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

THE PRESIDENT. I'd like to spend a few minutes with you.

This is an interesting day for you to be in Washington. We have, as usual, an accumulation of both domestic and foreign issues to be addressed by me and by my associates, with whom you've met already.

It is a coincidence that we have already had a major announcement on the deployment of the MX missile in a mobile form this morning, and in just a few minutes, about 4 o'clock, I will make a statement to the Nation concerning the Soviet troops in Cuba.¹

¹ See page 1602 of this volume.

I've talked to Dr. Brzezinski since he met with you and have read a transcript of his answers and your questions concerning those troops.

ADMINISTRATION POLICIES

At the same time, we are pursuing our goal of peace for our country, its enhanced security, the honoring of our commitment to our allies and friends, the mutual disarmament and the reduction of the threat of a nuclear confrontation, the control of the proliferation of nuclear explosives among nations that don't presently have them, our focused peace efforts in the Middle East, in southern Africa, and in other places, and also domestic issues that are well known to you and very important to me.

We've had excessive inflation in our country now for more than 10 years. This is a matter of constant concern to us. We are trying to address the basic roots of it with increased agricultural productivity and the other provision of goods for ourselves, more stable marketing techniques, the reduction of the Federal budget deficit, a constant policy on Government expenditure restraint, reduction of Government intrusion into business affairs, the elimination of unnecessary forms and Government regulation, the provision of a stable dollar.

We have a massive effort ongoing to establish an energy policy for the first time in our country, although it's long overdue. We've already had success in the Congress and with my own executive actions to reduce the projected importation of foreign oil by about 4 million barrels per day. Our presentations to the Congress will result in an additional saving of 4 1/2 or so million barrels in the future.

I need not go into detail about that. I'll be glad to answer any questions for you.

At the same time, we have budgets, appropriations, authorizations of every facet of American life that all come to my attention and on which I have to make basic decisions, in addition to legislation that would enhance the control of hospital costs, give the mental health facilities in our Nation a boost, improve the relationship between the Federal Government and local and State officials, and deal effectively in strengthening our private enterprise system.

On occasion, we have a major event at the White House, both social and political meetings, and also we expect later on this winter to have a major White House Conference on Small Business.

It would be impossible for me to describe all the different responsibilities that a President has, and I think the best thing for us to do now is to let me answer your questions on these or other issues. I think it would probably save you time if you didn't repeat questions that have already been answered by my staff members, unless you were dissatisfied with their answer.

We have a very close and tight and, I think, well-organized interrelationship here in the White House. Dr. Brzezinski, for instance, on foreign affairs, and my domestic advisers can speak accurately for me. But I'd be glad to answer any questions.
Yes.

QUESTIONS

PUERTO RICAN NATIONALISTS

Q. Mr. President, I'm Jack Skelly of El Nuevo Dia, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Your action yesterday in commutation of the four nationalists' prison terms was against the recommendation of the Governor of Puerto Rico, who had asked you in a letter to have them sign some kind of guarantee that they were sorry. My question has two parts: One, did you consult with the Governor at all before this decision was made—I mean, recently? And, two, in view of the fact that they are part of some, what you would call terrorist movement, or have been in the past, do you plan to campaign in the primary down there next year? Have you been advised one way or another?

THE PRESIDENT. I haven't decided to announce my candidacy yet, so I won't comment on campaigning in the primary. [Laughter]

I have been thoroughly familiar with the attitude of the Governor on this issue, but also the attitude of other Puerto Rican leaders—his predecessors, the representatives in Congress, and political leaders in all factions and, I think, the sentiment of the Puerto Rican people. That was obviously assessed. And I regret that on this particular issue, the Governor and I don't agree. On most issues we do. I had to make the judgment on the basis of my best assessment of justice and the best interests of my country and, obviously, the best interests of the Puerto Rican people.

These persons had been adequately punished. They've been in prison longer than almost anyone in the Federal system. They've never asked for clemency, but their attorneys, with their knowledge, participated in the proprieties of making their views known. They have been model prisoners. And my own assessment, based on information derived from other sources through the Attorney General, is that they will not be a threat to the security of Puerto Rico and are highly unlikely to engage in terrorist activities there. I can't guarantee that—for them or any other person.

