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

THE PRESIDENT. Hi, everybody. Well, first of all, let me say that it's a pleasure to have you at the White House. This is our 35th meeting, I understand from my briefing this morning, with editors and other news executives from around the country. And it's always a pleasure for us to have a chance to answer your questions, primarily, and let you know what our current problems are, some of which have been chronic problems and, I guess, opportunities for service.

I think for just 2 or 3 minutes, I might outline where we stand on a few major issues, and then spend what time we 'have available answering your questions.

ADMINISTRATION POLICIES

In domestic affairs, our primary concern at this phase of the year is to prepare the budget for fiscal year 1980, which will commence the 1st of October, next year. It is a very difficult and unpleasant experience to prepare a budget that's going to be as stringent as the one for the upcoming fiscal year.

I meet, ordinarily, with the Office of Management and Budget after they get all their recommendations in. I give them tentative and general guidelines for the allocation of funds, and then each head of an agency or Secretary of the Cabinet has a right to appeal to me if they think that I and OMB have made an improper judgment in the total amount of money available to that agency or the allocation priorities.

The zero-base budgeting technique has helped tremendously to arrange expenditures in a proper order of priority and to incorporate in the same assessment both longstanding commitments for programs and new or innovative programs to be proposed.

So, that's my primary domestic responsibility at this moment.

In foreign affairs, we are continuing our effort to bring about a resolution of the SALT negotiations, pursuing our conventional arms talks with the Soviet Union, trying to reduce the distribution of conventional arms throughout the world, as a matter of fact. We still hope that without much delay, we can meet at the top level between ourselves and the Soviets to sign a SALT II treaty.

I met yesterday with Foreign Minister' Pik Botha, from South Africa, to encourage him to move expeditiously in the consummation of U.N. Resolution 435, which would grant independence to Nanmibia, following free and democratic elections to be supervised by the United Nations. He's now going back to get further instructions from Prime Minister—who also happens to be named Botha, as you know.

This afternoon I'll be meeting with the Prime Minister of Egypt, Mr. Kahlil, who is bringing to me a personal message from President Sadat. And following that meeting, we will decide how to persist most effectively in the conclusion of a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

As I said in my press conference yesterday, I've been discouraged and disappointed at the slow progress following the Camp David accords in bringing to finality a. treaty text, with all the ancillary documents that go with it. But we will be persistent in this effort, tenacious. And the one bright spot in the entire process is that I'm convinced that both the Egyptian and the Israeli people want peace between themselves.

And we are operating under a handicap, because it's very difficult to negotiate with leaders who are far distant from me. I can't consult with them simultaneously on a given paragraph or phrase or issue. And unfortunately, to an increasing degree, the negotiations have taken place through the news media, which in effect makes any backing down on a statement made by a Foreign Minister or a negotiator or a Prime Minister or a President almost a matter of violation of national honor, rather than the quiet negotiation that we did impose at Camp David.

Although discouraged, I've certainly not given up on the prospect for the peace treaty to he concluded.

I think that there are other matters that I could go over with you, concerning China, negotiations on Philippines bases, trying to prevent bloodshed in Nicaragua, and so forth. But I think that we might best spend our time with my answering your questions. And I am very delighted to have you here.

John [John Pruitt, WXIA-TV, Atlanta, Ga.]—I'll pull my rank and call on a Georgian first. [Laughter]

Q. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. John, good to see you.

QUESTIONS

EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI PEACE NEGOTIATIONS

Q. Following up on the Middle East statement you made, what is your personal reaction to President Sadat's statement that he will not go to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize? Are you personally disappointed by that, and what implications does that have to the peace process?

THE PRESIDENT. I'm not surprised that President Sadat will not go to Oslo. I think had the peace treaty been signed prior to December 10, or whatever the date is, that he would have gone. He will send a representative to receive the prize for him. But I don't think it has any particular extra connotation, other than the obvious one, that to receive the peace prize for bringing about a treaty between Israel and Egypt, absent a conclusion of the treaty, he considers to be inappropriate.

