 Mr. President, you changed your mind on raising the drinking age. Originally, you had stood by the premise it was a state's decision. Isn't this just another example of more interference by the federal government? Well now, I'm having a little difficulty with this speaker here. I didn't catch the first part of your question. Well, from what we understand, sir, according to Transportation Secretary Dole, you changed your mind on raising the federal drinking age. You originally had stood by the premise that it was a state decision. Isn't this just another example of the federal government getting involved and something that you had always said in the past was state's rights? No, I don't think so. It's true that I am a strong advocate of state's rights and I don't like seeing the federal government across the line and intervene, although it has done so once in this particular area with the 55-mile speed limit that was born of an emergency situation. It is true also that I would have preferred if all the states had come together on the drinking age being raised to 21 and without federal interference. But when I saw the figures, there are 23 states that have now adopted the 21-age limit. The others are a little behind or in some instances have refused to go along with this. But when I saw the figures, I realized that the cause was worth this risk of the federal government intervening. In Michigan, 43% was the drop in nighttime fatalities after this was passed. In Illinois, it was 23%. In the first year after New Jersey adopted this, the fatalities among young people dropped by 39% in the first year. So I think it is worth it, but also there is some element here that could open the door to the federal government being involved. And that is the fact of the interstate situation that states with the advanced drinking age now find that in adjoining states where they still have the age much younger, they cross the line into the other states and then are faced with driving back with the result that we have seen. I had that reversed. I should say that the youngsters in the states where they have the 21 law cross the line into those that don't have it. And these percentage figures, and we're talking human lives of young people, I think warrant the action that we're suggesting. I would prefer that the other 27 states would do what the first 23 have done. Jesse Jackson is now saying he would like to go to Russia to try and get dissident Andrei Sakharov freed as similar as to what he did recently in Cuba. You apparently don't think he should be traveling around the world exercising foreign policy, at least that's the impression the media is getting because you have refused to meet with Mr. Jackson and Mr. Schultz has refused to meet with Mr. Jackson. Do you think that Reverend Jackson should stop making these trips around the world exercising U.S. policy? Well, I have to say this. I'm delighted that the humanitarian gesture for whatever reason, and I suspect very much the political reasons not on his side, but on the part of Castro in this most recent episode, had something other than humanitarianism behind it. But it isn't a case of what I think. It is a case that there is a law, the Logan Act, with regard to unauthorized personnel, civilians simply going to or citizens to other countries and in effect negotiating with foreign governments. That is the law of the land. You plan to take legal action against him, sir? No. Do you think our State Department should take action against Reverend Jackson? No, we're not going to take legal action. But I do feel that while in this instance he was successful there were things that make you pause and think. He went to Cuba with a list of some 25 Cuban political prisoners that he had been given of people that he felt warranted being freed. Only one of the prisoners that Castro released was on his original list. Now, I don't know why Castro chose to make others available not this one, but I do believe that to intervene, for example, on this very delicate matter, Sakharov ignores things that might be going on in the quiet diplomatic channels that we have going forward. Sir, unfortunately we're out of time. Thank you so much for being with us today. We look forward to seeing you in the Daytona area on July 4th. I'm looking forward to it. I'm at the Daytona with WESH TV in Orlando, Florida. Well, good to talk to you. My first question, Mr. President, you're expected to sign the bill that would order all states, including Florida, to raise their legal drinking ages to 21 within the next two years or lose their federal highway funds. Our Governor Graham is in favor of the 21-year-old age limit, but he doesn't like the way the federal government went about imposing the limit on the states calling it a violation of states' rights. How do you respond to that, sir? Well, I can understand that having been a governor myself and being a strong advocate of states' rights and wanting to get more authority in the hands of the states. On the other hand, when the figures began to come in with regard to the 23 states that have already adopted the 21 age limit, those figures made it evident that so many lives were being saved because of this age limit, and with 27 of the states either refusing or just dragging their feet on doing something about it, I felt that we were justified in this. We're talking about human lives, young lives. In Michigan, after adopting their 21 age drinking limit, the nighttime fatalities, particularly those related with alcohol, dropped by 43%. And