 Sit down. I have just few words first. Let me commend again the Senate of the United States for having approved production of 21 more MX peacekeeper missiles. The Senate has endorsed the decision of four presidents that the peacekeeper is a vital component of the American Determine. Now is the time testing time for the House of Representatives. The votes there will answer the question of whether we stand united at Geneva or whether America will face the Soviet Union as a nation divided over the most fundamental questions of our national security. For more than a decade we've debated the MX and while we were debating the Soviets were deploying more than 600 such missiles and targeting them upon the United States. Now they're on the verge of deploying two new strategic land-based systems and we're still debating. Not long ago the parliaments of four NATO countries courageously voted to accept deployment of Pershing twos and cruise missiles and these NATO countries are now looking to see if the American Congress is possessed of equal courage or resolve I should say. No request by an American president for a major strategic system deemed vital to the national security has ever been denied by an American Congress. It is that tradition of bipartisan unity on national defense that brought the Soviets back to Geneva and unless that tradition is maintained next week in the House there's little prospect of success at Geneva. And now Helen I know that Nancy upstairs would die she's watching on television if I didn't call on you in that pretty red dress. Mr President can you give us your thinking on the summit why you think it would be good to meet with Gorbachev what you think can be accomplished and why you've been rebuffed so far. Well I don't really consider it being rebuffed Helen because this man has only been in office for a few days and I have some idea of what is confronting him now but I've been I felt the same way about each of the three previous leaders there and then things intervened that made it impossible that there are a number of things bilateral situations between our two countries other things to talk about that we're negotiating or talking to each other on a ministerial level and that some of those could probably be further advanced if we met at a summit and so what I always meant by an agenda a planned meeting not just one to get acquainted is one in which just as when we go in a meeting even to Canada we have announced things that we want to talk about and they have an agenda of things they want to talk about mutual problems that confront us and I think it's high time that we did this. What are the prospects served for having soon? Well I I have to think that they should be good. I think in some of our people we've had about an hour and a half conversation the vice president the secretary of state did with him when they were there and so I think it's I think there is a good chance of that the reason that I issued the invitation was because under the kind of protocol that exists and you look back over the history of such meetings why it's our turn to be the host so that's why I proposed it that if if he would the invitation was extended for whenever he found it convenient. Because you're retired. Doesn't always work. May I say sir it's nice to have you back again so soon. Mr. President in your first term you proposed your own Middle East peace plan. He dispatched special envoys to the region to seek solutions. He even sent in Marines to try to stabilize Lebanon. These days we hardly ever even hear you mentioned the Middle East and last week President Mubarak went home disappointed when he asked for your help in getting peace talks started again. I wonder if you could tell us tonight sir what you expect to gain from the new policy of disengagement and what do you expect to be achieved over there. Well it isn't disengagement and let me point out I don't I believe it's a misapprehension that that President Mubarak left disappointed. He made no requests. He told us what he was doing and certainly we complimented him highly upon what he's doing. I think it's it's great but our proposal in the begin very beginning was that we did not want to participate in the negotiations. It wouldn't be any of our business to do so but that we do whatever we could to help bring the warring parties together and in effect you might say continue the Camp David process and continue trying to find more countries that would do as Egypt did and make peace. And we haven't been idle. We not only have had President Mubarak here but in short time before that we had King Fad of Saudi Arabia, Maasry the foreign a foreign minister is now here and we still feel the same way. We have been trying to build up a relationship with the Arab nations as well as the relationship that we've always had with the with his Israel and we we discussed with President Mubarak the yes the things that he has proposed in the idea of the Palestinians. We did have to make it clear that we couldn't meet if it was the PLO. They still refuse to recognize the UN resolutions 242 and 338 and they refuse to agree or admit that Israel has a right to exist as a nation. But we have said Palestinian representatives. Yes, there's a large Palestinian community and I'm sure that there are people that do not consider themselves represented by the the PLO so direct role for the United States and in any talks over there. Well, not the direct role