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

THE. PRESIDENT. First of all, let me welcome you to the White House. I know you've had a good briefing this morning and have some more scheduled for this afternoon.

FISCAL YEAR 1981 BUDGET

The most important thing, I think, that's happened in the last 2 days has been my submission to the Congress of a very tight budget for fiscal year 1981. This is a budget that cuts the deficit substantially, 75 percent below what it was when I was elected President. As a matter of fact, when I came into office, the deficit was about 4.6 percent of the gross national product, and the 1981 fiscal year budget has reduced that 4.6 percent down to sixtenths of 1 percent.

This has been in spite of severe pressures to continue wasteful spending in our country. As a matter of fact, the House is now considering a very wasteful, inflationary, pork-barrel water projects bill which would cost the taxpayers about $4.3 billion, and include about 125 water projects that are not needed, in my opinion, the total value of which would be about $2.5 billion. Many of these projects have not even been assessed by either the Department of Interior or by the Corps of Engineers. They've just been added in to build up a very large and wasteful bill that has projects covering about 70 percent of all the congressional districts in the Nation.

This is a bill that also opens up a Pandora's box for possible wasteful spending in the future, because it includes complete Federal financing, for instance, for our local water systems. This is something that's always in the past been a responsibility of local governments with some Federal assistance. This could cost about $10 billion more in the future if it establishes a precedent.

I intend to oppose these kinds of threats to our Federal budget and believe that we have an attitude in our Nation that will support my position on these restrictive spending measures. The budget does include adequate financing for defense. It includes a very fine program for energy. It includes research and development and other commitments to a long-range restoration of our economic viability. And of course, we have one major new domestic program in the youth employment bill. But I'm very insistent that this budget be protected and that pork-barrel bills and other wasteful bills, like the ones I've described to you, will not be passed.

It might be better for me now to answer your questions about this or other matters, and I'll try- to keep my answers brief so I can get as many questions as possible.

QUESTIONS

U.S. CARIBBEAN POLICY

Q. Mr. President, Tomas Regalado, from Miami. In the Caribbean there are about 43 oil refineries and a lot of islands who are becoming independent. Now there is Cuba as a Soviet military base. Do you consider the Caribbean an area of vital interest of the United States?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, obviously, the Caribbean is of great interest to our country and is our closest group of neighbors. I see no military threat to the integrity of the nations in the Caribbean from an outside force and therefore .don't consider it to be necessary to define it as one of vital interest where military action by our own country would be necessary to defend it. But the economic ties, the ties of mutual security, the ties of friendship, tourism, kinship by blood, with large numbers of Caribbean citizens living in our Nation, all make it a very important area to our country. But I would not want to threaten military force there.

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Q. Mr. President, Mr. Eizenstat this morning indicated that in about 2 weeks you'll be submitting a proposal to Congress dealing with nuclear waste disposal. Could you give us any indication at this time what exactly you will be proposing?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think it would be ill-advised for me to try to spell out in detail what it will be. I have approved the basic elements of the waste disposal proposal to Congress, and now they are being put into legal format so that they can be presented officially. It will be a long-range program consisting of a careful analysis over a several year period. It would involve the approval of the waste disposal sites by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It would involve disposal for both military-derived wastes and also those derived from the production of power. It would encompass the means of coordinating our disposal efforts not only with Federal officials but also State and local officials.

It's an extremely complicated proposal that we've been working on now for almost 2 years. This comes more than 35 years after a Federal program was necessary for a nuclear waste disposal policy. And I hope that the Congress will consider it rapidly. But I think that outline is probably adequate for the present time.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Q. Last week TVA Chairman Dave Freeman urged all TVA employees, including Directors, to continue the long tradition of avoiding partisan politics. He was answered the next day by Director Bob Clement, who endorsed you. Both of them are your appointees. Do you have any comment?

THE PRESIDENT. No. I think it would be ill-advised to get the TVA involved in partisan politics. It just happens that all three members now have been appointed by me. They were not chosen, as you know, on a political basis. I think they're all qualified persons.

We've tried to work very closely with TVA. In fact, just recently, Doug Costle, the director of the Environmental Protection Agency, went down to meet with Dave Freeman and others to work out for the future a better means by which TVA could not only provide necessary services for an entire region of the Nation, including where I live, but also could set an example for conservation efforts and also for the honoring of requirements on the protection of the quality of air and water.

But I think it would be better for the TVA to avoid any involvement in partisan politics.

INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES

Q. In response to your State of the Union address last week, on the CIA: Do you think Congress is going to be willing to revamp their reporting roles in letting them do some work they visualize in doing?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I think so. We obviously don't want to wipe out all restraints on the intelligence agencies. We want to be accountable not only to the Congress but to the American people. And obviously I have to have the ultimate responsibility for any violations of propriety that might be threatened by the intelligence agencies. But I think there has been an excessive requirement for reporting in the past. There's been an excessive requirement for the revelation of highly sensitive documents. And there's been an excessive restraint on what the CIA and other intelligence groups could do. But we'll be very cautious, as we evolve this new charter, not to permit any improprieties by the CIA in the future.

