Interview With the President Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Editors and Broadcasters.

THE PRESIDENT. We've had more than [almost] ¹ 50 sessions with leading news executives and news men and women from outside Washington since I've been President, an average of every 2 weeks. I think between 1,500 and 2,000 have come here for private meetings with my staff and with me and, on occasion, with my wife and some members of the Cabinet.

¹ Printed in the transcript.

It's been very helpful to us, and what I ordinarily do is just outline some of the important concerns or projects that are ongoing that are my direct responsibility and then spend the time we have together answering your questions.

ADMINISTRATION POLICIES

We had a leadership breakfast this morning with the Democrats from the House and Senate. I do this twice a month. Once a month I have a leadership breakfast with the Republican leaders of the House and Senate. This morning we discussed the top priority of the year, which is to get SALT II ratified; secondly, to get the energy package completed. We got about 65 or 70 percent of it last year. This year we're dealing with the subject of oil. And then the third thing is to deal directly with inflation, primarily the hospital cost containment.

There are obviously many other pieces of legislation that are important, concerning appropriations, budget, and reduction of regulations, and so forth. But those are the three top priorities—SALT, energy, and hospital cost containment.

We've had a good record with the Congress since I've been in office. The percentage of important proposals that I've made to the Congress which has been passed has been as high as any recent administration in the first 3 years. President Johnson's term is probably the only time that there was a better percentage of success. And some of the things we haven't passed in the years gone by, months gone by, like the portions of the energy bill, we're coming back again and again until we get them passed by the Congress.

I have in addition to legislative responsibilities those of foreign policy and defense, and I believe we've had a good session so far in the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Secretary Vance has been up there almost 2 full weeks, which gives him the chance to participate in the debates, emphasize particular aspects of foreign policy, like peace in Lebanon, and to have literally dozens of private sessions with the heads of state or foreign ministers of countries around the world. The United Nations environment is a very good forum through which for 15 minutes or for several hours the Secretary of State can deal with foreign leaders in a convenient fashion and also a fairly private fashion.

I have been up there once for 2 or 3 days and, I think in those 2 or 3 days, met 24 heads of state who came there, some to meet with me, others on routine business.

We have, in addition, ongoing negotiations on Namibia, on Rhodesia, on the Middle East, and constant relations on a daily basis with our allies around the world—military, politics, economics—and are trying to alleviate suffering among refugees and starving people and in humanitarian things, which is part of the greatness of our country.

I would be glad to answer any questions that you might have on specific issues.

QUESTIONS

MEETINGS WITH THE PRESS

Q. Mr. President, I appreciate it—thank you.

Mr. President, while this type of format with visiting editors may be somewhat helpful to you and somewhat heady for the editors who are here, it does not allow for the aggressive interrogation that characterizes your press conferences with the reporters assigned to Washington.

THE PRESIDENT. Please be aggressive. [Laughter]

Q. Okay. Nor does it result in the widespread dissemination of your views such as the press conferences do. For instance, yesterday's press conference was at least two front-page stories on many of our national newspapers. Yet, your press conference yesterday was the first one since July 25, and there are indications that you have abandoned your campaign pledge to hold two per week—or two per month, I mean—sorry.

Do you consider this format to be an adequate substitution for those press conferences?

THE PRESIDENT. No. I've been in office now, I think 32 or 33 months. I've had over 100 [50] ² press conferences—I think 52 of them with the White House press corps exclusively; the others on a regional basis, either in Atlanta or Miami or Des Moines or Hartford, Connecticut, or wherever. At those regional press conferences I ordinarily give the White House correspondents half the questions. If I'm in Seattle, Washington, I'll ask the Seattle newspeople, to give them a chance for one question, then I give the White House correspondents who travel with me the second question, and alternate back and forth. So, this is an average of press conferences, more than three a month, about three a month.

² Printed in the transcript.

In addition, I've had 12 or 14—I've forgotten the exact figure—townhall meetings, where I have anywhere from a thousand to 3,000 people and—just in arbitrary ways, without my having any knowledge or influence over the question-answer questions from the public. I'll have my second telephone call-in show this Saturday. And, as I said, this is, I think, my 51st or 52d meeting with out-of-town editors.*I would guess that in its totality, my relationship with the public has been more than any other previous President.

* The President has met with such editors' groups in Washington 49 times and in Florida once. [Printed in the transcript.]

