Interview With the President Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Newhouse Newspaper Editors.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, first of all, let me welcome all of you to the White House. Some of you have been here before; a few of you have not. But you represent news media that are very important throughout our Nation, and I wanted to take a few minutes to outline one or two basic problems on which we are working at this time, and then spend what remaining minutes we have with my answering your questions.

ADMINISTRATION POLITICS

Domestically, we are going through a very severe transition phase from overdependence on foreign oil to the evolution of a very good, sound, adequate energy policy for our country based on two elements. One is to reduce consumption through conservation, and secondly, to produce more energy in our own Nation.

The unbelievable 150-percent increase in the price of oil in the last 18 months has had a severe adverse impact on inflation throughout the world, and obviously it's affected our country with both high inflation rates and high interest rates. These high interest rates in particular have adversely affected the production of things like automobiles and the building of homes.

The first part of March we put forward a good anti-inflation program, working with the Federal Reserve and the Congress, to go toward a balanced budget, to restrict consumer spending, and to take other action that's been very effective so far. Interest rates are dropping precipitously, and we believe that the inflation rates will drop substantially during the summer months and toward the second part of this year.

Now we're dealing with budget questions which are very difficult to handle. We are committed to a balanced budget; within that budget there must be a proper allotment of resources between defense and domestic programs. On our defense program, which I put to the Congress back in November and have committed to continue now for 5 years, we have built into it a 4-percent real growth in appropriations each year for 5 years. That's above and beyond the inflation rate. It's adequate; it's approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and others.

The Congress, however, has added on top of that additional spending at the expense of domestic programs. And as we go through this time of recession which is now on us, we really need to have programs designed to keep Americans at work and to meet the needs of education, training, and the prevention of deterioration in our most severely impacted cities and communities around the Nation. We cannot afford to cheat the American people on domestic programs with an unnecessary allocation of funds from domestic programs to defense expenditures.

This is why I will oppose and have announced my opposition to the first budget resolution by the Congress. This is not a resolution that has to come to me, but with the so-called reconciliation language, it is severely binding in the coming weeks on the authorization committees and the appropriations committees. A final judgment is being made to an unprecedented degree by this first budget resolution as to what the Congress can do in the remainder of this year in preparing the 1981 fiscal year budget.

So, I'm committed to a budget that's balanced; a budget that is adequate for our defense needs, not only this next year but for the next 5 years; and which adequately meets domestic programs, particularly in view of the fact that we have a recession on us now and the prospects of excessive unemployment and deterioration in our communities if we don't meet those needs in the coming months.

Those are a few of the considerations that we are facing now on a domestic level. I'd be glad to answer your questions on this or any other item.

Anybody have a question?

QUESTIONS

PRESIDENT'S PRIMARY CAMPAIGNS

Q. Mr. President, Dave Rogers from Bay City Times. Senator Kennedy is in Ohio right now saying that you're not a real Democrat because of your policies against inflation are putting people out of work. How do you respond to that?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I've run my campaign, as you know, in every State that's had either a primary or a caucus this year. We've not skipped from one part of the country to another, all the way from Hawaii and Alaska to the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico and all the States in between. We've put our record on the line against any candidate who wanted to run against me.

The results have been gratifying. We've gotten more than 60 percent of all the delegates in the primary States and more than 60 percent of all the delegates in the caucus States—I think it's really about 65 percent.

I think that our administration has accurately represented the basic concepts and principles of the Democratic Party. We've had extraordinary improvements in those facets of American life that are particularly valuable to those who suffer most from deprivation historically. We've added 9 million new jobs to the American economy; a million of those are among blacks, a substantial number, of course, are among Hispanics and other minority groups. We've had an unprecedented increase in education, and I think we've got a good urban program. So, I think as far as our record in the past is concerned and the judgment of Democratic voters throughout the country this year, that claim that we don't accurately represent the party is inaccurate.

And last night we had four more difficult States in which we ran, difficult in that they face the same problems as the others in the country do; now, we ran a campaign, won in all four of them. We've won and lost some; I wish we could have won them all. But I don't think there's any doubt about the judgment of the Democratic electorate, and I also don't think there will be any doubt in November when we face the Republicans in the general election.

ADMINISTRATION ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND FAILURES

Q. In the last year of your first term, in retrospect, what two or three major accomplishments are you most proud of, and what two or three major things might you have handled differently if you had it to do over again?