The Executive order that I issued after I'd been in office for about a year or so is the basis for the kind of charter principles that we personally favor. And I will be meeting, by the way, with the Intelligence Committee members tomorrow, some of them, to iron out any remaining differences of opinion between my own administration and the Congress. But I think there's a fairly good meeting of the minds already on what originally seemed to be some very sharp divisions of opinion.

U.S. POLICY IN PERSIAN GULP AREA

Q. Mr. President, in view of our having drawn the line, so to speak, in the Middle East, can you reassure us, and I hope everyone in the Nation, that we do indeed have what it takes militarily to draw that line and to make it stick?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we can protect our interests there. Obviously we .don't intend and never have claimed to have the ability unilaterally to defeat any threat to that region with ease. What we called for was an analysis by all those nations who are there who might be threatened. We'll cooperate with them, as they request and as they desire, to strengthen their own defense capabilities.

Secondly, we'll be coordinating our efforts with nations who are not located in the region, but who are heavily dependent, even more than we are, on an uninterrupted supply of oil from that region. Third, we'll be arousing the consciousness of the other nations in the world to condemn any threat to the peace of that region. And the last thing is that we'll be increasing both our own military capability and our own military presence in the region surrounding Southwest Asia, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East.

But I don't think it would be accurate for me to claim that at this time, or in the future, we expect to have enough military strength and enough military presence there to defend the region unilaterally, absent the kind of cooperation that I've described to you.

Q. Mr. President, we heard Mr. Aaron prior to this meeting. He spoke of the continuing challenge in the Persian Gulf area and spoke of sacrifices that the American public is going to be called on to make in the long-term future. Can you enumerate any of those sacrifices?

THE PRESIDENT. What kind of channels did you say? I couldn't quite hear you.

Q. Challenge to the American people, to the United States.

THE PRESIDENT. Oh, challenge. Well, I think the sacrifices have already been delineated fairly well by me. It will require some commitment to an increased defense capability. It will require the Americans to help finance the kind of common effort that I just outlined in the previous question, to maintain the stability and independence of the nations there. On occasion it will require foreign aid, both of an economic and military type, if the countries involved can't finance their own legitimate needs, as judged by us, including the Congress, of course.

We will have to cut down on our dependence on Mideast oil, in fact imported oil in general, and this will require what I think is a very beneficial sacrifice by the American people, both to produce more energy here at home and to cut down on the waste of energy that's presently prevailing in our country. I think the prime consideration, though, will be for the sustained commitment of the American people, in the spirit of unity of common purpose, to recognize that the peace can be maintained in the world only if we are prepared to stay strong, both here and overseas.

I've been pleased at the support of our policies so far in both the Iranian and the Afghanistan crises, and I also was pleased less than a year ago when we were embarked on the second phase of trying to bring peace between Israel and Egypt. This also called upon the American people not only to go through a sensitive negotiating period with trust and confidence in me but also, at the conclusion of the signing of the Mideast peace treaty in May, a substantial increase in both economic and military aid for Israel and Egypt. I think it was an outstanding investment, compared to what may have been called for in the future had those two nations not been strong, viable, and at peace with one another.

But there's a gamut of responsibilities that the American people must assume. Some require increased Federal expenditures for various kinds of aid that I've just outlined; others require just a firm, resolute will and a spirit of unity to meet a challenge with determination, and to let any potential aggressor know that that aggression will result in a very severe punitive action on our part and on the part of other nations in the world.

6-YEAR TERM OF OFFICE

Q. Mr. President, given the complexity of world issues and the time that you're having to devote to them these days, have you given any thought to the possibility of a one-term, 6-year term for the Presidency as something that might be advantageous in the modern complex society, so you wouldn't have to worry about—

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I've thought about it more the last few months than I have before. [Laughter]

As a matter of fact, I think it's accurate to say that I'm the first Democratic President in 32 years who's had to run the affairs of the Nation and at the same time run a sustained political campaign. It's an extra burden on a President that I think every President would like to avoid. But it's part of our political system, which I certainly don't want to change.

I would personally favor a single 6-year term. I don't see any great pressure on the Congress or the American people to make the change, but I think it would be better. I've observed other countries that have this kind of provision in their constitution, who are democracies—for instance Venezuela, Mexico—and it seems to work very well. But I think that that would be a good move.

It's not a critical need in our Nation, but it certainly would be beneficial for me right now.

CAMPAIGN TRAVEL PLANS

Q. Mr. President, you seem to be doing very well just by staying home, politically speaking. Do you have any plans to go to New Hampshire or Massachusetts next month?

