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

THE PRESIDENT. Since Midge¹ has had some of her other speaking engagements canceled, she has been looking for a way to spend her time.

It's a great pleasure to have you here. You don't often have a chance to have a photographers' convention. [Laughter]

¹ Margaret Costanza, Assistant to the President for Public Liaison, spoke to the group prior to the President's remarks.

I'd like to spend the brief time I have with you answering questions that you might have to present to me, but I would like to say that we are grateful for your coming. You represent an element of leadership, both present and future, that's very valuable to our country. And I know that your interest in both higher education and government is exemplified by your presence here.

So, without further ado, I'd like to just have your questions.

SALT NEGOTIATIONS

Q. Mr. President, it has been suggested from a report that Soviet officials at SALT negotiations in Geneva are suggesting that Russia might introduce cruise missiles in Cuba if the U.S. deploys such missiles with NATO forces in Western Europe. Do you have any comments on that as far as if this is going to be true?

THE PRESIDENT. I have had no suggestions that the Soviets might introduce missiles that were capable of attacking our country in Cuba if the SALT negotiations are successful or unsuccessful. I had a meeting yesterday, on the SALT negotiations in detail, with our chief negotiators.

We are making good and steady progress. We now are down to about 12 highly technical issues, 3 or 4 of which are quite significant in their nature and will be difficult. My own belief is that—both in reaching a SALT II agreement-which will last until 1985, a protocol which will last until 1980 or, perhaps, the first of 1981—and setting down the principles of a so-called SALT III agreement, which will bring about much more drastic reductions in commitments to nuclear weapons, plus, for the first time, discussions on a comprehensive test ban to prevent the explosions of nuclear materials either for peaceful nuclear devices, so called, or for military purposes—we are making good progress in all those respects.

The time required has been much greater than we had anticipated, but my guess is that the negotiators will resolve most of these issues in Geneva. And the will probably require a direct meeting or communication between myself and President Brezhnev before we can reach a final agreement. But I don't anticipate any threats from the Soviet Union through Cuba as a result of success or failure.

SELECTION OF FEDERAL ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES

Q. During your campaign, one point that you emphasized was to restore people's faith in government.

Representative Philip Crane has introduced a House resolution to set into motion an impartial House investigation of the Marston matter. Would you favor such a resolution so that people's faith can be restored?

THE PRESIDENT. Well— [laughter] it's difficult for me to comment objectively on Congressman Crane and all the.

Q. The resolution.

THE PRESIDENT. I understand. Well, at this point, the Senate is conducting an assessment of the appointment of Deputy Attorney General Civiletti. And in that process, the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are going into the Marston matter. There's nothing about the Marston matter at all that causes me any regret, except the extraordinary publicity that's been brought to it. I don't see, in retrospect, after careful examination of the issue, that anything improper was done.

There's never been an instance since I've been in office when an appointment was made to a U.S. attorney position or district judge or circuit judge other than strictly on the basis of merit. That was my commitment to the American people, and I have not violated it.

We've not yet made an appointment to replace Mr. Marston. Historically in this country, the Senate has been deeply involved in the decision about who would be Federal judges and U.S. attorneys. When I came into office, after 8 years of Republican administration, there had not been a single Democrat appointed to a U.S. attorney's position in 8 years. Only four U.S. attorneys were left over from previous Democratic administrations. They were in very strongly controlled States where the Democratic Senators were quite influential with the Nixon administration.

We have done it quite differently. We've established assessment commissions to give me recommendations for U.S. judges on a circuit basis. We've asked the Senators to set up similar merit selection commissions on a State basis for district judges—18, I think, have done theirs already—and in every instance, we've consulted with the highly qualified lawyers and others in the area, judges, to choose U.S. attorneys.

So, I would not hesitate to recommend any presentation of the facts about the Marston case.

FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN MILLER

Q. Mr. President, former Presidential economic adviser Paul McCracken, who is now on the lecture circuit, has claimed that your administration has no clearcut policy for fighting inflation. Do you feel this is a fair statement? And, also, what confidences do you place in newly appointed head of the Fed, G. William Miller, with regards to fighting inflation?

