Interview With the President Excerpt From a Question-and-Answer Session With Reporters on Board Air Force One.

THE PRESIDENT. The disturbance there, which I didn't know about—any rock throwing or anything—until after I got back to the plane, was something that could happen in any demonstration. I mean, I don't consider it to be significant, because—probably young people; I don't know whether it was.

Q. Did you realize when you went there that you might be going into a dangerous situation?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, not danger to the extent it caused me to be concerned, but it was obviously a volatile situation. We had the option of not going to Miami at all, or to the Liberty City region, but I thought it was important that I go there as President to show my concern, and that we're determined to work to help them, and also to let the rest of the country realize that—[inaudible]—try to help themselves.

So, I didn't feel any concern about it.

Q. We wondered why the mayors didn't applaud more. Do you feel that they lacked enthusiasm about the speech? You know, it was a very serious speech.

THE PRESIDENT. No, we didn't. You can easily design an applause line here and there, or you can plant people around the audience who just start applause or do that sort of thing. I thought it was—

Q. Did you ever do that?

THE PRESIDENT. I haven't; sometimes people do it for me.

But I don't think that this was that kind of speech. I wanted them to realize that we're in it together, that they're responsible for defense strength and for fiscal discipline as much as I am, and that I'm responsible for the employment and rebuilding of cities as much as they are. I think you'll see from the Democratic mayors and so forth, the fact that they'll vote for me and my programs very strongly—and there has been all during this year. Very few of the Democratic mayors around the Nation have not supported me.

I've got very strong expressions of support even from some Republican mayors. Richard Carver, for instance, sharply disagreed with the statement that John Anderson made about the politicization of Government programs yesterday. So, I feel that that's a solid group in support for me, both politically among the Democrats and also—[inaudible].

Q. You know, Senator Kennedy found another forum today, and he's proposing a $12 billion, massive Federal program to create jobs and to combat this particular recession.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I had heard about that.

Q. Will you, as you suggested in the speech today, if things got worse, you'd take another look? Are you going to have to reexamine this now?

THE PRESIDENT. No, I was very careful what I said in the speech about reexamination. If the recession deepens and if the increase in unemployment continues unabated—I believe that's the language I used—then I would work with the mayors, within the framework of fiscal discipline and noninflationary contributions, to resolve those unanticipated problems. But that's a very cautious statement.

Q. It means no more money within the framework of fiscal discipline.

THE PRESIDENT. No, because Congress has got to show that it can cut back on expenditures as the budget committees have done and as the Congress leaders have pledged; that any stimulative action that is taken, if it's required, would have to be noninflationary in nature.

Q. Would a $12 billion crash program be inflationary?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't know the details of it, but I would presume that the Congress is highly unlikely to support such a massive program. And I wouldn't feel that I could support it, either.

Q. Why do you think that Kennedy wanted to speak on the same day, and what was that all about, or what's your impression?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. I was told a week or so ago, or several days ago, that Reagan was going to speak on one day, and one day Anderson was going to speak, one day I was going to speak, and one day Kennedy was going to speak. And so, we would have come anyway, no matter what they did. But that was the understanding that we had. I don't know what went on with the Governors [Mayors] Conference. No one consulted me about it.

Q. But weren't you instrumental, though, in Kennedy's decision to bail out altogether?

THE PRESIDENT. No, I didn't have anything to do with it, didn't know anything about it.

Q. But the objections that Wexler ¹ raised with the Mayors Conference staff, it was my understanding, played a role in his decision.

¹ Anne Wexler, Assistant to the President.

THE PRESIDENT. It may or may not have, I don't know. My understanding after it was all over was that he was invited to speak tomorrow instead of today, and that was the standing for the past several days, and that he canceled his speech tomorrow. Why he wanted to speak today, if he did, I don't have any idea. But I would have come anyway. Nobody ever insinuated that we not come.

Q. You would have come and spoken on the same day?

THE PRESIDENT. Sure.

