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

THE PRESIDENT. I apologize for interrupting your meeting. This has been kind of a busy day for us. We had an extra hour and a half or 2 hours this morning with General Torrijos from Panama. And we had not put it on our long-range schedule. But it was very productive, and it's put me a little bit behind.

I think it might be good for me to make just an opening statement to you about some of the things on which we are working during these last few weeks of the congressional session.

ADMINISTRATION POLICIES

The number one issue for us on the domestic scene, by far, is energy. We've got a very acceptable energy package from the House. So far we've gotten practically nothing from the Senate. But they'll be considering what to do within the next few days. We hope to have a productive conference committee, as is well understood by many of the Senators, and then the joint package will go back to the House and Senate for an up or down vote.

I think the Members of Congress recognize the seriousness of our problem. We've got a terrible adverse trade balance because of oil imports. We'll probably import about $45 billion worth of oil this year, which puts us about $30 billion in the hole on trade balance.

As you can well see, we'd have a $15 billion or so surplus if it wasn't for oil imports, which are very excessive. This is one of the problems. It makes us much more susceptible to severe damage in the future if those oil imports should be interrupted for any reason. And, of course, the inevitability of increased shortages means that we've got to start conserving oil and natural gas.

We are working on several foreign matters. I just mentioned the Torrijos visit this morning. I think that his and my statement, which has already been prepared-it's not been released yet, I don't believe--will successfully resolve the major difference of interpretation that has been raised about our right to defend the canal and also about the right of our ships to have expeditious passage through the canal.

And, of course, we are also very interested to point out that we have no intention to intervene in the internal affairs of Panama in order to challenge their sovereignty. But the questions have arisen both in Panama and in our country, and we want to get those differences explained. There are no differences between me and Torrijos or among our negotiators, and there never have been since the text was approved.

Another thing that we're working on that's been highly publicized is the SALT agreement. I think we are approaching a settlement with the Soviets, if they continue to act in as constructive a fashion as they've exhibited the last few weeks.

We are working on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Now we are both permitted to test nuclear weapons up to 150,000 tons, which, as you know, is seven or eight times larger than the Hiroshima explosion. But we would like to eliminate those tests altogether. We personally would prefer to eliminate all peaceful nuclear devices being tested. So far, the Soviets have not been willing to agree to that.

But we've already got good, substantial progress, I believe, assured. We are trying to agree with the Soviets to prevent any arms buildup in the Indian Ocean, to prevent attacks on one another's satellites in space, and to prohibit chemical, biological, radiological warfare.

Lately, I've been encouraged. We've been able to get the Soviets, for the first time, to take a moderate position on the Middle East. We think the recent American-Soviet statement has been very constructive there, and we're making slow, tedious progress toward a Geneva conference.

This is one of the most complicated international questions which has ever been addressed, I guess, in the history of human beings. We have to negotiate with the Soviets, who are our cochairmen and have been since 1973. We're negotiating with the Lebanese, with the Syrians, with the Jordanians, with the Egyptians, individually. We're negotiating between each one of those countries and the Israelis.

We are also negotiating among the Arab countries, who have differences, and we're trying to keep a good and successful presentation to the American public about what we are doing, without betraying the confidences of the heads of state who deal directly with me.

I've enjoyed being President so far. It's a job with obviously great challenge and an adequate diversity so that we don't ever suffer from boredom. [Laughter]

As you probably have noticed, many of the items that I've described--and I could go down the list with welfare reform and tax reform and social security, and so forth, and our new farm bill, dealing with the problems of the urban areas--are all highly controversial, inevitably, predictably, and almost all of them have been delayed too long.

Some should have been addressed many years ago. Some of them have been in existence as problems for decades, even generations. But I feel encouraged about them.

We have a good working relationship with Congress. We've all learned a lot since we've been up here. And one of the best things about my own administration, from a personal point of view, is when I am able to communicate directly with the people back home.

