for the small and efficient automobiles. Subsequent events, which could not be completely predictable, have shown that the American people are now demanding, in order to conserve energy, the small and efficient automobiles, precisely the kind of car that we were encouraging them to make 3 years ago or more.,At this moment every single small, efficient automobile that can be produced by American manufacturers have a ready market. Because they are now in a transition period from the large gas-guzzling automobiles to the manufacture of the small and efficient cars, there is a very difficult time for employment and American production, because the market is not there for the big, heavy, inefficient automobiles.,So, to replace the number of cars that Americans could be producing that are small and efficient that are not being produced, foreign imports are coming in at a very high level. There are several things that we could do: prevent those foreign cars from coming in, deprive the American consumer from buying them, which would drive up the price of domestically produced small cars enormously or would result in Americans having to buy the large and inefficient gas-guzzlers which they do not want. I think that would be ill advised.,So, we are trying to carry over, as best we can, during this transition phase minimal damage to the American automobile worker, as I described in my statement, encouraging the American manufacturers to shift toward the small and efficient cars as rapidly as possible and, as an additional thing, encouraging Volkswagen and other foreign manufacturers to come into the United States, to employ American automobile workers, highly trained, to produce the foreign-designed cars during that period.,Later, I have no doubt that the American manufacturers, who are highly competent and who make superb vehicles, will rapidly shift to the small and efficient cars. When they do, I think the foreign imports, even those manufactured here, will have a much more competitive market. But I cannot freeze, now, imports of the small foreign cars that American consumers want, just to protect an industry that is now transferring its attention to the small cars to be manufactured here.,IRAN: SOVIET ACTIONS TO COUNTER BLOCKADE,Q. Mr. President, I would like to get back to the subject of Iran, if we might. There have been published reports that the Soviet Union has already taken some steps to counter the effects of a boycott or a blockade, should you decide to take that route as the days go on. There are reports that truckloads of various food supplies and other commodities are already coming across the Soviet border into Iran. Do you have any independent confirmation of this, Mr. President, and don't you think, if it is true, this would undermine any future type of a naval blockade?,THE PRESIDENT. The fact is that, I guess, historically there has been a fairly substantial level of trade between the Soviet Union and Iran. Before the recent revolution, there were plans afoot for substantial increased shipments of natural gas from Iran into the Soviet Union in exchange for the barter of goods and perhaps hard cash.,The rail lines and the road system which interconnects Iran and the Soviet Union are quite limited in their capacity. They may be used now at capacity; I don't really know the specifics about that. But I think that the quantity of goods that would be interrupted by a possible blockade, which I'm not predicting now specifically will take place, could not possibly be filled or replaced by the limited transportation routes by land, either from Turkey or Iraq or the Soviet Union, certainly not from Afghanistan, at this time.,THE NATO ALLIANCE,Q. Mr. President, I was wondering, sir: Is it your belief the American people will continue indefinitely to provide the main defense of Western Europe, when there's a story in the papers this morning that showed pluralities in both West Germany and Britain now oppose backing the United States in a future dispute with the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. The United States has never provided the majority of or the overwhelming portion of troops or fighting equipment in Europe for the defense of Western Europe against the Warsaw Pact. The number of troops that America has, in all, in the European theater is about 300,000. We and our NATO Allies combined have, I think, more than 2 million. I don't remember the exact figure. We have always provided the strategic nuclear umbrella for the protection of Europe, and we've had direct control, as you know, over most of the tactical nuclear weapons.,I saw results of a poll today from Germany that showed that over 80 percent of the people in West Germany, Federal Republic of Germany, favor a boycott of the Moscow Olympics by the Federal Republic of Germany.,I think the NATO Alliance is as strong now as it has been in any time, in my memory, since the war. Under very difficult economic circumstances, the major nations in the Alliance have committed themselves to a real growth in defense expenditures. Under heavy pressure, propaganda efforts by the Warsaw Pact nations, the Allies voted last December to go ahead with a modernization of theater nuclear forces—a very difficult decision. And my own personal relationship with the leaders in those countries, both the heads of state and military and diplomatic, show a very strong commitment to the Alliance and a very strong support for us.,I have sometimes been disappointed at the rapidity of action and the substance of the action taken by some of our allies in the Iranian and the Afghanistan question. But we look at things from a different perspective. We are much more invulnerable than they are to any sort of conventional attack. Germany, for instance, is a divided country. Seventeen million Germans live under Communist rule in East Germany, and Berlin is especially exposed. Most European countries have a much higher dependence on foreign trade than do we.,But I think within the bounds of the limitations and difference of perspective, although I have sometimes been disappointed, I think they have performed adequately. And I believe recently, the last few days, and I believe next week, we will see a strong rush of support to join us in the boycott of the Moscow Olympics, which will be a heavy propaganda and psychological blow to the Soviet Union in condemnation of their invasion. And I believe their support for us in Iran will prove that the premise of your question, that we don't have their support and cooperation, is inaccurate.,INFLATION AND A BALANCED BUDGET,Q. Mr. President, a question on inflation: Did you tell a group of Democratic Congressmen a few weeks ago that you realized that your balanced budget would have only a very small impact on the inflation rate, less than one-half of 1 percent? And if you did tell them that, can you really expect, if the inflation rate stays high, the kind of decrease in inflation that you're talking about? If the balanced budget doesn't really do it, can you really expect them, when OPEC looks at that, when the financial markets look at that, could you expect the kind of decrease in interest rates and oil prices that you were talking about earlier today? Isn't it much more likely that we'll have a recession and with continued high inflation, continued high interest rates, and come out of it with a higher basic rate of inflation than we have now, as happened in '74, '75?,THE PRESIDENT. That's a complicated question. I'll try to answer it briefly.,It is true that by itself, in direct effect, a $15 billion reduction in Federal expenditures, compared to more than a $2 trillion economy, would involve less than a half of 1 percent.,But in my judgment, as I told the congressional leaders assembled in this room, without a clear demonstration of self-discipline on the part of the Federal Government brought about by reduced expenditures and a commitment to a balanced budget, any other anti-inflation components would be fruitless, because we have got to convince the American people, the financial community, business community, labor community, individual citizens, that we ourselves here in Washington running the Government are going to be responsible and not overspend and do our share to get the Federal Government out of the borrowing business in 1981, in order to induce them to join us in a common team effort.,I do believe that we are already seeing some results. In my opinion, the recent news on interest rates, not just the prime rate but most other interest rates, have shown an encouraging turn. I can't predict that it's going to be permanent; I don't want to mislead anyone. But if we can have a limit, a fairly substantial limit, say, a 20-percent increase in OPEC [overall] * energy costs, and some reduction-say, 2 percent—in mortgage rates on homes, we anticipate a substantial reduction in the inflation rate within the next few months. I'm talking about a reduction of maybe 8 percent or more. Those are two big "ifs," but I don't think they're beyond the realm of expectation.,*White House correction.,So, I do believe that a concerted commitment on the part of the American people to the program that we have outlined, and some of them have volunteered to assume, will be effective and that we will have a reduction of interest rates and inflation, and at the same time, we will keep our economy strong. I have a very good feeling about the future this year, about controlling inflation and reduced interest rates.,MIDDLE EAST PEACE NEGOTIATIONS,Q. Mr. President, in the last 10 days, Mr. President, you've talked with the leaders of Israel and Egypt at length about their negotiations on Palestinian autonomy, and you've said, today in fact, that the problems look less formidable now. Can you tell us where the give is and where you see the hope that these two parties might reach agreement by May 26 or any other time in the near future?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not able and have never been able to speak for Egypt or to speak for Israel. The negotiation is basically between those two countries. We have faced much more formidable obstacles in the past than we presently face, both prior to the Camp David accords and also prior to the Mideast peace treaty conclusion.,Now we are carrying out the Camp David agreement. When I discuss these matters with President Sadat or Prime Minister Begin, they have never deviated one iota from the exact language and the exact provisions of the Camp David accords. It's looked on almost as a sacred document. There are differences of interpretation about what is actually meant by "a refugee" or what is actually meant by "full autonomy" and so forth.,But we're now in the process of negotiating how much authority and power and influence and responsibility to give to the self-governing authority, how exactly it will be composed—those are the two basic questions—and how that selfgoverning authority is to be chosen. And once that's decided, Israel is completely ready to withdraw their military government, the civilian administration, to withdraw their own forces and to redeploy them in specified security locations, and to let those new duties and responsibilities be assumed by the Palestinian Arabs who live in the West Bank/Gaza.,That will be a major step forward. And if we can accomplish that, then the details of exactly how to administer water rights and exactly how to administer land and how to administer other specific elements of security, like controlling terrorism, which are now the difficult issues being negotiated, I think will be resolved without delay.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much.
#> 5 ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM,THE PRESIDENT. Last night at this time I was participating in a remarkable event, truly historic in the development of our Nation. I was in the Cabinet Room, next to the Oval Office, along with the leadership of the Democrats in the House and the Senate, discussing the features of and the implementation of a comprehensive, anti-inflation program for our Nation. We mutually pledged to assure that this program would be successful, and the Democrats, the leadership, after 10 days of intense discussions and negotiations with my administration, themselves offered adequate cuts in the existing budget to ensure a balanced budget for 1981.,I'm very grateful for this cooperation. And during the same afternoon the Republicans, the leadership there, pledged that if the Democrats would take the leadership they would also cooperate, which I think will ensure that the Congress will guarantee that with our cooperative effort this will be successful.,Just a few hours ago I described the basic elements of this program, to intensify America's battle against inflation. These actions will be painful. They will not work overnight. But they are necessary to preserve the power of the greatest economic nation on Earth.,Inflation is bad in our country, but it's not as bad as that in some of our major allies, Great Britain, Japan, Italy. We have many reasons for this high inflation rate—the unprecedented increase in the price of oil, the fact that we as individuals and a society have tried to beat inflation by borrowing. It's as though we have come to believe that a penny borrowed is a penny earned. Our whole society, beginning with the Federal Government, must live within its means. We must exert discipline on ourselves. We must act decisively, and we must act now. And I will set forth a revised budget for 1981 that will be a balanced budget.,To achieve this goal I will defer or reduce or cancel many new programs which have been proposed recently to the Congress. I will cut expenditures throughout the Government. I will freeze Federal employment immediately, to cut down the total number of employees on the Federal payroll by at least 20,000 between now and the 1st of October. These budget cuts will be difficult politically and also because there will be inconveniences and disappointments among many people. But some sacrifice now will be much less onerous and burdensome, particularly to the needy among us, than the serious suffering that will occur if we don't arrest the inflationary spirals.,We will have a balanced budget beginning in October. To ensure this goal I will veto any legislation that exceeds our spending limit. I will use my powers under the budget acts to hold down budget-busting appropriations, and, if necessary, I will ask the Congress for additional powers to make sure that these goals are realized.,A balanced budget is not a cure-all, but it's a necessary part of an overall commitment. Without a balanced budget commitment there would be no way to put together a credible anti-inflation program. The Federal Government simply must accept discipline on itself as an example for others to follow.,Secondly, our governments have been borrowing, but so have people and institutions in our Nation been borrowing too much. So, credit controls will be implemented, as authorized by me and as administered by the Federal Reserve System of our country, to moderate the expansion of credit, with special emphasis provided, however, to meet the needs of small businesses, farmers, and those who would buy homes.,Third, we'll have improved compliance with our voluntary wage and price constraints. Mandatory wage and price controls will not be used. They have never worked in peacetime. Prices have always continued to rise even under an enormous Federal bureaucracy, and the greatest harm has come to the average American family living on a fixed income with frozen wages while the cost of vital necessities like food and fuel continue to go higher and higher.,And fourth, as I said earlier, the price of imported oil has more than doubled in the last 12 months. Last year's increase in prices of oil alone was greater than all other increases in the price of oil since oil was first discovered many years ago. We simply must cut these imports. We are now approaching the final stages of implementing through law a comprehensive and an adequate energy policy for our Nation. But we cannot meet the goal of reducing imports adequately unless we control the unwarranted and extravagant consumption of gasoline.\nTherefore, to make reductions in oil imports, I will impose an oil import conservation fee, equal to about 10 cents a gallon, to cut down on the use of gasoline. The first year this will result in savings of 100,000 barrels a day of imported oil; after 3 years, about 250,000 barrels per day will be reduced because of this charge. And we will be able, this year, to cut our gasoline consumption, and therefore oil imports, 400,000 barrels of oil per day.,I'll take long-term efforts to improve the vitality of our economy and to increase productivity through tax reductions. But these tax reductions can only come after we have been sure that we can exercise and maintain the discipline of a balanced budget.,There are no quick answers to inflation. There are no easy answers. There are no painless answers to inflation. If so, they would have been carried out long ago. The American people are not going to be deceived on this issue. The projects that I've outlined will involve costs; they involve pain. But the cost is far less in taking action than it will be if we take no action.,I must tell you very frankly that the results will not be immediate. We can expect several more months of very high inflation. But toward the end of this year the inflation rate will begin to drop, I think drop substantially.,The hard truth is that there is no easy way. Americans must do this together.,The final point I'd like to make before I take your answers is that our Nation is strong and vital. We are similar to a superb athlete who has simply gotten out of shape. The American economy has an underlying strength and resiliency. With discipline and restraint and with a willingness to accept, perhaps, some aching muscles at first, our economy can perform again like a champion. In the fight against inflation what is at stake is more than material wealth, it's more than material comfort; what is at stake is whether we as Americans, as a nation, as a people, will control our own destiny. In order to do so we must control inflation. And the Congress and I and, I believe, our entire Nation is determined to make this effort successful.\nThank you very much.\nMr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,BALANCED FEDERAL BUDGETS,Q. Mr. President, do you look forward to more than one balanced budget in a row—because if you look for more, we haven't had two in a row since Eisenhower, three in a row since Truman, and four in a row since Herbert Hoover. I just wondered how you look forward to that.,THE PRESIDENT. My hope is that once we establish a precedent of a balanced budget under the present very difficult circumstances, that we will be able to maintain that financial discipline and that budget discipline that we have achieved.,ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS,Q. Mr. President, is Israel keeping faith with the Camp David accords and the autonomy talks, when by government policy it continues to confiscate the land of Palestinians?,THE PRESIDENT. There is nothing specifically in the Camp David accords concerning the settlements themselves. There is an agreement in the treaty between Israel and Egypt about settlements that have been established in the Sinai region, which is Egyptian territory. I might say concerning that, that our policy is set by me, as President. There has been no, change in our policy. That policy is guided by U.N. Resolution 242 and 338, the basis of all of our negotiations; by every word in the Camp David accords, signed by me on behalf of our Nation; and by Begin and Sadat on behalf of Israel and Egypt. We intend to carry out that agreement.,Right now we are indulged in some very difficult but very important discussions and negotiations to establish full autonomy on the West Bank, Gaza area. I believe that these discussions can be successful. It's crucial to our own Nation's security that they be successful, that we have peace in the Middle East; and, it's, I think, crucial to the whole region that these discussions be successful.,I might add one other point. It's not easy. We've had tedious negotiations at Camp David. We had tedious negotiations almost exactly a year ago, when we finally concluded and signed the Mideast peace treaty. Our principles are well known by Prime Minister Begin and by President Sadat, and I stay constantly in touch with them and our negotiators to make sure that we are successful.,I believe that we will have peace in the Middle East, with a secure Israel behind recognized borders, with the Palestinian question being resolved in all its aspects, and with peace between Israel and her neighbors.,Q. You say the policy is set by you.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. And this is a question about the recent mix-up on the U.N. resolution. My question really goes to process. The resolution was not the resolution that you wanted. Are you the only one who can determine that it's not the resolution you want? Does your staff not know when it's not a resolution that you want, or is it possible that some of your foreign policy advisers are trying to make policy for you?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think anybody in my administration doubts that I'm the one that sets the policy. The U.N. resolution, as it was passed, was not in accordance with the policy that I have established. It was not in accordance with the agreements that I had made with Prime Minister Begin, well understood by President Sadat.,We had agreed among us that we did not approve, as an American Government, of the settlements on the West Bank and Gaza area—that they were an obstacle to peace. But we also had agreed that during the time of the negotiations, we would not call for the dismantling of existing settlements. That was to be resolved as an issue in the ongoing negotiations.,Also, President Sadat, Prime Minister Begin, and I agreed on a paragraph in the Camp David accords concerning Jerusalem. It called for, and we still believe, that there should be an undivided Jerusalem, but that those who look upon those places in Jerusalem as holy places, should have unimpeded access to them for worship.,This resolution in the U.N. violated those two very important and basic principles. Those issues have not yet been resolved. There is nothing in this resolution at the U.N. that established the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza area. That will be established after a Syear interval period, during which full autonomy is enjoyed by the residents of the area. So, the resolution was in violation of my policy.,I might say that I have absolute confidence in Secretary Vance. I have seen him days and days and weeks negotiating to achieve the security of Israel and the peace of Israel. It was an honest breakdown in communications between me and the United Nations. I'm responsible for anything that goes wrong in this Government, and I'm also responsible, on occasion, for things that go right. Secretary Vance is responsible for the State Department. But to say exactly how the communications broke down is very difficult to do.,But I made it known as quickly as I discovered it, that this resolution did violate the policy and disavowed our vote for it.,ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM,Q. Mr. President, the other three times that you proposed a new anti-inflation program, you pledged each time that they would help restrain the rate of inflation, and yet we've seen it climb from 5 percent, when you took office, to more than 18 percent now on an annual basis. What assurance can you offer the American people that the plan you announced today will bring down the rate of inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. I have absolutely no doubt that the plan that I outlined today, when implemented, will indeed bring down the high rate of inflation which exists today. There are some elements that cause the present high inflation rate-which is a worldwide problem—over which I have no control.,One is the price of foreign oil, when we are importing so much of it. As I said earlier, it has more than doubled in price in the last 12 months. In fact, just 1 month ago, the price of energy in our own Nation increased 7 1/2 percent in 1 month, which is an annual rate of 90 percent. But I can control how much oil is imported at that high price, and we can shift to more plentiful supplies of energy' in our own Nation.,We have not had a balanced budget in 12 years. We've only had one balanced budget since 1961. But I can guarantee you that we will have a balanced budget in 1981, fiscal year beginning October 1.,The Nation is aroused now, as it has never been before—at least in my lifetime—about the horrors of existing inflation and the threat of future inflation. Never in the history of our Nation has there been so much of a common commitment and a common discussion and a common negotiation between any President and his administration and the leaders of the Congress. This is a mutual commitment. It's not just something that I'm proposing to Congress with little expectation of success.,So, there are several elements, including those I've just described to you, that make it certain, in my mind, that we will have a substantial reduction in the inflation rate during this year—the latter part of this year. And I believe that we'll be under double-digit inflation next year.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION,Q. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you two questions if I could, please, about the SALT process—one general, one specific. The first question is, given the fact this is an election year, do you still intend to push ahead with Senate ratification of SALT? If so, when will you ask the Senate to ratify SALT? The second question deals with the Trident submarine. When that begins sea trials in July, I think under the SALT I agreement you will need to begin decommissioning Polaris submarines to stay within the limits of the SALT I agreement. Will you begin decommissioning Polaris submarines when Trident begins its sea trials, or will you opt for technical violation of the SALT I agreement?,THE PRESIDENT. The agreement which we presently have with the Soviet Union, which I intend to honor as long as they reciprocate, is to comply with all the terms of the interim SALT agreement, which is known as SALT I.,SALT II has been signed by me and President Brezhnev. I consider it binding on our two countries. It has not yet been ratified. We will observe very closely to make sure that the Soviets comply with this agreement. I will not ask the Senate to ratify SALT II until I have a chance to consult very closely with the congressional leadership on the Senate side, particularly Majority Leader Byrd and others who work with him, both Democrats and Republicans.,Because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan it is obvious that we would not be successful in ratifying SALT II treaty at this time. It is still on the calendar. It will not be brought up until after that consultation takes place. I will also continue to consult with congressional leadership as far as compliance with SALT II is concerned.,But my present intention, within the bounds of reciprocal action on the Soviet Union and consultations with the Senate and, to some degree, the House leadership, I intend to comply with the provisions of SALT II.,Q. Mr. President, I'm a bit confused by that last answer. You both said that you regarded the treaty that you signed as binding on this country and that you would consult on compliance with it. I guess the question then comes down to whether or not the United States, in absence of ratification, would observe the provisions of SALT II and the notion that it's in its own best interests and, I suppose, inviting Soviet comparable action. Is that what you're saying to us?,THE PRESIDENT. Ordinarily, when a treaty is signed between the heads of two nations, the presumption is that the treaty will be honored on both sides absent some further development. One further development that would cause me to renounce the treaty would be after consulting with the Members of the Senate to determine an interest of our Nation that might cause such a rejection, in which case I would notify the Soviet Union that the terms of the treaty were no longer binding.,So, there will be two provisos in the continued honoring of the SALT II treaty. One is that the Soviets reciprocate completely, as verified by us, and secondly, that the consultations that I will continue with the Senate leadership confirm me in my commitment that it's in the best interests of our country to do so.,FEDERAL GRANTS TO CITIES,Q. Mr. President, you've been accused of buying votes in this particular election. With your efforts to balance the budget, will you continue to favor those particular cities and persons within those cities who favor your reelection?,THE PRESIDENT. We have never favored any person or cities who favored my reelection.,FISCAL YEAR 1981 BUDGET,Q. Mr. President, you submitted your fiscal '81 budget just 7 weeks ago, and then we had the January CPI figures and everyone was shocked, of course. My question is, why, sir, could you not have anticipated increased inflation and submitted a balanced budget at that time, the kind of cuts that you announced and the kind of package that you announced today and, as you mentioned a minute ago, arouse the country at that time?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, circumstances have changed drastically since we completed work on the 1981 budget, even since I submitted it to the Congress in January. At that time there was a general presumption that quite early this year we would be faced not with rapidly escalating inflation, but with an actual recession. Everyone has been amazed at the strength of our economy, the rapidity with which growth has occurred, of business investments, an actual reduction in unemployment, and other indicators of a very hot economy in spite of the fact that energy prices and other reasons have caused the inflation rate to escalate. So, when circumstances change, as I've just described, we must change our policy.,I think that when we submitted this budget in January it was a very stringent budget. When I ran for President, for instance, in 1976, the budget deficit was over 4 percent of the gross national product. The 1981 budget, as submitted, had cut that 4 percent down to about one-half of 1 percent. So, we've been making good progress in cutting down the budget deficit. But now, because of increasing evidence of uncontrollable inflation and uncontrollable interest rates if we don't take more drastic action, we decided to take the drastic action that I described this afternoon.,PROGRAMS FOR MINORITY GROUPS,Q. Mr. President, the Congressional Black Caucus has labeled your 1981 budget proposal an unmitigated disaster for racial minorities, the poor, and the elderly. And they also say it reflects the level of indifference that the administration has adopted towards the minority community. Could you respond to that?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. That's not an accurate assessment, but I think it's an accurate report that you just gave on their attitude. We've had a very successful first 3 years in increased programs and increased sensitivity to the needs of the disadvantaged people in our country, including minority groups. We've had an unprecedented increase in jobs. We've had all unprecedented commitment to the urban areas of our country, inhabited by the poor and quite often by minority groups. We've had a 75-percent increase in educational funds from the Federal Government, primarily oriented toward the disadvantaged children and others. So, we've got an excellent record so far, not only in the allocation of funds and programmes for those who need them most but also in the appointment of very knowledgeable and very competent minority representatives, in my administration as a whole, and also to Federal judgeships and other similar positions in the regulatory agencies.,Now, in my opinion, the people in our Nation who will most benefit from controlling inflation are the ones who are most damaged by it, and that's the ones on low incomes, on fixed incomes, who have to face day after day an 18- or 20-percent increase in cost of the things they have to buy on those relatively fixed incomes. There will be some transient inconvenience or disappointment, but it will be much less than the permanent damage to the quality of life of those poor people on the long term if we do not get inflation under control.,So, in my judgment the best thing that I could do for the people about whom I am deeply concerned, the disadvantaged and the poor, is to take every step to control inflation. The cuts that we have put into our plans that will be revealed to the Congress very shortly have been worked out by the very liberal Members of the Congress who helped to initiate those programs in the first place. And as we have put together this package, we have had a special sensitivity for those who are most disadvantaged and have minimized the adverse effect on them by the cuts that will be proposed.,AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN,Q. Mr. President, can you give us some new word on the hostage situation in Iran? Is the administration content to just wait until the parliament is elected, or do you have any plan to resolve this? Do you plan to bring any more pressures on Iran?,THE PRESIDENT. We are not content for the innocent American hostages to be held by terrorists for one single day. This is an abhorrent act in direct violation not only of international law but the very Islamic principles which these militants profess to espouse and to support. We have done everything we possibly could in the last 4 months to honor the principles of our Nation, to protect the interests of our Nation, to try to preserve in every way the health and the lives of those hostages, and to work for their freedom.,I don't know when they'll be released. We have constant negotiations and attempts to provide continuing communication with the leaders of Iran. I believe that when there's a stable government in Iran, which may possibly occur after the elections—the vote, as you know, began today. But our past few days have been characterized by bitter disappointments, because, in effect, commitments that had been made by the newly elected President and administration of Iran were not honored, because prior to these parliamentary elections they obviously do not have the authority to speak and carry out their own commitment. Whether they'll have that authority after the elections are completed I don't know. I certainly hope so.,SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY,Q. Mr. President, how much longer before you will feel that you have whipped, to use your phrase, Senator Kennedy's donkey? [Laughter] Will it take the Illinois primary, or New York? At what point do you feel that you will have this job done?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we've got 35 or 36 primaries, and the rest are caucus States. During this 5-day period, I think, we've got 11 elections. We've done very well recently in those contests, but the acknowledgement of defeat is a judgment to be made completely by my opponents, and not by me. And I have no indication arid no expectation that there would be any termination to their election efforts anytime in the near future.,IRANIAN IMMIGRANTS,Q. Sir, why did we let in over 9,000 Iranians to come here and be citizens of this country after they took our hostages? Was that an accident or what happened?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it's not an accident. There's a difference between a great and a free and compassionate democratic nation on the one hand, and other countries from which refugees flee, looking for freedom, looking for the right to worship as they please, trying to escape possible persecution. We have screened the immigrants very closely, and in every instance, they have been determined to have a real, genuine, legal interest and reason for coming to our country.,It would not be advisable for us, it would not be humane for us, it would not even be decent for us, in my opinion, when we have an intense confrontation-an extremely emotional confrontation with a revolutionary country like Iran, to refuse to accept refugees who are trying to escape circumstances there and coming to our Nation for a haven. This was a decision made by me, it's in accordance with the American law, and I believe it's in the best interests of our own country to do so.,GASOLINE CONSERVATION FEE,Q. Mr. President, would you please explain how an oil import fee of four dollars and sixty-some odd cents per barrel, and an eventual 10-cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline will help fight inflation, rather than create more inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. The immediate result of that will not be a reduction in inflation. It will be an increase in the inflationary status of our country, as measured by the CPI. But what we must do is to cut down on our excessive dependence on imported oil.,This year, we're going to send out of our Nation between eighty and ninety billion dollars of hard-earned American money to foreign countries to buy their oil. As we import that excessive amount of oil, we also import inflation and unemployment. When we reduce our unwarranted demands to buy the existing amount of oil that exists on the world markets, it causes a lessening in demand and therefore tends to hold down prices.,I believe that because of our action in cutting down oil imports and conservation measures, combined with that of other major oil-importing countries, we have already seen some moderation of the price of oil. I have no belief at all that 1980 will see anything like the increase in oil prices that resulted in 1979 when demand exceeded the available supply.,So, we benefit in two ways: One is keeping the money and the jobs in our own Nation, instead of sending it overseas. And secondly, we help to moderate the worldwide price for energy which ;viii have a major effect in cutting down inflationary pressures in our country in the future.,But there will be some transient, temporary adverse effect because of the increase that I will bring about by the conservation fee.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, sir.
#> 6 SITUATION IN IRAN,THE PRESIDENT. Since the day our Embassy was seized in Tehran, we have had two goals: one, the safety and release of the Americans being held hostage, and the other is the protection of our national interest in this critical area of the world. Since that first day, we have pursued every possibility to achieve these goals. No stone has been left unturned in the search for a solution.,Over the past several weeks, our efforts and our activities have become particularly delicate and intense. Recently there have been some positive signs, although experience has taught us to guard against excessive optimism.,Since mid-November, we and the Iranian officials have been discussing with Secretary-General Waldheim of the United Nations his proposal to send a commission of inquiry to Tehran. We would support steps by the United Nations that would lead to the release of the hostages if the steps are consistent with our goals and our essential international principles. An appropriate commission with a carefully defined purpose would be a step toward resolution of this crisis.,I know that you and the American people will understand that I cannot afford at this delicate time to discuss or to comment further upon any specific efforts that may be underway or any proposals that may be useful in ending this crisis.\nThank you.,QUESTIONS,SHAH OF IRAN,Q. You cut me off at the pass. Mr. President, do you think it was proper for the United States to restore the Shah to the throne in 1953 against the popular will within Iran?,THE PRESIDENT. That's ancient history, and I don't think it's appropriate or helpful for me to go into the propriety of something that happened 30 years ago.,SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY,Q. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy appears to have taken off the gloves in his direct contest with you, and today some of your closest associates have seemed to do likewise in rebuttal. I wonder, what is your position: Are you going to turn the other cheek to Senator Kennedy, or do you have a rebuttal to his harsh criticisms of the last few days?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the statement that was made today by the Secretary of State and by others in answer to Senator Kennedy's speech last night and his previous statements, I think, were appropriate. There is no cause to prevent an open discussion and a free debate of the issues in a political forum, on a campaign trail, and in a meeting like this. But there must be bounds of both propriety and accuracy in the presentation of views by a responsible official, including a United States Senator and also including a candidate for the highest office of our country.,SOVIET INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN,Q. Mr. President, if the crisis in Afghanistan is real and as serious as you have said it is—if it is, does the U.S. have the military capacity to cope with it, short of using a nuclear weapon?,THE PRESIDENT. The crisis is a great one, precipitated by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for several reasons. First of all, this is a crucial area of the world—to us, to our allies, and to other nations. Twothirds of all the oil exported in the entire world come from the Persian Gulf region. Secondly, it's a highly volatile, rapidly changing, unstable part of the world. Third, the Soviets have been indulging in a steady military buildup over a number of years, which has caused us concern and to which we have reacted since I've been in this office. Fourth, the Soviets—a major departure from anything they've done since the Second World War—have now exhibited a willingness to use their military forces beyond their own borders, in a massive invasion of Afghanistan.,The reaction that I have taken to these steps are appropriate and, I believe and hope, adequate. We must convince the Soviet Union, through peaceful means, peaceful means, that they cannot invade an innocent country with impunity and they must suffer the consequences of their action.,Everything we've done has been to contribute to stability, moderation, consistency, persistence, and peace. We have taken actions on our own, and we have asked our allies and others to join in with us in the condemnation of the Soviet Union and the demand that the Soviets withdraw from Afghanistan and to convince them that any further adventurism on their part would cause grave consequences to the Soviet Union.,In my judgment our forces are adequate. We cannot afford to let the Soviets choose either the terrain or the tactics to be used by any other country—a nation that might be invaded, their neighbors, our allies, or ourselves—if-they should persist in their aggressive action. Those judgments would have to be made at the time. But I believe they're adequate.,SENATOR KENNEDY,Q. Mr. President, I'd like you to respond directly to two of Senator Kennedy's criticisms. One, he says that you rejected the idea of this commission with Iran until just recently. And two, he says that Afghanistan might not have happened if you'd paid more attention to the signs and had been more resolute in advance; he says the Russians might not have invaded Afghanistan.,THE PRESIDENT. It's not my inclination to respond to every allegation, erroneous allegation, that Senator Kennedy has made, but what you've asked is typical of what causes me the deepest concern. First of all, his statements have not been true, they've not been accurate, and they've not been responsible, and they've not helped our country.,When the hostages were originally seized—an act of international violence contradicting every norm of diplomacy and international law—Senator Kennedy insinuated that because we had given medical treatment to the Shah, that somehow the seizure of our own hostages was not the fault of the terrorists who took them, but the fault of the United States.,Senator Kennedy has also said that the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union was not only not very serious but that somehow or another the Soviets were not the culpable party, but the United States was at fault and somehow caused or contributed to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.,And more recently he has insinuated-again, falsely—that some action or lack of action on my part or the United States part had perpetuated the incarceration of the American hostages.,This thrust of what he's said throughout the last few weeks is very damaging to our country, and to the establishment of our principles and the maintenance of them, and the achieving of our goals to keep the peace and to get our hostages released.,SITUATION IN AFGHANISTAN,Q. Mr. President, in .Afghanistan again, sir, what kind of regime would be acceptable to you? The Russians have said that if they withdraw, they would leave—I think have left the indication that they would leave a puppet regime. Would you insist on a neutralist regime, or what ideas have you on it?,THE PRESIDENT. What we would like to have, first of all, is a Soviet withdrawal and a commitment, that might be verified and carried out, that the Soviets would not invade another country or use their military forces beyond their borders again to destabilize the peace. We would like to have a neutral country. If there had to be a transition phase during which a neutral and responsible government might be established acceptable to the Afghanistan people, then perhaps some peacekeeping force espoused by the United Nations, maybe comprised of Moslem military troops or otherwise, could be used during that transition phase.,But the prime consideration that I have is to make sure that the Soviets know that their invasion is not acceptable, to marshal as much support from other nations of the world as possible, and to prevent any further threat to the peace and the cause of war. I think through strength we can maintain peace. But we've got to be resolute, we've got to be consistent, and our actions have got to be in a tone of long-range, predictable action clearly understood by the Soviet Union.,DEFENSE SPENDING,Q. Mr. President, you call for an increase of about 5 percent in military defense spending. Some Members of Congress have suggested that that might be too small, given the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. Would you support a plan by Congress to go as far as doubling the current 5-percent increase in military spending?,THE PRESIDENT. Ever since the first year I've been President, we've had a substantial and steady increase in spending for defense, because I recognized that we had some defects in our defense capability when I became President. I might add, in complete accuracy, that President Ford had initiated this buildup shortly before he went out of office. It's one I've continued.,In my opinion, the military budget that we have presented to the Congress in recent weeks is the appropriate level of expenditures. It's very carefully matched to how rapidly we can purchase and develop weapons and accurately matched to the ultimate goals of deployment of our troops, the mobility of our troops, and the interrelationship with our allies.,I'm not saying that there would be no fine tuning or some modification to the budget that wouldn't be acceptable to me, but I would resist very strongly any effort—as has been proposed just recently-to cut the defense budget below what I proposed.,PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,Q. Mr. President, when you say that Senator Kennedy—that his statements have not been accurate, responsible, and that they've not helped our country, and when he and his aides say that your own campaign has been misleading and negative and taking cheap shots, how can that do anything but further and bitterly divide the Democrats? And aren't you both helping Republicans in the general election?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I might point out to you that I'm an incumbent Democratic President. I didn't ask for a challenger— [laughter] —but have no aversion to a campaign, as was indicated by my opening statement and is further confirmed by the fact that I have to negotiate with many other leaders around the world, including carrying out the principles of the Mideast peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, put into effect very complicated proposals like the grain embargo and a restraint on shipments of high technology equipment to the Soviet Union and the implementation of our commitment that athletes should not go to Moscow to participate in the Olympics as long as Soviet invasion troops are in Afghanistan. These kinds of things are very time-consuming to me.,I'm a campaigner; I'm a candidate. I've had some success in politics as an active campaigner. And it would obviously be much better for me to be on the campaign trail in Minnesota or New Hampshire than to be closed up here in the White House dealing with these issues that I consider to be of paramount importance. And I look forward to the time when the hostages are released and I can go out and campaign actively and recruit votes and delegates to my cause.,But I have no aversion to the issues being discussed, and I think, as has already been pointed out in this press conference, there are sharp, identifiable, wellknown differences between me and the Senator, that have been clearly expressed by me from the White House and also have been expressed by him out in the different parts of the country.,I might say additionally that I have not secluded myself. In the last 2 months I have had cross-examination by news people, open forums. I've made a major speech on the State of the Union and others. I've not hidden my positions at all. My proposals have been very clear. But I look forward to the time when I can campaign without restraint and I can take care of the other issues, if the American hostages are released.,I might add one other personal point. We cannot lessen the commitment of the American people that a crisis does indeed exist as long as 50 innocent Americans are being held hostage by kidnapers. Some attenuation or lowering of the focused attention on the hostages is inevitable, but I, as President, have got to maintain the accurate image that we do have a crisis which I will not ignore until those hostages are released. I want the American people to know it, I want the Iranians to know it, I want the hostages' families and the hostages to know it, I want the world to know that I am not going to resume business as usual as a partisan campaigner out on the campaign trail until our hostages are back here, free and at home.,CAMPAIGN DEBATES,Q. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy has made your decision not to debate a major campaign issue. I wonder if you could clarify for the record when you might be willing to debate. If the hostages are released, would you be willing to debate then, or would you want to wait until the Soviets leave Afghanistan? Do you think you will debate your Democratic challengers before the general election in the fall?,THE PRESIDENT. As I've just said, when the hostages are released, I would resume normal campaigning. Whether or not or when a debate would be appropriate would have to be decided in the future, when I assess the invitations received and the circumstances prevailing then.,GOVERNMENT LOANS TO CORPORATIONS,Q. Mr. President, this is an issue on which you and Senator Kennedy agree, and that's the bailout of Chrysler. Now, you know President Nixon bailed out Lockheed, ostensibly to take care of the corporation. That's a traditional Republican ally. Some of your aides indicate that you were more concerned about union jobs at Chrysler.,My question goes, though, that both Republican and Democratic administrations and Senator Kennedy are—this is on the road to socialism, government support, aid, subsidies for these very large corporations; this should be a repugnant trend in our society of free enterprise. Do you favor Congress studying this issue, drawing a line on this issue, or with each corporation—especially in a recession or this threatened recession, further failures-more policies of subsidies, of bailouts for these major corporations?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I wouldn't adopt it as a policy that we would pursue time after time after time. But I did strongly support the legislation passed to guarantee loans for Chrysler provided they got adequate financing to match what the Government effort would be.,In my judgment the Government loan would be secure. It would require Chrysler to take corrective action and to get financing elsewhere, and required a substantial contribution from the workers in Chrysler to make sure that Chrysler was financially able to proceed as a viable corporation. When that legislation was put on my desk, I signed it with enthusiasm.,1980 SUMMER OLYMPICS,Q. Mr. President, you have said, sir, that the Soviets have to be made to pay a price for invading Afghanistan, and your counsel has said that our boycott of the Olympics is not intended to be punitive. How do you explain the seeming difference between these two positions?,THE PRESIDENT. We have no desire to use the Olympics to punish, except the Soviets attach a major degree of importance to the holding of the Olympics in the Soviet Union. In their own propaganda material they claim that the willingness of the International Olympics Committee to let the games be held in Moscow is an endorsement of the foreign policy and the peace-loving nature of the Soviet Union.,To me it's unconscionable for any nation to send athletes to the capital of a nation under the aegis of the Olympics when that nation, that host nation, is actively involved in the invasion of and the subjugation of innocent people. And so, for that reason, I don't believe that we are at all obligated to send our athletes to Moscow.,And I would like to repeat, if the Soviet Union does not withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by the 20th of this month, then neither I nor the American people nor the Congress will support the sending of an Olympic team to Moscow this summer.,SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRATION,Q. Mr. President, do you believe that draft-age youth are overreacting to your registration policy with their fears that this will directly lead to the draft?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think they're overreacting. I have not called for and do not anticipate calling for a draft. The best way to prevent having a draft in the future and mobilization of our Nation's efforts, both natural and human efforts, is to be prepared. The registration which I have called for, and which I am sure the Congress will approve, will permit us to save 90 to 100 days, weeks or even months, in a mobilization effort, if it should be called for in the future. We are not advocating the draft; we are advocating registration for a draft.,I might point out, too, that this will marshal an additional discussion and commitment among the American people and a realization that the peace is threatened and that everything that I am trying to do, working with the Congress and others, is to take peaceful action, preventive action, to prevent the Soviets taking further steps that might lead to a war.,Fifty-five other countries in the world that I know about, including most of our major allies, not only have registration but have the active, ongoing draft, and this includes countries like Mexico, Germany, France, Norway, Belgium, Switzerland. Many other countries, 55 of them, have the actual draft. I'm not advocating a draft. So, there has been a gross overreaction. And I think that registration for the draft will help us in other ways that I need not detail, in concert.,1980 SUMMER OLYMPICS,Q. Mr. President, if the Soviets by any chance should remove their troops from Afghanistan between February 20 and May 24, when the Olympic committees have to give their decisions, is there any possibility you might change your mind and then support sending the American team to Moscow?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't see any possibility of that.,YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING,Q. Mr. President, your $2 billion youth budget employment program has only $3 million [$300 million] requested for employment in 1981, and $900 million will go for training of these children through the schools that have already passed over these children. And this budget will not become fully operational until 1982. So, isn't this budget deceptive and misleading, as the Black Caucus says?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it's not. I believe it's accurate to say that the Labor Department and the Education Department will be moving to implement the youth employment program as rapidly as we possibly can. It won't be a lack of money appropriated by the Congress that will slow down the process at all.,I'd like to point out that in the last 3 years we've had notable success in improving the employment situation.. We've had an annual growth in employment of 3 1/2 percent per year since I've been in the White House as President. We've added 9 million new jobs, and of the people who've got new jobs, we've had 50 percent more new jobs for minorities than we have for all other people who've benefited from our employment programs.,So, I think the narrow focusing of the new program on youth and also on minority youth will be a major boon to those who have been deprived too much in the past because of unemployment. It's certainly not misleading and would be implemented as rapidly as the bureaucracy can function, as employers can be identified, and as the training can be provided for these young people who want jobs, but in the past have not been able to get them.,U.S. RELATIONS WITH ALLIES,Q. Mr. President, as you know, the French have not agreed to go to a Foreign Ministers conference in Rome later this month. The West Germans have not agreed to the Olympic boycott, and there's been some dissatisfaction, I understand, with your administration's reaction to the Japanese. Have you been entirely satisfied with the Japanese, the French, and the West German reactions to your call for punishment and sanctions against the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. In general, I have been well pleased, yes. There's a remarkable degree of unanimity among all our major allies about the seriousness of the Soviet threat into Afghanistan and the actions that must be taken to counter that threat and prevent further aggression by the Soviet Union.,There are nuances of difference. The countries are different; they have different perspectives; they have different forms of government. Some are coalition governments where the Prime Minister has a different party represented in his Foreign Minister and so forth. We do have times when we get aggravated and displeased, for instance, with the French. There are times when the French get aggravated and displeased by us.,The recent disagreement on exactly the time and the composition and the secrecy to be maintained by the Foreign Ministers meeting was unfortunate. My understanding of it was derived from a telephone conversation with Chancellor Schmidt after he met several days with President Giscard d'Estaing. My understanding was that the date and the place had been arranged by them and that I was conforming to their request. That was not the same understanding that the French had. We did not communicate adequately. But that's just a minor difference compared to the major agreements on which we base present and future policy among us allies.,EDUCATION OF PUBLIC ABOUT MILITARY SERVICE,Q. Sir, I wonder if you think that we really need a national effort to try to make people better informed about their need for cooperation to fill these vacancies in the military.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we do need, I think, a better education for this purpose. We've got—as you know, now about 8 percent of our military forces are comprised of women. And we anticipate, with no changes in present circumstances, that in 5 years, by 1985, we'll increase that by 50 percent, to 12 percent of our total Armed Forces. Women now fill about 95 percent of the different kinds of billets that we have available in all our Armed Forces combined.,I think many people believe that we're going to a draft soon. We have no intention or need for implementing the draft. Some people believe that I've advocated the use of women in combat. I have no intention of advocating to the Congress and the Congress would never approve any legislation that would permit women to engage in actual combat.,So, the need to educate people about what our proposals might be is real, and I believe that when the Congress starts debating this issue, as we decide details about the program for registration, that will create new opportunities for people to understand it better.,ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM AND OIL PRICES,Q. Mr. President, the goals of your anti-inflation program, as incorporated within the voluntary wage and price guidelines, attempt to hold down prices, including those charged by oil companies here. However, these goals appear to conflict with the goals of your energy program, which are to conserve oil and relieve our reliance on foreign oil through allowing the prices of gasoline, heating oil, and diesel fuel to rise. Does your administration, sir, have plans to deal with this conflict, and do these plans include excluding oil company prices and profits from the anti-inflation guidelines?,THE PRESIDENT. There is no doubt that there are many conflicts that presently exist in our very confused energy situation. What we need is a final action by the Congress on the legislative proposals that I have made to them that will give us, for the first time in history, a comprehensive, clear, understandable, legal energy policy.,There are only two ways that we can reduce imports of foreign oil: One is to increase production in our own country, energy of all kinds; and secondly, to improve conservation, to cut out waste. In my judgment the artificial holding down, by subsidies and otherwise, of the price of oil conflicts with both these principles, because if oil is excessively cheap, financed by the general public, then that means that the people use too much of it and probably waste some. And also, it prevents competitive forms of energy, like solar power, for instance, from being developed, because solar power has to compete with an excessively cheap price of oil.,There is no doubt—I don't want to mislead anybody—that everywhere in the world, oil prices and general energy prices have been going up, and there is no doubt that in the future those prices will continue to go up. But every American will be benefited if we cut out waste, continue to conserve, produce more energy here at home, and shift to more plentiful supplies of energy, particularly those that are replenishable, that come directly from the sun.,I might point out that the American people, as the result of partially implementing our new energy policy, have been conserving energy very well. We import now about a million barrels a day of foreign oil less than we did the day I was inaugurated. And in this last year alone, we've cut down consumption of energy overall about 5 percent; gasoline in December was 10 percent less consumed than December a year ago.,We've got a long way to go. But the American consciousness had to be built up that there is indeed an energy crisis; that we do indeed, as you point out so wisely, have major conflicts in our programs in the past that prevented progress; and we need a clear and consistent, well-understood policy to put into effect in our country,,EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT,Q. Mr. President, is it the policy of your administration to boycott, wherever possible, States that have not ratified ERA? I'm referring to a memo that—,THE PRESIDENT. No, that's not my policy.,U.S. POLICY TOWARD YUGOSLAVIA,Q. Mr. President, you once said that you weren't sure whether American troops should ever be used to defend Yugoslavia. Marshal Tito is sick. In light of Afghanistan, do you still feel that way?,THE PRESIDENT. We have had close discussions with the Yugoslavian leaders, including Marshal Tito when he was here not too long ago. The overall message that they give to us, which I accept as accurate, is that Yugoslavia is a strong, fiercely independent, courageous, well-equipped nation that can defend itself. If we are called upon to give any kind of aid to the Yugoslavian people in the future, we would seriously consider it and do what, in our opinion, would be best for them and for us.,I've had frequent conversations recently with other major European leaders about the need to strengthen our ties with Yugoslavia and to protect them as a nonaligned country, without being dominated or threatened successfully by the Soviet Union. We'll take whatever action is necessary to carry out those goals, but commensurate with actual need .and commensurate with specific requests from Yugoslavia itself.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much.
