 All right, wait a minute. No, wait a minute. Let's see. He's great. Harry Hamburg, Martin Burr, he's got something to do with it. President, this is our daily news center for on Saturday. Yes, we saw it. We're going to have some coffee. We want to pay you. We'll be telling you quickly. Hey, wait a minute. Yes. Very good, very good. Thank you. We're going to talk about Ferdinand Marcos, and I wonder whether you feel, in the light of the events of the past months, whether he's abused the hospitality that you offered to him? No, I don't think so. And I can't put out of my mind the fact that North should any of us, I think, that his leaving of the islands was preceded by his denial of permission to the military in that time of turbulence and street fighting and so forth, to take action, because the one thing he did not want was bloodshed or civil strife of that kind. And so he left rather than permit that. And so it still holds that he's welcome here as long as he wants to stay and can move on if he prefers. So is he welcome here if we see that he's continuing to involve himself in the politics back in the Philippines? Well, now we've faced that, but so far no evidence has been shown to me that he has done anything of that kind. Well, as I recall, at about the time that you met him in Hawaii and you spoke to him by phone that very same weekend, he had placed a phone call back to a rally in the Philippines and said, but some people considered to be inflammatory statements, but you don't feel what he's... At that time, and when I talked to him, he feels that he was elected president under their constitution. The election was then certified by the legislature as I say, as their law called for. And he was talking in terms of hoping that there could be another, under the test of this, another election in which he felt that he would be reestablished then as having been elected president. You don't believe that in view of contributing to the stability of the Philippines that he should absent himself from involvement there or a long distance? Well, as I say, I don't know to what extent. I haven't seen evidence to any extent that he's doing anything that has brought forth the little abortive coup that took place the other day. Well, one final question on that, the statement that was officially issued by the White House yesterday seemed to be critical of him, that he was, that what he had been doing in the past was inconsistent with the way he should be comporting himself in the country. Well, I think the State Department made a statement that was more to that effect. And as I say, we ourselves, we don't want, that was one of the reasons why we were forced, why we tried to be helpful at the time when he left, was we don't want the Philippines to descend into civil strife. Let me switch to developments with the Soviet Union and the arms talks. In the last few weeks, ever since your solitude decision, you and other White House officials have been fairly upbeat about what you consider to be the Soviets' attitude that they were being more serious and so forth. And yet it doesn't seem to be any instances where you or officials have cited specifics. Can you share any specifics either from Gorbachev's letter or from some of the specific proposals that we've seen from them recently that gives some basis to this optimism? Well, yes, the very fact that here is the first, to my knowledge, the first Russian leader who has actually proposed reducing the number of weapons and who has also voiced the opinion that our goal should be the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Well, that's been our goal for years. In fact, I was campaigning on that in 1980 that I supported and would support and hope that we could see the end of nuclear weapons total elimination. So obviously, there's more reason for optimism in this. Now as to specifics, let me point something out. The mix of weapons and all this such, that you could have an agreement on an ultimate goal, like for example, the proposal to cut the weapons by 50 percent. But then you can have disagreement on how do you best keep both sides equal while you're arriving at this with regard to the different mix. It isn't as if you're just talking about one specific kind of weapon. And let me point out that when we in November proposed an arms plan in response to some of his statements about the overall decrease in weapons, it took them until May to come back with their specific answer. Well, now it's May and now it's only July yet. And we are working very hard on our response to his latest arms proposal. And we're very hopeful that we're coming closer to eliminating some of the differences and to which we can say it's time now to come together on this. Well, you've been making the point about Gorbachev being the first leader to express his desire for some time, even prior to May when you announced the assault decision. Is there anything in the last few weeks in the offers that they reportedly tabled? Is there anything that really stood out to you in the letter that you received from Gorbachev that gives a more concrete basis to this whole, rather than a general... Well, yes, in that they are actually talking specific percentages and so forth of weapons. And this is unusual, this has not taken place before. And certainly we're going to give them the benefit of any doubt that they wouldn't be saying these things if they were not expecting us to come back with meeting that as to whether we saw eye-to-eye with them on the numbers and so forth. And as I say, we're in the spirit of negotiation. That's what we're doing is framing our answer now. Well, for instance, one of the reported offers in what some people seem to think as a fundamental change would permit research on SDI. Was that one of the things that we find promising or is there a feeling here that that really isn't offering us a great deal? Well, we know that there are probably several years to go and the research that's carried on and that is within the framework of present-day treaties to conduct that kind of research. They have been doing that for much longer than we have. And we're aware of that. So you don't consider that much of a concession? Well, it is a concession to the extent that it is a step forward from just their one-time flat declaration that we must give up that research. What about the other proposal that to some people stood out as far as the Soviet's latest offer was their proposal concerning forward-based systems and forward-based weapons, the bombers and fighters on carriers within range of the Soviet Union, and not counting them? Is that something that you consider an important departure for them? Well, yes, but this is