"Ask the President" Remarks During a Telephone Call-out Program on National Public Radio

ANNOUNCER. From National Public Radio in Washington, this is "Ask the President," a live, 2-hour broadcast with President Jimmy Carter. President Carter will be speaking with Americans by telephone from the Oval Office. The questions will not be screened before they are put to the President. For technical reasons, listeners cannot call in to the White House or National Public Radio. NPR will call out to questioners. For several weeks now, on radio, television, and in newspaper ads, Americans have been notified of this broadcast. They were invited to send NPR their names and phone numbers if they wished to ask Mr. Carter a question. The names are being selected at random, and National Public Radio staff members are now placing the calls.

Here now in the Oval Office with President Carter, NPR's Susan Stareberg, your host for "Ask the President."

MS. STAMBERG. Good afternoon, President Carter. It's good to have you with us.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Susan. I'm looking forward to it.

MS. STAMBERG. This is a format that you enjoy a lot, isn't it, this radio-telephone business?

THE PRESIDENT. It is. I've not only done it here in the Oval Office, but for instance, when I went down the Mississippi River on a paddle-wheel steamboat-

MS. STAMBERG. That's right.

THE PRESIDENT.—we stopped and had a telephone call-in show. And in addition to that, whenever I have a chance, I go out into the country and, with several hundred or sometimes several thousand people present, take questions from the audience in an unrehearsed way. You get a lot different kind of question that relates more directly to people than just the ordinary political questions, very good-

Ms. STAMBERG. Do you think they are as intense—the questions that you get from citizens—as the sort that you would get from the Washington press corps?

THE PRESIDENT. Without exhibiting prejudice, I think they're much more intense and much more heartfelt. It's a rare thing for a citizen to have a chance to ask a question directly to a President, and quite often that remark or that question is the most important thing in a person's life, at least at that moment. Sometimes there's just a friendly exchange, you know, people saying, "Glad to talk to you, Mr. President, wish you well." But ordinarily the questions asked are extremely important to that person.

MS. STAMBERG. Well, let's get to some of those questions.

Before we take the first call, I have a few cautionary notes to make to our callers. Please, folks, keep your questions short, no speeches, no filibustering, or I'm going to have to cut you off. And the reason for this is not that I'm rude, it's that we want to get a chance to have as many of you on the line as possible. Also, when you are speaking with the President, stay on the phone as he is giving you his answer. In case you have any followup questions that you want to ask, you'll have that opportunity.

All right, Mr. President, the first call is from David A. Maclver, in Springfield, Massachusetts. Go ahead, Mr. Maclver.

INCOME TAX REFORM

MR. MACIVER. Good afternoon, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. Hello, David.

MR. MACIVER. I'd like to ask about possible income tax reform and the guides to the inequities between filing as a married person versus a single person. Being married and with two incomes, presently we pay more than two comparable single persons would. Also, I'd like to know why a certain amount of interest couldn't be earned before taxing it, as an incentive to the small saver.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, David. We've attempted, as you know, since I've been in office, to have some income tax reform measures passed and have been partially successful. One of the major issues that has been addressed, on which I've talked with the chairman of the Finance Committee in the Senate and the Ways and Means Committee in the House, is to remove that inequity between a married couple and two individuals who are single. Now there is a penalty against marriage, in effect, and I think it would be a good step to remove that inequity.

We at this time are concentrating on controlling inflation, which is our biggest single economic threat, and we are not working on any income tax reductions for the time being.

In the future, if we do go to an income tax reduction proposal, one of the considerations would be to encourage saving, as you've described, and also to encourage investment to make sure we have additional jobs available in the future. Another one is to provide more equity or fairness among people who have to pay income taxes, and of course, another one would be to reduce inflation itself. There are some types of income tax reductions which could contribute to reduced inflation.

We've been successful in reducing income taxes since I've been in office. I think next year, for instance, the income tax reductions that we've already initiated will amount to about $40 billion, and at the same time, we've cut the Federal deficit down by $36 billion. So, we are making some progress, still have a long way to go.

The suggestions that you made are very interesting and, I think, good ones.

MS. STAMBERG. Mr. MacIver, anything else that you wanted to ask?

MR. MACIVER. No. Thank you very much.

Ms. STAMBERG. Good. Thank you so much.

The next caller, Mr. President, is Mrs. Mary Tingle, in Louisville, Kentucky. Go ahead, Mrs. Tingle; you're on the line with President Carter.

PRAYER IN SCHOOLS

MRS. TINGLE. President Carter, first, we love you, your family, and Miss Lillian. And the question is, our Nation was built on trust in God, and a lot of our young people don't know Him. And why can't we have prayer in school?

MS. STAMBERG. Mrs. Tingle, we had a little bit of trouble hearing you.

THE PRESIDENT. I think I understood her. She said, "Why don't we have prayer in school?"

MRS. TINGLE. Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. Mary, as you know, I'm a Christian and a Baptist, and I believe very strongly in the separation of church and state, which is guaranteed under our Constitution.

MRS. TINGLE. I know.

THE PRESIDENT. I am in favor of voluntary prayer in school and the right of each person to worship God in his or her own way at any time one is motivated. I pray frequently in my own daily life as President, more so now than I used to, I might say.

I don't believe, though, that it's proper for a government entity, either the Federal Government or local government or even a school board, to require that children worship in school. And sometimes even a small child would be embarrassed if, for instance, there are different faiths represented in the classroom. Sometimes the children don't worship God at all; sometimes they might be Jewish or Christian, sometimes Catholics and Protestants, sometimes in our modern-day society even those who are Moslems. And I think that to mandate or to require a person to worship in school is not proper.

The Supreme Court has ruled on this, and the Supreme Court ruling is basically in accordance with what I've just described to you as my preference.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you very much, Mrs. Tingle.

The next caller is Mrs. Annette Lantos, and she's calling from Hillsborough, California. Good morning. It's morning for you, isn't it, Mrs. Lantos? You're on the line with President Carter.

RAOUL WALLENBERG

MRS. LANTOS. Mr. President, when my husband and I were youngsters in Hungary during World War II, our lives were saved through the intervention of a Swedish diplomat named Raoul Wallenberg. We later learned that Mr. Wallenberg, who also saved the lives of thousands of other Jewish people like us, was acting in behalf of the American State Department. But unfortunately, Mr. Wallenberg was arrested at the end of the war by the Russians and has been in a Russian prison ever since. And although the Russians claim that he died, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence which indicates that he's still alive in a Soviet prison. Could you do something, Mr. President, to help him get released?

THE PRESIDENT. There's a limit to what I can do. We have inquired into the Wallenberg case with the Russians, both when I was in Vienna this year with President Brezhnev and other Russian leaders, and through the Soviet Ambassador here in Washington and also our Ambassador in Moscow. On occasions, when Secretary Vance has met with Foreign Minister Gromyko, we've also inquired about the Wallenberg case, along with the cases of many others.

The Soviets maintain their claim that Mr. Wallenberg is no longer alive, but we are not forgetting about this case and will continue our efforts.

MRS. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I hope you will.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you, Mrs. Lantos.

The next caller is in Jacksonville, Florida. It's Mrs. Carol A. Whitcomb. Go ahead, Mrs. Whitcomb, you're on the line with President Carter.

ADDRESSING THE PRESIDENT

MRS. WHITCOMB. President Carter?

THE PRESIDENT. Good morning.

MRS. WHITCOMB. I just want to say that this is really an honor to talk to you, and I'm so thrilled. I want to tell you also, I went down to Tampa on August 30 to see you, and I really enjoyed your speech. But my question is really a complaint about the news media, how they always tend to call you Mr. Carter. And to me, I think they should show you the respect that is due to you by calling you President Carter. And that is really the only thing I have to say except that I just wanted to talk to you.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, thank you very much, Carol. I hope I can meet you personally sometime.

MRS. WHITCOMB. I hope so, too, President Carter. And also, is there any way I can get a letter saying that I talked to you, so I can have it to show to my children?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people listening to us, and I will also write you a letter.

MRS. WHITCOMB. Thank you, sir, I really appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT. Let me comment on your comment, first of all, before we quit. I hope you don't forget to go to the caucuses today; everybody in Florida ought to participate.

MRS. WHITCOMB. Yes, sir, I saw that.

THE PRESIDENT. Good. And the second thing is that I believe we ought to have the President addressed by "Mr." It's perfectly all right.

When Washington became the first President, there was a move made to give him some sort of title, and he objected to this. And there was some doubt about how he should be addressed during his term of office, and also John Adams. When Thomas Jefferson became President, he insisted that everyone call him "Mr. Jefferson."

And so, I don't have any objection to that. The President ought not to be honored any more than just being able to hold the office, and so "President Carter" or "Mr. President" is also very good. And when I drive down the streets—for instance, recently in Tampa for a townhall meeting—and the children and everybody yell "Hi, Jimmy," I also am thrilled by the friendship. But I think "Mr. Carter" or "President Carter" are both appropriate.

MS. STAMBERG. Thanks very much, Mrs. Whitcomb.

The next call comes from Jerry Johnson, and he's calling from Flint, Michigan. Go ahead, Mr. Johnson, you're on the line with President Carter.

STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION

MR. JOHNSON. Good afternoon, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon, Jerry.

MR. JOHNSON. How are you?

THE PRESIDENT. Fine.

MR. JOHNSON. Okay, I have a question here concerning the SALT treaty.

THE PRESIDENT. Okay.

MR. JOHNSON. All right. If it's rejected by the Senate—and I know there's doubts right now—what are your future options concerning arms reductions? And is verification really the chief obstacle to its ratification right now?

THE PRESIDENT. Jerry, if the SALT II treaty is rejected, this would be a severe blow to our country, to our Nation's security, and to the prospects for world peace. SALT II is a treaty that's been negotiated over a 7-year period by three different Presidents—two Republicans and myself as a Democrat. It's a carefully negotiated treaty that is in the best interest of our own country and also, I might add, in the best interest of the Soviet Union and all those who want peace on Earth.

We have adequate means to verify compliance with the SALT II treaty. We do not depend on trusting the Soviet Union. We have our own national technical means that we can use to make sure that the Soviets do honor every provision in the SALT II treaty. If we should detect in the future—and we have that ability-any evidence that the Soviets are violating the treaty, then we have the right under the terms of the treaty itself to terminate the treaty at that moment.

Another thing that I'd like to point out to you are the consequences of rejection. It would end, really, a 30-year process toward controlling nuclear weapons throughout the world, particularly in our country and the Soviet Union. If that was ended, it would be very difficult to recommence it, and if we did start another 2- or 3- or 7-year negotiation, the chances are very high that the final product would be almost identical to what we have negotiated this time.

In addition, a lot of countries around the world—our allies, like those in Europe, Japan, the less developed countries, nonaligned nations like India, for instance-look upon us and the Soviet Union as having a major responsibility to negotiate successfully. We have negotiated successfully. The Soviets have, in effect, adopted the treaty, because they don't have democratic processes, but we still have to get the approval of the Senate.

If the Senate should vote no on SALT, this would be a clear signal to the people all over Earth that our country is not indeed committed to the control of nuclear weapons adequately, and the Soviets would be given a tremendous and undeserved propaganda weapon to use against us. They would say, falsely, that they are a nation committed to peace and the control of nuclear weapons, but that we, because the Senate rejected SALT II, are a nation that's not inclined toward peace and the control of nuclear weapons. That would be a false claim, but it would be a very powerful political weapon that the Soviets could use.