#> 7 SITUATION IN IRAN,THE PRESIDENT. For the last 24 days our Nation's concern has been focused on our fellow Americans being held hostage in Iran. We have welcomed some of them home to their families and their friends. But we will not rest nor deviate from our efforts until all have been freed from their imprisonment and their abuse. We hold the Government of Iran fully responsible for the well-being and the safe return of every single person.,I want the American people to understand the situation as much as possible, but there may be some questions tonight which I cannot answer fully, because of my concern for the well-being of the hostages.,First of all, I would like to say that I am proud of this great Nation, and I want to thank all Americans for their prayers, their courage, their persistence, their strong support and patience. During these past days our national will, our courage, and our maturity have all been severely tested, and history will show that the people of the United States have met every test.,In the days to come, our determination may be even more sorely tried, but we will continue to defend the security, the honor, and the freedom of Americans everywhere. This Nation will never yield to blackmail. For all Americans, our constant concern is the well-being and the safety of our fellow citizens who are being held illegally and irresponsibly hostage in Iran.,The actions of Iran have shocked the civilized world. For a government to applaud mob violence and terrorism, for a government actually to support and, in effect, participate in the taking and the holding of hostages is unprecedented in human history. This violates not only the most fundamental precepts of international law but the common ethical and religious heritage of humanity. There is no recognized religious faith on Earth which condones kidnaping. There is no recognized religious faith on Earth which condones blackmail. There is certainly no religious faith on Earth which condones the sustained abuse of innocent people.,We are deeply concerned about the inhuman and degrading conditions imposed on the hostages. From every corner of the world, nations and people have voiced their strong revulsion and condemnation of Iran and have joined us in calling for the release of the hostages.,Last night, a statement of support was released and was issued by the President of the United Nations General Assembly, the Security Council, on behalf of all of its members. We expect a further Security Council meeting on Saturday night, at which more firm and official action may be taken to help in obtaining the release of the American hostages. Any claims raised by government officials of Iran will ring hollow while they keep innocent people bound and abused and threatened.,We hope that this exercise of diplomacy and international law will bring a peaceful solution, because a peaceful solution is preferable to the other remedies available to the United States. At the same time, we pursue such a solution with grim determination. The Government of Iran must recognize the gravity of the situation, which it has itself created, and the grave consequences which will result if harm comes to any of the hostages.,I want the American people to know and I want the world to know that we will persist in our efforts, through every means available, until every single American has been freed. We must also recognize now, as we never have before, that it is our entire Nation which is vulnerable, because of our overwhelming and excessive dependence on oil from foreign countries. We have got to accept the fact that this dependence is a direct physical threat to our national security, and we must join together to fight for our Nation's energy freedom.,We know the ways to win this war: more American energy and the more efficient use of what we have. The United States Congress is now struggling with this extremely important decision. The way to victory is long and difficult, but we have the will, and we have the human and the natural resources of our great Nation.,However hard it might be to see into the future, one thing tonight is clear: We stand together. We stand as a nation unified, a people determined to protect the life and the honor of every American. And we are determined to make America an energy-secure nation once again. It is unthinkable that we will allow ourselves to be dominated by any form of overdependence at home or any brand of terrorism abroad. We are determined that the freest nation on Earth shall protect and enhance its freedom.\nI'd be glad to answer questions.,QUESTIONS,\nWORLD REACTION TO IRANIAN SITUATION,Q. Mr. President, the Ayatollah Khomeini said the other day—and I'm using his words—he doesn't believe you have the guts to use military force. He puts no credibility in our military deterrent. I'm wondering, how do we get out of this mess in Iran and still retain credibility with our allies and with our adversaries overseas?,THE PRESIDENT. We have the full support of our allies, and in this particular instance, we have no adversaries overseas. There is no civilized country on Earth which has not condemned the seizure and the holding of the hostages by Iran.,It would not be advisable for me to explore publicly all of the options open to our country. As I said earlier, I'm determined to do the best I can through diplomatic means and through peaceful means to ensure the safety of our hostages and their release. Other actions which I might decide to take would come in the future, after those peaceful means have been exhausted.,But I believe that the growing condemnation of the world community on Iran will have a beneficial effect.,SHAH OF IRAN,Q. Mr. President, why did you reverse your policy and permit the Shah to come into this country when, one, medical treatment was available elsewhere; two, you had been warned by our charge that the Americans might be endangered in Tehran; and three, the Bazargan government was so shaky that it was questionable whether he could deliver on the promise to protect our Embassy? And last of all, in view of the consequences, do you regret the decision?,THE PRESIDENT. No. The decision that I made, personally and without pressure from anyone, to carry out the principles of our country, to provide for the means of giving the Shah necessary medical assistance to save his life, was proper. At the same time, we notified the Government of Iran. We were assured by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister that our Embassy would be protected, and it was protected for several days, in spite of threats from outside.,Then peremptorily, after Khomeini made an aggravating speech to the crowds in the street and withdrew protection from the Embassy, it was attacked successfully. The Embassy was protected by our people for the length of time possible without help from the host government. No embassy on Earth is a fortress that can withstand constant attacks by a mob, unless a host government comes to the rescue of the people within the embassy.,But I took the right decision. I have no regrets about it nor apologies to make, because it did help to save a man's life, and it was compatible with the principles of our country.,EFFECT ON U.S. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES,Q. Mr. President, we appear to be in a rather dangerous period of international tension and volatility, especially in the Islamic world, and it comes at a time when we're about to embark on our quadrennial election campaign, with all that that will bring. Have you given any thought to whether, following examples of other national emergencies, it may be wise to try to mute the political fallout of this by trying to bring opponents in and outside of your party into some kind of emergency coalition for this purpose?,THE PRESIDENT. We have attempted to keep the political leaders in our Nation informed, both publicly and through other channels. We have given frequent briefings, for instance, on the Hill, both to the Members of the Senate and to the House. We have encouraged all of those who have become announced candidates for President to restrain their comments, which might be misconstrued overseas, and to have a maximum degree of harmony among those who might be spokesmen for our country.,I myself, in order to stay close to the scene here, where constantly changing events could be handled by me as President, have eliminated the major portion of political-oriented activities.,I don't think the identity of the Islamic world is a factor. We have the deepest respect and reverence for Islam and for all those who share the Moslem faith. I might say that, so far as I know, all the Islamic nations have joined us in condemning the activities and the actions of the Government of Iran. So, I don't think religious divisions are a factor here at all.,But I will have to continue to restrict my own political activities and call on those who might be opposing me in the future for President to support my position as ,President and to provide unity for our country and for our Nation in the eyes of those who might be looking for some sign of weakness or division in order to perpetuate their abuse of our hostages.,SECURITY FOR EMBASSIES,Q. What can the U.S. do now, what can it do to prevent future incidents of the nature of Iran? How can you satisfy the public demand to end such embarrassment?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, this is an unprecedented and unique occurrence. Down through history, we have had times when some of our people were captured by terrorists or who were abused, and there have obviously been instances of international kidnaping which occurred for the discomfiture of a people or a government. So far as I know, this is the first time that such an activity has been encouraged by and supported by the government itself, and I don't anticipate this kind of thing recurring.,We have taken steps already, in view of the disturbances in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region, to guard our people more closely, to provide them with higher degree of security, and to make arrangements with the host governments to provide assistance, if it's needed, in the fastest possible way.,Many other nations have reduced severely the number of persons overseas. I think one of the points that should be made is that a year ago, we had 70,000 Americans in Iran—70,000. There were literally thousands of people who were killed in the Iranian revolution, from all nations. We were able to extract Americans from Iran safely. It was a superb demonstration of cooperation and good conduct on the part of the State Department and other American officials.,So, there will be disturbances in the future, but I think we are well protected as we possibly can be, without withdrawing into a shell, from protecting American interests in nations overseas.,My own experience, so far, has been that the leaders of nations have recommitted themselves to provide security for embassies of all countries. I think we've learned a lesson from this instance. But, because it is so unique, in the high degree of irresponsibility of the Iranian Government leaders, I don't believe that we'll see another reoccurrence of it any time soon.,HENRY KISSINGER,Q. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Kissinger has criticized your administration's handling of the situation in Iran. He has suggested that it came about because, partly because of the perceived weakness in American foreign policy, and that it has further damaged America's image as a result.\nHow do you respond?,THE PRESIDENT. I would rather not respond. There's no reason for me to get into a public debate at this time with former Secretary Kissinger about who is or who is not responsible for the events that took place in Iran.,Obviously, what has occurred could not have been predicted. And for 30 years, our country has had a relationship with a fairly stable government there. The changes took place very rapidly. So far as I know, no one on Earth predicted them.,And I think it's not becoming at this moment and not conducive to better American understanding to get involved in answering allegations that I or someone else may have been culpable and may have caused a further aggravation of a very difficult situation.,Q. Mr. President, just one followup. What role did the former Secretary play in your decision to permit the Shah into the country?,THE PRESIDENT. None. I did not hear at all from the Secretary, former Secretary Kissinger, nor did he contact Secretary Vance at any time during the days when we were deciding that the Shah should come into the United States for medical care to save his life. In previous weeks and months since the Shah was deposed, Secretary Kissinger and many others let it be known that they thought that we should provide a haven for the Shah. But Secretary Kissinger played no role in my decision to permit the Shah to come in for medical treatment.,SHAH OF IRAN,Q. Mr. President, speaking of the Shah, if he is well enough to travel, would you like him to leave the country?,THE PRESIDENT. That's a decision to be made by the Shah and by his medical advisers. When he decided to come to our country, with my permission, I was informed then, and I have been informed since, that as soon as his medical treatment was successfully completed, that his intention was to leave. And I have not encouraged him to leave. He was free to come here for medical treatment, and he will leave on his own volition.,U.S. RELATIONS WITH ISLAMIC NATIONS,Q. Mr. President, yes, I would like to follow up Mr. Schorr's [Daniel Schorr, Des Moines Register] question. The consequences of the crisis in Iran is drifting the United States into almost a cold war with the Islamic countries. Watching TV news for 25 days, Americans soon will believe the whole Moslem world is hating them. Moreover, they are not told that the Shiites are a very minor minority among the population of the Islamic world, because the most majority is Sunni. Don't you think you get any help from any Islamic country, and what will your policy be towards the Islamic countries under these circumstances?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the premise of your question is completely wrong. We're not approaching any sort of cold war with the Islamic countries. So far as I know, every Islamic country has condemned Iran for its capture of our hostages, and has been very supportive. This includes Moslem nations which, in the past, have not been close friends of ours—Iraq, Libya, and others. So, I don't see this as confrontation at all between our Nation and the Islamic world.,It's certainly not part of the Islamic faith to condone, as I said earlier, blackmail or the persecution or harm of innocent people or kidnaping or terrorism.,So, I think that we have a very good relationship with the people and the governments of the Islamic world, and I don't think it's deteriorated in this instance. In some ways, we've been drawn closer to these people, because they see what has occurred in Iran as something of a disgrace for their own religious faith, and they don't see this as typical of what Moslems believe.,I might add, also, that this is not typical of the Shiite faith, either. It's the misguided actions of a few people in Iran who are burning with hatred and a desire for revenge, completely contrary to the teachings of the Moslem faith.,U.S. REACTION TO IRANIAN SITUATION,Q. Mr. President, there's a feeling of hostility throughout the country toward Iran, because of the hostages. Senator Long said that the taking of our Embassy in Iran, in his words, is an act of war. There are rumors, since denied, that our Navy has been called up for service. I ask you, as our Commander in Chief, is war possible, is war thinkable?,THE PRESIDENT. It would be a mistake for the people of our country to have aroused within them hatred toward anyone; not against the people of Iran, and certainly not against Iranians who may be in our country as our guests. We certainly do not want to be guilty of the same violation of human decency and basic human principles that have proven so embarrassing to many of the Iranian citizens themselves.,We obviously prefer to see our hostages protected and released completely through peaceful means. And that's my deepest commitment, and that will be my goal. The United States has other options available to it, which will be considered, depending upon the circumstances. But I think it would not be well-advised for me to speak of those specifically tonight.,IRANIAN STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES,Q. Mr. President, we have had 55,000 Iranian students in this country. We've been very good to them, very hospitable. Even the new Finance Minister of Saudi Arabia was a student who once demonstrated in Washington against law and order. Shouldn't we be very careful in letting any of these students come in here? Shouldn't we screen them in the future and make them agree that they will not demonstrate?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's very difficult for an Iranian citizen or a student to get a visa at the American Embassy in Iran at this time [Laughter] And I think the influx of Iranians to our country now would be minimal.,I'm determined to enforce the law about Iranian students. Some of them have violated the law. They are now being screened; they are being assessed in their commitment and the legality of their presence here. We have already finished this procedure with more than 22,000. About 17,000 have proven to be here completely legally and are indeed fulltime students. Among the other 5,000, about several hundred have already departed; others are now having to prove that, contrary to the earliest evidence, they do indeed have a right to be in our country. If they are here illegally, they will be expelled.,There is one exception to that rule: If a citizen of Iran can prove that if he or she returned to Iran that they would be executed or abused because of their political beliefs, they can seek asylum here. And if that asylum, in our judgment, is justified, we will provide it for them.,But this procedure is going forward in accordance with American law, in accordance with American fairness, in accordance with the full principles of the United States Constitution.,DEADLINE FOR RELEASING AMERICAN\nHOSTAGES,Q. Mr. President, can this crisis go on indefinitely, or ought the Ayatollah Khomeini understand that at some point the American people may demand and other nations may expect that you move forward to resolve it by whatever means you find necessary?,THE PRESIDENT. It would not be possible or even advisable for me to set a deadline about when or if I would take certain action in the future. This is an ever-present consideration on my mind. I'm carrying out all of the duties that normally fall on a President's shoulder, which are adequate, but I never forget one moment that I'm awake about the hostages whose lives and whose safety depend on me. And I am pursuing every possible avenue to have the hostages released.,Any excessive threats or any excessive belief among the Iranians that they will be severely damaged by military action, as long as these negotiations are proceeding and as long as legalities can be followed, might cause the death of the hostages, which we are committed to avoid. So, that's one of the questions that I cannot answer: to set down a certain deadline beyond which we would take extra action, that might result in the harm or the death of the hostages.,We are proceeding, I guarantee you, in every possible way, every possible moment, to get the hostages freed and, at the same time, protect the honor and the integrity and the basic principles of our country. That's all I can do, but I am doing it to the best of my ability, and I believe we will be successful.,U.S. STRENGTH ABROAD,Q. Mr. President, many Americans view the Iranian situation as one in a succession of events that proves that this country's power is declining. How can you assure Americans tonight that our power is not declining abroad, and how are you reassessing priorities for the eighties in terms of foreign policy?,THE PRESIDENT. The United States has neither the ability nor the will to dominate the world, to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, to impose our will on other people whom we desire to be free, to make their own decisions. This is not part of the commitment of the United States.,Our country is the strongest on Earth. We're the strongest militarily, politically, economically, and I think we're the strongest morally and ethically. Our country has made great strides, even since I've been in office. I've tried to correct some of the defects that did exist. We have strengthened the military alliances of our country, for instance. NATO now has a new spirit, a new confidence, a new cohesion, improving its military capabilities, much more able to withstand any threat from the east, from the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact, than it was before.,We've espoused again the principles that unite Americans and make us admired throughout the world, raising the banner of human rights. We're going to keep it high. We have opened up avenues of communication, understanding, trade, with people that formerly were our enemies or excluded us—several nations in Africa, the vast people and the vast country of the People's Republic of China. In doing so, we've not alienated any of our previous friends.,I think our country is strong within itself. There is not an embarrassment now about our Government, which did exist in a few instances in years gone by. So, I don't see at all that our country has become weak. We are strong, and we are getting stronger, not weaker. But if anybody thinks that we can dominate other people with our strength, military or political strength or economic strength, they are wrong. That's not the purpose of our country.,Our inner strength, our confidence in ourselves, I think, is completely adequate. And I believe the unity that the American people have shown in this instance, their patience, is not at all a sign of weakness. It is a sign of sure strength.,INVESTIGATION OF THE SHAH,Q. Mr. President, serious charges have been placed against the Shah concerning the repression of his own people and the misappropriation of his nation's funds. Is there an appropriate vehicle to investigate those charges, and do you foresee a time when you would direct your administration to assist in that investigation?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know of any international forum within which charges have ever been brought against a deposed leader who has left his country. There have been instances of changing governments down through the centuries in history, and I don't know of any instance where such a leader, who left his country after his government fell, has been tried in an international court or in an international forum.,This is a matter that can be pursued. It should be pursued under international law, and if there is a claim against the Shah's financial holdings, there is nothing to prevent other parties from going into the courts, in accordance with the law of a nation or internationally, and seeking a redress of grievances which they claim.,But as I said earlier, I don't think there's any forum that will listen to the Iranians make any sort of claim, justified or not, as long as they hold against their will and abuse the hostages, in complete contravention to every international law and every precept or every commitment or principle of humankind.,BROOKS JACKSON [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much.
#> 8 THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,Ms. Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION; SOVIET\nTROOPS IN CUBA,Q. Mr. President, do you think that you have diffused the problem or issue of the Soviet brigade in Cuba and satisfied those who seek a bigger defense budget enough now to win SALT ratification this year, and if so, how?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe SALT will be ratified this year basically on its own merits. It's obvious to me that the SALT treaty is in the best interest of our country. It enhances the security of the United States; it contributes to world peace; it will strengthen our own alliances; it will preserve our place as a leader of the Western World; it will let it be more easy for us to control the spread of nuclear explosives all over the world.,In my opinion, we have answered the question of the Soviet combat unit in Cuba adequately. I think we've isolated any threat from that unit. We'll increase our surveillance there, and I believe that this obviously has been an important issue for us to address. I believe it's been addressed adequately.,As far as the defense budget is concerned, that still must be resolved. I'm committed to a 3-percent real growth in our defense. I've maintained that position for the last 3 years. It's important to us, to our allies, to American strength. If I see a need for increased defense programs, I would not hesitate to recommend them to the Congress.,THE NATION'S ECONOMY,Q. Mr. President, are you prepared to persevere in your support of tight money policies even if it begins to hurt you politically during the primaries?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. It's obvious that there are three entities in our Government which have been meticulously isolated either under the Constitution or the law and made independent. One is the Federal Reserve Board, which has a right, through various means, to determine the supply of money by changing interest rates, the reserve moneys that have to be retained by banks that cannot be lent, and so forth. The Congress has the ultimate responsibility on taxation, and the President has the best responsibility on preparing and submitting the budget to the Congress.,There's no doubt in my mind—and this is corroborated by my long discussions the last few weeks with labor, in reaching a labor accord—that I and labor and business and all those who are interested, including the Congress, agree that the number one threat to our national economy is inflation. And I intend to maintain it as a top priority and continue to work against inflation. So, whatever it takes to control inflation, that's what I will do.,I recognize that the inflationary impact falls much more heavily on those who are least able to afford the basic necessities of life. And I also recognize that there are some elements of inflation over which I have no control. The price of energy levied on the world by OPEC in the last 10 months has been an increase of 60 percent. Had it not been for energy price increases, for instance, the inflation rate during this summer would have been the same as it was in 1978 and 1977. So, I can't control energy prices levied on the world by OPEC.,But we'll continue to fight against inflation as a top economic priority.,U.S.-SOVIET RELATIONS,Q. Mr. President, what is your reaction to Dr. Kissinger's statement that the Soviet troops in Cuba are the first organized hostile force in this hemisphere since the Monroe Doctrine that we've accepted? And also, Mr. President, do you feel that the Soviet troops in Cuba symbolize the growing expansionism of the Russians, the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. The troops in Cuba have been there for a long time. I've not read Secretary Kissinger's speech; I've read news reports of it. Its basic premises are compatible with my own: that the presence of a Soviet combat unit there is a serious matter, which I think we have addressed as best we could; secondly, that this is not the most important matter of all, that above and beyond that, it's important to recognize and to do what we can to contain Cuban interventionism or adventurism around the world. As you know, this began primarily with the entrance of more than a 10,000 body of troops from Cuba into Angola in 1975, before I was President.,We do look upon this as a major threat. I have not seen any reports that Secretary Kissinger recommended different moves from the ones that I outlined to the Nation on the evening of October 1. So, we do share a common concern. I think that our response was measured and appropriate. I do not favor the Soviets extending their arm of influence to the Cubans or anyone else around the world.,This has been part of the history of the Soviet Union. We attempt to meet them and compete with them adequately, in my opinion, on a peaceful basis. And in my judgment, if we can control the military expenditures and have equality, have arms control, in my judgment, we can compete with the Soviets on a peaceful basis with an excellent prospect for victory.,The Soviets represent a totalitarian nation; we are committed to peace and freedom and democracy. The Soviets subjugate the rights of an individual human being to the rights of the state; we do just the opposite. The Soviets are an atheistic nation; we have deep and fundamental religious beliefs. The Soviets have a primary emphasis on the military aspect of their economy; ours is much more broadly based to give the benefits of economic growth to individual human beings. So, I believe that in addition to that, our raising a standard of human rights and the honoring of national aspirations, not trying to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, gives us an additional advantage in a peaceful competition with the Soviets.,So, I don't have any fear of or any: trepidation about that intense competition with the Soviets on a peaceful basis. I obviously want the same thing that President Brezhnev wants, that is, the avoidance of a nuclear war. So, we have some things in common, the avoidance of war. We have other things in common, a willingness to compete.,We've got advantages over them that I hope to utilize in the future as we have in the past.,JESSE JACKSON; FLORIDA CAUCUSES,Q. Mr. President, how do you think you'll fare in Florida? And also a second question—,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't hear the first one.,Q. How do you think you will fare in Florida for the Florida caucus poll? And also, will you plan on talking to Reverend Jesse Jackson in response to his meetings with Yasser Arafat?,THE PRESIDENT. Do I have my choice between those two questions? [Laughter],Q. I'd like you to answer both, if you would, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. I have no plans to talk to Reverend Jackson—I presume you mean about his recent trips to the Middle East. He has, or will make a report to Ambassador Strauss, who is our Mideast negotiator.,In Florida, I don't know how the caucus results will come out. This is one of the evidences of an increasingly early attention focused on a Presidential race. I don't think it is in the best interests of our country to start so early. The importance of the Florida caucuses, I think, will be assigned by the press, not by anything that I do. I don't intend to go down there to campaign. We do have people working for me in Florida, which I appreciate. And I think that since this is a first test between myself and other candidates who also are mounting an effort among their supporters, it will be significant.,But I cannot predict the outcome of the caucuses. I've seen no polls, have no indication about what the outcome might be.,VISIT OF THE POPE,Q. Mr. President, clearly the Pope on his visit to the United States and in Washington left an extraordinary impression beyond simply the religious.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Have you reflected on the meaning of the Pope's visit to the United States?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Could you discuss that?,THE PRESIDENT. In addition to being with him in public and when we met with the members of my family in the White House, I had an extensive private conversation with the Pope, and we discussed this particular question. We were both surprised at the degree of warmth and enthusiasm among American people in welcoming the Pope. I expected the welcome to be warm and friendly, but I had no idea that it would be that enthusiastic and that large a number of people, and neither did he.,I think there's an innate hunger in our country for moral and ethical and religious principles, things that do not change during a time of rapid change brought about by a technological revolution throughout the world. I believe there's a hunger for things that are decent and honest, for principles of which we can be proud. I think the Pope as a religious leader accurately mirrors for many people those aspirations and hopes.,I think it shows that this hemisphere is the most deeply religious, perhaps, in the world, certainly the most deeply religious Christian population in the world. We had long discussions about what this meant in other nations, the threat of atheism as espoused and enforced by the state against the inherent desire of people for religious belief.,But I believe this was one of the most dramatic and, I think, potentially the most beneficial visits we've ever had from a leader in the world. I was very thrilled to meet him and believe that his visit will have benefits for our country.,DEPLOYMENT OF U.S. FORCES,Q. Mr. President, in your speech on Cuba the other night, you spoke about wanting to increase the capabilities of our rapid deployment force.,THE PRESIDENT. Forces.,Q. Forces. I wondered if you could say under what circumstances you would be willing to intervene militarily in the Middle East.,THE PRESIDENT. I see no prospect at this point for our intervention militarily in any place in the world. That would be a judgment that I would only make if I thought the security of our country was directly threatened.,SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY,Q. Mr. President, the other night in Queens, in the context of answering the question about your leadership and Senator Kennedy, you said you had never panicked in a crisis. Now, there was some interpretation that this was a reference to Senator Kennedy's behavior at Chappaquiddick. And you subsequently, or Jody subsequently denied it.,Let me ask you specifically, do you think Chappaquiddick indicates that President Kennedy's character is somewhat flawed, and will this be a continued issue in the primaries if he enters?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it was Senator Kennedy to whom you refer. [Laughter],I did not refer to Senator Kennedy's experience at Chappaquiddick in Queens, and I have no desire to comment on it now.,INTERNATIONAL MONETARY POLICY,Q. Mr. President, further on the Fed tight money policy, figures such as the West German Finance Minister Emminget 1 and Democratic Party Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche have charged that this is leading us rapidly towards the Crash of '79. Will you move to stabilize the dollar in the economy by collaborating with Europe on their moves to demonetize gold as LaRouche and others have suggested?,1 Otmar Emminger is president of the Deutsche Bundesbank, the Federal Republic of Germany's equivalent of the U.S. Federal Reserve System.,THE PRESIDENT. I doubt that that's in prospect, certainly not for this year. We do cooperate with our allies and friends and trade partners in order to stabilize the worldwide monetary system, including at times the interrelationship between currencies from one country and another and sometimes the basic metals. I don't see any threat to the well-being of any American because of a rapidly increasing price of gold, except those who have sold early or bought late. But as far as the average citizen's concerned, the price of gold, whether it's $200 an ounce or $400, has very little impact.,Recently, the Federal Reserve Board has decided to raise interest rates and take other steps concerning the reserve supply of money to be kept on hand by banks. This has resulted in a strengthening of the dollar, which had already begun to strengthen. And I believe that it's well within the bounds of management; it's stable. I noticed an analysis that showed that in the last year the price of the dollar, the value of the dollar, as compared to currencies of all our trade partners, has increased substantially. Among the OPEC nations and their trade partners the value of the dollar, even 'before we made this recent move, had increased 8 percent over the last year.,So, I believe the dollar is stable, I believe the world economy is stable, and I see no prospect of shifting to a rigid price of gold and a gold standard.,1980 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,Q. Sir, two more political questions in light of Senator Kennedy's prospective challenge of you. One, as you did in 1976, would you be willing to debate the Senator and other candidates in the primaries? And two, if you lost, would you support the Democratic nominee actively? And if you won, would you expect your opponents to do the same for you?,THE. PRESIDENT. That's a lot of conjecture. We don't have any candidates yet who have declared. I look forward to the campaign with a great deal of anticipation and confidence. And I think the normal routine interrelationships among candidates would probably prevail in 1980, as they did in 1976.,There were no official debates, as such, until the general election in 1976, when president Ford and I, as a nominee, were given that opportunity. But I feel at ease about it. I will protect my record, which I think is a good one. And as I say, I look forward to the campaign with anticipation and confidence.,Q. Mr. President, may I follow up? Will you support the winner of the convention?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. My presumption is—,Q. And second, your opponents support you if you win?,THE PRESIDENT. My presumption is that I would support whatever Democrat gets the nomination. I have always voted Democratic.,ECONOMIC POLICY,Q. Mr. President, wholesale prices continue to increase, indicating that there will be further inflation at the retail level throughout the rest of this year and perhaps longer. Most of the predictions that you've made and your economic advisers have made about the economy have proved to be on the low side and are constantly being revised upward, especially with regard to inflation.,Don't you think it's about time for some kind of reevaluation of your economic programs and policies? Are you going to just continue to go along on the same course, or do you think any kind of reexamination of your policy is indicated?,THE PRESIDENT. I think so far the program has been well conceived, and I think it has some very beneficial results. We are all surprised at the rate of inflation, brought about primarily, as I said, by an annual rate of increase of energy prices the last few months of more than 100 percent per year. Also, as I said earlier, if you could discount those energy increases, the rate of inflation would be the same this year as it was the preceding 2 years.,We have cut the budget deficit by $36 billion since I've been elected. We have reduced the total number of employees in the Federal Government. We've reduced the percentage of the gross national product being spent by the Government by 2 full percent, from 23 1/2 down to 21 1/2. We've cut paperwork by 15 percent. We've begun a strong move to deregulate, that is, to get the Government's nose out of the private business sector and the lives of private people. We've had a very stringent effort made to eliminate unwarranted spending, and we've moved when necessary to stabilize the value of the dollar.,We've also proposed to the Congress for the first time a means by which we could reduce the inflationary impact of importing 50 percent of our oil. This has been a long, slow, tedious process, but I think when the Congress does complete its work this year on an energy package, this will remove the single major factor that has been causing excessive inflation.,I don't intend to change our basic policy, and I believe that we've had maybe inadequately assessed results even from the wage-price guidelines.,The wage increases, for instance, this year, the first 9 months of this year, have been lower than they were in 1978. We've had more than a million union workers who have signed contracts within the wage guidelines. And the price standards have also been very effective. For instance, the items that come under price standards have been increasing at only one-half the rate of those that cannot be controlled, like OPEC oil prices.,So, I think in general our policy is an adequate and a good one, and I intend to maintain the thrust of it.,MINORITY EMPLOYMENT,Q. Mr. President, I think earlier this year, you had a memo to the agencies and departments which discussed black institutions and contracts and awards. It seems as though that memo has lost some of its teeth in the process. Is there any way that that could be regenerated so that the employment of minorities in the country and through the colleges can increase?,THE PRESIDENT. We've had some success with the unemployment rate among minorities. Even this past month, as you know, the unemployment rate among women, teenagers, and minorities dropped. And we've been pleased at the average rate of unemployment throughout the country. It's still extremely high, however, comparatively speaking, among, say, black teenagers or other minority teenagers.,In addition to that, we have helped the Congress write a law so that public works projects, when assigned to individual communities, would include at least 10 percent of the total money going into contracts with minority-owned businesses. I set as a goal for our administration a tripling in 1 year of the portion of Federal purchases from minority businesses. It was a billion dollars. I set as a goal for the end of this year $3 billion. I think we'll hit a little below my goal, about $2 1/2 billion.,Also, I think in other ways, like the hiring of black employees or the minority employees, we've done a good job. I think I've appointed more judges, for instance, who are black than all the other Presidents in the history of our country combined. It's not been adequate, but we've made a major step forward. And we are assessing any failures that we've experienced—for instance, in purchasing, where I wanted to reach $3 billion, and we will only reach $2 1/2 billion. I have gotten identified now those agencies that did not meet the tripling goal that I set for them, and they are being especially encouraged by me to meet their goals next year.\nWe are making progress—not enough.,Judy [Judy Woodruff, NBC News].,THE NATIONAL SPIRIT,Q. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy has suggested that instead of complaining about, I believe, what you call the malaise that the country is experiencing, that what the President should do now is ask the people to roll up their sleeves to try to pull the country out of its problem. And in effect, he spoke of a can-do spirit that harkens back to the 1960's.,THE PRESIDENT. Is this a campaign speech for him or— [laughter] .,Q. No, sir.\nTHE PRESIDENT. Okay.,Q. What merit, if any, do you see in that suggestion that he made, and also, how vulnerable do you think you are on the issue of leadership.?,THE PRESIDENT. Obviously there is a degree of malaise in the country. People are discouraged about the current situation. They are doubtful about the future; they are saving less than they ever have been in the past; and they have a serious concern about confidence in one another and sometimes about the Government itself.,When I made my speech to the Nation, I think, on July 15, on a Sunday evening, I pointed this out. But I said that our country is inherently strong, capable, and able, that there is no need for us to be discouraged or disillusioned or divided or doubtful about one another or about our Government processes. We're the strongest nation on Earth—economically, politically, and militarily. We're going to stay that way.,And what I prescribed as a major test of American will and confidence was the evolution of and the passage of an energy program, which had never been done in the history of our country, that would be adequate to meet the challenge before us. I think the Congress has made good progress so far. I predict that before they adjourn this year, that we will have this test of our Nation's will successfully achieved.,So, I believe that through the process of helping one another, having confidence, working on major projects, and letting the Government show that it can be competent to deal with a major problem like this, we can resolve the malaise that has existed in our country. I'm not discouraged. I believe that we can succeed.,1980 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,Q. Mr. Carter, a few moments ago you said that you thought you probably would like to be the Democratic nominee, in reference to the question on debating. Why are you waiting until December to announce, in view of the fact that Senator Kennedy is probably about to run? Why don't you tell us now that you're going to run?,THE PRESIDENT. I said I was going to make an announcement December 4. I didn't say what it would be yet.,I think that that's not too late. I want to do all I can without being an announced candidate to work with the Congress to get controversial issues decided and also to make plans for the initiation of a campaign year.,There's a tendency in our country to want to move that campaign date earlier and earlier. I believe that what I have decided on a date is compatible with past history. Also, of course, there is a limit to how late one can wait. There are some States that require filing, I believe, around the middle of December.,And so, I think that's late enough to give me a chance to do what I can with this year's Congress; not too late to miss any filing dates if I decide to meet them.,ROSALYNN CARTER,Q. Mr. President, fairly or unfairly, the polls suggest that one of your major political problems is a perceived lack of leadership. At the same time, Mrs. Carter is very visible these days. She's traveling and speaking on your behalf. She's almost on television as much as you are these days.,Do you think it's possible that her high profile in some strange way might ironically exacerbate your political problem? And secondly, is it true that some of your advisers believe that she has too high a public profile and would like her to be a little less visible?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that if you would compare my wife's schedule now with what it was, say, a year ago, it wouldn't be materially different. The difference is that now the press is paying attention to where my wife goes and what she says.,Rosalynn has always been very close to me personally as well as to consult with me on matters of interest to me and to her. In some areas of public life, she plays a very strong role. She's interested in mental health, which he has been since even before I became Governor of Georgia. She's always been extremely interested in the problems of older Americans, and this has been a historic interest for her. And I think since this last year, perhaps, she's especially been encouraging people within communities to act on their own initiative to work together to correct local problems, not to wait for the Federal Government or the State or local government to do everything for them. And those things are not incompatible.,In addition, she is a very effective political campaigner. In 1976 and also in 1970, 1966, 1962, when I've had my other campaigns, Rosalynn has always played a substantial role. And I would imagine that she would continue that as long as she and I share a partnership and I'm in politics.,But I don't think her profile is too high. She's very knowledgeable; she is sensitive about American people's beliefs and feelings. She would never abuse her role as a wife or even the wife of a President. I have confidence that she will do the right thing.,KAMPUCHEA,Q. Mr. President, by all accounts, it appears that in the coming months, a million or more people could die in Cambodia of starvation. I know that you talked about this with the Pope the other day. What, if anything, can this Government do in combination with other groups?,THE PRESIDENT. We've been encouraging the humanitarian granting of aid, particularly food aid, to the people of Cambodia, hundreds of thousands of whom, maybe millions of whom are starving. We are trying to work out with the uncertain leaders of that country—uncertain because it's contested through war—a mechanism by which the United Nations primarily, the Red Cross, and UNICEF could get food into those people who are within Cambodia.,There's also a legal problem in refugee funds, because it hasn't yet been determined legally if a person who hasn't left the country is still identifiable as a refugee. The fact that the country's divided by war creates a complication.,But we are ready and eager to join in with other countries to provide humanitarian aid to all the people of Cambodia who are starving, and we will move on that without any further delay as soon as it's possible to join other countries in this effort.,VICE PRESIDENT MONDALE,Q. Mr. President, have you had any second thoughts as to who your running mate would be? Will it definitely be Walter Mondale?,THE PRESIDENT. Fritz Mondale and I have a very good partnership, and I have no plans whatsoever to change it.,ARMS LEVELS IN EUROPE,Q. Mr. President, going back to your comments about competition with the Soviet Union with regard to arms, would you support NATO deployment of the Pershing missile to counter the SS-20? And if I could add another question there, do you have any reaction to President Brezhnev's conditional offer, too, on arms reduction in Central Europe?,THE PRESIDENT. Our allies and we are carefully assessing the significance of President Brezhnev's statement. However, I'd like to point out that what he's offering in effect is to continue their own rate of modernization as it has been, provided we don't modernize at all.,They have had an actual reduction in launchers the last few years. They've been replacing the old SS-4's and SS-5's with the SS-20, not on a one-for-one basis, but the SS-20 has three warheads, the old missiles only had one warhead. The SS-20 has a much greater range. It can reach our Western Allies' countries as a target even if it's located in the central part of Russia. It's three to six times as accurate as the old missiles which it replaced. And in addition to that, it's mobile; that is, it can't be located specifically and destroyed with a preemptive strike if that should become a desire on the part of allies. They also have replaced older airplanes with the Backfire bomber.,So, it's not quite as constructive a proposal as at first blush it seems to be. I think it's an effort designed to disarm the willingness or eagerness of our allies adequately to defend themselves.,In my judgment, the decision ought to be made to modernize the Western Allies' military strength and then negotiate with full commitment and determination mutually to lower armaments on both sides—the Warsaw Pact and the NATO countries—so that we can retain equivalency of military strength, equity of military strength, and have a lower overall level of armaments. This is what we hope to achieve.,I might point out that Chancellor Schmidt said, I believe yesterday or day before, that a prerequisite to a decision by our NATO Allies to take these steps, which he considers to be vital for the security of NATO, is the passage of SALT II.,So, if we can be successful in controlling existing strategic Soviet and United States atomic weapons through SALT II, then we'll move in the next step to reducing the nuclear weapons which don't have intercontinental range. And along with that, we'll continue with our mutual and balanced force reduction effort to reduce conventional arms.,It's an interesting proposal; it's one that might show promise. We're assessing it carefully, but it's not as great a step as would ordinarily be judged at first.,HAMILTON JORDAN,Q. Mr. President, do you have any intention at all of asking Hamilton Jordan to step down as Chief of Staff if a special prosecutor is named? And secondly, is there any thought in your mind, sir, that his departure might at all benefit your Presidency and your chances for reelection, or would they hurt them?,THE PRESIDENT. I'd like to remind you, first of all, that the President is the chief law enforcement officer of the land. And I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment on guilt or innocence of anyone. Secondly, I'd like to point out that the appointment of a special prosecutor has no insinuation in it at all that the person investigated is guilty.,I believe it would be better for me not to go further than that, because I would ordinarily wait until the Attorney General made a report to me and then seek his advice on what the proprieties would be about my own public statements. I think, though, I've described my position adequately to answer your question.,PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION,Q. Mr. President, a question on the Middle East. Do you agree with those such as former Ambassador Andrew Young and George Ball and others who say that it is now time to do away with the restrictions put on our foreign policy by Henry Kissinger and open up a dialog with the Palestinians and the PLO?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I do not. We will not negotiate with the PLO. We will not recognize the PLO until after the PLO recognizes Israel's right to exist and endorses United Nations Resolution 242 as a basis for Middle East peace.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.
