 You should have followed my story, the old plan that said that early on, when you were going to church, not only was that made sense, but you thought the Lord saved you out of the messiah, well, not so much for you to save the economy, but to save the world, and so you can follow the Lord's control over the region and so that, and you should be able to do that. Now, you originally, in your speech, perhaps, were firm and committed to the Lord's destruction. I think one of the soldiers who's made the proposal now is for a deep reduction in the sense of weapons, and in terms of some of the things that the Lord has to do with weapons, there are things that the Lord has to do with weapons. There are things that the Lord has to do with weapons, and so there are things that have to be to be done with weapons, and so there are things that have to be done with weapons. But I am encouraged because not only this one, but the first before the beginning, the final, is the first time the subject of a proposal is actually reduced in a number of ways. Well, you may be able to accept that. Yes, you don't hear me down. The other thing is, just what kind of priorities do you give? I mean, how high a priority do you give an artist who goes on producing? I know it would be possible, for example, to raise the level of the department in that global level, to the level of foreign ministers that shall lead the project. Well, I don't know, or I can go to theaters that we think are very capable of not doing so, because there are two. But whatever way it is necessary to get into business, we will do it. Eventually, of course, it has to come back to the topic. Therefore, if the General Secretary and I would, in the forthcoming summer, say, arrive at some agreement, and then hand it over to one of those theaters to put it down and say some more about the details, then we agree. And he says, in principle, I don't know all the major elements. And that was probably the hope for a time that it would be something to come back to us, and then having to go through it. Every eye and so forth. As I say, this has been my belief and my goals, and long before I came here, the previous efforts at ARMS, which have literally only been a kind of legitimizing of a continued ARMS increase. I've been critical of those. That was why I spoke as harshly as I did about it. Is it your highest priority for a second term? I think that this probably could be as important a thing for the world at large. Anything is to remove this menace for the world to sit here with the mad policy, as it's called. And it is mad, even though it means mutual assured destruction. The idea that we're going to base our hopes for peace on each, being able to destroy the other, and therefore hoping that no one will suddenly go mad and push the button. Mr. President, I would like to see if I can't get you to be a little more specific on what it is you don't like about the latest Soviet offer. Is it the level of reductions? Is it the link to the ABM treaty? Is it verification? Can you tell us what? It's things of that kind that have to be ironed out that are not as specific and that we might in some instance find ourselves in disagreement. We've announced our willingness several times have changed figures to approximate theirs in which we're willing to buy any substantial reduction as long as we both are aiming eventually at the total elimination. So you do have problems in all those three areas with the link to the ABM treaty? That's a crucial part of that. As I say, we're still studying those things. And I'm waiting for some of the people who are dealing with the exact terms for us to get together and sit down and see what our positions really are. As a matter of principle, is some sort of hold down on SDI, some sort of delay in the deployment of SDI? Is that acceptable as part of the package? We know that this has been a great concern to them, the SDI. On the other hand, we believe that this is one of the most hopeful things that's come along in a long time. With the idea of making it possible for us mutually to depend more on defensive systems than on just the threat of overpowering offensive systems. And we have some ideas about that too, which we think will be forthcoming when we start responding to their latest proposal. I was going to ask you on sort of a lighter note. If the summit with Mr. Gorbachev comes off, what it is you would like to do with him? Do you want to take him to the ranch? What would you like to see in Moscow, have you thought about that? Well, when we made the agreement, standing out in the parking lot in Geneva, which is where he and I made it all by ourselves, he had opened the subject by saying that there were things he'd like to show me in Soviet Union. And knowing he had never visited our country, I said, well, there are some things I'd like to have you see. So I said, why don't we have a 1986 summit in the United States? And I'm hereby inviting you. And he said, I accept. And he said, and there are things, as I say, that I would like you to see in Soviet Union. And then we could make the 87 summit in the Soviet Union. And I said, I accept. And we went into our respective teams and told them that. And I think they were astonished because they thought it was going to take a lot of debating and arguing and hassling that agreement on future summits. But he hasn't seen anything in America. And I think there are an awful lot