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

THE PRESIDENT. Well, first of all, let me say it's a pleasure to have you here at the White House to talk to me and, I know, later on today to talk to many of my own advisers both on domestic and foreign affairs. You've had the beginning already, and I know that you have, in the future, some opportunities to cross-examine my advisers in a much more detailed way.

ADMINISTRATION POLICIES

I think I might outline just a few things that are responsibilities of mine at this moment and then spend what time we have available answering your specific questions.

Domestically, we have a new Congress back in session, a multitude of issues to be resolved through the budget process and through remaining legislation, primarily from last year. The most important carryover legislation concerns the controlling of inflation through the evolution and implementation of a comprehensive energy policy. You are thoroughly familiar with that.

The major new domestic proposal this year will be to establish a youth employment program far above and beyond and more effective than what we have now, involving primarily the Education Department, which is new, and also the Labor Department—the training of maybe 450,000 young people in private job opportunities. That will substantially reduce the unemployment rate among these young people, particularly among minority groups.

Internationally, the two most severe crises have been the ones that we've had to face the last 3 months or so—the incarceration of our hostages in Iran and the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. This has put an extraordinary, additional responsibility on our country, as a world leader and as a nation deeply concerned about the safety and the freedom of these 50 American people.

Detailed negotiations have been underway for a good while. We are discussing the issue not only with the principals involved but also with many of our allies and other countries around the world, to support our position in both these international matters. I think the action of the United Nations, the action of the International Court of Justice, the action of the Moslem nations in Islamabad not too long ago all indicate a strong support for the same positions that our own Nation is espousing.

There are other considerations, obviously, that we have to contend with every day. One is the ongoing discussions or negotiations between Egypt and Israel to implement fully the principles espoused by all three of our countries during the Camp David discussions and to carry out the details of the Mideast peace treaty that was signed last May. In a few days now, there will be diplomatic recognition, exchange of Ambassadors—a momentous step forward toward peace in the Middle East.

And we'll pursue, with the utmost attention and commitment, further progress toward a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, the alleviation of tension, the involvement of others in the negotiating processes, the realization of Palestinian rights, and the perpetuation of the security of Israel and the peaceful nature of Israel's relationship with her neighbors.

We've strengthened NATO; I think this has been a major accomplishment. We've retained our relationship with Taiwan. We've improved substantially our relationships with the billion or more people who live in the People's Republic of China.

We're committed to the preservation of detente. Once the Soviet troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan and the threat of military action by them is removed, then we'll be very glad to pursue aggressively again further progress in the control of weapons and in the strengthening of our ties with all nations on Earth.

These are some of the issues that I wanted to outline very briefly. I think when the national press departs, we can have a chance to answer your questions on specific issues.

Sam [Sam Donaldson, ABC News], we wanted to—

Q. Go ahead and ask, you know, if you want. [Laughter]

THE PRESIDENT. I don't want you to learn any tricks from these people about what kind of questions to ask me.

Q. [Inaudible] [Laughter]

THE PRESIDENT. I think they stayed in much longer than ordinary. They ought to not stay so long.

QUESTIONS

U.S. RELATIONS WITH ALLIES

Q. Mr. President, Lew Young, of Business Week. There's been a lot of confusion in the United States press and in the European press about just how far our so-called allies have been cooperating on both Iran and Afghanistan. Would you tell us what the real situation is, particularly with France and Germany?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think I expressed this as clearly as I could at the press conference the other night. I am satisfied with the overall support for our positions and the correlation of mutual positions that exist now between ourselves and our major allies, including France, Germany, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Japan, and others.

Obviously, there are sharp differences of character among our different nations, different relationships with the Soviet Union, with China, and so forth, and also different compositions of governments. Some of our major allies, for instance, are formed with coalition governments, where you have two different parties—one represented by the Prime Minister, a completely different party and a potential political competitor represented as, say, the Foreign Minister.

