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

THE PRESIDENT. First of all, let me say that I'm very glad to have all of you here. This is a series of meetings that we've had with leading news men and women from around the country, and it's meant a lot to us. The questions are very incisive and, I think, bring to my attention matters that sometimes are parochial in nature that I would not know about; other times, things that give me a forewarning of national issues that I wouldn't otherwise be prepared for.

ADMINISTRATION POLICIES

One of the things that I would like to emphasize today—and I've asked the staff to put these two props here—is our continuing effort to cut down on unwarranted and unnecessary Government regulation and intrusion into the private free enterprise business sector.

This pile of paper, which happens to be blank, represents the number of forms and regulations that would be required by roughly 45,000 small businesses that are now exempt from OSHA regulation. We've had very good success, particularly in the Labor Department, with OSHA and otherwise, and in HEW, in bringing about some reduction in required paperwork.

This is another example of regulations that have been required. This is the actual regulations on the purchasing of a mousetrap for the Defense Department. It used to take 500 pages to describe the regulations. Now we've cut it down to less than one page. Towels used to be 20 or 30 pages. Now it's only one paragraph.

In the Internal Revenue Service, we've simplified the tax reforms greatly so that a larger number of people could use the standard form. And because of that, the error rate this year is substantially below what the error rate has been in the past. It's a continuing effort, very difficult. I've issued a tough Executive order to all my agency leaders asking them to use their own initiative, and we've set standards for them to meet in the reduction of this regulation.

In a broader context, we've had remarkable success in airline deregulation. The Congress is still considering an airline deregulation bill, but in the actions of the Civil Aeronautics Board in international flights, and also domestic flights, we've had a dramatic reduction in the cost to passengers in acquiring the right to make these flights.

At first the airlines themselves deplored this as shaking the foundations for their profits, but now I think with the experience of a number of months they all see that this reduction of Government regulation has been greatly beneficial to them. It really has let the free enterprise system work. So, we're determined to continue this process, sometimes with disappointments and setbacks, but with a great deal of determination, not only on my part but on that of other people in this country.

We've cut out already about 85 million hours of work among American people in reducing reporting forms and requests for Government services, which is the equivalent of about 50,000 people working full time. This is what's happened in the private sector. And I would guess that many of these regulations were never adequately studied by Federal employees or leaders. The reports were never read, the forms were never examined. And I've called around this table, as a matter of fact, interested groups of Americans, you might be interested in knowing. All the State school superintendents have been here to meet with me, all the presidents of many of the major universities came here to talk to me about how they could make recommendations on legal ways to cut out forms, paperwork. And when we get their recommendations, we really try to carry them out. So, this is one item that is on my shoulders as a responsibility. We have others, of course—welfare reform, tax reform, energy policy.

The Vice President left last night for the Mideast. We're continuing our efforts there to bring about peace. He will be making a major address while he's in Israel, but will be meeting with the members of the Begin government, some of the opposition leaders as well, will be doing some symbolic things to show the Israeli people that we genuinely do care about them, that we are staunch in our commitment to their security, their freedom. He'll be making a brief visit to Egypt on the way back home.

Our SALT negotiations are continuing on a daily basis; those leading up, we hope, to a success on comprehensive test ban.

We have a kind of a long-range struggle-this is the last point I'd like to make—in the adherence to the delineation of responsibility among the different branches of Government. We've been particularly concerned in the last few weeks, months, even years, that the Congress more and more is getting into the role of administration, carrying out the provisions of law that historically have been a prerogative of the President.

Yesterday, the Congress—the House, at least—passed a very unfortunate amendment which we hope will be stopped before it becomes law, requiring every regulation issued by the Secretary of HUD to be submitted back to the Congress, and it can't go into effect for 90 days, waiting for Congress to say whether or not the regulation is advisable or not. It makes administration of Government almost impossible. And sometimes in the heat of a debate or because of an unpopular decision that's been made by myself or a Cabinet officer, you see that intrusion into the executive branch of Government by the legislative branch of Government. We hope to turn that around. I think it's unconstitutional, first of all, and it certainly is counterproductive, secondly.

