 I think you choose one each and one on the chair. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Any questions? I thought you would possibly start with the Philippines. And that's the whole area. So several administration officials were quoted as saying that they were disgusted at what they found in Mr. Marcos' luggage when he came to Hawaii. Do you share their surprise about the scale of his overall corruption when he was leader of the Philippines? Well, I'll tell you, I'm not going to comment on that. I think here now we're talking about something that is very legalities involved. And I think rather than comment on that, our interest is in continuing our friendship, historic friendship with the Philippines, and I'm going to let the law and justice take its course. And we'll abide by the laws, but also that will involve not just hearsay and gossip and so forth, but a determination of what's actually happened. I'll wait for that. Do you think he should escape prosecution by courts in the U.S.? I have said that I think that the laws of not only our nation, but the Philippine government and international law or the laws of whatever country he may go to should be observed. With no intervention? No. For special treatment? That's right. So you think he should be prosecuted by, if anything? If and when. So as I say, I'll let the law take its course. One more question about Philippine, sir. You said that you wanted to give Ms. Aquino time to form a new government and create a cabinet and get things rolling. Why have you waited so long and not personally called her? I don't think there's been any occasion to, and I don't think that we can say that she's through with the process or the business of getting her government underway and going. And we've maintained contact with her through our ambassador and others. And there'd be, she's still organizing a government. No need to. Would you like to meet with her, sir, at some point? If that will improve or continue or help to continue the relations we've always had to, fine. Any prospect of that on your Asian trip? No, because there we're going to Indonesia and I'm going to meet with the ASEAN leaders. It's a meeting that was once scheduled and put off. There will be a representative of the Philippine government as a part of that meeting. But not she, herself? No, not to my knowledge. Sir, on US-Soviet relations, Mr. Gorbachev pledged to you in Geneva last November that he wanted to have a summit. And now he's been seemingly sounding like he really is not interested in it. Do you feel personally deceived? No, because I don't feel that any decision has been made. There was one government official, not the General Secretary, who discussed with some of our people the possibility of a different date than the June date we'd originally suggested. But that is not formal. That has been a formal objection to it. And so far, I'm going to continue to operate that we're waiting to hear from them as to... We've extended it to, say, June, July. They had suggested possibly later in the fall, and we've called attention to the election that will be going on here, and that that would be difficult for us to... Late November? I did the other day say to someone that were possibly, if it went beyond then the election and before the end of the year, I don't think that... I'd prefer not to wait that long. That then makes it a long time since the previous summit. And I'm still hopeful that it'll wind up June or July. I've got a little broader, sort of more philosophical question, Mr. President. You have a little bit more than two years left in your presidency now, and I know you had wanted to leave a legacy of peace. Are you concerned in some form that time is running out to reach a major breakthrough with the Soviet Union in the peace area? No, I don't think time is running out to that extent of it being, you might say, a kind of do or die moment here. And I guess I'm not surprised that the negotiations haven't been faster than they've been, because if you look back at the pattern of such negotiations with the Soviets, there never has been anything of any speed in those negotiations. But other presidents that seem have been able to achieve some kind of breakthrough in arms control or some area that they could say really tried to alleviate tensions. You haven't so far. No, that's right, because of one fundamental difference. The other discussions and the other agreements that have been made and proposed have all had to do with the rate of increase in weaponry. And I said back when I was campaigning that I'd stayed at a table as long as it took to see if we couldn't get a reduction in the numbers of weapons. And this has never before been discussed with them. The very fact that they have made proposals themselves calling for reductions is something new, and I think something that gives us cause for optimism. Under those other agreements, the effect of some of them, granted that they may have held down the rate of increase, but take from the time of the agreement on salt too, they've added about 6,000 warheads in that time. Well, maybe you can call it arm control in one way, but it certainly isn't arms reduction, and arms reduction is what we need. It would sound like you're hopeful on U.S.-Oviet relations. Yes, because I think that they've got some practical benefits to get from themselves. Mr. President, I wonder whether I might turn you temporarily towards domestic politics. This is an election year. First, may I ask about realignment, which has been a theme you followed for a long time, partisan realignment. Do you think that Republican victory in the Senate this year is an essential to getting the kind of partisan realignment that you want? Will, in other words, will Republican loss of the Senate, would Republican loss of the Senate set the cause back a great deal? Well, it would be a setback, and then there would be another election for other senators in two more years. I have to say that I would hate to see the loss of the Senate because I don't believe that we could have achieved the things economically and in other fields that we have achieved if we did not have one House of the Legislature. To what degree do you intend to involve yourself directly in individual campaigns where Republican candidates are hard-pressed in the next few months? I'm going