But I think the forces of justice were honored. And that's a decision that I had to make alone, after consulting with your Governor and with many other people. My decision, contrary to his inclinations, was no indication of my lack of respect for him or for his opinion. I had to assess his opinion, among others, and made what I believe firmly is a right decision.

Q. Mr. President—

Q. Excuse me, could you answer the second one, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, if I decide to become a candidate, the decision on these released prisoners would not affect my presence in Puerto Rico. I would expect that among the majority of the people of Puerto Rico that the decision would be an attractive one, but I've not run a poll on it.

GRAIN INDUSTRY

Q. With two railroads in bankruptcy and one on strike, there's a definite feeling in the Midwest that we are going to have a real crisis this fall in the moving of grain. Are you doing anything to perhaps help head that off, say, move in, for example, on the Rock Island strike, or take any action to get them back to work?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I've talked to the Federal negotiator, Wayne Horvitz, since I've come back to Washington this week. I think to reveal my conversation with him or his plans or the prospects would not be conducive to helping resolve the strike.

I am completely aware of the high yield of crops this year and the need to move them to market. We're participating in some States with the Governors, and with secretaries or commissioners of agriculture through Bob Bergland, and through the Department of Transportation, to build up a reserve supply of transportation facilities to get grain both to elevators, to the barge system, when it's appropriate, and from the elevators to the international shipping points, if required.

I can't guarantee there won't be some bottlenecks—there always have been-but I hope that they can be handled both with country elevator storage and with the substantially increased quantity of farm storage that we have put into effect.

Q. You're not considering, say, invoking the Taft-Hartley Act?

THE PRESIDENT. In my judgment, and in the judgment of the Attorney General and the Department of Labor, the Taft-Hartley Act is not appropriate in this case.

WINDFALL PROFITS TAX

Q. Mr. President, in regard to the important windfall profits tax measure—my name is Jim Barbieri from Bluff ton, Indiana, by the way. I'd like to ask, in your talk since Congress has returned, can you give any indication of any timetable or any—what the potential is now on this legislation, toward getting it enacted in substance without being watered down too much by loopholes?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, the House has already passed an acceptable windfall profits tax. It deviated from my proposal in one important aspect, in that it terminates in 1990. I think it ought to be permanent.

I heard Senator Byrd say today that Senator Long intends to honor his commitment to me to have on my desk a windfall profits tax that would be "pleasing" for the President to sign. And I think that the goal of the Senate Finance Committee is still the first of October, although this information is best derived from Senator Long.

I don't think there's been any delay on the consideration of the tax bill. During the recess period, Senator Muskie, who's the chairman of the Budget Committee, specifically requested that the Congressional Budget Office and his committee staff be given time to determine the impact of the windfall profits tax on 1980 and subsequent years' budgets. So, during the interim of August, the Senate Budget Committee and all the related staffs were working on this matter. And I don't see any reason for concern about delay.

I am concerned about the ultimate content of the tax. If it's watered down by any substantial degree, we will not reach our goals on energy, and our Nation's security will be damaged. And we just absolutely must have a way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and the windfall profits tax is a key to this assurance.

ENERGY

Q. Mr. President, before you announced your energy program, a consortium of five utilities have already spent $4 million on the study of the possibility of a plant in North Dakota to convert lignite coal to gas. Secretary Andrus has endorsed this wholeheartedly as being in line with your energy aims. A judge of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has recommended that it be turned down, because the utilities plan on providing about 25 percent of the costs which would be assumed by shareholders.

Now, the decision comes before the full Commission sometime in October. Would this hinge on congressional action or could this proceed as a pilot plan under your energy program?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. I'm not familiar with their particular status. You're talking about the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is considering it—

Q. Their decision on a go-ahead in October. There is a bill before the Congress on endorsing loans.

THE PRESIDENT. I see. I can't answer that question.

The energy production board* would, if passed into law—and I hope it will be-will expedite that kind of decision on powerplants, refineries, pipelines, synthetic fuel production plants, and cut through the redtape and the procedural delay which hamstrings a great portion of our energy program. It wouldn't decide whether a plant was warranted or not or whether a site was proper or not. It would just ensure that that decision was made to "go" or "no go" without unnecessary delay.

