Interview With the President Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With American Press Institute Editors.

THE PRESIDENT. Just reading one of my favorite papers here. [Laughter]

Well, I'm particularly grateful to have you come. I know you've had a good session at Reston. And I want to take just a minute to outline some of the things that you might want to discuss with me, and then I'll spend most of the time answering your questions.

ADMINISTRATION POLICIES

We've now finished a year as the administration in the White House and have learned a lot. I think I have a much better and easier and understanding relationship with the Congress, with my Cabinet-which I consider to be superb-and we've defined issues very carefully. We're trying to carry out our campaign commitments. There's a growing understanding among the American people of what we are trying to do. We're addressing some difficult questions that have been long unaddressed, or at least unsolved. We don't have any magic answers, but I think there's a growing comprehension around the world that we reestablished a true and accurate sense in foreign policy of what the American people stand for and what we want to have as a characteristic of our own Nation and our own Government.

We're trying to guarantee peaceful resolution of any differences or competition with the Soviet Union. We're trying to add our good will and our good offices in the Middle East when the discussions lag or when there is a problem there in communication among the leaders. I think we are trusted, in general, by all of them who are seeking peace.

We are strengthening our relationship and our involvement and interest in Africa. We've had a good response in Latin America, particularly as a result of successful negotiations with the Panama Canal treaties, which are now being considered by the Senate, as you know.

As I pointed out in the State of the Union message, we had a very successful economic year in our country in 1977. But we still have some chronic problems, particularly unemployment among minority groups and young people and a general uncertainty about the economic future because of a lack of resolution of the energy question, that need to be addressed.

We have gone through, now, one complete budget cycle. And I've put an enormous amount of time in, personally, in the evolution of the fiscal year '79 budget, more than I will for the 1980 or 1981 budgets, because I had to learn about the different, specific programs that are buried deep within the large number of Federal agencies.

I think we have a good prospect of holding the budget basically where it is. It's a tight, conservative budget, but it meets the needs of our people adequately. We'll have an urban policy evolved early in the spring, and we have enough flexibility, I think, to accommodate the specific financial needs there.

This is an election year, and I'll probably put more time in 1978 in working with the Democratic Party, on weekends and so forth, than I did during 1977. We've got a new chairman that was voted on this morning, John White, from Texas, who's a levelheaded, very well-respected man, knowledgeable about politics. And he replaces an excellent chairman, who's a particularly personal friend of mine, Ken Curtis, who came because I personally asked him to and who's done a good job this first year.

So, in foreign affairs, in domestic affairs, in the political side of my responsibilities, I feel very good. I've enjoyed being President.

Our family is closer now than it has been in years. We have got enough to keep Rosalynn and Chip and Jeffrey and Amy and Annette and Caron busy, and they represent me and the American people very well.

Chip is in Israel this week Rosalynn is doing several things outside the Government, and one that has been particularly gratifying has been the establishment of what she calls the Friendship Force, where we send a planeload of Americans to a foreign country and the same plane brings back a load of foreign visitors to our country.

They stay in private homes; don't stay in hotels. The total cost of the round trip is $250. It's a remarkable people-to-people exchange program.

We've already had one from Atlanta to Newcastle, England. Now they'll have another one from Atlanta to Newcastle that they've done on their own. We've had one from Nashville to Caracas. The most recent one is from Hartford, Connecticut, to Tel Aviv, and we've had one from Des Moines to Ireland. And we hope to have 20, maybe 30 this year. But this is all with private funds, no public funds at all.

So, we're trying to do things both in government, in political questions, and also outside of government.

I think the best thing to do would be for me to answer questions that you might have.

QUESTIONS

ENERGY

Q. Mr. President, I'm from Indiana. And this year—I'm sure you are aware of the blizzard situation.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

Q. It points out the energy problem that in another year—what progress do you think we can make this year as far as the administration is concerned on energy?

THE PRESIDENT. Just a few minutes ago, I signed a proclamation of emergency in Indiana so that we can provide help. And last night, I did one for Ohio. This will permit the legal use of military forces, National Guard, and others, to alleviate the traffic conditions and to reach stranded motorists and others.

Well, we're trying to approach the energy question on a comprehensive basis, and it's a very complicated and difficult and politically divisive issue.

The first natural gas deregulation bill that was vetoed, I think, was by Harry Truman, 27, 28 years ago, so that this is not something new. But I think for the first time the Congress has made tremendous progress in trying to resolve these major differences.