of things that I'd like to have you be able to see in our country, just as I would like to see things there. But I worry. I feel a little frustrated because how, for example, can I show him how Americans live and this sort of thing? Without there being a suspicion that it's a Potemkin village where it's been created as a display for him to see. How can we convince him that we're not staging something for him? Maybe they can take his spots. Yes, I've thought of that. And then it could have to do it right away. So there couldn't be any time lapse in there in which he would think having chosen the spot, we are now doing something about it. Would you take him to the ranch? We've talked about that. We don't know now what the time constraints would be and whether we could or not. But since he comes from an agricultural background, we have thought about his seeing our countryside and maybe the ranch. If I can take you back to arms control for a moment. On the salt treaty, you and your top advisers have used a variety of euphemisms to declare the treaty dead. But you've never quite said so in so many words. Are you prepared to say that the salt treaty is dead? You know, when you keep asking for things like that, I spent about a quarter of a century in labor management negotiations. For my own union, the Screen Act was killed. And for much of that time I was in charge of the negotiations. I think I know something about negotiations and now you have a kind of a built-in instinct. And I just am reluctant to come out with some of the declarations that many of you want to hear either way. Because in a way, you commit yourself in advance the things that may become issues in a negotiation. So I have, yes, I have tried to avoid that. But in effect, what I was saying with regard to salt too, the proposal I understand came from the Soviet Union prior to my arrival in office about observing the constraints even though our Senate would not and never has ratified that treaty. And by now, the treaty was only for a temporary period of time and we've gone past that time so it would have outlived itself by now. But the Soviets were very choosy about their own observance of the constraints of salt. Some things they did abide by and observe others they ignored and violated the terms of salt to go forward with their own arms built up. We found ourselves the only one that unilaterally was observing the constraints that were laid down in the salt treaty. Well, we can't go on doing that. We don't seek a military superiority over the Soviet Union. We seek a deterrent, but it must be a deterrent that is practical and real. So would the setting of a firm date for the summit, Mr. President, together with the latest Soviet arms control proposal maybe persuade you that you should not exceed the salt too limits, as you've indicated we might do it near the end of the year? We are in the process of a modernization program, long overdue and way behind theirs. Both sides have been modernizing, not just expanding in numbers but exchanging now for superior versions of these weapons. They are way ahead of us in that. We're playing catch-up. And we must go forward with that program if we are to have an assurance that our national security is solid. Are we going to have a summit this year, Mr. President? I certainly, I believe so, and he has given a very indication that he wants to have a summit. So the chance of having a summit in November or December? Well, now here again. I'm prepared to, we made a proposal. It obviously was too early for them because of their great national congress and so forth and a new administration just taking over. So we've recognized that and we have expressed our feeling about ourselves and the problems of our own election coming up that it would be better following that. And frankly, I'm waiting to see if he has a particular date that he could suggest. I'm quite sure that when it comes to 87, and they start inviting, they could very easily hit upon a wrong date for us because of our own commitments here and we would come back with an alternate suggestion. So whether they suggest one or whether they're waiting for us, we'll work that out and we'll have a summit. You have Soviet relations seem to have been sort of up and down and your administration has been a lot of other administrations. How would you describe them now? I think they're on a more solid footing than they've been for a long time. For one thing, because I think we've made it plain to the Soviet Union that we are realistic. We see them and what their goals are and we're not deluding ourselves in any way. And I think in the past there has been a tendency to see them in a mirror kind of image and think, well, if we just are nice, they'll want to be nice in return. They've got some practical goals of their own, some we'd probably disagree with, be opposed to. But I think that, and based on Geneva, he and I did have hours of talk together and we got right down to basic fundamentals and found out pretty much what each other believed. And so as I say, I think that it's on a solid basis. When it says it's been an up or down thing, you have to remember. For most of my first term here, we had Soviet leaders one after the other that were almost in communicato because of health reasons and they kept dying. Are you betting that the Soviets will not respond to the abandonment of the Salt Treaty with an increase in their arms buildup because