 The only way I'll get into the archives, Larry, Mr. President, the premise of this would only run after you've won or the announcement was met if, okay, if you went out and put a full obvious into that superstition. But if you do win, sir, what is it that you would want most to accomplish in a second for your term? Well, it strikes me that this is so close to what it was like in California as governor there to carry on something that we've started that I think is sound and solid, and that is recovery, expansion without inflation in the economy, growth in the economy that will create the more jobs that we need for our people to have this sound economic base. But at the same time then to be able to continue on the dual track of adequate defense, but at the same time try to persuade the Soviet Union to join us in arms reductions, particularly in the field of nuclear weapons in the search for peace. You said yesterday that that was a number one priority of yours. Do you have any new proposals or new ideas that you think you can put forward to the Soviets that would induce them to come back to the bargaining table? Well, you know, that's one of the things, we're just talking about that a moment ago. Everyone asks, what are we going to do? Well, we didn't walk away from the table in the first place. They did. Now, there is a fine line to be drawn. You can't put yourself in the position of rolling over and saying, well, OK, what do we have to do to get you back? We have proven our flexibility, I think, in several times, even before they walked out, when we proposed a general kind of a solution and then said, what about in this framework? And they said, well, no, we would like this. We said, OK, let's negotiate on that. So I think the way they're going to come back to the table is when it becomes apparent to them that it is in their best interest also to come back to the table. And in that regard, I think that our own rebuilding of our defenses is part of what makes them—see, do they want to try and keep superior to us—which they are today in their arms and their weaponry? Do they want to keep that superiority knowing that if they do, we are not going to let them get to a point in which we are vulnerable and do not have a deterrent capability that would keep them from ever using their weapons? Well, I think they know their difficulties in matching us industrially in such a buildup, and therefore I am hoping that they will see the common sense value in us achieving a mutual deterrence at a lower level by reducing the weapons instead of keeping on building them. Well, you met with Mr. Gromyko. The Soviet rhetoric about you has been noticeably less harsh in the last several months. Is it your opinion that the Soviets are ready to negotiate seriously? Have you formed a view of that? I think so, yes. I think they have problems of how much farther they can go and whether they want to keep on or—well, as I say, I've summed it up before in that cartoon that appeared when we began re-arming the two Russian generals and the one of them saying to the other, I like the arms race better when we were the only ones in it. Well, they're not the only ones in it anymore. And you would continue to press for the Strategic Defense Initiative so that we would have ultimately have a defensive capability of some sort. I think we have to have a dual-track thing. Why would they come to the table to negotiate arms reductions if we were in a position of unilaterally disarming? I always felt when the previous administration canceled the B-1 without getting anything in return for it. That could have been a bargaining chip at an arms reduction talk to say, all right, what would you do if we would not go forward with this plane? My question was about whether you would continue to have a look at defensive systems, which you said that you favored in the second debate. I think that this could be the greatest inducement to arms reduction. It's the only weapons system that's ever been invented for which there has never been a defensive weapon created. And if we could find such a weapon, and all I ever asked for is what we're doing, and that was all right. Let's turn these scientific minds of ours in this country to the task of seeing, is there a weapon to be used against those missiles, and if there is, that would be the greatest help in saying, if you had such a thing, to say now, with this here available, why can't we both reduce or eliminate the number of weapons since we've proven that it's possible to be invulnerable to such an attack? You referred to your second term as Governor of California. I remember in your campaign for a second term, you talked about welfare. Much as in this campaign, you've talked about a line item veto and a balanced budget amendment. Do you think that those are realistic goals that you can press for in a second term? Yes, a line item veto and the balanced budget amendment. Here in this system of ours, if we look back through our history, this unique system of a federation of sovereign states, well, one of the great values has been that at various local levels, experiments in governing have been conducted over the century, a couple of centuries, and have proven worth adopting on a broader base, a national level. Well, this, to me, is here is 43 states with a line item veto and is working successfully. It certainly works in California. And I don't know the exact number of the states, but most of not all have a balanced budget amendment. And we had that in California. I came into office in California in the middle of the fiscal year with a budget that was my predecessor's budget, just as you do here in the federal level, a difference in a few months as to how long you're on it, but there you're in about the middle of the year, and found that my predecessor had been in violation of the Constitution. But now it was my task, and I only had six months, and I had to bring that budget out balanced within those six months. And that was the reason for the thing that contrary to all my promises, the tax increase. But I promised