THE PRESIDENT. In the historic evolution of a nation, 4 years is a brief time. Not since Eisenhower has a President served two full terms, and I hope and expect that having turned the tide in many difficult areas, I'll be able to take advantage of that as the President next time.

We've never had an energy policy for our country. I proposed such a policy to the Congress and to the American people in April of 1977, more than 3 years ago. The effort that I made at that time, calling it the moral equivalent of war, was severely discounted and even ridiculed-maybe by some of you around this table, I don't know—but by some in the press and the Congress. But we're now approaching the final decisions by the Congress on giving us an energy policy that will meet our needs. This is a notable achievement.

In 1979 our country was the only one of the major consuming nations that met an agreed goal of cutting down oil consumption by 5 percent below what was expected. In the first 5 months of this year, the American people have conserved by reducing imports more than a million barrels of oil per day. That's a 12-percent reduction. That policy is beginning to bite successfully on cutting down consumption, and with the new so-called fast-track method and a new synfuels bill, combined with the windfall profits tax, we will greatly escalate the production of American energy of all kinds, including oil and natural gas. So, the evolution of that program is a major achievement, by this administration and the Congress, of which I'm very proud.

We've kept our Nation at peace. We have faced successfully, sometimes as a lonely country, a superpower or leader, the question of strengthening our alliances, and I would guess that NATO now, with its new commitment to a 3-percent growth in real defense expenditures and with a new commitment to theater nuclear forces, is in as strong and united a position as it has been since the Second World War, since its foundation.

We've also extended our sphere of peaceful influence to the Middle East. We've made notable progress under the most severe difficulties between Israel and Egypt. We're now trying to make that into a comprehensive peace, without any definite assurance, of course, of success.

We've opened up vast areas of the world to new friendship with our own country which will pay rich dividends in the future. A fourth of the total population of the Earth, the People's Republic of China, now have normal relationships with this country. We've not severed our relationships or our trade with the people of Taiwan. As a matter of fact, the first quarter of this year, we increased trade 65 percent with Taiwan compared to what it was a year ago.

At the same time, I've opened up areas of American life to people who were previously deprived because of discrimination. I've appointed more Federal judges, for instance, who are black than all the previous Presidents in the 200-year history of our Nation. I've done the same thing with women, the same thing with Hispanics and others, not only in judgeships but in administrative positions in the regulatory agencies.

We've had a vast improvement in the allocation of our Nation's resources, not only for defense, having turned around a long slide downward in real defense expenditures, but also in domestic programs. And I think there's a new sense of viability now about the system of federalism—the relationship between the. Federal, State, and local governments—that's most gratifying to me and will pay rich dividends in the future.

Some things move very slowly. We've not been successful in getting tax reform, which I think is necessary. We'll move on tax reduction, I believe, next year after we get assurance of a balanced budget. But the reform aspect, I have not been able to get that accomplished.

We have not yet been successful in getting the final stages of a Mideast peace agreement, and we have been disappointed in some respects because of the lack of adequate support for our position in opposing Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran question from some of our allies.

We face difficulties and challenges-there's no doubt about that—and we haven't solved all those problems. But our Nation is united. I think our Nation is proud. I think we are a nation that's been successful. We're still a leader. We're not timid, we're not afraid; we're confident. And I think that we have, to some degree, restored confidence of the American people back in the Government after Vietnam and Watergate.

So, it's a mixed bag. In general, I'm very pleased with the strength of our country and our successes, but I see a lot of items on the agenda for the future.

GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN

Q. Mr. President, Martin Duggan from St. Louis. You visited us at the Globe-Democrat in the summer of 1975, and we were terribly impressed by your accurate forecast of what you were going to achieve in the Iowa caucuses, in New Hampshire, and more importantly, in the Florida primary, because Governor Wallace was still a factor at that time.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

Q. But in our private conversation that day, I brought up the name of Governor Reagan, and I sensed that you disliked Governor Reagan. Was that a fair impression on my part? I would be happy to remind you of what you said to me if [laughter] —

THE PRESIDENT. I think I remember what I said. We were both Governors together—

Q. That's what you said.

THE PRESIDENT. —and during the times of Governors' meetings, many of us would work very hard for programs concerning education and programs concerning agriculture and environmental quality and trade. Governor Reagan was one who would come into a meeting without doing the long, tedious work in which most of us were involved, would call a press conference and, because of his fame, would attract a great deal of press attention and then he would be gone. That's, I believe, the only thing that I ever criticized about Governor Reagan.