But there are inevitable problems in the degree with which we can communicate and consult before we make a major decision. Some of the nations have said we should have given them a longer prior notice before I made my State of the Union address, concerning the Olympics question. This is a very sensitive issue with some of them, and we understand that. We did notify them, but only a few hours before. But quite often in a major forum of that kind, when I am preparing the last stages of preparation of a State of the Union message, even among myself, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Adviser, and key congressional leaders, we're still negotiating exactly what our position is going to be in a multitude of issues crammed into a 25- or 30-minute speech.

We consult as best we can. But that's an inevitable concern of theirs: "Let us know further ahead of time before the United States takes a position." Privately, quite often, a group of allies or an individual ally will say, "You go ahead and take a strong position on the Olympics. Let us build up public support for your position, and we will join you later."

But I think, to summarize, I am well pleased at the basic agreement that we now enjoy with our allies and friends, the basic compatibility between our position and that of, say, 34 Moslem nations who acted independently in their own conference at Islamabad in condemning the Soviet Union and demanding the Soviets withdraw from Afghanistan, and the almost universal support that we've had in the importunities and demands that the Iranians release the American hostages.

We have to be the world leader. We can take a stand on the Olympics or on grain embargoes or interruption of commerce or on tighter restraints on high technology equipment or the prohibition against Soviet fishing rights easier than some of our other allied countries can.

Q. But are those measures effective if our allies don't go along with them?

THE PRESIDENT. They've gone along with most of them. They have all agreed not to replace any withheld shipments to the Soviet Union. We are agreeing now to tighten up on the framework of regulations that prohibit the shipment of high technology items to the Soviet Union. I think you're going to see a major response among our allies and others, too, about not going to the Olympics in Moscow, with Soviet invasion troops in Afghanistan.

Most of those allies, as you know, don't have any appreciable amount of grain that they can withhold from shipment to the Soviet Union. We're able to do this. As a matter of fact, the prices of grain in the United States since January 4, when I declared the grain embargo, have gone up—corn, soybeans, oats, wheat. Our shipments of grain—actual shipments, out of coastal ports, of grain—have continued to be higher the last month than they were a year ago when we were making major shipments to the Soviet Union. We will set an all-time record of grain shipments this year compared to a year ago. Last year we set an all-time record. The previous year we set an all-time record in spite of the interruption of shipments of grain to the Soviet Union.

So, we can take action that punishes the Soviet Union or cautions the Soviet Union, without having it be devastating to us economically; some of our allies cannot. They don't have items of value to withhold, and they are not economically able to withhold even those sensitive items with the degree of commitment that we can exhibit.

SELECTIVE SERVICE REVITALIZATION

Q. Mr. President, Robert Manning, the Atlantic Monthly. In calling for a draft registration, sir, is it your desire and expectation to hope that this would lead to some debate now and discussion in the public at large and also on the Hill about how to prepare, move toward preparation of selective service machinery to improve it, to get away from inequities, the way it operated in Vietnam, or is it your expectation that that debate should come at a later time when there may be more need?

THE PRESIDENT. No. That debate has already taken place. The 1971 Registration Act has removed almost all of the inequities that existed during Vietnam, by eliminating the exclusions of young Americans who were subject to the draft. For instance, college students can only be deferred now till the end of the term. Conscientious objectors still can be excluded. But that's almost all of the exclusions. It's quite different from what it was during Vietnam, when there were major exclusions of so-called middle-class Americans from the imposition of the draft. That's already been done.

I have the complete authority now to call for registration; I don't need additional legal authority to do so. I do need the appropriation of funds to carry out the expenses, which I think would be about 15 or 20 million dollars a year just to register. I don't have any intention of going ahead with classification or with physical examinations or the draft imposition itself.

My own belief is that we can best avoid a major national mobilization, including the draft, by being prepared to do so if necessary. I think it will not only .caution the Soviet Union against making it necessary for us to mobilize to meet further aggression on their part, but it will also mean that we are better prepared to mobilize rapidly and therefore would not need to impose the draft as early.