This is an unprecedented effort that Jody has initiated to bring you into the White House. And I don't think we've ever had a session with television, radio, and newspaper people like you that we didn't have innovative questions that brought a fairly substantial news story. I don't know exactly how Jody handles the embargo, but I think they have been productive; I know for me.

I would be glad now to answer any questions that you might have for awhile.

QUESTIONS STEEL STRIKE

Q. Mr. President, northern Minnesota and northern Michigan are both suffering from the steel strike. Now, about 20,000 people are off in a 3-month-old steel strike. The Governor of Minnesota has been attempting and has met, I understand, with some members of the White House staff trying to end the strike. Is there any indication, sir, that you may get involved personally to try to end the strike? And, if so, how has the strike up to this point affected the current steel situation?

THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't have any inclination to get involved in the strike. I believe that it's better for us not to do this, because if both parties feel that the White House or the Labor Department is going to get precipitously involved in the negotiations, they're not nearly so eager to negotiate themselves.

Obviously, when I reach a point of thinking that the national security might be endangered, that either the ore stocks or the steel stocks are being reduced too much, then I would not hesitate to get involved. But as is the case in the longshoremen's strike, as has been the case in the past with coal and other very important industries, my inclination is not to get involved in those. And I might say that Ray Marshall, the Secretary of Labor, shares my belief very deeply.

We did have a meeting, as you know, yesterday on the basic steel industry. It was surprisingly productive and suprisingly successful and surprisingly harmonious. I dreaded going into the meeting-[laughter]--but it turned out very well.

The steel leaders said that they did not want to see import quotas established, they did not want to see import tariffs raised, they did not want to build a wall around our country in order to prevent competition; they wanted open trade and fair trade.

We will go into depth in an analysis of the entire steel industry between now and, I'd say, 4 weeks from now, at which time the recommendations will come to me from Mr. Tony Solomon¹ who is a very highly qualified person in this area. And at that time, I will release it to the public after very close consultation with steel executives, consumers, and labor leaders representing the steel workers, Members of Congress that were there yesterday. I think it's going to be a very constructive thing.

¹ Anthony M. Solomon, Under Secretary of the Treasury for Monetary Affairs.

As you know, our American steel industry is crucial to us. It's now operating at about a 70-percent capacity. There are large steel imports which are legitimate and needed, in my opinion, to ensure competition. But we certainly do not want to have illegal sales of foreign steel in our country below the cost of production and transportation. That kind of sale is illegal. It has been occurring for the last number of years. We're determined to stamp it out.

Q. If I may follow up on that for just a second, was there any indication, Mr. President, in yesterday's meeting, that the strike has had any effect on the steel industry now?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, to answer your question specifically about the meeting yesterday, no, that did not come up while I was there. The threat of continued strike is always present. That's the leverage that a strike presents. Sometimes when inventories are very low, the strike has an immediate adverse impact. Sometimes when inventories are fairly substantial, as is the case in this instance, the threat of a continued strike is always serious. But that did not come up in the meeting yesterday.

UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

Q. Mr. President, we have some serious troubles in El Paso right now with illegal aliens. And I would like to know what you're going to do to help control the illegal aliens, particularly in El Paso, when our border patrol agents have been cut down. When you were running for office, you were going to help us increase the size of our border patrol. We only have 325 border patrol agents guarding both the Canadian and Mexican border, and that's not enough; they're eating us alive.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, we have completed now the drafting of illegal alien legislation. We call them undocumented workers or undocumented aliens.

Again, this is a very complicated subject, as you know--to protect the basic civil rights of people who might be from a Chinese family or from a Mexican family and who are here legally, to be sure that employers don't discriminate against them just because of the color of their skin. That's a problem.

Another one is the demand among employers of adequate labor supply, particularly in areas where it's seasonal and also in areas where the available domestic labor doesn't fill the need. We have as many as 7 or 8 million illegal aliens. They're coming in now at a rate that's hard to estimate, maybe approaching a million a year. They obviously contribute to our unemployment rate. And we're determined to both reduce the flow of illegal aliens, to register those that are here, let them stay here temporarily, and then give them the freedom to move back and forth across the border without any establishment of citizenship rights and, as has been the case in the past, historically, to maybe give permanent residency rights to those that have been in our country as long as 7 or 8 years.