I just finished having lunch with Senator Talmadge, who's on the Finance Committee of the Senate, who's also chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and we discussed farms and energy primarily.

I think that we're flexible enough in the executive branch to deal with almost any reasonable solution that the House and Senate conferees can evolve. There are only three prerequisites as far as I'm concerned. One is to have an increase in conservation, an increase in production, be fair to consumers and, at the same time, not break the Federal budget.

So, within those bounds, which are quite general, I'm flexible. There are some deeply felt opinions on both sides of this issue, based on 20 or 30 years of voting record, and it's hard to get people to accommodate those differences. They've never been able to in the past.

So, I think we have a good chance to have a comprehensive energy bill this year that will at least let the American people know where we are going. I think the uncertainty is one of the crucial problems that we have.

THE COAL STRIKE

Q. Mr. President, along those lines, how does your administration view the coal miners strike, and do you think you can or should do anything about it?

THE PRESIDENT. We are doing something about it. You know, we're not acting as direct negotiators; I don't think it's advisable for us to do that until we reach a time when the national security is actually endangered and the law requires me at that point to take a more direct role.

My hope and expectation is that the miners and the coal operators can resolve the differences between them. We are offering the services of the Federal mediator. We're also offering the services of the FBI and others to make sure the Federal laws are carried out. But I'm philosophically adverse to an early entry of the Federal Government into the negotiating process.

Q. How long do you think it will have to go on before it's a threat?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, it depends on the reserve supplies of coal. I think we still have—well, I don't want to put an exact figure on it. We monitor that every week, and Ray Marshall makes a report to me, but we still have several weeks of adequate supply of coal on hand for electric power production, transportation, and industry.

And I would hope and I do expect that the coal contract question can be resolved before the national emergency arises.

WAGE AND PRICE INCREASES

Q. Mr. President, earlier today George Schultze spoke to us, and he talked about the voluntary standard of behavior that the administration is asking for businesses to comply with. And he said—of course, there's no regulation, but he said that the administration will assert the public interest. Can you explain to me what this means, how the administration can speak out?

THE PRESIDENT. That was Charlie, Charles Schultze.

Q. Charles Schultze, pardon me, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, we've tried to make this a joint, voluntary effort on the part of government, business, and labor, so that there could be a self-imposed restraint on escalating wages and prices. Here again, I'm not in favor .of wage and price controls, either voluntary or mandatory, and the degree to which labor and business will cooperate is really up to them.

I think the first step has already been taken, and that is to draft the proposal in writing and present it to the leaders in business and labor.

The second step has been taken, that is, my public espousal of it in the State of the Union message.

The third step is now under way, whereby, as decisions are made to increase prices and to demand wage increases, they measure the average increases of the last 2 years and try to make sure that the 1978 increases are at least less than they have had average in the last 2 years.

In most cases, a patriotic motivation and one to assuage or to please the public will have at least as much or more effect than any jawboning or pressure from us. We'll offer the good service of the Council on Wage and Price Stability to assess the inflationary impact of proposals.

We're not requiring, for instance-don't have any inclination nor authority to require—that labor unions propose in advance to us the demands that they'll make for fringe benefits, health programs, or for wages, but we just hope that it'll create a tone in the country of generally dampening the inflationary impact. We have now an underlying inflation rate of about 6 or 6 1/2 percent.

So, that's as far as we are inclined to go. And I've met around this table with a fairly large number of the top business men and women in this country, and their response was favorable.

I've had a luncheon last week with President Meany. ¹ He expressed some concern about the point that I just raised to you, that they can't submit ahead of time all of the labor union negotiating demands. We don't ask for that. But we hope that in Government, we can also set an example,

¹ George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO.

But it's a strictly voluntary program that I think can work with the right sort of spirit and tone.

If—the last thing I'll say about it is this—if we tried to be too intrusive in the private sector from the Government, I think there would be an adverse reaction, and the whole thing would fail. So, the degree of voluntary compliance in self-initiated compliance is the measure of whether it'll be successful.

There's no way to answer your question specifically, because it's kind of an ephemeral thing, but I think it can be the source of tangible benefits.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Q. Mr. President, on the question of human rights, last Sunday in Warren, Michigan, the Ukrainian people held their 60th anniversary for the independence of the Ukraine. And the array of speakers—some condemned the Helsinki accord—fear that detente, if it was continually pursued, that the rights of the Ukrainian people, the Baltic peoples, would vanish from the political American scene.