Those are a few items that I thought might be interesting to you to start with. I'd like to answer your questions.

QUESTIONS

THE MIDDLE EAST

Q. Going back to the Middle East, Mr. President, for a second, I know we're most anxious not to even suggest an American solution, but what do you think the prospects are over time that those parties can somehow work out something that we can stay well clear of, except to endorse?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, let me first say that I'm convinced that Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat genuinely want peace. I don't think there's any doubt about it. Ever since Israel became a nation, it's never had 1 day free of war or the threat of war, and this is a terrible burden for a people to bear. Sadat also sees a continuing economic and political military problem for his own nation if the threat of war is there. So, that's the foundation for my belief that peace is possible.

As I said in my news conference, we've been disappointed in the last few days at the response of the Israeli Government to the questions that we asked them. And I believe that to the extent possible, it's better to let the negotiations be directly between Israel and her individual neighbors.

We have not been able so far to get Begin and Sadat to continue their discussions. There have been some periodic discussions at the Foreign Minister level and the Defense Minister level.

I believe the next step in the process, probably following the Vice President's visit, will be the promulgation, or at least the delivery to Israel of the Egyptian peace proposal. I don't know what's in it. I don't have any way to know yet. It's still in the formative stage, but I think it won't be delayed. We will receive that from Egypt, I understand, and then we will deliver it to the Israelis. Whether it's made public will be up to the Israel and Egypt Governments' desires.

My guess is that it'll be a step in the right direction but inadequate,^* in which case my own inclination would be to try to bring those two nations together, at least at the Foreign Minister level, to search out the compatibility and the incompatibility of the two proposals. We may or may not participate in that conference. If called upon to do so by both governments, we would.

^* By this term, the President wishes to make it clear that he means that the entire Egyptian proposal is unlikely to be totally acceptable to the Israeli Government. [Printed in the transcript.]

Following that, I think that my responsibility would be to analyze those differences and compatibilities and see if we can put forward, as we have for years, some compromise proposals which the two governments would then consider.

If all of this should ultimately fail, then, of course, the United Nations has a role to play in the Middle East and has for a long time. And as you know, the Geneva conference is the basic framework for peace as a result of the United Nations resolution, and that's always a fallback position if we fail as an intermediary or a mediator.

So, I can't give you a prediction of success, but I'm determined, as long as I'm in the White House as President, not ever to give up the hope of realizing the desire of the people involved in the Middle East.

ACCESSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC

Q. One of your assistants said this morning, and he defended the practice, but he said this morning the constant coverage by the press, as in the case of your fishing trip, where you're continuously covered, is one of the things that hinders your people-on-people contact and sort of insulates you from what the public thinks.

My question to you is, by and large, is the constant coverage just a nuisance, or how far does it go in actually hampering you doing your job?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't object to it. I was pleased yesterday when we came back in to see the literally thousands of people that stood on the jetty and were welcoming us. I would not have been quite so pleased had we not caught any fish. [Laughter]

But I think the sense that the American people have that the President does get tired, that I need just as much recreation now—fishing, playing tennis, walking alone in the woods, being with my family-as I did when I was a farmer, is important, and so I don't deplore that part of it. We do have adequate privacy here at the White House when we want it and at Camp David when we want it.

I don't get much privacy at home in Plains and when I go on vacations, obviously, which I haven't tried yet, but we don't get much privacy.

There's one change that has taken place that causes us some concern, but I think it's good in the long run; and that is that contrary to previous administrations, we've tried to be open. We've tried to get the American people involved in the details of a Mideast peace settlement.

In the past, as you know, most of the negotiation has been done with ultra secrecy, and only a final conclusion of an agreement was made available to the public. When SALT I was consummated with the Soviets, neither the Congress nor the American people nor the general public around the world knew what the items of dispute were and the difficult items at issue. This was the case with Vladivostok, too. An agreement was reached. It was then revealed to the public and to the Congress, and it was a matter of "take it or leave it."