My own belief is that this mixture is better than to exclusively have just a relationship with the White House press corps, but that's a judgment that I myself make. And when I decided to cut down on the twice-per-month relationship with the White House press corps, that's when I decided to go out once a week or once every 2 weeks, either for a regional press conference or for a townhall meeting.

There's a much wider diversity of questions. I think they are much more substantive in nature on the average, and they also give me an insight into parochial questions, you know, what is important to the people of the Northwestern part of the United States or to the Northeast or the Deep South. And I don't think there's any robbing away of interest in even international affairs. If I go to a press conference in Iowa, I get about a third of the questions on international matters.

So, I think this is a good balance, and I've not tried to withdraw into a shell. I think I've been more open maybe the last few months than even before.

U.S. POLICY TOWARDS ISRAEL

Q. Mr. President, Simon Weber, Jewish Daily Forward, New York. As an ethnic newspaper, we have a special interest in Israel -

THE PRESIDENT. So do I.

Q. —and of course we are concerned with all the problems of the United States. But there is a feeling in the Jewish community your administration is kind of pressing hard on Israel, in the case of Lebanon, in the case of the Palestinians. Would you explain that?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I will. I think I would prefer to let Foreign Minister Dayan speak for me. I'm sure you're familiar with the comment that he made.

Q. Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. And he has a good clear insight into the relationships, both public and in the private negotiations between Israel and the United States. I could not have said it better. Neither could Jody Powell have said it better.

We have opened up public discussion and public debate and private negotiation on matters that were previously avoided because they are controversial. But I think it's well to remember that about a year ago, we had the Camp David accords signed, not just by me, not just by President Sadat, but by me, Begin, and Sadat. And then about 6 months ago, we had the Mideast peace treaty signed and approved by all three of us. The progress has been sometimes faltering, sometimes epitomized by dispute, sometimes by allegations that the United States has been unfair to Israel or unfair to the Arab countries or unfair to Egypt or unfair to the Palestinians or unfair to Lebanon.

I think we've had a well-balanced approach. We have, as a primary concern-primary concern—the security of Israel, the existence of Israel, leading toward peace for the people who live in Israel with not just Egypt but all their neighbors. That's our first concern. And along with that, of course, is to seek for a comprehensive agreement between Israel and all her neighbors. I think we've had good progress so far.

We believe that there can be no permanent peace without a resolution of the Palestinian question in all its aspects, to use the language that Prime Minister Begin himself adopted in the Camp David accords. And I think as far as Lebanon is concerned, we deplore violence in the northern part of Israel and the southern part of Lebanon, no matter where it originates. We abhor the use of terrorism by some of the Palestinians to effectuate their cause. We think this is a sad and deplorable mistake. And we hope to see a relationship between Israel and the people of Lebanon, including Palestinians, which would lead to a peaceful relationship.

But we don't put any pressure on Israel. It would be counterproductive if we did. And I believe that Prime Minister Begin would join in with Foreign Minister Dayan in certifying that our approach has been responsible and fair.

I can't deny that there have been occasions when the Israelis have felt that we took a biased position, and I can't deny either that there have been times when the Arab countries feel that our position is biased toward Israel. But I describe to you the same order of priorities that I would describe to Sadat: first of all, the existence and security of Israel; secondly, the effectuation of peace between Israel and her neighbors, all her neighbors; and third, a recognition that a resolution of the Palestinian question has to be a prerequisite to a permanent peace in the Mideast.

FUEL SUPPLIES

Q. Mr. President, Doug Breisch from KDTH Radio in Dubuque. People out in the sticks are having a hard time believing anybody on this energy matter. We've heard that there's plenty of middle distillates available for the home heating season coming up and for the harvest season. And harvest season is upon us, and the Energy Department says we've got plenty of middle distillates; they're all at the refineries so that we can keep track of how much we've got. And the mechanism is ready to get that out to the farmer, but we want to keep it at the refinery as long as possible so we know how much we have.

What is going on? What is happening in order to get this fuel out to the farmer? Are they going to have enough for harvest season? Are we going to have enough to heat our homes for winter?

THE PRESIDENT. We lost about 100 million barrels of oil that we would ordinarily have acquired the first few months of this year because of the Iranian revolution and the cessation of Iranian shipments to us. Ordinarily they now produce about 4 million barrels a day, and that production was interrupted completely. Because of that, we had potential shortage of tractor fuel during the planting season, which we weathered successfully. We did have some shortages of gasoline on the highways in some areas of our country, as you well know, and we had the threat of a severe shortage of home heating fuel for the Northeast, the entire northern part of our country, during this fall.

