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

THE PRESIDENT. Well, first of all, let me welcome you all to the White House. I hope you have had an interesting and a fruitful morning, not only with your answers that you've received here but with the questions that you've asked. It's very helpful to us to hear from all of you from around the Nation.

THE SITUATION IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAN

I'd like to open by saying that I believe that we are now facing one of the most serious threats to peace since the Second World War, with the invasion by the Soviet Union and the brutal attempt to repress the independent people of Afghanistan in this last, very most serious crisis that our Nation faces and has observed. The world has condemned the Soviet Union in an almost unprecedented way, with 104 nations in the United Nations voting to condemn the presence of the Soviet troops and demanding that they be withdrawn from Afghanistan. Only 18 nations supported the Soviets' position, and those were nations that were either completely dominated by the Soviet Union or heavily dependent upon the Soviet Union for their existence in an economic and viable way.

This expression of condemnation and abhorrence was indeed very widespread, not only the nations adjacent to the Soviet Union, which are under threat, but also among the Islamic countries located throughout the world and, of course, among nations which are industrialized and/or developing themselves at this time.

This threat to peace is one that deeply concerns our own country, and we have taken action which has been forceful and, I believe, punitive to the Soviet Union, to convince them that the consequences of their invasion will not be light. We've forbidden their fishing rights in our waters. We have interrupted the delivery of large quantities of grain. We've interrupted high technology sales to the Soviet Union. And we are now consulting with our allies, in Europe and other places throughout the world, to see what other steps might be advisable.

This is only one of the two major questions that our Nation must resolve—the other, of course, being the illegal kidnaping of the innocent American hostages, and their being held with the support of the Iranian officials themselves. Again, we are taking action in accordance with our own Nation's best interests. We're being consistent, and I hope effective. We're protecting not only the lives of the hostages, but also maintaining a strong, supportive role among a majority of the nations of the world.

No one can predict the outcome of these two threats against peace, one involving an invasion, a military attempt to take over the independent country, another one an act of international terrorism. But we are doing the best we can. And I've been very pleased at the resolve and the courage and the unity of the American people.

We are preparing now for the return of the Congress. I'll be making a State of the Union speech on the 23d. The Congress has a heavy agenda before it. Some major items carried over from this previous year, particularly the three energy bills. And of course we'll be presenting a budget for fiscal year 1981 at approximately the same time.

I think it might be good for me to answer your questions now. Go ahead.

QUESTIONS

SOUTHWEST WATER PROJECTS

Q. Water is a critical issue to those of us living in Arizona—Nina Trasoff, KGUNTV [Tucson]. The Central Arizona Project was a water project that your administration cut out and then reinstated. And what I'd like to know now is what the level of support you have for that water project, which is so vital to our cities, Southwest. Are you still strongly in support of it, just helping us get the water that we need so desperately?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't know the latest status of it. As you know, the Congress has acted on the Central Arizona Project, a major water project for Arizona. And I presume that the published plans of the Corps of Engineers and the Interior Department, one or the other, is being carried out. I've not been involved in the latest exact schedule for financing, but so far as I know the Congress has acted. As you know, I didn't approve the project as it was originally conceived, and I have no idea that it's been changed in recent weeks.

Q. No, there have been no changes since it was reinstated. I was mostly questioning your continuing support for the varying ways to get water resources to the Southwest.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know of any interruption in the project. And I am in favor of getting adequate water. I just don't want to waste money.

Q. One water question is your decision to implement a very old bill, Federal water being supplied to farms, and that the farmer would have to live within 50 miles of that farm in order to qualify for the Federal water—

THE PRESIDENT. I don't know about that.

Q. It had to do with—I think it was trying to keep large corporations from taking over small family farms.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, as you know, we've had major legislation in the Congress to deal with Federal lands, lands for which Federal water is supplied, in California, primarily, and a few other States. But the limit there is one in compliance with the 1903 law that limits, I think, 160 acres to a family. We have modified that, I think, to 320 acres. And the Congress is now considering what to do. That bill has not been passed by both Houses of Congress.

Q. Is there any consideration of perhaps letting a person living farther than 50 miles from their farm, that they might still get the Federal water?

THE PRESIDENT. I think it's varied by river basins. But the Secretary of the Interior's proposal is the one that I support.

PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT

Q. Mr. President, a few months ago you seemed to have a crisis of confidence, in that the polls showed that the people of America had little confidence in your ability to run the Government. And now the public seems to be giving you a vote of confidence, if you believe the polls. Why do you think the change took place?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think the public opinion polls go up and down. I've been at peaks .and I've been in valleys. As far as political considerations are concerned, the only poll that counts is on election day in a particular State or in the Nation next November.