they can't afford it? I think they've got some very real economic problems. And this again is one of the reasons why I'm hopeful about our getting together. We've all got problems in one kind or another and they have some very real economic problems. So I think that the, well let me put it this way, I don't think that either one of us wants to engage in an arms race. I have made it plain that there's no way we're going to sit back and allow someone else to have a build a great superiority. And I believe that they have other problems that they think might take precedence over a continued arm buildup at the rate that they've been doing in the past. If I might ask you just a quick question on terrorism. There have been reports of Colonel Gaddafi in very bad mental states since the bombing of Libya. Do you have any information yourself on what sort of situation he's in now and whether he's beginning to lose his grip on his own country? Well, we've seen these rumors and there have been reports sometimes conflicting but we are aware that he has not made any public appearances as he usually did. I don't think that when television speech could count as out with the public as he's done in the past. He's been keeping a very low profile. And we do know that from some reports that some time back shortly after our attack there was fighting in the streets in his country. And I have to say I think it's apparent that his Arab neighbors, while they dutifully said some things at the time, are more or less keeping their distance. Do you think the bombing of Libya has anything to do with the drop in terrorism in the country or the world? I'm almost afraid to answer that. If I answer it, it might challenge somebody to perform some acts just to prove me wrong. But there hasn't been a drop since then. Yes, there has, yes. I'd like to switch to South Africa. It's been reported that you made a personal plea to South African president Bota to lift the current state of emergency and that he turns you down. How do you feel about that and what do you do next? Well, yes, we think that things would be better and that we would be closer to, or they would be closer to getting to some kind of negotiations without this. We've made it plain that we disagree with this as the move that he's made. We think that, first of all, that the Bota government has shown its willingness to take steps and has even expressed its desire to rid the country of apartheid. At the same time, he is faced, as anyone in his position is, as I am here in our government with a faction in his own government that disagrees, and doesn't go along with what he's trying to accomplish, but he has made some gains, the past laws, single citizenship, a number of things having to do with racial, Mexican marriage and so forth, labor unions, black labor unions that have been permitted there. So I have to believe in his sincerity that he wants to find an answer to this problem. We think the answer has to come from negotiation with some of the recognized black leaders. Right now, the big setback is, and this is where I think his most recent action could aggravate it rather than ease it, and that is the literally civil war in the black community, where they're now fighting each other. When you single out the fact, I guess, that blacks are fighting each other, and you point out the advances that Bota has brought, some people think that you're expressing sympathy with his government, and while you have called apartheid repugnant, your administration has taken very few concrete steps, and you have sanctions against Nicaragua and Libya, and there's a feeling that you've treated South Africa with somewhat of a kid's glove approach. Sometimes we have sanctions also against South Africa, but they're not the kind of sanctions that, for example, we're being talked about up on the floor of the Congress the other day, because what would happen with those is you would punish the very people we're trying to help. There would be great unemployment there, and there would be a terribly economic situation, but at the same time, we then would have removed ourselves. We would be on the outside and no longer able to communicate and try to persuade and talk as we have been all this time. Take, for example, the idea of American firms being ordered out of South Africa. They have an employment policy that was written out by a very estable black clergyman in this country, Reverend Sullivan. They follow that. They have set a standard for South African firms in that their treatment of employees is different than it has been anywhere else in South Africa. Their promotion to supervisory positions and so forth of black employees. Now, what we think would be truly counterproductive and disastrous is for us out of sheer peak or anger to just remove ourselves and lose all contact with that government. And how do you deal with the perception that you're somehow sympathetic with this regime and what do you do instead of sanctions? Well, may I cite some of the statements that have made publicly about actions there and that the Secretary of State has made, and our disapproval of various things? That too is a part of negotiations and to disapprove as well as to try to be helpful. Mr. President, if I can turn you to the domestic side of government, I wonder if you could tell us how you'd like to see the addition of Judge Scalia to the Supreme Court and the Elevation and Justice Rehnquist