in sitting at the table and negotiating that must be done in direct negotiations between the Arab States and Israel. And I think the King Hussein the position he's taken that was the one that we had hoped and he did take two years ago when we suggested all of this and then things broke down with the the Lebanese conflict and now thanks to Mubarak pushing ahead and Hussein. I think that there is a reasonable chance and we have another another traveling ambassador on his way back there in a few weeks. Yes, Jerry, Mr. President you now need a new US representative for trade to replace Ambassador Brock. Are you looking for someone who will more sharply convey to other nations, especially Japan the need for fairer trading conditions between the two countries and are voluntary quotas ever going to work on automobile sales? Well, yeah, we're just going to have to see what restraint might be used by the Japanese in this. But I have to say, I couldn't fault Bill Brock and what he has done. He's been as forceful as anyone could be. And we are still leaning on our friends and trading partners, including Japan for continued lifting of restraints that they have, particularly with regard to their own markets. And in the talks in Europe that will begin in May, I am going to propose again another round of trade negotiations to further get us back to completely free trade. And we've made some progress. I have to say the Prime Minister Nakasone of Japan has been very forthcoming on this. He has some political problems that just like me, he can't just give an order and have it happen. And but he's working very hard on this and build it a great job. And I'm quite sure that we'll finally get to replace him will be equally forceful in those negotiations. Mr. President, back to the Middle East for a minute. As you know, three Lebanese who are working for CBS News, taking pictures during some hostilities were shot at by the Israeli army today. Two were killed and one was critically wounded. I was wondering if you have a reaction to the incident and if you plan to lodge any protests with the Israeli government? Well, first of all, I'd like to know all the details of this. I'm quite sure in combat of that kind. This was not a deliberate killing. You were they were engaged in gun fire with armed persons who were also we were in civilian clothes, not uniformed as they would be in a war. So these things can happen. And it is a tragedy. And all I can say is that I think all of us have a great feeling of sorrow about the tragedy that is going on there in in Lebanon and particularly in South Lebanon. Now as the Israelis try to withdraw and whichever side the acts of terror, the retaliation, both of them are leading to tragedies that just seem to be so so needless. You're saying that the Israelis were engaged in gunfire with with other people at the time because one report said that they just opened fire on the newsmen who are obviously taking pictures and covering your own news program tonight showed an awful lot of gunfire with very sophisticated weapons, including current grenade launchers. And they were obviously being used by civilians, at least people in civilian uniform. They weren't Israelis. So yes, this this is one of the things that happens in this kind of warfare where you're not fighting another country's army. There's a girl in a red dress just over your shoulder started the whole thing. On March 31st, 340,000 Americans are going to lose their unemployment benefits. When the Federal Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Project expires. Are you going to let this happen or do you plan to take some action to extend the program? We believe that it is time. It has been extended, you know, for quite some time through the emergency of the recession. But now we have about 300,000 people going back to work every month in in new jobs. We believe that the place now is for people who are having problems is our job training program, particularly job training directed at those who have to be relocated because something has happened to the industries that they formerly worked in. But we don't believe that we should continue with this program indefinitely. Now, Sam. Sir, 17 blacks were shot to death in South Africa today by government authorities and what appears to be a continuing wave of violence by the white minority government against the black majority population. Are you considering changing your policy to put more pressure on the South African government to mend its ways? No, Sam, I know the pressure that we are putting on them and I know the gains that we've made. But we know there's still a long way to go. But I think to put it that way that they were simply killed and that the violence was coming totally from the law and order side ignores the fact that there was rioting going on behalf of others there. And it is tragic. And again, we hope that this can be corrected. But I think also it is significant that on the officer side, on the or the police side, whichever, whether they were military police, I think they were police. It is significant that some of those enforcing the law and using the guns were also black, black policemen. Sir, is it your estimate of the situation that the blacks posed a threat to the whites who had the guns when the blacks didn't? No, I say that there has been increasing violence and there is an element in South Africa that did not want a peaceful settlement of