Portsmouth, New Hampshire Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session at a Town Meeting.

THE PRESIDENT. It's good to be back in New Hampshire. And it's also good to be back in Portsmouth. One of the most exciting events of my campaign in 1976 took place when I was spending the night with Senator Preston. The news media came out the next morning and said that I had been chosen one of the 10 best dressed men in the world. [Laughter]

From January 1975, when I began my campaign, until the convention took place, in the summer of 1976, I had three blue suits, they cost $42 each. [Laughter] And that's all the clothes I had. [Laughter] So, perhaps three blue suits in a political campaign can get you to be one of the 10 best dressed men in the world.

It's good to be here with Governor Hugh Gallen. And I'm very proud that Senator Tom Mcintyre came down with me on the plane today—came up. And Senator John Durkin, thank you for coming with me, too. And Congressman Norm D'Amours, thank you. And I would like to say also how thankful I am for the large welcoming crowd who were out at the airport to meet me and the members of the Governor's Council, Dudley Dudley, and thank you for coming out. And also, Chris Spirou, a great leader in the legislature, and other members of the legislature, the mayors of this region and, particularly, you.

The people of New Hampshire, public officials or otherwise, are very important to me and very special in my life. Portsmouth, Berlin, Nashua, Keene, Claremont, Charlestown, Meredith, many other towns are not just names on a map, but they are reminders of the faces and the voices of friends like you who told me about your concerns and about your hopes for the country when I was in the early stages of learning about the job of President. One of the advantages of being an unknown candidate, when I came to New Hampshire for the first time to campaign in 1975, was that my family and I could talk to you individually or in groups of five or six, in living rooms and in kitchens, across the counter at the drug store, or on the street, in the beano halls. [Laughter] I don't get a chance to do that very much any more. And I miss it. But the best way to regain that personal contact, I found, is to come and answer questions in a town meeting like this.

ADMINISTRATION POLICIES

Recently, I talked to you and the other people of our country on television about our serious energy problems. Energy is still very much on my mind. And I know it's on your minds, too. We are using too much foreign oil. And this threatens our future as Americans.

We've learned one simple, painful fact: We must use less oil, and we must pay more for what we use. A phased-in decontrol of domestic oil prices will commence June 1, and I have proposed to Congress that we use income from a windfall profits tax on the oil companies to finance an energy security fund. Some of this money will go to help those who are least able to pay the increasing energy costs. The rest will go to tap one of America's greatest strengths, our scientific and technological ability to develop new resources to fuel our economy in the future.

I'm not going to try to sugar-coat it for you. The energy future will not be pleasant for you or for me or for other Americans. You will pay more for oil. But the gap between what you pay here in New England and New Hampshire and what other Americans pay, which is much lower now—this gap will narrow, and that smaller difference in price will lessen the incentive for industry and jobs to move out of New England.

I know how important it is to have oil to heat your homes. As a result of a cold winter and the crude oil shortages brought about by the prices in Iran, light fuel stocks used for home heating are now at historical lows. I have therefore directed the Secretary of Energy to see to it that inventories of fuel which supply home heating oil are built up to approximately 240 million barrels by October of this year, so there will be adequate supplies, no shortages of heating oil in New England as we head into the next winter.

Here in New England, because of the superb work of your Members of Congress, we will now be able to turn to the two oldest sources of power—your rushing streams and your abundant forests.

New Hampshire's industrial revolution was powered by its streams. Many of those generating plants were dismantled or abandoned, because the law allowed electric power companies to insist that they supply all the power of a town or an industry needed or the power companies would supply none.

Last year we changed that law. Now New England's towns and industries will be able to develop small-scale hydroelectric power to help you meet your energy needs. We've already chosen one site in New Hampshire, I believe in Berlin, to demonstrate the potential of these smallscale hydroelectric plants. And we are studying three other sites in New Hampshire.

Forests have been a major factor in New Hampshire's economy since the first boatload of settlers arrived on your shore. But now we are not using forests enough to produce energy. Our studies indicate that we could meet one-third of New England's residential and commercial space heating needs with the wood which we now leave wasting on the ground. And as you can well see, the use of this wasted wood would create many new jobs in New Hampshire. There will be tax credit given in the future for those who use woodburning stoves, and this will be of great help to you.

