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

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I hate to interrupt your meeting with Jody.

95TH CONGRESS

You've come at a very interesting time—the last few days, or few hours, I hope, of the 95th Congress and when a considerable amount of domestic legislation is being decided. The rapid pace of the congressional session, according to some of the oldtimers, is unexcelled in previous years. And I think that confusion abounds on the Hill, but a lot of preparatory work has been done by the subcommittees and committees. And I think that we will have a successful session.

I signed this morning one of the most far-reaching and important pieces of legislation that has been considered since I've been in office, and that's a complete reform of the civil service system, the key to better management of the entire Government structure. And I'm very grateful for the rapid movement on this complicated legislation. It's the first time in 95 years that the civil service has been changed in any appreciable degree.

The Congress will decide on the energy legislation, possibly today. The Senate has completed most of the component parts. The House has now come out of the Rules Committee with a decision, which is compatible with what they decided early last year, that the entire package would be considered as a unit. There will be a test on calling the previous question, a test on the rule, and then a vote on the entire package, whether it should be accepted or rejected. We don't know the outcome, of course, but we're working very hard on that. And I've probably made—well, I have made dozens of calls, beginning early last week, on the energy question.

Hospital cost containment, which I consider to be the most important single controlling factor on inflation in the future, has now passed the Senate. It will be considered very quickly, within the next few minutes, as a matter of fact, by the Ways and Means Committee in the House. If it should pass there—we're working very hard to get it passed—it will go through the Rules Committee, hopefully get on the calendar in the waning days of the session.

Airline deregulation, another very important anti-inflation measure, has already been proven in practice, primarily through the international decisions that have been made by the CAB, with my own encouragement, to reduce rate costs drastically for passengers and also freight, coincidentally, and with an enormous increase in the use of airlines and a remarkable increase in profits for the airline companies themselves. We hope to establish this principle in law. The bill has passed in very fine form, even better than we originally submitted it to the House and Senate. We're now waiting for a vote.

The full employment, planned growth bill, sometimes known as the Humphrey-Hawkins bill, will be voted on in the Senate, also within the next few minutes or

hours.

ADMINISTRATION POLICIES

We have a lot going on in foreign affairs right now. We had our first meeting with the Israelis and Egyptians yesterday at Blair House. I had met with the key negotiating teams earlier, both the Israelis, first, and the Egyptians. We've put forward a draft treaty. The group will be using this as a basis for their negotiations. And we have an excellent negotiating team representing our country, all of whom were involved in the Camp David discussions. And I'm available, of course, at any moment, day or night, to come in and help resolve problems or insurmountable difficulties.

In the meantime, Cy Vance will leave this evening, going to South Africa. He'll be meeting with the Foreign Minister, Botha, and the new Prime Minister, Pieter Botha, P.W. Botha, and others there. He's being joined by the Foreign Ministers of Canada, Great Britain, and Germany, and by a key official in the French Government.

We hope that we can induce the South Africans to be more forthcoming in quickly resolving the Namibian question, perhaps giving us some help on the Rhodesian question as well. Cy will go from there to Moscow, where we will have another discussion between him and Gromyko, possibly by the President, Brezhnev, as well, on SALT.

My primary domestic concern is still to control inflation. We've had a remarkably good congressional session, I believe, the first 2 years of my own service with the Congress, in getting the budget deficit down and implementing some very stringent attitudes in the Congress that are somewhat unprecedented.

The risky vetoing of the defense authorization bill and subsequent vetoing of the public works appropriations bill, I think, have proven that I and the Congress, working together, want to eliminate unnecessary spending and set an example for the rest of the country to emulate.

Those are just a few of the things that I thought about a minute ago that I might mention to you in opening, and now I'll spend the rest of my time answering your questions.

QUESTIONS

U.S. SPACE POLICY

Q. Mr. President, I come from Cape Canaveral, where you visited 2 weeks ago. There was a big spread in the local newspapers yesterday that you were ordering cutbacks in the space program. And there are also rumors going around the Kennedy Space Center that as soon as the shuttle becomes operational, you will order even more cutbacks in an austerity program. So, my question is this: What kind of space policy can we expect from your administration, sir?

THE PRESIDENT. I think a very aggressive space policy. Anyone who reads the documents that have been prepared very carefully, very thoroughly by the Defense Department, the CIA, NSC, all those who will use them, including Agriculture, Commerce, and finally approved by me, would say that it's a very sound program based on scientific need and actually capitalizing now upon the great exploratory efforts that have been made in space. We look upon the space shuttle as a way to change dramatic, very costly initiatives into a sound, progressive, and innovative program to utilize the technology that we have available to us.

We'll continue interplanetary space exploration. We'll have a greatly expanded effort concerning astronomy assessments of the Earth, weather, communications. We'll expand our effort to bring into the space program now both foreign countries and also private firms in our Nation. And I think it is accurate to say that the space shuttle, which is approaching completion—we hope the first orbital flights will be less than a year from now—will open up a broad vista of new uses for our technology.

