 But, right off the bat, the hot news continues to be the bugging in the embassy and the marines in the embassy, and Mrs. Lobez and editorial this morning on the subject, and I guess our question is, you said the other day, sir, that you have always been serious about the Soviets, and what they do in this regard doesn't surprise you. Why then your administration of all would allow untrained kid marines to be running the embassy for us? Not to be running them, but defense-wise. Well, the tradition of marine guards at embassies has been of long standing in our country, and the practices have been based on training and indoctrination against fraternizing the people there and so forth, and so this has come as quite a surprise and a shock to all of us. The young men and women we have in our military today have the highest ratio of intelligence of any in our history. There is a higher percentage of them that are high school graduates than any time, and so it's been very distressing to find this taking place. We're going to, we're doing everything we can to get at the bottom of it, find out how extensive it may be or what can be done. The commission has been appointed under Mel Laird. It's going to work directly under the Secretary of State, and Ann Armstrong, who chairs the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, that board, she is going to take that into this to also get into it. I have to say one thing about this taking place. I can't help but wonder, since apparently money was involved and so forth and bribery of this kind, is this a reflection of the trend of recent years in education in our country to be value free, that education does not take up the issues of right and wrong or anything having to do with morality. Is this maybe now being reflected in some of our young people? I'm glad to see that. It's being proposed by the State School Board up there that we get back to teaching some values in the classroom. I was told of an incident just the other day that illustrates this, an advisor, and he asked a question of a group of students, the question was, if you found a billfold with an address of the owner and a thousand dollars, what would you do with it? And the consensus among the young people was that the return would be dumb. The return would be dumb. Yes, and someone then asked the advisor, the counsel, well, then what did he say to the students in face of that answer? Oh, well, he said, I'm not going to impose my view on them. I wouldn't be an advisor any longer if I did that. Well, I think young people have always wanted adults to help them discover what is right and what is wrong. I think that was a classic example, but he wouldn't even suggest that to keep the money of stealing. The Secretary of State is going to Moscow at your request, and he says it's because he sees the promise of a more constructive and stable relationship with the Soviet Union. And you said the other day that we must carry on business with these people, despite you're not being surprised at what they're up to. Is there going to be a different level of business carried on with them in light of the Embassy episode? Well, no, and he's going to make that Embassy episode be quite a major part of his conversation when he gets there. But I don't think that anything would be served. We have made progress. For the first time, a Soviet leader has actually proposed reducing weaponry, eliminating weapons. There have been arms control agreements with the Soviet in past years, but they were only setting a rate at how fast you could increase the number of weapons. And this is the first time any of them have ever proposed joining and eliminating them. And I think that, yes, we want to establish a better relationship, but as I've said ever since I've been here, realism suggests that we do not ignore what has been Soviet policy and it is a policy of expansionism. Every Soviet leader up until this one, at one time or another in his own country, has publicly endorsed the Marxian philosophy of the one-world communist state, that you can't have communism, as Mark said, until it is worldwide. And so, and incidentally, Lenin made the principle weapon of that expansion, subversion. And so you have to be realistic that we're up against these policies. Was there any specific change in the policy now of the Secretary going over there as a direct result of these discoveries in the embassy? Or has it simply reinforced what, as you said, the realistic view you've always had? Well, we see any result of that. Well, and the policy that we first voiced to them in our conversations and that I voiced to the Secretary and the General Secretary in Geneva was that our two countries don't mistrust each other because we have arms. We have arms because we mistrust each other. Now, there's no question that there's a kind of paranoia in which they believe that the capitalist world has designs on them. And we have to eliminate this mistrust because they can have the system which is so much different than ours if they want, and we can compete in the world as we compete with other nations in trade and things of that kind. But it does not mean that we should be aiming at the destruction of each other's systems. Sir, what is the maximum you would expect that the Secretary can bring back in the way of news to you on this particular trip? Well, he is going, in addition to talking about this particular thing, he's also going to carry our position on the latest proposals for a reduction of nuclear weapons and see if we cannot iron out what differences might remain and arrive at a beginning of a reduction. Is it realistic to think that he's going to come back and tell you that the bones of the treaty can be accomplished within six months or by the end of the year? Well, I'm hopeful that he will come back and be able to tell me that this can be worked out in a summit meeting. We are still waiting to hear from the Soviets. They have been invited ever since we were in Geneva, and they just haven't given us a date