After the accident at Three Mile Island, we must take some hard decisions on nuclear energy. To get to the bottom of what happened there, I turned to a New Hampshire man—I met with him and the Commission this morning—the president of Dartmouth College, John Kemeny, to head a Presidential Commission which will study this accident and make a report to us and to the entire world. There's nothing more important than the safety and the security of American people. Every nuclear plant must be made safer than we once thought either possible or necessary.

We must also recognize the dangers in mining and burning coal, in piping and shipping oil, just as we recognize dangers in producing nuclear power. And we must remember that every bit of energy we waste unnecessarily multiplies all these problems. That is why energy conservation is the cornerstone of my and your energy policy.

In closing my remarks, let me add just a word about inflation before I take your questions. All of you know how bad inflation is. And it will not get much better in the near future. I'm not going to kid you about this either. We're going to see high inflation figures coming out week after week for the next few months.

The inflation that we have today has been gaining momentum for more than 10 years. It cannot be halted overnight, because it has seeped into the very fabric of our economy. There is no easy solution to it. And, frankly, anyone who says that there is an easy solution is either a liar or a fool. But with enough commitment and firmness, the problem can be solved. And in my judgment, the anti-inflation program that we have now is the best and perhaps the only way to solve it.

That program has four main parts: a tight budget and fiscal policy, leading to a balanced budget for our Nation; a tight monetary policy; reforms to attack unneeded regulation; and standards to help slow down the spiral of wages and prices chasing each other ever higher.

Too often in the past, for political reasons, Presidents and other public officials have given in to the temptation just before election time to try sudden gimmicks that lead to temporary paper improvements in the economic figures. But that has cost this country severely in the longterm economic damage. And I refuse to do it. We have begun a long-term effort to conquer inflation. For my part, I intend to stick with it. I need your understanding about the deep-rooted nature of this problem. And above all, I need your support and your determination to stay with this fight as long as it takes us to win it together.

And now I'd like to answer your questions.

QUESTIONS

CLEAN WATER ACT APPROPRIATIONS

Q. Mr. President, Robert Nixon, a selectman from Newfields, New Hampshire. It is my understanding that only three States, including New Hampshire, have qualified for full amounts allowed under the 1977 Clean Waters Act, amending the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control, and that the Congress is considering reducing appropriations.

Would you approve the reapportionment of unused funds to States that have endeavored to carry out the purpose and spirit of the law?

THE PRESIDENT. My desire is to use the full amount of funds appropriated by Congress for the Clean Water Act implementation. Within the bounds of the law, I will certainly do what I can to reallocate any funds left over and unused at the end of the time period.

Q. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. And I hope New Hampshire is one that will qualify.

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SAFETY

Q. Welcome, Mr. President. My name is Barbara Hayes. I live here in Portsmouth, and I'm also a transplanted southerner. [Laughter]

I'd like to preface my question with this statement: I will say I am pro nuclear power. I think it's a valid source of energy. However, I'm not insensitive to the needs of further safety study. My question is this, and it's probably from a simplistic viewpoint: I would like to see the Federal Government really focus in on the safety study not unlike the Manhattan Project or the space program to really bring in an answer of safety in nuclear power. You sort of touched on this, but maybe you would like to elaborate on it.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. This morning I met with Chairman Kemeny and the other members of the President's Commission to study the Three Mile Island incident to determine accurately what caused the accident; what might have been done to prevent it; how well the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the power company, the Federal, State, and local officials and others worked together in that incident; how they might work together better in the future to assess design mistakes or areas where, in the design of nuclear powerplants or the modification of those already there, they might be improved; to increase the authority, if necessary, for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to deal more effectively with such an accident and to prevent, above all, and also to change their policies, if necessary.

We also will assess within the next 6 months the facts as they occurred, and as they were understood by the people in that area, particularly, to make sure that there was no lies told and no errors made in reporting to the people the facts.

This report will be observed and read by people throughout the world. Leaders, already, of the Scandinavian countries, Germany, France, Great Britain, England, have asked for full access to this report once it's conducted. This report will not only apply to the Three Mile Island plant; it will assess all the interrelationships that go among nongovernment or government entities in design, building, operating, supervising nuclear powerplants to enhance safety to the utmost. And they will make this report to the public at the end of 6 months.

I might add one other thing: Their deliberations, their hearings will also be conducted in public so that they can be reported accurately to the American people as the talks go on.

I instructed John Kemeny this morning that if in this 6-month period they detect any change that might be implemented immediately that would enhance the safety of the existing or being-designed nuclear plants, to let me and the public know it without delay so they wouldn't wait 6 months to make a beneficial suggestion.