I don't know what the Congress will do about that part of it, but it's a very comprehensive bill; it's been worked out after hard debate and close study. Along with that will be an increase in the number of personnel assigned to patrol the borders and also a much closer correlation among the different Federal agencies that have that responsibility.

Q. What are you going to do about the people, particularly in our part of the country--the Mexican-Americans are the ones that are fighting the amnesty program. And if amnesty is not accepted among our people and can be pursued by the Government, then what alternative do you have to suggest?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, amnesty is a gross oversimplification. The only thing that we are doing is for those that have been in this country since 1970, 7 years, to give them the legal right to stay here. They won't be citizens, but they do have a right to apply for citizenship.

The ones that have come in since, if they register, they would have a temporary right to work. But they could only-I think that--I've forgotten the exact details of the bill--but I think they could only do that for a year, then they would have to leave our country. And they would have the right to apply for work permits.

But to distinguish between those who have become legal citizens, that we don't want to hurt, to distinguish between those who have been here for a long time and have performed well, established homes, and who don't yet have citizenship rights but who want it in the future is another question. To try to find out who and how many illegal aliens we presently have and to have an ability to send them back home is a third level of the question. And the fourth question is to keep the illegal aliens from crossing the border. But just to say that the entire complicated program consists of amnesty is a ridiculous oversimplification.

The only amnesty involved is one that has historically been the case when about every 7 years, in retroactivity, you say that those that came in before 1970 or before 1962, you know, do have the right to stay here and ultimately apply for citizenship.

SELECTION OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL OFFICERS

Q. Mr. President, two U.S. attorneys, Philip Van Dam of Detroit and Jonathan Goldstein of New Jersey, criticized you for not fulfilling your campaign pledge to select Federal prosecutors on a merit basis. Mr. Goldstein has a nationwide reputation as a tough and honest prosecutor and, in fact, was cited by Federal authorities as having done an outstanding job.

You had said before your election that topflight prosecutors would be retained. And Mr. Goldstein now says that he is a victim of the political spoils system which you have decried.

Can you tell me if there were other than political reasons for Mr. Goldstein's reluctant departure, or would you otherwise comment on that question?

THE PRESIDENT. Quite often, I've observed in a case like this that the incumbent officeholder considers himself or herself to be superior to the one who replaces that person. [Laughter] And I'm sure that Mr. Goldstein's predecessor felt that he was better qualified than Mr. Goldstein when he came in. In both these instances, the case was decided on the basis of merit. I don't think anyone has alleged, other than Mr. Goldstein or Van Dam and their own close friends, that they are decidedly better qualified than their replacements. And all of our appointments have been made on the basis of merit.

We have turned down literally hundreds of recommendations from many sources because we did not consider them at least as well qualified or better qualified than the incumbents. I cannot say that we have never made a mistake. These two have been highly publicized, primarily because Mr. Goldstein feels very strongly that he is better qualified than anyone we could choose as his replacement.

But historically this has been the case, and I don't think anyone has ever gone as far as we have, myself and the Attorney General, to make these appointments on the basis of merit. In all circuit judgeships, we have selection panels--first time in the history of our country--where a group of distinguished people, both legal and nonlawyers, meet and give me a recommendation, through the Attorney General, of the five best qualified people in that area to fill vacancies, and then we choose from those five who ought to be appointed.

As you know, the Senate plays a major role in the selection of district judges and also U.S. attorneys. A number of the Senators have already set up similar selection committees in an individual State, I think 14 to 16--I have forgotten exactly the latest figure. But we've tried to do it on the basis of merit. And I don't know of any case where there's been a demonstrable lowering of standards.

I don't deny that Mr. Goldstein and Van Dam are well qualified. In my judgment, as assessed by people on the scene, those who know them both, by the Attorney General, their replacements are at least as well qualified as their predecessors.