What I want to do is to maintain equivalency and equality of nuclear capability, reduce sharply in the future atomic weaponry, and then compete with the Soviet Union on a peaceful basis, because we've got all the advantages on our side—democracy, freedom, respect for human rights, basic ethical standards, deep religious commitments. On a peaceful basis, we can compete and win. We don't want to compete on a warlike basis, but we're going to stay strong enough to deter any potential aggressor from daring to attack us. SALT II would accomplish all these worthy goals.

MS. STAMBERG. Mr. Johnson, does that answer your question?

MR. JOHNSON. Yes, it does.

Mr. President, I'd like to know if you're coming back to Flint next—well, I hope you do come back to Flint next year. I remember you were here in '76.

THE PRESIDENT. I hope, too, yes.

MR. JOHNSON. Yes. Thank you.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

President Carter, Senator Frank Church has said that he wants to attach an understanding to the SALT treaty which, in effect, says it won't go into effect until you can provide him with some assurances that that Soviet troop problem in Cuba has been solved. Do you think that's feasible? Is that a reasonable request?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it's necessary. My own belief is, Susan, that the SALT II treaty ought to be accepted or rejected on its own merits. Does it indeed enhance the security of our Nation? It's obvious to me that it does. Does it indeed contribute to world peace? And I think there's no doubt that it does. Is the treaty fair? The answer is yes. Can it be verified? The answer is yes.

The Senate will go into the debate on SALT II, hopefully, around the first of November, and I don't have any doubt that there will be some requests by the Members of the Senate for clarification of its terms or maybe for some requirements on us in the future. Those will be carefully considered, but my own judgment now is that those kind of amendments and so forth are not needed. If they come, we'll just have to assess them on an individual basis.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you.

Before we take the next question, I want to remind our listeners that what you're hearing is a live, 2-hour telephone program with President Carter from the Oval Office at the White House. National Public Radio welcomes your participation, but, alas, you cannot call us; we have to do the phoning out to you. For some weeks now, citizens have been sending NPR cards with their names, addresses, and phone numbers on them, and the cards are now being chosen at random. The calls are being placed from Washington. So, please don't call us; we'll call you.

The next call is from Mrs. Jeanette Lindstrom in Sun City, Arizona. Go ahead, Mrs. Lindstrom.

U.S. MARINES IN GUANTANAMO

MRS. LINDSTROM. President Carter.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Jeanette.

MRS. LINDSTROM. Yes. I'm so thrilled to be talking with you. I'm just getting over a bad cold, so you'll have to excuse my scratchy voice.

THE PRESIDENT. It sounds beautiful. And I'm glad to talk to you, too.

MRS. LINDSTROM. I'm so thrilled to be talking with you; I'm so excited.

I'm concerned about the Marines in Guantanamo. I lost a brother in World War II. He was a Marine, and this has got me quite upset about the Marines being down there. Can you assure me, Mr. President, that they are not there for any other purpose than what the media is telling us?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I can assure you of that. We have a perfect right to be in Guantanamo and to have a military base there. This is in accordance, Jeanette, with a 1903 treaty. This treaty was reconfirmed by the Cuban Government in 1934, and after Fidel Castro became the head of the Cuban Government, he reconfirmed to us the right of the United States to have this small military base. From time to time, as a matter of routine military maneuvers, we've put in more troops there for a few days or a few weeks and then take them out just to practice on military affairs, as is common for all nations on Earth.

There is no prospect for a war or for conflict or for combat. It's a very safe thing to do. We're going to stay in Guantanamo in accordance with our negotiated rights, and there need be no concern on your part.

MRS. LINDSTROM. Oh, thank you, and I feel better about that. And God bless you, President Carter.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I hope your cold's better soon.

MRS. LINDSTROM. Thank you.

MS. STAMERG. Thank you, Mrs. Lindstrom.

The next call is Mr. Adrian Boles, and he's on the line with us from Madison, Wisconsin. Go ahead, Mr. Boles.

ENERGY AND THE NATION'S ECONOMY

MR. BOLES. Good afternoon, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Hello, Adrian.

MR. BOLES. The reason why I'm calling is, you like to hear what people feel like. And when I go to a bank, the interest rates have gone up, and when I go to the food store, that has gone up. And, you know, inflation has really affected the country, especially when it comes down to me personally. And, you know, I've had loans on my car—and luckily, I got them years ago, because I'm still paying for the car. But the problem is that everything has gone up, Mr. President. And I know you're trying to do the best you can, but, you know, when you have—I think it's a Democratic Congress, I believe, you're working with?

THE PRESIDENT. That's correct. Adrian, this is one of the biggest responsibilities that I have and the biggest problems that I have as President.

I'm the fourth President now who's tried to deal with excessive inflation. Most of the inflation is uncontrollable, at least in the short term, and a great portion of it has been caused by the, I think, unnecessary and excessive increases in energy costs put on us by the OPEC countries, both in 1973, when they quadrupled the price of oil, and even in this last 8 or 9 months, when they've increased energy prices or oil prices by 60 percent. For instance, if we didn't have energy, if we could remove the energy part of the inflation picture, then during this past summer, say, June, July, August, we would have the same inflation rate that we had a year ago or 2 years ago. And now about 4 percent of the inflation rate is caused by these increases in oil prices.

What we're trying to do is to deal with inflation on a long-term and consistent and persistent basis. We're not going to back down on it. Obviously, a major unmet need is to have an energy policy in our country that reduces dependence on imported oil.

We not only import about 8 1/2 million barrels of oil from foreign countries every day, but we import along with it inflation and unemployment. Next year we'll send overseas $70 billion in American money to pay for oil that we are importing. That's why we've needed so long and the Congress is now working so hard on getting a national energy policy. This would depend primarily on conservation, and we're trying to encourage every American to cut back on the waste of energy of all kinds, to save energy.

We're going to shift toward the kinds of energy in our country that's so plentiful, for instance, solar power and replenishable supplies of energy that come from wood and growing plants—gasohol is one evidence of that—geothermal heat underneath the surface of the Earth that we've just begun to tap. We've got a lot of coal that would last six or seven hundred years. We're going to increase the use of it and have it in such a form that it wouldn't create low-quality air or violate our environmental standards.

These kinds of things will let us cut back on the future dependence of imported oil, I would say at least two-thirds by the year 1990, and at the same time help to control inflation.

There's no way that we can avoid, at this time, having high interest rates, because interest rates go with inflation, and the best way to get the interest rates down is to reduce inflation.

One other comment I might make very quickly is that we've tried to do it through Government action as well. For instance, we've cut the Federal budget deficit since I've been in office more than 50 percent, by $36 billion. We have about 20,000 fewer Federal employees now than we had in 1976, in spite of the fact that we are delivering more services. And we've cut down the portion of our gross national product, everything America produces, that's being collected and spent by the Federal Government. These kinds of things in the long run will have a good impact on inflation.

So far, we are dealing with it on a broad base. I believe that the inflation rate will turn downward during the end of this year and, I hope, continue downward in the years ahead.

MR. BOLES. Okay. I like that answer, Mr. President, because, you know, like I said, my apartment where I live is insulated. So, that has really cut down the cost as far as heating. And a lot of people are saying, well, that costs too much and this and this. But you've got to have that because it saves a lot on heating bills.

THE PRESIDENT. I think in the long run our awareness that energy supplies might be short and the prices very high will encourage Americans to do what we've always needed to do, that is, stop waste of energy and have conservation efforts on our own.

I hope that every American listening, by the way, to my voice now, every family will kind of get together before the day is over and decide how that particular family can cut back on the waste of energy in their homes, on their jobs, or traveling. That will be the biggest single one thing that we can do to control inflation in the future.

MR. BOLES. Just like me, personally, I will drive to work every day—and I don't live too far from my job—but in the wintertime I will drive, too. But if there was some mass transportation, I wouldn't have to depend on my car. We have buses. But when I leave at 1 o'clock in the morning to go home, then there's no buses anymore, and I don't want to take my chances.

THE PRESIDENT. That's a good point. I hope you've got more than one person in your car when you go to work.

MS. STAMBERG. Mr. Boles, thank you so much for joining us today. We appreciate it.

President Carter, that sparks a question from me, and that is, there are nations in Europe, also Japan, where they're paying $2 a gallon for gasoline.

THE PRESIDENT. Or even more, $2.70.

MS. STAMBERG. Or more, yeah. But their inflation is lower than ours and their unemployment rate is lower than ours. Why can't we do that?

THE PRESIDENT. Let me tell you why. In the past our gasoline prices have-say, just even in recent months, have been 90 cents. If gasoline prices all over the world go up 10 cents a gallon, and ours go from 90 cents to $1, that's about an 11-percent inflation rate. Are you with me so far?

MS. STAMBERG. Sort of.

THE PRESIDENT. But say in a foreign country—Italy or France—if the price of gasoline to begin with was $2.40 and the price only went up 10 cents, then the inflation rate in percentages would be much, much less, like 3 percent or less. So, since their prices have always been so high on energy to start with, and ours have been much lower, any increase in the price of energy shows up much greater in our inflation rate than it does in other countries around the world.

I represent and lead, really, two nations, as far as energy is concerned. We have the greatest energy-consuming nation on Earth, and our Nation produces as much energy as any nation on Earth. So, we are a consumer and a producer.

In the past, the Congress has been influenced very heavily by the oil producers, the oil companies, and only since I've been in office, the last few months, have we seen consumers having an equal voice in the Congress. And my prediction to you is that by the end of this year, when the Congress adjourns, we will have on the law books of our country a comprehensive energy policy that will really benefit our Nation in the future.

MS. STAMBERG. The public sometimes gets the feeling, though, that it's taken an awfully long time for this to come through.

THE PRESIDENT. It has. We've never had it before.

MS. STAMBERG. Why is that?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, the longer I've been involved in the energy question, the more I can understand why my predecessors in this office didn't try to do anything about it. It is a losing proposition politically.

When I spoke to the country in April of 1977 in an evening television address, I told them that just opening up the energy problem would probably cost me 15 points in the public opinion polls. I underestimated the problem; it's cost me a lot more than that, because the oil-producing States think we have hurt the oil industry, and many consumers think we have not done enough for them.

But just to address this problem and to make Americans realize that we do have a problem and start cutting down on the unnecessary oil imports will help every American in the future. And it also enhances our Nation's security, because we are subject now to blackmail, and we are subject to having a major portion of our energy supplies interrupted in countries over which we have no control. And obviously, every time they jack up prices, the more oil we're importing, the more it costs American consumers.

So, we'll shift toward more conservation, more use of American energy of all kinds. That's the best approach.

MS. STAMBERG. Let's get to the next question from a listener, although it would be nice to continue chatting. Robert O'Connor is on the line from Elkader, Iowa. Am I pronouncing Elkader properly, Mr. O'Connor?

MR. O'CONNOR. That's Elkader, Iowa; that's in northeast Iowa.

MS. STAMBERG. Oh, thank you very much.

ENERGY RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION

MR. O'CONNOR. Good morning, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, Robert.

MR. O'CONNOR. And I appreciate you calling me.