the people, they knew why it had to be done, and I said, and as soon as we're out of the woods, I'm going to give that money back. And we did. Well, we accomplished that. We took steps because the Constitution said we had to. We got many of the reductions that we needed immediately after it, because when the special interest groups came in, as they do here at the national level, and said, oh, we want spending for this or that, you could look them in the eye and say, we don't have the money. You gave up on your promise on the tax increase in order to get these other things. You compromised as you have. Do you think that in the second term you will have to compromise with the Democrats and accept some kind of a tax increase even though you don't want it? No. You see, there was where it was safe to do that. First of all, necessity faced me. But the safety was that you had that balanced budget amendment, Constitution. Now without that at the federal level, to go for a tax increase, you just simply open the door for more spending. You take away any necessity they have for curtailing the spending that various groups and elements in the Congress want to go forward with. Do you think you could get them to trade your balanced budget amendment for their tax increase? No, I think Thomas Jefferson was the first man who ever said we should have that. Right after the Constitution was adopted, he said the great flaw in it is that there is no proviso preventing the federal government from borrowing. I don't know whether Thomas Jefferson could have convinced Tip O'Neill of that. Do you think you could? You can, sir. Well, if I can't maybe if they hear from the voters, I didn't really convince the Speaker of the Assembly in California about our welfare reforms. The people of California did. And he came into my office voluntarily and said, I surrender. Lastly, sir, do you think we've had a campaign where when you mentioned Tip O'Neill's name, usually a boo goes up from the audience. Tip has said a lot of unpleasant things about you. The chances are he's still going to be Speaker of the House. Is there any way that in a second term you think you'll be able to form some kind of a working relation with him for a lot of these problems that happen? Yes, because he's also practical. And we did. The proof of it is the social security compromise. Up until and through the 82 election, he would not even discuss social security with me and denied my statement, which was based on fact and that everyone knew and he had to know. And that was that social security was facing bankruptcy and immediately. And as a matter of fact, shortly after the 82 election, we had to borrow $17 billion, so the checks wouldn't bounce. But he denied that while they continued to use it successfully in the 1982 election, the matter of social security and that I was a villain in trying to do something to it, immediately after the election, then faced with the absolute fact of the bankruptcy, they joined in a bipartisan commission to work out a solution which we have now and which has made social security safe. And he was on the platform with me on the south lawn in front of quite a gathering of citizens when we signed into law the bipartisan agreement on social security. One final question. Not about the future, but about the past. You've campaigned here for a very long time. This is the last day. You will be a campaigner in your own right for your own election. Do you have any special feelings or thoughts about today? Well, they're kind of mixed, as I described it the other day, about like coming to that last football game and knowing that it's your last year in school and that's the last one you'll get, a little of that, but at the same time also. There's a kind of a good side to it too and saying, well, I don't have to do this anymore. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Oh, wait a minute. Why am I taking this off? There's more coming in on it there. All right. OK. I won't get up. I'm chained down here. I'd like to get a shot at the three of you together. Is that fine? What? He wants to get that done. I don't have a phone. Well, that's all right. We'll just have to lie. He was voting. That's nice. President Hart at work, chief of staff. Loafing, sleeping through the first cabinet meeting today. Shit. Thank you very much. Can I give you some good news here? Yeah, but Maryland and Exiflows showing that we're winning all, but Maryland, believe it. And look at these Senate races. And I don't know whether this will hold up. Michigan is even. Michigan and the Senate race. Kentucky. Even Kentucky and the Senate races. You're winning in West Virginia. Winning in West Virginia. Well, ahead in West Virginia. Helms has ahead, Percy's ahead, and Jepsen's the only person. Jepsen's lost. Oh, dear. That's otherwise pretty encouraging for y'all, isn't it? Very. Yes. Lou? Ed? It's very nice to see you here, sir. Good to see you. Were you up in Sacramento? Yes. You saw the festivities up there? That was the best style to come in for me. The only thing you see when I'm not going to cheer all of this that you gave me is I just have a feeling that maybe somebody gave a note like that to Tom Dewey. It probably did. I remember that day when you came out in 68 before you went to Portland and the students were moving. That's what I thought when you were speaking there yesterday. Oh, yes, I remember that. And they were saying that I had hidden and wouldn't appear before them. And it actually had been scheduled to go up there and delayed it. And then went out there. They hadn't expected me. Tom McCall was still there when you got there. Yeah. Well, we called him and told him we were going to be late. Thank you, Mr. President. The thing in there was the Ronald Reagan cabinet room in Sacramento. I think that was the start of the cabinet system which you carried successfully into Washington. Were you there when that what they've done then? Yes. I was quite touched by that. Right. They did. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Good to see you. Thank you.