We have replenished our stocks of home heating fuel. Our target was to reach 240 million barrels on hand in primary stocks during October. We will meet that target. Some predicted at first that we would not. Now with that supply assured, we are shifting the emphasis on the middle distillates toward diesel fuel for both trucks and tractors, and my prediction is that we will have adequate supplies for the harvest season.

The sum total of all the discussion, however, is for us to have in place a comprehensive national energy policy that is predictable and where we are not so heavily dependent on imported oil, which can be interrupted, as you know, at any time and where the prices have increased inordinately, lately and as far back as 1973. Last year we got about 65 percent of the energy proposals that we put to the Congress. We didn't get anything on oil. This year, with the windfall profits tax, the security corporation, the production board, and with the rationing standby plan, we'll have a fairly good proposal.

The other thing that's important, though, is to meet the needs of the poor people, who are being so heavily impacted by the rapidly increasing prices of home heating oil, which is compatible with all the energy prices. And we have asked the Congress already for $400 million to take care of those needs, plus $1.2 million more that would be available, increasing to a total of 2.4 million in the next fiscal year. I hope the Congress will act expeditiously on this.

But I can predict to you that we'll have an adequate supply, barring some further interruption. But the key to it is conservation and an increase in the production in our own country of energy supplies. All of our thrust for the last 2 1/2 years has been oriented toward that goal.

I think we had better move on just to give the other folks a chance.

WAGE AND PRICE GUIDELINES

Q. I'm Scott Goodfellow from WJZ, Baltimore. When might we anticipate some revision in the wage-price guideline? I'm especially interested in the upward revision of the wage structure, however slight, if at all.

THE PRESIDENT. We're setting up a pay board, pay advisory board, headed by John Dunlop, who's the chairman, and I have not yet appointed the other members of the board. We're consulting with both business and labor to get their advice to me before I make the final selections on the pay advisory board. We have not changed the standard established by the Council on Wage and Price Stability earlier this year. That's the basis for our present wage policy.

When the pay policy board, advisory board, goes into effect and begins to function, they have the directive or will have, from me, to make recommendations on how to administer pay policy or wage policy. The final judgment will be made by the Chairman of the Council on Wage and Price Stability. But the presumption would be that the advice of this pay board would have a heavy weight, both with me and with COWPS, Council on Wage and Price Stability.

The price standards have already been set, beginning on the 1st of October, because corporations cannot make their price changes retroactive. Once you've • sold something, you can't go back and charge a higher price. It's very difficult to give refunds. And they wanted to have before this quarter again the price standards which have been stable and haven't changed.

I might point out that in spite of some degree of flexibility derived from the difference in the cost-of-living adjustment, the pay standards will be maintained on an equitable and sustained basis without any abrupt changes. They've had excellent results. Among the wage earners, the wage increases have been less in 1979 in the first 9 months than they were in 1978, which is an accomplishment not yet recognized by the press.

Secondly, among items that have been under the price standards, the rate of increase of the prices for those items has been one-half the rate of inflation for other items that we cannot control.

So, we've had good results so far. The new national accord that has been worked out with labor and with the help of business, I think, will let us be much more effective in the future even than we have been in the past. So, I can't say that there won't be any modifications, but the modifications will be based on a careful analysis of how to change our present policy. There won't be any abrupt changes, and changes will be made reluctantly.

Labor, by the way, certifies with us-and you might want to read over the accord, which is brief and written in laymen's language—labor certifies with us that the prime responsibility is to control inflation, which I think is a major step forward. We're pleased with it, and I think it will have far-reaching, beneficial effects.

CRIME

Q. JoAnne Young from Casa Grande, Arizona. What does your administration plan to do about the rising crime rate in this Nation?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, the crime rate goes up and down. For a while, since I've been in office, it's gone downward, and lately, in some cities at least, it's gone upward. We have tried to work more closely with the local and State officials. The primary responsibility for the enforcement of the law in a given community lies with local officials, first of all, State officials secondly, and with the Federal Government coming in to participate in some types of crime which involve interstate violations of the commerce laws or the violation of basic civil rights.

We've had remarkably good success, I think, in trying to interrupt and reduce the flow of illicit drugs coming into our country, particularly from Mexico. And now we're increasing our efforts to cooperate with Colombia, with Peru, and other Latin American countries, in addition to our good success with Mexico.