Basically, I sort of want to continue a little bit on the line of the energy program. It seems that the part of the program or the general trend is towards trying to satisfy America's energy addiction, rather than curbing it. It seems like you're continuing to advocate the use of nuclear power, contrary to the campaign promise, and also, recently, this inefficient and perhaps environmentally dirty synthetic fuel program. And I was wondering—it all seems to try to be towards avoiding the purchasing of foreign oil, but it seems like the area that's still, you know, in the end result is still being avoided is the use of renewable fuels. And some of these conservation measures don't seem to actually be happening, and I'm just wondering, why hasn't a greater emphasis been put on these things?

You know, maybe I'm being impatient or something, but it seems like more of an emphasis can be put on some of these other things, rather than synthetic fuel, which seems to be oriented just towards trying to keep it just in America. And, you know, I think it's okay to use some of the foreign fuels, but why not put more emphasis on conservation and renewable fuels right here, that we have?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, our number one reliance on correcting the energy problem, Mr. O'Connor, is conservation. That's the cheapest and best way to cut down on imports. And as I said earlier on this program, I hope that every American will do everything possible within one's own life to be more efficient in the use of energy. The Government's doing its share as well. And the things we've already done will save about 2 1/2 million barrels of oil per day by 1990.

In addition to that, we are trying to shift toward more renewable supplies of energy. Solar power is one that you mentioned, and I'll comment on that specifically. We've set as a goal for ourselves by the end of this century to have 20 percent of the total energy used in this country coming directly from the Sun. This is a tremendously ambitious goal, but I believe that we can meet it.

In order to do that, for instance, we are setting up a solar bank that will give loans to people who will take actions to increase their own use of solar power. We've put into effect tax credits for families throughout the country if they will insulate their homes, for instance, or put in solar heat. They can get tax credits and reduced income tax payments because of that.

We have, in addition, a major move toward using the kinds of growing plants that can produce energy and be replenishable every year, deriving their substance indirectly at least from the Sun. For instance, I was in Georgia recently at a seminar at Georgia Tech, where we discussed innovative ways to resolve our energy problems. It was pointed out that Georgia's growing plants produced twice as much energy every year, just 1 year's growth, as the entire State uses. And we now waste throughout our forests in this country about 30 percent or 35 percent of the total tree that grows. And this kind of waste can be used in the future. Burning wood is obviously the most well known way, in stoves.

MR. O'CONNOR. I burn wood myself.

THE PRESIDENT. So, these are the kind of things we are pursuing.

As a last resort, we'll have to have some additional supplies of energy. And coal is not, in some forms, a clean-burning product, and so the synthetic fuels program is designed primarily to get clean-burning fuels, like gas and oil, out of coal and shale, which is of tremendous importance in our country. And nuclear power is an integral part of our energy supplies, too. But I think we ought to minimize nuclear power and, as I said during the campaign, have it as a last resort, just to make up the difference between what we can produce and save from other sources compared to what we totally need.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you, Mr. O'Connor, for posing your question to President Carter.

A quick reminder that you're listening to "Ask the President" on National Public Radio, and our callers are being selected at random from postcards sent in over the past few weeks. Please do not call National Public Radio, don't call the White House, and don't call your local public radio station. If your card has been chosen, we'll do the calling, and we'll call you.

We have just called, and on the line with us now, a 10-year-old named Shanie Ridge in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Shanie are you there? Go ahead. The President's on the line with you.

VIEWS ON THE PRESIDENCY

MISS RIDGE. Mr. Carter?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Shanie.

MISS RIDGE. Do you like your job?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I like it very much. I like the White House and the life there: so does Amy, by the way. And I like my job. It's the best job in the greatest country on Earth.

MISS RIDGE That's what you think?

THE PRESIDENT. That's what I think. Would you like to be President some day?

MISS RIDGE. Oh, I don't know, I guess so.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, good. You might have to run against Amy; I don't know.

INFLATION

MISS RIDGE. And my other question is, what could I do to help stop inflation?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't know if you've been listening to the program or not, Shanie, but I think one of the things is that you could help to save energy, and around the house you could observe ways to keep doors closed, to make your parents insulate their home better to prevent heat from escaping. You could keep the thermostat set fairly high during the summer and low during the winter so you don't waste heat. You could cut off electric lights and other electrical appliances when they're not in use.

And when you're driving along the road with your parents, you could certainly make sure they obey the speed limit. And I think that when your father or your mother go to work, for instance, you could try to get them to join in a carpool so that one automobile could be filled before it rides up and down the highways with just one person in it.

We're doing all we can on this end, but there are a lot of things that a 10-year-old can do. Around the school, you ought to get together with other kids in your class, for instance, and try to share ideas with each other about what you can do in addition to those things that I've already described.

As far as buying things is concerned, if you see a product that's going up in price too much or if your mother sees one going up in price, shop around and try to get lower priced products that give you the same service, like food or clothing and so forth. Good shopping, I think, will also help to control inflation.

I wish you well. It's really good to see a 10-year-old interested in public affairs. And you can help me as much as anyone in this country can to cut down on energy waste and hold down inflation.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you, Shanie, for your question.

Mr. President, the next caller is Michael Del Coro, and he's calling from the Bronx, New York. Go ahead, Mr. Del Coro.

SOLAR ENERGY

MR. DEL CORO. Hello, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Michael.

MR. DEL CORO. I'd like to ask you, do you believe in solar energy?

Ms. STAMBERG. Mr. Del Coro, would you say your question again, please? We didn't understand you.

MR. DEL CORO. Do you believe in solar energy?

THE PRESIDENT. Solar energy—yes, very much so. I think people forget how much solar energy we already use. A great portion of the heat that we use in homes, for instance, comes through the windows and through the walls and through the roof of homes, even if you don't have a solar collector, as such, on the roof. And, of course, the Sun provides ultimately all the heat that we use on this Earth, either by stored, Sun-produced products in the past that make oil and coal or through the generation of hydroelectric power by water that's been taken to the mountains by Sun's evaporation, and so forth.

So, I believe very deeply in solar energy and believe that in the future, Michael, that we can use a lot more of it.

POTENTIAL WARS OVER OIL

MR. DEL CORO. Yes, I am—[inaudible]—to ask you about that. Now, the second question is this, that is there any possibility of any war for oil?

MS. STAMBERG. Any war for oil.

THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe so. Obviously, there's always a possibility that other nations would try to interrupt supplies of oil for us. We're trying to improve our Nation's security by cutting down on the amount of oil that we have to import and become more self-reliant, that is, produce more oil of our own.

I think that in 1973, it was, some of the Arab countries and OPEC countries had an embargo against our country and did not send us oil for a while. I don't believe that's likely in the future. We have a much better relationship now with those countries than we did in the past. And I believe that the prospect for war over oil would be very, very remote.

MR. DEL CORO. Okay. Now, this is—

MS. STAMBERG. Mr. Del Coro, I'm so sorry, I'm going to have to interrupt you. I think two questions is about the limit for each caller. Thank you very much, Mr. Del Coro.

THE PRESIDENT. Good luck to you.

MS. STAMBERG. We're going to go on to the next call. It's from Samuel Scott Rosenburg, in Key Biscayne, Florida. Go ahead, Mr. Rosenburg.

ALCOHOL FUEL

MR. ROSENBURG. Hello, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

MR. ROSENBURG. Greetings from Key Biscayne. How are you today?

THE PRESIDENT. Just great.

MR. ROSENBURG. Good. I'm real excited to be able to speak to you today, because I have good news, rather than a question regarding our energy, which is really in response to what's going on. It would take about 30 seconds to tell you. May I?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, it suits me fine.

MR. ROSENBURG. Sure. One of the ways, you know—on the farm alcohol stills in America more and more are showing us that 100-percent alcohol is used as a motor fuel in today's engines, as well as the recent announcement by Brazil to agree to produce 650,000 alcohol-powered cars by 1982. In fact, their President said it's their key weapon in the fight against rising oil prices.

Now, I myself, personally, have a simple, coordinated strategy not only to bring down the cost of fuel to under $1 at the pump, but obviously it would cool inflation as well. And, frankly, I'd like to share it with you.

As we all know, Thanksgiving time is here, and we really have to take stock and be thankful we are Americans. We're the envy of the world. There's nothing that we can't do. We gave the world electricity, lights—

MS. STAMBERG. Mr. Rosenburg.

MR. ROSENBURG. — telephones, airplanes, and if that doesn't seem unreal, we even put a man on the Moon. And then—

MS. STAMBERG. Mr. Rosenburg, excuse me, I'm going to have to interrupt. I think you're either filibustering or making a speech; I'm not sure which. Could you get to the question for President Carter, please?

MR. ROSENBURG. Yes, I will. What I was simply saying is that rather than a question, I would like to just advocate more alcohol fuel, and I have a plan laid out, blueprints and books. So, as I say, I don't want to filibuster, but I would like to meet with you your your people in the White House and show you what it is I'm talking about.

THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Rosenburg, send me a letter up here and mark on the front of the envelope that you are one of those who called me on the telephone. I get about 50,000 letters a week, and I want to make sure yours gets to me personally. And I'll refer you to someone up here who can discuss it with you, okay?

MR. ROSENBURG. Yes, sir. And by the way, prior to your becoming President, I was one of your rooters for you, and I had gotten a letter from one of your top people in Washington, which I also have, as well as having been invited to your Inauguration.

THE PRESIDENT. Good luck to you, and thank you for your friendship.

MR. ROSENBURG. Thank you, sir.

MS. STAMBURG. Thank you very much, Mr. Rosenburg.

President Carter, next on the line, Judy Caufeld, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Go ahead, Ms. Caufeld.

EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

MS. CAUFELD. President Carter.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Judy.

MS. CAUFELD. I've always been a Supporter of the equal rights amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. So am I.

MS. CAUFELD. What type of positive action are you going to take to ensure its ratification by June of 19827

THE PRESIDENT. I'll work as a partner with you, Judy, and others around the country who believe that women do need equal rights and deserve them. My wife is also very active in the equal rights amendment movement, and of course, my daughter-in-law, Judy, my oldest son's daughter [wife], travels nationwide to work with equal rights proponents to try to get those reluctant States to ratify the amendment.

So, I'm a partner with you. I believe in it, and I believe that your question and my answer might help to convince some of those State legislators who still are not convinced that the equal rights amendment is best for our country as well as, of course, best for all women.

MS. CAUFELD. Okay. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you, Judy.

Mr. President, I wonder what you think of the kind of economic boycotting that's going on against cities and States which are not getting behind the ERA.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, you know, I can't be a proponent of boycotts. But I believe that the political season is going to come this year, and if women who suffer most from hiring discrimination, wage discrimination, would let their voices be heard by State legislators who will make the judgment or decision, that's the best approach.

Quite often working women are not as highly organized or as highly motivated as some of the nationwide women's groups, and I think that when women who do have a job and who see the discrimination against them become aroused, they prevail, and this is the best approach to it.

MS. STAMBERG. Good. Let's take another call now. This is from Elizabeth Gamble, in Everett, Washington. Mrs. Gamble, go ahead, please; you're on the line with President Carter.

PRESIDENTIAL TERMS OF OFFICE

MRS. GAMBLE. Hello, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Hello, Elizabeth. Go ahead.

MS. STAMBERG. Go ahead.

MRS. GAMBLE. Hello, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Hello, I hear you very well.