I never have known him well. I've only seen him during those transient times when we were both Governors—he was a Republican, I was a Democrat—we didn't have much to do together in planning.

Q. Well, perhaps "dislike" was not proper

THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't dislike him at all.

Q. Since I'll be seeing him Saturday, would you have any message for him at this point?

THE PRESIDENT. Tell him I look forward to meeting him in the debate and in the contest in the fall if we are both successful in getting the nominations. And I think we'll have a good solid presentation of the difference of our party platforms for the American people, and also a good referendum on what we've done in this administration and also a good judgment between what we've proposed for the next 4 years.

Q. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. But I approach that with a spirit of friendship, not dislike.

Q. Can I ask one more?

THE PRESIDENT. I think we'd probably—

Q. At what point will Governor Reagan be given briefings by national security people?

THE PRESIDENT. After he gets the nomination, I think would be a good time.

Q. You would?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that's when I was given them. And if he prefers some briefings prior to that time, I would make that available to him.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ANDERSON

Q. Mr. President, you mentioned debates. Jody Powell says it's not in your interest to face John Anderson in a debate. Why isn't it in your interest and what about your responsibility to the interests of the American voting public?

THE PRESIDENT. I guess there are probably dozens of Independent candidates, and I just have no desire to start deciding which of the Independent candidates I meet and which ones I don't. The debates in the past between Kennedy and Nixon and between myself and President Ford have set a good precedent; that is, the nominees of the two major parties, chosen through the primary and caucus' system, are confirmed by conventions as recognized in U.S. law and custom, I think, is an adequate forum. This is my judgment, I'm going to stick to it, and think it's a proper one.

Q. Isn't Mr. Anderson a greater to your base of support than he is to Reagan?

THE PRESIDENT. I think whatever strength Anderson has in November—and that's unpredictable at this time—will be more at my expense than at Reagan's expense.

RETURN OF' ROYAL STANDARD 'TO CANADA

Q. Mr. President, a recent visit of the Toronto editors—Springfield, Massachusetts, where I'm from—focused our attention, however briefly, on the fact that we have never returned the Royal Standard which our troops seized in Toronto, seat of government, in the War of 1812. As a result of that, Congressman Boland has asked Secretary Muskie to make a recommendation to you to return the Royal Standard as evidence of our particular gratitude to Canada for the rescue of our six Embassy employees in Tehran.

I wanted to ask you, do you have a set policy against returning prizes of war, particularly from your alma mater- [laughter] —or would you consider that individually on its merits when it comes from Secretary Muskie?

THE PRESIDENT. I will consider it on its merits, but it has not yet been brought to my attention. I'll make a note of it here, and I'll check on it, but I'm not trying to prejudge my decision. But I will consider it on its merits.

CUBAN REFUGEES

Q. Mr. President, what would you like to say personally—my name is Lockwood, from the Jersey Journal—what would you like to say personally to the leaders of those municipalities which have large Cuban American populations and are anticipating additional flow of people?

THE PRESIDENT. The policy that I've established for the handling of Cubans wanting to leave Castro's regime, under the present prospects, will not result in any substantial new emigrés to our country. I will only permit them to come into this country in accordance with legal screening processes to be worked out with the Cuban Government. The boats that were already in Cuban ports are very likely to continue to come to our country. They almost have all come here. We have prevented those captains of the ships from going back to Cuba for additional refugees or emigrés.

So, the ones who are already here will be assimilated into the American population. Their legal status has not yet been determined. The flow of additional emigrés from Cuba will be severely curtailed, because they will have to come here in the future in accordance with American law and after a careful screening process.

OLYMPICS BOYCOTT

Q. Mr. President, I am Peter Harrigan from New York. Some 85 countries have ignored your request for a boycott of the summer Olympics. Do you think that this is a sign that the prestige and influence of the United States is declining?

THE PRESIDENT. No. We decided not to send athletes to the Soviet Union on our own. And the U.S. Olympic Committee and the Congress and the American people strongly support that position. Our preference was that the Olympics in Moscow not be held at all this summer, because it sends a signal, whether it's intended or not, of approbation for or acceptance of the Soviet invasion of their neighbors in Afghanistan.