what I mean about that mix of weapons that we all have. And we have felt, now maybe we'll have to change our mind on this, we had felt for a time that the most destabilizing weapons were the intercontinental ballistic missiles, that this is the one thing that when we say destabilizing, that when people think of nuclear war, they think of a button being pushed and 30 minutes later their world blows up. And so we had thought if the approach could be to try and get at those weapons and arrive at some agreements and then take up the others, because they have the other kind too, just as we do. It's true they have placed greater reliance on the ballistic missile and we have placed more of ours on a triad of having the submarine launch airborne and the ballistic missile. One of the reasons why the others are not as destabilizing is we are accustomed in recent wars of weapons carrying or I mean submarines, ships, airplanes, carrying weapons that they can then launch or drop the enemy place. And we know that there are defenses against those craft that anti-aircraft can shoot down an airplane or fighter planes can, interceptors can bring them down and so forth. Anti-submarine warfare. I am very happy to be able to talk about that for this few seconds here because for several years now, every once in a while I am hung out to dry by some critic who still says that the first time I ever talked about that particular subject, some of you in the media misinterpreted and have declared that I claimed that you could call back a bomb or a submarine missile once it had been fired and never did I ever think that's an old story. But oh, just recently somebody voiced this in a criticism of the whole thing and talking and no, it never was. I was saying that the same destabilizing fear that people have of the, as I say, push the button and something blows up does not apply to weapons carried by conventional craft. That's, in effect, what I was saying. Well, I was curious whether in the letter you got from Chairman Gorbachev, whether it was pretty much a formal document outlining their latest offers or whether there was anything of a personal nature that spoke to you? Well, all I can say is it was a very extensive letter and went into great detail and we're treating it in that way. One of the things I was curious about with the timing of the summit, if one happens, is that if it slips into 1987 as there has been some speculation, whether you would still be committed to going to Moscow in the same year? If it timed out that way, I am hoping still that this will, that the meeting will be held in 1986. That was what we agreed to, that an 86 meeting here and an 87 meeting in Moscow, if there are things that come up that make it impossible to have the meeting earlier than 1987, well, then I think that the third meeting for Moscow would sort of have to be based on whatever the time spread was necessary to prepare for a third meeting. How does the second meeting have to differ from the first meeting in terms of expectations, in terms of the necessity to arrive at some agreement by that point that's a little bit more concrete in the past? Well, I think first of all now we know each other. We have met. There have been discussions on these subjects. Remember that in that first meeting, for example, arms control or arms reductions, this was just a subject in which there had been no real communication on details. At least now we would be sitting down facing each other with quite an experience between us of concrete offers and counter offers. Does there have to be, do you think that the next summit there has to be some concrete arms control agreement? Well, I'm worried if you could have one before that, it's all right with me. But I would hope that we could perhaps agree upon something that then from maybe details we would turn over to our negotiators in Geneva that we both have there. One final question on subject to the Soviets, there's some talk that your response to the chairman is already drafted. Is there any way you could give some idea of how you're responding to him? No, you've got to remember this is a part of negotiations and I've never believed in 25 years of labor management negotiations. I have never believed that you negotiate beforehand in public because that's part of the business negotiating deal with the other individual. On turning to South Africa, there are a lot of people, including Republicans, who have been saying that we have not done enough to open ties with leaders of the black opposition there and if the Bota government should not be able to hang on that we would be faced with another hostile state in a strategic location, do you think that there's any substance to that concern and if so what are we going to do about that? Well, no it isn't so and we do feel that there's a great need for communication with responsible black leaders there and try to bring it about as a matter of fact both of Bouddhalaisi, the chief of the Zulus, the largest black group in South Africa and Bishop Souto, they've both been here and I've met with them. What about leaders of the ANC? Would you favor open dealings between U.S. diplomats and leaders of the ANC? This is all right with me on the recognition that the ANC there is no question has a communist influence but at the same time I realize that there must be many of that organization that are not communist and so it would have to be with the recognition that there is a radical element there that by its own statement and declaration wants only a violent settlement and as long as they're aware they know that we're aware of that yes we could talk and express ourselves to them about how wrong we think that is and perhaps the other elements of the ANC don't support such radicalism would take a position themselves. President Bota was pretty blunt when he rejected your appeal to allow public commemoration of the anniversary of the Soweto riots. What was your reaction to that? He did not really mince his words when he said that they would not exceed to that. Well there's some times when you give advice and the advice isn't taken and from our vantage point over here it seemed to us we were in inviting more bloodshed and violence or to do that was inviting more bloodshed and violence. Does the fact that there's a tone of his response support a contention that we're not having the influence there that your administration says we're staying to our policy to continue having? Well at least we want to stay to our policy so that we can continue contact. Yes there are going to be times when and there are times when there is disagreement. We've made suggestions that we thought might be profitable he's there dealing with the