I believe this is something that's long overdue. Although the Three Mile Island incident was a very serious threat and it caused us great consternation and concern, there may be a gold or silver lining to this cloud, because we may learn from it the limits of nuclear power and how to enhance the safety of nuclear power in the future.

That's a good question, and I thank you for it.

MIDDLE EAST PEACE NEGOTIATIONS

Q. Hello, Mr. President. My name is Vickie Hinesly, and I'm from York, Maine. And I'd like to welcome you from the people of Maine.

First, I'd like to congratulate you on your peace treaty with the Middle East. First, I'd like to ask you, now that we have a partial peace with the Middle East, what are your plans to secure peace in the rest of the Middle East and to secure the flow of oil through the U.S.?

THE PRESIDENT. Good. Yesterday, as you may have noticed in the news, I appointed Robert Strauss to be our new negotiator and talked to both Prime Minister Begin and to President Sadat on the phone yesterday afternoon. Their new relationship has been very exciting to me since the peace treaty was signed. And I can tell you in complete confidence if you won't relay it to anyone else—. [laughter] -that sometimes those two men were not completely compatible with one another. [Laughter]

Q. I'll bet.

THE PRESIDENT. Since the peace treaty was signed, I honestly believe that they have learned to know and to like and to respect one another. President Sadat yesterday said, "Prime Minister Begin," he said, "that man has really changed," he said, "changed for the better." And he said, "We are now talking to each other on the phone, not just when a crisis develops but on a routine basis whenever a question arises that concerns our two countries."

Next month, almost exactly a month from now, the first part of the Sinai will be returned from Israel to Egypt—El Arish. They will met there together. They will fly together to Beersheba and will appear before the student body at the Ben Gurion University and then will open direct flights between Israel and Egypt for the first time in anyone's memory. I'm very thankful for that.

At this time, however, the other neighbors of Israel are trying to create every possible obstacle to the carrying out of the peace treaty terms. I don't want to criticize them, although I wish they would eliminate terrorism and murder as an element of their effort. The best way to change their attitude—that is, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and others—is to demonstrate in the coming negotiations that the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people will be honored and that the terms of the Camp David agreement will indeed be carried out.

We have a good relationship with almost all the countries that produce and sell us oil. We have maintained that firm relationship. One thing that I would like to do, however, in addition to keeping that friendship with them, is to develop more independence by increasing the production of American oil and by shifting to things like I've already described: increased use of coal, increased use of small dams, increased use of wood, and also conservation.

So, I would say the Mideast peace negotiation is on track. I've been very pleased since the treaty was signed. We have a good relationship with the oil supplying nations, but we want to become less and less dependent on them in the future.

INFLATION

Q. Mr. President, I'm Mary Keenan, a city councilman in the city of Portsmouth. I ask my question for the mothers of America. I want you to know how concerned we are with inflation. It's attacking the American family. Young people are no longer able to buy homes of their own. They are no longer able to choose to stay home and raise the next generation.

Can you tell me what your administration is doing to reverse this situation?

THE PRESIDENT. I'll do the best I can. I can say that I'm at least as concerned about it as you are. It's ever-present on my mind. It's one of the biggest responsibilities on my shoulders and one of the most difficult questions to answer.

The first thing that we can do, I as a President, is to set an example with the Federal Government policies.

When I was running for President and was in New Hampshire and Portsmouth last, our Federal deficit was $66 billion. The Federal deficit that I have proposed to the Congress is much less than $30 billion for next time. We've cut it more than half. We have tried to maintain, through available money supplies, an adequate ability for people to buy homes, in spite of the high inflation.

In 1977 and 1978, we have averaged more than 2 million new homes being built in our country. And the level of home building is being maintained fairly high. I know that part of this is that young people see future prices of homes even higher. And if they can borrow the money,, even at a high interest rate, they think, perhaps correctly, that it's a good investment.

Inflation also must be controlled by voluntary work of consumers by careful shopping, by voluntary aid of our economy by business and labor leaders, and also in many instances by local and State government officials. We are trying to cut down waste in government. And sometimes when we try to tighten up on the budget to some degree, there are outcries from very dedicated, very fine special interest groups.

We've asked that every price increase established by business be lower than the average of the previous 2 years and that the wage settlements also be restrained. So far, we've had excellent response. I think the early indications now are that these policies are working. But a lot of momentum was built in that's now showing up.