Q. Then there must have been a sort of a mix-up in, a snafu in the orders there.

THE PRESIDENT. [Inaudible]

PRESS SECRETARY POWELL. I don't think Anne or anybody else ever told the Mayors Conference that.

THE PRESIDENT. I would've come no matter what—[inaudible]—no question about my coming.

Q. Is this meeting in Washington set for the 28th among the Mideast negotiators?

THE PRESIDENT. I know that the Egyptians have offered to come and that Prime Minister Begin has announced that Mr. Burg would come. Whether the exact date's been set, I don't know.

Q. My office told me the 28th.

THE PRESIDENT. That sounds like the highest authority. [Laughter]

Q. We have to take it from the[inaudible].

Q. But the reality is that they will resume in Washington soon?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that's our hope and also that is our expectation.

Q. Is it just to discuss how to discuss the—[inaudible]?

THE PRESIDENT. No, there's no way to separate the two. You're talking about Jerusalem and whether the ultimate status of Jerusalem will be determined through negotiations. I understand from Ed Muskie, early this morning, that Prime Minister Begin said that was the case.

His speech, which was very carefully drafted over the last week or 10 days by him and me and others—I think it's been well received both in the Arab world, particularly in Egypt, and also in Israel. It's a speech that delineates not only what we've accomplished and the present need for the continuation of the talks but also the issues still to be resolved—the definition of autonomy, land, water, security, and who will participate in the elections. I think those are the five issues.

So, the reason for our new initiative, that was done through diplomatic means, not publicly, and the reason for the Muskie speech, delivered yesterday, both reasons were to get the Egyptians and the Israelis at the negotiating table again. And I presume that that has been successful.

Q. And this was the Muskie speech that was well received in the Arab world and in—did he—

THE PRESIDENT. That was Ed's assessment this morning— [laughter] —on the phone, that it was well received, particularly—I haven't seen a report—I'm particularly talking about Egypt.

Q. Did he bring up the question of Jerusalem in the speech?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, he did.

Q. What did he say? Was it on his own, or did—

THE PRESIDENT. He said it was an issue to be resolved ultimately through the negotiating process, and that we favored an undivided Jerusalem with free access to the holy places by persons of all faiths.

Q. Did you hear Muskie on "Meet the Press?"

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

Q. He seemed very conciliatory toward the Clark mission. He said that the policy you set down was to try to protect Americans who were going to Iran and getting hurt, not to punish them. That sort of flew in the face of what.—

Q. That sort of suggested that you weren't going to go ahead full bore on prosecuting Clark.

THE PRESIDENT. My inclination is, within the bounds of the law, to go ahead and prosecute both Clark and the others who went against my directive, which was legal. My presumption is that the Attorney General will make a decision on whether that should be to seek civil penalties or criminal penalties. I would guess civil penalties would be more appropriate.

But there's no doubt that the restraint on travel will be assessed for legality and for the constitutionality of it. My information from my own legal advisers, including the Attorney General, is that the order was legal and that Clark and the others violated that order and, therefore, violated U.S. law.

Q. But you would guess it would be a civil case?

THE PRESIDENT. I'm not trying to make that decision. I just surmise that that would be the best of the two options. But the Attorney General and his people are now assessing the options. My inclination is to see that the directive is carried out, and when people do violate it, to seek punishment that's appropriate.

Q. He, of course, makes a first amendment defense, saying that he has the freedom under the first amendment to travel, to speak, et cetera.

THE PRESIDENT. There is a long history of restraint of travel. Only after I came into office as President were people permitted to go to places like North Korea or Vietnam or to Cuba and so forth. So, we have done what we could to liberalize travel when we thought that the travelers would be safe and that there was an adequate sense that there was nothing that they would be likely to do that would be contrary to the security interests of our country.