MRS. GAMBLE. I'm honored to be called. Now my question is this: What do you think of one 6-year term for the Presidency instead of two 4-year terms? Under the present law, a President is forced to spend time and energy in the first term working for reelection—unfortunately, this year, sooner than usual.

THE PRESIDENT. I agree with you.

MRS. GAMBLE. Good.

THE PRESIDENT. Since I've been in this office, I've become more and more convinced that one 6-year term would be better. We have too much of an emphasis by the news media, in my opinion, on political motivations of a President, almost as soon as a President takes office.

And I've seen and talked to and studied the situation where other Presidents in countries in this hemisphere, like Mexico and Venezuela, for instance, have one 6-year term. I think they're much more likely not only to act in a nonpolitical basis or a nonpartisan way but also to have the recognition among people, including the news media, that when they do take a difficult stand or do make a public statement or take action, that it is not politically motivated.

And I think the injection of politics so early in the election year—already, as a matter of fact—is unfortunate.

MRS. GAMBLE. Well, that is my opinion. Do you think that there's any possibility of there ever being—the law ever being changed?

THE PRESIDENT. I think it's quite remote, because it requires a tremendous and concerted effort all over the Nation to make a change in the U.S. Constitution. And I don't see the issue being so sharply of interest to American people that this high motivation would ever be marshaled any time in the near future.

MRS. GAMBLE. Well, I don't wish to take up too much time, but before closing, I wish to say I think that Rosalynn is the ideal American woman.

THE PRESIDENT. I know she's the ideal wife. Thank you very much.

MRS. GAMBLE. Thank you, Mr. President.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you, Mrs. Gamble.

On the line now, from Fairbanks, Alaska, Mr. President—

THE PRESIDENT. Very good.

MS. STAMBERG.—is John Jacques.

Go head, Mr. Jacques.

ALASKAN PUBLIC LANDS

MR. JACQUES. Yes. Good morning, Mr, President, how you doing this morning?

THE PRESIDENT. Good morning. I hear you perfectly well I'm glad to hear from you.

MR. JACQUES. Well, Mr. President, have an Alaskan question to ask you. With your imposition of the Antiquities Act and the National Monuments a year ago, you have locked up a few acres, matter of fact, millions of acres of land here in Alaska, taken this control away from the State government—

THE PRESIDENT. No, that's not—

MR. JACQUES. I was—

THE PRESIDENT. Go ahead.

MR. JACQUES. I was wondering—with the energy crisis, we can't explore on this land, and there's no way that we can explore on this land. I was wondering why you have taken the State control and put it in the Federal Government's hands.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think you've got it a little bit backwards, John. This is not State land that we've taken away from the State of Alaska; this is Federal land that we're retaining for the use of all Americans. It's, in effect, being put in a protected status—very carefully chosen, about 115 million acres, which is a tiny portion of the total acreage in Alaska. And we very carefully excluded whenever possible those areas of Alaska that did have promise as far as major energy production is concerned.

As you know, Alaska has become a great oil-producing State, natural gasproducing State, which we hope to bring down to our country through a new gasline, and obviously has other minerals of value as well. But as has been the case throughout our country, the land is first owned by the Federal Government and then a portion of it, either almost all or very little, is turned over to the State. Some is preserved for the entire American population if it's especially beautiful or especially precious, and that's the kind of land that I have preserved for posterity, for Americans of all 50 States and Alaska.

I think it was a very wise decision. It has not interfered with the Alaskan ability to produce energy.

MR. JACQUES. But don't you feel that we can't explore on this land, if there's oil and natural resources on this land?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I might say that there are certain circumstances under which oil exploration can be done even on some of this land. Some of it is too valuable and too precious to have exploration. But there is plenty of land in Alaska for any time in the years immediately ahead to completely use all the oil exploration capability that we have in this country.

MR. JACQUES. Okay. Thank you, Mr.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, John.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you, Mr. Jacques.

A reminder again that you are listening to "Ask the President" on National Public Radio. This is a live, 2-hour telephone program from the White House Oval Office. President Carter is answering questions from citizens across the country, and for technical reasons you cannot phone us with your question. NPR instead is phoning out to randomly selected listeners.

And here comes one now. It's Mrs. Moila Roundy, in St. Joseph, Missouri. Go ahead, Mrs. Roundy; you're on the line with the President.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS

MRS. ROUNDY. Good morning, Mr. President. I feel very fortunate to speak with you. My question is, is there some way that we can get the Clean Air Act of 1977 amended or rescinded?

THE PRESIDENT. I would not be in favor of rescinding it.

MRS. ROUNDY. But—[inaudible]amend it. The EPA has become such a monster, and it's costing us and wasting so much of our energy unnecessarily. They placed a burning ban on us here in St. Joseph, and we are mostly made up of senior citizens on fixed income. And we are in annexed areas, so large with all of this waste. We can't afford to buy bags, pay the minimum wage to have it cut up, and pay to have it hauled off to these landfills, which pollute much worse our soil and our water tables. It's costing an awful hardship on us here in St. Joseph, and we're fighting. We have over 8,000 signatures to try to get this amended.

THE PRESIDENT. I don't know which particular provision of the law you refer to, but I think in general the environmental laws are very important.

MRS. ROUNDY. But our air isn't that dirty. It comes from agriculture and from the State of Kansas and the two Kansas Cities and the airports. And our burning of our leaves and yard waste and garden waste, seasonal, will not add to this pollution.

THE PRESIDENT. I understand. Sometimes when a city has a very high air pollution to begin with, because of many factors, including factories and automobiles and so forth—

MRS. ROUNDY. Well, we don't have that.

MS. STAMBERG. Mrs. Roundy—

MRS. ROUNDY. They seem to think burning yard waste—but the monitors were inaccurate. We found that out. So, we're trying to get another way of monitoring our air.

THE PRESIDENT. I understand. I know in Atlanta, when I was living there as Governor, the air pollution got very high, and everybody was encouraged to take their yard wastes—for instance, fallen leaves and branches and things of that kind—and make mulch out of them, which is a very nice thing that all farmers have done since I've been a farmer, and then use that mulch for fertilizer. It solves the problem of excessive burning and air pollution and also gives you a very valuable product at the end.

MRS. ROUNDY. That's true. I do some of that. But these people who have 5 to 40 acres and are senior citizens, they just can't do these things. And it's going to take all of our money for our heating bills. Now, Mr. President, last year my oil, my heating bill was $183 to $235 per month.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

MRS. ROUNDY. And that was less than half the price it is today, even though I set my thermostat at 65 and 55. So, this is going to exceed the income of these senior citizens, and what will they do for taxes, food, and other utility bills?

THE PRESIDENT. That's a very good question and a different question. I think that, obviously, the two

MRS. ROUNDY. Well, I think it ties in, Mr. President, because we'll be using all this extra oil to buy bags, this extra oil to transport our garden waste to these landfills. And I think that's unnecessary when we could burn them.

THE PRESIDENT. Let me answer your question. I think one thing that can be done if your house has a wood stove is to use some of that waste for fuel. I do it in my own home in Plains and also in the White House.

The second thing is that we're trying to provide some financial assistance for people like you to help pay those extra energy costs this winter. I've just sent to the Congress this week, for instance, a request for $1.2 billion, to be added to $400 million we already have, to help pay those high costs. And I'm also asking the Congress to set aside about $2 1/2 billion every year for the next 10 years to give people some help on the very high energy bills.

You have put your finger, however, on the best way to start solving the question, and that is to save the amount of energy that we have been wasting in the past.

MRS. ROUNDY. That is what we must do, is to save, conserve, yes.

THE PRESIDENT. I think all three of those things are important: to save energy, to start with; to use fuels that are available to us, like wood in your case; and for us to help with some financial help, which will be coming to you later on this winter.

MRS. ROUNDY. Well, I'm a commission member on aging in this area and in the city, too, and these problems come to me all the time. We must do something for our senior citizens. And they say that our rights, our human rights and all are being taken away from us due to this EPA monster, and I agree.

MS. STAMBERG. Mrs. Roundy, thank you so much for joining us and participating in this program today.

Our next caller, Mr. President, is in Springville, Alabama. It's Lew Windham. Mr. Windham, go ahead, please.

ENERGY PRICES

MR. WINDHAM. Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT. Good morning, Lew.

MR. WINDHAM. We're in the petroleum business here, in an area of the country that I'm sure you're familiar with. We own two LP gas companies that supply these rural people with propane for heating; at the same time we're in the oil-jobbing business.

We find it extremely hard to explain to our customers why every time they buy a petroleum product that it is higher. Now, we cannot see any evidence that the Department of Energy is doing anything. Now, I feel that the majority of the people in this country need a very good explanation as to what the Department of Energy is doing to put the lid on these producing companies.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, that's not an easy question to answer, Lew, because there's very little that the Department of Energy or a President can do to prevent foreign countries from raising their price of oil. And the basic thrust that we are pursuing is to cut down on that imported oil.

As you know, this past month the rate of increase of energy was more than a hundred percent per year on an annual basis, and as I said earlier, about 4 percent of our inflation rate is derived directly from energy costs. This is a very serious matter, and I think you've noticed, if you've listened to this call-in show, how many people have raised this same question.

MR. WINDHAM. Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. We are concerned about home heating oil in the Northeast, but I think many people forget that in the area where you live and where I live, that the isolated farm families and families in small towns also have to heat their homes, and most of them do use propane. And the cost of propane is derived from natural gas prices and goes up also, along with oil and coal and everything else.

I can't give you any easy answer. There's no reason for me to sit here in the Oval Office and try to mislead the American people. There are only three ways that we can deal with this question: one is to use as little energy as possible through conservation, savings; second, to use more of the energy that we produce in our own country than we have been doing in the past; and third, provide Federal and other assistance for the low-income families to make sure that they do have enough fuel to heat their homes and to cook with, and so forth, and also so that they can have enough money to pay those bills.

But there's no way that I can mislead you. The prices are high now; they're going to get higher in the future than they are already. And unless our Nation unites itself and deals with this very serious threat, we're going to be worse off in the future than we have in the past.

I inherited this problem. I'm not complaining about it, but it has been an extremely difficult thing to get the Congress to pass any legislation on this issue, because it's so controversial. We have still not passed a single line of legislation in the Congress dealing with oil. This year we have a very good prospect of finally getting those laws on the book, which will help you and me and all your customers and people like them throughout the country.

It's been slow in coming, but we're now making some progress. It's not really fair to blame the Department of Energy, because they don't have the authority to control energy prices charged by foreign countries. We've just got to do what I've just told you as the best way to deal with this problem.

MR. WINDHAM. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate you and the Congress on the move that you have put forth to help these needy people in this crisis we're in, because I feel that that is one answer, and you're to be congratulated on that move.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you. This will amount, by the way, I think, between $100 and $200 per family, to help them with the fuel bills this winter. So, if they combine that help, if they're a poor family, with saving as much energy as possible, I think we can get people through the winter.

MR. WINDHAM. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. Good luck, Lew, and thank you.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you, Mr. Windham.

The next call is from Lancaster, Kentucky, Mr. Carter, Mr. President Carter, and it's from Robert Gordon. Go ahead, Mr. Gordon, you're on the line with President Carter.

SUGGESTION FOR PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

MR. GORDON. Yes, Mr. President. Well, first off, I'd just like to say I love you very much. I'm praying for you, and my friends are praying for you.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you.

MR. GORDON. You've got quite a responsibility. May I make a suggestion, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT. Please.