We had two things over which—three things that I'll mention, over which we had no control, that we could not predict. One was a very severe winter, which cut down on the production of things like fresh vegetables and fruits and which made it very difficult to produce poultry and pork and also which made energy very scarce. The other thing that we didn't anticipate was the crisis in Iran, which caused a shortage of oil and OPEC prices to go very high. And the other thing is the result of previous mandatory price controls, and that is very small beef herds. So, these things—I'm not trying to make any excuses—but these are some of the causes over which we did not have control.

But with tight government constraint on spending, tight monetary constraint to prevent unnecessary demand for goods, increased productivity, increased soundness of the dollar, increased export of American goods, and voluntary price and wage constraints, I believe that all of us together can turn this inflation spiral around. If we can level it off in the next 3 or 4 months and start it downhill, you and I can celebrate together.

GASOLINE AND OIL SUPPLIES

Q. Welcome, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you.

Q. I'm Susan Hedman from Hampton. And my question is, I would like to know if the situation with the shortage of gas is really true, or is it being built out of proportion? And also, would you ever consider rationing gas?

THE PRESIDENT. When you said shortage of gas, you meant gasoline for the cars, right?

Q. Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. We anticipate a shortage of gasoline in the summer and an even greater shortage of gasoline next year. Although we have held down and even reduced in the last 3 months our total consumption of oil, the American motorists have continued to increase the amount of gasoline they are burning. I would ask any of you as you go to and from work in the morning or to and from the shopping center, to see how many automobiles only have one person in them. And there has never yet been embedded in the consciousness of America the fact that we might actually have permanent shortages of gasoline.

I have had to mandate to the Secretary of Energy that a certain amount of oil products be set aside to heat your homes next winter. That's going to mean that not quite so much gasoline is going to be produced, because you either produce heating oil or you produce gasoline.

In 1975, the Congress required the President and the executive branch of Government to come forward with a standby rationing program. It would not go into effect unless the President and the Congress later approved it, but to give the President authority to initiate rationing after a program was developed.

Today, in a very sad mistake, the commerce committee of the House of Representatives, after we developed the proposal and presented it to the Congress, recommended that it not be approved. This means that if we do have a shortage in the future, rather than having a standby rationing plan that could be implemented only if the President and the Congress approve it, we would have to wait 6 or 7 additional months even before a rationing plan could be evolved.

So, we're trying to take precautionary measures now so that if we do have a shortage in the future, because of an absence of conservation or an interruption in our supplies, we can move immediately to minimize any disruption in the lives of the American people. The shortage is real. It's not going to leave. But if we can work together to prepare for it, we can prevail and minimize any damage to us. I'm willing to take the political consequences and the political criticism by proposing a gasoline rationing plan if it is needed. I hope it won't be needed. But I need for the Congress to be courageous enough to give me the authority simply to develop the plan. And this morning the House commerce committee did not do that.

So, to summarize, I don't believe we're going to need rationing any time in the future. We are going to have gasoline shortages. The American people are going to have to help by reducing waste of gasoline.

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SAFETY

Q. Mr. President, my name is Dennis Lapoint. I'm from Somersworth, New Hampshire. And if you bear with me a second, I have to modify my question some, because you have touched on it.

THE PRESIDENT. Fine.

Q. As a result of the recent accident in Pennsylvania—and I believe a Wiscasset, Maine, plant had a 4,000-gallon radioactive water leak recently—as I see it, there are three major areas of concern, as I would look at it. One would be in the area of training and operations. It appears that, as I look at it, both plants fell on their face. The other one would be in the area of safety and preventive maintenance. The two go hand in hand. And apparently, from what happened in Wiscasset, I assume that there was no preventive maintenance or inadequate preventive maintenance to lose 4,000 gallons through a gasket.

The other would be in the area of waste disposal. As you well know, the work in the nuclear industry requires not only doing the operations as well as maintenance field, a lot of generated contaminated waste has to be disposed of, low-level radiation waste. Now, that is costly, and in my opinion, the overall cost of all this would be something that's already shown up in the waste as a result of shielding problems that have occurred in Pennsylvania. The private industry cannot support this type of cost.

What is the government going to do in order to upgrade these safety, training, operations standards, the preventive maintenance standards of these companies, and what is the government doing relative to waste disposal?

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Dennis. Those are thought-provoking questions.

In 1952 and 1953, I was a senior officer of the crew that was building the second atomic submarine, the U.S.S. Seawolf, and had advanced training in reactor technology in a very fine college in Schenectady, New York. I'm familiar with basic design problems and also waste disposal problems and have operated several atomic powerplants myself.