THE PRESIDENT. I've always left that option open, depending on how much of my time is required here, and how much of a realization there needs to be sustained in our Nation that we have not forgotten the American hostages, who are still being held at this moment, illegally, by kidnapers, in an attempt to blackmail our country. This is just as much a preoccupation of mine now as it was a month ago or longer. And I have said that until this crisis is resolved I would not conduct partisan political campaign efforts.

But somewhere between that, which would be like debating and going to fundraising events and so forth, and having regional news conferences or even, say, a regional townhall meeting, there's a wide range of opportunities that I would have. I don't consider myself to be confined to the White House as such, but I do think it's better for me, in a time with Afghanistan and with the hostages being held, not to go out and assume the role of a partisan political campaigner.

REGISTRATION AND THE DRAFT

Q. Mr. President, are you going to ask Congress to draft my daughter?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any intention at this time to reinstitute the draft. As I said in my State of the Union message, "I believe"—I think is the words I used—"that the present volunteer force is adequate." But I think it's good for us to take precautionary steps in revitalizing the Selective Service itself and commencement of registration for the draft.

Following that, if necessary, because of changing circumstances—not under existing circumstances—there would then be a classification of those registered to determine who should or who should not be called for service. And then following that, of course, if necessary, there would be an actual drafting of people for various kinds of service. But I see no need at this time to move toward an actual drafting of people. But I am going to go ahead with the registration.

Q. Would you register women for it?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, that's a question that I will answer within the next few days. I have my own opinion now that I'm not ready to announce. But I've been consulting with various people in the Defense Department and among my. women advisers. And I'll make that recommendation when the legislative proposal goes to the Congress.

U.S. FOREIGN POLICY; SOVIET INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN

Q. Senator Kennedy said yesterday that he is tired of seeing young men being sent to fight the wars—or whatever—for the failure of older men to enact good foreign policy. How do you feel about that? He also claimed that you knew about Afghanistan, the Russian appearance, before it actually happened—you knew about their moves beforehand. How do you answer that?

THE PRESIDENT. Do I get my choice of those questions? [Laughter]

I haven't sent any young men to fight. I've tried to keep our country at peace. And so far I thank God that we have not had any American service men or women give their lives in combat since I've been in office. I hope I can go out of this White House with the same record intact. But I think one of the requirements for that hope to be realized is to keep our Nation strong and prepared, and to let any potential threat to our Nation to be identified early, and to let our national unity and resolve be known by a potential adversary. I think, as a matter of fact, it's been 56 years or something like that since a President has served out a term in the White House that he hasn't sent young men to die in some form of combat.

But we did have adequate intelligence prior to the Soviets' action in Afghanistan. We knew about the degree of their buildup. We let our deep concern be expressed directly and forcefully to the Soviet Union. We did not know ahead of time that they would have a massive invasion of Afghanistan, as they did, but we did know that they were building up a capability for it.

They ignored our warning. At the time the invasion commenced we began to marshal not only our own condemnation and actions to let them realize the consequences but also to marshal the support of other nations around the world. And I think the unprecedented condemnation of the Soviet Union expressed by 104 nations in the United Nations, for instance, was a good indication that other countries also condemn the Soviet Union.

We were not caught by surprise, but there was no way to anticipate that they would actually invade Afghanistan. We did know about their high presence there and also about their buildup.

ECONOMIC POLICIES

Q. Sir, one of the things that Senator Kennedy said last night was that this administration has continued a set of Republican economic policies. Is that in response to what you see as a more conservative mood in the country, or do you think that's inaccurate?

THE PRESIDENT. My record in the last 3 years has been consistent. I think the most serious threat to our domestic strength is from inflation. One reason is that we've had outstanding luck in cutting down the unemployment rate and putting Americans to work. I could quote statistics to you, but I won't go into any detail. We have added a net of 9 million new jobs. We've increased black employment by 15 percent. We cut the unemployment rate by 25 percent.

At the same time we've had inflation now for 12 years. We've tried to deal with it in varying ways. It has increased very modestly, if one could eliminate energy and food. We have seen wage demands pretty well stabilized. As a matter of fact, wage increases for 1979 were less than wage increases for 1978. I've tried to hold down the increase in spending each year and still meet the legitimate needs of our country. I think I've been successful.

You might be interested in knowing that in the 1960's spending in real terms increased 3.9 percent per year. In the 1970's, before I came into office, spending in real terms each year increased an average of 3 percent. Since I've been in office, the spending in real terms has increased, I think, 1.3 percent. And for the 1981 budget that I just submitted, real spending has only increased two-tenths of 1 percent.

So, we've tried to hold down unwarranted spending. But I don't think anybody could point to an element of American societal life that hasn't been adequately funded by the budgets that I have submitted. We've tried to make up for the tight spending limits by increased efficiency. And in my judgment we've been successful. Ms. BARIO. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you, sir.