In line with that question, you have been very firm on human rights. I would like to know your opinion, the feeling as we pursue the course in human rights in the Soviet Union, particularly countries incorporated—and if I might ask, a personal, ethnic attachment—and the question of the Armenian people. Prior to the election when you met with an Armenian group at the airport in Newark—

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I remember.

Q.—you issued a statement on the persecution of the Armenian people and the lack of correction of the injustices against them during the time of the Ottoman Empire. Now, this was a rarity in the American Armenian scene for a candidate for that office to speak so.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

Q. You had met with American Armenian groups, and a personal question is, do you now, as the President, still feel that strong feeling that you expressed then in Newark?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think, first of all, that the Helsinki agreement has played a useful role. We've never acknowledged, as you know, the absorption by the Soviet Union of the groups to whom you refer. My wife's brother—his wife is an Estonian; she was born and raised there. And we've had a chance in the last few months at Belgrade to specify particular violations of human rights which were in conflict with the Helsinki agreement.

As you know, the Soviets wanted to minimize the so-called third basket and not discuss human rights, but talk about military and political interrelationships.

I think we're making some progress. In my private discussions with foreign leaders-and I set a record last year by meeting with 68 heads of state—hardly ever do we have a 10- or 15-minute or, certainly, not a 3-hour discussion that the subject of human rights doesn't arise. In most instances, they raise it.

My guess is that 2 years ago, the subject of human rights would be a rarity among heads of state. But now, even the most abusive governments, there is a concern—"what does the rest of the world think about me, what will happen if I persecute this group or bring a legal charge against this person?"

I think we are making success in a very slow, tedious way. I notice that this morning—I can't vouch for the accuracy of it—there was a story in the news, for instance, about contending military leaders in Argentina. And the challenging group, I think from the Navy, said that their basis for future success was their deeper commitment to human rights, and they thought that we might support them because they were more convinced that human rights was a case.

Last night I watched the news, which I don't ordinarily do—I don't get home that early, but I had company—and there was a story about the 10,000 Indonesians who are being released from prison this year. I think there is kind of a subtle thing, but I think that this is one of the major commitments that we've made that has aroused worldwide interest, not always worldwide cooperation. And I don't intend to back down on it ever. As long as I'm in the White House, human rights will be a major consideration of every foreign policy decision that I make, and I might say, also, domestic.

CAMPAIGN PLANS

Q. Mr. President, do you plan any campaign trips later this year for Democratic congressional candidates?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

Q. If so, where?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I'll have several. I think the first one that I'll have will be within the next—probably within the next month or so, probably up in the New England .area, and in March I'll probably do another one. I don't know how many I will make. But there will be several. Did I answer your question?

Q. I'm from Indiana. [Laughter] I specifically—would you come to Indiana if Congressman Brademas or Congressman Fithian asked you to?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I can't make a specific promise, because they haven't invited me. But I was there last year when Congressman Brademas and I were both running, and I visited Indiana frequently during 1976, quite often to help the local candidates and State candidates more than myself, really. I just don't know how to answer your question. I certainly would look favorably on it, but I can't promise because they haven't asked me, and I hate to just put them on the spot.

But I and several of the members of the Cabinet—we probably would refrain from political involvement by the Secretary of State or Defense or Treasury, but other members of the Cabinet, on the weekends and so forth, would probably help the candidates. And there are no people in the Congress who have been more helpful to me, say, for instance, than Brademas has.

NUCLEAR-POWERED SATELLITES

Q. Mr. President, now that the reactor from the Soviet satellite has been found in Canada and found to be highly radioactive, what is your administration planning to do to prevent such mishaps, satellite mishaps, from occurring again, and also, what are your plans for stopping nuclear proliferation in space?

THE PRESIDENT. I had breakfast this morning with Secretary Vance and Dr. Brzezinski, and this is one of 'the subjects that we discussed.

As you know, we have a longstanding treaty with the Soviet Union preventing any atomic explosions in space. But we were guilty of that a long time ago.

I think it's time to reexamine that question. I believe that this recent incident with the Soviet satellite has shown that we don't have an adequate, guaranteed safety requirement on nuclear fuel in space.

This particular satellite and all those that we've ever launched—I think the first one we put up using nuclear power was in 1965—they have what's called a subcritical mass there's not enough radioactivity there to cause an explosion under any circumstances. And when the satellite is first launched, it's relatively clean; you could get probably close to it without having radiation. The longer it burns, the more byproducts are made and the more radioactive they become.