I believe that we will benefit tremendously from the aroused American interest in the subject. You probably see the public opinion polls, a very substantial majority of American people still think that we should depend, to some degree, on atomic powerplants for energy. Many other countries are having to depend much more heavily than are we. About 12 percent now of our electricity in this country comes from the nuclear powerplants. I believe that what we learn with this new study under Dr. Kemeny will be very beneficial to us and to others as well, not just in analyzing the mistakes that were made, but also how training, operation, maintenance can be improved.

We have proposed to the Congress legislation for the first time in 35 years concerning waste disposal, and it's before the Congress now for consideration. We've also proposed to the Congress a kind of partner legislation, parallel legislation for the storage of spent fuel rods—two separate pieces of legislation—which can be stored, of course, and must be stored in a safe condition.

But those questions that you raised have been with us for three decades at least, and they've become much more acute. I think the aroused public opinion about nuclear power is beneficial, because it has caused scientists, engineers, operators, and politicians to pay much closer attention to questions that in the past were not addressed adequately or were addressed in private. In 1976, during the Presidential campaign, I think there were 22 States . that had nuclear power referenda on the ballot when I was running for office. And I think that intense interest is going to continue.

My guess is that we'll have a much more accurate assessment of a need for nuclear power and how it can be made more safe because of this incident and because of interest of people like you.

INTEREST RATES

Q. I am Leon Gaidmore from Dover, a retired toolmaker from the naval yard. Mr. President, why have interest rates been allowed to climb to the present record high level? Isn't this high interest most unfair to our young people? They haven't lived long enough to accumulate money, so they must borrow to buy homes and raise their kids. Older people have money to lend but need it the least. Their lives are behind them. Isn't this all wrong?

THE PRESIDENT. That is a good question— [laughter] —and my answer to you is, yes, it is all wrong. I think we ought—

Q. It is.

THE PRESIDENT. I remember when I was Governor of Georgia back in '73 and '74, interest rates got up to 18 or 20 percent on short-term borrowings. And Georgia had surplus money under my superb administration— [laughter] —and we were investing our money at that high interest rate. And now they've crept up again.

Interest rates are determined, as you know, directly by the inflation rate. When the inflation rate is, say, 8 percent and someone lends money at 8 percent, they merely break even. In order to make a profit on their money above and beyond inflation, they have to get more than 8 percent. So, the best way to control interest rates in the long run is to bring the inflation rate down.

In our country more than 100 years ago, the Congress decided that interest rates would basically be controlled by the Federal Reserve Board. And the Federal Reserve does modify the tightness of money by various means to control the interest rates. But I have to say in complete frankness that the President and the Congress also have a role to play in interest rates.

The President has a direct role by proposing budget deficits. If the President can cut the budget deficit down, then, of course, the interest rates and inflation rate ultimately will go down. If the Congress is extremely liberal on cutting taxes, then, of course, that creates more money in the economy and money becomes much more available, and of course, that affects the interest rates as well.

So, the Federal Reserve is directly responsible. The President and the Congress are also responsible. But basically the interest rates are determined by the inflation rate. We are doing all we can to hold down Federal deficits and to control spending and to eliminate unnecessary regulations. But we've got a long way to go.

The only thing I can add is what I said earlier to Mary with the question about the homes. An investment in a home, even at a high interest rate, is a good investment if there's a surety that the interest rates will be maintained high or if property values will go up. But I don't know how to answer your question any better except to say that I agree with you; we'd be much better to have low inflation, low interest rates, and I'm doing the best I can as President to bring them both down.

IMPACT AID FUNDING

Q. Mr. President, my name is John Sullivan, and I'm a member of the board of education here in Portsmouth. Mr. President, one of the most serious problems facing the city of Portsmouth today is the lack of equitable funding for the education of military students. This year alone here in Portsmouth, the average tuition rate for Portsmouth students averages $1,545, while under HEW public law 874 they have authorized us $1,260. This falls $285 short for a student, or in our school system it means that the taxpayers of the city of Portsmouth must pick up an extra $315,000.

Now, I was just wondering if this is a reasonable solution to our educational program and the process between the city, the State, and the Nation, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. It does not sound like a reasonable solution to me. [Laughter] I presume you're talking about impact aid funds.

Q. Yes, I am, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. We are trying to reform the impact aid law, with very little success. But perhaps you could join me in this battle.