in Illinois, it was 23%. In New Jersey, in the first year after they adopted such a law, the drop in alcohol-related accidents was 39%. Now, I think this many human lives indicate that the federal government was justified in taking this action. In addition, there is some leeway here for believing that the federal government could get involved in there is an interstate problem. A state can have a drinking age of 21, nearby state can have the younger age, and those in the youngsters that are 21 in that state then are tempted to cross the state line to do what they want to do with regard to the drinking, and then they come back driving again and are now driving having spent the day or the evening drinking. So this does bring up a kind of an interstate, I'd almost say commerce factor, but I think the cause justifies this. When you see the figures with regard to those states with the higher limit and see the penalty that the others are paying for having a lower drinking age. Mr. President Kennedy Space Center here in Florida has remained more or less the same over the past few years. Do you support an increase in that budget in the future, including a portion of the budget, which would affect the space station project? Well, the budget when we came here in 1981 was five and a half billion dollars. For 1985 we have asked and Congress has approved seven and a half billion dollars. That is a 36% increase in the budget, and for the four years we've been here the budget has increased more than the inflation rate, so we're not just covering inflation. But I believe in the space program, and now as you know we're looking forward to and have asked for research and study into a space station. And naturally the budget will reflect whatever the increased needs are for these worthwhile undertakings. Mr. President, a final question. Some Florida farmers feel a new immigration law passed by Congress puts too much responsibility on them for enforcing the law and not enough on the federal government. In the words of one Florida farmer, the government hasn't been able to control the borders for the last 50 years. Now it expects us to do it. How do you respond to that? Well, I know it's difficult, and I know that people are very concerned about this bill. On the other hand, our nation has lost control of its borders. Now we're going to do everything else. We've asked for a thousand more on the southwest border, a thousand more INS people. We want to resolve the problem with the illegal entrance. At the same time, we want some compassion for those people who have been living for a period of time in this country and have established families and roots here and have employment and all. But we have the problem of the undocumented worker coming into this country and then being victimized by some employers who know that he can't complain if he's paid less than the going wage or the minimum wage. We want to stop that. So the only way we can see is sanctions, but at the same time, we want to make sure that there is a method whereby the individual can identify themselves as being a legitimate resident of this country. And all we ask is that the employer be subject to sanctions if they are trying to go around this bill and hire knowingly undocumented workers. Well, I'm looking forward to it. Well, hello there. Good to talk to you. Thank you, sir. Mr. President, Florida's drinking age is now 19. Do you have a message for our state's young people who argue if they're holding up to vote, holding up to die for their country, they're holding up to drink? Well, the trouble is some of them are dying but not for their country. They're dying simply because of drinking and driving. And we have the evidence now with 23 states that have adopted the 21 law. We have the evidence in the figures that show that that law saves lives. In Michigan, after adopting it, the drop in this kind of fatalities was 43%. In Illinois, it was 23%. In the first year after New Jersey, adopted it was 39%. I think the numbers, the hundreds, and even thousands of young people whose lives can be saved weren't as moving to this law. The other thing is that we haven't thought about that at the younger drinking age, it is easier for people who have not yet reached that age to pass themselves off as being old enough to be sold liquor. When you raise the age somewhat, it's difficult for the 16 or the 17-year-old to pass themselves off as 21. Mr. President, how do you respond to critics who say that you're not concerned about the environment, particularly when it comes to offshore oil drilling in the Atlantic Ocean? Well, we are concerned about the environment. As a matter of fact, our regulations now to protect the environment are much greater than they have ever been before. The incident of oil spills is almost non-existent. We've had for a whole generation, we've had offshore drilling, but we also are requiring the really utmost in negotiations and discussions between states, the coastal states, and the federal government. Now, most of the offshore drilling is under state jurisdiction. It is within the three-mile limit, and these are state leases. We're talking about beyond the three-mile limit where there is probably the greatest available pool of oil all around our shores, much more than what we have on land. And we think that necessity alone dictates that we explore this. In many instances, the federal offshore wells will be far enough out that they won't even be visible from land. And as I say, I think our regulations now are such that there is a