 Good to see you. Good to see you. I'm finally... It's nice to meet you. It's not working, Dave. Time blacks and some of you sir, pleasure. Good to see you. Good to see you. George Groom is for the bigger standards to be disabled. Sorry to see you. Mark it. President for the health and the work of the disabled. Good to see you. How's that? Better. Good to see you. How's that and for me? Is that all right? Good. You're pretty good too. Good to see you. Good to see you again, sir. President, I cannot believe you has guts. I'm fine. I'm here to train. I'm going to do those dishes again, two or three years later, that's enough for me. I'm going to do those dishes again, two or three years later. I'm going to do those dishes again, two or three years later. I'm going to do those dishes again. I'm going to do those dishes again, two or three years later, that's enough for me. I'm going to do those dishes again, two or three years later, that's enough for me. I'm going to do those dishes again, two or three years later. I'm going to do those dishes again, two or three years later, that's enough for me. I'm going to do those dishes again, two or three years later, that's enough for me. Let's get started, I was just going to ask Jack to kick things off and perhaps ask the first question. Let me start Mr. President by telling you how honored we are to be here. I speak obviously none of it myself, Bill Gorye on our President, the entire board. We know you have a rather busy agenda, the fact that you can find the time to spend lunch with us as a highclass. We're very, very great. Let me start with a question that we talked about earlier this morning, Mr. Darman. I can continue to be interested in a deficit, something that I know you share as much concern as not more than any of us, but I think a lot of us are worried about it. We realize in a year like this, it's not likely that anything will be done of any major kind, but I wonder if it's possible at all to get to that issue and to try to begin to resolve it even before the election, Mr. Darman. Yes, I think to the extent of what we've talked about, there's kind of a down payment on the deficit to begin that process. But I think, and it doesn't have anything to do with whether people are afraid to do something for fear of affecting the voters in an election year, the basic problem of this structure is built into our government and it's really going to take bipartisan effort to get down to governmental reforms that will still allow government to perform its essential functions, but that will straighten out and clean up a great many structural defects that are really in. And the main thing that's wrong with an election is forgetting that they're simply the last time, because this is going to be a year in which there will be long periods and the Congress will recess to allow for campaigning the two conventions and all. And I think that on their agenda is pretty much just some routine things and appropriation bills and so forth, the things that they have to get at and will get at. This matter of the bipartisan committee now is because of that hundred video that we've talked about across a three-year span. Reductions, about half of that is in the budget we've submitted. We think there could be, if they will sit down with us and they've been very reluctant to do that, today is going to be only the second meeting and this is something I asked for. Well, actually I didn't ask what they asked for and I agreed in the State of the Union address that it was a good idea that we would do this. If we can have this, it will start us on a declining pattern, but then we have to face going to work on this very structural government that is building. In the meantime, when we started about half of the deficit is due to the recession and that is being wiped out simply by the recovery. Every day progress is made there. But if we have total recovery and expansion at all and everybody at work, that's still going to leave half that deficit, which is the fault of the government that has been built up over the last 50 years, the automatic building increases. And I have great hopes in the Great Grace Commission's report in 2,470 specific recommendations. Now these recommendations are based on the findings of probably 1,500 top leaders and people in their fields in business and in institutions and so forth that have looked at government and have approached from the standpoint of how would business run what they're doing. For example, just one little item in there and I know I was talking about this in the National Data Center 25 years ago. Why should it take an agency of government several times as much money to process an insurance claim for one of our government insurance programs than it does the private insurance industry? How is it so difficult for us to do what is being done out there in the insurance industry every day and find out how they did it? And this is what we have to deal with. I'm determined that the deficits have to go. That's why I say that we should put over our heads. I don't care if they name a spot down the line since they would have to do it several years from now but we must have a constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget. We must also, I think, having had this when I was a governor, we should have the line I would deal with. It's an amazing thing that some of the people up there in the hill can talk about and now we like the leg of deficits at our door. I refuse to accept it. There is one word in the Constitution that gives the President the right to spend one nickel. That calls for the promise of the Congress. And those who have been downloaded up there for the last 40 odd years, I think have to take responsibility for this. But the line I have vetoed, they will turn around and reject that because they think it hinges on their rights. But I have a memory in California. I vetoed line item 943 items out of the budget in eight years and was never overridden once. And yet it takes a two thirds vote. The California legislators send the budget back to me in the first place as a proof. Then I can go through with line item and they can override it with a two thirds vote. Never once could they get a two thirds majority to stand up and defend those particular pork barrel items when they were no longer concealed by the entire budget. And I