We also think there will be some anciliary benefits with the registration of young people, say, 18- and 20-year-old men, at the present time. We'll have, I think, a higher level of recruitment. We only came up about 27,000 personnel short last year in recruitment goals, out of more than 2 million service personnel, men and women. That's less than 1 1/2 percent. But I think we can fill that gap and also strengthen our reserves, just with the public attention being called to the fact that we do need to have a strong military force.

I don't see any anticipated need at all to go ahead with either classification or the draft itself. And the legal restraints that previously did exist against universality have been removed already, and I have [although I don't have] ¹ legal authority to impose the draft.

¹ White House correction.

PRESIDENT'S FAVORITE ARTISTS

Q. Mr. President, I'm Milt Esterow. I'm with ARTnews and Antiques World magazines. My question has nothing to do with the burning issues of the day. I'm told that in the few moments that you have to relax, one of the paintings that you particularly admire is the 19th century still life by William Harnett. I'd like to find out why you respond to that particular painting. And also, are there any other artists to whom you particularly respond, either from the 19th century or contemporary?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. You know, I've never claimed that Harnett was my favorite artist. As a matter of fact, this particular painting is an extraordinary example of Harnett's realistic art. It's the painting of the Cincinnati Inquirer, and you can almost read the type. It's a beautiful painting.

But I really have a much more broadrange interest in art than that. We have Mary Cassatt upstairs, and we also—I think if I had to pick a favorite artist, it would be El Greco. My daughter and I had a long discussion last night on Spanish artists, and I had to explain to her about El Greco. She's going to the art museums today to look at Spanish art, and we had a discussion there. But I like the Impressionists, I guess, as a group most of all, both American and French Impressionists-have several of those in the White House.

We can borrow paintings from the National Art Gallery, and some of them are purchased. As a matter of fact, this particular painting was purchased for the White House recently, and it is owned by the White House. Armand Hammer bought the painting and gave it to the White House—it had been previously on loan—and that's why the particular painting got publicity. I like the painting; I like Harnett's work. But I think if I had to say a category of painting, I would prefer Impressionist more than this.

Q. Just probably one more. You mentioned El Greco. Could you tell me why?

THE PRESIDENT. I think he's the most extraordinary painter that ever came along back in, I think, the 14th century, maybe the 15th century. His paintings now have an atmosphere of both mysticism and modernism, in that he distorted the tones of the painting, the configuration of the human body, the interrelationship between the landscapes and humans in a way to emphasize the points he wanted to make about the character of a person or the character of the scene that he was painting.

I just think he was maybe three or four centuries ahead of his time. And his paintings are still a remarkable beauty to me, including the ones of landscapes like Toledo or the ones about Christ and the religious connotations and the portraits that he did of people who lived in that time. It's just that he's just a special favorite.

SHAH OF IRAN

Q. Mr. President, Marvin Stone, U.S. News & World Report.

THE PRESIDENT. Good to see you again.

Q. Welcome to the 20th century. [Laughter]

At the news conference the other day you ducked Helen Thomas' question when she gave you the opportunity to express, publicly, regret, remorse over the Shah. You may want to duck this; I don't know what the situation is today. Have the Iranians made it a condition that you express some public remorse on behalf of the Nation for the Shah's record? If they were to do that, would you express national remorse, regrets?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it would be appropriate for me now to start singling out particular things that are under discussion, literally, on a day-and-night basis right now. I will not do anything to violate the principles of our country. I'll not do anything to violate our obligations to Iran. We obviously regret any misunderstandings that have existed in the past or will exist in the future between ourselves and Iran or any other country. I don't think it's good at this sensitive moment to resurrect an analysis of the last 35 years of Iran's history.

We have a desire to see a united Iran, with a government of their own choice-which they've now established—with a secure Iran, an Iran at peace. And we look forward to a time in the future to have normal relationships with Iran. But to single out any particular aspect of the past history, either a few decades or a few days, I think, right now would not be appropriate for me.

AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN

Q. Are you any more optimistic today than you were on Wednesday about release of the hostages? Has there been anything in the last 48 hours—

THE PRESIDENT. I'm more optimistic now than I was a few weeks ago, but it would be hard for me to compare it with 2 days ago. We have been encouraged by recent events, but I cannot predict what will happen in the near future.

REGISTRATION OF WOMEN FOR THE DRAFT

Q. Lenore Hershey, Ladies' Home Journal. A few minutes ago when you were talking about registration, you referred to men. Do you expect to have trouble with the registration of women?

THE PRESIDENT. I hope not. I have present authority to register young men, without further congressional act, between 18 and 26 years old. So, I don't need legislation for that. I just need funding for the program. I have asked the Congress to make some technical changes in the registration law on the one hand and also to make a change in the law that would permit us to register women and to authorize women not to be drafted for combat duty in the future.

It would require a separate congressional act before I could draft either men or women, and I'm not asking for that authority now. But I am asking for the additional authority to register women, along with men.

Q. You don't expect trouble?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I expect trouble on that, but I think that the Congress, when it assesses the arguments pro and con, might very well approve the registration of women. I see no reason not to register women.

CHICAGO MAYOR JANE BYRNE; FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS

Q. Mr. President, Allen Kelson, Chicago Magazine. A few days ago in Chicago, Chip Carter told a group that to vote for Jimmy Carter is to vote for jobs. Until recently, Chicago was— [laughter] -Chicago was a prime recipient of UDAG Urban Development Action Grant] funds. And when Mayor Byrne endorsed Senator Kennedy, the UDAG funds seemed to dry up. Does this augur a change in your relationship toward Mayor Byrne's administration?

THE PRESIDENT. My relationship with Mayor Byrne's administration is not good, as you probably know, I think through no fault of our own. I have pledged to the people of Chicago, and would like to repeat the pledge, that that will not interrupt or curtail at all the allocation of Federal funds and the support of Federal programs to meet the needs of Chicago. We may use other official routes by which to announce Federal program grants or to implement Federal program grants. If there's a choice, under the law, between working with county or city officials, we may very well go with the county. But we've continued to work, I might say, with the city administration on many items, because this is a daily requirement that's so complex. And there's such a multitude of programs, that we are still working with Mayor Byrne's administration on many of the Federal programs that are involved—transportation, housing, education, and so forth.

I would like to say that in jobs we have made good progress. We have had an annual growth in employment of 3 1/2 percent per year, which is an unprecedented achievement, and we've added a net increase of about 9 million new jobs. As I said the other night at the press conference, compared to other elements of the job force, minorities have improved their employment status 50 percent better than nonminorities.

The new program that we're going to put into effect, which will work in Chicago as well as other places, with the administration, city and county, is designed primarily for young people, 15 years old up to maybe 22 years old. It will be a combination of training and education, on the job and in the high schools, and employment opportunities in the private sector, with some early application of training commitments by the employer, provided that the Federal Government will pay all or part of the salary of the new employee for a limited period of time. This will be roughly a $2 billion program over the next 2 years.

So, we are good on jobs. We are continuing to work with the local officials. There has been some slight shift, when appropriate, to working with the county rather than the city, but we are still working with the city on many items.

MS. BARIO. Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. I'm sorry that's all the time we have. Let me say, in closing, that I'm very grateful for your coming here. And any question that you may have had to ask me, I think—you have not yet met with Dr. Brzezinski and others, have you? You've met with some others. But I think that you'll find plenty of opportunity to meet with him. I ordinarily meet with a group of out-of-town editors after lunch, but because of a press of some other things, I had to meet with you earlier. And I apologize for that. But you'll have a chance to follow up with them, and they're just as knowledgeable as I am.

If you don't mind, I would like to get a photograph with each one of you as you leave. And I'll stand over here by the door, and if you'll come by, we'll shake hands and get a photograph. If you prefer not to, you can go out that door, though. [Laughter]

Thank you very much.