Nowadays, though, because of my own inclinations and as an aftermath of Watergate and the Vietnam war and a demand to know, the specifics of negotiations are known by the public. And it makes it much more difficult to negotiate, but I think we are much less likely to make a serious mistake, as we did in Vietnam and as we may have on some of the items in negotiations on SALT.

So, I don't deplore nor regret the attention focused on me as an actual interest on the part of the American people. My private family life is completely adequate. I have privacy when I want it. And I think that it's a sound insurance policy for the American people and the Congress to be involved in the public debate on matters of great interest to our Nation, and to avoid having a tightly held, small group who in a political closet make a decision for our country and then reveal it for the first time.

This occurred during the Presidential campaign with Angola, where the public nor the Congress had ever been involved in an analysis of what occurred in Angola. After the Portuguese left, Secretary Kissinger revealed to the public that we were planning on getting involved in Angola. It was really too late; the Congress said no, and it created a very bad situation for us. So, there are two sides to it. I think it's good in the long run, and overall, I'm pleased with it.

TAX REDUCTION

Q. May I ask about the looming domestic issue starting from the other coast and trying to yell all the way to Washington, and that is Proposition 13? And I'd like to ask on the gut level how you can handle people who have risen up and taken that much into their hands to let government know that it is unresponsive.

THE PRESIDENT. I've heard about Proposition 13, even way over here in Washington. [Laughter]

I think there were two factors in California that may not be prevalent in all the other States that led to Proposition 13 being adopted. One was the extremely high property tax rate. California has still higher property tax rates than many other States in the Nation, even after Proposition 13 is imposed. And the other one was the accumulation of a large State surplus. These two in combination are unique, so far as I know.

Another factor was that in California, a large part of the welfare and social tax responsibility was on property. When I became Governor of Georgia, 6 months later we removed all property tax responsibility for the welfare system. It was all State. I think that's another factor that was there. This does occur, I think, in about roughly 20 States. But I think the expressions of the public that tax burdens in general are too high, that the government must economize, that taxes be reduced, is a clear message above and beyond the specific causes of the California decision.

This is something that hasn't been new. These were major issues during the campaign, even back in 1976 or 1975, and they are the kinds of things that I and Governors around the country have been pursuing as a political goal and with some degree of success.

So, I would say that the message came through clearly that the public wants lower taxes, more efficiency, less government spending, less intrusion in one's private life by government. Property taxes inherently are difficult to have uniform and fair. I think the people said we would rather have social programs financed by other means than property taxes. I think we've learned a lesson from their Proposition 13. And whether or not Proposition 13 will be repeated in other States, I think, though, would primarily relate to the three factors that I described to you earlier: State surplus, high property taxes, and the financing of social programs out of property taxes.

CAPITAL GAINS TAXATION

Q. You recently spoke out quite strongly against the Steiger amendment. Are you totally against any change in capital gains taxes? And if so, what method would you like to see implemented for better capital formation in the business community?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, around this very table, we've had meetings with the members of the Business Roundtable, others representing small business. I remember one day we had about 45 representatives of small business around this table, and their strong preference was to have tax reductions through the corporate tax rate and perhaps some accelerated depreciation and some investment tax credit, not through removing capital gains from the minimum tax.

When you analyze the beneficiaries of the Steiger amendment, as I said in my press conference, the beneficiaries are almost exclusively the very wealthy. I think 3,000 millionaires, as I said in my press conference, get an average tax reduction of $214,000, and the working families, even those with moderate incomes up to $30,000, get an average of only $1 a year tax benefit from the Steiger amendment. So, capital formation, stronger investment in new jobs and equipment, factories, is a very worthy goal.

I just think the Steiger amendment is completely the wrong approach toward reaching that goal. There's no balance of benefits between the working American and the very wealthy.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS

Q. Mr. President, the Congressional Black Caucus has called upon you, I believe, to make a strong, perhaps, reaffirmation of affirmative action, that you do so publicly. They've also asked you to meet with them in that regard in light of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding Allan Bakke. Can we expect such a pronouncement forthcoming from you? And if so, when? And do you intend to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I meet with the Congressional Black Caucus fairly regularly and consult with them almost on a continuing basis, individual members or about individual items.