So, we're not going to minimize or decrease our commitment to space at all. I think the spectacular efforts to send men to the Moon and to make the first orbital flights, and so forth, have been just a precursor to now the more practical and consistent and effective use of our space technology.

So, it's not a matter of playing down the importance of space; it's a matter of using what we've already learned in the most effective way.

THE RHODESIAN SITUATION

Q. Mr. President, you have still refused to meet with Mr. Smith from South Africa. Recently he stated that he would be willing to sit down and talk to all the guerrillas in attempts to reach some type of peace settlement. Have you changed your mind about talking to Mr. Smith?

THE PRESIDENT. No, there's no need to meet with Mr. Smith. We don't recognize the Smith regime as being legal. In fact, only one country in the world does, and that's South Africa.

Mr. Smith and Mr. Sithole came over here on a tourist visa. They've had access to the public media in an unrestricted way. They've met with congressional committees in an unrestricted way. They've had extensive discussions with Secretary Vance, both since they've been over here and previously in Rhodesia. There's no need for me to meet with them.

I was encouraged, if it's true, that Smith is now saying he's willing to meet with all the other parties involved in the dispute for an all-parties conference.

What we want is to end the bloodshed. What we want is to have democratic elections in Rhodesia with an established constitution based on democratic principles. We want anyone who desires, to run for public office, and we want the people in Rhodesia, black and white, to be able to vote on an equal, one-person-one-vote basis, to choose their own leader. This is something that we've advocated from the very beginning, and Smith so far has refused to accept all these principles.

If he is now willing to move from his previous position and meet with the other parties in dispute, the patriotic front and others, that would suit us very well. I think it's also important that I emphasize we're not trying to force an Anglo-American solution on anyone.

If the patriotic front and the so-called internal group of Smith's regime can agree on any other alternative, we are perfectly glad to support what they propose.

I think it's true that all of the frontline Presidents, the Presidents of countries surrounding Rhodesia, have endorsed the principles of the Anglo-American plan. But we're not trying to force our will on anyone.

But the matter has been thoroughly discussed, and I don't see any reason for me to meet with Mr. Smith.

SAFETY STANDARDS FOR YOUTH CAMPS

Q. Dave Ferguson, from Connecticut. Mr. President, first of all, I'd like to just say that if you or Mrs. Carter needed a place to stay on your trips up to Connecticut next week, we'd be glad to put you up. [Laughter]

THE PRESIDENT. Okay.

Q. Senator Ribicoff estimates that every year 100 children are killed and 200,000 are injured while attending youth camps. Many people feel that these numbers could be reduced if Federal legislation were passed that established camp safety standards and methods of enforcing these standards, and they feel that State efforts have been inadequate.

Congressmen Sarasin and McKinney recently wrote to you asking that your administration change its position and endorse passage of such a bill. Will you support passage of such an act next session? And if not, why not?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. I never have had this come to my attention, except just in a very tangential way. My general philosophy concerning all of government is that the best governments to administer programs of that kind are the ones that are closest to the people.

I think local governments in a county or a township area or a State government obviously would be much better qualified to administer safety regulations and safety laws concerning boating and mountain climbing and horseback riding and so forth, than would the Federal Government.

Obviously, there could be some cooperation there when requested by the local and State authorities, because part of the money in some categories does come from Federal allocations. But my inclination would be to let local and State people handle this particular safety question and let the Federal Government respond to their requests for legitimate and proper assistance.

INFLATION

Q. Mr. President, I'm from Lebanon, New Hampshire. Earlier in the day, Mr. Eizenstat said that you would soon be announcing some tough things in the fight against inflation. Could you give us any idea what those might be?

THE PRESIDENT. No, not yet. It's very difficult for me to put my final approval on an anti-inflation package until I see what the Congress action will be during these last few hours. I have a thick document that's a culmination of literally weeks of work on my desk now, with a series of options that I have thoroughly discussed with large groups around this table and smaller groups in my office.

As soon as the Congress completes its work and goes home, it won't take me but just a short while, just a few days, to make my final judgments on all those options. But they would have to be based upon the budget levels, the action on either accepting or rejecting things like hospital cost containment, my own decision concerning a tax reduction bill.

There's no way that I can do it before I see what the Congress does in its final stages. But the work has been done, basically, with that one exception.

RELATIONS WITH THE CONGRESS

Q. Mr. President, Dave Cooper, from the Akron, Ohio, Beacon Journal. Do you see now anything changed in the institutional relationship between the Presidency and Congress in light of some of the successes of the last several weeks?

THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't really believe so. I think the first year I was in office I was maybe a little overly hesitant about using my own influence and authority. I was, and still am, heavily dependent upon the leadership in the Congress to give me advice and counsel, and I've tried to work with them in an attitude of partnership and sharing of responsibility under the aegis of constitutional provisions.

I've had good luck. I believe that any objective assessment of the accomplishments of the 95th Congress will show that they deserve a great deal of credit for courage and also for hard work. I have never seen a group work harder than they have, and I've been a Governor and I've been in the legislature myself.

I've only had, I think, six vetoes since I've been in office. I think the first 20 months of President Ford's administration-Majority Leader Byrd told me the other day—I think he had something like 46 vetoes. So, I think this is a good indication of our good relationship.

I don't hesitate, though, to use the veto when I must, even though it's politically dangerous and, certainly, when the outcome is uncertain.

What I've tried to do, though, is when we propose legislation originally, to meet with the congressional leaders involved, and then as we see trends developing in the Congress, in either House or within the committee, that I think are contrary to my policies, to invite the Members of Congress here, both Democrats and Republicans, and point out my concerns and see if we can't work out an agreement before the decision by them is made.

On the nuclear aircraft carrier and on public works, I tried as hard as I could to avoid a confrontation with Congress. But I think some Members of Congress felt-in fact, some of the Democratic leaders of Congress told me on more than one occasion—that they thought that a President has no right to assess the advisability of individual public works projects. And they feel very deeply about this, because very rarely in the history of our country has a President exerted this influence or right.

I feel an obligation to do it. So, to summarize, I think I've got a good division of my own authority versus that of Congress. I think it's completely constitutional in nature. I think we have a good mutual respect. I think the results of the Congress will prove this.

My vetoes will be rare, but I consider a veto to be a legitimate prerogative of the President, and even a duty of a President, so that there is no domination of the White House by the Congress itself, or vice versa.

MARIJUANA

Q. Mr. President, Jim Cameron, from Boston, Massachusetts. There's a question of some concern to the millions of young persons in this Nation: What will be the fate, or any changes in your attempts at marijuana law reform since the departure from your staff of one of its greatest champions, Dr. Bourne?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't think any change in policy. Peter Bourne and I were always compatible on this matter. I had favored during the campaign the State laws calling for decriminalization, with a fairly substantial fine that might be levied for possession of small quantities and a more heavy emphasis on controlling those who distribute marijuana and the more dangerous drugs. But I don't envision any change in our policy since Dr. Bourne's departure.

ARAB RESPONSE TO CAMP DAVID AGREEMENTS

Q. I'm with the Baltimore Jewish Times, and I was wondering how you felt about Saudi Arabia's lack of cooperation in the peace talks, especially in light of the arms sales and the leverage you should have gained through them.

THE PRESIDENT. I have not been disappointed with the Saudi Arabians' response to the peace talks. We obviously would like for everyone in the world to endorse the Camp David agreements without any caveats at all. But none of the Saudi Arabian leaders, nor has King Hussein, condemned the talks or rejected them or closed the door for future support and encouragement.

There are three elements that any Arab leader cannot, in good conscience, endorse or avoid. One is the matter of sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza Strip. And of course, when I say "Arab leaders," I'm including President Sadat. The other one is the question of eastern Jerusalem and the control of the Moslem holy places by Moslems. And the third one is the resolution of the Palestinian question.

We always use the phrase "in all its aspects." And I think that this concern by the Saudis has been expressed in very moderate terms. They have been complimentary about the progress that might evolve from the Camp David talks, and I have not detected any attitude on their part, even surreptitiously, to influence others to condemn the talks or to work against them.

I have just completed today my own response to King Hussein's questions. And after my response has gone through the State Department and NSC, just so they can see what I've decided, that response will be submitted to King Hussein. And I would guess that a copy of my answers to his questions would go to the Saudi Arabians. But we've not given up hope in getting further participation.

I might add one other thing, that is, that a conclusion of an Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, I think, will remove a lot of the opposition to the Camp David agreements that is presently predicated on preventing such a peace treaty. I think there's a lot of posturing going on by people who do not want to see a treaty between Israel and Egypt. Once that treaty is concluded, I hope that some of the opposition might dissipate. That's just a hope; I can't predict it yet.

CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON ASSASSINATIONS

Q. Mr. President, Bill Sumner, from the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

THE PRESIDENT. Good to see you.

Q. I don't know if this has gone past you or not, but were you able to follow any of the assassination hearings, and if you were, have you reached any sort of conclusion about them?

THE PRESIDENT. I've just followed them through the press. I've not been involved in them in any way. My own sense is that they've been thoroughly investigated, and I haven't detected in the last 3 or 4 years or more of investigations that anyone's minds have been changed. There are Americans who will always consider the assassination of President Kennedy to have been the result of an international plot of some kind, originating in the Soviet Union or in Cuba or somewhere else. And I've never seen anything that contradicted what the Warren report said in any substantive degree.