think it's just necessary for the President, 43 states, I'm going to answer every question. Mr. President, your heritage lives on in California. As you know, we recently got enough signatures, double the number of signatures required to put it on balance budget in California. I think that will lead to the next to the last state, perhaps, as needed before it comes to the federal government. You're a good record to live on. I think we were all impressed last night in your press review. We were all in the other comments on the opportunity that exists with Russia now and the reports from Vice President Bush. And I'm just wondering how you look upon this opportunity that was come about by the Chancellor's leadership in Russia. Well, I know it's premature at this point to say that a man who's been in the old bureau and part of the institution governing Russia for this long night take different courses. And yet we can't ignore the things that he said to George. We can't ignore his expression of wanting to find an answer to your threat. He said that he wanted to find out if there wasn't some way that we could control regional wars so they could not endanger the little things of that kind. And I'm very ready. I've long said that you only get in trouble talking about each other instead of doing each other. And I'm just, we're just discussing right now how to go about this without giving them an opportunity to snuff, to remove the wrong man. But I think it's high time. I won't give up. I know this is fantastic. Honestly, look at the whole number of nuclear weapons. It's possible that we can recognize that both of us will be better off if we've got rid of them entirely. I can't conceive a world with John down through the generations to come with that threat he knew that it has to be neutral for Russia. What do you think the likely point that we are actually pulling out of UNESCO? I think there's about a one-year window to be declared. I have a second question. In terms of freedom of press, is there a role that you feel that publishers might be able to play in assisting you in the advocacy of the freedom of press in particular relative to the little world of information concepts that they have to UNESCO? I'll take UNESCO first and simply say that if in this year they're serious enough to clean up some things that really have needed to clean up for all kinds of things, fine, we will really accept it. If not, then it offers no hope for any others. And certainly you had ideas that would restrict you and your freedom of press in every field. So this was done after long years trying to get them to clean up. And now the other matter of the free press here and what could be done, you realize it's over. Open yourselves up to a possible assault. There are some things that I just wonder and I respect very highly the freedom of the press and I go along with Jefferson that I had to choose between government or free press. I'd choose a free press. But I wonder sometimes and probably this is more we have more to do with the actual news section of the press if there hasn't been a falling away of a sense of responsibility on the part of the media for its part in preserving our national security. All of it is essential to that. What I'm thinking about are those leaked stories and I have found out Washington is a sieve, not a city. But so many times the leakers may hinge on a little bit of fact but then the conclusions that they present are their own thinking and many times those are destructive to something that we're honestly trying to accomplish here to see something printed that is absolutely not true based on unnamed White House source and then finds yourself on the phone with the head of state of another country. A friend of mine is trying to square to see that they get all this information that appears in our press and it's time to say look it isn't true we didn't do it and I just wanted sometimes if the press with one of these sources that won't allow their names to be used if they couldn't pick up a phone and check and then hear our side at least ask and say would this be harmful and why and if we could feel free to say back yes it would and here's why I think we're going on this has been particularly true in things like the Lebanon situation where for this year and a half we've had three excellent ambassadors one after the other we burned them out Habib and now down Rumsfeld shuggling over there between Damascus and Tel Aviv and they were dealing with these various factions trying to get them to begin to come together on this and since this type of government they need in Beirut and then spending half their time in trying to correct something that's been created that's my one main criticism other than that I told the working daily press out there regarding another grenade incident I will make sure that there are the first landing barges here I think we better agree we're ruled but we can eat and talk I'm going to stop this morning chapter in verse gave us details of how the Soviet Union spent the United States on a nuclear weaponry during the 70s yet it always seems in western Europe that all the freedom is directed against the United States that's my perception anyway why would you think that is I don't know but I have noticed that also they walk away from the negotiating table we have put legitimate propositions out there they have not put anything back but they walk away and then someone asks us our own people ask us when are you going to do something to bring them back to the table why don't they ever ask them they're going to do something we're at the table waiting the minute they say they can come back and it's always I've noticed back over many years that even if debates in the congress it's always if we do something we may threaten peace well I always had a belief that if there should be a war it will be when the Soviet Union believed that a war would benefit them that's when we would have a war I don't think there's anyone in this country that kind of plays anything that they've ever had and frankly I'm dying someday to ask the Soviet counterpart if they had had a monopoly on the U.S. as we did after World War II would they have behaved the same as we did or what would they have done with those nuclear weapons get an answer and have ads I don't know what it is but we do we have a way to envision