This particular satellite was designed, as are most of them, to be elevated into a higher orbit when it had served its purpose. And when the Soviets attempted to elevate it into a higher orbit, which would have kept it in space for a thousand years or more, some mechanism failed—I don't know the details of it. But I think that we now are in the process of deciding' what we can do to minimize this danger from space.

One possibility would be to design such a nuclear powerplant, which is very small, so that it would surely burn completely as it came down through space itself by increasing the drag of friction, and so forth.

Another one would be to have standby mechanisms, so that if the first one failed to eject it into outer orbit, another standby would be required. This is something that we have not yet gone into in any definitive way.

We have a much higher reliance, as you may know, on solar panel power supplies, and we do not rely on the atomic power supplies as much. But you have a good question. It's something that we have not yet addressed with the Soviets, but I'm sure it's something that we will address.

CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT

Q. As a resident of the submarine capital of the world, where you at one time spent a couple of years—I'm wondering if you continue some type of a relationship with Rickover, if you will have gotten involved or had any conversations with him concerning General Dynamics Electric Boat Division, which has a more than a half a million dollar half a billion dollar claim they're trying to settle with the Navy on submarine cost overruns, and it's a claim that they've had in for some length of time, and it's causing them a lot of financial difficulty.

THE PRESIDENT. The answer to both your questions is yes. [Laughter]

I have a continuing relationship with Admiral Rickover, and he and I have discussed the General [Dynamics] Electric Boat claim and also other similar claims that are quite extensive.

We're now trying to decide how to resolve those longstanding claims that'll be fair to the companies involved to keep them solvent, but not to overpay them for the work they've done.

I'll be meeting with the Secretary of Defense and his deputy, I think next week; I have a scheduled meeting with them so that they can give me an up-to-date report on the negotiations that are under way.

Admiral Rickover, you know, is very knowledgeable about this, very strict in protecting the public's interest. And my own commitment and that of Secretary Brown is the same. So, the answer to both of your questions—

Q. You show no bias to submarines?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't know enough about the subject to comment on a particular claim. Obviously, we have an interest in keeping both the publicly owned and the privately owned shipyards functioning well, because we have a longstanding need in the past and in the future for an adequate capability to build our merchant ships and military ships, and we want to protect the financial stability of them.

I went to Electric Boat 'Company for the first time in 1950 and was in charge of the precommissioning work on the first ship the Navy built after the Second World War and got acquainted with the processes there.

I think part of the problem is that we've given the order for submarines, airplanes, and other equipment quite early and then continued with the advanced design during the same time that construction was already initiated, which means that excessive change orders are required.

We are trying now to do more of the research and development work before we reach the production stage on equipment of all kinds, which would prevent in the future the very large claims that have arisen because of past practices. In order to expedite delivery, quite often the research-development-design phase was going along at the same time we were actually constructing operation models, and then before the pilot models were tested, we went into production on a large scale. That is probably counterproductive in almost every instance, and we're trying to change that.

Harold Brown is a superb man. He's probably as good a technician, as good a scientist, as good an engineer as there is anywhere in the Nation, and at the same time, he's Secretary of Defense.

So, he brings a resource to government that we haven't had in the past, and I think his ability plus that of Charles Duncan,¹ who's a superb businessman, will help to prevent this kind of problem in the future. But how to resolve these past claims that we've inherited is something that I'll have to get involved in personally. Maybe a couple more questions.

¹ Deputy Secretary of Defense.

PROJECT SEAFARER

Q. Mr. President, staying on, rather briefly, on the subject of submarines, do you favor the submarine communications system in the upper peninsula of Michigan, Project Seafarer?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think we need a submarine communications system of that kind. When a submarine is submerged, it's imperative, in case our Nation's security is directly threatened, to have communication with them.

The only means of fairly rapid communication is with the very low frequency, ultra-low frequency transmissions systems, and there are certain topographical or geological structures in our continent that permit this transmission of signal underneath the land and water.

We are concerned, of course, about the reaction of people in those two States as far as environmental questions are concerned and, also, to assuage their concerns about possible effect of the radio waves that are generated.

So, my answer is yes, I am familiar with it; yes, I do think we need that communication system. But I'm very deeply committed to be sure that nothing is done to disturb the quality of life of the people there.

FARM STRIKE

Q. Mr. President, the farm strike has moved from the prairies of Kansas to the streets in Washington, in a sense. I was wondering if there's anything in the administration in the form of recommendations, other than words of sympathy, that would deal with this supposed money plight of the farmer and, if not, if the administration believes that the farmers will indeed plow up the crops next year?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, the '78 crops haven't been planted, except for winter wheat. You know, I'm a farmer, and Senator Talmadge is a farmer. Bob Bergland is a farmer. We have a genuine problem.

