Mr. Smith we have to go to another question now, from harry ellis to president carter. Mr. Ellis mr. President , as you have said, americans, through conservation, are importing much less oil today than we were even a year ago. Yet u. S. Dependence on arab oil as a percentage of total imports is today much higher than it was at the time of the 1973 arab oil embargo, and for some time to came, the loss of substantial amounts of arab oil could plunge the u. S. Into depression. This means that a bridge must be built out of this dependence. Can the United States develop Synthetic Fuels and other alternative Energy Sources without damage to the environment, and will this process mean steadily higher fuel bills for American Families . Pres. Carter i dont think theres any doubt that, in the future, the cost of oil is going to go up. We will drill more oil and gas wells this year than any year in history. We will produce more coal this year than any year in history. We are exporting more coal this year than any year in history. And we have an opportunity now , with improved Transportation Systems and improved loading facilities in our ports, to see a very Good Opportunity on a World International market, to replace opec oil with american coal as a basic energy source. Only give us more energy security, but it will also open up fast opportunities for americans to live a better life and to have millions of new Jobs Associated with this new and very dynamic industry now in prospect because of the new Energy Policy that weve put into effect. Mr. Smith would you repeat the question now for governor reagan . Mr. Ellis governor reagan, americans, through conservation, are importing much less oil today than we were even a year ago. And yet, u. S. Reliance on arab oil as a percentage of total imports is much higher today than it was during the 1973 arab oil embargo. And, the substantial loss of arab oil could plunge the United States into depression. The question is whether the development of alternative Energy Sources, in order to reduce this dependence, can be done without damaging the environment, and will it mean for American Families steadily higher fuel bills . Mr. Reagan im not so sure that it means steadily higher fuel costs, but i do believe that this nation has been portrayed for too long a time to the people as being energypoor when it is energyrich. The coal that the president mentioned, yes, we have it and yet oneeighth of our total Coal Resources is not being utilized at all right now. The mines are closed down, there are 22,000 miners out of work. Most of this is due to regulations which either interfere with the mining of it or prevent the burning of it . With our modern technology, yes, we can burn our coal within the limits of the clean air act. I think, as technology improves, well be able to do even better with that. The other thing is that we have only leased out, begun to explore 2 of our outer Continental Shelf for oil, where it is believed, by everyone familiar with that fuel and that source of energy, that there are vast supplies yet to be found. Our government has, in the last year or so, taken out of multiple use millions of acres of public lands that once were, well, they were public lands subject to multiple use exploration for minerals and so forth. It is believed that probably 70 of the potential oil in the United States is probably hidden in those lands, and no one is allowed to even go and explore to find out if it is there. This is particularly true of the recent efforts to shut down part of alaska. Nuclear power. There were 36 power plants planned in this country. And let me add the word safety; it must be done with the utmost of safety. But 32 of those have given up and canceled their plans to build, and again, because government regulations and permits, and so forth, take make it take more than twice as long to build a Nuclear Plant in the United States as it does to build one in japan or in western europe. We have the sources here. We are energy rich, and coal is one of the great potentials we have. Mr. Smith president carter, your comment . Mr. Carter to repeat myself, we have this year the opportunity, which well realize, to produce 800 million tons of coal, an unequaled record in the history of our country. Governor reagan says that this is not a good achievement, and he blames restraints on Coal Production on regulations, regulations that affect the life and the health and safety of miners, and also regulations that protect the purity of our air and the quality our water and our land. We cannot cast aside these regulations. We have a chance in the next 15 years, insisting upon the health and safety of workers in the mines, and also preserving the same high air and Water Pollution standards, to triple the amount of coal we produce. Governor reagans approach to our Energy Policy, which has already proven its effectiveness, is to repeal, or to change substantially, the windfall profits tax profits tax to return a major , portion of 227 billion back to the oil companies, to do away with the department of energy, to shortcircuit our Synthetic Fuels program, to put a minimal emphasis on solar power, to emphasize strongly Nuclear Power plants as a major source of energy in the future. He wants to put all our eggs in one basket and give that basket to the major