affect the Court's rulings on the social issues like abortion and school prayer and so forth? Well, I have never given a litmus test to anyone that I have appointed to the bench, nor did I in this instance. I feel very strongly about those social issues, but I also place my confidence in the fact that the one thing that I do seek are judges that will interpret the law and not write the law. We've had too many examples in recent years of courts and judges legislating. They're not interpreting what the law says and whether someone is violated or not in too many instances. They have been actually legislating by legal decree what they think the law should be and that I don't go for. And I think that the two men that we're just talking about here and Judge Scalia are interpreters of the Constitution and the law. You didn't ask Judge Scalia how he stands on abortion, for example? No. Well, Mr. President, Patrick Cannon has said that if you got two appointments to the Supreme Court, it would make more difference on your social agenda and achieving it in 20 years in Congress. Do you agree with that that it could? Yes, I think there are great many things, particularly these social things that Congress has debated off and on in over the years and the interpretation of the law. For example, you mentioned abortion. Let me state just unequivocally what I feel about it. And I don't feel that I'm trying to do something that is taking a privilege away from womanhood because I don't think that womanhood should be considering murder a privilege. The situation is, is the unborn child a living human being? Now, every bit of medical evidence that I have come across says that it is. Then you're taking a human life. Now, in our society and under our law, you can only take a human life in defense of your own. And I would respect very much the right of a prospective mother if told that her life is endangered. If she goes through with a pregnancy, then that is an entirely different situation. But until someone can prove medically that the unborn is not a living human being, I think we have to consider that it is. There have been suggestions, though, by people in your administration while you feel strongly about these subjects, abortion, school prayer, busing and so forth, that you haven't pushed them as much as you might have because of the other more pressing matters of taxes, budget and so forth, and that you've almost given up getting them through Congress, but you expect the Supreme Court appointments if you get them to help achieve that social agenda. Would that be accurate? You have found that Congress has been unwilling to deal with these problems that we brought up. Prayer and schools, I was struck the other day when Chief Justice Berger was speaking about a subject of that kind and the separation of church and state and the interpretations that have been placed upon it, and he said there are only 16 words in the Constitution, and those 16 words are very simple and plain. The Congress shall, I may not be able to quote it accurately, the words of the Constitution, but Congress shall make no pause or provision, whatever the word is used there, regarding the establishment of religion or the prohibition of the practice of religion. Whatever it is, it comes out to just 16 words, and that's it. Well, now if you tell somebody they can't pray, aren't you violating those 16 words? And are you violating those 16 words with regard to establishment of religion if somebody's allowed to pray? And the funny thing is, it was Benjamin Franklin that uttered the statement in the Constitutional Convention that finally got them to open the meetings with prayer. And the Continental Congress, before there was the present Congress in the Constitution, always opened with prayer, and to this day the Congress opens with prayer. And on our coins it says in God we trust. And to me, the decision that prevented voluntary prayer by anyone who wanted to do so in a school or a public building is just not in keeping with the Constitution at all. I think the predictions are that Judge Scalia and Justice Rehnquist will sail through their confirmation, but you've had a couple of other nominations that have been stolen on the Hill, and radio addresses attribute it largely to partisanship. If the ABA has given both Manion and Sessions, I mean the lowest ranking possible in terms of their good housekeeping seals, so to speak. I mean, how can you call these distinguished appointments? Because I have appointed 281 judges to the federal bench. All of them have been approved, usually by that rating of qualified. Now what they're making, the issue they're raising with Manion is that, well, the next rating below qualified is unqualified, that their mark is unqualified. And I've never appointed anyone who was termed unqualified or tried and nominated anyone that was unqualified according to the court. But presidents Carter and Forge, between them, appointed 555 judges. 