problem and he has factions behind him on both sides support for what he's trying to do because I believe he honestly is trying to take steps that will bring them closer to the end of apartheid but he then has political elements in his government that don't want an end of apartheid and so he's got some tough judgments to make. We know you ruled out economic sanctions and dealing with South Africa There's a lot of speculation about lesser steps. Are those a distinct possibility if we feel that the both of us... Well we have taken lesser steps. There are certain sanctions but the things that are being proposed by too many people we think would only be hurtful of the people we're trying to help that they would cause great economic hardship not only to the blacks and the black workers in South Africa but you have to remember that the front line states many of those solidly black governments surrounding them their economies are actually dependent on the economy of South Africa and we could wind up doing things that would be very hurtful to these other African states. One last question on South Africa what do you think the role when we were talking about black leaders in the country and the necessity of dealing with them what do you think the role of Nelson Mandela should be? Well he's a sort of an enigma right now he undoubtedly is a leader in ANC and he was incarcerated because he openly advocated violence now there seems to be some word that he has indicated that he he may be stepping back from that position so I think it's a I think it'd be worth talking to him that well do you think he should be freed immediately? Well I don't know that that's a decision for us to make I would it seems from our point view point over here that this could if it is true that he is advocating negotiations rather than than just outright violence that then this this could be most helpful. I'd like to ask you a quick quick question on Qaddafi who we haven't heard from for some while do you do believe to use the phrase that Secretary Schultz once used that all the actions we've taken have put in it put him back in his box? Well I don't know but he has stepped back and sort of disappeared from you might say public life and you have to depend on just some observations in trying to get intelligence on that it also there is a an impression that there are that the government is is more of a collective now that that there are other leaders of prominence surrounding him and having more of a voice in government than they previously had although there's no evidence that he's been removed from the top spot in government but there is no question he has not been active. What is our what evidence have you seen about his state of mind? There's been a lot of speculation about that. Well I don't think we have anything more than the things that have been visible in his appearances where he has seemed to be somewhat changed from his previous bravado. What is your feeling about the extent to which this threat seems to have subsided is it? Well we can't help but recognize that it has and that the original fears that there would be an immediate outbreak of widespread terrorism has not taken place but at the same time we don't we're not going to sit back and get overconfident terrorism is still present terrorism is still there and must be dealt with. I do think that we made some progress in Tokyo at the economic summit where all of us agreed that we were going to work closer together on this matter. There's I wanted to turn to a domestic politics for a minute. This year more than in previous years the religious right is making its presence felt in the Republican Party and there's even a possibility that a television evangelist might be a presidential candidate. That's a practice politician. Do you have any fears that other voters who do not share fundamentalist tastes might be turned off by this if this wing becomes a dominant element of the party? Well I would I would hope not and I don't think I haven't seen any efforts that have been trying to dominate our our party in any way but I just have to go back to a time when there were people that felt that there was something wrong with an actor seeking public office and my answer then and my answer now is that I don't think that any legitimate trades or professions should be barred from participation in public life. That's the meaning of democracy. You shouldn't judge someone by how they make their living. Well just as a practical vote getting matter though wouldn't wouldn't it be a concern that that mainstream voters for lack of a better word who you know who who's for whom religion is not the prime motivation would be a little would be uncomfortable with an act for instance an act of candidacy if Robertson should win the Republican nomination. Well let's go back to another time when religion was an issue. There was a man running for president nominated by his party no member of his religion had ever served as the office of the presidency and he took his case directly to the other religions and spoke to them in their meetings and their gatherings and opened himself up to their questions and all and he was elected president. Do you think that's comparable somebody for whom it just became an issue as opposed to somebody who's no but I think it's indicative of the American people and their broad-mindedness when when they're faced with the problem and suddenly a religious prejudice disappeared as an issue in that campaign and I think the same thing true today but the I have confidence and trust in the people they're the ones who will make the decision. Well speaking of 1988 I was curious as to whether you've ever you've done much thinking whether you do much thinking about how you're going to spend your time or two years away from that date have you what decided what it is you're going to do with yourself when you're out of this office? Oh there are well the usual things but no I don't think that I'll have any problem of having nothing to do. Well I mean do you see yourself in the model of in the model of former president Nixon who has become very active in speaking out on political matters or or sort of Eisenhower who retired and and wasn't heard from all that much? No but I can't I can't have a health problem the I would think that once having done this you'd be active to the extent that you can be legitimately helpful and I think you have an obligation to the things you believe in and to the the party to not just withdraw and say I'm not going to lift a finger I expect I will remain neutral in primaries I think as titular head of the party that's required but I'm going to be very active and do everything I can for candidates