yet as to when they'll come. Shall we move on to more parochial matters, or would you like to follow? Couple of local questions. It's really local, but it's also regional and I think national in a way. We have a nuclear plant that's completed but unlicensed in New Hampshire, and due to our position in the presidential primary, it could well become a national focus there. Right now, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering a change in its own rules which would allow the licensing of nuclear plants to take place without state or local approval of emergency evacuation plans, which is now the case under NRC rules. You've been a governor. You're now obviously in a much different perspective. In view of the overall ramifications of nuclear power and public safety, do you think we ought to take away that need for approval from state government for emergency planning? It seems to me that isn't the problem one of an adjoining state that would be close enough to the plant where they can buy their veto of that plant, keep it from opening because of a refusal to agree to an evacuation plan for our safety of their people. It's happening with your neighbor in Massachusetts. Let me just say here, whatever the solution is to that, I don't believe that an adjoining state should be able to keep a nuclear power plant closed in another state because of its refusal to adopt a plan aimed at the safety of its own people. Do you favor the NRC, some perceive the NRC acting specifically to help get Seabrook online. Do you think that that's its role to help while regulating, of course. I think at the same time though, however, to make it that that can't happen any place else. And as well as Governor Dukakis, he's assuming the power that he can prevent that plant from ever opening. And by what he's doing, well yes, there has to be a change that can't be done. And that could be to override in this case a state approval of an emergency plan. Is that Governor Dukakis' signature? Well, that's right. If that's... Okay. Okay, so the other quick... Another nuclear related question. Well, this is quite parochial, but given that we have nuclear plants, there is a nuclear waste dump being set up, if you will, in the western states. And the last year in New Hampshire was among the finalists chosen, dubious finalists, for an Eastern site. Even those who support nuclear power in New Hampshire, some say, perhaps hypocritically oppose the dump, then of course the DOE called off the search for a dump. Do you see an Eastern dump site coming? And if so, I guess they'd want me to ask you back home, does it have to go in our state? Well, as I recall, a number of states were picked. The decision to be made way down the line because I think after the one dump, there won't be a decision on the second needed for 15 years or so. But naturally we have to have a manner of safely disposing of that nuclear waste. And the only thing that I understand is that the Secretary of Energy found out that he, there is a question as to whether he has the authority to do what he did, and he is asking Congress to go into this and make it plain as to what the authority might be or whether he has that authority. So I mean we shouldn't rule, these should not rule itself out at this point as far as you're concerned. No, I don't think so. Okay. All right, sir. Mr. President, 1988 is next year, and the Reagan Revolution, an awful lot of people want it to continue. Is there any way you can see yourself before either the New Hampshire primary or the General Convention giving a nod or a wink or any kind of help to one of the many pretenders to the throne? Well, in this position you are considered titular head of the party, and as such I have to remain neutral in a primary, whatever my feelings might be about anyone. And so I will maintain that. Is that particularly difficult for you, Mr. President? You have long-time personal friends as well. No one is going to say it might be more difficult if I were free to say something because a group of fine gentlemen and good friends there that are in this race, but all I can say is that I have to remain neutral until the decision is made by the party at its convention and then I'm going to do everything I can to get the Republican candidate elected. You will actively campaign for the Republican nomination? If the candidate wants me to. I can't imagine why he or she wouldn't. The House wants to raise taxes by $18 billion. The Senate finance yesterday came up with an $11 billion tax package increase. What are you going to do with either of those proposals? I will veto. I've made it plain. I think that the basis of our 50 odd months of straight recovery, the longest period since the war, not in history of such an expansion. I think one of the basic factors in that was our early tax plan and then further reduction of government interference and imposition on the private sector. We have eliminated 30,000 pages of regulations. We have reduced paperwork imposed on the people, the public, by an estimated 600 million man hours a year. I think things of that kind have all been helpful, but I do believe that, you see, I was getting my degree in economics back before a man named Keynes, who incidentally never did have a degree in economics, just a theory. Back then around the turn of the century, the classical economic belief was that when the hard times came, when the government went beyond a certain point with regard to the share of money it was taking from the private sector. As I say, I think that our tax reduction played a very important role in the recovery that began and now has become an expansion. New Hampshire has always had low tax kind of quality that you've admired and you were there eight years ago on a Saturday night in Nashua with a particular microphone. I'm one of the bits of trivia. I was one of your three questioners that night. We never got to many questions with the uplaw. What message can we bring back to the people of New Hampshire from the president about