THE PRESIDENT. I have complete confidence in G. William Miller, who is a fine man. He's completely knowledgeable about international trade. He's a superb businessman. He's highly committed to improving our economy, to giving equality of opportunity in areas where people have been deprived in the past. He has an excellent understanding of economics in every respect, and as you know, he has received overwhelming support already in the Congress after investigation of him.

So, I have complete confidence in him. I think he's capable of balancing the same two basic factors that I have to balance on a daily basis—inflation, on the one hand, and restoration of job opportunities, on the other.

This past year we were highly successful in both areas. I've only been in office 1 year. I inherited an unemployment rate of, I think, 8.1 percent. At the end of the year the unemployment rate, this in January, was 6.3 percent, a remarkable reduction.

At the same time, for the last 6 months of 1977, the inflation rate had dropped to about 4 percent, 4 1/2 percent, whereas I inherited an inflation rate approaching 10 percent. So, we've made good progress.

INFLATION

Q. Do you have any specific policies that you will submit to Congress for fighting inflation?

THE PRESIDENT. In every respect—you know, we have in every decision I make involving economics, whether it's a jobs bill or a level of budget authorizations or a decision on Executive administration, in every one of those items we have to carefully consider the impact of inflation. On our importing of oil, we're trying to cut down on that with a comprehensive energy package.

We've asked the labor and business to voluntarily constrain themselves on increasing wages and prices, so that their new negotiations for wage settlements beginning this year and their increases in prices would be below what they were the last 2 years.

We've had an underlying inflation rate of 6 to 6 1/2 percent, which is still prevailing. But we have set a goal for ourselves to reduce this substantially below 5 percent. And that's compatible with the other elements of our economic package, to increase the GNP 4 or 5 percent per year and to cut the unemployment rate down as well.

So, those three things—to have a stimulus to keep our economy growing to put our people back to work, to limit Government expenditures as a percentage of total GNP and total income of the people of our country, and to hold down inflation—are very tightly knit and coherent Government policy on economics.

VALUE OF THE DOLLAR

Q. Recently the dollar hit a record low in international monetary markets, reflecting the continued lack of confidence throughout the world in our currency. How do you account for this lack of confidence, and what action is your administration taking to alleviate the plight?

THE PRESIDENT. I pointed out yesterday at the National Press Club that the basic elements of economic theory have pretty well been ignored in the last 2 or 3 weeks. We have been trying to get Germany, Japan, and other very strong nations who are prosperous and who are growing to meet us on an economic stimulus effort.

The fact is that the OPEC nations export about $60 billion worth of products more than they import. In other words, they have got a $60 billion positive trade balance. The trade balance all over the world has got to be zero. You've got to have a total amount of exports in all cases equal to the total amount of imports.

So, the rest of the nations have to absorb about a $60 billion deficit. We are absorbing our portion of it, more than our portion now. The Germans and the Japanese, on the other hand, have insisted on having a positive trade balance of their own, which aggravates the situation that I have just described to you. Because of that, there has been some inevitable adjustments downward in the value of the dollar as it relates to the yen, the deutsche mark, and some other major trade currencies used.

We have three basic principles or factors that will be affecting the value of the dollar in 1978. In each instance, there's a substantial improvement in prospect this year compared to last year. We will not be increasing the quantity of oil we import during 1978. We were rapidly increasing oil imports during 1977. That's one factor.

The second one is that last year we had a growth rate in our economy of about 3 percent higher than the average of our major trading partners, which meant that as our economy grows and prospers and our people are at work, we are able to buy their goods easier than they can buy our goods. We are more prosperous. We can purchase things. They are less prosperous. They have to sell things. That 3 percent difference is going to be reduced substantially this year. We'll still have a pretty strong growth rate, not quite as strong as last year. They'll have a better growth rate.

And the third thing is that because of varying factors, an attempt to control inflation by the Federal Reserve and other factors, that the interest paid on investments in our country this year will be higher than last year, which means that other nations who own currencies will have a tendency to invest them in the United States, more this year than last year. So, there will be an inevitable correction, I think, of the value of the dollar.