MR. GORDON. Well, what I would to just suggest and encourage, sir, is that when politicking time comes, cut that time in half and spend it on your knees seeking the Lord Jesus Christ, because, sir, Jesus is more important than this country. He will give you the answers, sir. He will give you the answers to lead, as it is His will—excuse me, I'm a little nervous.

THE PRESIDENT. That's all right.

MR. GORDON. But the Lord Jesus that puts a man in power—and if you spend your time on your knees, seeking His will, and if it's His will that you stay in power another 4 years, then He'll put you in power.

Mr. President, again, I'm praying for you. I love you. And this is going to seem a little silly, but I was wondering if you could send me your autograph, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I'll be glad to. I'll do that.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT. Good luck, and thank you for those good wishes and advice.

MS. STAMBERG. The next question comes, Mr. President, from Mrs. Colleen Porter, and she is joining us from Provo, Utah. Go ahead, Mrs. Porter.

GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED DAY-CARE

CENTERS

MRS. PORTER. Yes. I'm married, and I'm a full-time mother. We've got two children, and we hope to have a few more. And I really love my job, and I'm concerned about the prospect of Government-sponsored day-care centers, because it seems to me it's logical that the increased taxation necessary to keep these running would force our economy into even more of a two-income economy-and there's us on our one-income budget-and force me to work. And that's not really far-fetched, because I think you know what the tax rates are in some of the Scandinavian countries and places that have these really nifty Government-sponsored day-care centers. And I wondered how you felt about that.

THE PRESIDENT. Okay. My own basic philosophy, Colleen, is that anything that can be done by the private individuals of our Nation or private institutions, churches and others—certainly the private enterprise system ought to be first, and that the Government should inject itself into the lives of American people in a minimal way, only as a last resort to meet a need that can't be met otherwise.

There are many communities around the country where there is no private offering of day-care services. In those instances I think the Federal Government has a role to play. I don't think it ought to abuse the right or the duty, and I think that even in that case, there ought to be as much care and consideration, not only for the children but for the sensitivities of the parents and the community as possible.

Many women, for instance, and, I guess, on occasion some men could not possibly work and would be permanent welfare recipients if there was not a place to leave a small child and to have that child cared for. And also, of course, with the Head Start program and other more permanent programs during the year, small children on the pre-first-grade level start to get a good education. So, I think that this is a partial answer to your question.

The other one is, we don't anticipate any massive increases in Federal day-care programs that would put an additional burden on the taxpayers of our country. This is a fairly well established program. I don't anticipate any substantial changes in the future.

MRS. PORTER. Well, you're so, just so in favor of the equal rights amendment, and—

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I am.

MRS. PORTER.— most of the people that are in favor of the equal rights amendment, the women's groups, are also very strongly in favor of massive day-care centers. And I just hope you'll keep your convictions about where to draw that line.

THE PRESIDENT. Okay. They're not necessarily related, but I agree that some people do relate them.

MRS. PORTER. Yes, most of them. And also, I'd just like to say that when you, if you ever did get in the situation to cut down on the role of the family, not only are you going to put out tax money for day-care centers but for more prisons, for more welfare, for more drug and alcohol rehabilitation. And I think if I can just stay home and raise my kids, they're going to be good citizens.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. That sounds like a good thing to do if that's your preference. Good luck to you.

MRS. PORTER. Thank you.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you so much, Mrs. Porter.

President Carter, at this point we're going to take a 1-minute break. During that time our stations across the country can identify themselves, and you can get a 4 1/2-inning stretch; so can I.

THE PRESIDENT. Very good.

MS. STAMBERG. Then we will be back with another hour of "Ask the President," from NPR, National Public Radio.

This is Susan Stamberg, back again at the Oval Office in the White House for National Public Radio's live broadcast, "Ask the President."

President Carter is answering questions by telephone from citizens across the country. The questions are not being screened, but the questioners are being chosen on the basis of geographic distribution. We're kind of strolling around the country by phone, and we're doing it for the reason that citizens from many parts of the Nation want to have a chance to speak with the President. We want to give them that chance.

To explain, again, this curious procedure, you cannot call us; we have to do the calling out to you. For several weeks now, in newspaper ads and on the radio and television, citizens have been invited to send us their names, their addresses, phone numbers, to put it all on a postcard if they wanted to ask a question. Those names are being chosen at random now, and we are placing the calls—all this for technical reasons.

There will be another hour of questions and answers with President Carter, which will be followed by a half-hour analysis of the President's statements by National Public Radio reporters.

Mr. President, you ready for the next call?

THE PRESIDENT. All set.

MS. STAMBERG. It's from Al Sheahen, and he's in Van Nuys, California. Go ahead, Mr. Sheahen.

DEFENSE SPENDING AND NATIONAL SECURITY

MR. SHEAHEN. President Carter?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Al.

MR. SHEAHEN. We admire your courage and enthusiasm for running for the 10-kilometer races, and I hope you'll keep it up.

THE PRESIDENT. I will.

MR. SHEAHEN. The reason I'm calling, the question I had—we all know that inflation is caused by deficit spending, and we've got a $30 billion deficit this year, I think you said.

THE PRESIDENT. This coming year, yes.

MR. SHEAHEN. The largest expenditure by the Government is defense spending, military spending. One out of every two of our income tax dollars goes for defense. In 1976 when you campaigned, you said you'd try to cut the defense budget by five to seven billion dollars, and yet right now it's about $40 billion per year more than when you first took office. And now you're asking for an MX missile, which is going to cost anywhere from $30 billion to $90 billion. Experts say we don't need it. My question is, why don't you try to stop inflation by stopping the unnecessary military spending and put that money to work in our economy?

THE PRESIDENT. Al, let me say that we have cut more than six or seven billion dollars out of the Defense Department by increased efficiency.

But I need to make a point very clear to you and to other Americans. The number one responsibility on my shoulders, above everything else, is to guarantee the security of our country. And I don't make any apology for it.

We spend now a very small portion of our gross national product on defense, about 5 percent. Other countries like the Soviet Union spend often much more. The Soviet Union spends maybe 13 to 15 percent of their GNP on defense. For the last 15 or 20 years, they have increased their defense expenditures by about 3 or 4 percent per year in real terms, like compound interest. We spend now less than we did 15 or 20 years ago, in real dollars, on defense. We've tried to make up that difference and to retain our strength by more efficient expenditure of funds and to tap the basic strengths of our country in politics and economics and otherwise.

We have at this time the strongest nation militarily on Earth. And we've tried to enhance our strength by making sure that our NATO Alliance, our alliances with other countries around the world stay sound and that there is a mutual sharing of responsibility and an enhanced trust between us.

We are moving toward a possibility of drastically reducing nuclear weapons in the future if we can get SALT II ratified. Both President Brezhnev and I, I think the people of America and the people of the Soviet Union want to see drastic cuts made in nuclear armaments below what they are now, even below what they will be under SALT II.

We have in addition—and the last point I'd like to make—a major responsibility on Earth. People look to us to maintain stability and to prevent war. We have been at peace for the first term, I might say, of a President in 40 years. No American has lost a life in combat since I've been here in the Oval Office. I pray that that might be the record that I leave here when I have finished my service as President.

But we cannot afford to become weak. The surest way to end peace and to cause war is for a potential adversary of our country to believe that we are weak in military strength or in the will to protect ourselves.

I hope that the expenditures that we presently are making on armaments, on military personnel salaries, even the future expenditures will be a good investment. And a good investment is a weapon which is never fired. I hope that no person ever dies because we get into a war.

MR. SHEAHEN. We certainly appreciate the job that you're doing in keeping peace. It's an enormous job. I can't even imagine how difficult it is.

But can't you—you mentioned that the United States only spends 5 percent of our gross national product on defense, which is true. But I understand that Germany spends substantially less, 3 percent, Switzerland only 2 percent, Japan less than 1 percent. Isn't it time for them to—why should we assume this tremendous burden? Why can't our allies take care of some of it?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I can't comment on those exact figures. Japan is the one that I do know about. When we occupied Japan after the Second World War, under General MacArthur and Harry Truman, who was President, we required the Japanese to limit themselves on military capability strictly to an ability to defend their own country. And at that time there was established a limit on how much would be spent on armaments.

We have some troops in Japan, not a large number, and we provide part of the protection for Japan. I think this is a good and stabilizing factor. And of course, they, in addition to their own forces, pay a substantial portion of the cost of maintaining American troops in Japan.

It's a complicated thing, Al; it's not simple. But I believe that over a long period of years the trend has been distinctly downward in our own country in the portion of our wealth that we spend on defense. I personally believe that what we are spending now is an excellent investment, and I don't see any way that we could possibly lower our resolve or our commitment to a strong defense. That would be the best way to lead toward a war, which would cause an enormous explosion in defense expenditures. I think this is an insurance policy that really pays rich dividends for our country.

MR. SHEAHEN. Thank you, Mr. President.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you, Mr. Sheahen.

A call now, a little closer to home, President Carter, from Baltimore, Maryland, Dr. Edward Davens. Go ahead, Dr. Davens.

DR. DAVENS. Good afternoon, Mr. President. This is Dr. Ed Davens in Baltimore.

THE PRESIDENT. Go ahead, Doctor.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

DR. DAVENS. You've already referred to nuclear power, which is what my question is about.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

DR. DAVENS. But I'd like to have you pursue it just a bit more. Will you please state clearly your policy on the development of nuclear power? My impression is that you're convinced that going full steam ahead is essential for the good of the economy. Am I wrong about that?

THE PRESIDENT. During my own campaign for President and since I've been in office, I've taken a position on nuclear power that I think is a proper one—first of all, that there is a place in our energy industry for nuclear power. It's already been established, and I think that it would be very difficult if not impossible to root it out. For instance, I was in Hartford, Connecticut, not long ago. Connecticut derives about 60 percent of all their electricity from nuclear powerplants; Chicago, for instance, about 50 percent; and so forth.

However, as I said earlier, I think that the nuclear power portion and also the synthetic fuel portion can be minimized by those who fear it or those who want to avoid it, to the extent that we can have conservation, the increased production of other forms of energy in our own country.

We will get back, probably around the end of this month, a report from the so-called Kemeny Commission on the Three Mile Island accident. At that time I will analyze that Commission report very thoroughly and make a report without delay to the American people about its recommendations and whether or not we can carry out those recommendations and the extent to which we can remove present doubts about the safety or advisability of nuclear power in the future.

I think our country is possibly, probably going to rely on nuclear power less in future years than other major nations about which I happen to know. In Japan, in Germany, Great Britain, even oil-producing countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, they're moving much more rapidly toward nuclear power than are we. We are blessed with a broad diversity of energy sources, not only solar, with the technical ability to use it, but also coal, geothermal supplies, oil, natural gas, shale deposits, and many others, hydroelectric power.

So, I think there is a place for nuclear power. It ought to be safe; the American people ought to understand all the facts about it; and its use can be minimized to the extent that we save energy and shift to other sources of energy. But I don't want to mislead you. I think there will be a place for nuclear power in the future. It's my responsibility along with many others to guarantee that it is safe.

DR. DAVENS. Your background is in nuclear engineering; mine is in pediatrics. I would like to urge you to look very carefully at the evidence that nuclear radiation is simply not a viable thing for the survival of the race on this planet, and I hope you will pay real attention to the Kemeny Commission and other advice you may get on minimizing this dangerous

pollution of the environment.

Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT. Doctor, I will. I don't want to lose that point without making, however, a clarification. I have done graduate work in nuclear physics and nuclear engineering at the beginning of its use back in the early 1950's, and I'm familiar with the dangers of radiation.

I would like to point out that in the production of power in our country, using nuclear power, there has never been a person killed or a life lost. And this is not to say that we should not be extremely cautious about nuclear power in the future. In coal-burning plants, even hydroelectric plants and other kinds, there have been numerous deaths.

But we've done a good job so far in setting standards for operation and design and installation to enhance to a maximum degree, so far, safety standards. I think we can do a better job in the future, and I'm looking forward with a great deal of anticipation and a sober expectation to the Kemeny report. I think that we can make corrections in past mistakes and make even more effort in the future to make sure that nuclear power is safe.

I'll add one other point. I think that the economic considerations and others that I've already described, that I need not repeat, will permit our country to minimize the use of nuclear power in the future, compared to some other countries.

DR. DAVENS. I hope so. This is no place to argue the issue, but I'm not completely satisfied with your answer.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. I didn't think you were.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you very much, Doctor.

President Carter, I'd like to ask you something about what you've just said, that argument about no lives lost. It's pretty much the standard argument of the nuclear industry. Is that really the point? You're not going to see an instant death. You may see some problems from cancer 10, 20, 30 years down the line.

THE PRESIDENT. I think the answer is accurate, including radioactivity. There have been some people injured, even killed, in experimental nuclear powerplants in very rare occasions. But in the standard designed and operated nuclear powerplants to produce electricity in our country, there has never been an incident that led, so far as we know, to a human death. At the same time, there have been numerous deaths involved in boiler explosions with plants that burn oil or coal and so forth.

That's not to say that I'm not concerned about safety. I am deeply concerned, and I am determined to act accordingly. And I believe that the incident, which could have been very serious, at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania gives us a cautionary signal to stop, to think, to study, to analyze, and then to make decisions based on what our country should do in the future.

I have no idea what the Kemeny Commission is going to recommend. But I will read and very carefully analyze that report myself, and if they make recommendations on the design of powerplants using atomic energy, the installation, the operation, the training of personnel, preparations for a possible accident that are feasible for us to carry out, then I will make sure they are carried out. And if they point out some inherent defect in nuclear powerplants that can't be corrected, obviously that would be cause for termination of such approvals in the future.

I think the best thing, though, that can happen is for American people to know the facts, not to be excessively afraid and also not to be excessively at ease. And it's part of my responsibility as President not only to act but to educate in cases of this kind. And it was my decision to appoint the Kemeny Commission itself to make sure that they, on a completely unbiased and free basis, made an analysis.

No Federal official has tried to influence the outcome of the Kemeny report. We've given them every assistance. They have been given authorization by Congress to deliberate in private without any sort of interference from outside, and I believe that their report will be a full one and also will be accurate. And I hope that every American who's interested will study the report and join with me in analyzing where we go from now.

There's a role for nuclear power. As I've described, we need to emphasize and correct any defects that might exist now, in the past, or in the future.

MS. STAMBERG. We'll get to the next call in a moment. But again, a reminder that this is a live, 2-hour broadcast from National Public Radio in Washington. President Carter is speaking by telephone with Americans. None of the questions are screened, but for technical reasons, you cannot phone in with your questions. Please do not call NPR, don't call the White House, don't call your local public radio station. Instead, National Public Radio is phoning out to randomly chosen listeners who have written to say that they wish to "Ask the President."

Here's one of those listeners now, President Carter. It's Kimberly Powell from Hyannis, Massachusetts, and I'm told that Kimberly is 13 years old. Go ahead, Kimberly.

VISIT TO BARNSTABLE MIDDLE SCHOOL, MASSACHUSETTS

MISS POWELL. Hi, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.

MISS POWELL. My name is Kim Powell, and I'm from the Barnstable Middle School, Red House Team II. As you already know, our team of eighth graders sent out an invitation, a note for you to come and teach a history lesson to our school in any way possible that would be convenient to you. We did get a response, but they didn't give us a definite answer. We would like to know if you are really considering to come and when your visit will be? It will be greatly appreciated.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, thank you, Kimberly. I have seen news reports that you all were inviting me to come to Hyannis and to visit your school. I don't know whether I can do it or not. I'll be coming up to Massachusetts again on the 20th of this month to join in dedicating the library of former President John Kennedy, but whether I can visit Hyannis, I don't know. I'll check with my schedulers after this program's over, and we'll let you know directly whether or not I can be there.

MISS POWELL. Okay, thank you. I would also like to ask you a question.

THE PRESIDENT. Okay.

INFLATION

MISS POWELL. Do you have any idea what inflation will be when I get out of school, like, you know, when I'm 18?

THE PRESIDENT. I hope it will be much less.

MISS POWELL. Me, too.

THE PRESIDENT. If every American will help with it, then it'll be much less.

We've had, by the way, Kimberly, pretty good luck with our wage and price guidelines that we've established about a year ago. And now we've got a new thing that's never been formed in the past in our country, and that is an agreement that we reached voluntarily with labor and with business so that government, labor, and business will all join in together in a common effort to hold down inflation. In the past, the Government has passed a law and, in effect, forced on the working people and business, standards for wages and prices. I think this new so-called national accord or agreement will be a major step forward.

And we've already discussed on this program the things that we can do about buying habits and energy waste and so forth, that would help.

So, I think the inflation rate's going to be down considerably by the time you get out of school.

MISS POWELL. Okay. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT. Good luck to you.

MISS POWELL. All right. Bye.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you, Kimberly. President Carter, over the last weekend, your administration took some dramatic steps to help hold down inflation. One of those steps was raising the prime interest rate to 14 1/2 percent. To a lot of people, that seems like a gigantic leap of faith. Is it going to work, and are you going to get behind it and back it up? Where does it go from here?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Federal Reserve raised, in effect, the interest rates 1 percent, which was a clear signal not only to our country but to the rest of the world that we do consider inflation to be the number one economic threat to our lives and to the quality of our life. I think that this analysis, or this decision was applauded by both liberal and conservative economists, and I believe there's no question about the fact that we have got to deal with inflation. The interest rates really go with inflation, and the only way to get interest rates down is to get inflation down.

We must have a stable dollar. When the dollar values go down in foreign countries, it hurts us directly. We can't export our—we can't have as much trade as we would like, to produce American products and to sell them. In addition to that, the reputation of our country is extremely important on a worldwide basis.

We have taken action since I've been in office to minimize the damage to employment with high inflation. We, in the past, have seen, whenever the interest rate went up, an immediate nosedive in housing construction. As a matter of fact, since I've been in office, because of energy prices, inflation has gone up, but we've had a 50-percent growth in the rate of production of homes for people to live in. And we've been maintaining this very high rate of home construction.

Another point is that we've kept people at work since I've been in office. Again, working with the Congress and in spite of inflation, which is too high, we've had a net increase of 8 1/2 million jobs in this country. It's never been accomplished before. And we've cut the unemployment rate down by a full 25 percent. So, so far, in spite of these pressures for inflation, which have been with us more than 10 years, we have been successful in keeping people at work.

MS. STAMBERG. Yes, but I think some of your own advisers—Stuart Eizenstat, William G. [G. William] Miller—have said that they expect that unemployment rate to go a bit higher next year, up to 6.6 or 7 percent.

THE PRESIDENT. It might go a bit higher. Well, it was 8 percent or more when I came in office. And we've added, as I say, over 8 million new jobs, and the labor force has grown in our country. Another factor that people forget in looking just at the unemployment rate, which has come down very gratifyingly, is that when a teenager, for instance, sees a neighbor get a job, that teenager goes and puts his or her name on the employment rolls and starts looking for a job. So, as people are put to work—and we've increased teenage employment about 26 percent in the last 2 1/2 years you have more people registering for jobs, which tends to make the unemployment rate look like it's rising.

But I think in general, that's one of the most notable achievements of the last 2/2 years, that in spite of energy costs, in spite of high inflation, in spite of increased interest rates, we have still improved Americans' ability to get jobs.

MS. STAMBERG. Let's take another question from a listener. Mr. President, this is Kenneth Morris, in Chatham, New Jersey. Go ahead, Mr. Morris.

GRAIN EXPORTS

MR. MORRIS. Well, it's quite an honor, I must admit, to be talking to you, Mr. President. I have two questions, I guess. I'm doing the family bills, and I have to admit I'm worried about inflation. Why can't the U.S. Government put more muscle in support of American business in dealing with the OPEC countries and sit down on a government-to-government level and negotiate oil for barrels of wheat or even form an agreement with other major grain-producing countries, like Argentina, or even perhaps consider certain exemptions to the antitrust laws. That's a mouthful, I suppose.

THE PRESIDENT. Kenneth, this is a frequent proposal made, that our Nation exchange a bushel of wheat for a barrel of oil, something of that kind. It has an immediate appeal to people, but it's just not practical.

The oil-producing countries, like Saudi Arabia, for instance, which produces about 9 1/2 million barrels a day, have a very small population, and they, therefore, import very little food although they don't produce it themselves. Any other country that's of any size at all, like France, in Europe, or other European countries or countries in Latin America, would be eager to provide those small quantities of grain to the oil-producing countries if we decided not to. And it would be a very serious mistake for us to try, through a wheat embargo, to cut out food supplies to those foreign countries.

One of the most important gifts that God has given us is fertile land and a free enterprise system, which gives us food and grain and other products to sell to others. I would say that we have a better advantage in producing food, which will last, hopefully, forever, than the oil-producing nations overseas have with depleting oil supplies. The greatest strategic advantage that I see that our country will have in years to come is food, which can be made available in a very beneficial way to all the people on Earth who need food.

Secondly, we have derived from this much better and more stable markets in our own country. Since I've been in office, for instance, we've increased the amount of grain that's stored on farms, we've improved the quality of life, and the income of farm families is near the peak that it's ever been in history now. And every year we have set records, unprecedented on Earth, for the export of American products.

So, just as Saudi Arabia or Iran or Nigeria or Venezuela benefit from their sale of oil to other countries, we benefit on a permanent basis, hundreds of years, from the export of food products. And if we should interrupt the sale of those grain products overseas, as was done quite frequently when Secretary Butz was running the Agriculture Department and the Republican administration was in office, we would make our potential buyers of American products very uncertain about our ability to supply them.

We have not had grain embargoes since I've been in office, and we're not going to have them. So, we can deal with the energy imports in other ways—which we are doing—without stopping the export of our equally valuable product, even more valuable product, and that is food.

INFLATION

MR. MORRIS. I guess the second question is related to inflation. That is, how can you persuade families to hold down on consumer spending when they know that 6 months from now things will be so much more expensive?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, my daddy always said, "If you don't need something, it's not cheap, no matter what you buy it for," and he had to warn my mother about this quite often when they went to auction sales around home. I think prudent buying is obviously an important element of any family's existence, unless one is so wealthy that you don't have to worry about what you spend for.

And also, of course, what we forget about is that when we save and don't waste things, if there's a given supply, the competition to sell to customers will force the price down. I hope this will happen, for instance, with the most significant product that I hear about now, and that's home heating fuel. We've got adequate supplies on hand, for instance, in our country for home heating oil—240 million barrels have now been put in the primary reserves.