how to resist these efforts for taxes federally? New Hampshire has been doing a pretty good job on its own. But there's not a lot of pressures. Yes, but in the state. State of New Hampshire in education. You have, I believe, the lowest per capita cost in education per student cost. Any state in the union, at the same time you have the highest educational level as evidenced by the SAT scores. What does that tell you? Well, it tells you that money, just throwing money at something is not the answer. But I think it also was the federal government's taxing policies. Back some decades ago, before the federal government started its big expansion into every field of activity, the percentage of the total tax dollar in America, the smallest was the federal government's share. Federal and state governments were several times as much as the federal share. And with this great expansion, that has become reversed. The states and local communities between them get the smallest share of the tax dollar. Federal government gets the biggest. And thus having created the situation where taxing resources were not left for the states and local governments for things they might need, they just couldn't, they'd been preempted to the federal government, those sources, then having created the problem, the federal government, using money, said, well, we want to help you out and in return for which we will take control of this or that area that once belonged to the states and local governments. Are you still going to make another stab at trying to do away with the Department of Education, even with a guy as good as Bennett running it for you? Well, right now, I have to tell you, he certainly made it more bearable. No, I'll tell you, it was very much impressed upon me when we tried that there was no way to the Congress and either side was going to budge on that issue. But I do think that if in the future we have secretaries of education who will not take advantage of that position to impose federal interference on what is mainly and principally a state and local function, then things will be all right. And that is what Secretary Bennett has done. But before that, when you stop to think that the federal government only provides 7 percent of the total cost of education, but for years was insisting on far more than 7 percent the right to regulate and impose its will on education, it wasn't a healthy situation. Is there any one realistic goal on your social agenda, social moral agenda, abortion, school prayer that you are focusing in on in your final year and a half in this office? Well, yes, and there are some very important with regard to this problem of federal deficits spending and federal spending too much, that I think a constitutional amendment to balance the budget which your state and most others have in their state constitutions and the right of a president to have what 43 governors have and that is the right to line item veto. Chance of those on a scale of 1 to 10? Well, I'm sure you're going to battle for them. I would like to see that we could get a hold of the whole budgeting process, welfare reform which is immoral in the manner in which it is perpetuated dependency for people. Instead of being a program, we want a reform that will try that the aim of the program will be to get people to become self-sufficient and free them from dependency and welfare. Then when you get into these other social things, yes, I have to believe that abortion, unless it has saved the mother's life, in our Judeo-Christian tradition, we do have the right to take life and defense of our own, so therefore that should not be denied a mother if the prognosis is that to carry out the pregnancy will cause her to lose her life. But other than that, we have to recognize we are taking a human life. The unborn, every bit of medical evidence substantiates this, that this is a living human being. Therefore it is entitled to the constitutional protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Mr. President? So I want that, but the other thing with regard to prayer, I don't want any canned prayers imposed on the students or not, but when you have a Congress that opens its sessions with prayer, I don't see any reason in the world why a student should be denied the right to pray in a school. God should never have been expelled from the schools in the first place. Mr. President, I haven't seen you ask this question. Should mothers contract to have other people's children? We have the case in New Jersey, which is the first one and the judge has ruled in it, apart from who should be the parental custodian. What do you think of people contracting their motherhood services to other couples? Well, I don't know that I have the answer to that. I know that there are certain religions, there are arguments against it. On the other hand, there is the individual who from no fault of their own cannot have a child and seek this method. This I think is going to have to result in a lot of study. I can't propose anything. I do think that the judge made the right decision in the baby M case and I think it was a tragedy that that whole thing happened. Why do you think it was the right decision in that particular case? Well, an agreement had been reached. The agreement was violated by one party. The individual who had made the arrangement could not have a child otherwise and the surrogate mother in this case can't have a child that will and has had them. It just seemed to me that it was wrong for her to then turn around and make the decision she did. Mr. President, we want to thank you very much and again, Mrs. Loeb said hello to you. Well, please take my message, my thank you to her also. Okay. Thank you very much. Have a nice trip to California and a happy Easter day. Well, same to you. Thank you. So, in addition to the California part, I know you're not doing to do that. Not happy Easter. No, not unless you want us on Air Force One later on today. Thank you very much. Thank you. And thanks for my addition to the paper.