What we would do is try to intercede in the market only to compensate for disorderly marketing circumstances. We don't say that the dollar should be equal to 2.02 deutsche marks and try to hold that, you know, no matter what the world situation does. There's got to be some fluidity, some natural adjustment in the value of the dollar.

We're trying to stabilize it as best we can against disorderly marketing. And those three factors that I've described to you will bring about restoration of the acknowledgement of the true value of the dollar this year compared to last year.

TAX CREDITS FOR COLLEGE TUITION

Q. Mr. President, several weeks ago you went on record as being opposed to the tuition tax credit, and you have also come out in favor of increased Government loans to students. And you said that the tuition tax credit, I believe, and both the increased Government grants would be inefficient and wasteful. Could you elaborate more on that, sir?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I will not accept, to the limit of my ability as President, both the tuition tax credit, which is very expensive and not focused well and is really a boon to the very affluent families, on the one hand, plus the proposal that we made. There's a narrowly focused, I think a very well focused, proposal that we put forward to increase direct grants to students when they come from low- and middle-income families, to authorize an increase in loans to students and families at low, middle income, and a little bit higher level of income, and work-study programs for students.

This will increase the number of students eligible for loans, grants, and workstudy from about 3 million this year to 5 million when our program is put into effect. The cost of this will be less than one-half of the so-called income tax credits. It will also give aid to families that are most in need, to families that have a fairly good income, say, $20,000, or have two young people in school, and so forth.

So, I will not accept the two programs. Obviously, the one I favor is the one we've put forward. I think that the income tax credit, as a way to resolve the problem of student financing, is ill advised.

CONTACT WITH THE PUBLIC

Q. Mr. President, my question is twofold. There is in the office of Governor Jim Hunt in North Carolina an Office of Citizen Affairs which permits voluntarism and offers a citizen helpline to attempt to cut through the bureaucracy. We feel that this office is a most important office, and we wonder, at the Federal level, what promotion and support we are receiving, particularly in your administration.

My second question is, when are you coming to North Carolina? [Laughter]

THE PRESIDENT. I'm coming to North Carolina on the 17th of March. This is being announced today. I'll be in Winston-Salem, and I'll be making what I consider to be a major speech on the national defense, and also visiting friends of mine, Steve Neal, Bob Morgan, Jim Hunt, and others.

I met with Jim Hunt and Bob Morgan earlier this week to go into some of their relationships between North Carolina and the Federal Government. One of those, obviously, is the question of the school desegregation lawsuit involving the university system in North Carolina.

As you know, the HEW Department is under orders of a Federal judge to resolve that problem. And my own hope is, and my own expectation, by the way, is that this can be resolved satisfactorily on a mutual basis between Bill Friday, Joe Califano, and others.

So, we have a good relationship, I think, with people in the State directly, with Midge Costanza and her office, by delegations who wouldn't ordinarily have a voice and who have not in the past had a voice. I think my own travels around the country, to North Carolina this month and to other States as well—on a very frequent basis so that I can keep directly in touch with students and others—the regular relationships that we have with Governors, unprecedented, I might say, congressional delegations.

So, we've got a good and very active and constant relationship with people to make sure we get an input. This is one of the dangers of being President, is to be overly isolated. But I've had now a chance to have townhall-type meetings on a frequent basis. Within the last 2 weeks, I have had two of them, one in Maine and one in New Hampshire. The latter one I had about 1,500 people present. I think we had five students from every high school in New Hampshire, and teacher-counselors. And they had a week or so to prepare questions for me.

I had an hour-and-a-half session on nationwide television to answer their questions about issues. So, I try to stay in close contact through those means.

VIETNAM VETERANS

Q. Do you feel that your pardon of Vietnam era selective service resisters has been a success; and, secondly, is there any possibility of extending that pardon to include military deserters?

THE PRESIDENT. It's only partially successful because of the constraints placed on that program by Congress. I felt that we needed a much more comprehensive system of pardoning Vietnam veterans and also restoring their rights after the pardon is issued.

