 This is all just, you in case that stops or you need something additional, we can provide transcription. Okay. I'm going to do, at the start, I'm going to do something that is probably, most people would think it's very unprofessional, but I'm going to show you a picture that my mother gave. Let's see if you can remember what movie, and in 1937, the Presidio of Monterey in California. I sure can. This was a picture based on a true incident called Sergeant Murphy. That's exactly right. Now I was not Sergeant Murphy. The horse was Sergeant Murphy. And it was the cavalry, we were up there, that was when the 11th Cavalry was based in Monterey. That's right. And this horse had- Well right, out there was my grandmother. Ah, well. My grandfather was the post-commander. My mother was there, actually had a non-speaking role as an extra in the movie. Now the truth is that the horse, Sergeant Murphy, was in the cavalry, and a cavalryman that I played in real life discovered his quality. He was a thoroughbred, and he bought him out of the cavalry. And then he took him on a cattle boat to Europe and actually in the harbor jumped him into the water and swam him ashore when the ship got there. And he ended up running in the Grand National and won. You won the Grand National, yeah. Well, afterwards maybe I can get you to sign this for my parents because it's their 50th anniversary next month. Well, I'd be very pleased to. Okay. Well, let me ask you a few questions here. Why is it, do you think? I know you've talked about the Bork nomination sometime in a lot today and in recent days. Why do you have groups like the Cerebral Palsy Association and book editors and all these non-political groups coming out against Bork? Well, I think it's because of some of the false charges and the hype that's been going on in this hearing, a hearing which is completely different from any confirmation I've ever seen before. And they have, with these falsehoods that have been told and the charges that have been made and never substantiated, created an idea that he somehow represents a threat to people in various circumstances. And one of the things that I have been using here in talking to some of the senators who were not part of the hearings is the total list of the witnesses who wanted to appear for and against him. And it's a pretty amazing comparison. The lengthy list nationwide of those who are for him are of the highest calibers starting with the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but the number of former attorneys general, the deans of the law schools of a great many distinguished universities and so forth. It just goes on and on. And the truth of the matter is it's his judicial record that should be considered, some 400 decisions that he as a judge has made, none of which have been overturned, and many of them going to the Supreme Court. Why did you, why have you all waited so long at the White House, at least it seems like a long time to me, before really mounting this campaign publicly in favor of Bork? No, we've... The Liberals really got going a lot sooner. Well, and I think very frankly there were some rather dishonorable things that were going on with regard to which witnesses were appearing in prime time on the television coverage and so forth, and the extent to which, well, when four former attorneys general sat there for six hours waiting to testify, but it was when it began to appear that they had created a kind of a wrong impression about him that we've stepped up our activities. But one thing, let me just point out this, the other side was making it an ideological and a political contest. Well, we didn't want to be guilty of doing the same thing on the other side. We didn't appoint him for political reasons or because of what he might believe. We appointed him on the basis of his judicial record. But looking back now, might that not have been the thing to do, to mount a political and ideological campaign on his behalf? Then we would have been as bad as they were, then it would have been a political contest. And as I say it, they have no business getting into those things. As a matter of fact, you might like to look up a statement that was made by Senator Biden on behalf of Bork when it was the second highest court in the land. And he ended the statement, not only in great support of Bork, but with a charge that anyone that took up the matter of ideology or politics and so forth was really off the boards and shouldn't be recognized. What was your reaction to seeing people like Teddy Kennedy and Biden and Howard Metzenbaum and so on questioning Bork's moral fitness? There's a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black, wasn't it? The – well, do you feel that you can still win this nomination that it's still winnable? Yes. I wouldn't be out there struggling if I didn't. Are you going to push it to a vote no matter what? Is that your – Yes. On the Florida? Yes. We don't know yet whether the committee is going to send it to the floor without recommendation or whatever, but no, we're pushing all the buttons and trying to, well, help some responsible legislators who are truly and honestly undecided to answer their questions and bring their attention to some of the things I've been talking about here. Let me ask you, switch the subject to Mikhail Gorbachev, who you've now met a number of times. Do you think that he is significantly different from prior Soviet leaders and has abandoned the goal of world domination? Now, that I can't speak to or I can't give an opinion on that. I can't tell you that there's reason for you to ask a question of that kind. He is completely different. I think all of us that have dealt with him and have dealt with Minister Chevronadze feel that. The only thing I can say about the specific question you asked is – and maybe just hasn't been there long enough – but he is the first Russian leader that has not gone before their great party congress and reaffirmed his determination to carry out the Marxian idea of a one-world communist state. He has never said anything of