Most of the governments in the Western Alliance did not prefer to have their athletes go to Moscow. They confirmed our position. The independent nature, however, of the national Olympic committees will permit some athletes to go from those countries.

There has been a substantial worldwide realization and dramatization of the condemnation of the Soviet Union's invasion, through the Olympic question; and also, of course, 104 members of the U.N. condemned the Soviet Union and called for their withdrawal. And of course, the Moslem countries, 35 or so of them, have also done the same thing unanimously. Our economic actions against the Soviet Union are another vivid demonstration of our displeasure and our condemnation of that unwarranted invasion.

So, we never expected a unanimous compliance with our position. The vote of the U.S. Olympic Committee was in doubt; I have no control over the Olympic committees. But I think in countries like Italy and Great Britain and Australia and others, the governments did support our position that the athletes should not go; their national Olympic committees decided otherwise.

CUBAN REFUGEES

Q. Mr. President, Saul Kohler, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Mr. President, on the Cubans: We have 16,000 of them at Indiantown Gap near Harrisburg. And I speak not maliciously—my father was parolee under President Coolidge. We are now paying people $5.25 an hour to wash their dishes, make their beds, and sweep their barracks. Is there any reason we can't at least call for volunteers to do that and help balance your budget in that respect?

THE PRESIDENT. Saul, I think that's a good suggestion. I don't know the answer to it, but I will find out the answer.

As you know, we've got American law to follow. The official designation of those who've come here from Cuba and from Haiti and other countries has still not yet been determined. They are not classified as refugees; they are asylees so far. We're giving them a haven from Cuban persecution.

But the question you raise is one that would involve legality. It also is one that might involve American workers' rights in that area, and I'm not prepared to give you an answer to it. But I will find out the answer.

SOVIET RESPONSE TO U.S. HOSTAGES IN IRAN

Q. Mr. President, I'm Arnold Friedman from Springfield, Massachusetts. Is there any indication that the Soviet Union might respond differently to an American initiative in the United Nations, based on the fact that the Soviet judge at the World Court was one of those who voted unanimously in our case?

THE PRESIDENT. No. As a matter of fact, the Soviet judge in the International Court of Justice, I believe, and the Syrian judge, were the 2 among the 15 who voted against the recent decision. The vote was 13 to 2. There were three votes—

Q. [Inaudible]—as I read the wires, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. No, there were three votes; two of them were unanimous. The third vote was a 13-to-2 decision, and the Soviet and the Syrian judge voted no. I think Ray ¹ can get you a summary of that if you want to go into it more thoroughly. But I believe that's accurate.

¹ Ray Jenkins, Special Assistant to the President.

As you know, when the U.N. Security Council was voting on economic sanctions against Iran, the Soviet judge at that time had voted to condemn Iran's holding of the hostages and demanded they release them. The Soviet representative at the U.N. Security Council voted no, which vetoed the economic sanctions. I don't think there's any real, strong tie between a Soviet judge who's now independent of his own government's influence, ostensibly at least, on the International Court of Justice, and the Soviet Government's position.

Q. So you think that the Soviets would veto any initiative

THE PRESIDENT. That would be my prediction. I would hope they would change, but I think they would veto.

Ms. BARIO. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. Maybe one more question.

DISASTER ASSISTANCE

Q. Mr. President, there have been a lot of disasters lately—I'm Roger Kullenberg from the Kalamazoo Michigan Gazette. One of the minor disasters is our own $50 million tornado. You declared us a disaster area. We've been reading lately that Congress may be out of money—

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

Q. It's a small amount compared to Mount St. Helens and some of the other problems. Is there any assurance you can give me that aid that we need pretty badly will be available?

THE PRESIDENT. I have submitted a request to Congress for a supplemental appropriation for disaster relief, and the Congress has not yet acted. But to use the same word again, historically speaking, the Congress has always made those funds available as a very high priority. We don't yet know the extent of loss or damage relief funds that will be necessary for the major disaster in the Washington-Oregon-Montana-Idaho area from Mount St. Helens eruption, but at this time we are doing the best we can to alleviate the suffering of people.

Although the funds are not available, I am absolutely sure that the Congress will make them available with minimum delay.