this, who want a violent settlement, who want trouble in the streets. And this is what's going on. I don't hold with what has happened. And as I say, I think all of us find the system there repugnant, but we're going to keep on trying to contribute to a peaceful solution if we can. Chris? Yes, sir. Conservative groups have been talking recently about trying to take over one of the three major television networks, charging that our coverage is biased politically. You have occasionally been critical yourself of network news coverage. And I wonder what you think about a possible conservative takeover of a network. I don't know what to comment on that. And Boone Pickens, was that who you're talking about? I know a merger has suggested for one and no, this is often talked about. It's even been talked about for some of the print media too at times by people that find themselves unhappy with what they think is a bias. I don't have any comments on that. I just turn it on, look, and every once in a while scream a little bit to myself. If I could just follow for a minute though, sir, do you have any concerns about major sources of information like news networks being taken over by political activists or do you think they already have? You just answered the question yourself. No, I, maybe the whole thing is a new school of what's called objective reporting that in all of the media in which the old rules when I took journalism and I did actually, you were supposed to tell the story based on who, what, where, when, putting first, whichever one was the the newsiest and have no opinions of your own. So there's a, Patricia? Britain's foreign secretary, Sir Jeffrey Howe, has raised a long list of concerns and questions about your strategic defense initiative which prompted a public review from the Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Pearl. Was Mr. Pearl speaking to the administration and if not, how do you feel about an allied official publicly questioning SDI just as Arms Talks was starting in Geneva? Well, I haven't seen either the speech that Pearl was answering or his remarks. I have simply heard that this happened. I'm interested in finding out what the exact words were about it. I do know that we have the support of Prime Minister Thatcher and therefore the English government in our research for the strategic defense initiative and so I'm satisfied with that. I don't know what the other critical term is. Were you surprised by what? Were you surprised by Sir Jeffrey's words? Well, I was just surprised when I heard about it. Yes, but I'll, I'm gonna, I'm gonna try and find out exactly what was said. Yes. Mr. President, at your last news conference, you accused the Soviet Union of violating salt to limitations on building new missiles. You said you'd have to decide in the next few months whether to join them in violating the agreement. Since the Soviets are insisting that they're all they're doing or making allowable upgrades of older missiles, won't an open violation by the United States run the risk of just dashing hopes for arms control and leading us into a real upward-spiling arms race? Well, I can assure you we're not going to do anything that's going to undercut the negotiations that are going on. We're hopeful that for the first time we really have an opportunity to get a reduction of missiles. I have said repeatedly and continue it and I really mean it. We're going to wait and deal with that problem when we come to that point and it has to do with some of our submarine missiles as to what our conduct is going to be. But, Sir, if I may follow up, that's this fall and it's unlikely you're going to have any major arms control agreement before this fall. No, we that's right, we don't know. But on the other hand our record is compared to theirs with regard to observing all the niceties of all the treaties is so much superior that I don't think we're in a position to cause any great trouble. President, can you tell us why your decision not to visit a Nazi concentration campsite when you make your trip to Germany in May is commemorating VE Day? Yes, I'll tell you I feel very strongly that this time in commemorating the end of that great war that instead of reawakening the memories and so forth and the passions of the time that maybe we should observe this day as the day when 40 years ago peace began and friendship because we now find ourselves allied and friends of the countries that we once fought against and that we it be almost a celebration of the end of an era and the coming into what has now been some 40 years of peace for us and I felt that since the German people and very few alive that remember even the war and certainly none of them who were adults and participating in in any way and the they do they have a feeling and a guilt feeling that's been imposed upon them and I just think it's unnecessary I think they should be recognized for the democracy that they've created and the democratic principles they now a spouse if I could just follow that up as the West German government asked you to take one position or another on it no but in talking just informally some time ago with Chancellor Cole and others all felt the same way that if we could observe this as the beginning of peace and friendship between us. Mr. President there have been signals from the White House in recent days that you were perhaps somewhat dissatisfied with the level of loyalty of some members of Congress