ourselves and I'm not just aiming at the media now it's hearing our own debates and our own discussions we think of ourselves as first orders we're wrong Mr. President if you consider the no first views of the policy acceptance by the United States their agreements of that kind this would take consultation with our allies because the whole principle of NATO was based on our providing the nuclear umbrella as their defense and I think for us to make something that might look as if we are no longer offering that protection and defense would be seen by them as a bandit and then they probably start looking for the best deal they could make sometimes but I would I would join any mutual thing of that kind but I'd feel a lot more comfortable with it if they would start agreeing with us on reducing the numbers of weapons size of lead and then if they would at least give consideration to the other thing that I mentioned why don't we get rid of that one maybe one of you because I know it was a publisher that he was writing to before he left office and in his letter he said that we've come to a point in which the weapons of war are such that we can no longer look at war and contemplate victory or defeat as we have in the past but the weapons are so destructive that we can look to the destruction of mankind and then he said have we reached that point isn't the time that we sit down together and find a better answer to setting our disputes and more but as we have come to that point the weapons of day do represent the destruction of man I told you died in Japan when I was invited to speak you can't there can be no winner in nuclear war there must never be yes in the quarter do you have a question you made reference last night on television to the grace commission you made reference again a few minutes ago I'm curious as to what exactly the steps you're taking to look through those two thousand night recommendations that I can put on the table what kind of staff is working on trying to implement some of those now on the grace commission what kind of staff we have that in the hands of our people here and dividing it up into the various agencies and then we have a system that's new with us around this table grab a cabinet but also more frequently like this afternoon there will be what we call a cabinet council meeting and that will be a meeting on a particular subject where those cabinet members that have a direct involvement in that particular subject will be present along with staff and department heads and so forth and the other cabinet members won't be there because it does not treat with anything of their particular interest and this that process will be one that we will get to with regard to these specific recommendations as the agencies deal with but believe me we're going to take it seriously because I have the opportunity to see it work in California we did this in the 64th government agencies and departments and combatants our private business practice system and we implemented more than 1,600 of the 2,000 medications oh I'm sorry you deal with that you have a chance to be over here sir yes one question Mr. President first one is one of the things by which you keep your actual health to reach with this number of people daily and therefore not have the opportunity to digest your meal properly the second one is I saw on this morning's television that Mr. Silbert and you answer has put your name on the ballot of the Democratic primary and now the Democratic we're not writing a vote last year I believe but Senator Kennedy the campaign manager promoting your name they went to write in to write your name and see how many more vote for you than for some of the other candidates sure this isn't I can remember in California when you used to be able to run both tickets. And then there's so many Republican governors that Democrats changed. I followed up on the Grace mission. The other day I was at a conference of chief executives and Peter Grace was there and presented. And my early impression that you kind of a superficial professor releases too much attention. I was overwhelmed by, I think most of our people were overwhelmed by Peter Grace himself. The question in my mind since much of it was bipartisan is I think you should both keep a bipartisan thing behind that. In other words, keep it somewhat out of the political areas and still have efficiency in government or just because you do something incredible and get credit for it and the administration will have down the rest of it to top balance. Well, I know there's going to be partisanship of course on anything, very less spending. But no, I think the same approach that what we're trying to do is kind of get around is then is bring Congress down here or go up there. I mean certain leaders in there and see if we can't put together the same kind of an operation we did with regard to the Social Security bailout that was facing bankruptcy. There was partisanship. 82 that made it an issue. The election was over. We got together to bipartisan commission. And the president of that commission was some of the opposition that said we were lying when we said the program would go broke by July of 83. We didn't do something. Around the table we would go broke. The election was over, I think. So no, we'll have to do that same thing. We will implement everything we can by administrative procedure. But I know that a great deal will take legislation. But there are things that they found in there that you just wonder about in which the Congress has absolutely dictated the number of people that must work at a certain task and a job. Here you are as the executive branch then to run that. And you come in and say, hey, we could run this with half the number of people. But Congress has said you've got to use them all. And these are the type of things that we've got to get them done. The whole team's statement was the effect that they have spent a great deal of time and used every government agency there was to try and find out how many government offices of all kinds are there in the United States that in this day they do not know, or even have a good approximation. You remember when World War II broke out, and you know the level of aircraft construction at that time. The high industries and deficits. I don't think the high interest rates are tied to deficits. Let me make it