So, I think it's legitimate for the Congress to continue to investigate the Kennedy assassination. I'm not sure that anyone's mind will be changed, and no substantive, new evidence has been brought to light.

I think there were some interesting facts brought forward in the Martin Luther King, Jr., assassination. But whether there was any proof that the original conclusion that James Earl Ray was responsible for it, I haven't detected that. So, I would say that both assassinations have been thoroughly investigated. It's a legitimate function of Congress. I don't think any material change has resulted in the final conclusion at the time of the trial or the original investigation.

LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

Q. I'm Tom Leathers, from Kansas City. Congress these last few days will make all sorts of decisions on all sorts of bills in rather a hurry-up fashion. Is this the best way to run the Government, do you think?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, short of a dictatorship [laughter] —I believe it's the best way. And I think, obviously, our system is better than a dictatorship.

I get frustrated sometimes at the inertia of Congress at some moments and also the overly hasty action of Congress in others. But I have to say that sometimes within the White House itself, even on my own desk, there is inertia at times because of different reasons—sometimes deliberate, sometimes because of an overload of work, and sometimes, perhaps, I have to act too hastily.

It's good for the American people to remember, though, that some of the matters the Congress seems to be deciding hastily have been debated and considered over 20 months, and that the members of a subcommittee or even a large full committee quite often are highly expert in that particular question, particularly the members of their staffs. And, of course, a Congress Member who's been there 8, 10, or more years tends to focus his or her attention on specific matters or subjects that relate to their committee assignment.

So, I've been really impressed with the professionalism of Congress. And something that seems to be hasty is often that way only because the press and the American public have not been aware of the long, tedious negotiations and investigations that have gone on in prior months.

Energy, for instance, probably has been considered as thoroughly as any other subject that has ever-been addressed by the Congress. The civil service reform is the same way. Even the tax bill, which I thought was handled in a very abrupt and unpredictable fashion, the ultimate conclusion will be adequate.

I'm here, having 10 days after the Congress passes a bill, with all my staff to assess what they have done. If I think a mistake has been made on the tax bill or any other major bill, then I can veto it. And the worst consequence would be that the Congress would either come back in a special session—which I hope will not be the case—or could consider a bill, a replacement bill very early the next year, maybe even with retroactive provisions in the case of taxes.

I haven't decided what to do about that particular bill. I just use it as an example of one that has been considered very precipitously. I think, though, in general, the literally hundreds of bills that Congress does consider are carefully considered.

PROGRAMS FOR THE HANDICAPPED

Q. Mr. President, Aubrey Bowie, from Greenville, South Carolina. What is the administration's position on funding for voc-rehab and other programs for the handicapped, and is it in conflict or agreement with what Congress wants to do?

THE PRESIDENT. I think we're fairly compatible with Congress on vocational rehabilitation and other matters. I believe that the total HEW budget will only be slightly above what I advocated originally. There might be some categories where they are higher, like in the National Institutes of Health. But I think in general, we've been compatible. The differences might be a matter of 3 or 4 percent, or 5 percent, just a difference of judgment.

But we've done, I think more—this Congress has, with my full support—to aid handicapped people than has ever been done before. I don't say that particularly in a bragging way, because a lot of the work is a culmination of many years of effort by the Congress and by my Republican predecessors. But I think the handicapped people in our country have benefited tremendously in the last year's action by the Congress, including both legislation, executive decisions made by me and Joe Califano, and budget allocations of funds.

MR. WURFEL. Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much. I might take one other question.

NATIONAL RURAL POLICY

Q. Mr. President, I'm Joe Parker, from North Carolina. Governor Hunt has made a big thing of balanced growth in our State. As you know, we are a State of small cities. We heard Mr. Eizenstat this morning talk about urban policy. What, if anything, does the administration plan to do on framing a national rural policy, and will it be as comprehensive as the urban policy?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, our urban policy was designed to incorporate smaller cities and communities, as well as the very large ones. It was specifically not designed just for the major cities. Because of Governor Hunt's interest, we are using North Carolina, in effect, as an experimental region for rural growth and improvement of community life, with special attention given by Cabinet members, with some small allocation of funds. And I believe that what is decided in North Carolina as an outcome of these experiments that have been initiated by Governor Hunt, working with me and my staff members, will be a good precursor to what we can do on a nationwide basis.

I doubt if we'll have to have as complicated and as far-reaching a nationwide effort to determine what ought to be done. We've done a lot of work on this as we concluded our urban policy, and now we're trying to experiment and try out some of the ideas in North Carolina. North Carolina is not exclusively the place that we are attempting these things, but we have focused our attention more on North Carolina because of Governor Hunt's interest.

If you all don't mind, I'd like to close now—I've got another meeting—and take 2 or 3 minutes to get an individual photograph with you.