THE MIDDLE EAST

Q. How do you deal, Mr. President, with Israel's fears that if they come to some sort of settlement on the West Bank, any kind of settlement on the West Bank, first they'll be subjected to ongoing terrorism from irreconcilable Arabs over a long period of time or the new government, having gained a new position, declares itself to be hostile towards the State of Israel? How do you deal with those kinds of fears and are these fears legitimate?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, in the first place, any agreement reached in the Middle East would have to be accepted voluntarily by the Israelis and by their Arab neighbors. There won't be any imposition of a settlement by us or the Soviet Union or anyone else. So, you have that much of a safety factor to start with, that no settlement would be reached unless the Israelis wanted that settlement. Secondly, I do not favor and have never favored an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank area or in the Mideast area in presently occupied territory.

We have always, since the first few minutes of the foundation of Israel, had a national policy supporting the integrity, the independence, the freedom, the permanence of Israel, and hoping for peace. All of those factors, I think, have been met--sometimes challenged, but always met--except peace.

Now the Israelis and their neighbors, Arab countries, see the prospect of peace. The Arab leaders are making statements now that they could and would never have made a year ago, recognizing Israel's right to exist, being willing to negotiate with Israel directly if we get to Geneva.

There is a serious question about Palestinian representation. My belief is that when we consider the future status of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Palestinians, that it ought to be negotiated with some participation by Palestinians. I personally think that Israel has agreed--I think this has been announced--that they would accept those Palestinians from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and that that area would be negotiated by those Palestinians, Jordan, Egypt, and Israel on a multinational basis, because it's all wrapped up in one.

We have also got the prospect of considering as a separate item, but certainly a directly related item, the future of the refugees as such---some Jewish, some, of course, Palestinian. This would be on a multinational basis. But I think every possible right and prospect of Israel's existence, freedom, security in the future will be honored, certainly, by Israelis, backed by us.

MAYOR MICHAEL BILANDIC OF CHICAGO

Q. Mr. President, Mayor Bilandic's political organization in Chicago is feeling that' you are ignoring us since Mayor Daley died, and some have said that they wanted you to come out and do some fundraising and you haven't. Do you have any problem with the Bilandic organization in Chicago?

THE PRESIDENT. No, of course not.

Q. The Vice President was out there just the other day.

THE PRESIDENT. I understand. I haven't raised money for anybody. I didn't even know he was running for election this year.

Q. He's not. The organization constantly raises money.

THE PRESIDENT. I have been to one fundraiser in New York for the Democratic National Committee, and I'm going to another one at the end of this month in Los Angeles for the Democratic National Committee. I've campaigned a half day for Brendan Byrne as Governor of New Jersey and a half day for Henry Howell as Governor of Virginia. Those are the only political involvements that I have had.

But, no, I get along well with the Bilandic administration. He's been here to visit with me. I've talked to him on the phone several times. There's no difference between us at all.

Q. So there's no problem with the political organization?

THE PRESIDENT. No. The only question that's been raised is concerning some of the management of the CETA funds. But that's all been public, and that's been between the Labor Department and the city administration.

But, no. between me and Bilandic or the Chicago Democratic organization, there is no difference.

REPRESENTATIVE EDWARD L KOCH

Q. Mr. President, as a followup on that, them are some people concerned back in New York, especially at the lower end of the economic and political spectrum-as you know, there are now no city-wide black elected officials and Puerto Rican elected officials in New York. Some people were concerned, very seriously, that when you came to New York and Mr. Koch handed you the letter and there seemed to be a snubbing--well, he claims that he was not available to go with you to the South Bronx that day. But actually there seems to be some concern among people that, in fact, since Mr. Koch is going to be or presumed to be the next mayor of New York, that in fact, that he'll have a positive relationship with you that people at the local level could count on to get aid and assistance.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, there's no doubt that if he is elected mayor that he will have a close relationship with me. He has a close relationship with me now, and nothing has been done to shake that. I was amazed at any news attention being given at all to his handing me the letter. This was not something that I anticipated ahead of time. I didn't ever expect to make a public statement with Mr. Koch.