I don't think it has any far-reaching connotations that further aggravate the already difficult situation.

Q. Do you think the two can maybe get together again to resolve this?

THE PRESIDENT. That's always an ultimate possibility. I think they both see that there must be some substantive prospect of success before they get together again. We did not have that substantive prospect of success when they met at Camp David. But I think it was an absolutely hopeless case before we decided to go to Camp David. I don't think it's in that degree of extremity now.

MOOD OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC

Q. How do you assess the mood of the American people today, December 1, 1978

THE PRESIDENT. I think the mood of the American people was most accurately expressed publicly by the results of the elections this past month. I was pleased with the overall outcome of the elections. Democrats retain a strong majority, at least 60 percent majority in the House, the Senate, and among Governors. So, there is an overall approbation of the policies of our own party.

I think there was an expression of caution about the rampant inflation that people fear. My own sense is that the American people want us to be determined and tenacious in controlling inflation, reducing the rate of inflation over a period of time. I think they recognize the difficulty of it. It can be accomplished without a recession or depression, and at the same time that we meet our international and domestic needs, social programs, defense responsibilities.

There was and is, I think, an approval of our Nation's policy in international affairs, the general sense that we're doing the best we can, not only to provide peace for our own people—we've not had any American shed blood in combat in the last 2 years; maybe we can continue that; I certainly pray that we can—and the fact that we have raised the banner of human rights in a forceful and, I think, effective way; and the fact that we are negotiating under difficult circumstances in places like Namibia, Rhodesia, Nicaragua, the Mideast, Cyprus, in areas where our security is indirectly threatened, but where the peacefulness of other people are more directly enhanced by our efforts.

So, I think in general I feel a sense of fiscal responsibility combined with a brighter hope for the future. I don't think the American people are concerned. I think they recognize, deeply within them, that our country is militarily, politically, and economically the strongest on Earth, and that we are likely to stay that way.

MAYOR RICHARD G. HATCHER OF GARY

Q. Mr. President, Jerry Mastey from WWCA [Radio] in Gary. It's been an open secret for many years now in northwest Indiana that Mayor Richard Hatcher has been under almost constant investigation by the Internal Revenue Service and the FBI. And many times the mayor has claimed—

THE PRESIDENT. So have I, by the way. I've been— [laughter] .

Q.— that he's one of the most investigated mayors in history. A two-part question—

THE PRESIDENT. I'm the most investigated President. [Laughter] But go ahead. I'll answer.

Q. The first part of the question: Assuming you are aware of those comments, does the fact you offered the mayor a job in your administration in April of this year indicate those reports are without foundation? The second part: Will you at some point in the future offer the mayor another but not necessarily the same position in your administration?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I wasn't being completely facetious when I pointed out that my income tax returns have been audited in depth every year at an enormous personal expense to me, like $30, ,$40,000, just—and the upshot of it has been that I've gotten a refund, not nearly so large as my cost, but a refund. Recently all of my past reports on property tax evaluations have been assessed. And I think I've got to pay a net of about $750 after all that effort. I don't object to it.

But the fact that an investigation is held of a political figure, a controversial and progressive mayor or a President, doesn't mean that there is any substance to the allegations or any illegalities involved. Of course, we were familiar with the fact that investigations were being held concerning Mayor Hatcher at the time I offered him a top position in the White House, and I wish he had accepted. I still have complete confidence in him.

After careful consideration of that offer, he decided to stay in his present position. And I understood his reasons. There are no hard feelings about it. Since he already has assessed a very attractive position in the Government and rejected, I don't have any plans to offer him another position any time soon.

Q. So, the reports that have been circulating since he came into office in 1968 you feel for the most part are without foundation?

THE PRESIDENT. So far as I know. Obviously I have not conducted any investigation. But knowing that the investigations were being conducted, I was willing to offer him a top position, which indicates my attitude.