on particular issues of importance to you. If you tell us what you think is the responsibility of a senator or house member finds himself based on an issue between deciding between what he thinks his constituents want what his president wants. Well I suppose this comes from the from the suggestion that I am supposed to penalize some members in the coming campaign. No I've never done that I'm a charter member of the California born 11th commandment shall not speak ill of another Republican and therefore I I'm dedicated to doing my best to see if we can't maintain the majority we have in the Senate and someday get ourselves a majority in the House which we haven't had for more than 26 years. So no I'm not going to hold a grudge in anyone. President what about those Senate Republicans who want to come down and talk to you and I think they're going to tomorrow Senator Dole Senator Domenici who pushed through a budget of their own that is not exactly yours are you prepared to look at that budget and make some compromise. Oh yes the the idea was we've put together a budget and after a long bloody hours that we think does the job but we recognize that others may have other ideas but now they've got something that we can sit down and talk about theirs and ours see where we come out and both of us the thing that we must recognize both of us have the same idea we want to reduce spending and start ourselves on a path toward eliminating the deficit. Does that include social security? Are you willing to compromise on that too now? Social security I still feel even though I did not refer to the colas in my statements during the campaign I was answering what I thought were some demagogic falsehoods that I had some kind of a secret yin to destroy social security and I didn't mean it but it was interpreted as meaning that and actually I think we're wasting a lot of time talking about it. Social security is running on a surplus and it is totally funded by attacks that can only be used for that purpose. So when we talk about social security we're not really getting at the deficit problem at all. You hit your hand up and Mr. President there's been some criticism that the federal government has not done enough in the Ohio banking crisis. Granted these are state regulated institutions but on the other hand there is some fear that what's happening in Ohio could be quickly and easily threaten the entire national financial system. What is your view of the federal government's role in such matters and at what point would you take action? Well I'm pleased to say that this is a matter of a group of savings loans that had taken out either private or state insurance had not availed themselves of the federal insurance program and it is limited to Ohio. This is not a major threat to the banking system there is no other problem of that kind any place else in the country that we're aware of and the federal reserve has stepped in and said that they will keep the window open for loans to those banks or those savings and loans any of them to meet the requirements of collateral and so forth and the loans will be available for them when they reopen. So that situation I think is being taken care of by the federal government there isn't anything else for the federal government to do. This is somewhat of a hypothetical question but at what point does the federal government play a role? Is there some break point at which you believe that the federal government should step in? No I can't see it as that kind of a crisis at all. We're perfectly ready to insure with federal insurance any of the banks there are just a half a dozen states that allow this other kind of insuring instead of getting into the federal system. I'd like to go back to Chris's question and ask you about reporting standards. Some of your friends and political allies have been suggesting recently that members of the news media are somehow unpatriotic. Senator Jesse Helms for example has charged that members of the press have what he says is a smug contempt for American values and principles. Do you subscribe to that channel? No but I tell you I think I'll leave that argument to others. I won't even get into it. I don't see any point in that and I guess I've done as much criticizing as anyone. As I say I just wish sometime you'd drop me a hint of who some of those unidentified sources are in the White House. Mr. President you back back talking about the Middle East you've been told by King Hussein I believe what King Hussein has said it publicly that his agreement with Yasser Arafat does include recognition of Israel's right to exist and a renunciation of the use of force. Under those conditions would you then at least consider the possibility of inviting a joint Palestinian Jordanian delegation for meetings if you thought they would lead two direct talks and if they did not include any members of the PLO. Well as I say we're willing to meet with a joint group Palestinian and Jordanian but at the moment not the PLO because of we have not had any statement from them that they do recognize Israel and that they will recognize 242 and so forth but there are many Palestinians who don't feel that they're represented the PLO and any delegation of them for example many of those who are living and holding local offices on the West Bank. Do you think then that it would be possible would you consider the Mubarak approach which is for the United States to invite a joint