When I got off the helicopter, there were five or six people standing there, and I met Mayor Beame first, who is the senior person, talked to Ed, congratulated him again on his primary victory. He said, "Mr. President, I have a letter to give you about the Middle East question." I said, "I appreciate it." And I took it and handed it to Jody Powell to keep for me. I went on down and met with Carol Bellamy and the rest of them, and then I got in the car and went to the United Nations.

A couple of hours later, my wife came, after I had been through a couple of U.N. meetings, and said, "What's the problem between you and Ed Koch? I just heard something about it on the radio." [Laughter] I said, "I don't have the slightest idea. I just got off the helicopter, shook hands with Ed, patted him on the shoulder, he handed me a letter, and I got in the car and drove off."

It was apparently a local media concentration or expectation--I don't know what the origin was--that I was going to endorse him there or make some public statement and so forth. But as far as I was concerned, it was a very harmonious exchange.

Shortly after that, Ed came here to meet with me in this room. We sat together and discussed, I think, the Mideast question, and completely harmonious.

Yesterday, the Vice President went up to New York to campaign with him. I mean, the whole thing has just been blown out of nothing.

Q. He made statements, though, to the effect that he had given you the business on the Middle East.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, you know, I can't speak for him. I was not aware of that.

NATIONAL ENERGY PLAN

Q. Mr. President, I'd just like to ask you, after you've handled the man in Chicago and the illegal aliens and Koch in New York, I would like to ask a parochial question. You may consider this an easy one.

After what happened yesterday here in Washington and with the oil companies all over the country and especially down in my part of the country, which is Louisiana big gas producers, oil companies-I'm sure they feel that some kind of an all-out war has now been declared between the White House and the oil companies. Could you comment on that?

THE PRESIDENT. I'd be glad to. There is no all-out war. I deeply and genuinely believe that the proposal that we put to the Congress back in April is not only fair but very generous to the oil and gas industry in ensuring adequate profits, prices, accumulation of capital, to continue an effective exploration program and, also, a production program for oil and gas. I think the price structure also is very generous and much superior to what we have now. There would be a commensurate reduction in the involvement of the Federal Government in the oil and gas industry. And over a fairly short period of time, the circumstances that I've just described to you would be improved year by year.

The major thrust of our own program is to cut down on consumption. The price of oil and gas in this country at the present time, I think, is abnormally low, compared to the value of the oil and gas and the cost of replacement. So, what we'd like to do is to increase the price of those products gradually toward a free and uncontrolled price, certainly based all the time on factors such as the international oil market, the equivalent heat value in natural gas, and the distinction between oil and gas that has been discovered and is being produced now and new gas and oil to be discovered.

I think that the rejection by some, not all, of the members of the oil and gas industry of this proposal is unwarranted. And they are faced with a possibility of failure this year to come out with any legislation concerning oil and gas production and pricing. If that should occur, then the present laws and administrative rulings would stay in effect, a much less attractive prospect than what we have proposed.

I have spent literally weeks working on 'this question and many others related to it--the building up of adequate reserves, the bringing of oil and gas down from Alaska, the adverse impact of rapidly increasing imports, the definition of what is new gas, what is new oil, the future construction of pipelines, the use of the Panama Canal to bring about oil and gas from Alaska to our eastern freeboard, and so forth.

I'm convinced that the oil and gas companies, through their efforts on Capitol Hill to get more profit, to define what is actually old gas as new gas under the subterfuge of exploration, to also cover tax benefits and price benefits for production of gas which has already been discovered and so forth, that they are trying to get an unwarranted advantage at the expense of the American consumers. And I'm just not going to stand for it.

Now, nothing would please me better than to see the House version of our package, which is not completely what I want, go ahead and pass. But I think that I've been fair about it. And there's no way that I can deal with the question by being quiet or timid or quiescent. We've gone as far as we can.