STATE LEGISLATURE SALARY INCREASES

Q. Mr. President, Joe Fenley from Dayton, Ohio. On Wednesday, the Ohio Senate approved the 28-percent pay increase for the State legislature. The house has yet to vote on that measure. And one State senator who voted against it, who was elected to Congress in November, he's already been threatened with being redistricted out of Congress by 1980. Would you comment on that in relation to the kind of interjectories with your policy?

THE PRESIDENT. It doesn't help at all. [Laughter] My own longstanding belief is that Congress Members and legislative members should not raise their own salaries during current terms of office; that any time a salary increase is voted by public officials after they have been elected, it ought to be delayed in its effective date until after the next election.

Obviously, to increase legislative salaries in Ohio or Illinois or anywhere else by 25 or 30 percent, when we are really trying to hold down wage increases to a 7-percent level, works counter to the best interest of our Nation in controlling inflation. I say that with the full realization that that's an autonomous body and that I don't have any control over it.

But I would hope that legislators around the country would join in with us in exercising restraint during these times when inflation ought to be in the forefront and when elected officials ought to set an example.

ENERGY PROGRAMS

Q. I'd like to ask two questions about energy. What are your plans for Phase II after the present congressional bill takes effect, and how do you plan to deal with the inflationary effects of energy imports increasing and doubling to a hundred billion dollars in costs by 1985?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, we'll continue to try to implement fully the energy proposal I put to the Congress in April of 1977, which would have resulted in about a 4 1/2 million barrel-per-day savings. The bills that were passed, we estimate they'll save about 2.6 million barrels a day, about 60 percent success.

In the so-called Phase II effort, there are many facets involved. One is a successful administration of the very complicated and detailed and far-reaching five bills that I signed into law earlier this year; to take that law and then to implement it is a very major consideration.

Also, in the preparation of the 1980 fiscal year budget and subsequent budgets, that Phase II implementation of energy savings must be consummated, both in the allocation of tax benefits for those who shift to more plentiful supplies of fuel, encouragement of conservation, and the great increase in allocation of basic research and development funds for solar energy and other alternate, more permanent supplies of energy.

As far as the inflationary impact of imported oil, I would say the overriding interest that we had in consummating the energy policy is to reduce dependence on imported oil below what it would have been had there been no energy policy approved by the Congress.

We, at the same time, are trying to hold down the inclination of the OPEC nations to increase the price of oil that we do have to purchase, whatever the level of imports might be. Secretary Blumenthal has just returned from a fairly extensive trip to the Mideast to try to convince them in an open and clear and fair and objective way about the benefits to be derived among the OPEC nations for stable economic circumstances around the world.

We are trying' to do our part by controlling inflation in our own country and by stabilizing the value of the dollar. Since the 1st of November, I think was the date, when I approved a new program to strengthen the American dollar, its value has increased about 12 percent, I think, with respect to the deutsche mark, German deutsche mark, and about the same amount with respect to the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen. This is something we've done on our own behalf.

But I think that to the extent that the OPEC nations realize that an increase in the price of oil to an inordinate degree would be counterproductive, it would help to hold down inflationary pressures in the future.

So, to implement and administer the existing laws that have just been passed, major tasks; through budgetary decisions on the allocation of funds for research, development, and shifting toward new energy supplies, a second thing; to reduce imports as much as we can in present and future years; and to hold down the price of oil that is imported—those are the four basic thrusts that we are pursuing.

STEEL IMPORTS

Q. Following up, regarding imports-Jim Blount from Hamilton, Ohio-Armco Steel is located in my area. Of course, speaking of imports, they report this week of foreign import of steel continuing to increase—I think it was 16 percent rate over the last year. I would be interested in your comments if the administration is planning any more action on the trigger price mechanism in order to try to hold that down.

THE PRESIDENT. I think the trigger price mechanism has only been in effect since May of this year. And so far we've been pleased with the results. The basic modification of that program, I think, would be inappropriate so soon. We don't have any plans to do it. We are constantly assessing, however, the trigger price itself, as we look at inflation here and in other countries, look at the price of producing oil in Japan, which is the base nation that we observe, and also as we assess the import levels from different countries.