What's happening now is that the impact aid formulae are so constructed that some communities that have absolutely no justifiable claim on these funds are getting greatly enriched, whereas communities like your own, where you actually do care for the dependent children of service families, get underpaid.

And I would like for you to contact, if you would write the name down, Stu Eizenstat in my office in the White House and call him and talk to him about how you can let your voice be heard in the Congress. This is very important, because as long as extremely wealthy counties-some of which are right around Washington, D.C.—who don't actually educate the children get enormous payments of impact aid funds, it means that that much money which you deserve cannot come to you. And we really need to modify and to reform the impact aid formula. It's not right for you to have to pay an excessive amount of money to educate a military child. Obviously the full amount should be allotted to you, and I believe we could do this if the law was reformed.

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for coming to Portsmouth.

THE PRESIDENT. I'm glad I came.

EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Q. Mr. President, excuse me if I'm nervous, but the last time I won anything in a government raffle, I was drafted. [Laughter]

I find that my question is similar to Mr. Sullivan's and it was an observation more than a statement. My name is Joe Arnstein, and I teach in this high school.

That is, we receive our tax dollars back towards education in two ways in this town and in this community, this area. The one way is through the impact aid, in which our schools receive dollars that can be spent as local people see that they need to be spent, whether that's for books or salaries or if the roof is leaking. The other way we receive money back is through HEW. And from HEW we receive programs, forms to be filled out, title this, title that, and we have to tie up some of our own competent people to shuffle papers back and forth between Portsmouth and Washington.

As a teacher and as a person that believes in teaching by example, along with many in my profession, I would suggest that before we have a department of education, you consider whether this is going to add to the shuffling back and forth of paper, or whether this is going to furnish money to students who need it, to teachers, to administrations that need it.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, Joe. Let me respond very briefly.

My first public office was a member of the Sutter County School Board, where I live. And I became familiar then with some of the elements that you've just described.

One of my first meetings as President was with the 50 State school superintendents. I asked them to go back to their own States, including the superintendent of New Hampshire, and to give me a list, my Office of Management and Budget, of all those forms and reports and requests that they considered to be unnecessary. This has been done. And a great number of those forms and reports have been eliminated. Some are required by Congress, and we've not yet been able to get the laws changed. But I know that this is an onerous burden that separates the local community from the Federal Government rather than binding the two together, with the local government controlling, to let Federal Government help with education.

In the last 2 years, we've just about doubled the allocation of Federal funds for education. We are trying to help. At the same time, we are trying to prevent any encroachment of the Federal Government into decisions being made at the local government on how the schools should be operated.

I would like for you to send to me, through your Congressman or through your Senator, a list of specific forms that you think are unnecessary or that can be consolidated or eliminated or abbreviated or made more infrequent in their required sending to Washington. And I will personally look into this that you send me, as President of the United States, if you as a teacher will do your share of this bargain. Would you mind doing that for me?

Q. No, I wouldn't. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. And I'll carry out my part of the deal, too. Thank you, Joe.

THE PRESIDENT. John, you and Norm, when Mr. Arnstein sends you this list of forms, you come to the Oval Office, if you don't mind, and bring them to me. And I'll try to do something about it, because probably what applies to him in his classroom applies to people all over the United States, and I'd really like to do something about it.

Yes, ma'am?

FEDERAL MORTGAGE PROGRAMS

Q. Mr. President, my name is Pamela Foster. I am very proud to be an American, and I'm even more proud that you are my President.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much. Q. But I'm also especially proud that I, too, am from the South— [laughter] Woodruff, South Carolina. I am associated with a real estate firm here in Portsmouth.

And my question, sir, is, do you see, in the near future, any Federal mortgage money coming to the seacoast area? Seacoast area.

THE PRESIDENT. I heard what you said. [Laughter] I heard your question. I was trying to think of the answer. [Laughter]

Well, the reason I hesitate is because, as you know, there is a tremendous amount of varying kinds of Federal mortgage money that does, indeed, come through the Farm Home Administration, the veterans programs, the FHA, through HUD. And also, as you know, with the new money certificates, we have stabilized the available supply of money for home construction even in spite of the very high interest rates which would formerly have put the housing construction industry almost in a recession.

I don't know of any additional new programs that are in prospect of being evolved. I have not proposed any to the Congress. Can you ask me one followup question about the specific kind of mortgage money to which you refer?