So, the effort to prevent white-collar crimes, to enforce the antitrust laws and others, I think, have been very successful. We've prosecuted and concluded longstanding cases involving illicit surveillance of citizens and other sensitive matters that were left over from previous administrations adequately. So, I think that's the best analysis I can give you.

We still have a serious problem with crime. One of the factors that's impossible to assess is how much a better reporting system affects the number of crimes reported. My guess is that there's a much more efficient way now to have an accurate count of the number of crimes committed. I say none of this with apology for the excessively high crime rate, but we're doing the best we can under difficult circumstances.

JEWISH AND BLACK AMERICANS

Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask you about the—my name is Gabriel Cohen. I'm with a national Jewish newspaper, the National Jewish Post and Opinion, which you do not read. [Laughter] I would like to ask you-

THE PRESIDENT. How do you know I don't read it?

Q. I already asked that question. [Laughter]

THE PRESIDENT. Oh, I see, but I didn't answer. Go on.

Q. I'd like to ask you about the rupture between the black and Jewish communities, but before that, I'd like to ask you a personal question.

THE PRESIDENT. All right.

Q. I understand you are from Georgia, and my wife and I met in Atlanta. And we now have eight children, and I thought maybe you know something that we don't know. [Laughter]

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've only got four children, but I'm working on grandchildren now. [Laughter]

Q. The question I have about—there is a deep concern in the Jewish community, a very deep concern, and I don't know that it comes to you.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, there's a concern in the White House, too, if I anticipate your question correctly. Go ahead.

Q. I know you have methods and people through whom you do consult. But the charge, for instance, that the Jews control the press, that has been made by Mr. Jackson—well, you probably know better than anybody that Jews do not control the press. Another charge is that dual loyalty, we call it dual loyalty, but it means that the Jews are more loyal to Israel than they would be to the United States. And the thought occurred to me, if you will forgive me, that perhaps—well, I know you've already spoken out on it, and I know that you have stated that the Jews were not responsible for the Young resignation.

THE PRESIDENT. That's correct.

Q. But perhaps you have in mind convening a group of Negro and—or black and Jewish leaders, and maybe not so much the leaders and trying to resolve this. It's a very dangerous situation, because Jews have never forgotten the Holocaust.

THE PRESIDENT. I know.

Q. And I can tell you of times when, on my honeymoon, I went to a country club and put down my golf clubs on the first hole and went in to register, and there was a sign that says, "No Jews allowed." And so the fellow said, "It's off season. You can go ahead and play." And I said, "Oh, no I can't," and I left. But that incident is not so much apparent today.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, blacks have suffered the same kind of discrimination and other minority groups have in our country.

I'm sure you realize I don't associate myself with the statements that you made earlier, that people allege that Jews control the press or this or that. I don't associate myself with that. And the dual loyalty, I have no question about the innate loyalty of American Jews for our country. I also have a deep commitment to Israel, which I hope accurately mirrors the deep feelings of the Jewish Americans who share the same concern. I've expressed that in answer to an earlier question.

I am concerned about the division between black and Jewish Americans. I might say that none of the blacks who travel to the Mideast do it as a representative of mine. We have myself, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and Bob Strauss, who are authorized to negotiate from time to time, all under my direct supervision. And we don't call on private citizens to negotiate for us with other national leaders throughout the world.

Secondly, I don't have any authority, nor do I want to have any authority, to interrupt or to interfere with the right of American citizens to travel where they choose and to meet with whom they choose. I would not want that authority; I think it would be a violation of the basic constitutional rights that are precious to our Nation.

We have talked—I have talked privately with people like Elie Wiesel and with Ed Sanders and with Ted Mann and others about the best way to bring about an understanding between black Americans and Jewish Americans concerning the complicated interrelationships and sensitive matters concerning the Mideast. Bob Strauss is the one on whom I depend primarily, not only for Mideast negotiations but for the alleviation of misunderstandings and tensions between blacks and American Jews. I and the Vice President also do what we can to alleviate these tensions.

My advice so far from American Jewish leaders is not to inject the White House into the dialog that ought to take place or is sometimes taking place between the two minority groups. But I would be willing to do that in the future if necessary. I believe a better understanding between the two would help to identify and to define common ground. And there may be some irresolvable differences because of points of view—that shouldn't create a schism between the two groups in our country who've suffered most from discrimination.

MS. BARIO. Thank you, sir.