#> 9 NATIONAL GOALS,THE PRESIDENT. My fellow citizens and men and women of the press:,Ten days ago, I spoke to you about my deep concern for the future of our country—about a crisis of the American spirit, which I know to be just as real as the problems that face us on energy or inflation or any other problem of a material nature. But I also know that we can overcome these crises by uniting in a common purpose as we have done so often in the past when our Nation faces a serious challenge. The opportunity which we now have is to seize control of our energy future—to work together to overcome our dangerous overdependence on foreign oil.,Millions of Americans have responded positively to what I said—because they know that I'm telling the truth.,We have lost confidence in our government, and we have lost confidence in many other institutions—all of us know that. But we also know that we can overcome the pessimism, and with patriotism and with hard work, we can move forward together as Americans.,In these 10 days since I addressed the Nation, I have moved swiftly—I do not believe too swiftly—to create a better administration team to work with me, a team that will be unified, a team that will be filled with confidence, a team that will be in good fighting shape to face the problems together.,And during this same period, I have proposed to the Congress a bold program to harness American ingenuity and to harness American strength to lay a groundwork for American energy security. This massive effort will cost a great deal of money, funds that can only come from a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, a tax on profits which the oil companies have not earned.,The American people overwhelmingly support such a tax, a message clearly demonstrated by the action already taken by the House of Representatives of our U.S. Congress, which has passed a bill which will finance the energy proposal that I have made and still leave plenty of new funds, additional funds, for the oil companies to proceed with exploration and production of new oil and new gas within our own country.,Now it is the turn of the United States Senate to act, and there will be a massive struggle to gut the windfall profits tax bill. If this happens, then we cannot reach our energy goals.,I want to serve notice tonight that I will do everything in my power as President to see that the windfall profits tax is passed, because I consider it to be crucial to our Nation's future.,I need your help. I need the help of the people of America. This is a democracy. Your voice can be heard. Your voice must be heard. Those of you who believe in the future of our country, those of you who believe that our energy program must be passed, please speak to the Congress of the United States and especially to the United States Senate, which still has the responsibility to act.,Based on this windfall profits tax on the oil companies, we will have the resources to meet the energy challenge which we must face together in the future. And we will have taken a major step toward uniting our country in the effort to restore our spirit, the spirit of America, and our confidence, our confidence as people in the future of our great country.,Thank you very much. And now I'd like to answer questions.,Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,FEDERAL BUDGET,Q. Mr. President, Republicans in the House are talking about introducing what they call a budget of hope, as contrasted to what they call your budget of despair. And their budget of hope, so-called, they say is going to be roomy enough to accommodate a very large election year tax cut for all of us. Now, that might be pretty hard to vote against in an election year. I wonder what you think about it.,THE PRESIDENT. I believe the Congress and the American people have enough judgment to know that you can't get something for nothing, that there is no free lunch involved. This is not a time for wastefulness. It's not a time to destroy our budget. It's not a time to avoid the responsibilities that we all have to make some sacrifice based on a belief and a confidence in the future of our Nation.,I think we will be restoring hope if we pass a program which, by the way, the House has already passed, with the support of some Republicans, with the opposition of others. But I think that the bold proposals that we have made do have the confidence of the American people, do have the support of the American people, and my prediction is that before the Congress adjourns in 1979, we will have this program passed with or without the support of the Republicans in the House.,CABINET CHANGES; 1980 PRESIDENTIAL\nCAMPAIGN,Q. Mr. President, was it worth it to you to cause some destabilization of the dollar and demoralization of the Federal Government, spreading doubt through the land, in order to repudiate much of your Cabinet? And do you agree with Senator Jackson that your problems will force you to .forgo any reelection plans and hand the Democratic nomination to Senator Kennedy?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let me answer the first question first.,I felt, and still feel, that I had to make some changes in my Cabinet, as I said earlier, to create a new team to work with me, a team that will be united, that will be forceful and aggressive and confident in facing the problems that we must meet in the months ahead. I have no apology to make for it. Some people thought it was made too rapidly. I had the choice of either dragging it out week after week after week, with speculation and doubt and confusion, or getting it over, in effect, in 48 hours. And I felt that the abrupt action, based on a long and careful consideration, was the best approach.,Senator Jackson. Three or four years ago I was running for President against Senator Jackson. At that time he predicted that he would be the next President, beginning in 1977. His judgment was not very good then.,And now I'm ready for the next question. [Laughter],PRESIDENT'S HEALTH; SECRETARY OF ENERGY,Q. Sir, could you please tell me about your pick of Mr. Duncan as the new Energy Secretary?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. That's the second in a line of Energy Secretaries from the Defense Department. Is this a signal to the American people that the White House is going to be taking control of energy decisions, sir, and that in fact the Energy Department is going to be taking a second place? And also, sir, there has been some concern on your health in the recent months? Could you please comment on that, please?,THE PRESIDENT. I feel perfectly healthy.,The President is the one who makes the basic decisions on policy of the administration, whether it be in health, education, welfare, transportation, housing, energy, defense, foreign affairs. The President, I and all my predecessors seek—all of us seek the widest possible area of consultation and advice, because we desperately want to make the right decisions for our country. That's my motivation.,Jim Schlesinger, the present Secretary of Energy, has done an excellent job in putting together a new department under the most difficult circumstances and putting through Congress the major parts of an energy program that he and I shaped along with the help of many others early in 1977, more than 2 years ago. About 65 percent of that package was passed in November of 1978. At that time, Secretary Schlesinger asked that he be permitted to step down. I asked him to stay on, to help me during this session of the Congress. In February he asked again that he be permitted to step down. Since we had not passed any legislation at that time, because of the efforts of the oil lobby concerning oil, I wanted Jim Schlesinger to stay and help me evolve and present to the Congress the program that I have just outlined to the American people.,Now I've decided to let Jim Schlesinger step down as Secretary of Energy. The change will be made in an orderly fashion. The transition will be done methodically and properly, as soon as Charles Duncan is confirmed.,Charles Duncan is an outstanding manager. He has done an absolutely superb job as [Deputy] 1 Secretary of Defense. I consider him to be qualified to be Secretary of any department in the Government, including that of Defense. I asked him to take the Energy Department, because I think at this point it does need to begin to implement the programs that Congress has already passed and will be passing this year. He's a tough, competent manager. In addition to doing a good job in Defense, he's also had a superb career, educational background, and experience in the management of some of the largest responsibilities in the free enterprise system of our country. I have no doubt that he will do an equally good job as Secretary of Energy.,1 Printed in the transcript.,HAMILTON JORDAN,Q. Mr. President, sir, what qualifications does Hamilton Jordan have, aside from the loyalty to you, to be chief of staff in the White House, and to what extent will he be making decisions at a level below your level?,THE PRESIDENT. This event, my designation of Hamilton Jordan as chief of staff, has been one of the most grossly distorted of my career in politics. Hamilton Jordan will be chief of staff—chief of the White House staff. Because of Hamilton's knowledge of me, his closeness to me, his superb leadership capabilities, the trust that other people in the White House have in him repeatedly since I've been President, the other top members of my staff have asked me to let Hamilton be chief of staff. Had he been willing earlier, he would have already been chief of staff, like a year or a year and a half ago.,Recently I asked Hamilton again to take over the job of chief of staff. He's agreed to do it. He has my full support, he has the full support of all others who work in the White House with us. He will not be the chief of the Cabinet; I will be chief of the Cabinet. He will not be the chief of the Congress; the Congress is an independent body. We'll have the same relationship with the Congress, with the same people that we have all the time.,Hamilton Jordan will be chief of-the White House staff. That's his responsibility, assigned by me. That's the job he will fulfill, and I have absolutely no doubt, based on his past experience and my knowledge of him, that he will do a superb job.,RELATIONS WITH THE NEWS MEDIA,Q. Mr. President, you were reported to have told some of those whom you saw at Camp David about reservations that you had about the Washington press corps. It was reported that you have expressed those reservations, to use a mild word, even more strongly to the Cabinet last Tuesday. Tonight you appear, tonight, before the Washington press corps and others. You are reported to have said you wanted to speak more to the press outside Washington.,To put the question simply: What bugs you about the Washington press corps? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I'm sure that if I said that the Washington press corps was a group of superbly qualified, highly objective, extremely intelligent analysts of the American news scene, that all of you would agree completely— [laughter] —if I said it.,I have nothing against the White House press corps nor the Washington press. My own judgment is that for the first 2 1/2 years, when I felt it was extremely important for me in effect to get acquainted with the American people, to get acquainted with the Washington scene, that I have had, I think, between 50 and 60 press conferences exclusively with the White House press corps. Now I will continue to have interviews with the White House press corps, as we are doing tonight, but not twice a month.,In lieu of that, and I don't think with any reflection on the White House press corps, my decision is now to go to different places around the country. I'll be going to Louisville, Kentucky, area next week. And then sometimes to Miami and Bangor, Maine, and San Francisco, and perhaps Des Moines, Iowa, to have press conferences there and to answer questions both from professional members of the press and also from American people in a townhall meeting format. The Washington press corps will accompany me, the White House press corps, and I will answer questions from you, too.,But I think it's better for me not to have all the questions focused on me by a group that's almost exclusively oriented within Washington as a prime place of their residence and interest, and I would like to let my voice be heard and felt and the questions be heard by me and felt from various places in the country.,1980 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,Q. Mr. President, if I may follow through on part of the thrust of Helen's [Helen Thomas, United Press International] earlier question; as you know, there have been suggestions that in order to restore the confidence that you have talked about in the country, and in order to restore confidence in the Presidency, that perhaps you might consider withdrawing yourself from politics next year, turning your attention primarily to governing the Nation. Now, although recent suggestions come from a Republican Member of the Senate—you have in recent months advocated the concept of a one-term, 6-year Presidency. I wonder if you might have considered not entering the 1980 campaign.,THE PRESIDENT. I think it's a compliment to me that Republican leaders are advocating that I not run again. I have considered all the options, and my decision will be announced later on this year.,VALUE OF THE DOLLAR,Q. Mr.. President, are you planning to install any foreign exchange controls or capital controls in order to protect the decline of the dollar, and are you planning any further appointments from the corporate section?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not contemplate taking action of that kind. I think the dollar is sound. In the long run, the principles which will decide the value of the dollar are determined by bow effective we are in dealing with the energy question, how effective we are in dealing with the inflation question, how much we act to resolve the adverse balance of payments, how we deal with the Federal budget deficit, and so forth. The basic underlying economic factors will be what causes the value of the dollar, not some contrived action that I might take to interfere with the normal operation of the international monetary scene.,I have just announced today that I'm appointing Paul Volcker, a highly qualified person, internationally respected as a knowledgeable man on monetary systems, on whom I can depend. There's no doubt that he will work harmoniously with me, with Bill Miller, who will be the new Secretary of the Treasury. And I believe that this new team will be very effective.,I would like to reserve the right to make future appointments from the corporate world or the academic world or the journalistic world or from among mayors and Governors or Members of the Congress. But I can't exclude the corporate sector. But I can't say now where I'll make future appointments from.\nYes. sir. In the back row.,NICARAGUA,Q. Mr. President, I wonder, in looking at Nicaragua, if we are in danger of another Cuba there, and what the White House plans to do in terms of taking some positive steps to assure their safety?,THE PRESIDENT. It's a mistake for Americans to assume or to claim that every time an evolutionary change takes place, or even an abrupt change takes place in this hemisphere, that somehow it's the result of secret, massive Cuban intervention. The fact in Nicaragua is that the incumbent government, the Somoza regime, lost the confidence of the Nicaraguan people. There was a broad range of forces assembled to replace Somoza and his regime as the head of the Nicaraguan Government.,We worked as closely as we could without intervening in the internal affairs of Nicaragua with the neighboring countries and with the so-called Andean Group in the northern part of South America to bring about an orderly transition. Our effort was to let the people of Nicaragua ultimately make a decision on who should be their leader, what form of government they should have. We also wanted to minimize bloodshed and to restore stability. That is presently being done. We have a good relationship with the new government. We hope to improve it. We are providing some minimum humanitarian aid for the people of Nicaragua, who've suffered so much.,I think that our posture in Nicaragua is a proper one. I do not attribute at all the change in Nicaragua to Cuba. I think the people of Nicaragua have got enough judgment to make their own decisions, and we will use our efforts in a proper fashion without interventionism, to let the Nicaraguans let their voice be heard in shaping their own affairs.,CHANGES IN THE CABINET,Q. Mr. President, I would like to follow up on the earlier question about Hamilton Jordan.,THE PRESIDENT. Good.,Q. Some of your fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill feel you've misdiagnosed your biggest problem—leading effectively. They claim it lies largely in the senior White House staff, and that the Cabinet shakeup won't cure it. Have any congressional Democrats made that criticism to you directly, and how would you respond to it?,THE PRESIDENT. No, they have not. A few have said that in the heat of the publicity focused on the changes that took place over a 2- or 3-day period-and that is expectable—to be expected.,I did not make the rapid changes in my Cabinet without, obviously, some sense that there would be a disturbance in Washington, in the Congress, and otherwise. But I have no doubt that the changes I made are in the best interests of me as President, in the best interests of my administration, which is trying to serve the American people in the finest fashion, and also in the best interests of our country, whom we all serve.,I have had many congratulations given to me by Members of the Congress, and I might say that some of those changes that I did make were long advocated by Members of the Congress.,So, I don't have any hesitancy at all to say that the changes I made were the best, and I don't have any hesitancy to say that I think it was better to go ahead and get it done in about 2 days, rather than to drag it out over a period of weeks or months.,THE NATION'S ECONOMY,Q. Mr. President, with the country apparently headed into a recession, and with unemployment expected to go up, what new ideas do you have, sir, to deal with the worsening economy?,THE PRESIDENT. I think this is a time for stability. I think it's a time for the continuation of our present economic monetary and budgetary policies. While I was at Camp David, I invited a fairly large group of Members of the Congress-Democrats, Republicans, from the House and the Senate—to consult with me. And there was almost unanimity there, surprisingly so, that we ought to maintain our commitment, that inflation is the biggest single threat to the American people, both rich and poor, and to the future of our Nation's economy in the months ahead.,There will be a period of slow growth in our country. I believe that next year we'll see this growth restored to a moderate rate. We will watch this situation very closely. Obviously inflation is not the only factor. I am deeply concerned about the chronic unemployment in some of the types of people in our country. We've done the best we could to reduce unemployment. We've had remarkable success in creating 8 million new jobs. I saw some figures the other day that said the unemployment compensation had been slashed 55 percent. But we're going to watch unemployment.,But my judgment now is to maintain our steady course and to dwell as best I can on a balanced growth in the economy as best we can manage, but let us remember that inflation is the biggest threat to all Americans at this time.,WINDFALL PROFITS TAX,Q. Mr. President, related to your earlier statement about energy, there's talk in the Senate about exemptions of the first 3,000 barrels of oil produced daily by independent oilmen from the windfall profits tax. How would this or a plowback provision or other exemptions affect your energy security corporation, the other parts of your bill, and how much room does the Senate have to tamper with the House-passed bill?,THE PRESIDENT. We need the revenues that would have been derived from my original windfall profits tax proposal to the House. The net income from the House-passed bill is roughly the same as I proposed. My proposal was a permanent tax; the House passed a tax that will be terminated in 1990.,There's a threat now that the oil lobby will focus its attention on the Senate. I think it's almost a sure thing. And unless the American people speak out, because of one reason or another claimed by some of the Members of the Senate, we'll see the windfall profits tax robbed under the proposals that you described of about $54 billion, which will make it impossible for us to have an adequate synthetic fuels program, to have an adequate mass transit program, to have an adequate care for the poor people who are severely impacted by rapidly rising energy costs. It would in effect make it impossible for us to meet our crucial energy goals.,And I think that I cannot prevail alone here in Washington with an oil lobby working quietly unless the American people let their voice be heard. But if these exemptions are made, it'll be a grant of $54 billion to the oil companies on top of greatly increased income to the oil companies by the phased decontrol, and they'll be able to spend these new revenues, which 'they have not earned, in order to increase production of oil and gas in our own country.,So, what you describe is a great threat to the very program that is so important to me and to the country.,PATRICIA ROBERTS HARRIS,Q. Mr. President, does Mrs. Harris have your full approval and encouragement to continue such HEW programs as the desegregation of the North Carolina college system, the desegregation of public schools in Chicago and other cities, and the antismoking campaign? And if the answer to that question is yes, why did you fire Secretary Califano?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer is yes.,I think the reasons for my replacement of the Cabinet are something that I don't care to discuss publicly. I have nothing but gratitude and admiration for the people that have served in my administration and left.,I expect Mrs. Harris to carry out the provisions of the laws of this country, to represent our Nation in the courts when suits are brought concerning equal opportunity in all its phases, and to be responsible for the health of Americans. And she will have my support just as the previous Secretary had.,I have no doubt that she will do an excellent job both in the administration of that very complicated bureaucracy-Health, Education, and Welfare—and I have no doubt that she has a basic commitment to the service of the constituent groups that are uniquely dependent upon government, particularly HEW. And I have no doubt that she will be a superb teamplayer, able to work with me, to work with the White House staff, to work with the Congress, and to work with other Cabinet members to carry out the policies of my administration, once those policies have been established by me.,VALUE OF THE DOLLAR,Q. Sir, you said earlier that you think that the U.S. dollar is sound. The dollar seems to be taking a pounding on the foreign exchange markets, and it's approaching the low levels that once before you had to launch a dramatic rescue program last November.,In addition to that, you've just named Paul Volcker, a conservative Republican, to head the Federal Reserve Board. How do the poundings that the dollar is undergoing on the exchange markets and your naming of Mr. Volcker square with your earlier description?,THE PRESIDENT. I see no incompatibility at all. Mr. Volcker, by the way, happens to be a Democrat. But he, I think, is a conservative in that he believes in controlling inflation and he believes in maintaining a sound dollar.,I can't guarantee what the exact value of the dollar might be in months ahead. We don't freeze the value of the dollar. That's determined by international monetary considerations. What I said was that the basic value of the dollar will be determined not by the identity of a President or even the identity of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve; it will be shaped by how effectively our Nation moves to meet the energy challenge. There is some present doubt that the Congress will pass the proposals that I have put forward. I have no doubt that the dollar will increase in value when the Congress has passed the programs that I proposed. And, obviously, the dollar will be adversely affected if inflation should increase.,My prediction is that inflation will decrease in the months ahead. And I'm sure that the dollar would be adversely affected if I abandoned my commitment to a responsible Federal budget and start on wild spending programs when they are not needed.,So, basic decisions made of fiscal soundness in our Government is a much more important factor in shaping the value of the dollar than is the identity of officials who might serve in a transient time.,STANDBY GASOLINE RATIONING PLAN,Q. Mr. President, the House of Representatives today amended a standby rationing plan bill to give either House the authority to veto any rationing plan that you would come up with. Now, is that acceptable to you, or if that survives in both Houses, would you veto the legislation?,THE PRESIDENT. This action today by the House illustrates once again the timidity of the Congress in dealing with a sensitive political issue. I criticized the House when they failed to pass the rationing plan a few months ago. The House leadership has now promised me that an adequate rationing standby plan would be passed.,I don't object to the one-House veto if it's done expeditiously. I think only 15 days would elapse. What I do object to are the other restraints that have been placed on the evolution of a standby gasoline rationing plan. Under the proposed plan, even before it got to the floor of the House today, for instance, we could have a 50-percent shortage of gasoline, which would almost devastate our Nation's economy, and unless that shortage lasted for 20 days, I could not implement a rationing plan.,So, I hope that the House and the Senate will rapidly pass an adequate standby rationing plan so that I can develop one, have it on the shelf, if we have a severe and sustained shortage of gasoline, assure that we have equitable distribution. And I have no objection to the House, within 2 weeks, either approving the plan that I have tried to put into being, or if either House wants to veto it, they can do that. But I need the authority to go ahead with a good plan and make sure that it can be implemented rapidly when and if it's needed.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you.
#> 10 ENERGY,THE PRESIDENT. No matter how Americans may differ on energy, we are united on two basic goals: first, to provide every possible means to alleviate the current crisis at all levels of government and in the private sector of our economy; and, second, to get this country firmly on the way toward more lasting solutions for the energy question and to keep it there.,First things first: Today, by Executive order, I'm delegating to all the Nation's Governors the authority to help manage our gasoline supplies over the summer. Using these powers, which I have authority to delegate, the Governors will be able to require that at least some gasoline stations remain open on weekends, to establish minimum purchase requirements, to prevent tank topping, which can convert a scarce surplus into spot shortages, and to impose an odd-even day sales system to reduce crowding and confusion by enabling drivers to buy gasoline on alternate days according to their license plate numbers.,Some of this authority already exists in some of the States, but this action will assure that all Governors throughout the Nation have help in managing the kind of situation that existed this month in Nevada, California, and some other places in our country.,These steps will simply make it more convenient for drivers to purchase gasoline, but they do not save oil or gasoline. While some increased supply and better management may minimize inconvenience, continued care, planning, and conservation will be required throughout the summer if we are to avoid gasoline lines and spot shortages.,As I've said so often, our country faces a long-term, chronic problem in obtaining adequate energy supplies to meet our needs. We have not yet addressed this basic problem. Until we put in place policies that will cut back demand, reduce waste, ensure maximum production of oil here at home, and develop alternate supplies of energy—alternates to oil—we will have to continue to live with the prospect of shortages.,It's necessary to stop aggravating the problem by blaming one another and by seeking out scapegoats. The fact is that the oil-producing countries are holding down supply while the rest of the world has increased demand. Our current difficulties have been made more severe by the stoppage of Iranian production this winter. Over 200 million barrels of oil which the world expected to have was simply not produced.,To meet demand over the winter and the spring, we had to draw down on our own supplies and also our own reserves, and reserve supplies of crude oil now are at very low levels. Since it takes 60 to 90 days for oil to be moved from a country like Iran across the ocean to our ports to be refined and then distributed, we are still feeling the loss of oil from that country even though Iran is producing oil again.,We now expect to see mild increases in oil supply, which should help to alleviate our present spot shortages. But in spite of this improvement, we will at best only have—at best we will only have about the same amount of oil during the summer that we had a year ago. In the meantime, Americans are expecting to use more than we had a year ago. Unless we are able to plan carefully and to conserve properly, spot shortages may exist.,As this Memorial Day has indicated, Americans are able to conserve energy if they are determined to do so. For example, Charles Warren, my Special Representative in California, reports that the use of trains and rapid transit in California was way up.,But I believe this country is capable of doing much more than just getting through the summer. Phased decontrol will begin June 1 to reduce our subsidy of imported oil and to increase domestic production of oil.,I've also proposed a windfall profits tax to capture, for public benefit, a substantial portion of the increased prices of oil resulting from decontrol. And I proposed an energy security fund to protect those who are least able to afford the rapidly increasing costs of energy, to improve mass transportation systems in our country, and to bring the full force of American science and technology to bear on this crucial problem.,These proposals, while not universally popular, are essential to get this country moving firmly on the way to a more lasting solution for our energy problem. I hope that I can have the support of the Congress and the American people for these energy proposals.,And now, I'd be glad to answer questions.,QUESTIONS,OIL SUPPLIES AND PRICES; PRESIDENT'S,USE OF HELICOPTERS,Q. Mr. President, I have a three-part question. What do you say to Members of Congress and the industry who say that decontrol will not lead to greater supplies? Also, what do you say to poor people who cannot afford the needed gas at these higher prices? And why did you use helicopters for two private fishing trips in recent days?,THE PRESIDENT. Can I take my choice of the questions? [Laughter],Q. You can start from the beginning. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I'm convinced that the government control of oil prices has not worked. We presently have controls. Oil production in this country has continued to go down about 6 percent per year. Dependence on imported oil has gone up drastically, so that in spite of very rapid increases in the cost of foreign oil, our country has seen its imports now equal about one-half total consumption. This has robbed our Nation of valuable dollars. It's cut our country out of potential jobs. It's created very serious problems in our trade balance, and it's discouraged American production. It's also subsidized foreign oil and made energy seem to be much cheaper for consumers than it actually is.,I think it's better to reduce the Federal bureaucracy and to decontrol oil prices very slowly and steadily—oh, just 1 or 2 percent per month for 28 months—so that we can have increased domestic production and a reduction in imports.,As far as the poor people are concerned, we are only willing to let the oil companies keep, out of each dollar increased in price, about 29 cents. The rest goes to either local or State or Federal governments or to the owners of land where oil is produced.,The income for the Federal Government from the windfall profits tax, brought about by decontrol of oil, will go into an energy security fund. A substantial portion of this fund will be used to pay to poor families for the increased cost of oil and other energy. The rest of it will go, as I said, for rapid transit and to produce additional supplies of oil.,It's much less expensive for me, when I travel from one place to another, to go by helicopter. When I go by highway, because of security requirements, I have a very large entourage, including seven or eight carloads of press who follow me when I go by car. And at each intersection along the highways, the State Police have people there to guard the intersections to prevent my injury in case of an accident. So, it's much less expensive for me to go by helicopter.,TAX REDUCTIONS,Q. Mr. President, election year tax cuts are rather commonplace in this country, and I wonder if we can look forward to a Carter-proposed tax cut in 1980.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I doubt very seriously that we'll have any tax cut in 1980. My own major responsibility is to deal with the inflation question. Part of that, of course, is to be fiscally responsible in reducing the Federal deficit. If we have the option between substantial reductions in the deficit and controlling inflation on the one hand, and having tax reductions for the American people in an election year on the other, I would forgo the tax reduction and insist upon controlling inflation and cutting the deficit.,WAGE AND PRICE GUIDELINES,Q. Mr. President, United Airlines and the machinists union last week reached a contract settlement that was well over 30 percent, yet another assault on your 7-percent wage guidelines. How long can you expect the American people to sit tight and support a 7-percent guideline, when inflation is running at over 13 percent over the last 3 months and when the big unions are getting fat contracts?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the problem is finding a suitable alternative. I don't maintain that every settlement in the last 6 or 8 months has been under the 7-percent guideline. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, however, that the price constraints and the wage constraints that we have imposed on a voluntary basis have had very beneficial results. Eighty-five percent, at least, of all the wage settlements since we imposed the voluntary standards have been within the 7-percent guidelines. Even those that have exceeded the guidelines, in my opinion, have been much lower than they would have been without the restraints.,We're trying to do three things, and we're going to stick with it: first of all, to have a fiscally responsible government, to cut down waste, and to reduce the Federal deficit; secondly, to eliminate the unwarranted regulations and redtape that's imposed by government on the private sector, which is highly inflationary; and, of course, the third thing is to stick with and to try to induce the American people to support the voluntary wage and price standards.,All of these factors working together will have a long-range, beneficial effect in controlling inflation. In my opinion, a deliberate recession, which is one alternative which would cause very high unemployment, is unacceptable. And mandatory wage and price controls, which have been tried in the past and have never worked, except during wartime, are also unacceptable.,So, we have a good, sound, anti-inflation program. It's going to require some time for it to be effective, but I intend to stick with it.,PRESIDENT'S LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITY,Q. Mr. President, many of your legislative initiatives have run into trouble on Capitol Hill this year—hospital cost control, the Panama Canal implementation legislation, oil price decontrol—legislation to extend that—and so forth. To what extent do you believe it is the President's responsibility to exert leadership over the Congress, and to what extent do you believe you've fulfilled that responsibility this year?,TEE PRESIDENT. I think the President has a major responsibility not only to propose to the Congress legislation that's of benefit to the Nation, but also to fight for congressional approval of those proposals. The ones you mentioned as examples are very important to our Nation.,We have already signed, and the Senate has ratified, a Panama Canal agreement, two treaties. Those treaties became effective the first day of April. The Panama Canal Zone will become Panamanian territory on the 1st of October. If the Congress does not act to implement those treaties, then we would have no effective means by which we could adequately defend the Panama Canal between now and the year 2000, nor manage our personnel in keeping the canal open. I believe that the Congress will eventually be responsible and will pass the implementation legislation.,On oil decontrol, which I have proposed—and just described, I think, adequately-my belief is that the Congress will not change that law. The decontrol action that I have taken is in accordance with the law passed by Congress in 1975. There's a great deal of debate going on, and I believe that we will have decontrol, which is good for our country.,Hospital cost containment—here again, the Congress has a major responsibility to deal with this effectively. The lobbying pressure on the Members of Congress by the hospital lobby is extraordinary, but I believe that in the long run, the Congress will see that this is one of the tangible actions that they can take this year to help control inflation. Hospital costs have been going up twice as great in previous years as the inflation rate, a completely unwarranted, additional charge on the American people that ought to be stopped.,And so, I have not given up on any of these programs as far as getting them implemented by congressional action. But I'll bear my share of the responsibility if we fail.,My judgment is that the American people are beginning to feel that their own Government can't deal adequately with crucial issues to the country, like inflation and like energy and like having a peaceful world in which to live. And until the American public gets aroused, we're going to have difficulty in Washington getting action taken.,But I believe the public is becoming increasingly aroused as they see the need for this action, and I predict to you that the Congress will act favorably on these three items. I have no intent to back down. I'll fight for these three programs and others that I've proposed to the last vote in Congress, and I believe that we will win.,RELATIONS WITH CONGRESS,Q. Mr. President, even though it might not be your favorite way of doing things with Congress, why don't you get tough to the extent of saying to Members of Congress individually that, "If you won't help me on these major programs that I feel are important to the entire country, I won't go along with my administration providing the individual, district-by-district services that you are interested in as a Member of Congress"?,THE PRESIDENT. I represent those districts also. Every one of the people who lives in any congressional district is my constituent. And I don't think it's right to punish the people of our Nation who live in a particular farming community or city or congressional district because a particular Member of Congress does not comply with the proposals that I make that I believe to be in the best interest of our Nation.,The best approach that I have been able to make—and we've had a very good success in having the Congress approve my proposals in previous years—has been to deal, first of all, with the Congress directly, both as a body and also individual Members of the Congress.,When I do face a serious problem, like with the windfall profits tax when the prediction was we had no chance to get it passed, I take my case to the public as strongly and effectively as I can. I think that's the best way to induce the Congress Members to vote in the best interests of their constituents and mine, not to punish the constituents in a district.,ORGANIZATION OF PETROLEUM EXPORTING COUNTRIES,Q. Mr. President, as you said before, decontrol begins Friday, and the OPEC Ministers meet next month. What do you expect the OPEC Ministers to do? What action do you expect them to take?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. I think OPEC has raised the price of oil excessively this year, and I hope they won't raise it any more.,I believe in the long run, they hurt not only our country but every nation on Earth, and especially the poor nations who are destitute to begin with. I think the OPEC nations in the long run hurt themselves by raising the price of oil excessively.,They have always demanded—and I give them credit by assuming that their demand was sincere—that countries, like our own, that use and waste so much energy cut back on consumption. That's one of the main thrusts of the energy proposals that I have made to the American people and to the Congress.,As you know, the major consuming nations in the International Energy Agency this spring have resolved, all of us, to cut back by 2 million barrels per day on our total worldwide consumption. This amounts to about a 5-percent reduction below our projected 1979 rate—reduction in consumption. I'll be meeting with six leaders of other nations in Tokyo the last week in June and, there again, we'll try to deal with the question of consumption in the world being higher than present production.,I would like to see the OPEC nations level off their price, certainly not to exceed the rate of inflation; secondly, to increase production in return for which the consuming nations who waste a great deal of energy would impose and adhere to strict conservation measures.,Increased and sustained supply, a stable price, and reduced consumption is the best all-around approach, but I think there has to be some give-and-take, some recognition of mutual interest between us and OPEC, before we can succeed in stabilizing the energy supply and price situation.,PRESIDENT'S FISHING TRIPS,Q. This past Saturday, unbeknownst to anyone, you took off to Spruce Creek, Pennsylvania, and went fishing.,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct.,Q. Now, you told Helen Thomas [United Press International] at the beginning of the news conference that this saves energy by not having to drag along all the press people and not having us tail along. How many times previously have you been able to escape the news media and travel unbeknownst to anybody?,THE PRESIDENT. Not enough— [laughter] —and it wasn't unbeknownst to the press.,I have a rare opportunity to go fishing or to get out in the woods and swamps and in the fields and on the streams by myself. I really believe that it's not only good for me but for the country, to be able to do that on occasion. I wish I could do it more. But I don't intend to ignore any opportunity to take advantage of a fishing trip when my own work permits it, and I hope the press will understand and the people will understand that I, like the average American, need some recreation at times.,I enjoyed it. I didn't catch as many fish as my wife. It was one of the nicest days of my life, except for that fact [laughter] —and I'm very proud that I had a chance.,RHODESIA,Q. Mr. President, the British, who've been our partners in formulating a policy towards Rhodesia, have recently ruled that the elections there were free and fair. Can you tell me now, does your administration intend to pursue a separate policy there, or will we now agree with the British conclusion?,THE PRESIDENT. We have been consulting closely with the British Government since the new administration under Mrs. Thatcher took over. Secretary Vance has just completed several days of discussions, both with her, with her Foreign Minister, and with other officials.,The new Rhodesian Zimbabwe Government will take office, I think, the 1st of June. Within 2 weeks after that date, I will make my decision about whether or not to lift the existing sanctions. I've given the Congress this assurance. And obviously, my decision would be made taking into consideration those consultations with Great Britain.,RELEASE OF SOVIET DISSIDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES,Q. About a month ago, Mr. President, you brought about, helped bring about, a prisoner exchange with the Soviet Union. As part of that exchange, as I understand it, there was an agreement that the families of the Russian dissidents would be allowed immediate passage to the West. However, many of those families have not been released, and there were reports that some of them have actually been harassed. Is that a breach of the agreement? What has the U.S. Government done about it? And secondly, do you have any information on another report that the Soviets are about to release 12 more prisoners, possibly including Anatoly Shcharanskiy?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any information about the second item except what I have read in the news. We have no direct information about that. I hope the report is true.,The Soviets did agree to release the families of the five dissidents, earlier, without delay and without harassment. My belief is that the families will be released. There have been delays. Whether they were brought about by an unwieldy democracy [bureaucracy],1 or by actions of subordinates who weren't familiar with the government policy, or whether it was deliberate, I have no way to know.,1 Printed in the transcript.,There have been some delays. But I think in spite of this, the families will be reunited, and that's one reason that I'm very thankful about it.,Q. You do not see it as a breach of the agreement, then?,THE PRESIDENT. There was some delay, and there was some harassment of the families in my opinion. Whether that was imposed by the government officials or whether it was part of the unwieldy—the Soviet bureaucracy, I can't judge. But I'm thankful that the families will be released.,DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT,Q. Mr. President, John White, the party chairman, Democratic Party chairman, said the other day that he thought the activities of some of those Congressmen promoting Senator Kennedy were divisive and might turn the Presidency over to the Republicans in 1980. Now, do you agree with him? And would it be helpful if Senator Kennedy just today made a Sherman-like statement, as he did in 1974, take himself out of the race?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any quarrel to make with the statement that was issued by John White. No, I do not disagree with his statement.,I don't really have any comment to make about what Senator Kennedy does. He's made statements repeatedly about what he would do.,Let me make this point: No President can expect to have unanimous support, even within one's own party. This has been the case with every predecessor of mine who lived in the White House. But that's not my major concern. I'm not an announced candidate, and I don't intend to make every judgment about what ought to be done for this country on the basis of whether it would or would not lose support by nonpartisan Americans or officials in my own party for an upcoming election.,Some of the decisions that I have to make on inflation, on energy, on foreign affairs, are very difficult to make. I don't believe anyone can accuse me of trying to gain a vote, for instance, by my energy proposals. They've just lost votes, but they were necessary. And if I should ever modify my positions away from what's best for this country in order to pick up support, then I would not deserve to be President. So, I don't intend to do it.,If a few or even a large number of Democrats endorse someone else, that's their business. I'll continue to try to serve the country as best I can and deal with the political question when the election comes along.,STRATEGIC ARMS; MX MISSILE,Q. Mr. President, I know in your Inaugural Address, you dedicated your administration to eliminating atomic weapons from the Earth.,THE PRESIDENT. That's right.,Q. We're on the verge now of making the decision on the MX. I gather it has accuracy, it hits within 100 yards, and it has a doubling or a tripling of the atomic blast power. It could be a very destabilizing weapon in the strategic arms system, and also make SALT III very difficult to achieve. What's your decision on MX?,THE PRESIDENT. The most destabilizing thing that we could have in our strategic relationship with the Soviets would be acknowledged inferiority or a vulnerable strategic deployment of missiles. We have just completed almost 7 years of negotiations with the Soviets to actually reduce the present, permitted number of missiles on each side, to put constraints on the number of explosive warheads that could be on each missile, and to limit the improvement in quality of existing missiles. That is a major step toward my ultimate goal, which I believe is one shared by the Soviet Union leaders, of eliminating nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth in the future.,But while we do have heavy deployments of nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union—although now being constrained more severely than they were before—we must maintain an adequate level of armaments, and we must maintain the security from attack of the armaments we have.,So, when we do deploy new types of missiles to stay current and to keep our equivalency with the Soviet Union, that, in my opinion, contributes to peace, and this is completely permitted in the SALT II agreement which we have just negotiated.,The agreement on new types of IGBM's is that each side can only have one new IGBM during the life of the treaty. And that was carefully planned in order to provide stability and to stop the enormous buildup which the Soviets have been demonstrating in recent years to catch up with us, since we were originally far ahead. And if we can maintain that rough equivalency with the Soviet Union, maintain an adequate defense, and maintain the security of our own missile systems, that is a major contributing factor to peace.,So, it is not destabilizing. I think it is stabilizing.,Q. Have you decided on the MX?,THE PRESIDENT. Not yet.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, on the Middle East, sir, is it feasible in your view to expect the Palestinians and other Arab nations to join the peace process as long as the United States does not put forward some of its own ideas in greater detail about what autonomy is going to look like on the West Bank and Gaza?,In other words, as long as the Israelis are continuing to say there will be no Palestinian homeland, there will be no entity linked or unlinked to Jordan, there will be no Palestinian state, is it not incumbent on the United States, again in this peace process, to come forward with some ideas of its own in order to encourage the Palestinians to join in?,THE PRESIDENT. We've never been reticent about putting forward our ideas both to the Israelis and the Egyptians and to others about what ought to be done in the West Bank, Gaza area. We've never espoused an independent Palestinian state. I think that would be a destabilizing factor there.,I believe the next step ought to be the exchange of views during the negotiations between Israel and Egypt. We will observe the different proposals that are inevitably going to be made; some of them have been described publicly. Then later on, after the negotiations proceed as far as they can do with any degree of momentum, we will reserve the right—requested, I might say, by both Israel and Egypt— to put forward United States proposals to break a deadlock or to provide a compromise solution.,We have been involved in that kind of process both at Camp David and when I went to the Middle East. I think that's one of the reasons that we've been as successful as we have so far.,But for us to preempt the negotiations by putting forward, to begin with, an American proposal, I think, would be counterproductive, and it would remove some of the reasonable responsibility that ought to be directly on the shoulders of Prime Minister Begin and his government and President Sadat and his government.,I might say that this past weekend, I talked personally to President Sadat and to Prime Minister Begin and, this morning, to Secretary Vance. And they were all very pleased and very excited not only at the progress made in El Arish and Beersheba but also at the attitude on both sides toward a constructive resolution of these very difficult issues.,So, at this point, I feel very hopeful that both sides are negotiating in good faith. We'll be there to help them when they need our help.,BERT LANCE,Q. Mr. President, last week an Atlanta grand jury indicted your former budget director, your friend, Mr. Lance, on criminal charges. I'm aware of the fact that the courts have enjoined discussion of this case and won't ask you to do that, sir, but in view of the confidence and friendship you have expressed publicly for Mr. Lance, I wonder if you could share with us your reaction to the indictment and your feeling about Mr. Lance at this time as a person?,THE PRESIDENT. Bert Lance is still my friend. I don't see any benefit to be derived from my commenting on the actions that are presently underway within the legal system of our country.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you. Thank you, everybody.