Q. We'll take any kind, anything. [Laughter]

THE PRESIDENT. That's a good answer. Well, I thank you. But those home programs are being maintained. And as I said earlier, because of various factors, we have sustained, for this past 2 years, since I have been in office, I think the highest level of home construction in history, in spite of the very high interest rates. This has been one of the causes of inflation, by the way, because so many homes have been built, I think an average of 2.2 million homes each of the 2 years.

We have cut the unemployment rate in the construction trade down 35 percent, because people have gone back to work building homes. And, of course, the lumber industry, the timber industry, the sheetrock industry, the insulation industry has done extremely well. In some cases a demand for these building supplies has been greater than the supply. And that's one of the industries where prices have gone up very high.

But we'll try to do all we can to channel more mortgage money to the seacoast area.

Thank you very much.

Q. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, ma'am?

AMY CARTER

Q. Hello, Mr. President. I was wondering, does Amy boast or brag because you're the President of the United States? [Laughter]

THE PRESIDENT. I was trying to remember a time when she's ever boasted or bragged. [Laughter]

No, I don't believe so. I think the only time in the last 2 years that I can recall is the morning after I got back from the Middle East, Amy got up early and came in where I was—we had got in long after midnight—and she crawled up on the bed with me and said, "Daddy, I'm proud that you are my father, and I'm proud that you're President." But ordinarily, Amy, being the daughter of a President, probably does more apologizing than she does bragging. [Laughter] You didn't tell me what your name was.

Q. Paloma Kressmann.

THE PRESIDENT. Paloma?

Q. Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. Crestman—that's a pretty name. Do you ever come to Washington, Paloma?

Q. No. [Laughter]

THE PRESIDENT. Perhaps you could come sometime and see both me and Amy. Would you like to do that?

Q. Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. Okay. Well, I'd like you to come. Is your last name Crestman, C-r-e-s-t-m-a-n?

Q. What do you want me to do? [Laughter]

THE PRESIDENT. I want you to come to see me. But I asked how do you spell your last name. Is it—

Q. K-r-e-s-s-m-a-n-n.

THE PRESIDENT. I got it. [Laughter] And where do you live?

Q. I live in Portsmouth. 228 Highland Street.

THE PRESIDENT. 228. I'll write you an invitation—I'll let Amy write you an invitation.

Q. Thanks. [Laughter]

PROPOSED DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Q. Welcome to Portsmouth, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you.

Q. My name is Vernis Jackson. I'm an elementary schoolteacher here in Portsmouth. My question is, during your campaign for the Presidency, you promised to work for the establishment of a Cabinet level department of education, separate from HEW. Can you tell me whether your endeavors toward this goal have been fruitful, and do you have a timetable as to when it should be achieved?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We've made good progress on that. Last year the Senate approved the legislation. This year we resubmitted the legislation, and I think it's in excellent shape in both the House and Senate. I predict that we will have established a separate department of education this year. And I will be very eager to sign the legislation when the Congress passes it.

Q. Thank you.

FEDERAL AID TO COLLEGE STUDENTS

Q. Hello, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Good afternoon.

Q. My name is Forrest Snowden, and I'm a freshman at Winikana High School in Hampton. What I would like to know is what have you done to cut down the financial costs for high school students going to college?

THE PRESIDENT. Good. Last year the Congress passed the finest package of aid programs for college students that this country's ever seen. The only other year when the Congress took equally effective action was back in 1965 when the Higher Education Act was first passed.

I think the total benefits that were allotted to college students amounted to maybe six or eight billion dollars. They consisted of direct grants to college students who are poor, but who are capable of doing college work.

They consisted of increased loans to college students whose parents have some income but who can't afford the high cost of college; the banks in the local region lend the students money. They pay it back after they finish college and get a job, and the Federal Government supplements the interest rates to keep the interest rates down low. And they also provided a special allocation of money for college work programs, whereby a student can go to college and, at the same time he or she gets an education, can get a job, financed partially by the Federal Government-kind of a work-study program.

So, I think these new programs, when they are known throughout the country-and the legislation just passed last year—will be one of the finest opportunities ever. And I hope that you will have a chance before long to take advantage of these programs.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you. Yes, sir?

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

Q. My name is John Williamson from Rye. I want to thank you for not quitting. It's a very unruly country we have. ¹

¹ The questioner was referring to several incidents of heckling which had taken place earlier during the town meeting.

I think we need alternatives to nuclear power, and I'm very excited by developments in solar power and electrical generating stations in Earth orbit. It sounds a little off-the-wall, I know.