Q. Mr. President, beyond the law, do you think the Clark mission made things any more difficult over there for us now?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't have any way to know. I didn't see him on—

Q. "Issues and Answers."

THE PRESIDENT.—television—"Issues and Answers." But I understand that he reported a lot of doubt about whether his mission accomplished anything tangible. But who can say?

For the last month we've had a simultaneous, concerted diplomatic and other effort being mounted through the United Nations and other countries to get the hostages released. We did not approve and did not expect any beneficial results from this visit by Clark to a forum designed to prove the criminality of the United States.

Q. [Inaudible]

THE PRESIDENT. I don't think it helped anything.

Q. You don't think it helped the Iranian case with the Shah, to make a stand?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, the ones who organized the forum were Bani-Sadr and Ghotzbadeh and their basic supporters. They have been in favor of resolving the hostage issue for a long time. The more militant groups and the mullahs who are involved in politics over there have been, in general, more reluctant to solve the hostage issue, and I don't think they endorsed or supported the convention called to condemn the United States.

Q. You once said you thought July would be an excessive time for the hostages to be held. You obviously were thinking of the raid, which we didn't know anything about, when you said that. So, I would now think that you've got to let that slip.

THE PRESIDENT. It always has been hard to set a time limit. We've tried, and it hasn't worked. So, I think to set another arbitrary time limit would be counterproductive.

Q. So, if I ask you how long can this go on, what would your answer be?

THE PRESIDENT. I would say the briefest time possible would suit me best.

Q. You know, your response on Clark is much more punitive than what Muskie—Muskie acted like you were trying to protect Americans and really telling Americans that go into these areas that the U.S. cannot protect them. But you sound like you want some revenge.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, there's a—I'm not a lawyer, and there's a legal basis for restraining American travel. I've tried to outline to you those bases. One is the safety of the Americans involved, particularly when we do not have a consulate or an embassy near a region where they'll be visiting, and where there's an animosity apparent among large segments of the foreign population that may cause problems for the visiting Americans. That's one aspect of it.

The other aspect of it is to enforce the economic sanctions that we've imposed against Iran, and the commerce and trade of travelers is a factor. We've worked hard to get other nations to join with us in that economic sanctions effort to induce the Iranians to release the hostages. And for American citizens to open up travel precedents that might grow in the future is in direct contravention to the order.

And the third thing is when our own national security is at stake, which it is in the Iranian crisis, whether the visit by misguided Americans like Clark might exacerbate an already serious situation and cause further damages either to the hostages or to the Iranian relationships with the outside world is an additional factor. So, those are the bases on which the order was issued.

I don't think Ed Muskie has any legal responsibility for determining to prosecute or not to prosecute. I do have some legal responsibility, working primarily through the Attorney General. And my own inclination is to enforce my directive, which I presume to be legal, and when people violate it, to see that an appropriate punishment is levied.

Q. So they would just be fined, presumably? There would just be a fine involved?

THE PRESIDENT. I'm not trying to discount the possibility of criminal prosecution. I just gave you my opinion, that as the Attorney General makes his recommendation, I would think the most likely move would be civil in nature, because we need to make the American people know and the rest of the world know that the order will be enforced, to discourage further violation of it in the future.

Q What about the irony here, a former Attorney General—[inaudible]?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, the irony is apparent in a former Attorney General attending a conference designed to prove the criminality of his own nation. So, I think that's much more ironic than the fact that an Attorney General is being accused of violating the law.

Q. Other Attorney Generals have been accused of violating the law, you know.

THE PRESIDENT. That's right. But so far as I know, none other have ever attended an international conference designed to prove the criminality of their own country.

Q. Some have gone to jail.

THE PRESIDENT. That's right.

Q. Tell us about the summit. What do you expect from it? Will there be one? There isn't going to be any pulling away because of Ohira?

THE PRESIDENT. No. Ohira may or may not go. I think his doctors have advised him not to go. If he is able, I hope he will come. He's a very fine leader, and he will be missed. But if he doesn't go then he'll have a substitute there, probably the Finance Minister and the Foreign Minister.