oil companies. Mr. Smith governor reagan. Mr. Reagan that is a misstatement, of course, of my position. I just happen to believe that Free Enterprise can do a better job of producing the things that people need than government can. The department of energy has a multibilliondollar budget in excess of 10 billion. It hasnt produced a quart of oil or a lump of coal, or anything else in the line of energy. And, for mr. Carter to suggest that i want to do away with the safety laws and with the laws that pertain to clean water and clean air, and so forth, as governor of california, i took charge of passing the strictest air pollution laws in the United States, the strictest air quality law that has even been adopted in the United States. And we created an osha, an Occupational Safety and health agency, for the protection of employees before the federal government had one in place. And to this day, not one of its decisions or rulings has ever been challenged. So, i think some of those charges are missing the point. I am suggesting that there are literally thousands of unnecessary regulations that invade every facet of business, and indeed, very much of our personal lives, that are unnecessary, that government can do without, that have added 130 billion to the cost of production in this country, and that are contributing their part to inflation. And i would like to see us a little more free, as we once were. Mr. Smith president carter, another crack at that . Mr. Carter sure. As a matter of fact, the air pollution standard laws that were passed in california were passed over the objections of governor reagan, and this is a very wellknown fact. Also, recently, when someone suggested that the Occupational Safety and health act should be abolished, governor reagan responded, amen. The offshore drilling rights is a question that governor reagan raises often. As a matter of fact, in the proposal for the alaska lands legislation, 100 of all the offshore lands would be open for exploration, and 95 of all the alaska lands, where it is suspected or believed that minerals might exist. We have, with our fiveyear plan for the leasing of offshore lands, proposed more land to be drilled than has been opened up for drilling since this Program First started in 1954. So were not putting restraints on american exploration, were encouraging it in every way we can. Mr. Smith governor reagan, you have the last word on this question. Mr. Reagan yes. If it is a wellknown fact that i opposed air pollution laws in california, the only thing i can possibly think of is that the president must be suggesting the law that the federal government tried to impose on the state of california not a law, but regulations that would have made it impossible to drive an automobile within the city limits of any california city, or to have a place to put it if you did drive it against their regulations. It would have destroyed the economy of california and, i must say, we had the support of congress when we pointed out how ridiculous this attempt was by the Environmental Protection agency. We still have the strictest air control, or air pollution laws in the country. As for offshore oiling, only 2 now is so leased and is producing oil. The rest, as to whether the lands are going to be opened in the next five years or so, were already five years behind in what we should be doing. There is more oil now in the wells that have been drilled, than has been taken out in 121 years that theyve been drilled. Mr. Smith thank you, governor. Thank you, mr. President. The next question goes to governor reagan from william hilliard. Mr. Hilliard governor reagan, wage earners in this country, especially the young, are supporting a Social Security system that continues to affect their income drastically. The system is fostering a struggle between the young and the old, and is drifting the country toward a polarization of these two groups. How much longer can the young wage earner expect to bear the everincreasing burden of the Social Security system . Mr. Reagan the Social Security system was based on a false premise, with regard to how fast the number of workers would increase and how fast the number of retirees would increase. It is actuarially out of balance, and this first became evident about 16 years ago, and some of us were voicing warnings then. Now, it is trillions of dollars out of balance, and the only answer that has come so far is the biggest single tax increase in our nations history, the payroll tax increase for Social Security which will only put a bandaid on this and postpone the day of reckoning by a few years at most. What is needed is a study that i have proposed by a task force of experts to look into this entire problem as to how it can be reformed and made actuarially sound, but with the premise that no one presently dependent on Social Security is going to have the rug pulled out from under them and not get their check. We cannot frighten, as we have with the threats and the Campaign Rhetoric that has gone on in this campaign, our Senior Citizens, leave them thinking that in some way, theyre endangered and they would have no place to turn. They must continue to get those checks, and i believe that the system can be put on a sound actuarial basis. But its going to take some study and some work, and not just passing a tax