If the families throughout our country will, through thermostat settings and very careful living habits, reduce the amount of energy that they use this winter, compared to previous winters, then there'll be much more competition among oil suppliers to get those customers' business—and they don't want to carry over those oil stocks until next winter. So, prudent use of energy supplies can be a major factor in forcing down prices in a competitive free market system.

So, there are many different elements of the issue that I could discuss—I've tried not to repeat things that I've said earlier in the program. But that's one that I hadn't mentioned previously that I think is an important factor. Prudent buying, no matter what the item is, can help us control inflation.

MR. MORRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. President, and good luck.

THE PRESIDENT. I've enjoyed talking to you. Thank you, Kenneth.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you, Mr. Morris.

A reminder again to listeners that you cannot call into President Carter. National Public Radio is doing the phoning to citizens who have been chosen at random and have written in advance to "Ask the President."

The next question will come from Bruce Hallock, Mr. President, and he's on the line from Austin, Texas. Go ahead, Mr. Hallock.

U.S. SPACE ACTIVITIES

MR. HALLOCK. Hello, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Hello, Bruce.

MR. HALLOCK. What is your view of mankind's future in space for the long term and for right now?

THE PRESIDENT. I think we have a very bright future, Bruce. We're moving into a new era of the use of space that will be quite different from what we've known in the past. We've had the highly publicized exploratory flights into space, not only to the Moon with men—Americans on the Moon—but also in trips with our space vehicles through the different planets themselves.

Now we are shifting to a more routine use of space flights with the shuttle, that will be launched for the first time next year. This will permit us with a space vehicle to launch relatively cheaply a major load of equipment and other things into space—both from our Government, from other governments who are friendly to us, and from private enterprise as well—for experimental purposes or for commercial purposes, and then have that vehicle returned back to Earth to be used over and over again. And, as you know, on the Florida coast we'll launch for basic flights east and west, and from the California coast region we'll launch for basic flights that will go over the poles.

And so, we're going into an era now where all of the technological advances that have been made with previous space flights can be used for direct benefits. And we've derived, in my opinion, tremendous personal benefits from the experiments and the innovations that went into earlier space flights. We're now ready to capitalize on that in the future—both in the quality of our life, with weather, with geothermal analyses, photography and experiments in space, an absence of an atmosphere, direct observations of stellar things for astronomical observations-there are so many that it's almost mind-boggling. But I think that now we're going into a more routine space use-quite a transformation from previous experimental flights.

MR. HALLOCK. Well, does it bother you that now we're at the dawn of this bright future, that we seem to be cutting hack with NASA's budget while the Russians are proceeding methodically with their manned space programs?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't believe that that's an accurate comparison. I believe that the space shuttle will be a major innovation. In effect, now, the Soviets are just following along with what we've done many years ago.

MR. HALLOCK. Thank you.

MS. STAMBERG. Thanks very much, Mr. Hallock. Thank you for joining us.

The next question will come from Ann Williams, President Carter, and she is on the line with us from Indianapolis, Indiana. Go ahead, Ms. Williams.

INHERITANCE TAXES

MS. WILLIAMS. Mr. Carter.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Ann.

Ms. WILLIAMS. The very rich are able to protect their wealth with trusts and various other means and are able to pass their wealth down from generation to generation, whereas the average people, who really cannot afford to set up such expensive tax-saving devices, are taxed so heavily on inheritance taxes. This is a socialistic program which only benefits those who do not accumulate wealth in their lifetime.

Why don't you propose increasing the estate deduction to a much higher dollar amount than the present level, or eliminate inheritance taxes altogether?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, Ann, I think that your question provides two different views of the same subject. The inheritance taxes fall much more heavily on the extremely wealthy, and we have tried and are still trying to close loopholes in how those trusts can be used. I think there are still some gross abuses—where people put a large estate into a foundation, for instance, that's ostensibly to be used for the benefit of other people and then, through various loopholes in the law, provide very high salaries for members of that family to continue to benefit from the trust itself.

We have, I believe, a need from time to time to increase the amount of a person's inheritance left to children and to other members of the family that is excluded from taxation. As land values go up, for instance, it's very damaging to a farm family to have to sell even a relatively small farm in order to pay inheritance taxes, instead of letting the children take that farmland and continue to use it.

So, we are making modifications in the size of inheritance that is excluded from inheritance taxes to preserve relatively small estates. And I hope that we'll continue to close loopholes for the very wealthy. I agree with your basic premise.

MS. WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you, Ms. Williams.

On the line now from St. Paul, Minnesota, is Cassandra Johnson. Go ahead, Ms. Johnson.

HUMAN RIGHTS

MS. JOHNSON. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. President. I have a question involving human rights that I would like you to answer. I first of all would like to say that I'm really pleased that you've made that an issue and that you have raised the consciousness level throughout not only our own country but throughout the world. My question involves three countries which we support—South Korea, Chile, and the Philippines—who are gross violators of human rights to their own people in their own country.

I would like to know, is there any way that we as a country and you as a President who is for human rights can put more pressure, especially on the Philippines, to ease the tension and release the political prisoners in those countries?

THE PRESIDENT. Cassandra, we utilize every legitimate means to influence both leaders and governments of other countries to move toward a deeper honoring of human rights. There have been some substantial indications of progress in this hemisphere and, indeed, throughout the world in recent years, I think possibly because of our emphasis on human rights. Literally tens of thousands of prisoners have been released from incarceration, and we've seen major moves away from totalitarian governments toward more democratic forms of government.

Just yesterday, for instance, I welcomed here the new Ambassador from Uganda, who has spent a lot of time in our country when Idi Amin, supported by the Soviet Union, was violating human rights in the grossest and most obnoxious way. Now the new government is much more inclined toward honoring human rights.

In the Philippines, there has been a good bit of progress made—still they don't measure tip to standards that we ourselves would espouse in this country. And I visited South Korea not too long ago and had some very strong and heart-to-heart talks with President Park, letting him know that the relationships between his country and ours would be severely damaged with any indication of violation of human rights. Following that visit, large numbers of prisoners were released. But recently, as you've seen in the legislative body of South Korea, the opposition party members have resigned in protest because one of their leaders was excluded, a Mr. Lee*

*The President later said that he had intended to refer to Mr. Kim Yong Sam. [Printed in the transcript.] See page 1919.

So, we are trying to encourage and sometimes even force other countries, as best we can legitimately, to shift toward a greater honoring of human rights. In international lending institutions, for instance, we don't vote for economic aid except for the most narrowly defined humanitarian purposes, like food for starving people—unless that country does honor human rights as assessed by us. And I'm required each year to give to the Congress a report on every country with whom we deal at all, concerning the degree of their compliance with our own human rights standards.

This is sometimes a cause of major diplomatic protests from those countries, but we do it. And I think that their awareness that they are being assessed by us and by Amnesty International and other countries are very important factors. I doubt now in the last 2 1/2 years that there is any government leader on Earth, either in totalitarian countries or democratic countries, including myself, who don't frequently stop and say, "What are we doing that would cause the condemnation of the world to come on us because we are violating human rights?"

We're making some progress; but still have a long way to go.

INDIAN RESERVATIONS

MS. JOHNSON. Along with that question, Mr. President, I'd like to ask about, you know, the Indians. I've been aware 'cause this is an area that we've got reservations, in Minnesota and throughout the Midwest area and South Dakota and such—that with the energy crunch as it is today, that the energy companies—oil, electricity—are coming into some of these reservation lands and in some way trying to get hold of the land and take it over to produce energy, whatever that—you know, uranium, especially, I'm thinking of, in the Black Hills area in South Dakota.

Can there be any assurances that those treaties that were made with the Indians will not be violated by the Federal Government?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, the assurance lies under the constitutional guarantees of honoring civil rights or human rights of those Indians. And as you probably have noticed in the last few years, the Federal courts have been much more inclined to honor the Indians' rights, even though they were derived from very ancient treaties. They were violated for many generations. Now I think there's a substantial movement toward honoring those original treaties.

MS. STAMBERG. Thanks very much, Ms. Johnson.

Let's move on now, President Carter, to another question. This one from Peg Ormsby, in Weston, West Virginia. Go ahead, Ms. Ormsby.

DAM AND WATER PROJECTS

MS. ORMSBY. Hello, President Carter; we're grateful for the chance to talk to you.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you. I'm honored to have a chance to talk to all of you.

MS. ORMSBY. You're asking us to make sacrifices in the name of the energy crisis and to help control inflation, and you said that the Federal Government is doing everything it can to help with these problems. But here on the local level, in Lewis County, West Virginia, we're fighting to keep the Federal Government from building the expensive Stonewall Jackson Dam.

Now, this dam would destroy existing coal, oil, and gas reserves as well as using an enormous amount of energy in its construction. Alternatives to the dam exist, but they haven't been explored.

President Carter, this dam was never reviewed under your water projects criteria. EPA has challenged its justification. So, how can you tell us here on the local level, who feel the results of Federal projects and Federal dictates, that the Government itself is doing everything it can to save energy and fight inflation?

THE PRESIDENT. Peg, I can't say that the Government's doing everything it can; I say we're doing a lot, and we're trying as best we can.

One of the things that I've done since I've been in office, that's been one of the most difficult things and most controversial things, is to try to eliminate the construction of unnecessary dam or water projects and to preserve the analysis rights of the Federal Government to screen out, in the future, projects that are not needed.

In many cases—I'm not sure about the project to which you refer—but in many cases, these decisions to construct such a project were made many years ago and ostensibly with the support of not only the Federal Government but your own Members of Congress and local officials who had to participate, including, I presume, your own Governor and your own State legislature. It's extremely hard, although we've been successful in some cases, to cancel a project—even though it's ill-advised-if it has a lot of commitment already made to be completed.

The environmental element is one factor involved. We are trying now to get installed for the first time a permanent screening group that would look at each of these dam construction projects on its own merits and in a much more objective and fair way and to eliminate politics or local chamber of commerce support from it. I think that in any particular construction project that the best way to stop it, if it's once begun and once a commitment is made, is through a delegation of your Members of Congress or your Governor or your State legislature or from the local level.

We're doing our share here, but it's very hard to reverse standards and procedures that have been in existence in our Government for generations. We've made a lot of progress, though. I think anyone would admit that.

MS. ORMSBY. Yeah, I agree that you've made a lot of progress, and we certainly applaud your efforts. This is a very old project. The problem is that the Federal Government itself, not just Congress, has a role—every agency from EPA to the Fish and Wildlife people. They're not doing their share in their honest evaluation. It's too easy to always pass the blame onto your Congressman, and we're working on the local level to ensure a change here. But we still need the help of the Federal agencies whose job it is to watchdog over these kinds of projects.

THE PRESIDENT. I agree with you. I was not trying to put the blame on Congress.

MS. ORMSBY. No, I know that, although they shoulder their share.

Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, there's plenty of blame to go around.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you, Ms. Ormsby.

Dr. George Bergstrom joins us now. He's on the line from Fallbrook, California. Go ahead, Dr. Bergstrom.

U.S.-SOVIET RELATIONS

DR. BERGSTROM. Good morning, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Good morning. Doctor.

DR. BERGSTROM. As an American who's spent much of the last 19 years traveling and living in Asia and Europe, I'm greatly concerned with the rather serious growth of Russian military and political influence in not only Asia and Europe but in various other parts of the world as well. Your proposed SALT treaty appears to be, I think, a positive step forward towards meeting this challenge. Can you comment on how SALT will strengthen America's position vis-a-vis Russia?