that kind publicly. All the others did. Well, that suggests that he truly is – it has dropped that goal. Well, I'd like to think so and we're going to continue although, as I say, it can all be summed up in a Russian proverb that I recited to him in one of our meetings. Which was? Dovayai no provyai. Well, I remember that one. Trust but verify. What did he say? He smiled. Why do you think he made – he's in principle, at least, agreed to the INF Treaty that I think it has a significant advantage to the United States. Does he have an ulterior goal in mind, do you think? Well, far be it from me to claim that I can read his mind or anything. But I do believe that he is faced with an internal problem and an economic problem that is so great that he could see advantages for themselves in trying to solve that problem with reducing the great cost of military buildup that has brought this problem around. Well, what I was really thinking of is that he might think that he gives a little of this and this really speeds up the whole arms control process and then you might give something like SDI in the stark talks. No, I think he knows by now that my mind SDI is not a bargaining chip. As a matter of fact, I have told him to his face that if and when that system proves to be what we think it can be, we're willing to make it available to them and to the world. What did he say? Well, he acted as if he couldn't quite believe that. But the idea is if someone can come up with that much of a defense and has a great stock of weapons, nuclear weapons, that could put that country in a first strike position. We don't want that and we don't want them to have that. I think of it as a little bit like in Geneva after World War I when the nations got together and decided to outlaw gas and they all agreed that everybody kept their gas masks. Well, here's a case of, you know, and the reason for sharing it is part of that. By sharing, we could get the total elimination of those weapons. If this system would make them virtually obsolete, then why not get rid of them and keep the defense for the same reason we kept the gas masks? Someday there may be another madman in the world. You see, we can't take out of our minds that we know how to make them. So somebody could come along and decide to conquer the world or try. But if we all had this defense, that would be the guarantee. On the subject of the Iran-Contra hearings, which I know you saw some of on TV, I think you were quoted and correct me if I'm wrong that you didn't, from watching those and knowing about the hearings, think that they showed that any laws were violated by your administration. Is that correct? Yes. That's certainly my conclusion as well. But then as a result of that, don't you think that Oliver North and John Poindexter have sort of been thrown to the dogs here with this special prosecutor? Well, you can't draw back now until this is resolved. But the plain truth is that they did keep me in the dark. This was why I felt that I could not retain them once this word came out because we had no knowledge that there was extra money. We'd gotten our $12 million, which was the price for those weapons. I still don't know, after all the investigations, who was the go-between that raised the price? Who was the person that put it in a Swiss bank account? And I don't know in reality who did anything or what they did with that extra money. Well, looking at these two men now, Poindexter and North, what are your feelings toward them? Do you think they betrayed you or how would you describe it? Well, if you have formally toward them, I think you've called Oliver North a national hero, and many people agree with that. Yes. Well, I feel that I have to recognize that whatever happened, they must have felt that somehow they were protecting me. And it was a covert operation. It was not dealing with the whole maning. It was not trading arms for hostages. The individuals came to us through a third country, endorsed by that third country, and said that they wanted to be in a position to influence what kind of a government there would be after the Homanie. And if you remember then, everyone's forgotten, at that period, virtually every day, we were getting word that the Homanie would not live out the week. I remember. And so this seemed a logical thing. When they asked for a little more than a token shipment of arms, they put it very bluntly. They said to prove that the individuals who were doing business with them on this, the whole purpose that they wanted to meet us was this other that I've spoken about, and how to have a better relationship with the United States once there was a new government. They said that if we would do this, that would ensure them that the people they were dealing with were of some stature. The second thing was that if they could turn this over to the military, that would be helpful to them in the event the day came that they were now trying for a new government to be able to do this for the military. We pointed out to them, or our people pointed out to them, that this much I knew about this request. And I said that we couldn't do business with a country that was sponsoring terrorism. They gave every assurance they could that any government they had to do with would not be supporting terrorism. And that was when we told them that there was a way for them to illustrate that and prove it. And that was that we believed that there was a kind of philosophical relationship between Iran and the Hezbollah. And if so, could they use any influence they might have to free our hostages? And they agreed. And we got to hostages. And the very day that the thing broke, that the covert operation was exposed, we were told that there were two more coming out within about 48 hours. And what you're saying is that you all were acting in good faith on this, which leads to another could, I'll try again on North and Poindexter one more time. And the question is this, would you agree that they should not spend any time in jail for what they did in your administration? I don't see anything that