safety factor that is actually greater than the safety factor of tankers that are bringing imported oil to us from across the oceans. Mr. President, with interest rates growing up and growth here in central Florida has been phenomenal. There's a lot of concern now by people who are being squeezed out by the variable rate home mortgages. What's your personal opinion about those mortgages and should they have tighter control than they do now? No, I would not like to see the government moving into that field, but I have to tell you we're distressed by the interest rates. Frankly, I see no justification for those rates remaining where they are. Interest rates are determined by inflation. If you're going to lend money, you not only want to return an interest rate on your money, but you want to be sure that when the principal is paid back, it has the same purchasing power as it did before and the only way to achieve that is by charging enough interest to offset inflation. Now, we've reduced inflation so much that, as I say, there is no excuse for the interest rates staying where they are, and I believe the only reason for them staying there is pessimism. It's psychological. The people there in the money markets are not convinced yet that we have inflation under control. Now, for the past month or for this present, well, no, it's now the past month, June, the estimate a week or so ago was that inflation of that month was down to 2.6%. Now, that leaves a pretty high interest rate over and above that level, and we're just hoping that as we attack the deficit, as we continue to reduce government, the growth in government spending, that they will realize we do intend to keep inflation down. Are you going to exert any more personal pressure, sir, to bring down interest rates, say, against the Federal Reserve? Well, it isn't the Federal Reserve at this time. As a matter of fact, Paul Volcker uttered the same thing about this being psychology that I have just uttered. The Federal Reserve has been increasing the money supply at the upper limits of its growth rate, commensurate with the growth rate in productivity and in the economy. Now, that's all we ask for is that the money supply be increased so as to keep pace with the growth in the economy and not at a rate that would bring back inflation. Mr. President, thank you very much. We're looking forward to seeing you and Daytona on Wednesday. Well, I'm looking forward to it. Chris, glad to talk to you. Of course, there's a lot of interest here in South Texas in the Simpson-Mazoli bill, and it has now gone through the House, surprised a number of people here. What are your personal feelings about that version of the bill? Well, I'm a little constrained as yet because it's still in conference, and there are two versions now, and the conference committee, when they come back from recess, will then take up the matter of resolving their differences. Actually, the differences are not very great, and it is reasonably close to what we ask the Congress for. So I'm hopeful that they'll come together on something that I can sign. Don't see any circumstances under which you might veto it? Well, I never like to talk about that. It would have to have some elements in it that I don't think are there right now, but I never really discuss veto or no veto until I see what's on my desk. But I believe that it is a legitimate effort to regain control of our borders. We know that in that about 120 miles of the 2,000-mile border, that 120 miles in the southwest is our greatest problem, and we have approved a thousand more INS personnel. There's a lot of fear among Hispanics in this area that perhaps they'd have to carry some sort of ID card or something like that to prove their citizens, even though their families have been for decades. What would you say to them? Well, we want to take every precaution we can to see that there won't be what so many fear, just an automatic ruling of them out as employees. That would be unconscionable, and we want to be very careful that while we have safeguards to prevent employers from hiring the undocumented workers, that at the same time, there is no discrimination against those who will be legalized under this bill, those who may still be undocumented but who've lived here for a long period of time, put down roots in our society. We want to give them the right to legally live here and those who, as you say, are citizens. Now, it may require some evidence, but I don't think it would be anything onerous or heavy for anyone to bear. Again, somewhat. I believe you said before you don't think they have anything to do with the deficit. What do you think is causing them? I think simply the pessimism and the part of so many out-of-the-money market, their unwillingness or inability to believe that we do have inflation under control. Now, inflation has been at 3.6% for the first quarter of this year. The month of June, it was estimated that it would probably come in at 2.6%, so we're still going in the right direction. It is their fear of lending money and then having inflation go up as it has seven times before this in recessions since World War II. But this is a different kind of recovery. It isn't based on artificial stimulants of the economy, the quick fix, so-called, that we've had before. This is a legitimate recovery and expansion with the creation of some 6 million new jobs in the last 18 months alone, things of that kind, so that I think maybe if we can persuade the Congress to even more cuts in the spending growth, they'll begin