I really don't know how to answer the question adequately. I think that my administration has deserved the support of the people from the beginning. We've obviously not been perfect, but I think we've had a good, constructive, solid, consistent approach to America's domestic and foreign problems.

Some have been very difficult, and the slow action of the Congress, for instance, has created frustration, not only here in my own administration but among the people. Energy, for instance, is a crucial issue. We've been wrestling with the energy question since April of 1977, when I presented a comprehensive policy to the Congress.

We've had good success at times: with the Mideast peace treaty, for instance, a highly publicized, partial success—we are still working on it. And we've had times when inflation was considered to be the utmost issue, and we have not been successful in dealing with inflation. The overdependence on foreign oil is one reason. We've had good success with unemployment. So, I think it's been a mixed bag as far as people's impression of whether I was being successful at a particular time. We have been persistent.

Another thing is that our Nation has faced in recent months, the last 2 months, a little more, a threat to world peace. And I think at a time like this the President's voice is heard very clearly. I've had a chance to speak and let the American people understand the considerations that I've had to face, and understand the decisions that I've made. I think basically we've taken the right steps to meet the threat to our hostages in Iran, more recently the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And the last point is that as long as I didn't have any clearly identifiable political opponents, there is obviously an inclination to compare me with some perfect image of what a President ought to be: a tall, distinguished, handsome, gray-haired— [laughter] —articulate, and so forth—and all religions, depending on what religion the voter might happen to be, and so forth. But I think once it got down to a matter of me versus specific human beings who also sought the Presidency, that factor was minimized.

But I anticipate the polls to change in the future. Right now they seem to be fairly good. But we'll be watching with interest to see how the primary elections come out.

PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN PLANS

Q. Mr. President, you're supposed to be in California campaigning next month. Campaign Chairman Strauss was at Fresno last Friday, and he said that campaign planning has to be done on about a 30-day basis and that he could not guarantee that the plans might not have to be changed due to circumstances, particularly in view of the Iran hostage situation and the Russian presence in Afghanistan. Can you explain when you feel that the exigencies of the political campaign, the American election process, will require you to give a higher priority to the reelection campaign itself?

THE PRESIDENT. It's hard for me to set a date. What I have tried to forgo—and on some stretches of days what I have had to forgo—is the involvement of myself as a clearly identifiable, partisan campaigner, as a substitute for the President of our country. There have been times when I could not have left here had I wanted to, and there have been other times when I have felt that I needed to have a nonpartisan support for me as President.

I think if I should change into a highly partisan campaigner, there would be a sense of belief among the American people that the intense interest in the American hostages, for instance, had been decreased. And obviously, as long as the United Nations is voting, as each vote is important, as I need to call foreign leaders, as I need to consult with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State on a continuing basis, have frequent meetings all during the day with key leaders of our country, you and others—there's a meeting going on in the White House now that Secretary Vance is briefing—to acquaint the Nation with what our problems are and what our possible solutions to those problems are, it's better for me not to assume the role of a partisan political campaigner.

I have left open the option of going from Washington when my presence here could be spared. But even then I would not want to go to a fundraising event for myself, or to participate in a strictly partisan event, until I consider the alleviation of these crises to be adequate.

Q. It's your intention now to go to California, though, in February?

THE PRESIDENT. That's my present intention, but I cannot assert that I will be there.

RELATIONS WITH ALLIED NATIONS

Q. Mr. President, you mentioned in your opening remarks the talks underway in Europe with our allies on other steps in the Afghanistan crisis. Could you, without getting into too much detail, give us some of the options that might be available here? What are some of the other possibilities?

THE PRESIDENT. The consultations in Europe are more broad-ranging than just Afghanistan. They involve Iran, and they involve other things as well. It's hard to single out any particular item, but this is not a late-developing commitment of our country. Let me just very quickly go down a list of things, without going into detail on any.

Since I've been in office we have seen the need for a stronger national defense. And every one of the years that I've been in office, all 3 years—I've just prepared the fourth budget—we've had a real increase in the commitment to the defense capability of our Nation, above and beyond inflationary trends.

Secondly, we've tried to revitalize NATO which was somewhat dispirited 3 years ago—with an increase in defense commitment there, with long-range 15-year planning, with the sharing of weapons systems, more recently with the theater nuclear force. We've tried to open up friendships with people who were previously adversaries of ours, or at least not friendly—with China, for instance, without destroying the trade relationships and the friendships that exist between ourselves and Taiwan.

We've strengthened our military presence in the North Indian Ocean, the Arabian Sea. And we are now exploring the possibility of establishing military facilities there to serve our airplanes and our ships in the Persian Gulf region. We've recommitted ourselves to the capability of Pakistan to successfully defend itself.