they've done that was breaking the law. Now, again, I don't think anyone should claim that until the special, I keep calling them special prosecutors, they're not supposed to be. Independent counsel. Do you wish you hadn't appointed, hadn't asked for one? Well, I don't know whether I can say that or not. We did it in good faith to prove that we had known knowledge of what was going on, other than the thing that I've described to you. But looking back, I mean, you know a lot more now. Looking back now, do you think maybe that was, you wish you hadn't? No, I don't see how we could have not done it. We wanted to make every effort. It was as clear and easy as this. No knowledge of any extra money or anything of that kind. The Attorney General came into me at 4.30 in the afternoon of a Monday and told me he had seen a piece of paper that indicated there was more money than had been received by us and that that money was in a Swiss bank account that had been used for helping the Contras. And the two of us agreed instantly that we had to get to the bottom of that lest someone think if it ever came out that we were trying to hide something. So the very next morning, we had the leadership of the Congress, both houses and both parties had told them. We then went into the press room and told them and took every question. I went in the air and told the people. And now let me give you an ironic thing. After all the weeks of this big hearing and all the hours of testimony, they still have not come up with the answer that I was seeking. Who raised the price? Who got the added money? Where did it go? Not one word of evidence has ever been given on that subject. And I'm still sitting here. That's why I appointed the Tower Commission was to try and find that out. Well, the Special Prosecutor, would you agree that the best of all possible worlds would be that he does not indict either North and Point extra then? Well, again, you're asking me to testify on something before knowing all the facts. But my own personal belief is that they were not involved in anything that would break the law. Let me ask you about just to change the subject one more time about the budget which has come up again. You signed Graham Rudman reluctantly, the new Graham Rudman. Why not have a budget summit with Democrats on Capitol Hill and make a trade-off with them? You meet with Gorbachev, have a summit there. What's wrong with the Democrats? Or is this just a subterfuge by them to get a tax hike? You named it. What else can I think? The law requires me to submit a budget every year. Every year, since I've been here, they have told me in advance without even looking at it that my budget is dead on arrival. They have never once considered it. Then they've gone their own way. There's only one place where they will cut spending, and that is defense. That's been typical of that party in the Congresses of that party far before my time. If you'll remember clear back before Pearl Harbor, we were holding the greatest war maneuvers in our history in Louisiana, President Roosevelt, thinking that with the world in a world war already, that we'd better be taking care of ourselves and prepared. We had soldiers that were carrying wooden rifles, and we were simulating tank warfare with cardboard tanks. Now, this has gone on. That's always the place to cut. That was when my dad was telling the horse cavalry. Yep. Not at Monterey. And I was a reserve officer in the horse cavalry. So you all have nothing to talk about then, if that's their position? Well, but the thing is, let me give you an example. When I hear them on the air saying that I am responsible for the big upsurge of deficits, when for more than a quarter of a century I've been out on the mashed potato circuit in this country long before I was in politics, making speeches about the necessity to eliminate the deficit. And they were saying publicly, well, the deficit, we owe it to ourselves. There's no harm in running a deficit. This deficit has been on for almost 60 years. And they have, for most of those 60 years, been in command of both houses of the Congress. Now, with this and next year, it'll be 48 out of 58 years that they have held both houses. And for more than that, for 54 of the 58 years, they have held the House of Representatives. I was fortunate to have a Republican Senate for six years. Now, you must miss it. Yes. Don't you think if you still had a Republican Senate that Bork would be confirmed? Yes, I do believe, without even a hitch. Or without the Iran-Contra affair sort of changing the... Yes, if you want to check back, you will find that in all these years we're talking about, no Democratic president has ever been investigated by the Democratic Congress. Every Republican president in this period has been investigated for something or other by the Congress. Now, what I was going to, leading up to, and this thing of their willingness to cut defense spending, in the last few years, the Democrats have cut the defense spending by $125 billion. They have added to the domestic spending $250 million. So for every dollar of cut from defense, they've increased $2 in domestic spending. In fact, I have something in my pocket and I didn't have it here for you. I was putting this together for our own people. Well, I mean, I got it out for them. I put this together in December of 1984. And it happened, I saw this, the Los Angeles Heraldon Examiner, James Bovard, had done some research, spending on food assistance in our country 20 times what was spent in 1968. Real spending per student, double what it was in 1960. Real social security benefits are up 50% since 1967. Now, that real word means that that's has made allowance for an inflation. Have you had this in your pocket since 1984? No, I was, I've got a lot of things that I had that I had put together for my own speechmaking. And I have these, going over them in my desk drawer, I have been getting out things that I think our people should have that would be useful in what we're saying and trying to get done. The elderly have a higher after-tax income