#> Frequency Timing Intensity Commitment Urgency
#> 1 7.450136 49.30071 63.55909 47.88087 416.5433
#> 2 4.341814 61.22267 109.48182 99.49456 890.9070
#> 3 3.061664 26.35730 60.61023 57.60275 236.0605
#> 4 2.805798 64.90401 111.20114 71.95282 806.6904
#> 5 3.306617 39.20807 82.47273 81.53126 461.8510
#> 6 1.939836 19.25853 51.62841 79.82097 193.4879
#> 7 3.729877 22.77649 61.43295 56.95092 214.4816
#> 8 5.243861 38.98430 71.33068 66.85583 405.0353
#> 9 2.335880 39.06576 54.06250 83.26907 377.9512
#> 10 2.359209 28.82364 74.17841 78.32117 320.4210
get_urgency(US_News_Conferences_1960_1980[1:10,])
#> president date
#> 1 Jimmy Carter 1980-09-18
#> 2 Jimmy Carter 1980-08-04
#> 3 Jimmy Carter 1980-04-29
#> 4 Jimmy Carter 1980-04-17
#> 5 Jimmy Carter 1980-03-14
#> 6 Jimmy Carter 1980-02-13
#> 7 Jimmy Carter 1979-11-28
#> 8 Jimmy Carter 1979-10-09
#> 9 Jimmy Carter 1979-07-25
#> 10 Jimmy Carter 1979-05-29
#> text
#> 1 ADMINISTRATION POLICIES,THE PRESIDENT. Although attention is naturally focused on domestic politics, events around the world and here at home still demand my attention and action in ways that affect the well-being of American citizens.,Yesterday we completed the normalization of relations with the People's Republic of China with four agreements—for trade, for consulates, for normal airline service, and for textiles. We've opened a new era of normal relationships now between our two great countries.,Also yesterday, the second anniversary of the signing of the Camp David accords, I met with Israeli Foreign Minister Shamir and Egyptian Foreign Minister Hassan Ali as efforts continue in our quest for a lasting peace in the Middle East, which is so important to the future of Americans and to the entire world. They have been, since that meeting with me, conducting negotiations or discussions with our own Ambassador responsible for the discussions for peace.,We're preparing now for preliminary exchanges with the Soviet Union on the control of theater nuclear weapons in Europe. These talks should begin next month, and Secretary Muskie will be addressing this important subject in his discussions with Foreign Minister Gromyko of the Soviet Union in New York in the near future.,We've also been concentrating on the slow, difficult, diplomatic effort to free our hostages in Iran.,Here at home there are some encouraging economic signs. The unemployment rate has been steady or slightly down for the last 4 straight months. Unemployment compensation claims, which is a weekly statistic that we receive, has been encouraging. In the last 2 months we've added some 470,000 new jobs. Housing starts are up now for the third month in a row. New orders for durable goods were up sharply in July, and for the past 90 days retail sales have also shown increases. But—and this is essential—while inflation has been dampened down, it's still a major, continuing concern.,I'm standing firm against any tax reduction in this preelection political climate. But I will press ahead to strengthen our economy, to increase productivity, to revitalize our American industrial system, and to create real jobs.,A tripartite automobile committee is now attacking this industry's problems on a continuing basis. A few hours ago Japanese Minister Tanaka made an encouraging statement in his estimate of Japanese exports of automobiles to this country for the remainder of this year. At the Venice summit conference we discussed with the Japanese the automobile situation, and they are sensitive to this transition period through which America is now going in changing consumer demand for the smaller and more efficient automobiles.,I'm also pleased to note that there are some initial recalls of steelworkers. And I look forward to receiving within just a few days a strong report from our tripartite committee on steel dealing with the pressing problems that face that basic industry so important to our country.,Finally, nowhere is America's progress more important than reducing energy dependence. The results so far have been excellent, far above what we had anticipated. Our imports of oil are down more than 20 percent below last year—about 1 1/2 million barrels less oil imported each day this year. A record number of drilling. rigs are in use. The number of oil and natural gas wells that will be drilled in 1980 will exceed any other previous year. American coal production in 1980 will be the highest in history, and we are now launching the most massive peacetime effort in our history to produce energy from shale, from coal, from the Sun, from farm products, geothermal sources, and many others.,Finally, I'm working with the Congress for the passage of critical bills. I think we will have a good legislative year—in dealing with youth employment, Alaska lands, toxic wastes, pay and incentives for military personnel, deregulation of the American free enterprise system, and the enhancement of civil rights.,In domestic and international affairs, the progress of America goes on.,I will now be pleased to answer any questions that you might have for me.,Ms. Santini [Maureen Santini, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS RONALD REAGAN,Q. Mr. President, in Atlanta on Tuesday, you referred to Ronald Reagan's campaign statements about the Ku Klux Klan and States rights. And then you said that hatred and racism have no place in this country. Do you think that Reagan is running a campaign of hatred and racism, and how do you answer allegations that you are running a mean campaign?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I do not think he's running a campaign of racism or hatred, and I think my campaign is very moderate in its tone. I did not raise the issue of the Klan, nor did I raise the issue of States rights, and I believe that it's best to leave these words, which are code words to many people in our country who've suffered from discrimination in the past, out of the election this year.,I do not think that my opponent is a racist in any degree.,AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN,Q. Mr. President, earlier this week you raised expectations on the release of the hostages, and then you seemed to back off. What is today's prospect for an early release of the hostages, and aside from the Shah's assets, over which we have no control, are all of the latest Iranian demands negotiable?,THE PRESIDENT. I've not changed my position on the prospects for the hostages release. I do not predict an early resolution of the issue, because it's not in my hands, unilaterally. It has to be done through very careful negotiations with the Iranians and quite often because of unilateral decisions to be made by them.,One of the major obstacles to progress in the past has been the absence of any viable government in Iran. Only in recent weeks, in fact in some instances in the last few days, have they had a parliament or a speaker of the parliament who could speak for them, or a Prime Minister. They have had a President for a long time. The President himself, Bani-Sadr, has been consistently in favor of the hostages being released. Now that their government is intact and now that the Ayatollah Khomeini has made a public statement for the first time outlining to some degree the demands to be pursued by Iran, obviously the situation has improved.,Our position has been consistent. We have two goals in mind that have not changed since the first day the hostages were taken. One is to preserve the honor and integrity of our Nation and to protect its interests. That's never changed. And the second goal has also never changed, and that is not to do anything here in this country that would endanger the lives or safety of the hostages nor interfere with their earliest possible release back to freedom.,This is an issue that's been constantly on my mind and on the minds of the American people.,Q. Does an apology rule out the question of honor?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. The United States is not going to apologize.,We have long said that there would be a legitimate forum provided for the Iranians, who consider themselves to be aggrieved in many ways, to present their case. We encouraged the United Nations mission to go to Iran, to investigate the situation there, to have hearings in Iran, and to let there be a public exploration of Iran's claims or complaints. At the time we filed our suit in the World Court in the Hague we also invited Iran to participate with us, not in a combative way, but in a friendly way, to give them that forum, which would have been well covered by the world press, to express their concerns or their complaints about us or others in the past. So, this is not a new development at all. Our position has been very consistent.,I cannot predict what will happen in the near future, but we are pursuing every possible legitimate avenue, as we have for many months, to reach some agreement with Iran, with those two constraints that I described to you concerning our Nation's honor and the safety of the hostages, to relieve this problem between us, which is obviously damaging to the United States and also very damaging to the people of Iran.,PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN STYLE,Q. I'd like to return to a portion of Miss Santini's question. There are people who say that in political campaigns you get mean; that you attempt to savage your opponents. They cite Hubert Humphrey, Edward Kennedy, and now Ronald Reagan. Will you tell us why you think this is not correct, and will you discuss your campaign style from that standpoint?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not raised these issues today in the press conference; it's been raised twice out of three questions. And obviously in the heat of a campaign there is give and take on both sides. An incumbent Governor or a President is almost always the subject of the most enthusiastic attacks by those who seek his office, and quite often those kinds of political verbal exchanges from those who seek to replace someone are either accepted as a normal course in a political campaign or ignored. If an incumbent, a Governor or a Congressman or a Senator or a President responds, that's immediately given the highest possible notice as an attack on one's challengers.,So, I try to keep a moderate tone; I try to discuss the issues. And I do not indulge in attacking personally the integrity of my opponents, and I hope that I never shall.,1980 CAMPAIGN DEBATES,Q. Mr. President, the big debate really concerns who will occupy this place next January 21. And since Presidential elections are now federally funded, I was just wondering whether you might consider, as President, inviting your chief opponent, Ronald Reagan, to a debate here in the White House?,THE PRESIDENT. I would be glad to have a debate with my Republican opponent either here at this very spot or in the East Room of the White House or any other forum anywhere in this Nation, and as frequently as possible. We have already accepted three invitations to debate on a one-to-one basis between the Democratic nominee, myself, and the Republican nominee. One of the networks invited us both on a man-to-man basis; I accepted. The National Press Club invited us both to attend the debate; I accepted it. And a women's magazine with its organization invited us both to meet on a one-to-one basis to debate, and I accepted these invitations. So far, Governor Reagan has not chosen to accept this one-on-one debate.,I am very eager to pursue this idea and have no concern at all about the location or the time except that I want it to be anywhere in this Nation and as frequently as possible.,PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LOANS,Q. Mr. President, on July 22, you said that it was inappropriate for your brother, Billy, to serve as a foreign agent and to accept the $220,000 loan from the Libyans. Yet from January of 1978 until March of 1980 you were personally liable for $830,000 to a Saudi-controlled financial institution. And in fact in 1978, contemporaneously with your decision to sell and advocacy of the sale of sixty F-15 jet fighters to Saudi Arabia, you accepted through Carter's Warehouse a loan accommodation from the Saudi-controlled bank which was worth $266,000 to you personally, free-tax dollars.,In light of your statement about the inappropriateness of your brother accepting a $220,000 loan accommodation, why do you think it was appropriate for you to accept what amounts to a $266,000 loan accommodation from a Saudi-controlled financial institution? And why do you think this does not represent an actual or potential conflict of interest, which you said you would rule out in your administration?,THE PRESIDENT. I have never accepted any loans from any organization—,Q. [Inaudible]—a loan accommodation—,THE PRESIDENT. Would you like for me to answer your question?,I've never accepted any loans from an organization that's owned or controlled by any foreign government or any foreign nationals. The only loans that I have gotten were loaned before I became President from American-owned banks in Atlanta, and I have so far paid those loans off as required by the bank itself.,Q. The bank was purchased by the Saudi citizen, and he now owns the bank, Mr. President—,NUCLEAR WARFARE,Q. Mr. President, in the context of your decisions about the MX missile and Presidential Directive 59, I'd like to ask if it's realistic for any American President to believe that he could limit his response to a Soviet nuclear first strike against U.S. missiles if that first strike incurred, let's say, 20 to 50 million casualties. Could you limit your response under those circumstances, or would you have to fire off everything that was left?,THE PRESIDENT. When anyone decides to run for President of our country with any expectation of being elected, the question of the use of atomic weapons has to be addressed, because it's crucial for our Nation, for our allies, and for our potential adversaries to know that, if necessary, atomic weapons would be used to defend our Nation. And that knowledge is the deterrent that would prevent a potential adversary from attacking our country and therefore destroying 100 million or more American lives.,I have done everything I possibly could as President not only to maintain peace-and I thank God we've been successful so far—but to lay the groundwork for continued maintenance of peace and the avoidance of ever having to use atomic weapons. There is a likelihood—I can't say how strong it might be; it's not an inevitability but it's certainly a likelihood-that if an atomic exchange of any kind should ever erupt that it might lead to a more massive exchange of intercontinental and highly destructive weapons that would result in tens of millions of lost lives on both sides. That very knowledge, which I have very clearly in my mind, is shared by the Soviet leaders, and I have discussed this common knowledge with President Brezhnev in Vienna when we signed the SALT II.,The policy of our two countries ever since President Eisenhower and President Truman were in office and everyone since then, Democratic or Republican, has been to try to reduce the dependence on atomic weapons and to have balanced atomic forces and, lately, to reduce constantly on an equal basis the arsenals that we have. I cannot tell you what would happen if an exchange should take place. I would try to defend my Nation's integrity and its security and the integrity and security of our allies without resort to atomic weapons, but if necessary to defend the freedom and security of Western Europe and this country, then I would use atomic weapons. I pray to God that that time will never come, but it's important for our people, our allies, and the Soviet Union to know that if necessary those weapons will be used. The best weapon of any kind is one that's never used, and the best soldier is one that never dies in war.,But the only way I know to maintain peace for my country and for those who depend on me is to be strong and to let potential attackers know that if they should attack us their attack would be suicidal.,AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY,Q. Mr. President, the new K-Car Chrysler, there little itty-bitty cars are going to cost $6,000. Do we get any quid pro quo from the automobile industry, or can your administration—you've given them billions of dollars in the past year or so and, I think, a half billion dollars more today from air pollution. They've dropped the air bag. Can the consumer get any break in giving out all these Federal funds?,THE PRESIDENT. It's important to America for us to have modern-design cars, small, efficient, that comply with air pollution standards and are safe. As you know in the past, with extremely cheap gasoline, the efficiency of an automobile, its mileage per gallon, was not very important to the American consumer, because gas was so inexpensive.,Lately there has been a change in buying customs by America. There is no doubt in my mind that the automobiles produced today are much more efficient, much more clean-burning, and becoming more sate than they have been in the past, and I don't have any doubt that in 1985 they will continue that steady progress toward a clean-burning, efficient, safer car.,We have provided increasingly stringent standards for safety and for efficiency and for air pollution standards. And I think that's going to continue. But I don't look upon our Government as subsidizing or paying the automobile industry to make these changes.,We have made available loan guarantees to Chrysler because they were on the verge of bankruptcy. The reason the Congress did this, with my full support and approval, was to avoid the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs among automobile workers and to keep a highly competitive automobile industry in our country. These loan guarantees are sound investments by the American Government. We do not anticipate any loss of funds from taxpayers' money with this loan guarantee.,PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES' POPULARITY,Q. Mr. President, the opinion polls indicate that you've made quite substantial gains in recent as against Governor Reagan-according to one, marginally ahead; according to one, marginally behind—but certainly in a lot better position than you seemed to be a few weeks ago. Could you give us your analysis of why you think you've made these gains? To what extent you think now that John Anderson will be a factor and your analysis of what you expect to happen in this very volatile period of the next few months, politically speaking?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think you all have seen in the last year the extreme volatility of public opinion polls, perhaps more than has ever been the case in the past. I would guess they would be up and down between now and November 4.,My belief is that in a general election campaign for President there is a unique situation that's not extant in the election of any other official in our country nor the nominating process by the Democratic and Republican Parties even for President. As we approach November 4 there is a continual sobering among individual Americans as they approach a decision who is going to control the affairs of this Nation from the Oval Office for the next 4 years and realization that that choice is a profoundly important one for them individually, for their family, for their community, in economic life, the quality of life, war or peace. The issues begin to become paramount.,The personal characteristics of the candidates, as far as attractiveness or speaking style and so forth, in my opinion become less important and the questions come down to: Who cares more about me and my family and my future? Who can deal with the inevitable crises in a more calm and effective way, and who is most likely to keep this country at peace?,So, I don't know what's going to happen in the future. I'll just do the best I can. I think that the essence of it, though, is that the election will be decided ultimately, however, by that very calm, very reasoned, very sober analysis of the issues and the difference in the stand of the candidates on the issues, and not by the excitement or sometimes even the frivolity of the election campaign during the primary season.,THE NATION'S ECONOMY,Q. Mr. President, based on guidance you were given by your economic advisers and other information that's available to you, do you think that the country is now out of the recession or that it will be before the November 4 election?,THE PRESIDENT. Some of my economic advisers have told me within the last 2 days that the recession might very well be over. I don't know. Only in retrospect, several weeks after something occurs, can you be sure of that. The technical definition of recession with which you are familiar is really of not much significance. The point is, I believe that we'll have ups and downs during the next few months.,We still have an unemployment rate, although below 8 percent, which is too high. The chances are that it won't vary much for the rest of this year. I believe that the inflation rate, which is still too high, will stay below double-digit inflation the rest of this year. Recovery of our economic system seems to be progressing very well, with housing starts going up, investments going up, and with the number of jobs available to the American people continuing to rise. It's just hard to predict; but I believe that we will have a stable economy with statistics fluctuating from one month to another.,The thing that we must do, though, is to realize that the election pressures cannot be permitted to shape economic policy. We have got to keep inflation under control while we deal with the increase in productivity over a long period of time in the future; build permanent jobs for people in the private industry sector, not in make-work jobs that are very expensive to the American taxpayer; continue to deregulate the American free enterprise system, getting government's nose out of the affairs of American business and American families. These kinds of basic things—to increase productivity, to increase investment, and to have long-range, permanent jobs—are the major challenge that I face as President, and not to have an election-year-type quick fix by promising a major tax decrease that might simply be repaid to the working families of this country by increased inflation in the months ahead.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, yesterday, after meeting with Foreign Minister Berg of Israel and Hassan Ali of Egypt, you said without elaboration that unanticipated progress had been made in restarting those trilateral talks here in Washington on Palestinian autonomy.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. But Foreign Minister Berg said today those initial discussions would not include the issue of Jerusalem. Given the importance of that issue, what progress has been made this week, and what's the cause of your optimism?,THE PRESIDENT. When Sol Linowitz went to Jerusalem and to Egypt a few weeks ago and met with Foreign Minister Shamir and with General Hassan Ali, and also with Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat, we were pleasantly surprised after a fairly long dearth of direct contacts between Israel and Egypt to find both nations eager to get back to the negotiating table.,Yesterday, after they left my office, Sol Linowitz, Mr. Shamir, General Ali, sat down to continue top-level negotiations to try to find a basis for carrying out the comprehensive peace.,Following Sol Linowitz' trip to the Mideast, President Sadat announced, both before and after he arrived, that he was eager to see a summit conference later this year. Prime Minister Begin had not until that time made that statement. Prime Minister Begin called me on the telephone to say that the Linowitz mission had been remarkably successful, to thank us for what he had contributed, and to say that he would be eager to meet with me and President Sadat at a summit conference either before or after the American elections were concluded.,We will work that out. I am determined that the prospect for a summit meeting will not interfere with the substantive negotiations that must precede it. And I think the fact that yesterday and today the Foreign Ministers of the two countries are negotiating again in the presence of the American Ambassador assigned that task is indeed encouraging in itself.,RONALD REAGAN,Q. Mr. President, you have been asked several times about some tough language you used in Atlanta regarding Ronald Reagan, and to be fair to you, and before I ask my question, we should point out that some tough language has been used against you in the past by Mr. Reagan and other of your opponents. I recall during an interview with Mr. Reagan he said that you had let our defenses slide and that was a great danger to war. So, I'm not impugning, putting upon you the exclusive use of tough language. But nevertheless I'd like to return to Atlanta and ask this question.,You have said here today that you do not consider Mr. Reagan a racist.,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct.,Q. I believe that to be true. You have said that you do not think he's running a campaign of hatred or racism. But you used all three of those words in connection with the discussion of Mr. Reagan. Do you regret that, or could you tell me how this could happen if you don't attribute any of those characteristics to Mr. Reagan?,THE PRESIDENT. I was speaking to a group at Ebenezer Baptist Church, leaders of a black community all the way from Maryland to Texas, leaders who had been involved in the civil rights movement in years gone by in the fifties and sixties, who had endangered their very lives to bring about equality of opportunity and an end to racial discrimination. Those people understand the code words, the use of the words "Ku Klux Klan" and the use of the words "States rights" in the South, and my message to them was that the Presidential election is no place for the reviving of the issue of racism under any circumstances. And that's the way I feel about it. It ought not to be a part of the Presidential race.,I was asked later by a newsperson as I was getting on the plane, "Do you think that Governor Reagan is a racist?" And I replied, "No." And I do not. And I would hope that from now on after this news conference that we could leave out references to allegations that anybody thinks that I'm a racist or that any of the other candidates in the race for President are racists. I don't believe they are, and I believe it ought to be dropped.,Q. Mr. President, it was your own Cabinet Secretary, Patricia Harris, who first interjected the KKK into the Presidential race. She said in Los Angeles essentially that Governor Reagan was running with the endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan and raised the spector of white sheets. So then, how can you blame Governor Reagan—,The PRESIDENT. I am not blaming Governor Reagan. That's just exactly the point. The press seems to be obsessed with this issue. I am not blaming Governor Reagan.,Q. You accused him of interjecting the Ku Klux Klan into the campaign.,THE PRESIDENT. The only thing that I said Governor Reagan injected into the campaign, was the use of the words "States rights" in a speech in Mississippi.,I hate, here on national television, to go through the procedure again. What happened was that the Ku Klux Klan endorsed Governor Reagan and stated that the Republican convention could have been written by a Klansman. Governor Reagan subsequently rejected, wisely and properly, any endorsement by the Ku Klux Klan. That was what injected the Klan into the Presidential race.,I regret it. I wish it had not been done. I would like to see it eliminated from the Presidential race. I do not blame Governor Reagan at all for the fact that that endorsement was made, and I admire him for rejecting the Klan endorsements.,HELEN THOMAS [United Press International]. Thank you.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much.
#> 2 THE PRESIDENT, This evening we will extend the press conference time to a full hour to give me an adequate opportunity to present a statement and then to answer more questions than would ordinarily be the case.,BILLY CARTER'S ACTIVITIES WITH LIBYAN GOVERNMENT,In 1976, as a candidate, I made a commitment that explains why now as a President I want to make this statement to the American people this evening. Four years ago our country was deeply shaken by an administration that had betrayed its high trust and had tried to hide the truth from public judgment. I was asked then how Americans' lives would be changed if I was elected President. I answered that I would work to restore the confidence of the American people in the integrity of their Government. Integrity has been and will continue to be a cornerstone of my administration. When questions of propriety are raised, I want to make sure they're answered fully. When the questions concern me, I want to answer them myself.,Questions have now been raised concerning my actions and those of my administration regarding my brother Billy Carter and the Government of Libya. We have made as thorough an investigation as possible, and the facts are available for the committees of Congress and for the public to examine. They will show that neither I nor any member of my administration has violated any law or committed any impropriety. I've today filed a full report with the Congress. I cannot read it all to you tonight, but here are the main points.,Let me first say a word about the U.S. policy toward the nation of Libya.,There are few governments in the world with which we have more sharp and frequent policy disagreements. Libya has steadfastly opposed our efforts to reach and to carry out the Camp David accords to bring peace to the Middle East. Our two governments have strongly different opinions and attitudes toward the PLO and toward international terrorism. Within OPEC, Libya has promoted sharply higher prices of oil and, on occasion, has advocated the interruption of oil supplies to the United States and to other Western nations.,On the other hand, we have substantial trade with Libya. Libya is one of our major oil suppliers, and its high-quality crude oil is important to our east coast refineries. Libya has publicly and privately opposed Iran's seizure and holding of our hostages, and for a time, Libya joined with other Moslem countries in opposing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.,So for many years, our policies and actions toward Libya have therefore mixed firmness with caution.,And now I'd like to say a word about my brother's relations with Libya. As all of you know by now, Billy is a colorful personality. We are personally close. I love him, and he loves me. Billy is extremely independent. On occasion he has said, "I don't tell Jimmy how to run the country, and he doesn't tell me how to run my life." When I was elected President, Billy was thrust into the public limelight. Media attention made him an instant celebrity. He was asked to make a number of television and other speaking engagements, and he even put his name on a new brand of beer.,And in the summer of 1978, Billy was invited to visit Libya with a group of businessmen and State officials from Georgia. This highly publicized trip occurred late in September 1978. I was not aware that he was planning the trip until after he had left the United States and shortly before he arrived in Libya. When I heard about it, I was deeply concerned that' there might be some serious or unpleasant incident while he was there.,Shortly after he returned from Libya, in October 1978, I saw a message from our charge in Tripoli reporting on the positive nature of the visit. I was greatly relieved, and I sent a copy of that message to Billy. This message contained no sensitive information, was never encoded, and in fact, more than a year ago it was made publicly available by the State Department to a news columnist.,Early in 1979 a Libyan trade mission came to the United States, visited several localities in our country. Billy visited with the Libyans and made a number of controversial statements, which were roundly criticized both by the press and also by the American public. I publicly deplored, in a news conference, some of those comments myself.,As a result of Billy's remarks and his new association with the Libyans, almost all of his scheduled television and other appearances were canceled. His income from these public appearances almost totally disappeared, while his financial obligations continued to mount.,I shared the general concern about Billy's relationship with Libya, and the members of our family were also concerned about some of his personal problems. During this period, Billy entered the hospital for medical treatment. On one occasion while he was hospitalized, he discussed with me the possibility of another trip to Libya, and I urged him not to go, partly because of his health and partly because of the adverse effect it could have on our Middle East negotiations, which were at a critical stage at that time.,By the late summer of 1979, Billy had successfully completed his medical treatment, and despite my advice he made a second trip to Libya. There was relatively little publicity about this trip.,I am not aware of any effort by Billy to affect this Government's policies or actions concerning Libya. I am certain that he made no such effort with me. The only. occasion on which Billy was involved, to my knowledge, in any matter between Libya and the United States was his participation, with my full approval, in our efforts to seek Libyan help for the return of our hostages from Iran. Let me discuss this incident briefly.,On November the 4th, 1979, our hostages were seized in Tehran. In the weeks that followed, we explored every possible avenue to bring about their release. We increased our military presence in the Persian Gulf, we stopped all oil imports from Iran, and we seized the assets of that country. We appealed to the United Nations Security Council and to the World Court. We asked other governments, and particularly Moslem governments, including Libya, to support our position. As is still the case, we explored every official and unofficial avenue of contact we could find to encourage the Iranians to release the American hostages.,Public statements coming out of Libya at that time were not supportive and indicated that our diplomatic efforts to secure their assistance had not been successful. During the third week in November, it occurred to us that Billy might be able to get the Libyans to help to induce the Iranians to release the American hostages. As requested, he talked to the Libyans about our hostages and arranged a meeting with a Libyan diplomat at the White House. I did not attend that meeting, and so far as I'm aware, Billy played no further role in these discussions with the Libyans.,As matters turned out, the Libyan foreign office announced that the hostages should be released, and the leader of Libya, Colonel Qadhafi, also made the direct private appeal to Ayatollah Khomeini that we requested. At least in this respect, the approach to the Libyans was successful; whether it would have been successful if Billy had not participated is a question that no one can answer with certainty.,I made this decision in good faith, with the best interests of the hostages and our Nation in mind. Billy merely responded to our request for assistance, and I believe his only motive in this effort was to seek release of the American hostages from Iran.,And now, concerning Billy's alleged Government contacts on behalf of Libya: There have been many press reports that Billy may have tried to influence U.S. policy on licensing aircraft to Libya or on other matters. I can state categorically that my brother Billy had no influence or effect on my decisions or on any U.S. Government policy or action concerning Libya. Billy has never asked me to take any step that would affect any of these actions or policies. And so far as we have been able to determine after long and extensive investigation, Billy has not made any such effort with anybody in my administration.,Concerning the Department of Justice investigation, let me say this: Under the President's supervision, law enforcement responsibility is delegated to the Attorney General. The President's power of supervision of the Justice Department was abused in the Watergate scandal, as none of us can ever forget.,When I took office, I instructed the Attorney General, Griffin Bell, that neither I nor any White House official would ever attempt to influence the Department of Justice investigations concerning any charges of law violation. When possible conflict-of-interest issues arise, as in the case of a member of the President's official family or his personal family, we take extra precautions to prevent improper interference.,This policy was followed strictly in the present case from the time the investigation began until the final papers were filed on July the 14th. There was no contact in either direction between the Department of Justice and the White House concerning the conduct of this investigation. On July 22d, the White House issued a public statement to this effect.,Two days later, I found a reference in my notes to brief comments which I had exchanged with Attorney General Civiletti about 6 weeks earlier at the conclusion of a long meeting concerning judicial appointments and other matters. I had not remembered these comments, and I decided that they should be made public. While the July 22d statement was technically correct, it clearly required amplification to disclose these brief comments.,To me, integrity does not mean that a mistake is never made; integrity means that when a mistake is made, even though it's highly technical in nature and was inadvertent, it ought to be disclosed. And that's exactly what we did.,In this brief exchange between myself and the Attorney General, which lasted just—less than a minute, I would guess, the Attorney General did not inform me of any detail as to the conduct of the investigation. He told me only about the Department's insistence that Billy file a registration statement and about the Department's standard enforcement policy.,On June 26th, after I returned from the Venice summit conference, my Counsel notified me that Billy's lawyers hoped to resolve this matter by his filing the registration statement, and I called Billy to encourage him to work harmoniously with his lawyers. He said that his lawyers were in negotiation with the Department of Justice, but that he personally did not think that he needed to file a registration statement. On July the 1st, just a few days later, I called Billy again to urge him to accede to the Department's request and to follow his lawyers' advice and make a full disclosure. He did so on July 14th.,It was not until July the 15th that I knew of the two large payments or loans of money from Libya to my brother. So far as we have been able to determine, no one in the White House had any information about the payments or about any evidence relating to such payments until Billy Carter's lawyers informed my Counsel about them on July the 11th, when the court papers were about to be filed. No one in the White House furnished information about the investigation to Billy or to anyone associated with him at any time.,Finally, there's one more rumor that I would like to lay to rest. No payments or transfers of this money have been made to me, and no such payments or transfers have been made to Carter's Warehouse. And I will also see to it that no direct or indirect benefit of any kind will ever flow to me in the future.,To summarize, Billy has had no influence or effect on my decisions or any U.S. Government policy or on any action concerning Libya. Neither I nor anyone in the White House has ever tried to influence or to affect the Justice Department's actions or decisions. Neither I nor anyone in the White House informed Billy of any leads or evidence obtained by the Department. Everything that I and the White House staff did with respect to this case was designed to serve the interests of law enforcement and justice.,I am deeply concerned that Billy has received funds from Libya and that he may be under obligation to Libya. These facts will have to govern my own relationships with my brother Billy. Billy has had no influence on U.S. policies or actions concerning Libya in the past, and he will have no influence in the future.,Our political history is full of stories about Presidential families and relatives whom other people have tried to use in order to gain favor with incumbent administrations. In most such cases, the appearance of favoritism has been much worse than the reality. My brother Billy's case is one of many such examples. To keep this problem from recurring, I've asked my Counsel to draft a rule that will bar any employee of the executive branch from dealing with any member of the President's family under any circumstances that create either the reality or the appearance of improper favor or influence.,Now I'd be glad to answer questions, if you have them.,QUESTIONS,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, on the question of propriety, do you think that it was proper for the Attorney General to tell you to urge Billy to register as a foreign agent and to tell you that he would not be prosecuted if he did so? And also, on the question of the money, you told us where the money didn't go. Do you know where the Libyan payments did go and how Billy used the money?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't know where the money went or where it might go. Billy can answer that question, and I understand he's prepared to answer any questions.,I don't think there's any impropriety at all in the conversation that I had with the Attorney General. He did not ask me to take any action. I did not ask him to take any action. He simply informed me-I believe I can quote his words from my notes—that Billy was foolish not to comply with the Department insistence that he file the registration papers. And he said that if he filed these papers truthfully that the normal procedure of the Department was not to punish or to prosecute a person in that category.,DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION,Q. Mr. President, a number of prominent Democrats, Senator Byrd and Mayor Koch of New York among them, have suggested that you might release your convention delegates to vote their preference on the first Presidential ballot. Are there any circumstances under which you would do this, and do you fear that doing so might hurt your chances of getting the nomination?,THE PRESIDENT. I have no plans to do this. I ran in all the primaries, all the caucuses. In that intense political competition, I won about 60 percent of the commitments of the delegates in accordance with the decisions that were made by the 19 million Democrats who participated actively in the primaries and the caucuses. These are not my delegates; they are the Democratic voters' delegates.,This so-called open convention, which is a phrase that's been used by Senator Kennedy and others and picked up broadly by the press, is a gross misnomer. What they actually are calling for is a brokered convention, to induce those delegates to violate their signed pledge or oath that they would go to the convention and vote in accordance with the way the voters cast their ballots back home.,There is a requirement throughout this entire electoral process, a decision made by the Democratic National Committee, unanimously, 18 months before the first caucuses, which were in Iowa, that this is the way the rule would be imposed. All the candidates agreed to it and understood it. And also, there was a requirement that in the States there be a line for uncommitted delegates, who did not want to express their preference. Some uncommitted delegates were chosen. That line was put there to give them that option.,What Senator Kennedy and others are now asking for is for those candidates who are elected by the people who wanted me to be the nominee violate their oath and that all the delegates in effect be uncommitted. This puts back 10 years of progress that the Democratic Party has made to democratize a process and to remove control of the convention from the powerbrokers and put it in the hands of people who go to the polls and vote on primary day or go to the caucuses and select delegates. That's the issue at stake. It's a very simple, clear issue.,My position is that the convention ought not to be a brokered convention, but that the delegates should vote the way the voters back home told them to vote. Others who have lost in the primaries now want to change the rules, after the primaries and caucuses are all over, to go back to the old brokered-type convention.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, I've been around a long time, but there are still some questions of a personal nature that are painful to ask. And yet, I feel there is one that must be asked.,THE PRESIDENT. I'll be happy to answer any question.,Q. Accepting your statement that you did not know until mid-July that your brother Billy was getting money,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. —you say that you are personally very close to him; you love him, and he loves you; and you know him very well. Having known since September 1978 that he was involved in some way doing some work for the Libyan Government, having known more recently through an intelligence report that he was trying to get oil allocations for an oil company in the United States, did it never occur to you, knowing his penchant for get-rich-quick schemes and making money—did it never occur to you that he might be seeking financial gain from that relationship?,Mr. PRESIDENT. Yes, it occurred to me—not as early as you described.,We have several hundred—I think more than 2,000 Americans who live in Libya. As I said, we have major trade relationships with Libya. It's not a completely outcast nation. There are people who go from this country to Libya on a daily basis.,Billy did go to Libya without my knowledge or approval. I think it was in September of 1978. At that time, I don't believe from what I know now that Billy had any idea of becoming anything as a representative for or a special friend of Libya. He went there with some businessmen from Georgia and some members of the State legislature—not secretly, unfortunately; it was a highly publicized trip.,The first special relationship Billy had with Libya was when a Libyan trade delegation came to the United States, in effect to reciprocate that visit by the Georgians. They came to Atlanta; they came to Washington and some other places. Billy, in effect, acted as their host in Georgia. This was an extremely highly publicized and controversial time, and Billy was severely castigated in the press and by many American citizens, as I said, including myself in one news Conference, for some of the remarks he made.,Following that, I tried to encourage Billy not to go to Libya. In the documents that I filed with the congressional committees this afternoon, there's one letter that I wrote to Billy while he was in the hospital in California—the letter is a matter of record— encouraging him not to go to Libya. Obviously, I was concerned. But I don't have authority to order Billy to do something. It's not illegal for him to make a trip to Libya, for instance. I had no knowledge at all of any payment that was made to Billy. But of course, I was concerned about his relationship with Libya, wish he never had any relationship with Libya.,So, I can't condone what he has done. I'm not trying to make excuses. Anyone who knows Billy knows that no one can push him around. And I think that we used an adequate amount of personal persuasion, when I had the opportunity, then the telephone call from Dr. Brzezinski, warning Billy not that his action was illegal, as known, but that he might cause embarrassment to our country and embarrassment to me. I don't believe that there's anything further that I could have done that would have been effective.,Q. Mr. President, you said just a few minutes ago, sir, in your opening remarks, that neither you nor any member of your administration had violated any law or committed any impropriety.,THE PRESIDENT. That is correct.,Q. But, sir, don't you think that by using your brother, Billy Carter, at least as an emissary to make a contact with a foreign government—don't you feel that perhaps it might have been better judgment to have used a trained diplomat in that capacity?,THE PRESIDENT. No, not in that particular instance concerning the hostages. We were using trained diplomats. Immediately after the hostages were seized, this became an absolute, total obsession of mine, to get those hostages released. We inventoried every possibility of influence on the Iranians to induce them to release our hostages, safely and immediately. We sent messages—and had our diplomats in those countries and contacted their diplomats in Washington—to almost every nation on Earth, every one that we thought might have the slightest semblance of influence with Iran. We especially thought that the Moslem countries, believing in the Koran, having the same religion as the Ayatollah Khomeini, might have a special influence.,We had tried through diplomatic means to get Libya to give us some support in condemning the Iranian action and calling for the release of the hostages. Up through the 18th of November, the public statements coming out of Libya-and these are documented in Dr. Brzezinski's report had been negative, against our position, in effect supporting the holding of the hostages. Some private comments from Libyan diplomats to our diplomats in the United Nations, for instance, had said, "We would like to help you," but the public comments, which were the important ones, were contrary to that.,Under those circumstances, I decided to use Billy to see if he could have some special influence to get the Libyans to help. I had no reticence about it.,That was the same day that the religious fanatics attacked the mosque in Saudi Arabia. It was the same day, I believe, that Khomeini announced that the hostages, American hostages, would be tried and, if convicted, Khomeini said, "Jimmy Carter knows what's going to happen to them." We thought that the hostages' lives were directly in danger.,I saw then and see now nothing wrong with asking Billy and other private citizens to try to help if it's appropriate and legal. The only thing Billy did was to contact the Libyans, whom he knew personally-he does not know Qadhafi, but he did know the charge in Washington—and say, "We would like very much to have your help in having the hostages released. Will you meet with Dr. Brzezinski at the White House," a week from then, which was the 27th day of November.,Billy then met a week later with Dr. Brzezinski and the charge, and we believe that some progress was made. As I said in my opening statement, I cannot say for sure that Billy had anything in the world to do with the progress that was made. But 2 days after Billy contacted the charge, they made a public announcement for the first time, Libya did, calling for the release of the hostages. After that meeting, Colonel Qadhafi himself sent a personal emissary to Khomeini, asking Khomeini for the first time to release our hostages, and then he sent me word that he had done so.,I'm not trying to claim great things from that small involvement of Billy. But Billy came up to Washington, so far as I know, at his own expense on two occasions. He went back to Plains. He never told anybody publicly that he had done it. He never bragged about it. And I have enough judgment to know that that may have enhanced Billy's stature in the minds of the Libyans. That's the only down side to it that I can understand. And that may have been bad judgment, but I was the one that made the judgment. I did what I thought was best for our country and best for the hostages, and I believe that that's exactly what Billy was doing.,COMPETENCE OF ADMINISTRATION,Q. Aside from the questions of legality and propriety, some of your critics say that this Billy Carter case is another example of a general aura of incompetence that hangs over your Presidency—the fits and starts with which the case came out, the corrections, the records, the recollections that had to be refreshed. Do you recognize that there is this charge of incompetence that settles over you, and if so, what are you going to do about it?,THE PRESIDENT. I've heard you mention that on television a few times, but I don't agree with it. No, I think the historic record of this administration, years looking back, will show that it was a competent administration, that it accurately represented the ideals of the American people and had many notable achievements. I need not enumerate those now.,But I don't believe that this is a comedy of errors or that we have made many errors—a few, yes. We've made some mistakes, because we were in a hurry to get all the information out. It was much better to have the information come out as we determined it than it would be if we had withheld all information and, in effect, stonewalled the question for 2 or 3 weeks.,It might very well be that in the future we discover some new fact or someone comes up and makes a statement that we didn't know about. If so, we will immediately make that information available to you and the other news media. But I think that's the best way to handle it, and I don't have any concern about having acted other than competently in this case.,PRESIDENT'S REELECTION CAMPAIGN,Q. Next week you go before the Democratic Convention to seek renomination, as we all know.,THE PRESIDENT. I remember. [Laughter],Q. Not only given the state of the press conference tonight but looking ahead to such matters as the economy, inflation, growing unemployment, recession, troubles abroad, will you offer yourself to the delegates of the Democratic Convention as a man proposing changes or will you simply say the country should have 4 more years of the same?,THE PRESIDENT. Four more years of the same President, with changes and progress to be achieved during those 4 years.,We have economic problems. I think every nation on Earth has them—some much worse than we. We've made some progress. We've never had as many jobs added, for instance, in the first 3 1/2 years, in any period of our history as we have since I've been in office. Lately we've seen a substantial lowering of interest rates and inflation rate. I think we'll see some more progress made on inflation in the next few months. I believe that we have established a very good working relationship between our country and other nations, opened up new friendships, maintained this country at peace, and so forth. I need not enumerate what I think we've done that is good.,But I believe that the most important part of an election year is to give the American people an opportunity to hear the issues debated, the record assessed for the incumbent, and then to let the American people choose: Do we want the Nation for the next 4 years to be led by the Republicans, or do we want it led by the Democrats? And specifically, do we want it led by Ronald Reagan, or do we want it to be led by the Democratic nominee? And I am expecting it to be myself. And in that process, with, I hope, numerous debates between me and Ronald Reagan on all the issues that are important to the American people, the American people will make a judgment.,This is the way I've always run for office, the way I ran in 1976. I think we have an excellent record to take to the American people and an excellent prospect for an even better life in this country in the years ahead.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, you say you and your brother Billy are close. Have you had any conversations with him since the July 1 phone call, when you urged him to register, and can you characterize those conversations?,THE PRESIDENT. I have not had any conversations with Billy since July the 1st except in a crowd of people at a softball game in Plains, and I went into his service station one day to invite him to play softball the following day. I've never discussed this case or Libya or government or anything of that kind and have not spoken a word to Billy in private since July the 1st, the conversation that I've described to you.,You can ask a followup question, if you like.,Q. Mr. President, do you think you should be discussing it with him?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think it's improper for me now to be having a direct conversation with Billy. There have been some communications between us through our attorneys, through my Counsel in the White House and through his attorneys. But they've been completely proper, and records have been maintained of them. And I believe that's the best way to handle this matter until it is resolved.,As I said in the closing part of my statement, even in the future, regardless of the outcome of this occurrence, I will not accept any benefit from the funds that Billy has received. And also, as long as I have the slightest suspicion that Billy is still involved with Libya, I will exclude any sort of relationship between myself and Billy that relates to government matters that could possibly impact on Libya.,Q. Mr. President, I have talked to hundreds of Democrats, and I think that in the White House you have more fear of this affair than there is need for. All people tell me that they have great confidence in you, although they might consider that you had a little bit more heart for your brother than for the Presidency. In your own assessment, did you act as a President or as a brother?,THE PRESIDENT. I think Billy would say that I acted more as a President than a brother, and I think I have. My responsibility, uniquely, is to the Presidency and the upholding of the principles of our Nation, and I'm sworn by oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws of our Nation. If any member of my family should violate those laws, then I'm charged with the responsibility, which I would not avoid, to see that the law is carried out, no matter if my own family members should suffer. And this is the process that is presently ongoing: an investigation and the decision to be made by the Justice Department, without my involvement.,I have not promoted this incident; in fact, I wish that it had never been promoted by the press and by the interest of the American people. But since it has become a burning issue in the minds of many people, with headlines and evening news stories, sometimes even dominating the day's news events, my commitment has been, the last 2 or 3 weeks, to search out all the facts that I could find and lay them before the American people in two ways: one, through the investigating committees in the Congress, House and Senate; and secondly, here, with a brief statement telling the facts and then to answer your questions. But this group is at liberty to ask me questions about other matters as well as this.,Q. Mr. President, regarding your mention of your responsibility to enforce the laws, since your adviser, Dr. Peter Bourne,1 was never prosecuted for his phony drug prescription taken across the State line, how can you expect the Justice Department to be taken seriously by Billy, regarding admitting he's an agent and telling the truth about the money they gave him?,THE PRESIDENT. I think you could ask Billy whether or not he takes the Justice Department seriously. My belief is that he does. And I don't think anyone in this Nation who has any confidence in our country's laws and the enforcement of them would take the Justice Department any way but seriously. It's a serious matter, and it'll be handled accordingly.,1 Former Special Assistant to the President for Health Issues and Director of the Office of Drug Abuse Policy.,PRESIDENT'S FINANCES,Q. Mr. President, you referred to rumors about some of this money going to you—,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I've read that in the paper, and allegations have been made by Members of the Congress. That's why I wanted to answer it.,Q. Do you have any joint economic investments with Billy? I think of the Carter trust or what's left of the warehouse holdings or property. Have you tried to help Billy financially through the blind-trust arrangement, through Mr. Kirbo, and the blind-trust arrangement in—I think he's got tax liens on his house that sort of thing?,THE PRESIDENT. When I became President, I announced to the American people that I was putting my financial affairs into a trust, under a trustee. Legally, it's not a blind trust, because it's impossible for me, as President, not to read news stories and other reports that come from Plains and from the warehouse affairs. But to the best of my ability, I've stayed aloof from that. I've not made any decisions, and they've been handled in accordance with the law, sometimes publicly by my trustee. Also, I pledged myself, as President, annually to release my income tax return, which is prepared by other people—but I have to sign it—and also my financial statement, which I've done each time.\nBut within that boundary, I have not been involved in financial affairs of the warehouse. There is still a relationship between Billy and the warehouse and myself and the warehouse. That Carter's Warehouse has been rented out now ever since the first year I was in office, and I have had absolutely nothing to do with it or its financial condition.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, you have answered our questions very openly. You have said that there were no instances in this matter of illegality, wrongdoing, impropriety. You told one of my colleagues that this was really not a question of bad judgment. You told another colleague it's not a question of incompetence. Given all of that, simply put, how do you think you got into this big mess?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the American press and the public will have to judge how big a mess it is. It's been a highly publicized affair. But if the facts, as I have given them to you, are confirmed, if no one in my administration-and if I myself—have committed any illegal act or impropriety, then I think that's been an investigation and a report that's served itself well.,The Justice Department is investigating still. There have been literally dozens and dozens of people who have searched their telephone records and appointment records and their memoranda of conversations. And the Congress is going to investigate it. So, I believe that this is a good way to go about resolving a question once it's raised.,I do not approve of the fact that my brother has gotten involved in a controversial relationship with an extremely unpopular government. He has, still, certain legal and constitutional rights. If he is found to have violated the law, my belief is and my hope is that he will be treated properly in accordance with the law-punished if he's guilty, exonerated if he's innocent.,But I have seen these things sweep across this Nation every now and then, with highly publicized allegations that prove not to be true. And you and others have participated in the raising of these questions. One incident that comes to mind is Hamilton Jordan, where people, later found to have lied, told stories about Hamilton Jordan, and a thorough investigation, absolutely independently of me, with a special prosecutor involved from the Justice Department, found that the allegations were not true. But for a time it was a highly publicized case, which damaged Hamilton Jordan quite a lot.,I don't know what the outcome of this case will be. But I can tell you that no one in my administration—and I have not been guilty of an illegality or an impropriety in any way, and I believe that the facts in the future will determine that to be the case.,ROLE OF PRESIDENT'S FAMILY,Q. Mr. President, you said in the report that you issued tonight—you confirmed the fact that your wife, Rosalynn Carter, was the first person to initiate the idea of using your brother Billy as the contact regarding the Iranian hostages—,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that's correct.,Q.—that she called him directly and then informed you later, and you asked Dr. Brzezinski to pursue the matter. I want to ask you what you think that says about her role in this administration and what the public should conclude about it? And secondly, given this regulation that you have asked your Counsel to draft on members of the family and the staff-THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q.—whether you have any second thoughts in hindsight about family diplomacy and the virtues of that, and members of the President's family going to represent him or the country abroad at ceremonies and the like?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't have any trepidation about continuing the policy that I have pursued in that respect.,I think it's completely appropriate for Rosalynn to have thought about how we could get the hostages released and to have called Billy to see if he thought he could possibly help. When he said that he might be able to help, she informed me of that idea. I considered it. I'm the one that made the decision, not my wife or Dr. Brzezinski or anyone else. And I decided that it was a good idea. And I told Dr. Brzezinski to call Billy and pursue it, which he did. That was the limit of her role in the entire process.,But I think it's very important that my mother on occasion, my sons on occasion, my wife on occasion participate in international affairs. When Golda Meir, former Prime Minister of Israel, died, my mother went to represent me at her funeral. She also went to the funeral of Marshal Tito, President Tito, and so forth.,So, this is the kind of thing that a President's family legitimately ought to be able to do. With many cultures in the world, many countries in the world, a President's family member plays an extremely important role in demonstrating an important personal relationship, particularly in the inauguration of a new President if I cannot go, for instance, or the death of a prominent member of that national community. I think these kinds of things are completely appropriate.,What I want the Counsel to draft is a rule that would bar any employee of the executive branch from dealing with any member of my family under any circumstances that create either the reality or the appearance of improper favor or influence. That doesn't mean that all the members of my family have to be locked up in a closet and never appear in public, because they play a very useful role. But I believe that their appearances have been proper, when Rosalynn or my mother have attended these kinds of state affairs. And I expect that they will continue to do so.,SECRETARY OF STATE EDMUND S. MUSKIE,Q. Mr. President, Edward Bennett Williams, as you know, is taking a leading role in seeking to undo the faithful delegate rule. Mr. Williams is a close personal associate of the Secretary of State. And we see now signs of the draft Muskie movement—bumper stickers, I wonder whether this has caused some kind of strain between you and the Secretary of State.,THE PRESIDENT. No, it has not. Secretary Muskie has actively attempted to stop this effort to subvert the rules of the Democratic Party and to violate the oath or the promise or the pledge that the delegates have made to follow the mandates expressed in the primaries and caucuses. He has not promoted himself; he's tried to discourage that. He's issued a public statement on the subject. And I have no doubt that this effort is not only independent of him but I doubt whether they are genuinely interested in the promotion of Secretary Muskie. They are probably interested in the promotion of someone else.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, on June 17th, Mr. President, which was 15 days after Attorney General Civiletti found out about the payments and a month before you say you found out about the payments to your brother, you have said tonight that the Attorney General told you, informed you of the seriousness of the possible charges against your brother and told you that it would be foolish, in your own words, foolish for him not to file papers. Was he, do you not.,THE PRESIDENT. That's not exactly what he said, but go ahead.,Q. Well, let me just ask the question.,THE PRESIDENT. Okay.,Q. Do you not see an impropriety there, in the sense of your being told between the lines, even if you weren't told directly about the money, that your brother was in trouble and unless somebody got the word to him to come in voluntarily and file, there could be serious charges filed against him? Is that not the impropriety here?,THE PRESIDENT. No, there is no impropriety. That's not what the Attorney General told me, by the way, exactly. He said, first of all, that he could not reveal to me and would not reveal to me any detail or any facts about the investigation that was ongoing. Secondly, he said he thought that Billy was foolish not to comply with the registration act, and third, he said that if Billy did not comply truthfully, then he would not be prosecutable or, I think I jotted down in my notes, punished.,At that time, my understanding is—and this should be confirmed by you from other sources—at that time, my understanding now is that the Justice Department was already relaying this exact same information to Billy's attorneys and therefore to him. I never revealed the conversation to anyone. As a matter of fact, it was a very brief conversation—I have said probably less than a minute in all—at the end of a long meeting with the Attorney General, and several other items were taken up in the privacy of that meeting. But I didn't think about it until days later, and I never revealed any of that information to anyone else and never acted on any information I got.,Q. So if the Justice Department was informing Billy at the same time that you were learning of this from the Justice Department, you're saying, in effect, that there was no need, even, for anyone in the White House to let Billy know that he should come in and voluntarily admit that he was an agent?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm not sure-I don't know of any allegation that hasn't been refuted. Nobody in the White House, myself or anyone else, ever gave Billy any information that related to his case, any evidence, or any leads or anything else. So, that question didn't cross my mind.,But from what I know now, looking back on it, after we've investigated thoroughly and I have seen the order of events that did take place, I can tell you that the Attorney General was telling me the same thing, in effect—I've just outlined to you the totality of the conversation, according to my notes—that they were telling the lawyers of my brother prior to that time. I think Billy got those lawyers the 11th or 12th, which was about a week before this conversation took place.,Q. it didn't occur to you that the Attorney General was saying to you between the lines, "Your brother has taken a lot of money," or maybe,THE PRESIDENT. No. No, I never had any indication that Billy was taking any money until I read about it in the newspaper on July the 15th. And the first person, so far as I know, in the entire White House that knew about any money payments was my Counsel, who was informed on the 11th of July, just before those official papers were completed for filing with the Justice Department.,AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN,Q. Mr. President, you said that you were obsessed with the hostages and that's why you called your brother in. Do you have any new ideas for freeing the hostages now?,THE PRESIDENT. No, we are pursuing the same kind of degree of effort that we were then.,I think I tried to point out, as best I could remember, a couple of things that were happening at that time—the threat by Khomeini that the hostages might be killed and the fact that the Grand Mosque in Jidda was—in Mecca, I think was attacked by radical believers in the Moslem faith. Those were the kind of things that were causing me great concern.,The approach to Libya, although now it has taken on great significance, here, 9 or 10 months later, was one of a broad pattern of things that I was doing, the National Security Council was doing, everyone in the State Department assigned to this task was doing, and many private citizens were doing. And there was nothing extraordinary about it. It was just one of a broad gamut of things that we were attempting to do in every possible way to get word to Khomeini that it was better for Iran to release those hostages.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, were you aware, sir, of the arrangement with the Charter Oil Company that would have given your brother a commission on oil imported-that he got imported from Libya, when you talked with his friend, Jack McGregor, in the Oval Office?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I was not. The only information I had about Jack McGregor was I talked to Billy in the hospital; he told me that his former commanding officer in the Marine Corps was scheduled to come to the White House for a briefing on hospital cost containment. There were about 400 business leaders who had been chosen by my staff without my participation at all.,McGregor, on that hospital cost containment briefing day, came by the Oval Office, had an appointment for a stand-up photograph. We never sat down, even. We stood over by my desk. The records show that he was there a total of 9 minutes. We discussed some of his and Billy's experiences in the Marine Corps, and we discussed Billy's illness and how he was responding well to treatment in the hospital. And McGregor mentioned Billy's financial problems and said he hoped that he would be successful in working out of them. No reference was ever made to anything concerning oil companies or anything of that nature.,AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN,Q. Mr. President, your spokesman, Mr. Powell, has said, in defending your use of your brother as an intermediary—and you have alluded to this as well—that we'd be very surprised some day when we hear of some of the other unorthodox emissaries you've used, channels to other countries to try and secure the release of the hostages. Can you surprise us a little and tell us who they are, who some of them might be? And might we be embarrassed by the revelations of any of their names?,THE PRESIDENT. No, you wouldn't be embarrassed, but I think maybe the surprise ought to come later.,DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE,Q. Mr. President, you have about 300 more delegates than are required for the nomination. And so for another candidate to get the Democratic Presidential nomination, he would need to attract some of these delegates.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Yet you've said if someone did that, they would be subverting the rules of the Democratic Party. And you said last week—,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, they would.,Q.—that it would be a travesty if any of these delegates wandered away. So, if someone else is nominated at the convention in New York, would you be able to support that nominee, or would you only be able to support yourself?,THE PRESIDENT. I have always pledged, since the very beginning of my effort, to support the nominee of the Democratic Party if it should not be myself.,BILLY CARTER,Q. Mr. President, in going back to the conversation with Attorney General Civiletti on June the 17th, you said that the knowledge of—let me say, Justice Department policy in handling foreign agents was general knowledge. Why then, sir, did you need to inquire of the Attorney General whether your brother would be prosecuted if he went ahead and registered as a foreign agent?,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't say it was general knowledge. I was not familiar then with the exact policy that the Attorney Generals down through history had followed.,I think this Foreign Registration Act was passed in the 1930's. I noticed an article in one of the Washington papers not too long ago that said that since the 1960's there had been no criminal prosecutions under that act. Ordinarily, what the Department does, I now know, is to confront a person who is suspected or believed to be an agent of a foreign country, present them with the alternatives if they do not file, and require them to file. And that's what Billy's lawyers finally advised him to do, was to file as an agent—I don't know if my brother ever admitted it or acknowledged that he was an agent-but to file as an agent and if he had extenuating remarks to make, to put those remarks in the registration papers. That's what Billy did.,At the time the Attorney General talked to me, I did not know what I have just described to you as a standard policy of the Department in handling these kinds of cases.,Q. Mr. President, what kind of information did our intelligence agencies gather about Billy's activities trying to set up the oil deal with Libya? And specifically, were they concerned that Billy was part of a wide-ranging and massive effort by the Libyans to influence the public opinion and the Government here?,THE PRESIDENT. That intelligence information has been delivered to the Senate intelligence committee. It's of a highly sensitive nature, and I'm not at liberty to reveal it in public.,PRO-KHOMEINI TERRORISTS,Q. Mr. President, you have some more trouble coming, I'm sorry.,THE PRESIDENT. I'm sure I do. [Laughter],Q. [Inaudible]—this week with that Bayh committee over there. It's been told to about a half-dozen Senators by an intelligence organization from New York City that you and the State Department-,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. —and Brzezinski are conniving with Nazarian, the rug dealer, to let pro-Khomeini people come in here and engage in certain terrorist activities in exchange for getting the hostages home. Any truth to that?,THE PRESIDENT. No, ma'am.,DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION,Q. Mr. President, if you were to look at the convention from a slightly different point of view, and you were a delegate heading up to New York next week and you had an incumbent President who's as low as you are in the polls and has the difficulty of a congressional investigation facing him, how would you feel about the prospect of renominating that same President?,THE PRESIDENT. I would feel okay. [Laughter] I would take my written pledge to be very seriously binding on me. If I was from Plains, Georgia, and the voters who went to the ballot box in Plains had voted for a candidate, candidate A, and I was later chosen as their delegate, then I would feel bound to go and cast my vote at the convention in accordance with the way people had voted in Plains, regardless of whether I personally thought at that moment that the candidate I was chosen to support was above the Republicans in the public opinion polls.,I think this time 4 years ago, I was much further ahead of President Ford than I am behind, as I saw in a Newsweek poll, today. But polls go up and down. And when President Ford wound up the campaign, he was very close to me. Also, I think you'll remember that last October the polls showed that I was three or four to one behind Senator Kennedy and if he ran, the almost sure prospect was that he would win the nomination. That has not proven to be the case.,So, the polls ought not to be the deciding factor. The pledge on a written document that a delegate will comply with the votes cast in his own district or area is important. Also, the fact that the Democratic Party, through its national committee, unanimously voted to institute these rules before the primary season even started is also a very important factor. That's what we're trying to protect.,MINORITIES,Q. Thank you, sir.,Mr. President, the problem of oppression of blacks in this country is extremely serious. We've had riots in Miami; we've had riots in Chattanooga. Is there any way that you can begin to address this problem? If you think Billy has problems, you'd better be glad he's not black. But the real issue becomes one of, is there something that you, as President of this country, would do to begin to address these problems before it blows up?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. In the Miami case, I went to Miami, as you know, met with the leaders in Liberty City, and helped to put together a package, working with those black leaders there, that would give them some economic assistance. Through the Community Services Agency and others, we provided food, for instance, at about 35-percent less cost than the supermarket charges. And we've tried to provide jobs. And we've tried to work also—I have personally—with the white and Cuban leaders in Miami, to make sure that there was harmony between the three races.,In addition to that, I sent the Attorney General to Miami to make sure that the apparent absence of complete application of justice for highly publicized cases concerning black citizens was corrected. And the Attorney General directed his people to go into Miami and to make sure that the trials involved were fair.,In addition to that, on a much more broad basis, I have tried to put black citizens in my administration to administer those areas of the Federal Government that were particularly important to a black or minority citizen. We have required by law, with the help of the Congress, that a certain portion of all Federal contracts and the deposit of Federal funds in banks and the allocation of charters for new radio stations and so forth, that have long been withheld from blacks and other minorities, be assigned to them. I've also tried to appoint black Federal judges, who will be here long after I'm gone, to administer justice, to make sure that we didn't have a further deprivation of our black citizens.,So, on a broad range of issues, I've tried to do the best I can and will continue to do the best I can to eliminate any discrimination or any injustice in this country for minority citizens.\nThank you all very much.