The last figures that I've actually seen officially were that Japanese exports to us had been reduced substantially since the trigger price mechanism was implemented. I did see some reports in the news media recently that total imports had increased somewhat.

I don't have any present plans to modify the program at all. But we'll be constantly assessing it to see if that's required action in the future.

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Q. Mr. President, I'm Eldora Nuzum from Elkins.

THE PRESIDENT. I recognize you.

Q. We're so happy you came to the Forest Festival.

THE PRESIDENT. So am I.

Q. I think you need to get out with the American people more often. The President walked 2 miles in the Forest Festival parade, and everybody loved it. They felt like they were getting to know you.

Now my question. I know you're cutting back on spending the next year, but the Appalachian Regional Commission Act has built new roads in West Virginia, schools and hospitals. We feel that this is an investment, and it's very important to our people in 13 States. Are you planning on cutting back in this direction?

THE PRESIDENT. I can't answer that question yet. I might say that I was chairman of the Appalachian Regional Commission while I was Governor of Georgia, and I'm familiar to that extent with its function and with its superb improvements that it has made in the whole region, 13 States.

Also, [Senator] Jennings Randolph keeps this question constantly before my eyes. I just talked to Jennings a few minutes ago, by the way, to tell him that we were praying for his wife, who's having an operation today.

But I can't answer your question about a specific level of funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission or other items.

I've just about completed all of my preliminary budget sessions on domestic and foreign affairs. I'll have my last one this afternoon and Monday on Defense Department issues. But all I can say is to repeat what I said yesterday at the press conference: that I'll be ultimately responsible to the American people, that when the budget is revealed to the Congress and to the public, that it is fair and well balanced, and that we meet our domestic and defense and foreign needs, and that the restraints are applied equitably among all our people.

But I can't give you an answer yet on exactly how the Appalachian Regional Commission will be treated; just that it'll be treated fairly. And if the Congress, of course, disagrees and can improve the budget or modify it, based on primarily later revelations of inflationary trends and needs, then, of course, I would have to accommodate those changes.

But that's the best answer I can give you, which is not a very good answer.

GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA

Q. Mr. President, Bob Jordan from Orlando, Florida. We understand that sometime ago you were interested in bringing Reubin Askew into your administration, our outgoing Governor. We've since learned that he is going into international law. But there's now talk that Lieutenant Governor Williams might find a place in the Agriculture Department. Have you given up on bringing Reubin Askew to Washington, and are you interested in bringing Jim Williams to Washington?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, let me not comment on Jim Williams, because that's one of the things that I would rather avoid, is speculating on who might get jobs when it's all in the formative stage.

When I was first elected President, I offered Reubin Askew almost any Cabinet post that be would like. He's one of the people that has my unbounded admiration. And he chose then to stay and fulfill his term in Florida as Governor. But I have called on him to do several major jobs since I've been President.

One was to bring order out of chaos in the selection of top diplomatic officials. He has personally screened, along with a very fine committee that he and I chose together, every group of prospective ambassadors, for instance. And I think we've got an admirable group now because of Reubin's work.

He will continue on as chairman of that committee. I asked him to do that recently, and tie's agreed to do that. Reubin has informed me that he does not want to leave Florida on a full-time basis anytime in the future.

I might add parenthetically that I don't contemplate any vacancies in my Cabinet in the future. I'm well satisfied with the entire group that I have now.

DEFENSE SPENDING

Q. Mr. President, I'm David Feingold of National Public Radio Station WOSU in Columbus, Ohio. I would like to ask a question.

The administration has been directing a lot of talk both to the public and to Congress about the 3-percent increase in defense spending, the M-X cruise missiles, the civil defense plan.

Two questions: Is this a simultaneous campaign to both neutralize anti-SALT feelings in the Senate and also to create more bargaining chips in the SALT talks themselves?

THE PRESIDENT. No. Compared to a year ago, there's a tenfold increase in the interest in the budget itself. When I was preparing the budget for fiscal year 1979, I very seldom got a question from the news media about, "What are you going to propose next January to the Congress?" But now since we are in a program of fiscal restraint, trying to control inflation as one of our top priorities, and so forth, there's a much more intense interest in the Appalachian Regional Commission and defense-level expenditures and others.