than the national average and counting in-kind benefits, only 3.7% of them are poor. 1983, the government spent more on farmers than on the poor and the farmers' average net worth is $183,000. Those are interesting. Now, the Office of Public Affairs in August of 1984, the last three years of the Carter administration, poverty rose by 9.1%. In our first two years, it only rose by 5.3%. I think it's been shrinking since then. And Carter's last three years, poverty among the non-agent persons in female-headed households increased at an average annual rate of 5.9%. And in our term, it had only increased at a rate of 4.1%. I'll look for those in a speech soon. Okay, let me ask one more thing. You know the question that you get around the country a lot, the little that I get and reporters give speeches and appear on panels and so on, that a lot of people ask about you, and that is, I don't know where they get this idea, but whether you might resign sometime in your second term and let George Bush take over the presidency. I take very seriously that my responsibility as titular head of the party is such that however I might feel inside, I must remain neutral in the Republican primaries. So in other words, I understand that, but you have never thought of resigning the presidency in the last two years. Why do you think people have that idea? I've heard that, maybe Marlon's heard that too from people. It's a rumor that's always going on. You always get that question. Maybe from the same sources that have some of the congressmen on the air every other day saying that I'm responsible for the runaway deficits. Maybe it's... You want another figure? Sure. You'll remember that Johnson LBJ came up with a great humanity program, The War on Poverty. Poverty one, incidentally. From 1965 to 1980, through 1980, in those 15 years, the National and the Federal Budget increased roughly to five times what it had been in 65. Right. The deficit increased to 38 times what it had been in 1965. And when I hear them saying, I've had something to do with the deficit, only because I cut taxes. First of all, the president can't spend a dime. Only Congress can spend money. Now, I can make a recommendation of a budget. I have to, it's required of me. But the truth of the matter is, every one of our tax increases, but not only that, tax increases over history in the past or decreases, I should say, have ended up with the government getting more revenue at the lower rates because the cut in tax rates stimulated the economy. We have a bigger economy. And right now, with ours, the revenues went up with this. Just today, the Wall Street Journal was suggesting that you cut the capital gains rate from 28 percent down to 15 percent and it would raise revenue. It probably would. But you can imagine how much of a chance I'd have to getting that done. Not much. But if you look at tax increases, you will find that inevitably they result in a cut in revenues because of the, well, just now with what our own cuts and the cut of the top rate. When they say that, well, we shouldn't be cutting the people that are making the big money and so forth. The percentage of total tax paid by the people in the top bracket has increased since we cut that rate because now, instead of looking for tax dodges, there's an incentive for them to make more money because they get to keep more. I remember when I was an actor being in a 90 percent bracket. And do you think that when somebody, or how good the script was, somebody offered me another picture after I reached that bracket that I would take or do that picture and work for ten cents on the dollar not on your life? Well, thank you very much. Certainly I think the 28 percent when it comes into effect next year is going to have, and maybe you agree, extraordinary incentive effects on the whole economy. No question about it. I was talking to the British education minister the other day and he said I asked him what the lowest rate was in England. The minimum rate is 27 percent in England and the top rate will be 28 percent here. Yeah. And their top rate now, it was once way up where, it now I think is 63 percent. Right. Right. So they're going to get Margaret Thatcher to cut taxes. She's done pretty well on some other things. Yes. And her privatizing, her denationalizing of industries is resulting in a great benefit. She's had a lot more to privatize than you have here. You see, I live by a slogan made by a man who must have been one of the first economists. Eben Caldoun. I don't remember him. Hundreds of years ago, he said in the beginning of the empire, the rates were low and the revenues were great. At the end of the empire, the rates were great and the revenue was low. I have seen that quote. All right. Let me see if I can get you a picture signed. Here, I have a pen here, if you... You want to use blue or black? Whatever one you want to use. The... Maybe you can sign it to my parents if you want. All right. Their names are Rosa and Fred Barnes. As I said, it's a 50th anniversary. I have to tell you that, you know, acting wasn't all just a great joy up there. Some of the writing scenes, you know, writing is my hobby at all. Sure. The enlisted men there at the 11th Calary would bring some of the horses in that we were using and all. And one day, I was standing around there watching them shoot some other stuff that I wasn't in. And a couple of enlisted men came up and wanted to say, would you like to take a ride now that you're not doing anything? I was sure. And they had a horse and they said, we're here. So I'm out. And I took off and I started riding and he was a little feisty and on the bit, but we got clear across the parade ground which was just that clay and water had erupted. So there were gullies. And all of a sudden, the other side of the parade ground was a whole troupe of cavalry. And this horse took off. There was no holding him. And jumping these gullies as he was going, just lickety-split. And I was trying to pull him down and nothing. And all of a sudden, he didn't make one gully. He just hit with his chest.