282 of those were judged qualified by the same Bar Association. As a matter of fact, two presidents in the recent past, very recent past, each appointed three who were declared unqualified by the Bar Association. So you think qualified should be good enough? Yes, and in this one particular case right now, I think there have been, well, one senator openly and in the committee meeting expressed himself to my nominee as that he respected his ability and his character and so forth and would vote against him, however, only because he disagreed with his political views. Well, now that is not the prerogative of the Senate. This should never have been said and that should not be their reason. But I was in this same position as a governor of California that I am in now as president and qualified because they just decided they'd outlast me now and that all these things remain if their fellow got elected. Do you have to make a stand against this or you could be relegated into lame duck as far as that? I want to ask you about AIDS, right? The public health service has projected some pretty scary figures about AIDS and it says that it will strain the existing health resources of the nation. I mean, first of all, do you think of AIDS as kind of public health enemy number one and do you think it's time for a stepped up government effort? Well, we have been spending a tremendous amount of money on age research. You know our financial problems. I don't know how much more leeway there is for us, but we've been doing all that we can do because of the threat that this represents. As a matter of fact, why don't some of you in the media start suggesting to people because of another problem and that is the problem of blood donors and so forth. You know, there's a practical answer to that if someone would just announce it. Why don't healthy and well people give blood for themselves? And it can then be kept in case they ever need a transfusion. They can get a transfusion of their own blood and they don't have to gamble on them. Mr. President, can I ask you one very quick political question? You one time said that the vice presidency reminded you of an old rule of dog slaying. Only the lead dog gets a change of scenery. Now you've had Vice President Bush as your vice president for all these years. Do you still look on the vice presidency that way? Well, you know I said that in talking about, well actually I was talking about the, well I know, yeah I was talking about that as well as my own lieutenant governor, but I've done here the same thing I did with the lieutenant governor in California. And that is, our dog sled, we're running double harness. The vice president is a party to and part of every decision and every meeting that we have. Don't see in your good friend Paul Axel running for the nomination, what are you going to do? I'm going to do, even without that, what I'm forced to do. And that is, as titular head of the party, until the party has decided on a nominee and then I will support that nominee all out, I cannot take sides in the primary. Let me go back and ask you, since Larry suggested it Mr. President, we get straight how you feel on the arms control process with the Soviets. Do you accept in principle what the Soviets... Well, let me define principle. As I've said, for the first time they are, as representatives of the Soviet Union, are proposing actual reductions and have even announced their desire that these lead to an eventual elimination of such weapons. That principle, yes, I agree and that's, that was my goal long before they set in 1982. I made the proposal and I still like to see happen of the intermediate range weapons that were based in Europe aimed at each other, that those be just totally eliminated. That threat be taken away. The principle of starting meaningful reductions of weapons and with the ultimate goal of eliminating them entirely. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with that. So the Soviets insist on linking that with some sort of a constraint on SDI deployment. Well, you know, there's one thing about SDI that I think all of us should look at. First of all, research is not violating any agreements or treaties. If research develops that there is such a weapon, wouldn't that be... Wouldn't there be a practical reason then to say to all the world here it is and why don't we have this just as when after World War I we ruled out gas as a weapon of war but no one threw away their gas masks? Because you've always got to think that you know how to make it. The world cannot forget that it knows how to make a ballistic missile and someday there could be another madman as there was in Germany that came along and this other madman he could decide, but if you've got this and it's practical then you can all go to sleep and rest easy at night knowing that if somebody tries to cheat it won't work because you have that system. But going back to what you said earlier, this also could be part of your negotiations on arms control generally. That's right, yes. It's not a compressed research and not deployment. I believe Mr. Gorbachev now has taken a position that he'll allow research to go ahead. It's the next step that seems to be at a sticking point. All right, but now allow me to hold back on some things because as I said before I'm in the position of having to negotiate. All right. Mr. President, thank you very much. Well, I was going to ask you a health question but it didn't do any good because obviously you're in very good health since Friday. And I'll tell you there's one thing that there nobody seems to mention. Also about that, the person who did the CAT scan said the same thing when they said a year ago when they decided I'm 25 years younger and I'm age. That's what the doctor, Dr. Joe Giudano, who operated on you said if you were to have a body, what, 20 years younger man. Thank you, sir. Okay. Thank you very much.