that way. I think the high interest rates are still with us because after seven previous recessions since World War II and the artificial answers that we found to them, which only led to another recession. I think it's just that out there on the money market, they're not sure that we're really serious about having control of inflation. And so once they understand that we are, I think we're going to begin seeing those come down. There's no need for them to be where they are. On the deficits, yes, we've got to take control of the deficits. I think as next one or two, doing what we're doing now is survivable. What we have to have by that time then for the out years is a projected decline of where we can see the end of up ahead. And if not, yes, I think that could cause trouble if they, we can't go out and just spending an ever increasing rate above what we take in. I think also, and I'd almost like to say this is off the record, my own feeling about this and the argument about tax increase. I don't think tax increase is the answer down to the deficit problem. They've had tax increases back over the last 50 years and we've had deficit spending for 50 years and no one even mentioned it. It was just taken for granted as part of the regular policy. All that increased taxes, it was increased spending. People then feel free to come through with more additional programs. So, but there is a chance. If suppose when we get recovered, suppose this recovery continues and we go into it, but I've had one that actually comes, writing it and telling it to stop setting the recovery that we're past that point that this is now the terrible expansion that we're in. But suppose we have a full recovery where we can look and say, all right, now our estimate of revenues is based on good, full employment, prosperity, the kind that we know in the past. If you can say that and you've done all that you can do to bring government down to the most efficient, most economical, and then the share of gross national product that government has spent gets bigger than the share that the tax revenues are bringing in, then I think you would have to look and say, okay, since we've got full recovery at all, every way our tax structure is not returning enough for this, and this is what we all agree is a minimum for government, then we would have to bring the tax structure up at that point. We think that we might be bringing it up some with what we were asking the Treasury Department to do during this interim. And that is to review the whole tax structure from the standpoint of simplification and to review how we can have a tax structure that can get at that great amount of tax that is lost to us now through people that are just resisting by way of bartering and all of this. We cut the deficit in half right now, and we were getting the taxes a little jitterily old. And the people are debating because this happened in every society before. When people begin to think that the government is unfair and that the taxes are a greater burden than they should be, they believe in honesty. They wouldn't steal it down otherwise. They feel the government is fair game and if they can reduce their taxes by some device, they'll do it. Mr. President, I assume were those comments off the record or on the record? Right. This is one of those things that I mentioned earlier. I wouldn't want to see someone put a headline in it. The President says would raise taxes if. And then come out and look like I've got my heels dubbing in that. I think the worst thing that we could do right now with regard to what we covered in the economic situation would be to raise taxes. In the first place, there is a tax increase built in and we didn't do it. And that is a tax increase on social security that is built in that was passed I guess back in about 77 and there are still further increases to be made and further increases between now and 1990 on the amount of money subject to tax. Do you remember that half of the social security put out in 1937 that they promised that the people will never pay more than 3% of $3,000 of earnings and that that money will be invested and thus will be earning more revenue to add to it so they will get more back when they paid in? Well now it's aiming at the final tax will be 15% employer and employee on more than $60,000 of income. This is a far bigger tax for most of the workers in the country now and still increasing. Mr. President, why do you think the stock market has gone down as it has in the last week or so? Well, the very knowledgeable individual about the stock market warned me about this and he gave me a very simple warning. He said why? He said that the interest rates where they are the spread between the return on bonds and the return on equities is so great that money is going to be diverted into the bonds as long as this remains and he even gave me a pretty good approximation of what has happened to the extent that it has happened and how much the market would go down and how quickly it has happened so I have one of the few economists that has been right. Tell us how much he said it until then. He suggested that and he did not say that this was the limit but he said we could expect a hundred to 150 points but he was sure of it. Mr. President, your question rather sharply about two network correspondence last night about your alleged inattention to your job aside from denying what you did last night how do you think you can counteract this perception? Well, I don't know whether I can counteract it you know you can't win an argument with somebody who buys a newspaper book by the time and the... I don't know where this came from well they used to say it well yes I do know where it came from one correspondent who was from Sacramento and we used to cover the state they said the same thing about years ago out there and I did the things that had to be done and I'll tell you though I've always believed in executive the things he has to put in 18 hours a day seven days a week is a very good executive I have always believed in in designating it and giving others responsibility but I do as I said last night I make the decisions they come to me and I don't know these things of taking off and going home and I really mean it but my evenings are spent with homework I come home from the office with the reports and the things that have to be