I made a statement to the public last April with a fireside chat, my only speech to the Congress since I was inaugurated, and since then, of course, there's been a tremendous volume of constant and legitimate advertising by the oil companies and the natural gas companies over a period of days and weeks and months. There's a cloudy impression built up among the American people that we do have adequate supplies of oil and gas if the Government would just let the oil and gas companies set whatever price they choose and take the profits, which they claim to earn, and invest it back into additional production, which I think is a very gross distortion of the facts. Other than that, I agree with them completely. [Laughter]

MISSILE SYSTEMS

Q. Mr. President, when Safeguard went down the tube a few years ago when we negotiated the SALT agreement, since then the technology has become pretty well obsolete. Is anything at all being done in the area of ABM's, other than some studies going on back in Huntsville? I believe there's no hardware in production. Are we putting all our eggs in the basket of negotiation? How long would it take us to gear up, for instance, if we should discover that the other side is putting an ABM system into place?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, we have the right to build ABM's, if we choose. In the original negotiation, both sides agreed that they could build two. Later, the Soviets decided to build one. We almost finished one out in the Dakotas.

About a year ago, before I went into office, a decision was made to decommission the one in the Dakotas. The Soviets still have an ABM system, antiballistic missile system, around Moscow. I think they feel that if they hadn't already built it, that it would not be a warranted expenditure.

I believe that because of the advent of many technological improvements--the MIRV'd weapon is the most obvious-that an antiballistic missile system, compared to its cost, is simply not effective. So, we have an adequate means for verifying compliance with nuclear agreements--not perfect. We can accurately assess the location of missile silos. We can accurately maintain an inventory of submarines that are used for ballistic missile firing. We can count the number of missiles that are on each submarine. We can monitor their testing program and determine when missiles are improved. We have fairly accurate estimates of their range.

It's very difficult to discern when a missile has one warhead or multiple warheads on the same missile. But we've reached an agreement with the Soviets that, if they ever MIRV one missile of a type, that all missiles in that type are assumed to already have been MIRV'd, so that we don't have to say, "You have got 300 missiles of this kind---100 have been MIRV'd and 200 have not." If they MIRV the first group of those missiles, we just assume that all of them have been MIRV'd.

So, there are some things that you can't confirm. But I would say that the balance between those is of equal concern to us and the Soviets.

The new era of cruise missiles is one that opens up an additional difficulty of verification. 'It's hard to look at a cruise missile from a satellite and determine how far it can go. And it's hard to look at a cruise missile from a satellite to determine whether it's got a nuclear warhead on it or a conventional warhead.

This is a new technological era that we're just approaching, and this is one of the difficulties of the present SALT negotiations. But I would say that our verification capability is adequate, that we do not have a handicap in the inadequacies that exceed the handicap of the Soviets.

Q. But there is no research and development in any kind of a system based upon these theories?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, there is a constant research and development on better means of verification. And, of course, if we do get a comprehensive test ban in effect that would prohibit any level of explosion of a military weapon, then that would be much more difficult to discern because it's easier to detect. I think you would have a hundred percent capability of a 150,000-ten weapon. But if you tested, say, a 20-ten weapon, it would be very difficult to detect if you wanted to conceal it.

I think you also ought to remember, though--I don't want to overemphasize this---both we and the Soviets recognize that if we ever cheat and get caught, that the consequences are very severe. And there's a mutual trust that has to be maintained, based on maximum verification-not just word, but confirmation.

But if we ever detected specifically that the Soviets had deliberately violated a written agreement, it would destroy the tenuous, mutual confidence that's so imperative. And the Soviets recognize this, and so do we.

When I met with Secretary Kissinger about a year ago, after I was elected and before I was inaugurated, I asked him if he knew of any instance where the specific agreement between us and the Soviets had ever been violated. He said no, that he had never known of an instance of that kind, that in some cases the SALT negotiations had not been as specifically worded as they should have been and new technologies had come along later that were not covered in the original agreements, but both sides had taken advantage of those so-called loopholes. But it was so important that we not cheat and get caught because of the catastrophic consequences of that, that he thought except when you actually were going to attack, that that would be highly unlikely.