I would say that in the last 5 years that the cost of producing most crops has increased a hundred percent, certainly as far as equipment prices, energy prices, fertilizer prices is concerned. At the same time, most commodity prices have increased very little, if at all. The debt that farmers now hold has increased rapidly. The amount of reserve finances in country banks is down below the historical averages.

We do have a good bit of flexibility within the 1977 agricultural act that the Congress passed and I approved last year.

We have large reserve supplies of feed grains, food grains carried over. There's no way to predict what the weather will be this year. We've already initiated a moderate set-aside program at some substantial cost to the Government. And we have about 6 or 7 billion dollars in increased payments authorized to the farmers, because of higher target prices and support prices.

What else needs to be done at this point I haven't decided. The impact of the new farm legislation has not yet been felt on the agricultural community of our country. It only went into effect the first day of October, and of course, it hadn't gone through a crop season yet. I think there will be some benefit at least from that.

I don't see any possibility of lower prices for fuel, nor for fertilizer. I think that there's going to have to be a sober assessment by the farmers themselves of economic circumstances now and in the future.

I live and have always lived among and with farmers. My people have been in-my Carter family has been here over 300 years—we've all been farmers, every generation of us. And it's a characteristic of many farmers to spend this year what you made last year. And I think there's been an inclination with the limited acreage to have a heavier and heavier investment in equipment that's very costly. At the same time, of course, yields have gone up.

In the long run, the food and feed demands with a fixed or dwindling acreage supply will correct the problem. But at the present time, we have an excess surplus on hand, and as you've shifted from the smaller tractors and livestock cultivation to the very large tractors, you've cut out the windrows and, in effect, you've gone to a fence-to-fence operation.

This has amounted to about, I think, a 50-million acre increase in the land being cultivated. So, with our present set-aside program and the present farm program, we have a step in the right direction. And we will assess other factors, the carryover crops, prospective worldwide production for this 1978 year, the lending capability of farm banks, the amount of debt carried over—we'll analyze all those factors and decide whether to use the flexibility in the present law or to ask for additional legislation. We have not yet decided.

SOVIET COSMOS SATELLITE

Q. Mr. President, are you satisfied with the response of the Soviets when you asked for information on the satellite that was burned?

THE PRESIDENT. That's hard to say. We discovered that the satellite was having a problem back in December—I don't remember the exact day.

I made the decision myself to contact the Soviets. We told them that we were aware of the problem, asked them for any information about the satellite, and told them unofficially that we would not try to capitalize on their misfortune in a propaganda way.

We wanted to be sure that the adequate preparation was made for the reentry of the satellite into the atmosphere, and we notified some of our key allies around the world who would have the capability both to monitor the progress of the satellite and also to deal with radioactivity once it fell.

I had a difficult decision to make in how much publicity to bring to this satellite, because it's almost impossible to let people know the facts without the threat being exaggerated, and we didn't want to create exaggerated fears.

We monitored the satellite constantly. We shared with the Soviets estimates of when it would come down. the exact point of its penetration of the atmosphere was not known until just an hour or two before it crashed, because it was tumbling. And when a satellite of that kind enters the atmosphere, it can skip off and go several thousands of miles further than you have actually anticipated.

We knew that it would fall somewhere between just north of Hawaii, northeast of Hawaii, or the eastern side of Africa. And it was making a great circle route up above the point where it finally fell. That was just about the northern point.

The Soviets did tell us, in general, what kind of reactor it was. They told us that their best estimate was it would burn as it entered the atmosphere.

So, I can't—without going back and checking the exact language of their report to us—I can't say whether they gave us all the facts. But I think it was handled properly; certainly, by us.

I don't know who else the Soviets notified. When I found that it was going to hit Canada, early that morning—I come over here quite early in the morning—I called the Prime Minister of Canada and talked to him on the phone. And we were pretty lucky in telling him where it was going into the atmosphere. We had it on radar.

But in retrospect, it may be that the Soviets could have given us more information. I think they probably gave us about what we would have given them in a similar circumstance.

MR. WURFEL. Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. I've enjoyed talking to you very much. It's always a pleasure to have you here. It helps me to have your questions. We tend to get a Washington perspective with the permanent White House press corps and a permanent-at least a temporary White House resident— [laughter] —and it adds a new perspective to—a different perspective to the news coverage, to hear what is of concern to you and your readers and listeners and viewers.

Thank you very much for coming.