to do everything I can, behalf of our candidates, and everything that I'm asked to do. Travel, speak. Yes. If the Republicans were to lose control of the Senate, in what specific areas do you think you would encounter the most trouble? Where would that limit you the most in the rest of your term? Oh, that would be hard to speculate on. It would depend on who was gone and who was still here. We've had, if you've noticed, in the very beginning, even though we have a majority control of the Senate, most of the major issues have found a bipartisan vote in there with us losing some of our own Republicans to the other side, but with them in turn losing some to us. And that, I think, is a part of the Democratic process. The main thing with having the majority, however, is that that gives you the majority and the chairmanship of the committees. The right to control the agenda to a degree? Yes. I remember back in California, I only had for one brief period, a year or so, a bare majority in both Houses of the Legislature. But to show you what that difference meant in that single year after we attained that bare majority, we passed 41 anti-crime bills. All of them had been buried in a committee operated and controlled by the majority until that change where we became the majority. They weren't new bills at all. And strangely enough, those 41 bills that have been lying buried in those committees, once they were brought out in the open and the floor, there weren't very many people that dared to vote against them. Sir, can I change the subject to the issue of gun control? You yourself were seriously wounded tragically in that event as well as your press secretary, Jim Brady. In light of your own experience, in light of the opposition of various police groups as well as Mrs. Brady to this legislation that's now up on the hill on gun control, why do you support virtually no limits on gun control at this point? Well, I don't think that it is a no limit thing, but I'd like to point something out. Yes, I have a shot here in the District of Columbia where the gun control laws are probably as strict as they are any place in the United States, where everything about the possession of that gun and the having of it on his person was against the law. If you would check those states, such as New York, and with all the great gun control laws that they have, check the use of guns in crime in those states against states like some western states like in Arizona, where there is very little of what we would think is control, which is cause and which is effect. The point that I think is made is that as long as there are guns, the individual that wants a gun for a crime is going to have one and going to get it. The only person that's going to be penalized and have difficulty is the law-abiding citizen, who then cannot have, if he wants protection, the protection of a weapon in his home or home protection. What I think is rather than gun control of this kind, when I was governor, we passed a law in California that I think is the most effective kind. It controlled or made more costly wrong people having guns, criminals in using them. We passed a law there that said that if an individual is convicted of a crime, such as burglary or anything, and had in his or her possession a gun at the time the crime was committed, whether that gun was used or not, add five to fifteen years to the prison sentence, they found guilty. Now that, if you remember back in England some years ago, lately there's been some talk that now we see the English Barbies having guns and all. What has changed? Well, back in another day when they didn't carry guns. In England, in the old times, the carrying of a gun in the commission of a crime, you were tried not for the crime that you'd committed, you were tried for murder. It was considered that you had shown the intent to use that weapon by carrying it in the commission of the crime, and therefore a fellow that was only a burglar said, wait a minute, I don't want to get threatened with hanging if I'm caught with a gun in my pocket, so that criminals didn't carry guns, and the police didn't have to carry guns. Mr. President, on another matter, on the shuttle, the shuttle disaster really shocked all of us, but the Soviet Union and some other countries have been moving forward with their shuttle, with their space programs. The United States is essentially grounded right now. What do you plan to do to get us back into the space business? Well, first of all, I think we must go forward until we know exactly what caused this, so that there will not be a repeat of it. Let's not go forward. Yes. We want to be able to assure those ladies and gentlemen who go up there as astronauts that every provision has been made for their protection and safety, which all of us more or less had assumed was true before. But once that's straightened out, then I believe we must go forward with the program, and I think, Jerry, you'll find it was interesting that my first cause to the bereaved families, every one of them said to me, please, don't let this program be stopped by this. The program must go forward. But other countries are already going ahead. Yeah. Are you concerned that the U.S. is losing ground at this point? I don't think the period involved here is going to – they were going ahead anyway, and what's wrong with the exploration of space by others? We've – there's been a great cooperation. You know, we've had their people come and go up with ours so that they would have some experience in this field. Time to talk about the contras, I guess. You lost yesterday. You said you were going to keep fighting. My first question is, how do you intend to keep fighting beyond the Senate and what are the prospects in the Senate? What are you going to do after it passes the Senate if it does? Well, first of all, my loss was only the loss of a vote. The people who really lost were the people of Nicaragua, who I think have a sacred right to struggle for freedom. And it's – yes, I feel badly about this, and I think the outcome was a mistake. But I do know that they have admitted that the House itself, in fact, the leadership told their own people that there would be another chance to vote on this after the Easter vacation when they came back, that we'd be another vote. The Senate is dealing with it now. We've been