We're proceeding as best we can with that program under the constraints that Congress put on the administration. And I believe that this is something that should have been done.

We have also proposed, through the normal or existing legislative authority within the Defense Department, to expedite the consideration of both the Vietnam war protestors and also deserters.

This is a matter that's already authorized by law. We've tried to make sure that there was a distinction drawn between different levels of seriousness of desertion. If someone deserted on the field of battle and therefore endangered the lives of fellow warriors, this is a very serious matter. And we tried to draw a distinction there between other categories of desertion.

But I don't think it's been adequate yet. We're doing the best we can under the prevailing law that's been in existence for a long time within the Defense Department, and we've pursued the Vietnam consideration to the utmost of my ability.

PROJECT SEAFARER

Q. Mr. President, while campaigning in Michigan, you made a campaign promise that Project Seafarer would not be located in Michigan against the wishes of the citizens. Apparently that's changed. I'd like to know if you feel that you have broken a promise and, if so, how you'll justify this to the people of Michigan.

THE PRESIDENT. I haven't broken a promise, and it hasn't changed. So far as I know, no work is being done on Project Seafarer. I would like to say that I, as Commander in Chief of the military forces and as an ex-submariner myself, am deeply concerned about this problem. We need to have a way to communicate with our submerged submarines. And we have tried to modify any sort of environmental damage to Wisconsin or to Michigan in order to make the project acceptable to the people there.

And my own hope is that the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the congressional delegation, perhaps myself personally, in reassessing how we can substitute something for Project Seafarer, can make it acceptable to the people in the area that's required.

If our Nation should be endangered in a time of war, the loss of services of a substantial portion of our submarine fleet, because of unwarranted opposition, would certainly be a serious thing for our country. But I've not broken that promise or any others and don't intend to.

ABORTION

Q. Mr. Carter, you stated that you were personally opposed to abortion and the government funding of abortions. How do you reconcile this with your support of the ratification of the ERA?

THE PRESIDENT. I strongly favor the ratification of ERA. And on this particular point, I have got the full support of Midge Costanza.

I think that the government should find every possible alternative to abortion. I don't think that abortion should be encouraged by the government under any circumstances. And I think that government payments for abortions should be limited to instances where the woman's life is threatened or where the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest.

This has been my position throughout the campaign. It was my position when I was Governor. It was part of the Georgia law which was stricken down by the Supreme Court. It's also, I think, the position of the Secretary of HEW. And it's also the position of Congress.

I don't see the two to be interrelated at all. I believe that to provide government funding for abortion is, in effect, a means of encouraging abortion as one extension of contraceptive procedures. I think a good education program, the making available of contraceptive devices for those who believe in their use, and encouragement of the facility with which unwanted children perhaps can be adopted, is a much better alternative.

I just am personally and politically opposed to anything that encourages abortions if there is a reasonable alternative to them.

SELECTION OF U.S. ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES

Q. Back to the question of judgeships. The House version of the omnibus judgeship bill contained a merit selection amendment requiring establishment of merit selection guidelines and procedures.

Your administration has failed to support this. Will you reconcile your campaign promise and support this?

THE PRESIDENT. I'm in favor of anything that's possible, either done by administrative act, voluntary action on the part of the U.S. Senators, or congressional action that would guarantee merit selection of every person appointed to a position of responsibility in the judiciary. That includes U.S. attorneys, district judges, and circuit judges.

The problem arises because for the last 150 years, Members of the U.S. Senate have always felt and still feel that a major portion of the selection of district Federal judges in their own States ought to be a joint responsibility between themselves and the President.

Within the framework of my own authority, I have acted already. And I would favor an extension of that authority through congressional action, as you've requested—as you've asked.

Let me say that there are some things that I can do, and I've done them.

I have hand-written a letter to all the Democratic Senators—when I first came into office—asking them to set up merit selection commissions. Already, 18 have done this, an unprecedented thing for Senators to do.