that I believe in and causes that I believe in as long as I'm able. Well I noticed that the first lady has a contract to write a book I noticed that Mike Dever has a contract to write a book about you and the first lady and the presidency are you going to write a book? There are people talking to me about that. Are you holding now for a big advance? No no I haven't even discussed that. Having done a book once I know something of what a chore it is so I can't say that I'm bubbling over the delight at the prospect but at the same time I suppose there is a responsibility to seriously consider such a thing as there'll be so many others that are writing about that and always are writing about their view maybe it is proper that the person they're writing about has a say. What kind of book were you thinking of a more of a personal reminiscing or would it I haven't I haven't let my mind dwell on that. But you have you have talked to publishers about that? No I haven't talked to publishers. No? You've talked to someone? No I mean that people people who surround me here other people of that kind that have thought that it was an obligation for me to write a book and have talked to me about it. Let me turn to some some matters of interest in New York you when you were in New York on Saturday you told Andrew O'Rourke the man who's running against Governor Cuomo at least according to him that you were gonna make a point of coming up the campaign for him. Do you think considering what Governor Cuomo represents as in your mind a high priority in beating him in 88 excuse me this year? Well having been a governor myself I have very strong feelings about the importance of the governorship. We are a federation of sovereign states. We have been through a half a century or so in which there was prevalent a widespread movement in Washington to try and minimize the states and reduce them to administrative districts of the federal government. I think that that movement has been halted at least for a while and no so I as I say I feel I feel the State House is a very important part of our democratic process and well does the fact yes I would like to be helpful if I can. Well does the fact that the resident is Mario Cuomo make any extra difference? Well I think that in our basically two party system there is a difference in the philosophy of of the two candidates and I support the philosophy of it's carried by Mr. O'Rourke which is one of as I say the the sovereignty of the states the reduction of government and its impact on the people its intrusiveness and all these are the things I believe in so I guess I can't make you rise to the bait. I can't make you rise to the bait of Governor Cuomo. His philosophy is a conservative and last week Senator Damato who is basically one of your own said that he too thought that that Manion did not have the highest legal qualifications and that he would hope that you would not press it. Does that sort of undercut the argument you made? Well I'll have to have a talk with him because maybe he's heard some of the things that are being noised around about my nominee. I will never send a name up there that I do not believe is fully qualified for the position and I will send names up there of people that I believe look upon the judicial process as one of interpreting the law not writing it and not trying to impose their social views on the people. We've had too much of that on the part of too many judges over recent years and I think the attack against Manion is unfounded as a matter of fact it's been based on a number of outright falsehoods. That's all right well and and what this this making something of the fact that the bar association only rated him as qualified there have been a couple of presidents in not in fairly recent years who actually nominated people who were reported as unqualified by that bar association and their judges were were approved or their nominations approved they say that it was because it was only qualified one of the last two presidents before me between them there were a total of 282 judges that were appointed who were rated qualified by the bar association. I believe that the attack on Manion is nothing other than a disagreement with his political philosophy and one of the most outspoken opponents in the Senate told him that to his face now he's seeking to back away from that but said that he had no quarrel with his qualifications or his character integrity or anything of that kind he just disagreed with him politically. Let me wrap up with a pair of questions on Central America and one is that now that you have won the aid that you wanted to send to the conjures and it's not only our prestige behind them but our money what happens now if they get beaten or defeated by the Sandinistas what's the what what is the next step? Well that next step would be based on what the follow-up would be and if the Sandinistas are unchecked that would be another Cuba that would be a totalitarian communist state intent on spreading its revolution across other borders to other countries and I think whoever was in this chair here would have to take appropriate action and whatever that might be you can't predict but I happen I just believe that by giving the freedom fighters the tools they need to become a force this will provide the leverage that hopefully can bring the Sandinistas to the negotiating table to then discuss the democratization of their country and the goals which they themselves pledged to support in the revolution against Samosa that they were supportive of the idea of a pluralistic democratic society with freedom of speech and press and all those other things and there can be no doubt no question at all but that the Sandinista government once in power as the strongest faction of the revolutionaries through the other revolutionaries out and created a totalitarian communist government which totally was contravened the the promise that they had made during the Samosa revolution. One last point and that I'm curious about in retrospect do you think it didn't matter because you won the contravote but retrospect do you think that you should have called Tip O'Neill to ask him for that opportunity to go to the house rather than rather than having Chief of Staff do it? No I think it was pure routine for it to be done that way and very frankly I think that was unprecedented for the response that we got. Other presidents have made the same request and have been granted permission to appear before one House of the Legislature and several of those were Democrats. Well thank you Mr. President I appreciate your having me in today. Well pleased to be here. I'm glad there were no Rose Garden events this week.