read the whole time at the office to do it and I just I don't know how except that the only thing I say is let's go by the results we said we reduced taxes and we said we would reduce inflation and we said we would cut the regulations and we've done all those things that are doing them and somebody must be attending the store this is personal the highest office is a tough job so I can go after it again the job isn't finished and when I think of how much we've accomplished that for three years now the argument here in Washington has been over how much to cut not over what new programs and how much we will be extending to fund those I just don't want to see us go back to that other way I think we've made quite a start I want to finish the job Mr. President we've discussed with Mr. Farland this morning the kind of misunderstanding that requires a lot of American people that America has the capability of taking rush out right now no wonder why we have to match weapon after weapon one thing I didn't quite understand which he clarified to me is in our policy that we would even if we were attacked that we would respond only this has been originally in the mad policy mutual assured destruction the theory was that you blow up our cities you blow up yours actually I think on both sides there has been a change we know that their weapons are targeted on ours and with the idea that they would obtain a second strike capability so that having destroyed our weapons they could say to us review should yours we'll wipe out all these cities and ours are based on theirs also destroying theirs and I think that's the way it should be some of us are here old enough to remember when the rules of warfare contained all kinds of protections for the civilians and they weren't the targets in the war and I wonder if we realize how far we strayed from that civilized viewpoint now to where people talk about weapons that are particularly aimed at destroying the civilians I'd like to get back to the civilization I remember when I was in college one night in the fraternity house somebody had come to the campus and made a speech about bombers and bombs this was actually where we were one and the debate that was raging was that we were all determined that even if he was ordered to the American would drop bombs on civilians and World War II somebody invented a tour of war those that invented it after they were defeated said they invented it we made it work I'd like to get back to where we would all think that they would be shooting the unarmed civilians Jack, do you have a question? Yes, Mr. President back to the tax reform would you give us your comments on the flat tax? I would like to give you one that we've we've had some samples presented to us already discussions here and we found out that that very simple tax was a complex as a matter of we thought it looked like a simple obvious answer one week the Treasury Department would show us where just a trickle was the lower levels of the economy we discovered that there were a lot of flat tax we've got an awful lot of study that did not create more problems than me so President, how do you account for the lack of support by women according to the opinion well now I challenge the premise of what we're talking about there because you have to get out and maybe some of the ladies press should answer this but the truth is it's almost an even split there is some of the other side of the room but by the same token I could ask them how are they explaining the pre-monitor it's a male vote that I get so we generally get worth both ways the I think it comes basically from the organized feminist groups and the fact that I have opposed the principle of the the rights of men as governor I didn't have any quarrel with that at all but still before the state of California as a governor I realized that I had to make a decision and so I set out to learn all I could study it and what I learned convinced me that it is not the cure but some it would take away from the legislature things that it should be doing turn it over to the courts and the woman who thinks that she would be absolutely protected by this amendment would find she'd be protected if she was ready to take the case to court if she thought it was discrimination that the constitution would be violating so what I did didn't seem to satisfy some as governor we set up a program which we started to survey all the statutes of government and all the regulations and eliminating any where there was discrimination and I was amazed at some of the things that we found but still in this day in California there was a long process said that my wife could not invest her own money without her husband's permission we changed all those things and that's why when I got here I immediately contacted the 50 governors and got their agreement to set up and have a representative in their states to do the same thing that we did in ours most of the laws that affect people are at the state level and we're dealing with the federal laws and we're even ninting we are even taking up laws that are going to seek changes in laws that will only require the change of one word that maybe there's a word in there that says that a man does such a missing person so that no one could use even that slightly as to use this law in a sanitary way and I think that there's getting some recognition in our own administration of what we have done the appointment to high places three in our cabinet there have never been that many before Supreme Court Justice there has never been that before but more than that a thousand more than a thousand in high policy making positions I think we are making some gains as they recognize what we're doing particularly in the things we did in the tax reform we produce and intend to eliminate the marriage packages and we have almost doubled the tax credit for working mothers for childcare we have eliminated the inheritance tax for surviving spouses which is the greatest thing we could do with regard to the family owned farm family owned business that we've had before that is a situation where a surviving spouse would have to sell the farm because it's in order to pay the inheritance tax particularly when values have gone up so much under inflation all of these things I think they will find we're on that side Mr. President I had the privilege of being in