*The President meant the Energy Mobilization Board. [Printed in the transcript.]

If a plant is environmentally acceptable and is needed and is financially reasonable and is located properly, I'd like to see the decision made and get the plant built and operating. If it's not acceptable, let the people who propose it know. But I think that would be expedited by congressional action.

Q. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. And I'll check with Cecil Andros about this. I think if the Secretary of Interior has endorsed the project—

Q. He's endorsed it—[inaudible].—

THE PRESIDENT. —this would probably remove most of the potential obstacles that I can envision.

I promised the gentleman on the end. I'll get you next.

STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION

Q. Dean Conklin from Racine, Wisconsin. Your National Security Adviser expressed concern about linkage of the SALT II consideration with other events. My question is, how can the American people be expected to separate Soviet behavior in Africa or with the Mideast or Cuba from its feeling related to SALT II?

THE PRESIDENT. I'm convinced that SALT II ought to be passed on its own merits. I'm convinced that SALT II contributes to the security of our country, and I'm convinced that SALT II enhances the prospect for world peace. I'm convinced that the rejection of SALT II would cause each one of the inevitable, competitive interrelationships between ourselves and the Soviets in the future to be magnified in their importance and become a much more critical problem than would that same incident with SALT II.

There's no way that we can avoid peaceful competition with the Soviets as we deal with countries in Africa or Asia or the Mideast or Eastern or Western Europe. And without a SALT agreement limiting strategic nuclear weapons, each one of those differences, which are going to be with us for many, many years, is much more likely to become a major threat to our Nation's peace.

So, SALT II is so beneficial on its own merits—I think the Senate has accepted the basic proposition that it is adequately verifiable—to link it with some action or inaction of the Soviets, or for them to link it with some action or inaction of ours, I think, would not be in the best interest of the American people.

My own hope is that my own convictions, which are now being translated to the Senate after detailed hearings, will ultimately be accepted by the American people. But I don't presume to speak for them, and I certainly can't force the American people to accept the position.

It's so obvious to me that I don't have any doubt about it. I hope that obvious benefit of SALT II will become clear to the American people.

Q. But there was that same kind of expectation, I think, with the Panama Canal and—

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

Q.—I think there are many American people who still react negatively to that.

THE PRESIDENT. I understand that they do.

Q. It's accomplished, but not accepted.

THE PRESIDENT. I understand. I think in the long run, though, it will be accepted.

As you know, it was difficult, almost impossible, to get two-thirds of the Members of the Senate to become convinced, on its own merits, that the Panama Canal [Treaty] ² was in the best interests of our country, in spite of the fact that the overwhelming portion of our own constituents at home did not favor the Panama Canal Treaty. I think in the SALT case, a substantial majority of the American people basically approve the signing of a treaty between ourselves and the Soviets to limit nuclear arms.

² Printed in the transcript.

So, you've got that difference. The American people are basically for SALT, they were basically against the Panama Canal Treaty.

I don't think we'll have as great a selling job in the Senate on SALT as we did the Panama treaty. But I don't underestimate the difficulty; I live with it every day.

FOREIGN POLICY

Q. I'm Bill Pace from Indianapolis. This is a general question about our overall defense posture. In this tug-of-war with the Soviet Union, it seems that their posture is one of aggressiveness and, generally, ours is one of a defensive posture.

In the belief that one of the best defenses is an offense, would it not be wise for us to try to counter some of their offensive moves psychologically, to try to balance the scales?

THE PRESIDENT. When I assess in my own mind the trends in Soviet influence the last 10 or 15 years, say—just to get out of my own administration and to make it a bipartisan thing—versus the Soviet Union, I'm very encouraged.

The Soviets did win an advantage in Afghanistan. That Soviet-endorsed government is in substantial danger, and that's significant. But when you compare that with our new relationship with India, compared to what it was 5 years ago, or our new relationship with Egypt, the strongest and most powerful Arab country, compared to what it was during the time of the Aswan Dam construction, when Egypt was absolutely committed to the Soviet Union and was dependent on the Soviet Union for military and economic aid, and now are completely friends with us and have prohibited Soviet technicians and others from coming into the country—that's a major change in the Mideast itself.