delegation if you had an understanding about the composition of the Palestinians. Well this is what President Mubarak was talking about and that they're putting together it's case of they're inviting us not the other way around and we've said that we'd be happy to discuss with them but they've got to understand we are not getting into the direct direct negotiations that is and that's none of our business we're only to do what we can to help. A question about Central America are you giving any thoughts sir to recognizing the Contras were fighting the Sandinistas in the Garagua as a government in exile. No we haven't thought about that at all and yet I I must say that this matter that's before the Congress of whether it's 14 million dollars or whatever that isn't the issue the issue is the United States is trying to help people who had a communist tyranny imposed on them by force deception and fraud and either we continue with that tradition which has always been ours or we give that up entirely and I don't think we should give that up I think our position is clear. Mr. President I'm sorry. We're turning to the budget for just a moment. It's true you answer the question on the Social Security aspect of it but two other issues in the budget compromise that Senator Doe was able to work in the Senate involved deeper cuts in defense spending than you would have liked on the one hand and lesser cuts in domestic spending than you had recommended. If Senator Doe takes Social Security cap on Kola off the table and you can't agree with a deeper defense cut and a lesser domestic cut it do you see the making of an agreement there or do you think you're too far apart to resolve that issue without the Social Security element in it. Well I hate to predict in advance what might happen when we discuss but I will have to say this one of the objections that I've had in all of the discussions with any members of Congress with regard to defense spending and the other is those who advocate more cuts in defense spending don't add those to the cuts already made in domestic so that the reduction in spending is bigger. No they use the cuts in defense to augment spending in domestic affairs and I think that in the discussion of defense spending we've got to quit talking about how many dollars do we want to or not want to spend. We've got to talk there about all right what is it you can see that would be eliminated by cuts in spending and what would that do to our national security and I would like to call your attention to something that no one seems to be aware of that we ourselves have cut the defense budgets over the last four years our own proposed or projected five year defense spending we have to date reduce those by more than a hundred and fifty billion dollars and today the nineteen eighty five budget is sixteen billion dollars less than the nineteen eighty five budget that had been project projected by the Carter administration so we think that we have made sizable cuts already the trouble is if we cut it in half there are people on the hill who would still think that it had to be cut more than that and I think that we've we've made some progress and we have a defense program that any further cuts are actually going to run the risk of lowering our capability at preserving national security. One follow-up you have answered this many times if it comes down to resolving this issue as a last extreme would you accept the tax increase as a means of reducing the deficit. I have said repeatedly that if when we have finally reduced spending to the point that we say all right here it is this is the best that can be obtained if government is to perform the services it should and then that percentage of gross national product or earnings of the people that the government is taking is bigger than what the tax revenues are bringing then is a time to look at bringing the tax level up to that level we're nowhere near that on the spending side yet and to start talking taxes now is to take the heat off the backs of those who don't want to cut spending. Yes. Mr. President in going back to the Ohio banking situation what measures are being taken to protect commercial banks and the stockholder big large banks owned by the stockholders that they are now don't get involved in that in particular because many of them have correspondent banking relationships with the savings and loan and what could start out in Ohio as a little virus could become a national epidemic which could involve some of major largest bank I'd like to know just what legislation is being proposed and what federal accountants are doing to check these things that the situation cannot ever happen again anywhere else. Well I don't know of any legislation that's being proposed for that and I know that our people are on top of the looking at this situation and don't feel that there is any emergency that warrants a federal interference at this time in there. Have you had any discussions with Secretary of the Treasury Baker Baker Paul Volcker and the chairman of the FDIC about this. I have not talked to I have not talked to Chairman Volcker about this but I do know that he himself has put the Fed in there and as I've told you what they are prepared to do and which they believe is pretty much the proper answer to this situation. Thank you Mr. Secretary. All right Ellen well thank you all. Sam I thought you were waiting until the meeting was over. How's the balance?