#> 3 RESCUE MISSION FOR AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN,THE PRESIDENT. Before answering questions this evening, I would like to say a few words about the rescue mission in Iran.,I share the disappointment of the American people that this rescue mission was not successful, and I also share the grief of our Nation because we had Americans who were casualties in this effort to seek freedom for their fellow citizens who have been held hostage for so long.,But I also share a deep pride in the commitment and courage and the integrity and the competence and the determination of those who went on this mission. They were prepared to do their duty, and they did their duty. I can think of no higher compliment for a Commander in Chief to pay to brave men.,It was my responsibility as President to launch this mission. It was my responsibility to terminate the mission when it ended. This was a decision that was shared completely by the field commander in charge of the rescue team and by the officer in charge of the overall force that was involved in the rescue effort.,There is a deeper failure than that of incomplete success, and that is the failure to attempt a worthy effort, a failure to try. This is a sentiment shared by the men who went on the mission.,Sunday I met with a large group of men who were the core of this effort, and yesterday I visited, in San Antonio area, the five men who were most seriously wounded. They all shared a common message to me and to the American people.,The first message was one of regret, deep regret, that they failed to carry out the mission as planned. The second one was an expression of thanks to me for giving them the honor to attempt to deliver to freedom the American hostages. And the third was a request, expressed almost unanimously by them, to be permitted to try again.,Our Nation does face serious challenges, serious problems, and the meeting of those challenges and the solution of those problems require sacrifice. Sometimes we who are safe consider the sacrifices to be onerous, but I forgot those sacrifices when I looked into the face of these men who are not only willing but eager to give their lives as a sacrifice for others, whom they did not know personally, but in a determination to grant freedom to them.,Our goal in Iran is not to conquer; neither was theirs. Their goal was not to destroy nor to injure anyone. As they left Iran, following an unpredictable accident during the withdrawal stage, with eight of their fellow warriors dead, they carefully released, without harm, 44 Iranians who had passed by the site and who were detained to protect the integrity of the mission.,This is in sharp comparison to the ghoulish action of the terrorists and some of the Government officials in Iran, in our Embassy this weekend, who displayed in a horrible exhibition of inhumanity the bodies of our courageous Americans. This has aroused the disgust and contempt of the rest of the world and indicates quite clearly the kinds of people with whom we have been dealing in a peaceful effort to secure a resolution of this crisis. They did not bring shame and dishonor on those fallen Americans; they brought shame and dishonor on themselves.,We will continue to try for a peaceful solution. As we see the consequences of the actions that we've already taken, economic and diplomatic actions continue to punish Iran, a nation that is suffering from economic deprivation and from political fragmentation because they persist in this inhuman act.,We will not forget our hostages, and we will continue to take whatever steps are necessary and feasible to secure their safe release and their return to their homes and to freedom.\nI'd be glad to answer questions.,Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,POSSIBILITY OF FOREIGN POLICY SUMMIT MEETING,Q. Mr. President, would you consider an early summit meeting with your principal allies, who seem to seek some reassurance about the basic thrust of your foreign policy? And I'm talking about a meeting prior to the Vienna [Venice] summit in June.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I see no need for this. There is no doubt among our allies about our basic foreign policy, nor have they indicated any such doubt to me. I'm sure of that.,When we do meet in Venice in June, the primary purpose of this annual meeting is to discuss economic matters-energy, inflation, unemployment, the development of our common resources and a better life for our people. But we have an adequate time for political discussions and for discussions about diplomatic matters, and I see no urgency nor need to meet prior to that time.,TIMING OF HOSTAGE RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, after so many months of restraint, why did you undertake a mission that involved, endangered so many lives, a mission that you said was not feasible all along? And with all due respect, has national pride taken precedence over the safety of the hostages, that is the need to end this problem?,THE PRESIDENT. No. I think the time that we chose was a proper time.,We devoted those months of our hostages' incarceration to repeated and varied diplomatic efforts directly and through intermediaries, through the United Nations, through our friends and others. We were promised repeatedly by Iranian officials, by the President, the Prime Ministers, Foreign Minister, by a unanimous vote of the Revolutionary Council, even by the terrorists themselves, that the hostages would indeed be released by the terrorists and turned over to control of the Government, at which time further steps could be taken to secure their complete release and their return home.,Beginning back in November when the hostages were first taken; we began preparations for a rescue mission which would have had to be undertaken had the hostages been injured in any way. At the time we began final plans for this particular rescue mission, we had concluded repeated exercises and training of both men and equipment and technique and procedure and had honed it down to a fine operation, which everyone believed had a good chance for success.,Had we waited later, it would have been much [more] difficult to conclude the mission successfully, because of the increasingly short nights and because of the prevailing winds being likely to change, making strong headwinds against our planes and helicopters, and because the temperature of the air made it much more difficult to lift large loads required in this long and very complicated process.,So, we exhausted every peaceful procedure; we waited until the proper moment; we could not logically have waited much longer. And I think the decision was made properly.,TERMINATION OF HOSTAGE RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, this is a Monday morning quarterback question.,THE PRESIDENT. It's not the first one, but go ahead.,Q. This is from the side that says you went too far: What were the odds on the success of the mission? And then the second question, that you didn't go far enough: Why didn't you press ahead with only five helicopters, overrule the guy on the ground?,THE PRESIDENT. I think the mission had to be planned with an optimum number of both men and with the equipment they required in order to ensure secrecy, incisiveness, staying on a very rigid schedule, accommodating unforeseen circumstances. And at the time the mission was terminated, we did it with great regret. There had been a prior understanding among all of us involved in the detailed planning that if we got below six functioning helicopters, the mission to actually go in for the rescue attempt would have been very doubtful of success and ill-conceived. The recommendation came back from the refueling operation in the desert area that since they were down to only five helicopters, that the mission should not be undertaken—the actual rescue attempt. The commanding officer of the entire operation agreed, made this recommendation to me, and I agreed myself.,The people who were on the ground in charge of the rescue team were extremely eager, courageous, dedicated, and determined to succeed. When they recommended that it not be done, that was a major factor in my decision. But I made the final decision.,IRANIAN GUILT AND RESOLUTION OF HOSTAGE SITUATION,Q. Mr. President, you said a great nation like the United States can be forgiving of its enemies without losing face or bringing insult on itself.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. In view of the painful bloodshed and loss of life suffered by so many Iranian people under the Pahlavi rule, by the 53 hostages and their families, and now by the families of the American soldiers killed in the rescue attempt, isn't there some honorable way that the mutual sorrow of the Iranian people and now the American people can resolve this crisis without further confrontation? Can you now, will you now, make a gesture to the people of Iran so that the bloodshed and suffering can be put behind after 27 years?,THE PRESIDENT. It's important for American people and for all the world to realize the tremendous restraint that we have demonstrated. We have tried every possible and feasible effort to resolve this crisis by humanitarian and peaceful means. We are still continuing those efforts.,The fact is, though, that a horrible crime, as measured by international law, by diplomatic custom, and against humanity itself, is being perpetrated at this very minute. The 53 hostages being held are not guilty of any crime. The crime is being committed by terrorists who are kidnaping innocent victims, sponsored by and approved by Government officials themselves. In two votes in the Security Council of the United Nations, unanimous votes, Iran was condemned for this action. And in the International Court of Justice, that decision was confirmed.,We have nothing against the Iranian people, and we still want to see this issue resolved successfully and peacefully. But there is no guilt that I feel on behalf of our Nation for what occurs in Iran.,We were very careful on this particular operation to cause no harm or injury or death to any Iranians. It is a very troubling thing for me that Americans, because of an accident, did lose their lives and were injured. They were not met by any Iranian forces. No Iranian officials discovered the presence of the American rescue team until several hours after the last one had left Iranian soil.,So, we want this issue to be settled, but we cannot deal with inhumane people who have no respect for international law, who violate the tenets of their own religion, and who persecute innocent people who are American citizens and deprive them of their freedom for 6 months. There is no equality about it at all.,We are eager to see this issue resolved, but Iran is the nation which is committing a crime. We have tried to settle this in accordance with international law and peacefully, and we will continue to do so.,AMERICANS KILLED DURING HOSTAGE RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, you have noted that Iranian leaders joined in the desecration of the bodies of American servicemen.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that's right.,Q. Do you think that this will affect our negotiations to try to free the hostages, and what effect do you think it will have?,THE PRESIDENT. The man who supervised the desecration of the bodies was a member of the Revolutionary Council. I think it is accurate to say that other members of the Iranian Government did publicly condemn this abhorrent act and have now promised to deliver the American bodies to intermediaries, to be delivered, ultimately, back to our country. We hope that this commitment will be kept, and I pray that it will.,But the fact that the terrorists participated in the desecration is an indication of the kind of people they are and a vivid indication of the difficulties that we have experienced in getting what seems to be required—a unanimous decision by terrorists, the top officials, the Revolutionary Council, and the Ayatollah Khomeini-before this crime can be terminated.\nJudy [Judy Woodruff, NBC News].,SITUATION IN IRAN AND OTHER PRESIDENTIAL RESPONSIBILITIES,Q. Mr. President, why have you permitted the taking of the hostages in Iran to continue to monopolize your time and your attention, when there are other international crises that are equally important to the security of this country and when your preoccupation with what has happened in Iran only seems to make the Iranian leaders more stubborn?,THE PRESIDENT. There is no way that I could possibly confine my activities or my attention to one single facet of American life or diplomacy to the exclusion of others. It has been a major preoccupation of mine and the American people that these hostages are held. But we've had to deal with simultaneous domestic and international problems concurrently.,We have, for instance, met, I think as forcefully as is practicable and advisable, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, mounting economic sanctions against the Soviet Union, marshaling support of other nations for the boycott of the Olympics, letting the Soviets know, with 104 members of the U.N. condemning their action in the invasion of Afghanistan.,I've spent a great deal of time the last couple of weeks, for instance, continuing our negotiations for peace between Israel and Egypt and the establishment of autonomous government in the West Bank and Gaza area. I've worked on inflation problems in our Nation and also on the problem of employment and the dealing with the diplomatic relationships of a routine nature with other countries.,So, we have an ongoing program in this Government that is being well cared for. It's unfortunate that the hostage situation has been the human kind of concern that has been dominant in our consciousness even when we were doing our duties in other matters.,NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AND SECRETARY OF STATE,Q. Mr. President, there seems to be a growing impression in this town that your National Security Adviser is gaining influence at the expense of your Secretary of State, even speculation that that may have been a factor in Mr. Vance's resignation. Would you care to comment on this?,THE PRESIDENT. That's an erroneous report. I think we have a very good and proper balance of advisers who comprise the National Security Council, who work with me on military and foreign affairs.,I think that Secretary Vance expressed, as an honorable man, very meticulous in his language, his reason for resignation. I regretted his decision. Under the circumstances, I think it was the proper one.,But never in the past and never in the future while I'm here will there be any unwarranted intervention in the carrying out of the foreign policy under the aegis of the State Department. But I reserve the right to receive advice and counsel from my advisers. That's the best way I can make the proper decision once I have all the facts and all the advice that I seek.,Mr. Schorr [Daniel Schorr, Cable News Network].,PHASES OF HOSTAGE RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, you've been widely applauded, judging by the polls, for having made this effort with regard to freeing the hostages. And it seems to me that if there are any lingering misgivings among the American people, it is among those who wonder whether the whole plan could have worked without serious danger to some of the hostages and perhaps to our international interests. Secretary Vance has been too meticulous, in your words, to have expressed objections, but he's supposed to have had objection to the whole operation.,Within the limits of security, could you tell us enough about the further planned phases of this operation, so that Americans will understand that it could have worked?,THE PRESIDENT. It would be inadvisable for me to describe the operation beyond the point that actually did occur. We had intended to place the rescue team in an isolated region within a proper distance of Tehran. And then if everything was satisfactory, if they were undetected, if there was no apparent change in the circumstances within the compound itself, if the weather conditions warranted and equipment was in a satisfactory condition, only then were we to undertake the actual rescue operation.,There's a general consensus, with which I think no one disagrees, that the actual rescue operation would have been the easiest of the three phases; the most difficult, the intrusion into Iran and the placement of those forces; and the second most difficult, the actual extraction of our hostages and men from Iran after the rescue itself from the compound.,But the details of what would have been undertaken is something that I would prefer not to comment on since it did not occur.,MINORITIES AND THE ECONOMY,Q. Mr. President, on the economy, the U.S. economy is basically in a recession, and to black Americans that means that we're in a depression. I'm wondering if you would consider naming an advisory team or a special commission to look into resolving some of the problems of blacks in this depressionary state.,THE PRESIDENT. We have such an advisory group, made up of both black Americans who serve in positions of authority and others who happen not to be members of minority groups, who work intimately on this problem in a continuing way.,The decisions to be made in an economy that is suffering from too high interest rates and too high inflation rates is a very complicated one. We have made our decisions based on as thorough an analysis as we could within the Government and with the advice and the counsel of many around the Nation who are not part of the Federal Government. This includes, for instance, the mayors of some of our major cities, who happen to be black, and other minority groups, like those who speak Spanish.,I think the most cruel kind of suffering that is perpetrated economically on a minority citizen and others is the combination of unemployment in a community and inflation, which afflicts every American who is employed or not.,I think the proposals that we have put forward, early last month, to arrest the inflation rate and to start driving down interest rates and the inflation rate is going to work. And we have carefully targeted programs that have not been disturbed, to maintain as high a level of employ. ment as possible during this transition phase from a rapidly growing economy with extremely high inflation and interest rates, to one that is growing not so fast, where employment does tend to creep up and requires Government programs focused upon that unemployment problem.,It's not going to be an easy transition phase, but we've already seen interest rates start dropping very rapidly lately. I think the inflation rate is going to go down this summer, if we are moderately fortunate, and we're going to do the best we can to prevent any adverse effect on those who suffer from unemployment at the same time.,Mr. Schram [Martin J. Schram, Washington Post].,SECRETARY OF STATE VANCE AND HOSTAGE RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, I'd like to follow up an earlier question. Were there aspects of the military plan that we are not familiar with that perhaps provided the basis for Secretary Vance's dissent—perhaps air strikes—and if not, could you tell us what your understanding is of just what his dissent was about?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it would be better to ask him about the specifics. I think I can say accurately that Secretary Vance preferred that we not take any kind of action inside Iran that might have had any connotation of a military nature. His preference was to wait longer instead of mounting the rescue operation. But I made the decision based on the overwhelming recommendation and concurrence with other advisers. I have no doubt at all in my mind that it was the right decision.,Had the operation been successful or even had it been concluded without complete success, it would have ended a continuing crisis that is destabilizing for the people of Iran, that's causing them immense political and economic suffering at this very moment, and it would have made unnecessary the upcoming economic pressures on Iran, which will be much more severe when our major allies impose those same kinds of economic sanctions on Iran the middle of next month. It would also have meant that we could have begun restoring Iran as an accepted nation in the world structure and remove the reasons for condemnation of them.,So, in my opinion the operation had a very good chance of success, and it would have brought to a conclusion this unfortunate holding of our hostages and ended what is a very destabilizing political situation in that region of the world.,Q. Mr. President, could I follow up on that?,THE PRESIDENT. You may.,Q. Just to be specific, there was no other aspect of the plan with which we are not familiar that provided the basis of his dissent; it was just a broad and general dissent?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that's accurate, but you might want to follow that up with Secretary Vance later. But I believe that to be a completely accurate statement.,RISKS OF HOSTAGE RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, following up on your statement just now, when you were planning the rescue attempt, did you believe that all the hostages could have been removed from Iran safe]y, or did you feel that some could have been killed in the process? And second]y, do you think that the United States would be better off to end the crisis now, even if it means extreme danger to the hostages?,THE PRESIDENT. Obviously an operation of this kind would have had some risk, but we were convinced that the hostages could be removed successfully and safely.,HOSTAGE SITUATION AND PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL PROSPECTS,Q. Mr. President, does it seem to you that if you cannot resolve this crisis soon it may cost you your renomination or reelection? And does it seem to you that, as Harry Truman said and as you have said, the buck stops there, that that would be a fair judgment?,THE PRESIDENT. The political connotations of the holding of our hostages is not a factor for me. I've had to make decisions that on occasion might very well have been unpopular, and some that I have made may prove to be well advised in the judgment of the American people. But I've had to make those decisions under the most difficult circumstances, dealing with a nation's leaders who cannot speak for their own country and who constantly change their position and even constantly change their own identity.,But I see no relationship to this effort that I am continuing with the prospects or lack of prospects of political benefit to me or approval in a political circumstance.,EFFECT OF SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN,Q. Mr. President, as we look at the situation in Iran in terms of what they may understand you might do, what have you led Iran's leaders to believe would happen if they harmed the hostages? Do you think such fear is saving the hostages' lives now? And if there is such fear, does that encourage you to refrain from further military action that could endanger them?,THE PRESIDENT. In November, I think it was November the 20th, we were constantly hearing from the terrorists who held our hostages that they would be immediately tried for war crimes and executed. We spelled out to the public, and therefore to Iran, the extreme adverse consequences to them if such action should be taken, without being overly specific, but letting them know that there would be serious consequences for their nation and their people. We specifically spelled out one step in that process short of military action, and that was the interruption of commerce to Iran.,Our Nation is firm in its resolve. It's remarkably united. Our people have been surprisingly patient. But I don't think there's any doubt among the leadership in Iran, in the Government or among the terrorists themselves, that it is to their advantage not to physically harm the hostages whom they hold. And I hope they will be convinced as time goes by—not much time, I pray—that the adverse consequences of the action that we have already taken, with diplomatic and political isolation and with economic sanctions, is fragmenting their own structure of government and dividing their own nation and preventing Iran from making the progress that was envisioned when they had the revolution itself.,It's a remarkable commentary on this fragmentation that in spite of the deep commitment of their new constitution, the Ayatollah Khomeini, and their public officials, they have not even been able to hold an election in Iran after months of effort.,So, I believe that being joined by our allies in similar kinds of economic sanctions might very well be a factor that would bring the Iranians to realize that it's much better for them to release the hostages unharmed and to resolve this crisis.,U.S. MILITARY CAPABILITY AND HOSTAGE. RESCUE MISSION,Q. Mr. President, can you tonight assure the American people that there is no connection between the inability of the American military to retain highly skilled maintenance and technical personnel and the abnormally high failure rate of the helicopters on the rescue mission? And in a broader sense, does this high failure rate worry you if it came to a showdown between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in the .Persian Gulf?,THE PRESIDENT. There is no connection, because we focused the enormous resources of our Nation and its elaborate military capability on this particular equipment that was used in this operation. Had there been some shortage of either technicians or spare parts or maintenance capability, it would not have been permitted in the particular case of the helicopters, the C-130's, or the equipment the men took in for the rescue operation. So, there is no connection between those at all.,SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE,Q. Mr. President, could you explain why you appointed Senator Edmund Muskie to succeed Cyrus Vance, when Senator Muskie has limited foreign policy experience and holds only a secondary position on the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate?,THE PRESIDENT. Senator Muskie has more than 20 years experience in the Senate. He's been heavily involved in foreign affairs there as a member, as you point out, of the Foreign Relations Committee. He's played an active role in nationwide campaigns throughout this country as a Vice-Presidential candidate and also as a Presidential candidate himself.,He's familiar with our entire Nation. I think he's highly sensitive about the aspirations and ideals of our country that ought to be mirrored in its foreign policy.,He's also had a remarkable position in the Senate as the chairman of the Budget Committee, where every single proposal made for the expenditure of Federal funds in the foreign affairs field or the military field or the domestic field has to come before his committee for careful analysis before it goes to the appropriations committees.,So, because of that broad range of experience and the esteem with which Ed Muskie is held in this country by Democrats and Republicans and, indeed, because of his international reputation, I consider him to be extremely well qualified to serve as Secretary of State.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Frank.
#> 4 SITUATION IN IRAN,THE PRESIDENT. Since last November, 53 Americans have been held captive in Tehran, contrary to every principle of international law and human decency. The United States began to implement a series of nonviolent but punitive steps, designed to bring about the release of our hostages.,In January, we received information and signals from the Iranian authorities that they were prepared to enter into serious discussions to bring about the release of the hostages. At that time the United States decided to defer additional sanctions, and then these discussions resulted in commitments from the top authorities in Iran, including a transfer of the hostages to Government control, to be followed by their release.,These commitments were not fulfilled. Earlier this month, April the 7th, I announced a series of economic and political actions designed to impose additional burdens on Iran because their Government was now directly involved in continuing this act of international terrorism.,This process is moving forward. We've imposed economic sanctions, and we have broken diplomatic relations with Iran. Recently a number of other nations have recalled their ambassadors, and these countries are now considering sanctions they may be prepared to invoke in the near future.,Even while these deliberations continue, officials in Iran talk about not resolving the hostage issue until July or even later. We are beyond the time for gestures. We want our people to be set free. Accordingly, I am today ordering an additional set of actions.,First, I am prohibiting all financial transfers by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to any person or entity in Iran, except those directly related to the gathering of news and family remittances to the hostages. * As of today, any such transaction will become a criminal act.,Second, all imports from Iran to the United States will be barred.,*The sentence should end with the word "remittances." [White House correction.],Third, I intend to exercise my statutory authority to protect American citizens abroad by prohibiting travel to Iran, and by prohibiting any transactions between Americans and foreign persons relating to such travel or the presence of Americans in Iran. Again, this authority will not now be used to interfere with the right of the press to gather news. However, it is my responsibility and my obligation, given the situation in Iran, to call on American journalists and news-gathering organizations to minimize, as severely as possible, their presence and their activities in Iran.,Fourth, I am ordering that all military equipment previously purchased by the Government of Iran, which I had previously impounded, be made available for use by the United States military forces or for sale to other countries.,And finally, I will ask Congress for discretionary authority to pay reparations to the hostages and to their families out of the more than $8 billion in frozen Iranian assets in the United States. These assets will be available to satisfy contract and other commercial claims of American firms against Iranian Government entities and to reimburse claims of the United States for the heavy military and other costs we have incurred because of Iran's illegal actions.,If a constructive Iranian response is not forthcoming soon, the United States should and will proceed with other measures. We will legally forbid shipments of food and medicine, and the United Nations Charter, as you know, stipulates interruption of communications as a legitimate sanction. Accordingly, I am prepared to initiate consultations with the member nations of Intelsat [International Telecommunications Satellite Consortium] to bar Iran's use of international communications facilities.,The measures which I am announcing today are still nonbelligerent in nature. They are a continuation of our efforts to resolve this crisis by peaceful means. The authorities in Iran should realize, however, that the availability of peaceful measures, like the patience of the American people, is running out. I am compelled to repeat what I have said on previous occasions: Other actions are available to the United States and may become necessary if the Government of Iran refuses to fulfill its solemn international responsibility. The American hostages must be freed.,Let me say just a few words about our economy before I answer questions.,THE NATIONAL ECONOMY,We have been going through difficult times with high inflation and with extremely high interest rates. We are taking steps to bring these under control, and we are beginning, after only a month of the anti-inflation programs being announced, to make some progress.,However, we are now entering a very difficult transition period when recent economic statistics suggest that our economy has slowed down and has probably entered a period of recession. I believe that any recession will be mild and short, but I'm deeply concerned about how it affects the people of our country.,When I see automobile plant closings or a sharp drop in housing construction or very high interest rates for farmers during the planting season, I know the pain and I know the disruption and the heartache that lie below the cold statistics. But I also know that we cannot substantially reduce interest rates and we cannot make jobs secure until we get the inflation rate down.,A month ago, I set a series of tough anti-inflation measures. The Congress has been doing an excellent job in carrying out its part by cutting down the prospects for Federal spending, leading toward a balanced budget for next year. If we maintain self-discipline, all of us, this program will work to cut inflation, to reduce interest rates, and to restore the conditions for healthy growth, both in jobs and in economic output.,Certain sectors of our economy, of the American people, are particularly hard hit, and within our budget constraints, we are taking steps available to meet those hard times for them.,For farmers—a new emergency credit bill, higher target prices for wheat and corn, and opening up of farm reserves to those previously unable to participate in the storage of grain. This will provide some relief for them.,For housing, I will support an effort to expand the section 235 program, which will build an additional 100,000 units, again within our budget spending limits.,To sustain employment for autoworkers, we are working to encourage more overseas automakers to invest here in the United States. Honda has already announced a large plant. Just today, the makers of Datsun announced their plans to construct a very large plant in the United States. And I hope to sign a bill soon that will enable Volkswagen to open a plant in Michigan. Between this fiscal year and next, we .are budgeting over a billion dollars extra to provide trade adjustment assistance to tide the autoworkers over until new jobs can be provided for them, as American automobile manufacturers produce more of the energy efficient automobiles which are now in such great demand by the American consumer.,We've been working with the Nation's food and drug chains and we now have more than 6,500 food stores and more than 2,500 drug sales outlets who have committed themselves to voluntary freezing of prices on literally thousands of basic items.,In the last several weeks, interest rates have begun edging down, and yesterday they fell more steeply, but they are still very high. And there will be no substantial nor sustained reduction in interest rates until the growing demand for credit is assuaged and until we get inflation under control.,But—and this is very important—the next couple of months, in spite of the good news recently, we will continue to see bad news on inflation. There are some cost increases still in the pipeline that have not yet been reflected in prices to the consumer. After that, starting early this summer, the chances are very good for a sizable drop in the inflation rate. We should have much smaller increases in energy prices this year compared to last year, and mortgage interest rates should no longer be rising—indeed, I hope to see them fall.,There are no quick and easy answers, but there is no reason for fear or despair. Our programs are good, our American economy is strong and sound, and our people are united and determined to meet these challenges together.,QUESTIONS,IRAN: SANCTIONS, DEADLINES, AND ALLIED SUPPORT,Q. Mr. President, what have you accomplished with these sanctions so far? And have you set a deadline before summer for a new belligerent stand? And also, do you have any reason to believe that the allies are going to back up our actions, or are they fair weather friends?,THE PRESIDENT. From the very beginning of the crisis in Iran, brought about by the seizure of our hostages, I have had two goals in mind from which we have never deviated: first of all, to protect the interests of our country and its principles and standards; and secondly, and along with it on an equal basis, to protect the lives of the hostages and to work as best I could under the most difficult possible circumstances to secure the release of our hostages safely and to freedom.,We have had three options available to us: economic, political, and military. So far, we have only exercised the economic and the political measures—in the Court of Justice, in-the United Nations, in our own economic actions which are now inflicting punishment on Iran's economy, and in the marshaling of support among other countries.,I can't predict to you exactly what other nations will do. In recent days, I have communicated with almost all of the major nations' leaders, asking them to take peaceful action, economic and political, to join with us in convincing Iran that they are becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of the civilized world and increasingly vulnerable to dissension and fragmentation within and to danger from without, particularly the Soviet Union-the north of Iran.,Recently, our allies and friends have withdrawn their ambassadors to decide what they should do in the future. I understand from some of the leaders that next week they will have another meeting to decide what further steps to take, now that Bani-Sadr, the President of Iran, and others have refused to take action to release the hostages after our allies had demanded directly that Iran take this action.,If this additional set of sanctions that I've described to you today and the concerted action of our allies is not successful, then the only next step available that I can see would be some sort of military action, which is the prerogative and the right of the United States under these circumstances.,IRAN: POSSIBILITY OF FOOD EMBARGO,Q. Mr. President, why didn't you embargo food right now, as some of us had been led to believe you had already decided to do?,THE PRESIDENT. We have considered extending the embargo to food and drugs, which is obviously an item that we could include. We, first of all, are complying with the United Nations Security Council definition of sanctions, and we are encouraging, now, our allies to take similar action.,Secondly, because of decisions made by us, the attitude of the American people, the attitude of shippers of food and drugs, this trade is practically nonexistent. As I pointed out to you today, unless there is immediate action on the part of Iran, these items and the interruption of communications are still available to us for a decision by me.,MOBIL OIL COMPANY,Q. Mr. President, after Mobil was cited as out of compliance with voluntary wage and price guidelines, they still received two multimillion dollar Federal contracts. This seems to indicate that sanctions against noncompliance, especially with regard to the oil companies, can be waived. My question, sir, is: Are further sanctions being considered against the Mobil Oil Company and other companies, and if so, when will that announcement come?,THE PRESIDENT. The previous contracts given to Mobil were decided before Mobil was cited by the Council on Wage and Price Stability. Sanctions against Mobil are being considered. We are negotiating now with Mobil on a daily basis to try to force them, through persuasion and because of the pressure of public opinion on Mobil, to refund to the American people the overcharges that resulted from their pricing policies in 1979.,We have not yet been successful in convincing Mobil to comply with these voluntary price standards so important to the American people and, in my judgment, so important to the stature and the reputation of Mobil Oil as a responsible\nmember of the American economic community.,I cannot predict to you what Mobil will do. If they do not act, we will continue to let the American people know about the irresponsibility of Mobil, and we will also take actions, as necessary, to restrain Mobil, within the bounds of the law, from benefiting from Government contracts.,IRAN: AMERICAN MILITARY OPTIONS,Q. Mr. President, there's been some ambiguity, perhaps partly deliberate, about the circumstances and timing of military measures, if they are to be taken, against Iran. One element of that ambiguity was a remark you made in an interview with the European television last week that suggested that if our allies support us sufficiently in taking sanctions, then it might be less necessary for you to take unilateral military measures. My question is, to what extent does the timing of military measures depend on what our allies do, and to what extent does it depend simply .on the Iranian response?,THE PRESIDENT. It depends on three factors. One is the effectiveness of the accumulation of economic and political sanctions that we have taken against Iran. Secondly, it depends upon the effectiveness of the sanctions to be imposed upon Iran by other nations in the world, including some of our key allies. And thirdly and most importantly, of course, it depends upon the response of Iran to these actions and the condemnation of the rest of the world.\nI do not feel it appropriate for me to set a specific time schedule for the imposition of further actions, which may include military action, but it's an option available to me.,I think our key allied leaders understand the time frame under which we are acting and making our plans, and their decisions next week, I think, will be colored, perhaps, by the messages that I have exchanged with them, both by cable and by direct telephone conversations, which continue.,HAMILTON JORDAN,Q. Mr. President, there have been reports that you have designated Hamilton Jordan as your special envoy on Iran to negotiate on the hostages and that, generally, he has become one of your top foreign policy advisers. Could you explain to us some of these new functions of his and his qualifications for them, and also confirm a report that on one or more of his secret missions he wore a wig and other disguises?,THE PRESIDENT. I've never known about any disguises or wigs. Hamilton is not one of my major foreign policy advisers. He does not claim to be an expert on foreign policy. Hamilton is very valuable to me in the proper interrelation of foreign policy decisions with domestic decisions. He does attend most of our high-level discussions on both domestic matters and foreign policy matters.,Almost every member of the White House staff who is involved directly or indirectly in international affairs and, also, those in the State Department and, perhaps, even those in the Justice Department have been involved at various times in the attempt that we have made to convince the Iranian Government and their officials to release the hostages. This does include Hamilton, but he's not designated exclusively at all to play this role.,IRAN; TIMING FOR RELEASE OF HOSTAGES,Q. Mr. President, you mentioned that there's a statement from Iranian officials that they may not consider the hostage question until July. Without talking about a deadline, is that acceptable? Could it go on that long?,THE PRESIDENT. I would think that would be an excessive time for us to wait.,IRAN: EFFECTS OF BLOCKADE ON ALLIED OIL SUPPLIES,Q. Mr. President, despite the compelling objective of obtaining the release of the hostages, what is the possibility that a future military action by the United States, even including a blockade, might be too high a price to pay in terms of the damage to the Allied oil supplies and the further risk of war?,THE PRESIDENT. That's a balance that I will have to assess and on which make the ultimate decision. I have not discussed specific military steps with our allies that I might take. I think they are familiar, through news reports and through just commonsense analysis of those available to us, that the interruption of commerce with Iran is a kind of step that would be available. We announced in November, I think November the 20th, that this was one of those steps that we would reserve for ourselves to take in the future. I think we used the phrase, "interruption of commerce with Iran.",It would be severe in its consequences for Iran and much less severe for any particular customer of Iran. Because of sanctions against Iran and because of the fragmented nature of their own economic system and because of their inability to buy adequate spare parts and continue their exploratory operations of the production of oil, their shipments of oil in the international markets have dropped precipitously.,So, a total interruption of Iranian oil shipments to other countries would not be a devastating blow to those countries. It would certainly be an inconvenience; it would certainly be serious. And we have been trying to avoid that kind .of action, and we are still attempting to avoid that kind of action. But I cannot preclude that option for the future if it becomes necessary.,IRAN: TIMING OF U.S. ACTIONS WITH PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES,Q. Mr. President, some of your critics, especially those who work for Senator Kennedy, have suggested that your announcements and actions on Iran, many of them seem timed to influence the Presidential primaries. They cite the announcement the morning of the Wisconsin primary and I'm sure will point out that today's announcements and this press conference come just a few days before the Pennsylvania primary. What's your response to that?,THE PRESIDENT. I would like for you to look at the calendar since the first of January and find a time that wasn't immediately before or immediately after primaries. As you know, we have 35 primaries this year in a period of about 5 months, which is an average of 7 primaries per month. And I have never designed the announcement of an action to try to color or modify the actions of voters in a primary. These occurrences are too serious for our Nation.,And the particular instance to which you refer in Wisconsin was a time when we had negotiated for many weeks in anticipation of such an announcement that the hostages would be transferred to control of the Government and subsequently released. That decision came through official action by the Iranian Government, the Revolutionary Council. President Bani-Sadr made the announcement himself early in the morning our time, about noontime Iranian time. It was a completely appropriate time for it to be announced.,But I do not make, and have not made, and will not make decisions nor announcements concerning the lives and safety of our hostages simply to derive some political benefit from them.,RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PRESIDENCY,Q. Mr. President, it seems a lot of people we've seen don't find your effectiveness too great these days. We find this in the polls and elsewhere. And at least, it's not as high as they'd like, as good as they'd like. My question is this: Is the job today of being President too big, too complex for a President, any President? Are there too many factors outside of your control to be effective?,THE PRESIDENT. The job is a big one; there's no doubt about that. Under any normal circumstances, being President is not an easy task. The greatness and strength of our country, the support of the American people, the derivation, through democratic processes, of authority and responsibility and the ability to act is a reassuring thing to me and all my predecessors who've served in this office and lived in this house.,This year, almost in a unique way, we've had additional responsibilities. I think it's been 25 or 30 years, for instance, since an incumbent Democratic President had to run a political campaign while he was in office. I don't deplore that. The right of my opponents to run is theirs. But that's an additional complicating factor. It was obviously an additional burden for our entire Nation, not just for me, to have American hostages captured in Iran and to have the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan, which was a departure from 25 years of policy on their part not to use their own military forces to cross the borders into a previously undominated country.,The combination of these three factors, in addition to very high interest rates and inflation rates, brought about primarily by worldwide escalation in oil prices, has made this an extremely difficult job even compared to normal times. I don't deplore it; I'm not trying to avoid the responsibilities.,And I believe that the action of the American people so far during the electoral process has not been a complete endorsement of what I have done or what I have accomplished. But I think the results so far, compared to what was anticipated 6 months ago, in spite of these unpredictable kinds of crises that have afflicted our Nation, have been very gratifying to me and an indication that the American people are fairly well satisfied. We've got problems, yes. But I am not despairing, and I am not fearful; I don't think the American people should be either.,IRAN: PROHIBITION ON TRAVEL,Q. Mr. President, do the sanctions that you announced today, sir, bar the families of hostages and other humanitarian-minded Americans from traveling, assuming of course that the terrorists will allow them into the Embassy?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, it would unless they had received a specific permit either from the State Department or the Attorney General [Treasury Department]. *,* White House correction.,AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY,Q. Mr. President, you have just recently encouraged foreign automakers to invest in plants in this country, presumably to hold more jobs here. But in recent days the autoworkers are complaining they've lost a significant number of jobs. They are suggesting putting restrictions on foreign imports, at least as a short-term remedy, and they're planning to be here and lobby for this. I wonder how you feel about restrictions on imports.,THE PRESIDENT. I'd like to respond to your question without it being characterized as a criticism of anyone. I remember the first few months that I was President, sitting in the Cabinet Room, over just adjacent to the Oval Office, talking to the leaders of the American automobile manufacturers, manufacturing firms, all of the leaders there, all the firms represented, encouraging them to comply with the impending legislation in the Congress to require the production of small and efficient automobiles for the American market.,Their unanimous reply was that this was an inappropriate thing for them to do, that the market was not there for the small and efficient automobiles. Subsequent events, which could not be completely predictable, have shown that the American people are now demanding, in order to conserve energy, the small and efficient automobiles, precisely the kind of car that we were encouraging them to make 3 years ago or more.,At this moment every single small, efficient automobile that can be produced by American manufacturers have a ready market. Because they are now in a transition period from the large gas-guzzling automobiles to the manufacture of the small and efficient cars, there is a very difficult time for employment and American production, because the market is not there for the big, heavy, inefficient automobiles.,So, to replace the number of cars that Americans could be producing that are small and efficient that are not being produced, foreign imports are coming in at a very high level. There are several things that we could do: prevent those foreign cars from coming in, deprive the American consumer from buying them, which would drive up the price of domestically produced small cars enormously or would result in Americans having to buy the large and inefficient gas-guzzlers which they do not want. I think that would be ill advised.,So, we are trying to carry over, as best we can, during this transition phase minimal damage to the American automobile worker, as I described in my statement, encouraging the American manufacturers to shift toward the small and efficient cars as rapidly as possible and, as an additional thing, encouraging Volkswagen and other foreign manufacturers to come into the United States, to employ American automobile workers, highly trained, to produce the foreign-designed cars during that period.,Later, I have no doubt that the American manufacturers, who are highly competent and who make superb vehicles, will rapidly shift to the small and efficient cars. When they do, I think the foreign imports, even those manufactured here, will have a much more competitive market. But I cannot freeze, now, imports of the small foreign cars that American consumers want, just to protect an industry that is now transferring its attention to the small cars to be manufactured here.,IRAN: SOVIET ACTIONS TO COUNTER BLOCKADE,Q. Mr. President, I would like to get back to the subject of Iran, if we might. There have been published reports that the Soviet Union has already taken some steps to counter the effects of a boycott or a blockade, should you decide to take that route as the days go on. There are reports that truckloads of various food supplies and other commodities are already coming across the Soviet border into Iran. Do you have any independent confirmation of this, Mr. President, and don't you think, if it is true, this would undermine any future type of a naval blockade?,THE PRESIDENT. The fact is that, I guess, historically there has been a fairly substantial level of trade between the Soviet Union and Iran. Before the recent revolution, there were plans afoot for substantial increased shipments of natural gas from Iran into the Soviet Union in exchange for the barter of goods and perhaps hard cash.,The rail lines and the road system which interconnects Iran and the Soviet Union are quite limited in their capacity. They may be used now at capacity; I don't really know the specifics about that. But I think that the quantity of goods that would be interrupted by a possible blockade, which I'm not predicting now specifically will take place, could not possibly be filled or replaced by the limited transportation routes by land, either from Turkey or Iraq or the Soviet Union, certainly not from Afghanistan, at this time.,THE NATO ALLIANCE,Q. Mr. President, I was wondering, sir: Is it your belief the American people will continue indefinitely to provide the main defense of Western Europe, when there's a story in the papers this morning that showed pluralities in both West Germany and Britain now oppose backing the United States in a future dispute with the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. The United States has never provided the majority of or the overwhelming portion of troops or fighting equipment in Europe for the defense of Western Europe against the Warsaw Pact. The number of troops that America has, in all, in the European theater is about 300,000. We and our NATO Allies combined have, I think, more than 2 million. I don't remember the exact figure. We have always provided the strategic nuclear umbrella for the protection of Europe, and we've had direct control, as you know, over most of the tactical nuclear weapons.,I saw results of a poll today from Germany that showed that over 80 percent of the people in West Germany, Federal Republic of Germany, favor a boycott of the Moscow Olympics by the Federal Republic of Germany.,I think the NATO Alliance is as strong now as it has been in any time, in my memory, since the war. Under very difficult economic circumstances, the major nations in the Alliance have committed themselves to a real growth in defense expenditures. Under heavy pressure, propaganda efforts by the Warsaw Pact nations, the Allies voted last December to go ahead with a modernization of theater nuclear forces—a very difficult decision. And my own personal relationship with the leaders in those countries, both the heads of state and military and diplomatic, show a very strong commitment to the Alliance and a very strong support for us.,I have sometimes been disappointed at the rapidity of action and the substance of the action taken by some of our allies in the Iranian and the Afghanistan question. But we look at things from a different perspective. We are much more invulnerable than they are to any sort of conventional attack. Germany, for instance, is a divided country. Seventeen million Germans live under Communist rule in East Germany, and Berlin is especially exposed. Most European countries have a much higher dependence on foreign trade than do we.,But I think within the bounds of the limitations and difference of perspective, although I have sometimes been disappointed, I think they have performed adequately. And I believe recently, the last few days, and I believe next week, we will see a strong rush of support to join us in the boycott of the Moscow Olympics, which will be a heavy propaganda and psychological blow to the Soviet Union in condemnation of their invasion. And I believe their support for us in Iran will prove that the premise of your question, that we don't have their support and cooperation, is inaccurate.,INFLATION AND A BALANCED BUDGET,Q. Mr. President, a question on inflation: Did you tell a group of Democratic Congressmen a few weeks ago that you realized that your balanced budget would have only a very small impact on the inflation rate, less than one-half of 1 percent? And if you did tell them that, can you really expect, if the inflation rate stays high, the kind of decrease in inflation that you're talking about? If the balanced budget doesn't really do it, can you really expect them, when OPEC looks at that, when the financial markets look at that, could you expect the kind of decrease in interest rates and oil prices that you were talking about earlier today? Isn't it much more likely that we'll have a recession and with continued high inflation, continued high interest rates, and come out of it with a higher basic rate of inflation than we have now, as happened in '74, '75?,THE PRESIDENT. That's a complicated question. I'll try to answer it briefly.,It is true that by itself, in direct effect, a $15 billion reduction in Federal expenditures, compared to more than a $2 trillion economy, would involve less than a half of 1 percent.,But in my judgment, as I told the congressional leaders assembled in this room, without a clear demonstration of self-discipline on the part of the Federal Government brought about by reduced expenditures and a commitment to a balanced budget, any other anti-inflation components would be fruitless, because we have got to convince the American people, the financial community, business community, labor community, individual citizens, that we ourselves here in Washington running the Government are going to be responsible and not overspend and do our share to get the Federal Government out of the borrowing business in 1981, in order to induce them to join us in a common team effort.,I do believe that we are already seeing some results. In my opinion, the recent news on interest rates, not just the prime rate but most other interest rates, have shown an encouraging turn. I can't predict that it's going to be permanent; I don't want to mislead anyone. But if we can have a limit, a fairly substantial limit, say, a 20-percent increase in OPEC [overall] * energy costs, and some reduction-say, 2 percent—in mortgage rates on homes, we anticipate a substantial reduction in the inflation rate within the next few months. I'm talking about a reduction of maybe 8 percent or more. Those are two big "ifs," but I don't think they're beyond the realm of expectation.,*White House correction.,So, I do believe that a concerted commitment on the part of the American people to the program that we have outlined, and some of them have volunteered to assume, will be effective and that we will have a reduction of interest rates and inflation, and at the same time, we will keep our economy strong. I have a very good feeling about the future this year, about controlling inflation and reduced interest rates.,MIDDLE EAST PEACE NEGOTIATIONS,Q. Mr. President, in the last 10 days, Mr. President, you've talked with the leaders of Israel and Egypt at length about their negotiations on Palestinian autonomy, and you've said, today in fact, that the problems look less formidable now. Can you tell us where the give is and where you see the hope that these two parties might reach agreement by May 26 or any other time in the near future?,THE PRESIDENT. I am not able and have never been able to speak for Egypt or to speak for Israel. The negotiation is basically between those two countries. We have faced much more formidable obstacles in the past than we presently face, both prior to the Camp David accords and also prior to the Mideast peace treaty conclusion.,Now we are carrying out the Camp David agreement. When I discuss these matters with President Sadat or Prime Minister Begin, they have never deviated one iota from the exact language and the exact provisions of the Camp David accords. It's looked on almost as a sacred document. There are differences of interpretation about what is actually meant by "a refugee" or what is actually meant by "full autonomy" and so forth.,But we're now in the process of negotiating how much authority and power and influence and responsibility to give to the self-governing authority, how exactly it will be composed—those are the two basic questions—and how that selfgoverning authority is to be chosen. And once that's decided, Israel is completely ready to withdraw their military government, the civilian administration, to withdraw their own forces and to redeploy them in specified security locations, and to let those new duties and responsibilities be assumed by the Palestinian Arabs who live in the West Bank/Gaza.,That will be a major step forward. And if we can accomplish that, then the details of exactly how to administer water rights and exactly how to administer land and how to administer other specific elements of security, like controlling terrorism, which are now the difficult issues being negotiated, I think will be resolved without delay.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much.