Japan last November when you were there and I am curious if you look into the future of the forthcoming China trip what would be the focal point of the trip to China slated for early April or something like that well just further bring together the gains that we've made the trade tighten this friendship proceed further with student exchanges culture exchanges and that sort of thing there were some things that have been that I'm done a little bit and because I had made my decision when I came here and they were the invitation was already there but I thought that we had gone there too much without their coming here and they seem to put a certain face status on that that if you go there it indicates that maybe you're coming at a hand and so I said I'll go there after they come here so we should have an invitation and finally we can and so I will be there to visit Mr. President as we follow up to a question that I agreed to this morning the fact that I brought the Board of Economists and they were supposed to be recently at the end of 1983 concluded that given the high rate of unemployment in blacks in general that there was indeed a crisis in black america that needed to be looked at in terms of the unemployment rate this morning they've indicated that the enterprise zone was one area he hoped that would be solving some of the problems but acknowledged it was a long-term inclusion I just wondered who were any more specific things that in the near term would be going to the unemployment problems among black black braces in general well I can say this that in the recovery the not substantially so but the decrease in unemployment is bringing about black workers and women than it is among white males so the present recession picture does not give us exactly what the announcements will be but I know what we're all doing they are big and they have a higher rate of unemployment particularly if it's truly 15 years and here may be with all the help I have a belief very well found that we have created much of that food with no way I remember a group of young black students and I would see me as governor and one doctor who got some of our jobs into that kind and they were smart enough to realize what this was and they asked me see if I would try to take the lead and try to get that then in ways changed the kind of jobs that young people with no job skill particularly summer and after school jobs have been priced out of the market and at least if we're going to have a minimum wage then let's have a two step wage that represents there is a different price in the market for the beginners the reason I mention students is the fact that we have to face that 47 and a half percent of the unemployed in America and at the same time students so it's a shame that they have to be lumped in and averaged in with the regular unemployment rate that how is unemployment these are really kids that are going to school and since you're determined an employee on the basis of whether you are looking for one job I've never known a kid who schooled back in Iowa that wasn't wishing they had an after school job but we made it so difficult it was 14 years of age I got my first summer job it was with an outfit that was buying old houses remodeling and reselling and before the summer was over I started with a different summer before the summer was over I laid hard on the floor I shingled roof I came to those houses I thought that so many rules and regulations no young person could do that to be denied the right to do those things and I think that we ourselves the regulations with this minimum wage that we want I do believe that the Revised Owners would be a major factor in that because the incentive is not only for the investment the capital the insurance and business was there there was an incentive for them to take people that present are running for people around welfare we're not going to make them productive citizens I think we're covering the lead in manufacturing in areas such as steel and the other industry and so forth that we once enjoyed we're making a substantial difference although I wonder some of those industries are ever going to be able to recover but they've ought to remember steel I think it's significant that steel in Japan which is one of the big threats to our own steel industry they have now pulled back from any further pushing of steel because they can't continue with the newly developing countries and their pay scale we're coming to Korea and Taiwan places of that kind that are in the steel market which, incidentally I happen to believe the Justice Department will not pursue that anti-crust activity with regard to the requested merchants I don't think those merchants are going to reduce competition to benefit the consumer in any way but you've the history of the minimum wage if you will go back before the minimum wage you will find that the rate of unemployment among black teenagers was less than among black teenagers probably because more black teenagers wanted jobs but then with the passage of the minimum wage and every increase you will see an increase in unemployment every time we raise and particularly among them Mr. President, your job training partnership act is also an important initiative in terms of the unimportant of the situation I ask and put it into effect the job training program at the same time we're turning down the proposals for that this one is going to be the bulk of the money is going not for administration but it's going for training it's going to be administered to local level by a combination of but also the business community industrial community to teach in that area what are the job needs and the job vacancies in that area and training people for those jobs instead of having a blanket program to train a lot of people and turning them out and running jobs available and things that they can train so we think that will also be a direct help Mr. President St. Anish says elections and Cubans are supposed to be leaving Nicaragua to take this as a sign of improvement in Latin America one second here I think you see I do make decisions that's not over sir is that go or no go that's a yes that does argue for your work day also Mr. President the Sandinistas have announced elections and the Cubans are supposed to be leaving Nicaragua to take this as a sign of improvement in the situation