discussing with the Senate leadership here what they're going to do in this coming week. They're going to have their vote. Now, the Senate votes this. When the House comes back, that Senate bill that has been voted will go to the House. And once again, we'll make an all-out effort to get this passed. Do you mean that you expect the same bill to go back to the House to be voted on again? You don't expect to have to make any modifications? We've been discussing with the Senate something we didn't have time to do on this one, and that is my proposed executive order. But I would be willing to see that included as legislation. But with that exception, you expect essentially the same proposal to go back. You don't feel that you'll have to change the proposal to get it through the House? There may be minor changes. I don't know just what's on the Senate's mind. They haven't passed their bill yet. But it would have the general format of what we did. $400 million still? Yes. That's a whole hundred million dollars. And then, there were many ramifications or restrictions about the use of that. I do know that there were people in the House vote from my own contact with them who expressed a wish that my executive order was legislation. So that might be enough to change. You think that more or less technical change would be enough to get it through? Well, just by contact that I had with some individuals and knowing that they voted against us but things that they'd said in our discussion leads me to believe that some of them will change. Would you be willing to make any change on the $100 million package or on the timing or on anything else in order to assure House approval the second time around? I don't think that I should suggest anything of the kind now. This was a very close vote. And I know that there were individuals in there who did not feel sure about their position and the way they voted. There were many people that had some minor thing that they thought could enable them to vote the other way. Before there is another House vote, Mr. President, do you have any intention of talking with the Democratic leadership or with others to try to smooth the way a bit for the second go? Well, it's too soon, I think, for us to come up with a new strategy on this. Let me ask you just one more quick question, Joe, on the old strategy. Some people speaking with the usual anonymity on your own staff, and people, Republicans included in Congress speaking without anonymity, said after the vote yesterday that the rhetoric had been too hot from the White House mentioned, Mr. Buchanan in particular, and criticized it and said that hurt. Do you agree with that? I don't think that the rhetoric was. I think the rhetoric was played and reported and indeed that the media added to its interpretation of the rhetoric and it was not fairly portrayed, but I feel very strongly, and I think all of us doing all that we're pointing out is that every bit of proof and evidence that can be asked for is there, that Nicaragua is literally already a satellite of the Communist bloc and its goal is the continued expansionism of Communism worldwide. I think that what some of these people whom I was quoting meant was that a lot of members of Congress, a significant number of members of Congress given the closeness of the vote felt that their patriotism had been impugned and it hadn't. It hadn't. No one's motive was impugned at all. There were efforts to point out that the clear issue here was one of attempting to halt the establishment of a Communist bloc base in the Americas, with all that that portended and on the other hand to permit the going forward of such a Communist expansionist move. In other words, this wasn't as some tried to portray it. This wasn't the usual legislative battle of both having the same goal but differing on the way to reach it. This was, here were the two goals and they were separate and we were trying to call attention to this fact. I think that the use, I'll have to tell you, if you talk about shrill rhetoric, I listened on C-SPAN to a portion of the debate on the floor and some, not all, I'm not impugning motives at all, but some of the opponents of our program engaged in some of the most scurrilous personal attacks against me, for example, the most dishonest use of distortions and outright falsehoods that I have heard in a legislative debate. Why do you think that was done? I guess they were very hungry for victory. You said there were two separate goals, Mr. President, in this debate as opposed to the usual pattern of different reasons to reach the same goal. Results, two different results. To vote one way was to continue to fight against the creation or the continuation of this communist government. To vote against that was in effect to simply say that there it was and we weren't going to do anything about it except sit back and keep asking them to change. What's the motivation for that, as you see it? Why would somebody say it's all right to have a communist government in Central America and we can't do anything about it anywhere? Why would somebody do that? I think all of the specious arguments that were used against us that this was only a forerunner to my desire to put troops in there. You're looking at an individual that is the last one in the world that would ever want to put American troops into Latin America because the memory of the great Colossus of the North is so widespread in Latin America we'd lose all our friends if we did anything of that kind. And we haven't been asked what we've been asked for for people down there who want to try for democracy who need the tools with which to do the job. Did these legislators of congressmen do you think exceed the boundaries of fairness in their debates? Yes, and remember, I'm only talking about several in there. Would you care to name names? No, I'm not going to name their names. Why don't you rerun the tape? But the idea here might exceed the boundaries of fairness. Do you think they'll continue? Do you think as the debate continues that the attack... Well, they feel so strongly, maybe they will. When it comes up again, they'll do the same thing. But again, the flat declaration that I was going to open a war involving the United States, their flat declaration that the things that I had said about the situation in Nicaragua were lies, but