Secondly, we have made every appointment, whether recommended by a U.S. Senator or chosen by me, strictly on the basis of merit. There has never been even an allegation that an appointee that I've sent to the Senate, anywhere in the judiciary, was made other than on the basis of merit.

On the circuit judgeships, in every single instance in the United States, we now are making those on the basis of five or more top names selected by a superb blue ribbon panel to me, and then I make the selection from those five or six names on the basis of merit.

The same with the U.S. attorneys. We've still got 25 or 30 Republican U.S. attorneys. Habitually, under all previous administrations, so far as I know, the first day that the President came into office from a different party, all the U.S. attorneys resigned automatically.

We've tried to do away with that, you know, and move toward merit selection. I'm deeply committed to this, and, to repeat myself, anything that the Congress can do, I can do, or the Senators voluntarily can do, all of those combined is what I favor to ensure merit selection.

CAMPAIGN PLANS

Q. Mr. President, this year is election year, and Republicans are hoping to pick up some seats in the House. How much of your time do you plan to spend perhaps helping Democrats seeking House seats campaign?

THE PRESIDENT. I'll probably spend a good bit of time on that. I've made visits already this year to four States—to New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, and Delaware.

I will participate in five major fundraising efforts around the country. I've already participated in one in Atlanta, and we have others scheduled in Texas, California, New York, and Chicago.

I would guess that on occasion, without interfering with my other duties, I will go out to campaign in different parts of the country along with Democratic candidates. I won't get involved in primaries.

I think it's up to the people in those States to choose the Democratic nominee that they prefer. And I obviously can't campaign for all Democratic candidates. But where I feel that their own positions in the Congress are reasonably compatible with my own—I certainly don't expect subservience or want it, I don't expect complete compatibility or want it-I would campaign.

At the same time, in those trips, I'll make other worthwhile efforts to sense, to personally encounter what the American people believe and want, and to learn about our country.

For instance, on the visit to Winston-Salem, I'll be with Democratic candidates, perhaps for Governor, for the Congress. I'll go from there to spend a number of hours on an atomic aircraft carrier, seeing how it functions and what its role might be.

I'll be coming back into Savannah that evening for a major speech. And when I'm in Winston-Salem, I'll make a speech on national defense. So, these trips will be a combination of the two. But I'll spend more time this year, in 1978, than I did last year.

Maybe one more question and I'll have to close.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Q. I realize this might be a tricky question, but I'd like to pose it and I'd like you to answer it.

THE PRESIDENT. It's not a question hut you want me to answer it? [Laughter] All right.

Q. As of today, do you feel confident that you will be reelected in 1980? The reason I ask this is because of recent newspaper editorials and columns which speculate that you may be a one-term President.

THE PRESIDENT. I think that speculation has been extant, you know, for almost every President—certainly since Eisenhower. And as a matter of fact, no President has served two terms since Eisenhower because of either tragedy or reluctance to run or because of defeat in the campaign. I don't have any way to project yet whether I will or will not run in 1980 or whether I would or would not be elected.

The fact of the matter is that in the public opinion polls my rating is still, you know, like 70, 75 percent, and the analysis of how good a job this' administration has done is much lower, down around 50 percent. It depends on which poll you read. The measure of how effective an administration is has a lot to do with other people—how well the Congress responds to my request for major legislation, like on energy or the Panama Canal treaties; how well our foreign affairs efforts are successful, for instance, the Middle East peace settlement or a SALT agreement.

So, there are some things over which we have control, where I can make a unilateral decision and that's the final word; but, in almost every instance, the President's authority and power is very severely limited.

Now, there have been conjectures in the press about whether I acted properly or improperly, effectively or ineffectively in the coal strike. This is not a matter that a President can impose. You know, there's no way that I can impose a settlement on the miners and operators that they will honor. But we did the best we could to bring about a settlement between those two groups.

So, I have mixed emotions about it. I wish that I was favorably assessed by every news reporter and by every poll. But I've tried to be frank with you. My personal rating is high; the performance of my administration causes me some concern in the polls. But it's because of some of the difficulties of issues we've tackled and the lack of cooperation of people who don't see things the same way I do.