We've had, I think, a major step forward in the Mideast peace negotiations, to remove the animosity that previously debilitated to some degree Israel and Egypt, as they look upon each other as enemies rather than friends. And these kinds of things will continue in the future.

We are consulting very closely with our allies. When our hostages were seized, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the first step I took was to consult with other like-minded nations to deal with these threats to peace and with international terrorism.

But it would be ill-advised, I think, for me to specify particular things that we are talking to them about now. We are trying to carry out the United Nations desire, as expressed by overwhelming votes, in dealing with both these matters; and to strengthen countries that might be threatened; and to alleviate tensions that exist because of the Soviet invasion and the capture of our hostages. But as far as specific commitments, it would be better not to speak about them until we can permit the other allies to speak for themselves.

Q. Could I just follow that up briefly? Do you think the Soviet Union has been surprised by the reaction to their

THE PRESIDENT. My opinion is that they have been surprised not only by the trade restraints that I have imposed but also by 'the overwhelming condemnation voted by the U.N. I think the Soviets felt that they could take this action with just a minimal adverse reaction. I consider it to be more serious than their suppression of the uprising, for instance, in Czechoslovakia 10 or 11 years ago, in 1969, because this was an independent country, a nonaligned country, a deeply religious country that the Soviets went into with invading forces and subjugated. This is quite a radical departure from what they had done in the years since the Second World War.

And it has much greater strategic implications for us, with its threat to Pakistan, with its threat to Iran, with its threat to 90 percent of the exportable oil supplies in the world. And my belief is, based on evidence, that the Soviets have been somewhat chastened and surprised by the strong reaction in the other nations in the world, as exemplified by the U.N. vote, and also that other countries have rallied along with us to lead action that would restrain the Soviets repeating this in the future.

I don't know what the future holds, but I'm resolved not to back off on our commitment to hold the Soviets responsible for what they've done.

GRAIN SALES EMBARGO

Q. Mr. President, I'm from Iowa, Sioux City—27 miles from Lemars. Secretary Bergland—

THE PRESIDENT. Would you like to take my seat at the head of the table? [Laughter]

Q. Secretary Bergland just returned from a rather extensive trip into Iowa, talking about the grain embargo. What type of report did he give to you upon his return to Washington?

THE PRESIDENT. To simplify an answer I'd say two things: one, the evident interest of the Iowa farmers in my administration's commitment not to let them suffer because of the interruption of grain sales to the Soviet Union—and Bergland's belief is that he adequately reassured them, as evidenced by the stability of the present grain market; secondly, the high degree of patriotism and support that was evident among the Iowa people for the action that we took against the Soviet Union.

ENERGY POLICY

Q. You and other people seem to have had a tough time persuading the American people that there really is an energy crisis and that they really ought to do something about it in terms of conservation. It seemed that immediately after the hostages were taken in Iran that there would have been support to take really drastic conservation methods, in cutting back our imports of petroleum. Why wasn't such an effort undertaken at that time?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, the effort is ongoing. I can only take action commensurate with my authority. The Congress now has three major bills that are being considered that will conclude the major portion of a comprehensive energy policy that I think will be almost adequate. All three of those bills have passed the House and the Senate. All three of those bills are in separate conference committees for final resolution, and I anticipate that they will be adequate enough for my signature.

There is one unmet need, and that is authority that I must have for the imposition of gasoline rationing. The present bill does authorize the Secretary of Energy to prepare a rationing plan, and he's working on that fervently. But the law as presently passed, which I signed this past year, requires that there be a 20-percent shortage of gasoline before rationing is imposed. A 20-percent shortage of gasoline in our country would be quite damaging to our economy, so I would like to remove that 20-percent requirement..

We have had the first evidence that the new energy policy is being effective. Now, for instance, gasoline consumption in our Nation is about 7 or 8 percent less than it was a year ago. There's been an almost radical turning away of American motorists from the very large, wasteful automobiles toward more efficient automobiles, as you know. And in fact, in 1979 we imported 5 percent less oil than the previous year—that's the total crude oil imported-which was contrary to a spiraling increase which had been evident in years before that.

With the decontrol of natural gas being assured over a long, carefully phased period of time, we've had much more plentiful supplies of natural gas throughout the Nation, more production and more plentiful supplies. And the phased decontrol of oil, in my opinion, will enhance the production of domestic oil. We now have more oil drilling rigs, natural gas drilling rigs combined, in operation than we've had in the last 21 years. And I think there's a new sense of urgency extant in the Nation, which will be mirrored in the Congress, because of the Iranian and Afghanistan threats.