And secondly, I think one of the most strategic, long-range actions of your administration has been the establishment of working relations between America and China. Can you expand on some of the specific programs you plan to establish which will increase cultural and business relations between America and China?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. And I'll try to be brief, although your question is very deep and a penetrating one and hard to answer in a few words.

There's no doubt in my mind that the SALT II treaty will enhance our relative military strength with the Soviet Union. For instance, the Soviets will be required to dismantle or destroy about 10 percent of all the nuclear missile launchers that they have. We will not be required to dismantle any of them. And this will mean that over a period of time, we'll maintain equivalency with the Soviet Union in strategic or nuclear armaments and, at the same time, have a chance to take our great reservoir of financial and natural resources and our human resources and orient them either toward conventional defense capability or toward a better life for our people.

If we can maintain military strength adequate to defend our country and that's what I'm committed to do—then we put the competition with the Soviet Union on a peaceful basis where, in my opinion, we have all the advantages.

For instance, the Soviet Union is a totalitarian government; ours is a free government, a democratic government. The Soviets believe that the citizen ought to be subject to the mandates of the state; we believe that citizens as individuals ought to be honored and that the citizens ourselves should control the government. We believe in individual initiative and in the worth of the human beings; the Soviets believe that the state should dominate in every respect. Ours is a country that's founded on a free enterprise system, where innovation and new ideas, through a competitive society, have a chance to succeed, and it inspires the rapid development of research and development.

I think if you'd look at the Nobel prizes given out in health or chemistry or physics and so forth in the past number of years, America takes a tremendous number of those because this is an advantage that we have.

One of the most important advantages, however, is that we have moral and ethical standards, human rights standards that make us competitively superior over the Soviet Union in the peaceful competition for the friendship, the hearts and the minds, the trade relationships of uncommitted or nonaligned people around the world.

We value also the independence of other governments, even in small or weak or new nations. The Soviets often try to subvert those governments and take over control of the affairs of people.

So, in a peaceful competition with the Soviet Union, I think we have all the advantages to prevail. That is an important element of the SALT treaties.

On the China question—if you look at the last number of years, we have made tremendous strides, in my opinion, in this peaceful competition for the friendship of those around the world. It wasn't too long ago that the closest ally that the Soviets had was the People's Republic of China, a fourth of the population of the entire Earth. That's changed dramatically now.

It wasn't too long ago that, under Mrs. Indira Gandhi, India was closely allied with the Soviet Union and quite antagonistic toward us. That has been completely changed.

It wasn't too long ago that Egypt, the largest and most influential and important Arab country, was closely aligned with the Soviet Union and diametrically opposite and opposed to us. That's changed.

In Africa the largest black nation and the most influential and powerful black nation in the African continent is Nigeria. It wasn't too long ago that Secretary Kissinger couldn't even get permission to go inside Nigeria, because they were antagonistic toward the United States. I've visited there myself. Now they're one of the best friends and allies we have.

We haven't been successful in every instance. But in general, in our peaceful competition with the Soviet Union, we are making out very well. And I think this gives us an opportunity—with China and other countries—to benefit Americans in the future.

MS. STAMBERG. Thank you, Dr. Bergstrom.

U.S. STRENGTHS

President Carter, I noticed when you answered that question outlining our relations with the Soviets, your answer was very similar to one that you gave earlier in the week at a news conference. And it begins to sound like a kind of litany, a list that you're doing really of a definition of what the Soviet Union is about, as compared to what the United States stands for. Why are you doing that right now? Is this some sort of escalation of rhetoric?

THE PRESIDENT. No, no. I think it's good for our country to be reminded of our strengths. We're the strongest nation on Earth militarily. We're the strongest nation on Earth economically. We're the strongest nation on Earth politically. I think we're the strongest nation on Earth when you compare ethics and moral standards and a commitment to basic human freedoms. It does give us an advantage that Americans ought not to forget about.

Quite often we read in the news media, watch television, listen to the radio, and all we hear about are the temporary inconveniences and the differences that exist in Washington between the President and the Congress or between the House and the Senate, the arguments and the debates and the temporary setbacks and the failures. But in general, the progress of our country is absolutely superb. It's something that we ought to remember-how much we've been blessed, what a superior opportunity we have in life, and how influential our country is among the community of nations in the world.

And I believe that to point out these basic advantages strengthens the ability of Americans to overcome temporary setbacks and to meet challenges and to answer questions and to resolve problems, whereas on the other hand, we often tend to become discouraged. And I think that a part of my duty as President is not to mislead anyone, but to remind Americans of how strong and how great our country is now and can be in the future.

MS. STAMBERG. Interesting that you're saying this. Now, a few months ago you were telling us about the malaise that you were perceiving across the country.

THE PRESIDENT. Exactly.

MS. STAMBERG. Has now that disappeared?

THE PRESIDENT. No, it hasn't disappeared. But part of that malaise that I pointed out and a lack of confidence in the American people is what I'm trying to address. If we'll just stop and inventory what we have, there is no need for us to be discouraged or divided or antagonistic toward our own Government or discouraged about the strength of America, now and in the future. We need that confidence, and we need—not only that—to respect each other.

When we have gasoline lines or even when we have a serious problem like increased home heating costs, we tend to overemphasize those inconveniences and those problems. They are serious, and our Nation is able to address them. But for us to use those temporary or transient inconveniences or serious problems as an excuse to lash out at one another and to try to grasp a selfish advantage for ourselves or to turn against our own Government or to turn against our own free enterprise system and condemn ourselves, that's what I deplore.

And so, I think we do have a serious problem in our country with a lack of confidence in the future and some tendencies toward disunity. But when we analyze the reasons for unity and the need for us to work together and the blessings that we have, I think that's an accurate means for Americans to derive an honest opinion of our own country.

PRESIDENT'S LEADERSHIP QUALITIES

MS. STAMBERG. President Carter, to what extent does that lack of confidence that you say we're exhibiting in the future of the country depend on a confidence in you and your ability to govern?

THE PRESIDENT. A lot.

MS. STAMBERG. You've seen your ratings in the polls are very low, and real questions are being raised about your own leadership abilities.

THE PRESIDENT. Sure. I think that has a lot to do with it. It's not only a lack of confidence in the President but an even lower confidence, for instance, in the Congress and a very low confidence in the news media, in the churches, in the schools. And people have become more uncertain, as I pointed out in my Sunday night speech in July.

A part of it is because of present inconveniences and divisions and competition. Part of it, however, is derived from historical events—Vietnam war, Watergate embarrassments, and so forth—that America is now beginning to heal. But I think the fact that we have been able to weather the leaving of this office, in which we are sitting, by an incumbent President under embarrassing circumstances, the fact that we have been willing to face the first experience in American history when we were not successful in a war, in Vietnam, and still have a strong country is a sign that we ought not to be discouraged, but that we ought to be encouraged.

Our basic institutions that we sometimes doubt—government, the Presidency, the Congress—have survived and have prevailed. And I don't think our system of either economics or our social system or our government system has any equal anywhere on Earth. We ought to remember that.

MS. STAMBERG. But are you saying, though, that your low ratings in the polls are a result of general public lack of confidence in the institution itself, or in your own ability to be President, to provide leadership?

THE PRESIDENT. I think both. I don't think that all of my low ratings in the polls are attributable to a general lack of confidence. Part of it is because of people's opinion about me.

This has not been a unique circumstance. All previous Presidents have had very low ratings in the polls at one time or another. Without being apologetic about it, we have never failed. And I hope I never fail, as long as I'm in this office, to address a necessary and difficult question just to avoid criticisms or a lower rating in the poll.

There's no way to benefit, for instance, from addressing the energy question. You're condemned by producers of oil, you're condemned in some ways by consumers who, once the issue is raised, say, "Well, why doesn't the President do something about it?" We're trying. And I think that this is inherent in this office.

I didn't come here looking for glory or looking for everyone to approve what I did; I came here to do a job for our country. And if it results in either temporary or permanent criticisms or lower opinion among American people, if I think I'm right and doing what is best for this country, I'm going to do it.

I believe that this next year, 1980, a presidential election year, will serve as a time for presentation to the American people of what I have done as President, the problems that still remain, and what I can propose to the American people in the future to correct those problems. And if I can build up at that time adequate confidence in me, when the issues are clearly addressed and that accurate inventory is made, then perhaps the people will change their opinion.

MS. STAMBERG. President Carter, we're almost at the end of our time, but we do have time for perhaps a few more callers' calls.

This is Mrs. Sue Elk, and she's in Philipsburg, Montana. Go ahead, Mrs. Elk.

HOSPITAL COST CONTAINMENT

MRS. ELK. Thank you.

Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Go ahead.

MRS. ELK. I'm very pleased to be able to speak with you. Speaking of something closer to all of our hearts and on the home front, I recently, due to personal experiences within the family—I'm concerned with rising medical costs and care of the elderly. I guess until you get involved in it yourself you just pretty much take it for granted. You're aware of these high costs, but when you really get down to it and you're trying to figure out adequate means for your family to get good health care, do the best you can for them, then you come down to figuring out how you're going to pay for it. It really is a concern to each and every one of us.

I have in-laws that are in very poor condition, and I'm doing everything I can for them. But in this last month, I have come to see very good cases of good health care, and in the same instances I feel that as great of a nation as we are, we're really handling tidings very poorly.

THE PRESIDENT. Mrs. Elk, let me see if—

MRS. ELK. There are great strides in medicine, and yet it doesn't seem like we have very much interest or care in our aging people. We're doing great things with heart surgery and transplants.

MS. STAMBERG. Mrs. Elk, let me interrupt you for a moment, because our time is running short. Why doesn't President Carter go ahead and answer you?

THE PRESIDENT. One of the best things that we can do about all the problems that you've described, Mrs. Elk, is to have the Congress pass the hospital cost containment legislation that's before them. Last year the Senate passed it, and now it's before the House and the Senate again. The lobbyists are trying to oppose this legislation, and it must be passed. It would cut down on the amount that Americans will spend for hospital care in the next 5 years by $53 billion. It'll not only cut your future hospital bills by roughly $500, but it'll also leave the hospitals adequately profitable and will not reduce the level or quality of health care.

Hospital cost containment is extremely important. We hope to get it finally passed.

KIM YONG SAM

I would like to correct one thing I said earlier, if you don't mind.

MS. STAMBERG. Okay.

THE PRESIDENT. When I was in Korea I met with Kim Yong Sam, who is the opposition leader in the legislature that was expelled. I think I inadvertently said Mr. Lee. But it's Kim Yong Sam whom I met there. I didn't want to leave an error.

MS. STAMBERG. Thanks for the correction. Thanks very much. We have no more time, I'm afraid—

THE PRESIDENT. Oh, sorry.

MS. STAMBERG.— President Carter. We've come to the end of it. Thank you so much for taking part in this broadcast.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've thoroughly enjoyed it, Susan. I hope we can do it again.

MS. STAMBERG. I want to thank the thousands of citizens who wrote in asking to speak with the President and thank all of you who did get a chance to pose questions. "Ask the President" was made possible with funds provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,. Stay With us for some analysis of the President's remarks in a few moments. This is NPR, National Public Radio.