#> 5 ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM,THE PRESIDENT. Last night at this time I was participating in a remarkable event, truly historic in the development of our Nation. I was in the Cabinet Room, next to the Oval Office, along with the leadership of the Democrats in the House and the Senate, discussing the features of and the implementation of a comprehensive, anti-inflation program for our Nation. We mutually pledged to assure that this program would be successful, and the Democrats, the leadership, after 10 days of intense discussions and negotiations with my administration, themselves offered adequate cuts in the existing budget to ensure a balanced budget for 1981.,I'm very grateful for this cooperation. And during the same afternoon the Republicans, the leadership there, pledged that if the Democrats would take the leadership they would also cooperate, which I think will ensure that the Congress will guarantee that with our cooperative effort this will be successful.,Just a few hours ago I described the basic elements of this program, to intensify America's battle against inflation. These actions will be painful. They will not work overnight. But they are necessary to preserve the power of the greatest economic nation on Earth.,Inflation is bad in our country, but it's not as bad as that in some of our major allies, Great Britain, Japan, Italy. We have many reasons for this high inflation rate—the unprecedented increase in the price of oil, the fact that we as individuals and a society have tried to beat inflation by borrowing. It's as though we have come to believe that a penny borrowed is a penny earned. Our whole society, beginning with the Federal Government, must live within its means. We must exert discipline on ourselves. We must act decisively, and we must act now. And I will set forth a revised budget for 1981 that will be a balanced budget.,To achieve this goal I will defer or reduce or cancel many new programs which have been proposed recently to the Congress. I will cut expenditures throughout the Government. I will freeze Federal employment immediately, to cut down the total number of employees on the Federal payroll by at least 20,000 between now and the 1st of October. These budget cuts will be difficult politically and also because there will be inconveniences and disappointments among many people. But some sacrifice now will be much less onerous and burdensome, particularly to the needy among us, than the serious suffering that will occur if we don't arrest the inflationary spirals.,We will have a balanced budget beginning in October. To ensure this goal I will veto any legislation that exceeds our spending limit. I will use my powers under the budget acts to hold down budget-busting appropriations, and, if necessary, I will ask the Congress for additional powers to make sure that these goals are realized.,A balanced budget is not a cure-all, but it's a necessary part of an overall commitment. Without a balanced budget commitment there would be no way to put together a credible anti-inflation program. The Federal Government simply must accept discipline on itself as an example for others to follow.,Secondly, our governments have been borrowing, but so have people and institutions in our Nation been borrowing too much. So, credit controls will be implemented, as authorized by me and as administered by the Federal Reserve System of our country, to moderate the expansion of credit, with special emphasis provided, however, to meet the needs of small businesses, farmers, and those who would buy homes.,Third, we'll have improved compliance with our voluntary wage and price constraints. Mandatory wage and price controls will not be used. They have never worked in peacetime. Prices have always continued to rise even under an enormous Federal bureaucracy, and the greatest harm has come to the average American family living on a fixed income with frozen wages while the cost of vital necessities like food and fuel continue to go higher and higher.,And fourth, as I said earlier, the price of imported oil has more than doubled in the last 12 months. Last year's increase in prices of oil alone was greater than all other increases in the price of oil since oil was first discovered many years ago. We simply must cut these imports. We are now approaching the final stages of implementing through law a comprehensive and an adequate energy policy for our Nation. But we cannot meet the goal of reducing imports adequately unless we control the unwarranted and extravagant consumption of gasoline.\nTherefore, to make reductions in oil imports, I will impose an oil import conservation fee, equal to about 10 cents a gallon, to cut down on the use of gasoline. The first year this will result in savings of 100,000 barrels a day of imported oil; after 3 years, about 250,000 barrels per day will be reduced because of this charge. And we will be able, this year, to cut our gasoline consumption, and therefore oil imports, 400,000 barrels of oil per day.,I'll take long-term efforts to improve the vitality of our economy and to increase productivity through tax reductions. But these tax reductions can only come after we have been sure that we can exercise and maintain the discipline of a balanced budget.,There are no quick answers to inflation. There are no easy answers. There are no painless answers to inflation. If so, they would have been carried out long ago. The American people are not going to be deceived on this issue. The projects that I've outlined will involve costs; they involve pain. But the cost is far less in taking action than it will be if we take no action.,I must tell you very frankly that the results will not be immediate. We can expect several more months of very high inflation. But toward the end of this year the inflation rate will begin to drop, I think drop substantially.,The hard truth is that there is no easy way. Americans must do this together.,The final point I'd like to make before I take your answers is that our Nation is strong and vital. We are similar to a superb athlete who has simply gotten out of shape. The American economy has an underlying strength and resiliency. With discipline and restraint and with a willingness to accept, perhaps, some aching muscles at first, our economy can perform again like a champion. In the fight against inflation what is at stake is more than material wealth, it's more than material comfort; what is at stake is whether we as Americans, as a nation, as a people, will control our own destiny. In order to do so we must control inflation. And the Congress and I and, I believe, our entire Nation is determined to make this effort successful.\nThank you very much.\nMr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,BALANCED FEDERAL BUDGETS,Q. Mr. President, do you look forward to more than one balanced budget in a row—because if you look for more, we haven't had two in a row since Eisenhower, three in a row since Truman, and four in a row since Herbert Hoover. I just wondered how you look forward to that.,THE PRESIDENT. My hope is that once we establish a precedent of a balanced budget under the present very difficult circumstances, that we will be able to maintain that financial discipline and that budget discipline that we have achieved.,ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS,Q. Mr. President, is Israel keeping faith with the Camp David accords and the autonomy talks, when by government policy it continues to confiscate the land of Palestinians?,THE PRESIDENT. There is nothing specifically in the Camp David accords concerning the settlements themselves. There is an agreement in the treaty between Israel and Egypt about settlements that have been established in the Sinai region, which is Egyptian territory. I might say concerning that, that our policy is set by me, as President. There has been no, change in our policy. That policy is guided by U.N. Resolution 242 and 338, the basis of all of our negotiations; by every word in the Camp David accords, signed by me on behalf of our Nation; and by Begin and Sadat on behalf of Israel and Egypt. We intend to carry out that agreement.,Right now we are indulged in some very difficult but very important discussions and negotiations to establish full autonomy on the West Bank, Gaza area. I believe that these discussions can be successful. It's crucial to our own Nation's security that they be successful, that we have peace in the Middle East; and, it's, I think, crucial to the whole region that these discussions be successful.,I might add one other point. It's not easy. We've had tedious negotiations at Camp David. We had tedious negotiations almost exactly a year ago, when we finally concluded and signed the Mideast peace treaty. Our principles are well known by Prime Minister Begin and by President Sadat, and I stay constantly in touch with them and our negotiators to make sure that we are successful.,I believe that we will have peace in the Middle East, with a secure Israel behind recognized borders, with the Palestinian question being resolved in all its aspects, and with peace between Israel and her neighbors.,Q. You say the policy is set by you.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. And this is a question about the recent mix-up on the U.N. resolution. My question really goes to process. The resolution was not the resolution that you wanted. Are you the only one who can determine that it's not the resolution you want? Does your staff not know when it's not a resolution that you want, or is it possible that some of your foreign policy advisers are trying to make policy for you?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't think anybody in my administration doubts that I'm the one that sets the policy. The U.N. resolution, as it was passed, was not in accordance with the policy that I have established. It was not in accordance with the agreements that I had made with Prime Minister Begin, well understood by President Sadat.,We had agreed among us that we did not approve, as an American Government, of the settlements on the West Bank and Gaza area—that they were an obstacle to peace. But we also had agreed that during the time of the negotiations, we would not call for the dismantling of existing settlements. That was to be resolved as an issue in the ongoing negotiations.,Also, President Sadat, Prime Minister Begin, and I agreed on a paragraph in the Camp David accords concerning Jerusalem. It called for, and we still believe, that there should be an undivided Jerusalem, but that those who look upon those places in Jerusalem as holy places, should have unimpeded access to them for worship.,This resolution in the U.N. violated those two very important and basic principles. Those issues have not yet been resolved. There is nothing in this resolution at the U.N. that established the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza area. That will be established after a Syear interval period, during which full autonomy is enjoyed by the residents of the area. So, the resolution was in violation of my policy.,I might say that I have absolute confidence in Secretary Vance. I have seen him days and days and weeks negotiating to achieve the security of Israel and the peace of Israel. It was an honest breakdown in communications between me and the United Nations. I'm responsible for anything that goes wrong in this Government, and I'm also responsible, on occasion, for things that go right. Secretary Vance is responsible for the State Department. But to say exactly how the communications broke down is very difficult to do.,But I made it known as quickly as I discovered it, that this resolution did violate the policy and disavowed our vote for it.,ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM,Q. Mr. President, the other three times that you proposed a new anti-inflation program, you pledged each time that they would help restrain the rate of inflation, and yet we've seen it climb from 5 percent, when you took office, to more than 18 percent now on an annual basis. What assurance can you offer the American people that the plan you announced today will bring down the rate of inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. I have absolutely no doubt that the plan that I outlined today, when implemented, will indeed bring down the high rate of inflation which exists today. There are some elements that cause the present high inflation rate-which is a worldwide problem—over which I have no control.,One is the price of foreign oil, when we are importing so much of it. As I said earlier, it has more than doubled in price in the last 12 months. In fact, just 1 month ago, the price of energy in our own Nation increased 7 1/2 percent in 1 month, which is an annual rate of 90 percent. But I can control how much oil is imported at that high price, and we can shift to more plentiful supplies of energy' in our own Nation.,We have not had a balanced budget in 12 years. We've only had one balanced budget since 1961. But I can guarantee you that we will have a balanced budget in 1981, fiscal year beginning October 1.,The Nation is aroused now, as it has never been before—at least in my lifetime—about the horrors of existing inflation and the threat of future inflation. Never in the history of our Nation has there been so much of a common commitment and a common discussion and a common negotiation between any President and his administration and the leaders of the Congress. This is a mutual commitment. It's not just something that I'm proposing to Congress with little expectation of success.,So, there are several elements, including those I've just described to you, that make it certain, in my mind, that we will have a substantial reduction in the inflation rate during this year—the latter part of this year. And I believe that we'll be under double-digit inflation next year.,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION,Q. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you two questions if I could, please, about the SALT process—one general, one specific. The first question is, given the fact this is an election year, do you still intend to push ahead with Senate ratification of SALT? If so, when will you ask the Senate to ratify SALT? The second question deals with the Trident submarine. When that begins sea trials in July, I think under the SALT I agreement you will need to begin decommissioning Polaris submarines to stay within the limits of the SALT I agreement. Will you begin decommissioning Polaris submarines when Trident begins its sea trials, or will you opt for technical violation of the SALT I agreement?,THE PRESIDENT. The agreement which we presently have with the Soviet Union, which I intend to honor as long as they reciprocate, is to comply with all the terms of the interim SALT agreement, which is known as SALT I.,SALT II has been signed by me and President Brezhnev. I consider it binding on our two countries. It has not yet been ratified. We will observe very closely to make sure that the Soviets comply with this agreement. I will not ask the Senate to ratify SALT II until I have a chance to consult very closely with the congressional leadership on the Senate side, particularly Majority Leader Byrd and others who work with him, both Democrats and Republicans.,Because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan it is obvious that we would not be successful in ratifying SALT II treaty at this time. It is still on the calendar. It will not be brought up until after that consultation takes place. I will also continue to consult with congressional leadership as far as compliance with SALT II is concerned.,But my present intention, within the bounds of reciprocal action on the Soviet Union and consultations with the Senate and, to some degree, the House leadership, I intend to comply with the provisions of SALT II.,Q. Mr. President, I'm a bit confused by that last answer. You both said that you regarded the treaty that you signed as binding on this country and that you would consult on compliance with it. I guess the question then comes down to whether or not the United States, in absence of ratification, would observe the provisions of SALT II and the notion that it's in its own best interests and, I suppose, inviting Soviet comparable action. Is that what you're saying to us?,THE PRESIDENT. Ordinarily, when a treaty is signed between the heads of two nations, the presumption is that the treaty will be honored on both sides absent some further development. One further development that would cause me to renounce the treaty would be after consulting with the Members of the Senate to determine an interest of our Nation that might cause such a rejection, in which case I would notify the Soviet Union that the terms of the treaty were no longer binding.,So, there will be two provisos in the continued honoring of the SALT II treaty. One is that the Soviets reciprocate completely, as verified by us, and secondly, that the consultations that I will continue with the Senate leadership confirm me in my commitment that it's in the best interests of our country to do so.,FEDERAL GRANTS TO CITIES,Q. Mr. President, you've been accused of buying votes in this particular election. With your efforts to balance the budget, will you continue to favor those particular cities and persons within those cities who favor your reelection?,THE PRESIDENT. We have never favored any person or cities who favored my reelection.,FISCAL YEAR 1981 BUDGET,Q. Mr. President, you submitted your fiscal '81 budget just 7 weeks ago, and then we had the January CPI figures and everyone was shocked, of course. My question is, why, sir, could you not have anticipated increased inflation and submitted a balanced budget at that time, the kind of cuts that you announced and the kind of package that you announced today and, as you mentioned a minute ago, arouse the country at that time?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, circumstances have changed drastically since we completed work on the 1981 budget, even since I submitted it to the Congress in January. At that time there was a general presumption that quite early this year we would be faced not with rapidly escalating inflation, but with an actual recession. Everyone has been amazed at the strength of our economy, the rapidity with which growth has occurred, of business investments, an actual reduction in unemployment, and other indicators of a very hot economy in spite of the fact that energy prices and other reasons have caused the inflation rate to escalate. So, when circumstances change, as I've just described, we must change our policy.,I think that when we submitted this budget in January it was a very stringent budget. When I ran for President, for instance, in 1976, the budget deficit was over 4 percent of the gross national product. The 1981 budget, as submitted, had cut that 4 percent down to about one-half of 1 percent. So, we've been making good progress in cutting down the budget deficit. But now, because of increasing evidence of uncontrollable inflation and uncontrollable interest rates if we don't take more drastic action, we decided to take the drastic action that I described this afternoon.,PROGRAMS FOR MINORITY GROUPS,Q. Mr. President, the Congressional Black Caucus has labeled your 1981 budget proposal an unmitigated disaster for racial minorities, the poor, and the elderly. And they also say it reflects the level of indifference that the administration has adopted towards the minority community. Could you respond to that?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. That's not an accurate assessment, but I think it's an accurate report that you just gave on their attitude. We've had a very successful first 3 years in increased programs and increased sensitivity to the needs of the disadvantaged people in our country, including minority groups. We've had an unprecedented increase in jobs. We've had all unprecedented commitment to the urban areas of our country, inhabited by the poor and quite often by minority groups. We've had a 75-percent increase in educational funds from the Federal Government, primarily oriented toward the disadvantaged children and others. So, we've got an excellent record so far, not only in the allocation of funds and programmes for those who need them most but also in the appointment of very knowledgeable and very competent minority representatives, in my administration as a whole, and also to Federal judgeships and other similar positions in the regulatory agencies.,Now, in my opinion, the people in our Nation who will most benefit from controlling inflation are the ones who are most damaged by it, and that's the ones on low incomes, on fixed incomes, who have to face day after day an 18- or 20-percent increase in cost of the things they have to buy on those relatively fixed incomes. There will be some transient inconvenience or disappointment, but it will be much less than the permanent damage to the quality of life of those poor people on the long term if we do not get inflation under control.,So, in my judgment the best thing that I could do for the people about whom I am deeply concerned, the disadvantaged and the poor, is to take every step to control inflation. The cuts that we have put into our plans that will be revealed to the Congress very shortly have been worked out by the very liberal Members of the Congress who helped to initiate those programs in the first place. And as we have put together this package, we have had a special sensitivity for those who are most disadvantaged and have minimized the adverse effect on them by the cuts that will be proposed.,AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN,Q. Mr. President, can you give us some new word on the hostage situation in Iran? Is the administration content to just wait until the parliament is elected, or do you have any plan to resolve this? Do you plan to bring any more pressures on Iran?,THE PRESIDENT. We are not content for the innocent American hostages to be held by terrorists for one single day. This is an abhorrent act in direct violation not only of international law but the very Islamic principles which these militants profess to espouse and to support. We have done everything we possibly could in the last 4 months to honor the principles of our Nation, to protect the interests of our Nation, to try to preserve in every way the health and the lives of those hostages, and to work for their freedom.,I don't know when they'll be released. We have constant negotiations and attempts to provide continuing communication with the leaders of Iran. I believe that when there's a stable government in Iran, which may possibly occur after the elections—the vote, as you know, began today. But our past few days have been characterized by bitter disappointments, because, in effect, commitments that had been made by the newly elected President and administration of Iran were not honored, because prior to these parliamentary elections they obviously do not have the authority to speak and carry out their own commitment. Whether they'll have that authority after the elections are completed I don't know. I certainly hope so.,SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY,Q. Mr. President, how much longer before you will feel that you have whipped, to use your phrase, Senator Kennedy's donkey? [Laughter] Will it take the Illinois primary, or New York? At what point do you feel that you will have this job done?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think we've got 35 or 36 primaries, and the rest are caucus States. During this 5-day period, I think, we've got 11 elections. We've done very well recently in those contests, but the acknowledgement of defeat is a judgment to be made completely by my opponents, and not by me. And I have no indication arid no expectation that there would be any termination to their election efforts anytime in the near future.,IRANIAN IMMIGRANTS,Q. Sir, why did we let in over 9,000 Iranians to come here and be citizens of this country after they took our hostages? Was that an accident or what happened?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it's not an accident. There's a difference between a great and a free and compassionate democratic nation on the one hand, and other countries from which refugees flee, looking for freedom, looking for the right to worship as they please, trying to escape possible persecution. We have screened the immigrants very closely, and in every instance, they have been determined to have a real, genuine, legal interest and reason for coming to our country.,It would not be advisable for us, it would not be humane for us, it would not even be decent for us, in my opinion, when we have an intense confrontation-an extremely emotional confrontation with a revolutionary country like Iran, to refuse to accept refugees who are trying to escape circumstances there and coming to our Nation for a haven. This was a decision made by me, it's in accordance with the American law, and I believe it's in the best interests of our own country to do so.,GASOLINE CONSERVATION FEE,Q. Mr. President, would you please explain how an oil import fee of four dollars and sixty-some odd cents per barrel, and an eventual 10-cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline will help fight inflation, rather than create more inflation?,THE PRESIDENT. The immediate result of that will not be a reduction in inflation. It will be an increase in the inflationary status of our country, as measured by the CPI. But what we must do is to cut down on our excessive dependence on imported oil.,This year, we're going to send out of our Nation between eighty and ninety billion dollars of hard-earned American money to foreign countries to buy their oil. As we import that excessive amount of oil, we also import inflation and unemployment. When we reduce our unwarranted demands to buy the existing amount of oil that exists on the world markets, it causes a lessening in demand and therefore tends to hold down prices.,I believe that because of our action in cutting down oil imports and conservation measures, combined with that of other major oil-importing countries, we have already seen some moderation of the price of oil. I have no belief at all that 1980 will see anything like the increase in oil prices that resulted in 1979 when demand exceeded the available supply.,So, we benefit in two ways: One is keeping the money and the jobs in our own Nation, instead of sending it overseas. And secondly, we help to moderate the worldwide price for energy which ;viii have a major effect in cutting down inflationary pressures in our country in the future.,But there will be some transient, temporary adverse effect because of the increase that I will bring about by the conservation fee.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, sir.
#> 6 SITUATION IN IRAN,THE PRESIDENT. Since the day our Embassy was seized in Tehran, we have had two goals: one, the safety and release of the Americans being held hostage, and the other is the protection of our national interest in this critical area of the world. Since that first day, we have pursued every possibility to achieve these goals. No stone has been left unturned in the search for a solution.,Over the past several weeks, our efforts and our activities have become particularly delicate and intense. Recently there have been some positive signs, although experience has taught us to guard against excessive optimism.,Since mid-November, we and the Iranian officials have been discussing with Secretary-General Waldheim of the United Nations his proposal to send a commission of inquiry to Tehran. We would support steps by the United Nations that would lead to the release of the hostages if the steps are consistent with our goals and our essential international principles. An appropriate commission with a carefully defined purpose would be a step toward resolution of this crisis.,I know that you and the American people will understand that I cannot afford at this delicate time to discuss or to comment further upon any specific efforts that may be underway or any proposals that may be useful in ending this crisis.\nThank you.,QUESTIONS,SHAH OF IRAN,Q. You cut me off at the pass. Mr. President, do you think it was proper for the United States to restore the Shah to the throne in 1953 against the popular will within Iran?,THE PRESIDENT. That's ancient history, and I don't think it's appropriate or helpful for me to go into the propriety of something that happened 30 years ago.,SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY,Q. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy appears to have taken off the gloves in his direct contest with you, and today some of your closest associates have seemed to do likewise in rebuttal. I wonder, what is your position: Are you going to turn the other cheek to Senator Kennedy, or do you have a rebuttal to his harsh criticisms of the last few days?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the statement that was made today by the Secretary of State and by others in answer to Senator Kennedy's speech last night and his previous statements, I think, were appropriate. There is no cause to prevent an open discussion and a free debate of the issues in a political forum, on a campaign trail, and in a meeting like this. But there must be bounds of both propriety and accuracy in the presentation of views by a responsible official, including a United States Senator and also including a candidate for the highest office of our country.,SOVIET INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN,Q. Mr. President, if the crisis in Afghanistan is real and as serious as you have said it is—if it is, does the U.S. have the military capacity to cope with it, short of using a nuclear weapon?,THE PRESIDENT. The crisis is a great one, precipitated by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for several reasons. First of all, this is a crucial area of the world—to us, to our allies, and to other nations. Twothirds of all the oil exported in the entire world come from the Persian Gulf region. Secondly, it's a highly volatile, rapidly changing, unstable part of the world. Third, the Soviets have been indulging in a steady military buildup over a number of years, which has caused us concern and to which we have reacted since I've been in this office. Fourth, the Soviets—a major departure from anything they've done since the Second World War—have now exhibited a willingness to use their military forces beyond their own borders, in a massive invasion of Afghanistan.,The reaction that I have taken to these steps are appropriate and, I believe and hope, adequate. We must convince the Soviet Union, through peaceful means, peaceful means, that they cannot invade an innocent country with impunity and they must suffer the consequences of their action.,Everything we've done has been to contribute to stability, moderation, consistency, persistence, and peace. We have taken actions on our own, and we have asked our allies and others to join in with us in the condemnation of the Soviet Union and the demand that the Soviets withdraw from Afghanistan and to convince them that any further adventurism on their part would cause grave consequences to the Soviet Union.,In my judgment our forces are adequate. We cannot afford to let the Soviets choose either the terrain or the tactics to be used by any other country—a nation that might be invaded, their neighbors, our allies, or ourselves—if-they should persist in their aggressive action. Those judgments would have to be made at the time. But I believe they're adequate.,SENATOR KENNEDY,Q. Mr. President, I'd like you to respond directly to two of Senator Kennedy's criticisms. One, he says that you rejected the idea of this commission with Iran until just recently. And two, he says that Afghanistan might not have happened if you'd paid more attention to the signs and had been more resolute in advance; he says the Russians might not have invaded Afghanistan.,THE PRESIDENT. It's not my inclination to respond to every allegation, erroneous allegation, that Senator Kennedy has made, but what you've asked is typical of what causes me the deepest concern. First of all, his statements have not been true, they've not been accurate, and they've not been responsible, and they've not helped our country.,When the hostages were originally seized—an act of international violence contradicting every norm of diplomacy and international law—Senator Kennedy insinuated that because we had given medical treatment to the Shah, that somehow the seizure of our own hostages was not the fault of the terrorists who took them, but the fault of the United States.,Senator Kennedy has also said that the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union was not only not very serious but that somehow or another the Soviets were not the culpable party, but the United States was at fault and somehow caused or contributed to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.,And more recently he has insinuated-again, falsely—that some action or lack of action on my part or the United States part had perpetuated the incarceration of the American hostages.,This thrust of what he's said throughout the last few weeks is very damaging to our country, and to the establishment of our principles and the maintenance of them, and the achieving of our goals to keep the peace and to get our hostages released.,SITUATION IN AFGHANISTAN,Q. Mr. President, in .Afghanistan again, sir, what kind of regime would be acceptable to you? The Russians have said that if they withdraw, they would leave—I think have left the indication that they would leave a puppet regime. Would you insist on a neutralist regime, or what ideas have you on it?,THE PRESIDENT. What we would like to have, first of all, is a Soviet withdrawal and a commitment, that might be verified and carried out, that the Soviets would not invade another country or use their military forces beyond their borders again to destabilize the peace. We would like to have a neutral country. If there had to be a transition phase during which a neutral and responsible government might be established acceptable to the Afghanistan people, then perhaps some peacekeeping force espoused by the United Nations, maybe comprised of Moslem military troops or otherwise, could be used during that transition phase.,But the prime consideration that I have is to make sure that the Soviets know that their invasion is not acceptable, to marshal as much support from other nations of the world as possible, and to prevent any further threat to the peace and the cause of war. I think through strength we can maintain peace. But we've got to be resolute, we've got to be consistent, and our actions have got to be in a tone of long-range, predictable action clearly understood by the Soviet Union.,DEFENSE SPENDING,Q. Mr. President, you call for an increase of about 5 percent in military defense spending. Some Members of Congress have suggested that that might be too small, given the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. Would you support a plan by Congress to go as far as doubling the current 5-percent increase in military spending?,THE PRESIDENT. Ever since the first year I've been President, we've had a substantial and steady increase in spending for defense, because I recognized that we had some defects in our defense capability when I became President. I might add, in complete accuracy, that President Ford had initiated this buildup shortly before he went out of office. It's one I've continued.,In my opinion, the military budget that we have presented to the Congress in recent weeks is the appropriate level of expenditures. It's very carefully matched to how rapidly we can purchase and develop weapons and accurately matched to the ultimate goals of deployment of our troops, the mobility of our troops, and the interrelationship with our allies.,I'm not saying that there would be no fine tuning or some modification to the budget that wouldn't be acceptable to me, but I would resist very strongly any effort—as has been proposed just recently-to cut the defense budget below what I proposed.,PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,Q. Mr. President, when you say that Senator Kennedy—that his statements have not been accurate, responsible, and that they've not helped our country, and when he and his aides say that your own campaign has been misleading and negative and taking cheap shots, how can that do anything but further and bitterly divide the Democrats? And aren't you both helping Republicans in the general election?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, I might point out to you that I'm an incumbent Democratic President. I didn't ask for a challenger— [laughter] —but have no aversion to a campaign, as was indicated by my opening statement and is further confirmed by the fact that I have to negotiate with many other leaders around the world, including carrying out the principles of the Mideast peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, put into effect very complicated proposals like the grain embargo and a restraint on shipments of high technology equipment to the Soviet Union and the implementation of our commitment that athletes should not go to Moscow to participate in the Olympics as long as Soviet invasion troops are in Afghanistan. These kinds of things are very time-consuming to me.,I'm a campaigner; I'm a candidate. I've had some success in politics as an active campaigner. And it would obviously be much better for me to be on the campaign trail in Minnesota or New Hampshire than to be closed up here in the White House dealing with these issues that I consider to be of paramount importance. And I look forward to the time when the hostages are released and I can go out and campaign actively and recruit votes and delegates to my cause.,But I have no aversion to the issues being discussed, and I think, as has already been pointed out in this press conference, there are sharp, identifiable, wellknown differences between me and the Senator, that have been clearly expressed by me from the White House and also have been expressed by him out in the different parts of the country.,I might say additionally that I have not secluded myself. In the last 2 months I have had cross-examination by news people, open forums. I've made a major speech on the State of the Union and others. I've not hidden my positions at all. My proposals have been very clear. But I look forward to the time when I can campaign without restraint and I can take care of the other issues, if the American hostages are released.,I might add one other personal point. We cannot lessen the commitment of the American people that a crisis does indeed exist as long as 50 innocent Americans are being held hostage by kidnapers. Some attenuation or lowering of the focused attention on the hostages is inevitable, but I, as President, have got to maintain the accurate image that we do have a crisis which I will not ignore until those hostages are released. I want the American people to know it, I want the Iranians to know it, I want the hostages' families and the hostages to know it, I want the world to know that I am not going to resume business as usual as a partisan campaigner out on the campaign trail until our hostages are back here, free and at home.,CAMPAIGN DEBATES,Q. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy has made your decision not to debate a major campaign issue. I wonder if you could clarify for the record when you might be willing to debate. If the hostages are released, would you be willing to debate then, or would you want to wait until the Soviets leave Afghanistan? Do you think you will debate your Democratic challengers before the general election in the fall?,THE PRESIDENT. As I've just said, when the hostages are released, I would resume normal campaigning. Whether or not or when a debate would be appropriate would have to be decided in the future, when I assess the invitations received and the circumstances prevailing then.,GOVERNMENT LOANS TO CORPORATIONS,Q. Mr. President, this is an issue on which you and Senator Kennedy agree, and that's the bailout of Chrysler. Now, you know President Nixon bailed out Lockheed, ostensibly to take care of the corporation. That's a traditional Republican ally. Some of your aides indicate that you were more concerned about union jobs at Chrysler.,My question goes, though, that both Republican and Democratic administrations and Senator Kennedy are—this is on the road to socialism, government support, aid, subsidies for these very large corporations; this should be a repugnant trend in our society of free enterprise. Do you favor Congress studying this issue, drawing a line on this issue, or with each corporation—especially in a recession or this threatened recession, further failures-more policies of subsidies, of bailouts for these major corporations?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I wouldn't adopt it as a policy that we would pursue time after time after time. But I did strongly support the legislation passed to guarantee loans for Chrysler provided they got adequate financing to match what the Government effort would be.,In my judgment the Government loan would be secure. It would require Chrysler to take corrective action and to get financing elsewhere, and required a substantial contribution from the workers in Chrysler to make sure that Chrysler was financially able to proceed as a viable corporation. When that legislation was put on my desk, I signed it with enthusiasm.,1980 SUMMER OLYMPICS,Q. Mr. President, you have said, sir, that the Soviets have to be made to pay a price for invading Afghanistan, and your counsel has said that our boycott of the Olympics is not intended to be punitive. How do you explain the seeming difference between these two positions?,THE PRESIDENT. We have no desire to use the Olympics to punish, except the Soviets attach a major degree of importance to the holding of the Olympics in the Soviet Union. In their own propaganda material they claim that the willingness of the International Olympics Committee to let the games be held in Moscow is an endorsement of the foreign policy and the peace-loving nature of the Soviet Union.,To me it's unconscionable for any nation to send athletes to the capital of a nation under the aegis of the Olympics when that nation, that host nation, is actively involved in the invasion of and the subjugation of innocent people. And so, for that reason, I don't believe that we are at all obligated to send our athletes to Moscow.,And I would like to repeat, if the Soviet Union does not withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by the 20th of this month, then neither I nor the American people nor the Congress will support the sending of an Olympic team to Moscow this summer.,SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRATION,Q. Mr. President, do you believe that draft-age youth are overreacting to your registration policy with their fears that this will directly lead to the draft?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think they're overreacting. I have not called for and do not anticipate calling for a draft. The best way to prevent having a draft in the future and mobilization of our Nation's efforts, both natural and human efforts, is to be prepared. The registration which I have called for, and which I am sure the Congress will approve, will permit us to save 90 to 100 days, weeks or even months, in a mobilization effort, if it should be called for in the future. We are not advocating the draft; we are advocating registration for a draft.,I might point out, too, that this will marshal an additional discussion and commitment among the American people and a realization that the peace is threatened and that everything that I am trying to do, working with the Congress and others, is to take peaceful action, preventive action, to prevent the Soviets taking further steps that might lead to a war.,Fifty-five other countries in the world that I know about, including most of our major allies, not only have registration but have the active, ongoing draft, and this includes countries like Mexico, Germany, France, Norway, Belgium, Switzerland. Many other countries, 55 of them, have the actual draft. I'm not advocating a draft. So, there has been a gross overreaction. And I think that registration for the draft will help us in other ways that I need not detail, in concert.,1980 SUMMER OLYMPICS,Q. Mr. President, if the Soviets by any chance should remove their troops from Afghanistan between February 20 and May 24, when the Olympic committees have to give their decisions, is there any possibility you might change your mind and then support sending the American team to Moscow?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't see any possibility of that.,YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING,Q. Mr. President, your $2 billion youth budget employment program has only $3 million [$300 million] requested for employment in 1981, and $900 million will go for training of these children through the schools that have already passed over these children. And this budget will not become fully operational until 1982. So, isn't this budget deceptive and misleading, as the Black Caucus says?,THE PRESIDENT. No, it's not. I believe it's accurate to say that the Labor Department and the Education Department will be moving to implement the youth employment program as rapidly as we possibly can. It won't be a lack of money appropriated by the Congress that will slow down the process at all.,I'd like to point out that in the last 3 years we've had notable success in improving the employment situation.. We've had an annual growth in employment of 3 1/2 percent per year since I've been in the White House as President. We've added 9 million new jobs, and of the people who've got new jobs, we've had 50 percent more new jobs for minorities than we have for all other people who've benefited from our employment programs.,So, I think the narrow focusing of the new program on youth and also on minority youth will be a major boon to those who have been deprived too much in the past because of unemployment. It's certainly not misleading and would be implemented as rapidly as the bureaucracy can function, as employers can be identified, and as the training can be provided for these young people who want jobs, but in the past have not been able to get them.,U.S. RELATIONS WITH ALLIES,Q. Mr. President, as you know, the French have not agreed to go to a Foreign Ministers conference in Rome later this month. The West Germans have not agreed to the Olympic boycott, and there's been some dissatisfaction, I understand, with your administration's reaction to the Japanese. Have you been entirely satisfied with the Japanese, the French, and the West German reactions to your call for punishment and sanctions against the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. In general, I have been well pleased, yes. There's a remarkable degree of unanimity among all our major allies about the seriousness of the Soviet threat into Afghanistan and the actions that must be taken to counter that threat and prevent further aggression by the Soviet Union.,There are nuances of difference. The countries are different; they have different perspectives; they have different forms of government. Some are coalition governments where the Prime Minister has a different party represented in his Foreign Minister and so forth. We do have times when we get aggravated and displeased, for instance, with the French. There are times when the French get aggravated and displeased by us.,The recent disagreement on exactly the time and the composition and the secrecy to be maintained by the Foreign Ministers meeting was unfortunate. My understanding of it was derived from a telephone conversation with Chancellor Schmidt after he met several days with President Giscard d'Estaing. My understanding was that the date and the place had been arranged by them and that I was conforming to their request. That was not the same understanding that the French had. We did not communicate adequately. But that's just a minor difference compared to the major agreements on which we base present and future policy among us allies.,EDUCATION OF PUBLIC ABOUT MILITARY SERVICE,Q. Sir, I wonder if you think that we really need a national effort to try to make people better informed about their need for cooperation to fill these vacancies in the military.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we do need, I think, a better education for this purpose. We've got—as you know, now about 8 percent of our military forces are comprised of women. And we anticipate, with no changes in present circumstances, that in 5 years, by 1985, we'll increase that by 50 percent, to 12 percent of our total Armed Forces. Women now fill about 95 percent of the different kinds of billets that we have available in all our Armed Forces combined.,I think many people believe that we're going to a draft soon. We have no intention or need for implementing the draft. Some people believe that I've advocated the use of women in combat. I have no intention of advocating to the Congress and the Congress would never approve any legislation that would permit women to engage in actual combat.,So, the need to educate people about what our proposals might be is real, and I believe that when the Congress starts debating this issue, as we decide details about the program for registration, that will create new opportunities for people to understand it better.,ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM AND OIL PRICES,Q. Mr. President, the goals of your anti-inflation program, as incorporated within the voluntary wage and price guidelines, attempt to hold down prices, including those charged by oil companies here. However, these goals appear to conflict with the goals of your energy program, which are to conserve oil and relieve our reliance on foreign oil through allowing the prices of gasoline, heating oil, and diesel fuel to rise. Does your administration, sir, have plans to deal with this conflict, and do these plans include excluding oil company prices and profits from the anti-inflation guidelines?,THE PRESIDENT. There is no doubt that there are many conflicts that presently exist in our very confused energy situation. What we need is a final action by the Congress on the legislative proposals that I have made to them that will give us, for the first time in history, a comprehensive, clear, understandable, legal energy policy.,There are only two ways that we can reduce imports of foreign oil: One is to increase production in our own country, energy of all kinds; and secondly, to improve conservation, to cut out waste. In my judgment the artificial holding down, by subsidies and otherwise, of the price of oil conflicts with both these principles, because if oil is excessively cheap, financed by the general public, then that means that the people use too much of it and probably waste some. And also, it prevents competitive forms of energy, like solar power, for instance, from being developed, because solar power has to compete with an excessively cheap price of oil.,There is no doubt—I don't want to mislead anybody—that everywhere in the world, oil prices and general energy prices have been going up, and there is no doubt that in the future those prices will continue to go up. But every American will be benefited if we cut out waste, continue to conserve, produce more energy here at home, and shift to more plentiful supplies of energy, particularly those that are replenishable, that come directly from the sun.,I might point out that the American people, as the result of partially implementing our new energy policy, have been conserving energy very well. We import now about a million barrels a day of foreign oil less than we did the day I was inaugurated. And in this last year alone, we've cut down consumption of energy overall about 5 percent; gasoline in December was 10 percent less consumed than December a year ago.,We've got a long way to go. But the American consciousness had to be built up that there is indeed an energy crisis; that we do indeed, as you point out so wisely, have major conflicts in our programs in the past that prevented progress; and we need a clear and consistent, well-understood policy to put into effect in our country,,EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT,Q. Mr. President, is it the policy of your administration to boycott, wherever possible, States that have not ratified ERA? I'm referring to a memo that—,THE PRESIDENT. No, that's not my policy.,U.S. POLICY TOWARD YUGOSLAVIA,Q. Mr. President, you once said that you weren't sure whether American troops should ever be used to defend Yugoslavia. Marshal Tito is sick. In light of Afghanistan, do you still feel that way?,THE PRESIDENT. We have had close discussions with the Yugoslavian leaders, including Marshal Tito when he was here not too long ago. The overall message that they give to us, which I accept as accurate, is that Yugoslavia is a strong, fiercely independent, courageous, well-equipped nation that can defend itself. If we are called upon to give any kind of aid to the Yugoslavian people in the future, we would seriously consider it and do what, in our opinion, would be best for them and for us.,I've had frequent conversations recently with other major European leaders about the need to strengthen our ties with Yugoslavia and to protect them as a nonaligned country, without being dominated or threatened successfully by the Soviet Union. We'll take whatever action is necessary to carry out those goals, but commensurate with actual need .and commensurate with specific requests from Yugoslavia itself.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much.