The more I read though, the more possible I think it has become. Yet I heard nothing out of Washington on the subject. What is the administration's approach to aerospace industry?

THE PRESIDENT. I spoke earlier this week to the National Academy of Sciences. Two of the four things that I discussed with them were energy and space. The next step for us in space is the space shuttle, where we will begin to capitalize on more than $100 billion of investment, primarily in space exploration. These shuttle vehicles will begin to fly shortly, and we will lease space on them, first of all, to agencies of the Federal Government for defense, intelligence, and for research and for other means, astronomy and so forth.

We'll also lease space to private industry for the evolution of new kinds of technologies such as you've described, and we will also make some space on our space shuttles available to foreign countries.

As you know, these vehicles, like airplanes, will be launched into space, will fly around the Earth as long as they desire, and then will come back into the atmosphere and land like an airplane. It will be a very efficient way to make space use routine, rather than a great adventure every time one is launched.

I think following that period of research and development of the science of collecting energy and its transmission would come a move toward the kind of energy evolution that you've described.

The photovoltaic cell technique has been that which made possible the space flights already. And this so far is very expensive for the actual production of power. And I would say a major opportunity for us in the next 10 or 20 years would be to make the production of power directly from the sunlight through the photovoltaic cells feasible. I think that would be a prerequisite for us to do that on Earth before we could do it effectively in space.

So, I'd say the space shuttle advanced research in space, by private, U.S. Government, foreign government entities, and the development of the photovoltaic cells would be the precursors to the accumulation of Sun's rays in space, their transmission to Earth as energy.

Not even one more? One more quick question, and then our time's up.

NUCLEAR POWERPLANTS

Q. Good afternoon, President Carter. I'm Scott Nason from Portsmouth, New Hampshire. I worked on the Seabrook nuclear power construction project. I was wondering if you've ever had the opportunity to actually see a project of this magnitude while in its construction stage? Also, due to the recent unfortunate events, morale throughout this industry is low. What do you feel should be done about it?

THE PRESIDENT. To answer your first question, yes, I have seen a major atomic Power plant in the construction phase. While I was Governor, one was completed there in the southwestern part of the State, and I was there, more than once, while it was being constructed. Also, I was involved in the early stages of the development of atomic power for propulsion of submarines, as I described earlier.

I think the low morale that exists not only in the designers, builders, operators of atomic powerplants, but those who live around them and who fear for their own safety, will all be aided by a frank, honest, competent report to the American people about the status of nuclear power, and its degree of safety and what can be done to make nuclear powerplants safer in the future. And that's why I believe that the Kemeny Commission will play a very constructive role. I think it would help to assuage the concern of people like yourself. I think it would help to assuage the concern of environmentalists who are deeply concerned about all atomic power. I think it would help to assuage the concern of people who live around powerplants and who still believe that they ought to be there. So, in my opinion, this will kind of clear the air and give us a great degree of guidance for the future.

Let me say this in closing. I've made notes of each person's name and the type of question here on a piece of scratch paper, and the interest that you've shown in such a wide diversity of subjects is really overwhelming. I don't claim to know the answer to all questions. I have an excellent opportunity to learn. And coming here, hearing of your interests and getting your own, sometimes criticisms, sometimes congratulations, sometimes advice, is very beneficial to me.

We've got such a wonderful and such a great country. And if I can just leave one thought with you before I depart: I hold perhaps the most important political office in the world, certainly the most important elective political office in the world. And I represent a nation made up of people who are absolutely free to express yourselves, to agree, to disagree, to debate, to criticize a President, to criticize the Members of Congress, to criticize a mayor, to make constructive suggestions, to ask questions, even though they might be embarrassing. And this gives us strength.

And most of the time when we read the newspapers or see the evening television or listen to the radio, what we hear about is the current problems, and what we hear about are the current arguments, and what we hear about are the current disappointments. But what we don't hear enough about is the solid, stable, superb strength of a great nation.

And I hope that in the future when you are concerned about schools, taxes, energy, inflation, nuclear power, that you will remember that in some countries your concern could not be expressed. And in some countries these kinds of problems would not even be noticed by you, because you would be deprived of freedom and your children would be starving and your voice would never be heard, and the independence to make your own decisions would be absolutely missing.

So, as we face the future, let's remember our blessings. And one of the greatest blessings of all is a free American people like you who have never been afraid to speak your mind and to let public officials have an opportunity to listen.

Thank you very much.