This is the same process I went through last year, to decide what level of increase we should have in the Defense Department. As far as specific programs are concerned, the M-X missiles, or civil defense, it's the same process as we had last year.

I have felt for a good while that our civil defense effort should be reassessed. We have primarily observed the Soviets' interest in civil defense, the massive evacuation of their major cities, including Moscow. This causes some concern, that if we should have a seriously deteriorating relationship with the Soviet Union, so that even the prospect of war was extant, that both sides would want to prepare themselves to minimize deaths in case a war should occur. I think this is obviously a very unlikely prospect. But our capability in transportation is certainly equal to or superior to that of the Soviet Union.

And the fact that we are assessing how we would go about partial evacuation of our major cities if war became possibly imminent is, I think, not a radical thing. It's not designed for propaganda purposes. It's not designed to influence the Soviets, or to influence the Congress to approve SALT. It's just a routine matter that is being pursued by me.

I've not made any decisions on it. I've never discussed with anyone funding levels, in spite of some contrary reports in the press and so forth.

So, these are basically routine matters the level of defense spending; what kind of strategic weapons we should construct in the future; whether they should be primarily cruise missiles, primarily new airplanes, primarily the M-X; whether we should have a multiple aim point type system. It's a routine matter. They're just highly publicized now. But they are not designed for any sort of subterfuge.

STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION

Q. Is Dr. Brzezinski becoming more involved in the SALT talks, and how close to signing are you?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, Dr. Brzezinski couldn't possibly be any more closely involved in the SALT talks than he has been from the very first day we commenced them. Any decision made concerning the SALT negotiating position, whether it was a major position 20 months ago or now, or in minor modification in the text of the language, is very carefully considered by Dr. Brzezinski, by Harold Brown, by Secretary Vance, by Paul Warnke, and almost invariably by the Joint Chiefs of Staff themselves, or at least the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And on occasion, I consult with some of the Members of the Congress, particularly those Members of the Senate who will ultimately have to ratify such an agreement. But his position has been integral from the very beginning, still is, and hasn't changed.

We are much closer to a SALT agreement now than we were before. I think we are down to the last stages of negotiation. Our position and that of the Soviets is clear, and I think if the Soviets want a SALT agreement, the door is open to them to have one.

What their attitude will be to actually concluding an agreement is something that's unpredictable. But I don't see any obstacle now to fairly expeditious passage of agreement on the SALT II treaty.

ELECTION RESULTS IN MINNESOTA

Q. Mr. President, Frank Wright from the Minneapolis Tribune. You mentioned a few minutes ago that you were generally pleased with the election results. On the other side of that coin, have you and the Vice President had any postmortems on what the two of you might have done to prevent the disaster in Minnesota?

THE PRESIDENT. We could have paid less attention to the polls that were published— [laughter] —in some of the newspapers that I won't mention. [Laughter]

I don't know of anything else we could have done. The sharp division within the DFL [Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party] was obvious to the Vice President and to me. We tried, as best we could, to heal those divisions following the primary elections, and were not able to. I, as you know, made one extra trip into Minnesota the last weekend before the elections, hoping it would help to some degree. But I don't know of anything else we could have done to help the candidates, the Democrats in the election.

I was disappointed with the outcome, but we'll work as well as we can with the new Senators and the new Governor on a bipartisan basis, particularly in matters that concern defense, national affairs. And I look forward to getting to know them better. And once the election's over, as far as I'm concerned, I represent all the people, Democrats and Republicans. Just disappointed, don't know anything else we could have done. We'll work with the ones that the Minnesota people elected.

I don't have much time, and I would like very much, if you don't have any objection, to get a photograph with each one of you individually. I might add that I don't have time to answer additional questions as you come by. So, let's just have a handshake, and you can introduce yourself, and we'll send you the photograph.

I've enjoyed it. Thank you very much.