they weren't true. Well, there is one thing about this job. And even with all regard to the information available to a legislature, the president does have access to all the information there is. And unfortunately, some of that information cannot be, or the proof of it cannot be used because it would compromise sources, it would endanger other individuals, and it would render impossible further use of intelligence sources. I haven't seen you steamed up about anything in a long time as you are in this issue. Well, I just... The subject came up about shrill rhetoric, and I just thought so far, they've only been pointing a finger in one direction, and frankly, I think in the wrong direction. President, on another area. Iran has been having recently some successes on the battlefield in its war against Iraq. Are you concerned that Kuwait or Saudi Arabia might now be in jeopardy by Iran? Well, I think we have to be concerned about that. You know that early Iran has been fairly quiet for a time now, and because of actions taken by the Saudis and others to show that they were willing to defend themselves, but yes, the potential for throwing a match in the powder box is there in the Middle East, and I believe Saudi Arabia has been largely responsible for helping continued stability there in the Gulf. Are they threatened by this kind of... Well, as you recall, there have been... Earlier, there were some attacks on ships and their waters and so forth, and there were forays into their airspace that made them, then, establish a patrol and to chase other planes out of their airspace. Can you explain the local question? A New York question. New York City has just, after considerable debate and controversy, has just approved to build banning discrimination in housing and jobs for homosexuals. What is your position on that? Well, I know that this is a very touchy question and I am one who believes in the rights of the individual, individual freedom, but I do have to question sometimes whether individual rights are being defended in this particular field, freedom of the individual, or whether they are demanding an acceptance of their particular lifestyle that others of us don't demand. For example, should a teacher in a classroom be invoking their personal habits and advocating them to their students as a way of life? Teachers habitually don't do that. I don't think it really covers that. It basically guarantees to homosexuals equal treatment in hiring policies in gaining housing, these sorts of things. It essentially applies to the same anti-discriminatory measures as they are applied to blacks, to women, to other people. Do you think that's all right? Again, I haven't actually involved myself in what this law contains up there so I don't know what I'm speaking of, but what I'm saying is that how would we feel if a teacher, male or female, a heterosexual, insisted on the right in the classroom to discuss their sexual preferences and why and whether they believed in complete promiscuity or not, we would be quite offended and think that our children should not be exposed to that. Tax increases, Mr. President. Would you vote against it, do you think? If you are a member of the City Council, would you have... I'd have to see what the bill looks like. I don't want them discriminated against simply on that basis as to housing and jobs and so forth. On the other hand, I don't want to give them tax privileges beyond what the rest of us have. This is the last question so I'll make it a double question. Tax increases, you've got Senate Republicans coming out for a tax increase. Do you have problems with that? And we would like to give you a chance to respond to Jimmy Carter who said some not-too-favorable things about you in a recent interview with the New York Times. You said you would distort things. I've made it plain. I not only do not believe that a tax increase is needed, I believe it is counterproductive and it could threaten our economic recovery. And therefore I am going to oppose a tax increase. Now we have some revenue increases in our own budget plan but they are increases in the... not in the amount of revenue we're going to get. That stays revenue neutral but they are increases in fees for example that will be paid in return for certain services that presently are being paid for by all the taxpayers. We think it is only fair to do this. We have... we also have in there some sales of assets that we believe the government would do well to get out of certain ownership and businesses it's in. But the total revenue remains neutral because those increases are offset by loopholes and so forth, things that we close. Now I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with can you be specific what are one or two of the things that you might have said? Well he said that you have a habit of saying things... Yeah. Okay he said that you have a habit of saying things that you know are not true. Basically. Most of the things they've called gaps the great majority of them I have been able to document that I am right and they are wrong. And one day there was a press conference in which after it I didn't know that you fellows all talked to each other so much but every story of the press conference came out with six all the same and six in order grievous errors that I had made. I can document but everybody told me I'd be sounding defensive if I made it public. I can document that I was correct in five of the six and in the sixth it was kind of a toss up because I had made a reference to the marriage tax penalty and that in our tax program I used the word eliminate. Well eliminate yes when the tax program was fully implemented was correct but at that point I should have said reduced because it was phased in what we had done there's so many elements of that tax program. No so I don't have a habit of saying things that aren't true. Why didn't he just accuse me of lying? What do you hear from home about the chances of beating Cranston? Anything? I understand from all reports that he is probably as vulnerable as any Senate candidate but our problem is we've got virtually a football team candidates against him and how this is going to react and sort of sort it out and getting down. That's alright. He is vulnerable. You can trust us. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you sir. Thank you.