The People's Republic of China, a fourth of the people on Earth—it wasn't long ago that they were endorsed and supported by and were the closest of allies with the Soviet Union. Now we have a new and burgeoning friendship with the people of the People's Republic of China, and we have not lost our financial and economic and friendly relationships with the people on Taiwan.

I could continue to go, but those are major countries. There have also, obviously, been some setbacks. I don't deny that.

I think that the present commitment that I have given to defense has reversed a longstanding trend. For 15 years, our country was making no real increase in defense expenditures. In fact, when I came into office, our real commitment to defense was less than it was in 1963. This year, the current fiscal year, we have accommodated all the impact of inflation, and we have at least a 3-percent growth in defense expenditures.

I think we have restrengthened NATO, which was very weak, not only militarily but politically. There's a new spirit and a new dynamism and a new cooperation in NATO that did not exist before.

On strategic weapons systems—if you take our sea-based missiles and you assess the dramatic progress being made with the Trident submarines and the new Trident missiles, that's a quantum step forward. The air-breathing leg of our triad, with the new generations of cruise missiles coming along—that's a major technological and strategic breakthrough. And-with the MX missile that I announced this morning on land-based, silotype missiles—this is the first time that we have ever seen a single missile acquire such a tremendous importance. And it not only gives our country a better defense or attack capability, it also contributes to stability, because you've got a lot more defense with a lot fewer missiles.

So, I think that if you look at other factors—our espousing human rights, the economic strength of our country, our overall trade relationships in almost every measure, I do not see our country as being affected detrimentally, as contrasted with the Soviet Union.

We recognize that they are a military nation; they put a lot more emphasis on military weaponry than do we. And we are much more inclined to support the status quo, to put down regional conflagrations and conflicts than are the Soviet Union. They espouse a revolutionary political thesis, and to them the change of governments quite often is in their advantage. We generally are inclined to support the government that's in power, unless it is so obnoxious to our own standards and principles that we cannot accept it.

So, the Soviets are inclined to stir up trouble; we're inclined to try to dampen trouble and to provide peace. That's one thing that gives them an advantage when there is trouble. But I think we have stood up well against them, and I think we can continue to do it in the future on a peaceful, competitive basis. There's no doubt in my mind that the ideals and the principles and the basic strengths of America can prevail and have prevailed.
Ms. BARIO. Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. One more question.

AMBASSADOR ANDREW YOUNG

Q. Mr. President, I'm from East St. Louis, Illinois. My name is Clyde Jordan. In view of the fact that Andrew Young has been credited with bettering our relationships with many countries in Africa and other Third World nations, do you have any plans to use him in any other governmental position?

THE PRESIDENT. I agree with your assessment that Andy has greatly enhanced our relationships. And one of the advantages that we've got over the Soviet Union in the less-developed world is because of Andy Young.

Andy hasn't made any plans yet about future governmental involvement. Andy left early this week to go on a seven-nation trip with the President of the Eximbank and also with about 20 top American business leaders to see about investments and to let the African nations which he will visit know that there is a continuity in our relationship with the less-developed countries of the world. Andy and his wife, Jean, and their little son both spent the night with me at the White House the night before he left, and I talked to him briefly about his future plans.

I think Andy intends, for the time being at least, to establish himself in private life. He's never had an opportunity to have any income. He's been a very sacrificial person, as you know. I think he would like to let his influence be felt in the private sector of our country for a while. He's interested in politics; he's very supportive of me, and his voice will be heard. I think he's looking forward to his new role for the months ahead. What he will do after that, I have not heard him say, and I don't think he knows himself. But I would welcome Andy in any major position because I have such confidence in him.

Let me take this opportunity to thank you for being here, and I'd like to get a photograph with each one of you, if you'd permit me that pleasure. Let me stand over here and maybe if you come around this way and just let me shake hands and get a photograph, we'll send it to you.

And I'm glad you were up here today. It was kind of an exciting day for me; the decisions have been important ones for our country, and you've kind of seen how Government worked, a little more actively, at least in defense matters, than would ordinarily be the case. I hope you've had an enjoyable and a productive day.
Thank you.