increase to let the load or the roof fall in on the next administration. Mr. Smith would you repeat that question for president carter . Mr. Hilliard yes. President carter, wage earners in this country, especially the young, are supporting a Social Security system that continues to affect their income drastically. The system is fostering a struggle between young and old and is drifting the country toward a polarization of these two groups. How much longer can the young wage earner expect to bear the everincreasing burden of the Social Security system . Mr. Carter as long as there is a democratic president in the white house, we will have a strong and viable Social Security system, free of the threat of bankruptcy. Although governor reagan has changed his position lately, on four different occasions, he has advocated making Social Security a voluntary system, which would, in effect, very quickly bankrupt it. I noticed also in the wall street journal early this week, that a preliminary report of his task force advocates making Social Security more sound by reducing the adjustment in Social Security for the retired people to compensate for the impact of inflation. These kinds of approaches are very dangerous to the security, the well being and the peace of mind of the retired people of this country and those approaching retirement age. But, no matter what it takes in the future to keep Social Security sound, it must be kept that way. And, although there was a serious threat to the Social Security system and its integrity during the 1976 campaign and when i became president , the action of the Democratic Congress working with me has been to put Social Security back on a sound financial basis. That is the way it will stay. Mr. Smith governor reagan . Mr. Reagan well, that just isnt true. It has, as i said, delayed the actuarial imbalance falling on us for just a few years with that increase in taxes, and i dont believe we can go on increasing the tax, because the problem for the young people today is that they are paying in far more than they can ever expect to get out. Now, again this statement that somehow, i wanted to destroy it and i just changed my tune, that i am for voluntary Social Security, which would mean the ruin of it. Mr. President , the voluntary thing that i suggested many years ago was that a young man, orphaned and raised by an aunt who died, his aunt was ineligible for Social Security insurance because she was not his mother. And i suggested that if this is an insurance program, certainly the person who is paying in should be able to name his own beneficiary. That is the closest i have ever come to anything voluntary with Social Security. I, too, am pledged to a Social Security program that will reassure these Senior Citizens of ours that they are going to continue to get their money. There are some changes that i would like to make. I would like to make a change in the regulation that discriminates against a wife who works and finds that she then is faced with a choice between her fathers or her husbands benefits, if he dies first, or what she has paid in, but it does not recognize that she has also been paying in herself, and she is entitled to more than she presently can get. Id like to change that. Mr. Smith president carters rebuttal now. Mr. Carter these constant suggestions that the basic Social Security system should be changed does cause concern and consternation among the aged of our country. It is obvious that we should have a commitment to them, that Social Security benefits should not be taxed and that there would be no peremptory change in the standards by which Social Security payments are made to retired people. We also need to continue to index Social Security payments, so that if inflation rises, the Social Security payments would rise a commensurate degree to let the buying power of a Social Security check continue intact. In the past, the relationship between Social Security and medicare has been very important to providing some modicum of aid for Senior Citizens in the retention of health benefits. Governor reagan, as a matter of fact, began his political career campaigning around this nation against medicare. Now, we have an opportunity to move toward National Health insurance, with an emphasis on the prevention of disease, an emphasis on outpatient care, not inpatient care, an emphasis on hospital Cost Containment to hold down the cost of hospital care far those who are ill, an emphasis on Catastrophic Health insurance, so that if a family is threatened with being wiped out economically because of a very high medical bill, then the insurance would help pay for it. These are the kinds of elements of a National Health insurance, important to the American People. Governor reagan, again, typically, is against such a proposal. Mr. Smith governor . Mr. Reagan when i opposed medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the congress. I happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought that it would be better for the Senior Citizens and provide better care than the one that was finally passed. I was not opposing the principle of providing care for them. I was opposing one piece of legislation versus another. There is Something Else about Social Security. Of course, it doesnt come out of the payroll tax. It comes out of a general