in Latin America well it shows I think that they're listening and they're trying to do something they're going to have to they're going to have to prove with the details surrounding that are they going to remove censorship of the press so that competing candidates can have a fair chance is it going to be a legitimate election or not one of those kind where you vote yes or no one if you vote no you go to jail so we want to watch very carefully how far are they willing to go to keep their promises that they made during the revolution that they leave human rights and they want it open markets and all that sort of thing so I don't think we should just jump I think we should stand here and make sure that they meet all the terms of a legitimate open election Do we have time for maybe one or two more questions Bill? Mr. President your position with our allies I think I certainly personally particularly holding the fire of the tales of West Germany and England last fall in the deployment of the missiles I'm wondering how you view Japan and its ally role in meeting some of the increased obligations in the military sense that our country is requesting we are greatly encouraged I think the Prime Minister, Dr. Sony is a different breed than what we've done business with before he really believes that we is probably the two most potent demand for season 1 or industrial powers I should say in the free world need to be close together we have political problems with some of the things that we like to have to do but I have to say he's taken them up and we've made great progress we have a team working with their, and I understand very well with their people right now and he really is doing his utmost to meet the the things that we brought up one of the most important and I think in all of our relationship is the value of the yen it is under value that he and his and he is prepared to take steps to bring that up more you're committed with the Japan Gulf Ring Association and I'm getting some real strong play back from industry leaders in that group in Japan how much they support him in what he's doing and I think that's very encouraging good credit to you maybe we can have one final question from Bill Gore does this President frequently businessmen come to Washington and complain about government and I think we like to go on directors and associations about the marvelous job that the Postmaster General is doing in the Postal Service I think we all be on bureaucracy and be on the government but the Postal Service had 100,000 fewer people over the 10 years ago and productivity is really skyrocketed and we just want you to know that this is a tremendous thing that we're trying to find out we also like to ask you to ask Mr. Arrington to try to find a really top-notch business manager that they can see on the Postal Board of Governors we'd love to have a knowledgeable person in that fake slot so gentlemen have been suggested that we highly recommend we'd love to see it happen very seriously and there are some good men choosing which among them and we feel as you do about that no one has told you very seriously the only thing I've got against the Postmaster General is he killed an awful lot of good jokes that I had about male delivery I suppose you could squeeze one more while I have another couple Mr. President I would ask you to comment a little bit on the Lebanese or the Middle East situation if you don't mind but particularly in relation to what the Saudis are now proposing as a current solution between the Syrians and the Lebanese this seems to be a good answer to what he meant to the Syrians I'm not sure that he's covering all the points in there and I'm not concerned about our marines and so forth but I've taken six minutes to answer which I can't get here I think I'm very critical of Syria there's no question they've got their own ambitions and their territorial ambitions and what they're trying to accomplish I still think the answer would be if these various factions within Lebanon couldn't come together as they tried to win the Shneem meetings that they had and have a government in which every sector is fairly represented the one of the troubles there's no one we might as well face is that their laws from the beginning in the setup of their government it dictated that a minority group the Maranan Christians would dominate government more than the others and each the majority of the country now has a smaller representation and I think there's a reluctance on the part of the existing government to persecute a number of people in that area the fact that I had to get out of here and go to a meeting on something that has to be decided about Lebanon but right now and I can't answer to what that is because they didn't tell me they just said can we have a meeting and then we have to face this one thing now some of the criticism about what we should use more fear and more muscle this all starts with our one to the health ran about an overall Middle East peace between the nations that if anything if we are portrayed as being on the side of a faction in this and opposed to Syria who's much of what we've gained right now in trust and friendship with the Arab nations they would come together because we were in opposition to an Arab state so we're limited to reflection muscle and so forth we flexed a little bit to let us know that we protect our men I must say we found out this there's a great deal of psychology in those 16-years guns policies were changed very quickly once they heard them go off saw the result we're still going to hang in there as long as there is a chance as I said last night if we don't what do we have we have Syria which has been in war five times with Israel with unimpeded access to that modern order of Israel I think the impossibility of war cannot be denied I know this isn't going to influence any of my decisions but I wonder if any of you know that in the Old Testament and the prophecies about Armageddon it says they begin with the storm in the gates of Damascus anyone ready for that yet? Mr. President we appreciate your time and we know that there were a couple of these gentlemen who we really didn't get a picture of so as you're standing at the door perhaps we could take another picture of each of you we have an opportunity very quickly as we go out maybe starting with Bill Lee very quickly