So, I believe that we are now doing about as much as can be done. But Congress must act expeditiously and give me additional authority to ration gas if I consider it to be necessary.

1980 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

Q. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy has been quoted in Iowa, after the Des Moines Register-Tribune came out with 57 percent in favor of you, as saying you would have to win by 57 or it would be a bad defeat. [Laughter] Closer to home, in New Hampshire, he said a winner is the person who wins.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

Q. Now, I'm from Massachusetts, and I'd just like to know how much do you think he's going to have to win by in Massachusetts to show he's a winner close to home. [Laughter]

THE PRESIDENT. I think he made the more accurate analysis closer to home.

I don't know. To me the election results have always been an indication of who won: the one who gets the most delegates or the most votes ordinarily is considered to be the one who wins. I don't know how to comment any further than that.

I don't know what's going to happen in Iowa. I don't know what's going to happen in Massachusetts or New Hampshire. We'll just have to judge each one as it comes.

Q. Are you hopeful, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT. Oh, yes. I've always been confident. [Laughter]

CUBAN TROOP ACTIVITY

Q. I'm Bill Bayer from Miami. A number of us in south Florida keep looking just a hundred-odd miles away, and there's Castro still exporting his troops for the Russians. And there—in fact, what triggered my question was a cartoon in the Miami News, from the Dayton Daily News, that shows you calling Brezhnev. And you ask Brezhnev on the phone, "Why are Russian troops invading Afghanistan?" And Brezhnev says, "All the Cubans were busy." [Laughter]

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I saw that.

Q. But the point is that Castro is still exporting his revolution to Grenada. That was one of the votes against us in the U.N., right, and Cuba? And he's got his cherished squads in Jamaica, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Salvador, Nicaragua, Jamaica, as far as we know, Panama, all over. The thought keeps occurring to a number of us who live down there next to Castro: why can't we blockade Cuba until the Russians, say, they can't get in, they can't get out until Castro brings his troops home. And then the Russians will have to send their own troops in place of Castro's troops—and are wondering about why we can't.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, a blockade is really—I think it would be considered the same as a declaration of war against Cuba. As you know, we imposed a blockade temporarily, began to impose one, when the Russian missiles were there, early in the 1960's. And then we withdrew the blockade when the Russian missiles designed to .attack our own country were removed, retaining thereafter an embargo of trade with Cuba.

I'm also concerned about Cuba's adventurism, not only in Latin America but in Africa, in Angola, and also, as you know, in the northeastern corner of Africa, in the Horn, particularly in Ethiopia. But I don't believe it would be advisable for us to try to establish a blockade around Cuba. This, I think, would be unwarranted at the present time.

My own sense about Cuba is not one of fear, but one of deep concern, and the arousing of public opinion against Cuba. Cuba had a very severe setback, in my opinion, when they failed to get even the full support of the nonaligned countries in their effort to be a member of the Security Council. And we have, I think, the right attitude toward Cuba and the Soviet Union. One is a deep concern about Cuba's effort to intrude in other countries; an awareness of their limited success in this hemisphere, because people know them by their stripes; and third, a decision which I have perpetuated from previous Presidents, that we not go to war with Cuba by trying to impose a blockade around them.

Q. In following up on that, do you think then that Cuba will ever bring its troops home?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. Angola, for instance, the leaders of Angola, both the present President and the previous one, Neto, who died, said that when Namibia was given its independence, and South African troops got away from their southern border, then the need for Cuban troops would no longer be extant. You can take that or leave it. I'm not convinced that that's an accurate analysis, but I think that the likelihood of Cuba as to having an early withdrawal of their troops and bringing them home is unlikely.

My hope is that the countries that have welcomed into their borders Cuban troops and have signed the so-called peace and friendship agreements with the Soviet Union have seen in the Afghanistan situation the threat to their own independence. I don't think that it's accurate to say that Angola is an independent country as long as they've got thirty or forty thousand Cuban troops there. And I don't think that Ethiopia has any sure belief any longer that if they wanted Russian and Cuban troops to leave that they would indeed leave.

My belief is and my hope is that many of the nonaligned countries that previously did give support to Castro and quite often voted, almost always, with the Soviet Union and against the Western democratic nations have now reversed themselves, because they see that the real threat to them is not democracy, it's not freedom, but it's the totalitarian influence of Cuba and the Soviet Union.

I believe the other nations of the world are learning their lesson—the hard way, in the case of Afghanistan. But it has been a very vivid lesson that I think will lessen in the future the willingness of those countries to have Cuban troops within their borders.

Ms. BARIO. Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you. We have just a moment. As you all leave I'd like to stand by the door and shake hands and thank everyone for coming, and maybe get a photograph.