to see that we're serious about fighting inflation. Do you think you can... Yes, I do. Sort of a personal question here around the July 4th holiday. A lot of people still, everyone, I suppose, still believes in America that just about anybody can grow up to be president and patriotism is increasing. Could you tell us what is the first time you remember ever thinking I'd like to be president someday? Well, you believe I never had such a thought. I always believed that you pay your way, so when I was in show business and, therefore, had some ability to attract an audience, I used to campaign for people I believed in and causes I believed in. As a matter of fact, for much of my life, I was a member of the other party, the Democrat Party, and campaigned for them. And then when I found I could no longer follow the course that the party had taken, I became a Republican. But when they first appealed to me, a group to run for governor of California on the basis that I had the best chance of defeating the incumbent after all the work I'd done in politics, I fought as hard as I could against it and said no for them to find a candidate and I would campaign for the candidate. I have to say, however, after those years in public service, when I gave in finally and did that reluctantly, I found it the most rewarding and fulfilling experience of my entire life. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. It's Scott here. Thanks for being with us. Well, it's a great pleasure. The Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Bill. A lot of folks down here in Texas don't like it for a lot of different reasons. People say it handles illegals in an arbitrary fashion, that it will produce discrimination against the legal Hispanics here, that it's going to hurt businessmen, that it's going to be costly, that it won't be effective. Do you think it's fair? Do you think it's balanced? Do you think it's cost-effective? Yes, I think the bill is introduced. Is cost-effective and is fair? And it's also necessary because the simple truth is we've lost control of our borders and no country can afford that. Now, all of the things that people are fearing, these are very solid and real considerations of ours. And I'm convinced that we can protect our Hispanic American citizens from discrimination just on the basis that an employer might be afraid to hire them. We're going to protect their rights. At the same time, we're also going to have compassion and legalize those who came here some time ago and have legitimately put roots down in our living as legal residents of our country, even though illegal, we're going to make them legal. We also, I think in this bill, are taking action against those employers who literally entice illegal entry into the country and with the promise of jobs but then take advantage of those individuals knowing they can't complain and pay them less than scale, deny them things that they should have in their employment simply because they are in a sense being blackmailed by the employer because of their illegal status. And we want to put an end to that. But I think all these other objections can be met because we simply intend to meet them. Why, then, sir, of your most ardent supporters down here in Texas fought you on this bill and might not have cost you in this state come fall? Well, I hope that they would give us the benefit of the doubt and recognize how much we mean to protect their interests. Let's talk about Social Security a moment. A lot of people in this country, Democrat and Republican economists, tend to feel that we can't get a handle on the government deficits and we can't get a handle on straightening out Social Security unless some fundamental change is made in it next year. Now, why aren't any of the presidential candidates talking about this? Or can you guarantee us that come 1985 you won't have to go at Social Security with an axe? Well, there's one thing we will not do. We will not pull the rug out from under those people who are presently getting Social Security and are dependent on it. Nor has that ever been our intention in spite of a lot of political demagoguery that flowed out of Washington and was multiplied as it went out through the country and that somehow we were out to destroy this program. Since we've been here, we have increased the Social Security payments for the average marriage couple by $170 a month. More people are getting it and getting more than ever have before. If there is anything needed to be done to that program and these are things that we'll be looking at in the coming years, it will have to do with people are presently paying in and whether they're being fairly treated because if you'll remember the biggest single tax increase in our nation's history was passed in 1977 before we got here and it is in the Social Security payroll tax and there is a possibility or probability that many people, young people now paying in will never be able to receive as much as they're paying but no plan will be allowed to reduce the payments to the present recipients of Social Security. This has been my pledge from the very beginning. As a layman, you'd be in a unique position to be able to do some courageous political things without having to worry about re-election. If there is a major tax reform bill, for example, do you anticipate that you might support, for example, removing tax deductions on home mortgages? No, this came out of a discussion I had with a panel recently on a trip out in the country and I was talking generally about all the