Let me say this—I've got to go, I've another appointment at 12—but let me say this: I don't believe I've met with a group at any time in the last 13 months that had such a wide range of questions, and questions that are more profound in their importance. This is typical of young people your age.

You have a lot of responsibility on you as do I. Your position in society is one of great privilege. The fact that you're here today shows that you've been fortunate, not just endowed with talent and intelligence but also you come probably from a good, solid family background or have had benefits from government in getting scholarships that others couldn't get. And you have an advantage and a certain flexibility .of thought and analysis and perspective and a lack of heavy responsibility on your shoulders that constrains your independence of thought and also mobility.

That won't always be the case. In a few years you'll be employed in a major corporation or have your own business assignment or be teaching school or be working in a bank. And when that time comes, perhaps surprisingly to you, your freedom of expression and freedom of action and freedom of analysis will be severely restricted, because there will be an inclination on your part to conform to what the local school board or the principal of the school wants or what the president of the bank thinks or what your customers at a filling station might want you to believe.

And I really hope, as the President of the greatest country on Earth, that you won't relinquish your right and, even, responsibility for independent analysis and deep inquisitiveness and expressions of concern and open expressions of criticism when public officials like myself don't reach the standards that you've set for our country.

This is important to me. I'm a human being like you. I have a background perhaps similar to many of yours. Three years ago, I was completely unknown. I didn't have any money. I worked on my own with my family to become known enough for me to get elected to the highest office in our country. And that shows what our Nation can do.

I'm trying to do a good job. I'll make my share of mistakes. When I'm right, I need your support and your public expression of support. And I believe that in spite of its failures and faults and serious mistakes in the past which have caused doubt among people about the integrity and meaning of our government, that you won't lose that faith.

We have a kind of a self-correcting mechanism in the United States in that I'm directly responsible to you. And the public opinion polls, expressed by people who are well educated or have a special knowledge of a subject, are very important. And the voice of those with courage is very important.

Our country is so strong and so influential in the rest of the world. We're so fortunate in our country, not only in material things but in the freedom of spirit that we enjoy.

I hope that you'll emphasize not just your criticism but an expression of your faith and belief in the finest aspects of what America is.

One of the foreign policy matters that also applies domestically is in the area of human rights. I felt when I came into office that there was a sense of discouragement, an alienation and distrust among people in our country toward government because of the Vietnam war and because of Watergate and because of CIA revelations. And I felt then and feel now that there ought to be some clean, decent, clear expression by me as President, supported by you, of what our country stands for and what it has meant in the world the last 200 years.

I hope that you can help me discern those kinds of things; like peace and fairness and basic decency and human rights and honesty, that can be legitimate sources of pride for us.

I would say that political officeholders are no better or worse than any of you or those who elect us. We struggle sometimes with too much appreciation or lack of appreciation or understanding with extremely complicated issues. And when something gets on my desk in the Oval Office or arrives in the Congress for a decision, it's a matter that hasn't been resolved in spite of efforts by an individual American or family or at a city hall or county courthouse or a State capitol building. Almost inevitably, when a matter gets here to Washington, it is difficult, it is controversial, and there are sharp debates about how a resolution of an issue has to be reached.

But you are part of the process. And your voices can be very strong and very influential. And you have an ability and a freedom, which I've already described, to make your voice extraordinary in its effect.

I don't believe there's a dormancy among college-age students that has been deplored by some news analysts. I think the commitment, which can be extremely beneficial, is still there. And I think because of the outspoken nature of young people your age on the civil rights question in our country, the work of Martin Luther King and others was made possible for success. And because of the deep concern about young people your age, maybe inspired by singers like Bob Dylan and others, there was a deploring of an unnecessary and ill-advised war and a recommitment to preserving the quality of our environment. And the same opportunities exist for you as existed for previous college generations.

I thank you for coming and letting me be part of your session. I really admire what you all stand for and what you can do, and ask you to join with me in a partnership to make our great country even greater.

Thank you very much.