#> 7 SITUATION IN IRAN,THE PRESIDENT. For the last 24 days our Nation's concern has been focused on our fellow Americans being held hostage in Iran. We have welcomed some of them home to their families and their friends. But we will not rest nor deviate from our efforts until all have been freed from their imprisonment and their abuse. We hold the Government of Iran fully responsible for the well-being and the safe return of every single person.,I want the American people to understand the situation as much as possible, but there may be some questions tonight which I cannot answer fully, because of my concern for the well-being of the hostages.,First of all, I would like to say that I am proud of this great Nation, and I want to thank all Americans for their prayers, their courage, their persistence, their strong support and patience. During these past days our national will, our courage, and our maturity have all been severely tested, and history will show that the people of the United States have met every test.,In the days to come, our determination may be even more sorely tried, but we will continue to defend the security, the honor, and the freedom of Americans everywhere. This Nation will never yield to blackmail. For all Americans, our constant concern is the well-being and the safety of our fellow citizens who are being held illegally and irresponsibly hostage in Iran.,The actions of Iran have shocked the civilized world. For a government to applaud mob violence and terrorism, for a government actually to support and, in effect, participate in the taking and the holding of hostages is unprecedented in human history. This violates not only the most fundamental precepts of international law but the common ethical and religious heritage of humanity. There is no recognized religious faith on Earth which condones kidnaping. There is no recognized religious faith on Earth which condones blackmail. There is certainly no religious faith on Earth which condones the sustained abuse of innocent people.,We are deeply concerned about the inhuman and degrading conditions imposed on the hostages. From every corner of the world, nations and people have voiced their strong revulsion and condemnation of Iran and have joined us in calling for the release of the hostages.,Last night, a statement of support was released and was issued by the President of the United Nations General Assembly, the Security Council, on behalf of all of its members. We expect a further Security Council meeting on Saturday night, at which more firm and official action may be taken to help in obtaining the release of the American hostages. Any claims raised by government officials of Iran will ring hollow while they keep innocent people bound and abused and threatened.,We hope that this exercise of diplomacy and international law will bring a peaceful solution, because a peaceful solution is preferable to the other remedies available to the United States. At the same time, we pursue such a solution with grim determination. The Government of Iran must recognize the gravity of the situation, which it has itself created, and the grave consequences which will result if harm comes to any of the hostages.,I want the American people to know and I want the world to know that we will persist in our efforts, through every means available, until every single American has been freed. We must also recognize now, as we never have before, that it is our entire Nation which is vulnerable, because of our overwhelming and excessive dependence on oil from foreign countries. We have got to accept the fact that this dependence is a direct physical threat to our national security, and we must join together to fight for our Nation's energy freedom.,We know the ways to win this war: more American energy and the more efficient use of what we have. The United States Congress is now struggling with this extremely important decision. The way to victory is long and difficult, but we have the will, and we have the human and the natural resources of our great Nation.,However hard it might be to see into the future, one thing tonight is clear: We stand together. We stand as a nation unified, a people determined to protect the life and the honor of every American. And we are determined to make America an energy-secure nation once again. It is unthinkable that we will allow ourselves to be dominated by any form of overdependence at home or any brand of terrorism abroad. We are determined that the freest nation on Earth shall protect and enhance its freedom.\nI'd be glad to answer questions.,QUESTIONS,\nWORLD REACTION TO IRANIAN SITUATION,Q. Mr. President, the Ayatollah Khomeini said the other day—and I'm using his words—he doesn't believe you have the guts to use military force. He puts no credibility in our military deterrent. I'm wondering, how do we get out of this mess in Iran and still retain credibility with our allies and with our adversaries overseas?,THE PRESIDENT. We have the full support of our allies, and in this particular instance, we have no adversaries overseas. There is no civilized country on Earth which has not condemned the seizure and the holding of the hostages by Iran.,It would not be advisable for me to explore publicly all of the options open to our country. As I said earlier, I'm determined to do the best I can through diplomatic means and through peaceful means to ensure the safety of our hostages and their release. Other actions which I might decide to take would come in the future, after those peaceful means have been exhausted.,But I believe that the growing condemnation of the world community on Iran will have a beneficial effect.,SHAH OF IRAN,Q. Mr. President, why did you reverse your policy and permit the Shah to come into this country when, one, medical treatment was available elsewhere; two, you had been warned by our charge that the Americans might be endangered in Tehran; and three, the Bazargan government was so shaky that it was questionable whether he could deliver on the promise to protect our Embassy? And last of all, in view of the consequences, do you regret the decision?,THE PRESIDENT. No. The decision that I made, personally and without pressure from anyone, to carry out the principles of our country, to provide for the means of giving the Shah necessary medical assistance to save his life, was proper. At the same time, we notified the Government of Iran. We were assured by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister that our Embassy would be protected, and it was protected for several days, in spite of threats from outside.,Then peremptorily, after Khomeini made an aggravating speech to the crowds in the street and withdrew protection from the Embassy, it was attacked successfully. The Embassy was protected by our people for the length of time possible without help from the host government. No embassy on Earth is a fortress that can withstand constant attacks by a mob, unless a host government comes to the rescue of the people within the embassy.,But I took the right decision. I have no regrets about it nor apologies to make, because it did help to save a man's life, and it was compatible with the principles of our country.,EFFECT ON U.S. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES,Q. Mr. President, we appear to be in a rather dangerous period of international tension and volatility, especially in the Islamic world, and it comes at a time when we're about to embark on our quadrennial election campaign, with all that that will bring. Have you given any thought to whether, following examples of other national emergencies, it may be wise to try to mute the political fallout of this by trying to bring opponents in and outside of your party into some kind of emergency coalition for this purpose?,THE PRESIDENT. We have attempted to keep the political leaders in our Nation informed, both publicly and through other channels. We have given frequent briefings, for instance, on the Hill, both to the Members of the Senate and to the House. We have encouraged all of those who have become announced candidates for President to restrain their comments, which might be misconstrued overseas, and to have a maximum degree of harmony among those who might be spokesmen for our country.,I myself, in order to stay close to the scene here, where constantly changing events could be handled by me as President, have eliminated the major portion of political-oriented activities.,I don't think the identity of the Islamic world is a factor. We have the deepest respect and reverence for Islam and for all those who share the Moslem faith. I might say that, so far as I know, all the Islamic nations have joined us in condemning the activities and the actions of the Government of Iran. So, I don't think religious divisions are a factor here at all.,But I will have to continue to restrict my own political activities and call on those who might be opposing me in the future for President to support my position as ,President and to provide unity for our country and for our Nation in the eyes of those who might be looking for some sign of weakness or division in order to perpetuate their abuse of our hostages.,SECURITY FOR EMBASSIES,Q. What can the U.S. do now, what can it do to prevent future incidents of the nature of Iran? How can you satisfy the public demand to end such embarrassment?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, this is an unprecedented and unique occurrence. Down through history, we have had times when some of our people were captured by terrorists or who were abused, and there have obviously been instances of international kidnaping which occurred for the discomfiture of a people or a government. So far as I know, this is the first time that such an activity has been encouraged by and supported by the government itself, and I don't anticipate this kind of thing recurring.,We have taken steps already, in view of the disturbances in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region, to guard our people more closely, to provide them with higher degree of security, and to make arrangements with the host governments to provide assistance, if it's needed, in the fastest possible way.,Many other nations have reduced severely the number of persons overseas. I think one of the points that should be made is that a year ago, we had 70,000 Americans in Iran—70,000. There were literally thousands of people who were killed in the Iranian revolution, from all nations. We were able to extract Americans from Iran safely. It was a superb demonstration of cooperation and good conduct on the part of the State Department and other American officials.,So, there will be disturbances in the future, but I think we are well protected as we possibly can be, without withdrawing into a shell, from protecting American interests in nations overseas.,My own experience, so far, has been that the leaders of nations have recommitted themselves to provide security for embassies of all countries. I think we've learned a lesson from this instance. But, because it is so unique, in the high degree of irresponsibility of the Iranian Government leaders, I don't believe that we'll see another reoccurrence of it any time soon.,HENRY KISSINGER,Q. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Kissinger has criticized your administration's handling of the situation in Iran. He has suggested that it came about because, partly because of the perceived weakness in American foreign policy, and that it has further damaged America's image as a result.\nHow do you respond?,THE PRESIDENT. I would rather not respond. There's no reason for me to get into a public debate at this time with former Secretary Kissinger about who is or who is not responsible for the events that took place in Iran.,Obviously, what has occurred could not have been predicted. And for 30 years, our country has had a relationship with a fairly stable government there. The changes took place very rapidly. So far as I know, no one on Earth predicted them.,And I think it's not becoming at this moment and not conducive to better American understanding to get involved in answering allegations that I or someone else may have been culpable and may have caused a further aggravation of a very difficult situation.,Q. Mr. President, just one followup. What role did the former Secretary play in your decision to permit the Shah into the country?,THE PRESIDENT. None. I did not hear at all from the Secretary, former Secretary Kissinger, nor did he contact Secretary Vance at any time during the days when we were deciding that the Shah should come into the United States for medical care to save his life. In previous weeks and months since the Shah was deposed, Secretary Kissinger and many others let it be known that they thought that we should provide a haven for the Shah. But Secretary Kissinger played no role in my decision to permit the Shah to come in for medical treatment.,SHAH OF IRAN,Q. Mr. President, speaking of the Shah, if he is well enough to travel, would you like him to leave the country?,THE PRESIDENT. That's a decision to be made by the Shah and by his medical advisers. When he decided to come to our country, with my permission, I was informed then, and I have been informed since, that as soon as his medical treatment was successfully completed, that his intention was to leave. And I have not encouraged him to leave. He was free to come here for medical treatment, and he will leave on his own volition.,U.S. RELATIONS WITH ISLAMIC NATIONS,Q. Mr. President, yes, I would like to follow up Mr. Schorr's [Daniel Schorr, Des Moines Register] question. The consequences of the crisis in Iran is drifting the United States into almost a cold war with the Islamic countries. Watching TV news for 25 days, Americans soon will believe the whole Moslem world is hating them. Moreover, they are not told that the Shiites are a very minor minority among the population of the Islamic world, because the most majority is Sunni. Don't you think you get any help from any Islamic country, and what will your policy be towards the Islamic countries under these circumstances?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the premise of your question is completely wrong. We're not approaching any sort of cold war with the Islamic countries. So far as I know, every Islamic country has condemned Iran for its capture of our hostages, and has been very supportive. This includes Moslem nations which, in the past, have not been close friends of ours—Iraq, Libya, and others. So, I don't see this as confrontation at all between our Nation and the Islamic world.,It's certainly not part of the Islamic faith to condone, as I said earlier, blackmail or the persecution or harm of innocent people or kidnaping or terrorism.,So, I think that we have a very good relationship with the people and the governments of the Islamic world, and I don't think it's deteriorated in this instance. In some ways, we've been drawn closer to these people, because they see what has occurred in Iran as something of a disgrace for their own religious faith, and they don't see this as typical of what Moslems believe.,I might add, also, that this is not typical of the Shiite faith, either. It's the misguided actions of a few people in Iran who are burning with hatred and a desire for revenge, completely contrary to the teachings of the Moslem faith.,U.S. REACTION TO IRANIAN SITUATION,Q. Mr. President, there's a feeling of hostility throughout the country toward Iran, because of the hostages. Senator Long said that the taking of our Embassy in Iran, in his words, is an act of war. There are rumors, since denied, that our Navy has been called up for service. I ask you, as our Commander in Chief, is war possible, is war thinkable?,THE PRESIDENT. It would be a mistake for the people of our country to have aroused within them hatred toward anyone; not against the people of Iran, and certainly not against Iranians who may be in our country as our guests. We certainly do not want to be guilty of the same violation of human decency and basic human principles that have proven so embarrassing to many of the Iranian citizens themselves.,We obviously prefer to see our hostages protected and released completely through peaceful means. And that's my deepest commitment, and that will be my goal. The United States has other options available to it, which will be considered, depending upon the circumstances. But I think it would not be well-advised for me to speak of those specifically tonight.,IRANIAN STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES,Q. Mr. President, we have had 55,000 Iranian students in this country. We've been very good to them, very hospitable. Even the new Finance Minister of Saudi Arabia was a student who once demonstrated in Washington against law and order. Shouldn't we be very careful in letting any of these students come in here? Shouldn't we screen them in the future and make them agree that they will not demonstrate?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, it's very difficult for an Iranian citizen or a student to get a visa at the American Embassy in Iran at this time [Laughter] And I think the influx of Iranians to our country now would be minimal.,I'm determined to enforce the law about Iranian students. Some of them have violated the law. They are now being screened; they are being assessed in their commitment and the legality of their presence here. We have already finished this procedure with more than 22,000. About 17,000 have proven to be here completely legally and are indeed fulltime students. Among the other 5,000, about several hundred have already departed; others are now having to prove that, contrary to the earliest evidence, they do indeed have a right to be in our country. If they are here illegally, they will be expelled.,There is one exception to that rule: If a citizen of Iran can prove that if he or she returned to Iran that they would be executed or abused because of their political beliefs, they can seek asylum here. And if that asylum, in our judgment, is justified, we will provide it for them.,But this procedure is going forward in accordance with American law, in accordance with American fairness, in accordance with the full principles of the United States Constitution.,DEADLINE FOR RELEASING AMERICAN\nHOSTAGES,Q. Mr. President, can this crisis go on indefinitely, or ought the Ayatollah Khomeini understand that at some point the American people may demand and other nations may expect that you move forward to resolve it by whatever means you find necessary?,THE PRESIDENT. It would not be possible or even advisable for me to set a deadline about when or if I would take certain action in the future. This is an ever-present consideration on my mind. I'm carrying out all of the duties that normally fall on a President's shoulder, which are adequate, but I never forget one moment that I'm awake about the hostages whose lives and whose safety depend on me. And I am pursuing every possible avenue to have the hostages released.,Any excessive threats or any excessive belief among the Iranians that they will be severely damaged by military action, as long as these negotiations are proceeding and as long as legalities can be followed, might cause the death of the hostages, which we are committed to avoid. So, that's one of the questions that I cannot answer: to set down a certain deadline beyond which we would take extra action, that might result in the harm or the death of the hostages.,We are proceeding, I guarantee you, in every possible way, every possible moment, to get the hostages freed and, at the same time, protect the honor and the integrity and the basic principles of our country. That's all I can do, but I am doing it to the best of my ability, and I believe we will be successful.,U.S. STRENGTH ABROAD,Q. Mr. President, many Americans view the Iranian situation as one in a succession of events that proves that this country's power is declining. How can you assure Americans tonight that our power is not declining abroad, and how are you reassessing priorities for the eighties in terms of foreign policy?,THE PRESIDENT. The United States has neither the ability nor the will to dominate the world, to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, to impose our will on other people whom we desire to be free, to make their own decisions. This is not part of the commitment of the United States.,Our country is the strongest on Earth. We're the strongest militarily, politically, economically, and I think we're the strongest morally and ethically. Our country has made great strides, even since I've been in office. I've tried to correct some of the defects that did exist. We have strengthened the military alliances of our country, for instance. NATO now has a new spirit, a new confidence, a new cohesion, improving its military capabilities, much more able to withstand any threat from the east, from the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact, than it was before.,We've espoused again the principles that unite Americans and make us admired throughout the world, raising the banner of human rights. We're going to keep it high. We have opened up avenues of communication, understanding, trade, with people that formerly were our enemies or excluded us—several nations in Africa, the vast people and the vast country of the People's Republic of China. In doing so, we've not alienated any of our previous friends.,I think our country is strong within itself. There is not an embarrassment now about our Government, which did exist in a few instances in years gone by. So, I don't see at all that our country has become weak. We are strong, and we are getting stronger, not weaker. But if anybody thinks that we can dominate other people with our strength, military or political strength or economic strength, they are wrong. That's not the purpose of our country.,Our inner strength, our confidence in ourselves, I think, is completely adequate. And I believe the unity that the American people have shown in this instance, their patience, is not at all a sign of weakness. It is a sign of sure strength.,INVESTIGATION OF THE SHAH,Q. Mr. President, serious charges have been placed against the Shah concerning the repression of his own people and the misappropriation of his nation's funds. Is there an appropriate vehicle to investigate those charges, and do you foresee a time when you would direct your administration to assist in that investigation?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know of any international forum within which charges have ever been brought against a deposed leader who has left his country. There have been instances of changing governments down through the centuries in history, and I don't know of any instance where such a leader, who left his country after his government fell, has been tried in an international court or in an international forum.,This is a matter that can be pursued. It should be pursued under international law, and if there is a claim against the Shah's financial holdings, there is nothing to prevent other parties from going into the courts, in accordance with the law of a nation or internationally, and seeking a redress of grievances which they claim.,But as I said earlier, I don't think there's any forum that will listen to the Iranians make any sort of claim, justified or not, as long as they hold against their will and abuse the hostages, in complete contravention to every international law and every precept or every commitment or principle of humankind.,BROOKS JACKSON [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much.
#> 8 THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.,Ms. Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International].,STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION; SOVIET\nTROOPS IN CUBA,Q. Mr. President, do you think that you have diffused the problem or issue of the Soviet brigade in Cuba and satisfied those who seek a bigger defense budget enough now to win SALT ratification this year, and if so, how?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe SALT will be ratified this year basically on its own merits. It's obvious to me that the SALT treaty is in the best interest of our country. It enhances the security of the United States; it contributes to world peace; it will strengthen our own alliances; it will preserve our place as a leader of the Western World; it will let it be more easy for us to control the spread of nuclear explosives all over the world.,In my opinion, we have answered the question of the Soviet combat unit in Cuba adequately. I think we've isolated any threat from that unit. We'll increase our surveillance there, and I believe that this obviously has been an important issue for us to address. I believe it's been addressed adequately.,As far as the defense budget is concerned, that still must be resolved. I'm committed to a 3-percent real growth in our defense. I've maintained that position for the last 3 years. It's important to us, to our allies, to American strength. If I see a need for increased defense programs, I would not hesitate to recommend them to the Congress.,THE NATION'S ECONOMY,Q. Mr. President, are you prepared to persevere in your support of tight money policies even if it begins to hurt you politically during the primaries?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. It's obvious that there are three entities in our Government which have been meticulously isolated either under the Constitution or the law and made independent. One is the Federal Reserve Board, which has a right, through various means, to determine the supply of money by changing interest rates, the reserve moneys that have to be retained by banks that cannot be lent, and so forth. The Congress has the ultimate responsibility on taxation, and the President has the best responsibility on preparing and submitting the budget to the Congress.,There's no doubt in my mind—and this is corroborated by my long discussions the last few weeks with labor, in reaching a labor accord—that I and labor and business and all those who are interested, including the Congress, agree that the number one threat to our national economy is inflation. And I intend to maintain it as a top priority and continue to work against inflation. So, whatever it takes to control inflation, that's what I will do.,I recognize that the inflationary impact falls much more heavily on those who are least able to afford the basic necessities of life. And I also recognize that there are some elements of inflation over which I have no control. The price of energy levied on the world by OPEC in the last 10 months has been an increase of 60 percent. Had it not been for energy price increases, for instance, the inflation rate during this summer would have been the same as it was in 1978 and 1977. So, I can't control energy prices levied on the world by OPEC.,But we'll continue to fight against inflation as a top economic priority.,U.S.-SOVIET RELATIONS,Q. Mr. President, what is your reaction to Dr. Kissinger's statement that the Soviet troops in Cuba are the first organized hostile force in this hemisphere since the Monroe Doctrine that we've accepted? And also, Mr. President, do you feel that the Soviet troops in Cuba symbolize the growing expansionism of the Russians, the Soviet Union?,THE PRESIDENT. The troops in Cuba have been there for a long time. I've not read Secretary Kissinger's speech; I've read news reports of it. Its basic premises are compatible with my own: that the presence of a Soviet combat unit there is a serious matter, which I think we have addressed as best we could; secondly, that this is not the most important matter of all, that above and beyond that, it's important to recognize and to do what we can to contain Cuban interventionism or adventurism around the world. As you know, this began primarily with the entrance of more than a 10,000 body of troops from Cuba into Angola in 1975, before I was President.,We do look upon this as a major threat. I have not seen any reports that Secretary Kissinger recommended different moves from the ones that I outlined to the Nation on the evening of October 1. So, we do share a common concern. I think that our response was measured and appropriate. I do not favor the Soviets extending their arm of influence to the Cubans or anyone else around the world.,This has been part of the history of the Soviet Union. We attempt to meet them and compete with them adequately, in my opinion, on a peaceful basis. And in my judgment, if we can control the military expenditures and have equality, have arms control, in my judgment, we can compete with the Soviets on a peaceful basis with an excellent prospect for victory.,The Soviets represent a totalitarian nation; we are committed to peace and freedom and democracy. The Soviets subjugate the rights of an individual human being to the rights of the state; we do just the opposite. The Soviets are an atheistic nation; we have deep and fundamental religious beliefs. The Soviets have a primary emphasis on the military aspect of their economy; ours is much more broadly based to give the benefits of economic growth to individual human beings. So, I believe that in addition to that, our raising a standard of human rights and the honoring of national aspirations, not trying to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, gives us an additional advantage in a peaceful competition with the Soviets.,So, I don't have any fear of or any: trepidation about that intense competition with the Soviets on a peaceful basis. I obviously want the same thing that President Brezhnev wants, that is, the avoidance of a nuclear war. So, we have some things in common, the avoidance of war. We have other things in common, a willingness to compete.,We've got advantages over them that I hope to utilize in the future as we have in the past.,JESSE JACKSON; FLORIDA CAUCUSES,Q. Mr. President, how do you think you'll fare in Florida? And also a second question—,THE PRESIDENT. I didn't hear the first one.,Q. How do you think you will fare in Florida for the Florida caucus poll? And also, will you plan on talking to Reverend Jesse Jackson in response to his meetings with Yasser Arafat?,THE PRESIDENT. Do I have my choice between those two questions? [Laughter],Q. I'd like you to answer both, if you would, sir.,THE PRESIDENT. I have no plans to talk to Reverend Jackson—I presume you mean about his recent trips to the Middle East. He has, or will make a report to Ambassador Strauss, who is our Mideast negotiator.,In Florida, I don't know how the caucus results will come out. This is one of the evidences of an increasingly early attention focused on a Presidential race. I don't think it is in the best interests of our country to start so early. The importance of the Florida caucuses, I think, will be assigned by the press, not by anything that I do. I don't intend to go down there to campaign. We do have people working for me in Florida, which I appreciate. And I think that since this is a first test between myself and other candidates who also are mounting an effort among their supporters, it will be significant.,But I cannot predict the outcome of the caucuses. I've seen no polls, have no indication about what the outcome might be.,VISIT OF THE POPE,Q. Mr. President, clearly the Pope on his visit to the United States and in Washington left an extraordinary impression beyond simply the religious.,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Have you reflected on the meaning of the Pope's visit to the United States?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. Could you discuss that?,THE PRESIDENT. In addition to being with him in public and when we met with the members of my family in the White House, I had an extensive private conversation with the Pope, and we discussed this particular question. We were both surprised at the degree of warmth and enthusiasm among American people in welcoming the Pope. I expected the welcome to be warm and friendly, but I had no idea that it would be that enthusiastic and that large a number of people, and neither did he.,I think there's an innate hunger in our country for moral and ethical and religious principles, things that do not change during a time of rapid change brought about by a technological revolution throughout the world. I believe there's a hunger for things that are decent and honest, for principles of which we can be proud. I think the Pope as a religious leader accurately mirrors for many people those aspirations and hopes.,I think it shows that this hemisphere is the most deeply religious, perhaps, in the world, certainly the most deeply religious Christian population in the world. We had long discussions about what this meant in other nations, the threat of atheism as espoused and enforced by the state against the inherent desire of people for religious belief.,But I believe this was one of the most dramatic and, I think, potentially the most beneficial visits we've ever had from a leader in the world. I was very thrilled to meet him and believe that his visit will have benefits for our country.,DEPLOYMENT OF U.S. FORCES,Q. Mr. President, in your speech on Cuba the other night, you spoke about wanting to increase the capabilities of our rapid deployment force.,THE PRESIDENT. Forces.,Q. Forces. I wondered if you could say under what circumstances you would be willing to intervene militarily in the Middle East.,THE PRESIDENT. I see no prospect at this point for our intervention militarily in any place in the world. That would be a judgment that I would only make if I thought the security of our country was directly threatened.,SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY,Q. Mr. President, the other night in Queens, in the context of answering the question about your leadership and Senator Kennedy, you said you had never panicked in a crisis. Now, there was some interpretation that this was a reference to Senator Kennedy's behavior at Chappaquiddick. And you subsequently, or Jody subsequently denied it.,Let me ask you specifically, do you think Chappaquiddick indicates that President Kennedy's character is somewhat flawed, and will this be a continued issue in the primaries if he enters?,THE PRESIDENT. I think it was Senator Kennedy to whom you refer. [Laughter],I did not refer to Senator Kennedy's experience at Chappaquiddick in Queens, and I have no desire to comment on it now.,INTERNATIONAL MONETARY POLICY,Q. Mr. President, further on the Fed tight money policy, figures such as the West German Finance Minister Emminget 1 and Democratic Party Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche have charged that this is leading us rapidly towards the Crash of '79. Will you move to stabilize the dollar in the economy by collaborating with Europe on their moves to demonetize gold as LaRouche and others have suggested?,1 Otmar Emminger is president of the Deutsche Bundesbank, the Federal Republic of Germany's equivalent of the U.S. Federal Reserve System.,THE PRESIDENT. I doubt that that's in prospect, certainly not for this year. We do cooperate with our allies and friends and trade partners in order to stabilize the worldwide monetary system, including at times the interrelationship between currencies from one country and another and sometimes the basic metals. I don't see any threat to the well-being of any American because of a rapidly increasing price of gold, except those who have sold early or bought late. But as far as the average citizen's concerned, the price of gold, whether it's $200 an ounce or $400, has very little impact.,Recently, the Federal Reserve Board has decided to raise interest rates and take other steps concerning the reserve supply of money to be kept on hand by banks. This has resulted in a strengthening of the dollar, which had already begun to strengthen. And I believe that it's well within the bounds of management; it's stable. I noticed an analysis that showed that in the last year the price of the dollar, the value of the dollar, as compared to currencies of all our trade partners, has increased substantially. Among the OPEC nations and their trade partners the value of the dollar, even 'before we made this recent move, had increased 8 percent over the last year.,So, I believe the dollar is stable, I believe the world economy is stable, and I see no prospect of shifting to a rigid price of gold and a gold standard.,1980 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,Q. Sir, two more political questions in light of Senator Kennedy's prospective challenge of you. One, as you did in 1976, would you be willing to debate the Senator and other candidates in the primaries? And two, if you lost, would you support the Democratic nominee actively? And if you won, would you expect your opponents to do the same for you?,THE. PRESIDENT. That's a lot of conjecture. We don't have any candidates yet who have declared. I look forward to the campaign with a great deal of anticipation and confidence. And I think the normal routine interrelationships among candidates would probably prevail in 1980, as they did in 1976.,There were no official debates, as such, until the general election in 1976, when president Ford and I, as a nominee, were given that opportunity. But I feel at ease about it. I will protect my record, which I think is a good one. And as I say, I look forward to the campaign with anticipation and confidence.,Q. Mr. President, may I follow up? Will you support the winner of the convention?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes. My presumption is—,Q. And second, your opponents support you if you win?,THE PRESIDENT. My presumption is that I would support whatever Democrat gets the nomination. I have always voted Democratic.,ECONOMIC POLICY,Q. Mr. President, wholesale prices continue to increase, indicating that there will be further inflation at the retail level throughout the rest of this year and perhaps longer. Most of the predictions that you've made and your economic advisers have made about the economy have proved to be on the low side and are constantly being revised upward, especially with regard to inflation.,Don't you think it's about time for some kind of reevaluation of your economic programs and policies? Are you going to just continue to go along on the same course, or do you think any kind of reexamination of your policy is indicated?,THE PRESIDENT. I think so far the program has been well conceived, and I think it has some very beneficial results. We are all surprised at the rate of inflation, brought about primarily, as I said, by an annual rate of increase of energy prices the last few months of more than 100 percent per year. Also, as I said earlier, if you could discount those energy increases, the rate of inflation would be the same this year as it was the preceding 2 years.,We have cut the budget deficit by $36 billion since I've been elected. We have reduced the total number of employees in the Federal Government. We've reduced the percentage of the gross national product being spent by the Government by 2 full percent, from 23 1/2 down to 21 1/2. We've cut paperwork by 15 percent. We've begun a strong move to deregulate, that is, to get the Government's nose out of the private business sector and the lives of private people. We've had a very stringent effort made to eliminate unwarranted spending, and we've moved when necessary to stabilize the value of the dollar.,We've also proposed to the Congress for the first time a means by which we could reduce the inflationary impact of importing 50 percent of our oil. This has been a long, slow, tedious process, but I think when the Congress does complete its work this year on an energy package, this will remove the single major factor that has been causing excessive inflation.,I don't intend to change our basic policy, and I believe that we've had maybe inadequately assessed results even from the wage-price guidelines.,The wage increases, for instance, this year, the first 9 months of this year, have been lower than they were in 1978. We've had more than a million union workers who have signed contracts within the wage guidelines. And the price standards have also been very effective. For instance, the items that come under price standards have been increasing at only one-half the rate of those that cannot be controlled, like OPEC oil prices.,So, I think in general our policy is an adequate and a good one, and I intend to maintain the thrust of it.,MINORITY EMPLOYMENT,Q. Mr. President, I think earlier this year, you had a memo to the agencies and departments which discussed black institutions and contracts and awards. It seems as though that memo has lost some of its teeth in the process. Is there any way that that could be regenerated so that the employment of minorities in the country and through the colleges can increase?,THE PRESIDENT. We've had some success with the unemployment rate among minorities. Even this past month, as you know, the unemployment rate among women, teenagers, and minorities dropped. And we've been pleased at the average rate of unemployment throughout the country. It's still extremely high, however, comparatively speaking, among, say, black teenagers or other minority teenagers.,In addition to that, we have helped the Congress write a law so that public works projects, when assigned to individual communities, would include at least 10 percent of the total money going into contracts with minority-owned businesses. I set as a goal for our administration a tripling in 1 year of the portion of Federal purchases from minority businesses. It was a billion dollars. I set as a goal for the end of this year $3 billion. I think we'll hit a little below my goal, about $2 1/2 billion.,Also, I think in other ways, like the hiring of black employees or the minority employees, we've done a good job. I think I've appointed more judges, for instance, who are black than all the other Presidents in the history of our country combined. It's not been adequate, but we've made a major step forward. And we are assessing any failures that we've experienced—for instance, in purchasing, where I wanted to reach $3 billion, and we will only reach $2 1/2 billion. I have gotten identified now those agencies that did not meet the tripling goal that I set for them, and they are being especially encouraged by me to meet their goals next year.\nWe are making progress—not enough.,Judy [Judy Woodruff, NBC News].,THE NATIONAL SPIRIT,Q. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy has suggested that instead of complaining about, I believe, what you call the malaise that the country is experiencing, that what the President should do now is ask the people to roll up their sleeves to try to pull the country out of its problem. And in effect, he spoke of a can-do spirit that harkens back to the 1960's.,THE PRESIDENT. Is this a campaign speech for him or— [laughter] .,Q. No, sir.\nTHE PRESIDENT. Okay.,Q. What merit, if any, do you see in that suggestion that he made, and also, how vulnerable do you think you are on the issue of leadership.?,THE PRESIDENT. Obviously there is a degree of malaise in the country. People are discouraged about the current situation. They are doubtful about the future; they are saving less than they ever have been in the past; and they have a serious concern about confidence in one another and sometimes about the Government itself.,When I made my speech to the Nation, I think, on July 15, on a Sunday evening, I pointed this out. But I said that our country is inherently strong, capable, and able, that there is no need for us to be discouraged or disillusioned or divided or doubtful about one another or about our Government processes. We're the strongest nation on Earth—economically, politically, and militarily. We're going to stay that way.,And what I prescribed as a major test of American will and confidence was the evolution of and the passage of an energy program, which had never been done in the history of our country, that would be adequate to meet the challenge before us. I think the Congress has made good progress so far. I predict that before they adjourn this year, that we will have this test of our Nation's will successfully achieved.,So, I believe that through the process of helping one another, having confidence, working on major projects, and letting the Government show that it can be competent to deal with a major problem like this, we can resolve the malaise that has existed in our country. I'm not discouraged. I believe that we can succeed.,1980 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,Q. Mr. Carter, a few moments ago you said that you thought you probably would like to be the Democratic nominee, in reference to the question on debating. Why are you waiting until December to announce, in view of the fact that Senator Kennedy is probably about to run? Why don't you tell us now that you're going to run?,THE PRESIDENT. I said I was going to make an announcement December 4. I didn't say what it would be yet.,I think that that's not too late. I want to do all I can without being an announced candidate to work with the Congress to get controversial issues decided and also to make plans for the initiation of a campaign year.,There's a tendency in our country to want to move that campaign date earlier and earlier. I believe that what I have decided on a date is compatible with past history. Also, of course, there is a limit to how late one can wait. There are some States that require filing, I believe, around the middle of December.,And so, I think that's late enough to give me a chance to do what I can with this year's Congress; not too late to miss any filing dates if I decide to meet them.,ROSALYNN CARTER,Q. Mr. President, fairly or unfairly, the polls suggest that one of your major political problems is a perceived lack of leadership. At the same time, Mrs. Carter is very visible these days. She's traveling and speaking on your behalf. She's almost on television as much as you are these days.,Do you think it's possible that her high profile in some strange way might ironically exacerbate your political problem? And secondly, is it true that some of your advisers believe that she has too high a public profile and would like her to be a little less visible?,THE PRESIDENT. I believe that if you would compare my wife's schedule now with what it was, say, a year ago, it wouldn't be materially different. The difference is that now the press is paying attention to where my wife goes and what she says.,Rosalynn has always been very close to me personally as well as to consult with me on matters of interest to me and to her. In some areas of public life, she plays a very strong role. She's interested in mental health, which he has been since even before I became Governor of Georgia. She's always been extremely interested in the problems of older Americans, and this has been a historic interest for her. And I think since this last year, perhaps, she's especially been encouraging people within communities to act on their own initiative to work together to correct local problems, not to wait for the Federal Government or the State or local government to do everything for them. And those things are not incompatible.,In addition, she is a very effective political campaigner. In 1976 and also in 1970, 1966, 1962, when I've had my other campaigns, Rosalynn has always played a substantial role. And I would imagine that she would continue that as long as she and I share a partnership and I'm in politics.,But I don't think her profile is too high. She's very knowledgeable; she is sensitive about American people's beliefs and feelings. She would never abuse her role as a wife or even the wife of a President. I have confidence that she will do the right thing.,KAMPUCHEA,Q. Mr. President, by all accounts, it appears that in the coming months, a million or more people could die in Cambodia of starvation. I know that you talked about this with the Pope the other day. What, if anything, can this Government do in combination with other groups?,THE PRESIDENT. We've been encouraging the humanitarian granting of aid, particularly food aid, to the people of Cambodia, hundreds of thousands of whom, maybe millions of whom are starving. We are trying to work out with the uncertain leaders of that country—uncertain because it's contested through war—a mechanism by which the United Nations primarily, the Red Cross, and UNICEF could get food into those people who are within Cambodia.,There's also a legal problem in refugee funds, because it hasn't yet been determined legally if a person who hasn't left the country is still identifiable as a refugee. The fact that the country's divided by war creates a complication.,But we are ready and eager to join in with other countries to provide humanitarian aid to all the people of Cambodia who are starving, and we will move on that without any further delay as soon as it's possible to join other countries in this effort.,VICE PRESIDENT MONDALE,Q. Mr. President, have you had any second thoughts as to who your running mate would be? Will it definitely be Walter Mondale?,THE PRESIDENT. Fritz Mondale and I have a very good partnership, and I have no plans whatsoever to change it.,ARMS LEVELS IN EUROPE,Q. Mr. President, going back to your comments about competition with the Soviet Union with regard to arms, would you support NATO deployment of the Pershing missile to counter the SS-20? And if I could add another question there, do you have any reaction to President Brezhnev's conditional offer, too, on arms reduction in Central Europe?,THE PRESIDENT. Our allies and we are carefully assessing the significance of President Brezhnev's statement. However, I'd like to point out that what he's offering in effect is to continue their own rate of modernization as it has been, provided we don't modernize at all.,They have had an actual reduction in launchers the last few years. They've been replacing the old SS-4's and SS-5's with the SS-20, not on a one-for-one basis, but the SS-20 has three warheads, the old missiles only had one warhead. The SS-20 has a much greater range. It can reach our Western Allies' countries as a target even if it's located in the central part of Russia. It's three to six times as accurate as the old missiles which it replaced. And in addition to that, it's mobile; that is, it can't be located specifically and destroyed with a preemptive strike if that should become a desire on the part of allies. They also have replaced older airplanes with the Backfire bomber.,So, it's not quite as constructive a proposal as at first blush it seems to be. I think it's an effort designed to disarm the willingness or eagerness of our allies adequately to defend themselves.,In my judgment, the decision ought to be made to modernize the Western Allies' military strength and then negotiate with full commitment and determination mutually to lower armaments on both sides—the Warsaw Pact and the NATO countries—so that we can retain equivalency of military strength, equity of military strength, and have a lower overall level of armaments. This is what we hope to achieve.,I might point out that Chancellor Schmidt said, I believe yesterday or day before, that a prerequisite to a decision by our NATO Allies to take these steps, which he considers to be vital for the security of NATO, is the passage of SALT II.,So, if we can be successful in controlling existing strategic Soviet and United States atomic weapons through SALT II, then we'll move in the next step to reducing the nuclear weapons which don't have intercontinental range. And along with that, we'll continue with our mutual and balanced force reduction effort to reduce conventional arms.,It's an interesting proposal; it's one that might show promise. We're assessing it carefully, but it's not as great a step as would ordinarily be judged at first.,HAMILTON JORDAN,Q. Mr. President, do you have any intention at all of asking Hamilton Jordan to step down as Chief of Staff if a special prosecutor is named? And secondly, is there any thought in your mind, sir, that his departure might at all benefit your Presidency and your chances for reelection, or would they hurt them?,THE PRESIDENT. I'd like to remind you, first of all, that the President is the chief law enforcement officer of the land. And I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment on guilt or innocence of anyone. Secondly, I'd like to point out that the appointment of a special prosecutor has no insinuation in it at all that the person investigated is guilty.,I believe it would be better for me not to go further than that, because I would ordinarily wait until the Attorney General made a report to me and then seek his advice on what the proprieties would be about my own public statements. I think, though, I've described my position adequately to answer your question.,PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION,Q. Mr. President, a question on the Middle East. Do you agree with those such as former Ambassador Andrew Young and George Ball and others who say that it is now time to do away with the restrictions put on our foreign policy by Henry Kissinger and open up a dialog with the Palestinians and the PLO?,THE PRESIDENT. No, I do not. We will not negotiate with the PLO. We will not recognize the PLO until after the PLO recognizes Israel's right to exist and endorses United Nations Resolution 242 as a basis for Middle East peace.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.