areas that are being explored, whether flat tax or whatever it might be in reforming the income tax. The income tax, the base must be broadened because there are $100 billion in tax not being paid by people who legitimately owe it today. This is one thing we want to do but we also mean to simplify it. It is absolutely too complex when the taxpayer has to hire professional help to find out how much he or she owes the government. That's not fair. But no, I believe that the mortgage interest deduction is legitimate and is proper and I stand for it. You're in good health and good luck, you sir. Thank you. Deborah Daniels at KSAT in San Antonio. How do you do? I'd like to ask you about the Simpson-Mazzoli bill. It's created a lot of controversy here in South Texas. We're so close to Mexico. A lot of people don't like it. How do you feel about it and do you think it's going to solve our immigration problem? Yes, I think it is as well as they can be solved. We've lost control of our borders. There's no question about that and it is necessary and would be necessary for any country in that situation to do something about it. Now we recognize the great problem is in 120 miles of our border about that much down in the Southwest but we think that the program is going to provide for documented workers crossing the border to fill needs particularly in agriculture. We think that we with compassion are going to recognize the problem of those undocumented immigrants to our country who have been here for a number of years who've established a base and a home and put down roots and we're going to legalize them. And I think we are also in this bill going to stop the exploiting of the undocumented worker by some employers who hire them much more cheaply than the law should allow and do so because it's a form of blackmail they know that the individual can't complain because of their undocumented status. So all of these things we're trying to solve in this problem. Now there may be some glitches here or there but believe me we don't want any penalty imposed on people simply because someone is reluctant to take a chance on hiring them because of their Hispanic heritage and we're going to do everything we can to protect against that. I think that the bill can be worked out to the point that it will resolve some of our worst problems and will benefit a great many people presently living in this country. Mr. President the Hispanics are a growing political force. I'd like to know how important you feel the Hispanic vote will be in the upcoming election and what are the Republicans and your administration offering Hispanics? Well let me say that they are very important as they were in 1980 and you bet I want their vote. Well I'd like to have everybody's vote but I'm going to try very hard for them. I think at the same time that we have more to offer them than they've been offered over the last few decades by the philosophy of the other party. The other party has believed in handouts, grants, welfare, the making of people dependent and in my view the Americans of Hispanic origin their values are based on family and religion on all the basic good values of ethics and work ethic and they want to be independent and that's what we offer is opportunity. Our program is one aimed at offering them not the dependency of having to hold out their hand for government to give them a handout forever in bondage to the government. I'll offer jobs, opportunities, a chance to be self-sustaining to provide for themselves and their families and I think this is what the average Hispanic American wants more than anything else and we're offering it. I'd like to put the same question to you about women. We're hearing a lot about the gender gap as the election closes in. What is the Republican Party doing to attract women? I am glad you asked me that. I don't believe that any administration in this country has ever done as much as this administration is doing with regard to discrimination against women in the marketplace or wherever it might be employment in government and all. First of all, we have out of the 4,000 appointments that I can make in government. Almost half of those are women. There has never been anything like that. Secondly, there's never been three women on the cabinet before as there are now and I have appointed the first woman to be a justice at the Supreme Court but that is only scratching the surface. No other administration has gone through as we're going through all the statutes, all the federal laws and regulations to find and eliminate those that contain language that is discriminatory against women. We have already implemented this in hundreds of those regulations. We have people in 50 states that are working toward doing the same thing because I had done that as governor in California in the state statutes and laws. Our tax policies that we put into effect has reduced the marriage penalty tax. We have almost doubled the tax credit for working mothers for childcare credit that they must have. We have removed the so-called widow's tax from inheritances. No tax due on the inheritance. All of these things have added up to more advantages for women than as I say have ever been provided by any administration and maybe it's beginning to get around because just last week some national polls revealed that the gender gap has turned the other way by a slight margin a majority of women have announced themselves as supportive of our administration. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Well, thank you.