I think it's accurate to say that the Supreme Court decision on the Bakke case was compatible with the desires of the Black Caucus. We consulted with the Black Caucus members and others before the Attorney General presented the brief from the Justice Department. And I read the brief and approved it personally. It called for a continuation of the affirmative action option to alleviate racial discrimination, either presently extant or the apparent results of historical discrimination.

We have worked very closely through the Justice Department to reassess all the Federal programs to be sure that we not only quietly had an affirmative action program but an aggressive affirmative action program.

I mentioned procurement a while ago. We directed all the departments to purchase a certain portion of Federal supplies and equipment from black-owned and minority-owned firms. We've done the same thing with Federal deposits in banks that happen to be owned by minority Americans.

We've passed legislation this past year, which has been confirmed as legal by the Supreme Court decision in the Bakke case—at least indirectly—requiring, for instance, that in a public works program that a certain portion of the contracts for those public works projects had to be allotted to minority American-owned businesses.

So, we have a continuing effort to make sure that the affirmative action program goes on in the Government. And I would say that the Bakke decision confirms our stand and leaves adequate option in the future, not only in the university system but in all levels of American life, for affirmative action to be implemented and racial discrimination to be reduced.

NUCLEAR POWER

Q. Mr. President, I'm sure that your office was well aware of last weekend's antinuclear demonstrations across the country, particularly one in Seabrook, New Hampshire, which drew some 15,000 participants.

In August of 1976 you stated that you thought nuclear power, nuclear energy, should only be a last resort. Yet your administration continues to push for the development of nuclear energy. Do you feel that your administration is pushing more for nuclear energy than to alternate forms of energy, particularly solar and hydroelectric, which, except for the TVA project, seem to be more environmentally feasible?

THE PRESIDENT. NO. We have had a dramatic change since I've been in office in, for instance, the portion of research and development funds that go to nuclear power. We've reduced that substantially. We've increased dramatically the portion

of research and development funds that go into alternate forms of energy, the various uses of coal, geothermal, solar energy, and so forth.

What we have always said is that there is a place for nuclear power. When the needs of our Nation are met to the fullest extent by conservation, by a shift from oil and gas to coal, the continued use of moderate amounts of oil and gas, enhanced use of geothermal supplies, greatly increased use of solar, then the balance should be filled in by nuclear power.

I do want to be sure that when a nuclear powerplant is proposed, that the decision be made expeditiously, that environmentalists and others have a chance to have their case considered, and that the siting of nuclear powerplants and the design of nuclear powerplants, both for compatibility with the surrounding country, recreation areas, and so forth, and also safety, is ensured.

We've never had in the past an adequate program for controlling waste disposal from nuclear powerplants. We've tried to move on this. The Congress has passed a nonproliferation act which is now in effect, which is a major step in the right direction. We have tried to expedite the licensing of nuclear powerplants. The Congress is considering this. So, I would say that we've got a very well balanced program.

I've never thought that nuclear powerplants should be abolished or prohibited. There are some States that have that desire. And when the people, through the referendum or through the legislature, decide that they do not want nuclear powerplants placed in their State, that's a prerogative that they can honor. I think we've got a well-balanced program now.

The main thing is that we still labor under confusion about the present and the future, pending the passage by the Congress of a comprehensive energy proposal. But when that is passed, I think you would see clearly that the strongest shift has been to adequate rate structure, which reduces a dependence on the scarcer forms of energy, the shift toward coal, the conservation brought about by more efficient automobiles and encouragement through tax measures of conservation matters and the shift away from oil and gas and an enhancement of the use of solar power in all its derivative forms.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Q. Mr. President, may I ask you in the Spanish language?

THE PRESIDENT. Si.

Q. Cuales son los siguientes pasos de su administracion respecto a la politica de derechos humanos en Latino America?

THE PRESIDENT. Bueno. El sujeto de derechos humanos es muy importante para nosotros. En el futuro sera un programa de nuestro gobierno sin cesar.