NATIONAL SPIRIT AND THE 1980 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

Q. Mr. President, my name is Luke Feck from Cincinnati. When you were at Camp David you identified a malaise in the American countryside, and when Assistant Secretary of Treasury Brill resigned, he talked about America's interest in immediate self-gratification. The polls show a decline of confidence in all institutions. The American people, are they becoming more difficult to govern, and if they are, what effect will that have in the campaign of 1980?

THE PRESIDENT. I've read a lot of history since I've been in this house. And when I compare the present difficulty of governing with what it was under previous administrations, I don't think there's a remarkable difference. Obviously, under President Hoover and Roosevelt and Kennedy and Truman and Johnson and Nixon and Ford, there were extreme difficulties, some the same that I have inherited; others change from one decade or generation to another.

The thing that does concern inc, however, is the tendency among our people to alienate themselves, one from another: the evolution of special interest groups, with a narrowly focused grasping for advantage; the inability that our country has so far exhibited to deal with a major threat to our national security, that is, an overdependence on foreign oil; and a general lack of confidence in the future as revealed by public opinion polls and an absence of saving habits. And I described this as best I could in the speech in July on Sunday evening, after coming back from Camp David.

In spite of all that evidence, which is available to anyone, I have a firm and growing awareness of the basic strength of our country, which is unshaken. Militarily, politically, economically, morally, ethically, our country is still extremely strong, the strongest nation on Earth, in my opinion, in every one of those categories that I have just outlined. I think in any sort of peaceful competition we can prevail over any other power on Earth because of the qualities of American beliefs and principles.

I also believe that our system of government is admirable and worthy of emulation. Our belief in stability on Earth, the absence of war, the enhancement of peace, the independence of other nations, their right to be free of foreign intrusion from us or anyone else, is appealing to other countries.

Militarily, I'm determined to keep our Nation as strong as any on Earth. I don't ever want to see our country be second to the Soviet Union or any other country in military strength.

I feel that our Nation can be unified if in a few test cases we can prevail and the Government can show its ability to deal with a controversial issue effectively. The ratification of SALT will be a major step forward. The passage this year of the energy package will show Americans that we have a clear vision of the future and that we can make sacrifices when necessary. We can accommodate changing times even though it's inconvenient and there is a possibility of triumph in a time of difficulty through national unity, even though the threat to our Nation's security is not so obvious as a war or a worldwide depression. I expressed all this as clearly as I could.

The campaign, to close my answer and refer to the last part of your question, I think is an excellent opportunity for candidates and for American people to assess and to debate these controversial issues. I will be trying to present to the American people as clearly as possible the achievements of our country during the last 3 years, the unmet needs, my own proposals for meeting those needs, and, in the give-and-take with other candidates and with the media and with private citizens, let these controversial issues be explored. And I think the American people will be educated in the process, which is always a case with the campaign.

So, I look forward to the 1980 campaign, not with trepidation or doubt, but with anticipation and pleasure—and, I might say, confidence—and believe that the American people will benefit from it. I don't see any deleterious consequences of open debate and sharp expressions of opinion even when they differ. I think that the more American people are involved in the evolution of decisions and the establishment of policies for our country, domestically or foreign, the less likely we are to make a serious mistake.

We've made some serious mistakes in recent years with Vietnam and Watergate and CIA violations of the law and so forth, because the American people were excluded from the process or because they were told lies, even by people who worked in the Oval Office. And I want to make sure that never happens again. I think had the American people known the truth from the beginning, those deep embarrassments for our country, which shocked the consciousness of our Nation and contributed to the disunity and the doubt, would have been avoided.

So, I feel that that's part of my responsibility, to correct past mistakes, to deal fairly with the American people, and to prevent future mistakes. And I think the political campaign season is a good opportunity for that.

Let me say in closing that I've appreciated the chance to talk to you. By the way, we do get a very good coverage from these editors meetings in the national news media. There is hardly a Saturday evening or a Sunday that goes by that two or three items, sometimes front-page stories, don't come out of this session. We make a transcript of all my answers. The questions are quite often probing and different kinds of questions, and we give you—I think they explained the ground rules-we give you a chance to use the answers for a number of hours before they are made public. But there are a lot of good news stories that come out of these editorial sessions that I think are probably other than what I would get in a White House press conference.

Thank you again. If you don't mind, I'd like to get an individual photograph with each of you before you leave. And I'll stand right over here, and if you'll come by, we'll just take a handshake.