Q. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. I'll take one other question. Then I'll go, Walt,² thank you. This will be the last one.

² Walter W. Wurfel, Deputy Press Secretary.

ADMINISTRATION'S PRIORITY PROGRAMS

Q. Mr. President, you referred again to a very ambitious program, a lot of which you say is urgent. There is, as you know, some criticisms--too much too soon. Do you have, in light of your congressional experience since inauguration, developed a priority program? Is there anything you want to get out of the way first and, particularly, before next November's elections?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've had a priority program already, and some of it has been put into effect. When I first came into office, I wanted to see ethics legislation passed; that has been done. I wanted to get authority to reorganize the Government; that has been done. I wanted to get an economic stimulus package in effect; that's been done. I wanted to enhance employment opportunities among young people and others through public works project and so forth; that's been done. I wanted to get a bill on the books that would permit me to deal with urban blight. The housing and urban development bill was signed last week. And I wanted to get an energy package through this year; that has not yet been done.

Over a longer period of time--and I announced this at the time--we want to have welfare reform, and that bill has now been introduced, as you know, after a great deal of work. And then next year, we intend to address the tax reform question.

That's on the domestic scene, and that encompasses the major items that I've described. We don't expect the welfare program to be completely implemented until 1981. We may or may not try to implement some portions of the tax reform package next year, or they may be delayed until 1979. That will depend on the need for additional stimulus. But so far, the scorecard, I think, is very good. We don't get every item of what we put into the Congress, and we can't expect to. There are some other items that I have not tried to name.

On the international scene, I've named the major ones. There is nothing on the international scene in which we are deeply involved that I would undo. Now, we are trying to resolve the problem in Rhodesia, Namibia, and we are trying to add our good offices to the Middle Eastern question, deal with the Soviets on these questions that I've already described to you. We wanted to strengthen NATO and to revive the spirit of support for NATO among our European allies. I think we've done that successfully. And we also wanted to restore a sense of compatibility and friendship with nations that in the past have looked on us almost as enemies.

The visit that I had this week from the Nigerian leader, Obasanjo, was a point in fact. I wish that when all of you get home that you would get an atlas and read about Nigeria, what the country is. They've got 80 million people in Nigeria. This is more than a third of all the population of Africa. It's by far the greatest country economically in Africa. It's been tom by civil war. General Obasanjo was the leader of the armed forces in the civil war. He's an engineer and helped to rebuild the country.

They have got a military government now of 23 people. They have already had elected, through completely democratic means, a 236-person constitutional convention. They've just about completed the first draft of a constitution. They will have a freely, democratically elected president, a bicameral legislature. They have kept intact already a completely independent judiciary. And a year ago Secretary Kissinger, for the third time, tried to get permission to go into Nigeria, unsuccessfully. Because of Andy Young's good work and so forth, we've kind of turned that around.

It's just a typical example of one of the most difficult political questions that I have to face--is the one I mentioned first this afternoon, and that's the Panama Canal treaties. If they can be ratified, our country will be greatly benefited through this process.

So, the multiplicity of these questions is almost overwhelming, and I know that politically speaking, it's not very good. If we've got 10 different major things on the fire at one time, and we win and finally finish, say, a reorganization package or an urban program or a stimulus package, and we still have 9 or 10 more that we're working on, it looks like everything is all confused, we're not making any progress.

But I recognize the legitimacy of having too many things going at once. I am trying to carry out my promises that I made during the campaign. It would be much easier for me to deal in foreign affairs just with SALT and let the Middle East and Africa and everything else drift. But that is not my nature, and I don't think it's in the best interest of the American people.

We can't succeed in every international effort. I don't expect to. And I recognize the natural inclination of the news media and the American people to concentrate on the exciting stories, the defeats and the combat and the debates and the disagreements and arguments. That's okay. But I think as far as the best interests of the country is concerned, there's nothing that I've mentioned in this kind of a rambling and fairly brief analysis that I would withdraw from just to create an increased sense of harmony or achievement.

I have enjoyed being with you. I wish I had more time. And I thank you again for being here.