#> 9 NATIONAL GOALS,THE PRESIDENT. My fellow citizens and men and women of the press:,Ten days ago, I spoke to you about my deep concern for the future of our country—about a crisis of the American spirit, which I know to be just as real as the problems that face us on energy or inflation or any other problem of a material nature. But I also know that we can overcome these crises by uniting in a common purpose as we have done so often in the past when our Nation faces a serious challenge. The opportunity which we now have is to seize control of our energy future—to work together to overcome our dangerous overdependence on foreign oil.,Millions of Americans have responded positively to what I said—because they know that I'm telling the truth.,We have lost confidence in our government, and we have lost confidence in many other institutions—all of us know that. But we also know that we can overcome the pessimism, and with patriotism and with hard work, we can move forward together as Americans.,In these 10 days since I addressed the Nation, I have moved swiftly—I do not believe too swiftly—to create a better administration team to work with me, a team that will be unified, a team that will be filled with confidence, a team that will be in good fighting shape to face the problems together.,And during this same period, I have proposed to the Congress a bold program to harness American ingenuity and to harness American strength to lay a groundwork for American energy security. This massive effort will cost a great deal of money, funds that can only come from a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, a tax on profits which the oil companies have not earned.,The American people overwhelmingly support such a tax, a message clearly demonstrated by the action already taken by the House of Representatives of our U.S. Congress, which has passed a bill which will finance the energy proposal that I have made and still leave plenty of new funds, additional funds, for the oil companies to proceed with exploration and production of new oil and new gas within our own country.,Now it is the turn of the United States Senate to act, and there will be a massive struggle to gut the windfall profits tax bill. If this happens, then we cannot reach our energy goals.,I want to serve notice tonight that I will do everything in my power as President to see that the windfall profits tax is passed, because I consider it to be crucial to our Nation's future.,I need your help. I need the help of the people of America. This is a democracy. Your voice can be heard. Your voice must be heard. Those of you who believe in the future of our country, those of you who believe that our energy program must be passed, please speak to the Congress of the United States and especially to the United States Senate, which still has the responsibility to act.,Based on this windfall profits tax on the oil companies, we will have the resources to meet the energy challenge which we must face together in the future. And we will have taken a major step toward uniting our country in the effort to restore our spirit, the spirit of America, and our confidence, our confidence as people in the future of our great country.,Thank you very much. And now I'd like to answer questions.,Mr. Cormier [Frank Cormier, Associated Press].,QUESTIONS,FEDERAL BUDGET,Q. Mr. President, Republicans in the House are talking about introducing what they call a budget of hope, as contrasted to what they call your budget of despair. And their budget of hope, so-called, they say is going to be roomy enough to accommodate a very large election year tax cut for all of us. Now, that might be pretty hard to vote against in an election year. I wonder what you think about it.,THE PRESIDENT. I believe the Congress and the American people have enough judgment to know that you can't get something for nothing, that there is no free lunch involved. This is not a time for wastefulness. It's not a time to destroy our budget. It's not a time to avoid the responsibilities that we all have to make some sacrifice based on a belief and a confidence in the future of our Nation.,I think we will be restoring hope if we pass a program which, by the way, the House has already passed, with the support of some Republicans, with the opposition of others. But I think that the bold proposals that we have made do have the confidence of the American people, do have the support of the American people, and my prediction is that before the Congress adjourns in 1979, we will have this program passed with or without the support of the Republicans in the House.,CABINET CHANGES; 1980 PRESIDENTIAL\nCAMPAIGN,Q. Mr. President, was it worth it to you to cause some destabilization of the dollar and demoralization of the Federal Government, spreading doubt through the land, in order to repudiate much of your Cabinet? And do you agree with Senator Jackson that your problems will force you to .forgo any reelection plans and hand the Democratic nomination to Senator Kennedy?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, let me answer the first question first.,I felt, and still feel, that I had to make some changes in my Cabinet, as I said earlier, to create a new team to work with me, a team that will be united, that will be forceful and aggressive and confident in facing the problems that we must meet in the months ahead. I have no apology to make for it. Some people thought it was made too rapidly. I had the choice of either dragging it out week after week after week, with speculation and doubt and confusion, or getting it over, in effect, in 48 hours. And I felt that the abrupt action, based on a long and careful consideration, was the best approach.,Senator Jackson. Three or four years ago I was running for President against Senator Jackson. At that time he predicted that he would be the next President, beginning in 1977. His judgment was not very good then.,And now I'm ready for the next question. [Laughter],PRESIDENT'S HEALTH; SECRETARY OF ENERGY,Q. Sir, could you please tell me about your pick of Mr. Duncan as the new Energy Secretary?,THE PRESIDENT. Yes.,Q. That's the second in a line of Energy Secretaries from the Defense Department. Is this a signal to the American people that the White House is going to be taking control of energy decisions, sir, and that in fact the Energy Department is going to be taking a second place? And also, sir, there has been some concern on your health in the recent months? Could you please comment on that, please?,THE PRESIDENT. I feel perfectly healthy.,The President is the one who makes the basic decisions on policy of the administration, whether it be in health, education, welfare, transportation, housing, energy, defense, foreign affairs. The President, I and all my predecessors seek—all of us seek the widest possible area of consultation and advice, because we desperately want to make the right decisions for our country. That's my motivation.,Jim Schlesinger, the present Secretary of Energy, has done an excellent job in putting together a new department under the most difficult circumstances and putting through Congress the major parts of an energy program that he and I shaped along with the help of many others early in 1977, more than 2 years ago. About 65 percent of that package was passed in November of 1978. At that time, Secretary Schlesinger asked that he be permitted to step down. I asked him to stay on, to help me during this session of the Congress. In February he asked again that he be permitted to step down. Since we had not passed any legislation at that time, because of the efforts of the oil lobby concerning oil, I wanted Jim Schlesinger to stay and help me evolve and present to the Congress the program that I have just outlined to the American people.,Now I've decided to let Jim Schlesinger step down as Secretary of Energy. The change will be made in an orderly fashion. The transition will be done methodically and properly, as soon as Charles Duncan is confirmed.,Charles Duncan is an outstanding manager. He has done an absolutely superb job as [Deputy] 1 Secretary of Defense. I consider him to be qualified to be Secretary of any department in the Government, including that of Defense. I asked him to take the Energy Department, because I think at this point it does need to begin to implement the programs that Congress has already passed and will be passing this year. He's a tough, competent manager. In addition to doing a good job in Defense, he's also had a superb career, educational background, and experience in the management of some of the largest responsibilities in the free enterprise system of our country. I have no doubt that he will do an equally good job as Secretary of Energy.,1 Printed in the transcript.,HAMILTON JORDAN,Q. Mr. President, sir, what qualifications does Hamilton Jordan have, aside from the loyalty to you, to be chief of staff in the White House, and to what extent will he be making decisions at a level below your level?,THE PRESIDENT. This event, my designation of Hamilton Jordan as chief of staff, has been one of the most grossly distorted of my career in politics. Hamilton Jordan will be chief of staff—chief of the White House staff. Because of Hamilton's knowledge of me, his closeness to me, his superb leadership capabilities, the trust that other people in the White House have in him repeatedly since I've been President, the other top members of my staff have asked me to let Hamilton be chief of staff. Had he been willing earlier, he would have already been chief of staff, like a year or a year and a half ago.,Recently I asked Hamilton again to take over the job of chief of staff. He's agreed to do it. He has my full support, he has the full support of all others who work in the White House with us. He will not be the chief of the Cabinet; I will be chief of the Cabinet. He will not be the chief of the Congress; the Congress is an independent body. We'll have the same relationship with the Congress, with the same people that we have all the time.,Hamilton Jordan will be chief of-the White House staff. That's his responsibility, assigned by me. That's the job he will fulfill, and I have absolutely no doubt, based on his past experience and my knowledge of him, that he will do a superb job.,RELATIONS WITH THE NEWS MEDIA,Q. Mr. President, you were reported to have told some of those whom you saw at Camp David about reservations that you had about the Washington press corps. It was reported that you have expressed those reservations, to use a mild word, even more strongly to the Cabinet last Tuesday. Tonight you appear, tonight, before the Washington press corps and others. You are reported to have said you wanted to speak more to the press outside Washington.,To put the question simply: What bugs you about the Washington press corps? [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I'm sure that if I said that the Washington press corps was a group of superbly qualified, highly objective, extremely intelligent analysts of the American news scene, that all of you would agree completely— [laughter] —if I said it.,I have nothing against the White House press corps nor the Washington press. My own judgment is that for the first 2 1/2 years, when I felt it was extremely important for me in effect to get acquainted with the American people, to get acquainted with the Washington scene, that I have had, I think, between 50 and 60 press conferences exclusively with the White House press corps. Now I will continue to have interviews with the White House press corps, as we are doing tonight, but not twice a month.,In lieu of that, and I don't think with any reflection on the White House press corps, my decision is now to go to different places around the country. I'll be going to Louisville, Kentucky, area next week. And then sometimes to Miami and Bangor, Maine, and San Francisco, and perhaps Des Moines, Iowa, to have press conferences there and to answer questions both from professional members of the press and also from American people in a townhall meeting format. The Washington press corps will accompany me, the White House press corps, and I will answer questions from you, too.,But I think it's better for me not to have all the questions focused on me by a group that's almost exclusively oriented within Washington as a prime place of their residence and interest, and I would like to let my voice be heard and felt and the questions be heard by me and felt from various places in the country.,1980 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,Q. Mr. President, if I may follow through on part of the thrust of Helen's [Helen Thomas, United Press International] earlier question; as you know, there have been suggestions that in order to restore the confidence that you have talked about in the country, and in order to restore confidence in the Presidency, that perhaps you might consider withdrawing yourself from politics next year, turning your attention primarily to governing the Nation. Now, although recent suggestions come from a Republican Member of the Senate—you have in recent months advocated the concept of a one-term, 6-year Presidency. I wonder if you might have considered not entering the 1980 campaign.,THE PRESIDENT. I think it's a compliment to me that Republican leaders are advocating that I not run again. I have considered all the options, and my decision will be announced later on this year.,VALUE OF THE DOLLAR,Q. Mr.. President, are you planning to install any foreign exchange controls or capital controls in order to protect the decline of the dollar, and are you planning any further appointments from the corporate section?,THE PRESIDENT. I do not contemplate taking action of that kind. I think the dollar is sound. In the long run, the principles which will decide the value of the dollar are determined by bow effective we are in dealing with the energy question, how effective we are in dealing with the inflation question, how much we act to resolve the adverse balance of payments, how we deal with the Federal budget deficit, and so forth. The basic underlying economic factors will be what causes the value of the dollar, not some contrived action that I might take to interfere with the normal operation of the international monetary scene.,I have just announced today that I'm appointing Paul Volcker, a highly qualified person, internationally respected as a knowledgeable man on monetary systems, on whom I can depend. There's no doubt that he will work harmoniously with me, with Bill Miller, who will be the new Secretary of the Treasury. And I believe that this new team will be very effective.,I would like to reserve the right to make future appointments from the corporate world or the academic world or the journalistic world or from among mayors and Governors or Members of the Congress. But I can't exclude the corporate sector. But I can't say now where I'll make future appointments from.\nYes. sir. In the back row.,NICARAGUA,Q. Mr. President, I wonder, in looking at Nicaragua, if we are in danger of another Cuba there, and what the White House plans to do in terms of taking some positive steps to assure their safety?,THE PRESIDENT. It's a mistake for Americans to assume or to claim that every time an evolutionary change takes place, or even an abrupt change takes place in this hemisphere, that somehow it's the result of secret, massive Cuban intervention. The fact in Nicaragua is that the incumbent government, the Somoza regime, lost the confidence of the Nicaraguan people. There was a broad range of forces assembled to replace Somoza and his regime as the head of the Nicaraguan Government.,We worked as closely as we could without intervening in the internal affairs of Nicaragua with the neighboring countries and with the so-called Andean Group in the northern part of South America to bring about an orderly transition. Our effort was to let the people of Nicaragua ultimately make a decision on who should be their leader, what form of government they should have. We also wanted to minimize bloodshed and to restore stability. That is presently being done. We have a good relationship with the new government. We hope to improve it. We are providing some minimum humanitarian aid for the people of Nicaragua, who've suffered so much.,I think that our posture in Nicaragua is a proper one. I do not attribute at all the change in Nicaragua to Cuba. I think the people of Nicaragua have got enough judgment to make their own decisions, and we will use our efforts in a proper fashion without interventionism, to let the Nicaraguans let their voice be heard in shaping their own affairs.,CHANGES IN THE CABINET,Q. Mr. President, I would like to follow up on the earlier question about Hamilton Jordan.,THE PRESIDENT. Good.,Q. Some of your fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill feel you've misdiagnosed your biggest problem—leading effectively. They claim it lies largely in the senior White House staff, and that the Cabinet shakeup won't cure it. Have any congressional Democrats made that criticism to you directly, and how would you respond to it?,THE PRESIDENT. No, they have not. A few have said that in the heat of the publicity focused on the changes that took place over a 2- or 3-day period-and that is expectable—to be expected.,I did not make the rapid changes in my Cabinet without, obviously, some sense that there would be a disturbance in Washington, in the Congress, and otherwise. But I have no doubt that the changes I made are in the best interests of me as President, in the best interests of my administration, which is trying to serve the American people in the finest fashion, and also in the best interests of our country, whom we all serve.,I have had many congratulations given to me by Members of the Congress, and I might say that some of those changes that I did make were long advocated by Members of the Congress.,So, I don't have any hesitancy at all to say that the changes I made were the best, and I don't have any hesitancy to say that I think it was better to go ahead and get it done in about 2 days, rather than to drag it out over a period of weeks or months.,THE NATION'S ECONOMY,Q. Mr. President, with the country apparently headed into a recession, and with unemployment expected to go up, what new ideas do you have, sir, to deal with the worsening economy?,THE PRESIDENT. I think this is a time for stability. I think it's a time for the continuation of our present economic monetary and budgetary policies. While I was at Camp David, I invited a fairly large group of Members of the Congress-Democrats, Republicans, from the House and the Senate—to consult with me. And there was almost unanimity there, surprisingly so, that we ought to maintain our commitment, that inflation is the biggest single threat to the American people, both rich and poor, and to the future of our Nation's economy in the months ahead.,There will be a period of slow growth in our country. I believe that next year we'll see this growth restored to a moderate rate. We will watch this situation very closely. Obviously inflation is not the only factor. I am deeply concerned about the chronic unemployment in some of the types of people in our country. We've done the best we could to reduce unemployment. We've had remarkable success in creating 8 million new jobs. I saw some figures the other day that said the unemployment compensation had been slashed 55 percent. But we're going to watch unemployment.,But my judgment now is to maintain our steady course and to dwell as best I can on a balanced growth in the economy as best we can manage, but let us remember that inflation is the biggest threat to all Americans at this time.,WINDFALL PROFITS TAX,Q. Mr. President, related to your earlier statement about energy, there's talk in the Senate about exemptions of the first 3,000 barrels of oil produced daily by independent oilmen from the windfall profits tax. How would this or a plowback provision or other exemptions affect your energy security corporation, the other parts of your bill, and how much room does the Senate have to tamper with the House-passed bill?,THE PRESIDENT. We need the revenues that would have been derived from my original windfall profits tax proposal to the House. The net income from the House-passed bill is roughly the same as I proposed. My proposal was a permanent tax; the House passed a tax that will be terminated in 1990.,There's a threat now that the oil lobby will focus its attention on the Senate. I think it's almost a sure thing. And unless the American people speak out, because of one reason or another claimed by some of the Members of the Senate, we'll see the windfall profits tax robbed under the proposals that you described of about $54 billion, which will make it impossible for us to have an adequate synthetic fuels program, to have an adequate mass transit program, to have an adequate care for the poor people who are severely impacted by rapidly rising energy costs. It would in effect make it impossible for us to meet our crucial energy goals.,And I think that I cannot prevail alone here in Washington with an oil lobby working quietly unless the American people let their voice be heard. But if these exemptions are made, it'll be a grant of $54 billion to the oil companies on top of greatly increased income to the oil companies by the phased decontrol, and they'll be able to spend these new revenues, which 'they have not earned, in order to increase production of oil and gas in our own country.,So, what you describe is a great threat to the very program that is so important to me and to the country.,PATRICIA ROBERTS HARRIS,Q. Mr. President, does Mrs. Harris have your full approval and encouragement to continue such HEW programs as the desegregation of the North Carolina college system, the desegregation of public schools in Chicago and other cities, and the antismoking campaign? And if the answer to that question is yes, why did you fire Secretary Califano?,THE PRESIDENT. The answer is yes.,I think the reasons for my replacement of the Cabinet are something that I don't care to discuss publicly. I have nothing but gratitude and admiration for the people that have served in my administration and left.,I expect Mrs. Harris to carry out the provisions of the laws of this country, to represent our Nation in the courts when suits are brought concerning equal opportunity in all its phases, and to be responsible for the health of Americans. And she will have my support just as the previous Secretary had.,I have no doubt that she will do an excellent job both in the administration of that very complicated bureaucracy-Health, Education, and Welfare—and I have no doubt that she has a basic commitment to the service of the constituent groups that are uniquely dependent upon government, particularly HEW. And I have no doubt that she will be a superb teamplayer, able to work with me, to work with the White House staff, to work with the Congress, and to work with other Cabinet members to carry out the policies of my administration, once those policies have been established by me.,VALUE OF THE DOLLAR,Q. Sir, you said earlier that you think that the U.S. dollar is sound. The dollar seems to be taking a pounding on the foreign exchange markets, and it's approaching the low levels that once before you had to launch a dramatic rescue program last November.,In addition to that, you've just named Paul Volcker, a conservative Republican, to head the Federal Reserve Board. How do the poundings that the dollar is undergoing on the exchange markets and your naming of Mr. Volcker square with your earlier description?,THE PRESIDENT. I see no incompatibility at all. Mr. Volcker, by the way, happens to be a Democrat. But he, I think, is a conservative in that he believes in controlling inflation and he believes in maintaining a sound dollar.,I can't guarantee what the exact value of the dollar might be in months ahead. We don't freeze the value of the dollar. That's determined by international monetary considerations. What I said was that the basic value of the dollar will be determined not by the identity of a President or even the identity of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve; it will be shaped by how effectively our Nation moves to meet the energy challenge. There is some present doubt that the Congress will pass the proposals that I have put forward. I have no doubt that the dollar will increase in value when the Congress has passed the programs that I proposed. And, obviously, the dollar will be adversely affected if inflation should increase.,My prediction is that inflation will decrease in the months ahead. And I'm sure that the dollar would be adversely affected if I abandoned my commitment to a responsible Federal budget and start on wild spending programs when they are not needed.,So, basic decisions made of fiscal soundness in our Government is a much more important factor in shaping the value of the dollar than is the identity of officials who might serve in a transient time.,STANDBY GASOLINE RATIONING PLAN,Q. Mr. President, the House of Representatives today amended a standby rationing plan bill to give either House the authority to veto any rationing plan that you would come up with. Now, is that acceptable to you, or if that survives in both Houses, would you veto the legislation?,THE PRESIDENT. This action today by the House illustrates once again the timidity of the Congress in dealing with a sensitive political issue. I criticized the House when they failed to pass the rationing plan a few months ago. The House leadership has now promised me that an adequate rationing standby plan would be passed.,I don't object to the one-House veto if it's done expeditiously. I think only 15 days would elapse. What I do object to are the other restraints that have been placed on the evolution of a standby gasoline rationing plan. Under the proposed plan, even before it got to the floor of the House today, for instance, we could have a 50-percent shortage of gasoline, which would almost devastate our Nation's economy, and unless that shortage lasted for 20 days, I could not implement a rationing plan.,So, I hope that the House and the Senate will rapidly pass an adequate standby rationing plan so that I can develop one, have it on the shelf, if we have a severe and sustained shortage of gasoline, assure that we have equitable distribution. And I have no objection to the House, within 2 weeks, either approving the plan that I have tried to put into being, or if either House wants to veto it, they can do that. But I need the authority to go ahead with a good plan and make sure that it can be implemented rapidly when and if it's needed.,MR. CORMIER. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you.
#> 10 ENERGY,THE PRESIDENT. No matter how Americans may differ on energy, we are united on two basic goals: first, to provide every possible means to alleviate the current crisis at all levels of government and in the private sector of our economy; and, second, to get this country firmly on the way toward more lasting solutions for the energy question and to keep it there.,First things first: Today, by Executive order, I'm delegating to all the Nation's Governors the authority to help manage our gasoline supplies over the summer. Using these powers, which I have authority to delegate, the Governors will be able to require that at least some gasoline stations remain open on weekends, to establish minimum purchase requirements, to prevent tank topping, which can convert a scarce surplus into spot shortages, and to impose an odd-even day sales system to reduce crowding and confusion by enabling drivers to buy gasoline on alternate days according to their license plate numbers.,Some of this authority already exists in some of the States, but this action will assure that all Governors throughout the Nation have help in managing the kind of situation that existed this month in Nevada, California, and some other places in our country.,These steps will simply make it more convenient for drivers to purchase gasoline, but they do not save oil or gasoline. While some increased supply and better management may minimize inconvenience, continued care, planning, and conservation will be required throughout the summer if we are to avoid gasoline lines and spot shortages.,As I've said so often, our country faces a long-term, chronic problem in obtaining adequate energy supplies to meet our needs. We have not yet addressed this basic problem. Until we put in place policies that will cut back demand, reduce waste, ensure maximum production of oil here at home, and develop alternate supplies of energy—alternates to oil—we will have to continue to live with the prospect of shortages.,It's necessary to stop aggravating the problem by blaming one another and by seeking out scapegoats. The fact is that the oil-producing countries are holding down supply while the rest of the world has increased demand. Our current difficulties have been made more severe by the stoppage of Iranian production this winter. Over 200 million barrels of oil which the world expected to have was simply not produced.,To meet demand over the winter and the spring, we had to draw down on our own supplies and also our own reserves, and reserve supplies of crude oil now are at very low levels. Since it takes 60 to 90 days for oil to be moved from a country like Iran across the ocean to our ports to be refined and then distributed, we are still feeling the loss of oil from that country even though Iran is producing oil again.,We now expect to see mild increases in oil supply, which should help to alleviate our present spot shortages. But in spite of this improvement, we will at best only have—at best we will only have about the same amount of oil during the summer that we had a year ago. In the meantime, Americans are expecting to use more than we had a year ago. Unless we are able to plan carefully and to conserve properly, spot shortages may exist.,As this Memorial Day has indicated, Americans are able to conserve energy if they are determined to do so. For example, Charles Warren, my Special Representative in California, reports that the use of trains and rapid transit in California was way up.,But I believe this country is capable of doing much more than just getting through the summer. Phased decontrol will begin June 1 to reduce our subsidy of imported oil and to increase domestic production of oil.,I've also proposed a windfall profits tax to capture, for public benefit, a substantial portion of the increased prices of oil resulting from decontrol. And I proposed an energy security fund to protect those who are least able to afford the rapidly increasing costs of energy, to improve mass transportation systems in our country, and to bring the full force of American science and technology to bear on this crucial problem.,These proposals, while not universally popular, are essential to get this country moving firmly on the way to a more lasting solution for our energy problem. I hope that I can have the support of the Congress and the American people for these energy proposals.,And now, I'd be glad to answer questions.,QUESTIONS,OIL SUPPLIES AND PRICES; PRESIDENT'S,USE OF HELICOPTERS,Q. Mr. President, I have a three-part question. What do you say to Members of Congress and the industry who say that decontrol will not lead to greater supplies? Also, what do you say to poor people who cannot afford the needed gas at these higher prices? And why did you use helicopters for two private fishing trips in recent days?,THE PRESIDENT. Can I take my choice of the questions? [Laughter],Q. You can start from the beginning. [Laughter],THE PRESIDENT. I'm convinced that the government control of oil prices has not worked. We presently have controls. Oil production in this country has continued to go down about 6 percent per year. Dependence on imported oil has gone up drastically, so that in spite of very rapid increases in the cost of foreign oil, our country has seen its imports now equal about one-half total consumption. This has robbed our Nation of valuable dollars. It's cut our country out of potential jobs. It's created very serious problems in our trade balance, and it's discouraged American production. It's also subsidized foreign oil and made energy seem to be much cheaper for consumers than it actually is.,I think it's better to reduce the Federal bureaucracy and to decontrol oil prices very slowly and steadily—oh, just 1 or 2 percent per month for 28 months—so that we can have increased domestic production and a reduction in imports.,As far as the poor people are concerned, we are only willing to let the oil companies keep, out of each dollar increased in price, about 29 cents. The rest goes to either local or State or Federal governments or to the owners of land where oil is produced.,The income for the Federal Government from the windfall profits tax, brought about by decontrol of oil, will go into an energy security fund. A substantial portion of this fund will be used to pay to poor families for the increased cost of oil and other energy. The rest of it will go, as I said, for rapid transit and to produce additional supplies of oil.,It's much less expensive for me, when I travel from one place to another, to go by helicopter. When I go by highway, because of security requirements, I have a very large entourage, including seven or eight carloads of press who follow me when I go by car. And at each intersection along the highways, the State Police have people there to guard the intersections to prevent my injury in case of an accident. So, it's much less expensive for me to go by helicopter.,TAX REDUCTIONS,Q. Mr. President, election year tax cuts are rather commonplace in this country, and I wonder if we can look forward to a Carter-proposed tax cut in 1980.,THE PRESIDENT. No, I doubt very seriously that we'll have any tax cut in 1980. My own major responsibility is to deal with the inflation question. Part of that, of course, is to be fiscally responsible in reducing the Federal deficit. If we have the option between substantial reductions in the deficit and controlling inflation on the one hand, and having tax reductions for the American people in an election year on the other, I would forgo the tax reduction and insist upon controlling inflation and cutting the deficit.,WAGE AND PRICE GUIDELINES,Q. Mr. President, United Airlines and the machinists union last week reached a contract settlement that was well over 30 percent, yet another assault on your 7-percent wage guidelines. How long can you expect the American people to sit tight and support a 7-percent guideline, when inflation is running at over 13 percent over the last 3 months and when the big unions are getting fat contracts?,THE PRESIDENT. Well, the problem is finding a suitable alternative. I don't maintain that every settlement in the last 6 or 8 months has been under the 7-percent guideline. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, however, that the price constraints and the wage constraints that we have imposed on a voluntary basis have had very beneficial results. Eighty-five percent, at least, of all the wage settlements since we imposed the voluntary standards have been within the 7-percent guidelines. Even those that have exceeded the guidelines, in my opinion, have been much lower than they would have been without the restraints.,We're trying to do three things, and we're going to stick with it: first of all, to have a fiscally responsible government, to cut down waste, and to reduce the Federal deficit; secondly, to eliminate the unwarranted regulations and redtape that's imposed by government on the private sector, which is highly inflationary; and, of course, the third thing is to stick with and to try to induce the American people to support the voluntary wage and price standards.,All of these factors working together will have a long-range, beneficial effect in controlling inflation. In my opinion, a deliberate recession, which is one alternative which would cause very high unemployment, is unacceptable. And mandatory wage and price controls, which have been tried in the past and have never worked, except during wartime, are also unacceptable.,So, we have a good, sound, anti-inflation program. It's going to require some time for it to be effective, but I intend to stick with it.,PRESIDENT'S LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITY,Q. Mr. President, many of your legislative initiatives have run into trouble on Capitol Hill this year—hospital cost control, the Panama Canal implementation legislation, oil price decontrol—legislation to extend that—and so forth. To what extent do you believe it is the President's responsibility to exert leadership over the Congress, and to what extent do you believe you've fulfilled that responsibility this year?,TEE PRESIDENT. I think the President has a major responsibility not only to propose to the Congress legislation that's of benefit to the Nation, but also to fight for congressional approval of those proposals. The ones you mentioned as examples are very important to our Nation.,We have already signed, and the Senate has ratified, a Panama Canal agreement, two treaties. Those treaties became effective the first day of April. The Panama Canal Zone will become Panamanian territory on the 1st of October. If the Congress does not act to implement those treaties, then we would have no effective means by which we could adequately defend the Panama Canal between now and the year 2000, nor manage our personnel in keeping the canal open. I believe that the Congress will eventually be responsible and will pass the implementation legislation.,On oil decontrol, which I have proposed—and just described, I think, adequately-my belief is that the Congress will not change that law. The decontrol action that I have taken is in accordance with the law passed by Congress in 1975. There's a great deal of debate going on, and I believe that we will have decontrol, which is good for our country.,Hospital cost containment—here again, the Congress has a major responsibility to deal with this effectively. The lobbying pressure on the Members of Congress by the hospital lobby is extraordinary, but I believe that in the long run, the Congress will see that this is one of the tangible actions that they can take this year to help control inflation. Hospital costs have been going up twice as great in previous years as the inflation rate, a completely unwarranted, additional charge on the American people that ought to be stopped.,And so, I have not given up on any of these programs as far as getting them implemented by congressional action. But I'll bear my share of the responsibility if we fail.,My judgment is that the American people are beginning to feel that their own Government can't deal adequately with crucial issues to the country, like inflation and like energy and like having a peaceful world in which to live. And until the American public gets aroused, we're going to have difficulty in Washington getting action taken.,But I believe the public is becoming increasingly aroused as they see the need for this action, and I predict to you that the Congress will act favorably on these three items. I have no intent to back down. I'll fight for these three programs and others that I've proposed to the last vote in Congress, and I believe that we will win.,RELATIONS WITH CONGRESS,Q. Mr. President, even though it might not be your favorite way of doing things with Congress, why don't you get tough to the extent of saying to Members of Congress individually that, "If you won't help me on these major programs that I feel are important to the entire country, I won't go along with my administration providing the individual, district-by-district services that you are interested in as a Member of Congress"?,THE PRESIDENT. I represent those districts also. Every one of the people who lives in any congressional district is my constituent. And I don't think it's right to punish the people of our Nation who live in a particular farming community or city or congressional district because a particular Member of Congress does not comply with the proposals that I make that I believe to be in the best interest of our Nation.,The best approach that I have been able to make—and we've had a very good success in having the Congress approve my proposals in previous years—has been to deal, first of all, with the Congress directly, both as a body and also individual Members of the Congress.,When I do face a serious problem, like with the windfall profits tax when the prediction was we had no chance to get it passed, I take my case to the public as strongly and effectively as I can. I think that's the best way to induce the Congress Members to vote in the best interests of their constituents and mine, not to punish the constituents in a district.,ORGANIZATION OF PETROLEUM EXPORTING COUNTRIES,Q. Mr. President, as you said before, decontrol begins Friday, and the OPEC Ministers meet next month. What do you expect the OPEC Ministers to do? What action do you expect them to take?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. I think OPEC has raised the price of oil excessively this year, and I hope they won't raise it any more.,I believe in the long run, they hurt not only our country but every nation on Earth, and especially the poor nations who are destitute to begin with. I think the OPEC nations in the long run hurt themselves by raising the price of oil excessively.,They have always demanded—and I give them credit by assuming that their demand was sincere—that countries, like our own, that use and waste so much energy cut back on consumption. That's one of the main thrusts of the energy proposals that I have made to the American people and to the Congress.,As you know, the major consuming nations in the International Energy Agency this spring have resolved, all of us, to cut back by 2 million barrels per day on our total worldwide consumption. This amounts to about a 5-percent reduction below our projected 1979 rate—reduction in consumption. I'll be meeting with six leaders of other nations in Tokyo the last week in June and, there again, we'll try to deal with the question of consumption in the world being higher than present production.,I would like to see the OPEC nations level off their price, certainly not to exceed the rate of inflation; secondly, to increase production in return for which the consuming nations who waste a great deal of energy would impose and adhere to strict conservation measures.,Increased and sustained supply, a stable price, and reduced consumption is the best all-around approach, but I think there has to be some give-and-take, some recognition of mutual interest between us and OPEC, before we can succeed in stabilizing the energy supply and price situation.,PRESIDENT'S FISHING TRIPS,Q. This past Saturday, unbeknownst to anyone, you took off to Spruce Creek, Pennsylvania, and went fishing.,THE PRESIDENT. That's correct.,Q. Now, you told Helen Thomas [United Press International] at the beginning of the news conference that this saves energy by not having to drag along all the press people and not having us tail along. How many times previously have you been able to escape the news media and travel unbeknownst to anybody?,THE PRESIDENT. Not enough— [laughter] —and it wasn't unbeknownst to the press.,I have a rare opportunity to go fishing or to get out in the woods and swamps and in the fields and on the streams by myself. I really believe that it's not only good for me but for the country, to be able to do that on occasion. I wish I could do it more. But I don't intend to ignore any opportunity to take advantage of a fishing trip when my own work permits it, and I hope the press will understand and the people will understand that I, like the average American, need some recreation at times.,I enjoyed it. I didn't catch as many fish as my wife. It was one of the nicest days of my life, except for that fact [laughter] —and I'm very proud that I had a chance.,RHODESIA,Q. Mr. President, the British, who've been our partners in formulating a policy towards Rhodesia, have recently ruled that the elections there were free and fair. Can you tell me now, does your administration intend to pursue a separate policy there, or will we now agree with the British conclusion?,THE PRESIDENT. We have been consulting closely with the British Government since the new administration under Mrs. Thatcher took over. Secretary Vance has just completed several days of discussions, both with her, with her Foreign Minister, and with other officials.,The new Rhodesian Zimbabwe Government will take office, I think, the 1st of June. Within 2 weeks after that date, I will make my decision about whether or not to lift the existing sanctions. I've given the Congress this assurance. And obviously, my decision would be made taking into consideration those consultations with Great Britain.,RELEASE OF SOVIET DISSIDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES,Q. About a month ago, Mr. President, you brought about, helped bring about, a prisoner exchange with the Soviet Union. As part of that exchange, as I understand it, there was an agreement that the families of the Russian dissidents would be allowed immediate passage to the West. However, many of those families have not been released, and there were reports that some of them have actually been harassed. Is that a breach of the agreement? What has the U.S. Government done about it? And secondly, do you have any information on another report that the Soviets are about to release 12 more prisoners, possibly including Anatoly Shcharanskiy?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any information about the second item except what I have read in the news. We have no direct information about that. I hope the report is true.,The Soviets did agree to release the families of the five dissidents, earlier, without delay and without harassment. My belief is that the families will be released. There have been delays. Whether they were brought about by an unwieldy democracy [bureaucracy],1 or by actions of subordinates who weren't familiar with the government policy, or whether it was deliberate, I have no way to know.,1 Printed in the transcript.,There have been some delays. But I think in spite of this, the families will be reunited, and that's one reason that I'm very thankful about it.,Q. You do not see it as a breach of the agreement, then?,THE PRESIDENT. There was some delay, and there was some harassment of the families in my opinion. Whether that was imposed by the government officials or whether it was part of the unwieldy—the Soviet bureaucracy, I can't judge. But I'm thankful that the families will be released.,DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT,Q. Mr. President, John White, the party chairman, Democratic Party chairman, said the other day that he thought the activities of some of those Congressmen promoting Senator Kennedy were divisive and might turn the Presidency over to the Republicans in 1980. Now, do you agree with him? And would it be helpful if Senator Kennedy just today made a Sherman-like statement, as he did in 1974, take himself out of the race?,THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any quarrel to make with the statement that was issued by John White. No, I do not disagree with his statement.,I don't really have any comment to make about what Senator Kennedy does. He's made statements repeatedly about what he would do.,Let me make this point: No President can expect to have unanimous support, even within one's own party. This has been the case with every predecessor of mine who lived in the White House. But that's not my major concern. I'm not an announced candidate, and I don't intend to make every judgment about what ought to be done for this country on the basis of whether it would or would not lose support by nonpartisan Americans or officials in my own party for an upcoming election.,Some of the decisions that I have to make on inflation, on energy, on foreign affairs, are very difficult to make. I don't believe anyone can accuse me of trying to gain a vote, for instance, by my energy proposals. They've just lost votes, but they were necessary. And if I should ever modify my positions away from what's best for this country in order to pick up support, then I would not deserve to be President. So, I don't intend to do it.,If a few or even a large number of Democrats endorse someone else, that's their business. I'll continue to try to serve the country as best I can and deal with the political question when the election comes along.,STRATEGIC ARMS; MX MISSILE,Q. Mr. President, I know in your Inaugural Address, you dedicated your administration to eliminating atomic weapons from the Earth.,THE PRESIDENT. That's right.,Q. We're on the verge now of making the decision on the MX. I gather it has accuracy, it hits within 100 yards, and it has a doubling or a tripling of the atomic blast power. It could be a very destabilizing weapon in the strategic arms system, and also make SALT III very difficult to achieve. What's your decision on MX?,THE PRESIDENT. The most destabilizing thing that we could have in our strategic relationship with the Soviets would be acknowledged inferiority or a vulnerable strategic deployment of missiles. We have just completed almost 7 years of negotiations with the Soviets to actually reduce the present, permitted number of missiles on each side, to put constraints on the number of explosive warheads that could be on each missile, and to limit the improvement in quality of existing missiles. That is a major step toward my ultimate goal, which I believe is one shared by the Soviet Union leaders, of eliminating nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth in the future.,But while we do have heavy deployments of nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union—although now being constrained more severely than they were before—we must maintain an adequate level of armaments, and we must maintain the security from attack of the armaments we have.,So, when we do deploy new types of missiles to stay current and to keep our equivalency with the Soviet Union, that, in my opinion, contributes to peace, and this is completely permitted in the SALT II agreement which we have just negotiated.,The agreement on new types of IGBM's is that each side can only have one new IGBM during the life of the treaty. And that was carefully planned in order to provide stability and to stop the enormous buildup which the Soviets have been demonstrating in recent years to catch up with us, since we were originally far ahead. And if we can maintain that rough equivalency with the Soviet Union, maintain an adequate defense, and maintain the security of our own missile systems, that is a major contributing factor to peace.,So, it is not destabilizing. I think it is stabilizing.,Q. Have you decided on the MX?,THE PRESIDENT. Not yet.,THE MIDDLE EAST,Q. Mr. President, on the Middle East, sir, is it feasible in your view to expect the Palestinians and other Arab nations to join the peace process as long as the United States does not put forward some of its own ideas in greater detail about what autonomy is going to look like on the West Bank and Gaza?,In other words, as long as the Israelis are continuing to say there will be no Palestinian homeland, there will be no entity linked or unlinked to Jordan, there will be no Palestinian state, is it not incumbent on the United States, again in this peace process, to come forward with some ideas of its own in order to encourage the Palestinians to join in?,THE PRESIDENT. We've never been reticent about putting forward our ideas both to the Israelis and the Egyptians and to others about what ought to be done in the West Bank, Gaza area. We've never espoused an independent Palestinian state. I think that would be a destabilizing factor there.,I believe the next step ought to be the exchange of views during the negotiations between Israel and Egypt. We will observe the different proposals that are inevitably going to be made; some of them have been described publicly. Then later on, after the negotiations proceed as far as they can do with any degree of momentum, we will reserve the right—requested, I might say, by both Israel and Egypt— to put forward United States proposals to break a deadlock or to provide a compromise solution.,We have been involved in that kind of process both at Camp David and when I went to the Middle East. I think that's one of the reasons that we've been as successful as we have so far.,But for us to preempt the negotiations by putting forward, to begin with, an American proposal, I think, would be counterproductive, and it would remove some of the reasonable responsibility that ought to be directly on the shoulders of Prime Minister Begin and his government and President Sadat and his government.,I might say that this past weekend, I talked personally to President Sadat and to Prime Minister Begin and, this morning, to Secretary Vance. And they were all very pleased and very excited not only at the progress made in El Arish and Beersheba but also at the attitude on both sides toward a constructive resolution of these very difficult issues.,So, at this point, I feel very hopeful that both sides are negotiating in good faith. We'll be there to help them when they need our help.,BERT LANCE,Q. Mr. President, last week an Atlanta grand jury indicted your former budget director, your friend, Mr. Lance, on criminal charges. I'm aware of the fact that the courts have enjoined discussion of this case and won't ask you to do that, sir, but in view of the confidence and friendship you have expressed publicly for Mr. Lance, I wonder if you could share with us your reaction to the indictment and your feeling about Mr. Lance at this time as a person?,THE PRESIDENT. Bert Lance is still my friend. I don't see any benefit to be derived from my commenting on the actions that are presently underway within the legal system of our country.,FRANK CORMIER [Associated Press]. Thank you, Mr. President.,THE PRESIDENT. Thank you. Thank you, everybody.
#> Frequency Timing Intensity Commitment Urgency
#> 1 7.450136 49.30071 63.55909 47.88087 416.5433
#> 2 4.341814 61.22267 109.48182 99.49456 890.9070
#> 3 3.061664 26.35730 60.61023 57.60275 236.0605
#> 4 2.805798 64.90401 111.20114 71.95282 806.6904
#> 5 3.306617 39.20807 82.47273 81.53126 461.8510
#> 6 1.939836 19.25853 51.62841 79.82097 193.4879
#> 7 3.729877 22.77649 61.43295 56.95092 214.4816
#> 8 5.243861 38.98430 71.33068 66.85583 405.0353
#> 9 2.335880 39.06576 54.06250 83.26907 377.9512
#> 10 2.359209 28.82364 74.17841 78.32117 320.4210
#get_urgency(select_priorities(US_News_Conferences_1960_1980[1:2, 3]))
#summary(get_urgency(US_News_Conferences_1960_1980[1:10, 3]))
#plot(get_urgency(US_News_Conferences_1960_1980[1:10, 3]))
#get_urgency()
# }