Let me speak in English. It might be easier for the others to understand and also for me, too.

The question, if I understand it right, was in the future, what will be our Government action or program for the continuation of effort on human rights. And I replied that human rights is a very important subject for us, and in the future, we will continue with the program of enhancing human rights.

In many parts of the world, this has become a burning issue, perhaps even more intense interest focused upon it than in the United States. Latin America, Caribbean, is one area. I met with the leader of the opposition parties in the Federal Republic of Germany just before lunch, and he said of all the things that our country has done since I've been in office, the most profoundly important is our insistence upon the preservation of human rights. It permeates almost every aspect of our Government. And I think it has the strong support of the American people.

So, in all its forms, political freedom, an absence of persecution, the release of long-held prisoners, a shift toward the democratic expression of opinion by the populace, those kinds of freedoms are important to us, also the freedom from hunger and ability to have adequate health care and education. So, human rights will continue to be a cornerstone of our foreign policy and a deep personal commitment of mine.

MR. WURFEL. Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. Let me answer one more question, and then if you all don't mind, I'd like to get a personal photograph with each one of you. We won't have time for conversation, but if you'd come by we'll have—

INFLATION

Q. Mr. President, in the ongoing battle with inflation, are you discouraged about the progress that we're making against inflation, and .do you think that we can in fact stop this runaway inflation and not have a recession or a depression?

THE PRESIDENT. I am discouraged about inflationary pressures. I think if you would remember back just 12 months ago or more, the overriding domestic concern by the Congress, by me, and most others, was the unemployment rate, which was very high at that time.

Since I've been in office, we've cut down the unemployment rate substantially, about 2 percent, and we've added a net increase of 5 1/2 million jobs in our country. But lately, we've had an increase in the rate of inflation. This has been caused by several factors, the most significant of which is food costs. And I'd say the second most significant is interest charges, both of which are in the Consumer Price Index.

My guess is that food costs are leveling off, that the rate of increase will not be as great in the next 6 months as they have been in the last 6 months. Interest rates, as you know, are determined substantially by the Federal Reserve Board, which is an independent agency, and I think these interest rate increases are designed to constrain the supply of money.

There's a general attitude to be evolved in the country, and that is a genuine concern on the part of every American about inflation and a willingness to make a common sacrifice. One example of this obviously is in the passage of a budget act, an appropriations, series of appropriations bills. Every group demands that others sacrifice to control inflation. But, as I said in Texas, we've got to have someone stand up—and I'm willing to be that person—against increased demands from defense contractors, and highway contractors, local governments, veterans, educators, farmers. Each one of those groups can make an excellent case for more government spending to finance their particular interest in American life.

But I think we've got to keep a lid on spending. And I intend to use every resource at my command, including the veto, to hold down unwarranted spending on the part of Congress. I think so far Congress has been reasonable. I don't know about the final outcome of proposals.

The other thing that has to be done is in the private sector, and that's where most of the influence will come. We've had several large American corporations to agree to our deceleration formula, which means that this year the increase in prices will not be as great as the average for the preceding 2 years.

The same thing applies to wages. We've not had as much success yet with the labor unions in holding down wage demands as we have had with some of the corporations in their prices. But this is predictable.

My own sense is that the workers will have to see some willingness on the part of government and business to hold down prices before they will be willing to make a long-term sacrifice, because most of those contracts extend over a period of 3 years or so. But it's going to require a general sense that we are in it together, that we will make mutual sacrifices and some demonstration of particular elements, like the Government, that we are indeed serious. With that kind of hope being realized, then I think we can turn the tide, stop the inflation rate, and then start the inflation rate down.

I think we will have a very good demonstration on the part of the Government this year in the size of the budget, the proposal for fiscal year '80 budget, the constraints on wage rates in the Government, that will be beneficial to the private sector. And my expectation is that the private sector will respond.

So, I think we've got a good hope. It's going to be a long, tedious, slow process. We're going to have some disappointments. But the inflation rate has got to be controlled. It's my number one domestic problem, and I can only resolve it with the help of everyone.

Thank you very much. I've enjoyed it.