 Geneva in 1925, when all the nations of the earth after World War I eliminated poison gas as a means of warfare, everybody kept their gas masks and that this was kind of a gas mask I was suggesting because some place down the line in a later generation we know how to make those missiles. You can't wipe the knowledge out of people's minds. There may come a madman some day that would reintroduce nuclear weapons. Mr. President, Mr. Regan suggested that there was a difference in tone on part of Mr. Gorbachev between the plenary sessions and the sessions with you. Since you're by far best source and what went on in the one-on-one sessions, could you tell us a little bit about that difference in tone and also what do you feel the one-on-one device contributed to the substance of the meeting? Well I think it was a great measure of the success of the meeting. I don't think it's been done so much anymore but we sat there in a room and I told him here we are and between us we could come up with things that could probably bring peace for years and generations to come and if we could erase these things that have made us as I say suspicious of each other the know they were very worthwhile and I I think I'm some judge of acting so I don't think he was acting he I believe is just as sincere as we are in wanting an answer at the same time he comes from the vantage point of that system and even in talking for example about human rights he feels that human rights are being violated in our country. In my question you obviously talk very strongly to Mr. Gorbachev about your feelings about human rights. What intrigued me in reading the joint statement was that there was a one sentence reference an allusion to human rights rather than the mere mention of it as a category my question is was this your way of conceding publicly to Mr. Gorbachev that you were not going to beat him over the head publicly about human rights the fact that it was just one sentence long. I know this is all on the record here but you just believe me and trust me when I say that I believe and I believe the past record indicates that that is not a subject that should be brought out publicly and some kind of an agreement signed because in the world of politics to try and push someone in a corner in which he must then publicly try to get out of that corner and in doing so appear to be taking orders from a figure in another government that becomes an impossibility. All I can say is it is a subject that we went into quite deeply and I think we should just wait and see what happens. Did you bring up with specific cases or did you bring up with them specific cases? Types of cases. Mr. President, if I can button this up I don't want to put a word in your mouth but in essence are you agreeing with the thrust of my question that the one sentence reference to human rights was your way of not as you say making it appear publicly that he's following orders from another leader? Yes, I think we would run the risk then of setting back what might have been it might be accomplished. Was the level of distrust that exists between the systems and the leaders for that matter really diminished and if the people in the Congress of the United States and around the country get the idea that there is a basis for less distrust doesn't that impair your ability to get funding for SDI and for defense programs? No, well if we can arrive at a solution that's calling for substantial reductions in weapons and so forth this is the only legitimate way in which you can reduce defense spending when if you can establish that the need is not there. Well that has not been accomplished. There is mistrust. For example, he feels that the industrial military complex in our country is exerting an influence for its own ends on creating mistrust of the Soviet Union so that they can sell more weapons. I responded with the fact that the percentage of money that is spent on weapons or the amount of money as a percentage of gross national product we'd be better off if we didn't have to spend it. Mr. President, you said last night, excuse me sir, you said last night we moved arms control forward from where we were last January and does that go beyond just telling the negotiators in Helsinki and Geneva to work faster or are there more specific things you can tell us about moving arms control forward from where we were in January? The SDI still remains a problem with that regard. On the other hand, however, we did come to an agreement on the overall total that we're both agreed we would like to see reduced and that we're both on the record is agreeing to that. There are some details to be worked out because each country has a different mix of weapon types and it takes a little maneuvering and figuring to find out how you can keep parity with a 50% reduction and not create an advantage or disadvantage depending on how which systems you applied it to or how you applied it. So these are the details that will be being worked on by our people in Geneva at the arms control. Did you agree to a single numerical limit that both sides agreed on, sir? We said a 50% reduction. President, did you discern any play, any negotiating play in either the area of research or testing or development so that our arms negotiators and theirs at Geneva can begin to work with research or testing or development in some way so that there can be some give on what is the choking point? With regard to SDI. Yeah, with regard to SDI. Well, I can only hope that now with all that's been said between us and as they consider and have time to consider what I had offered in connection with this and see that this is not an effort to achieve a first strike capacity on our part or to have some kind of an advantage over them in view of what it was that I had offered. And I left my argument with the admonition to look at what we had said with regard to the open laboratories on both sides and with regard to my proposal that this then be made available to all and see if that did not answer their fears and concerns that we were coming to a militarization of space. Are you tired? Are you tired? Not really. But the matter of fact, the only time I figure I'm tired is if I go to sleep before the rest of the staff do. Can you tell us whether you're prepared to extend SALT 2? That was a discussion at the beginning of the week about what we're going to do about SALT 2. Did you discuss that with Gorbachev? All of this was discussed and I made it plain that we, that I was going back to a report for further study that had just been delivered prior to the trip about their violations of SALT 2 and that we certainly were not going to bind ourselves to something that was not equally binding on them. Now this is pretty much what I said some time ago that we, I don't think this is classified. I think I'm safe to say to you we have found 23 violations of the SALT 2 agreement. And these are things that have to be cleared up between us. Does he deny those violations? What? Does he deny those violations? We didn't get an answer. Are you looking forward to showing this country, Mr. President? Are you looking forward to show the general secretary of this country? I'm going to have to go here. Mr. President, in the event that there is misunderstanding between you about what actually happened in the walk through the woods or along the lake, may I ask whether any report was made by the interpreters involved as to what actually was said? Yes, both interpreters take notes of course and they've made available to them to their own size. Sometimes I have to tell you that I'm afraid I cheated on my interpreter and his notes might not be completely accurate. I told you that Mr. Kwerpichoff is a good listener and I have to tell you that I get carried away. He would be looking at me so intensely and I would be talking and I'd forget all about that it has to be. I was just assuming that he was understanding what I was saying until finally out of sheer mercy for my interpreter a couple of times he had to put his hand up and point to the interpreter of mine and say no so then I'd look and see my interpreter turning page after page trying to keep up with what I had said in the plenary meetings of course we had simultaneous so there was no problem but it was actually true I just would sort of get going and forget that he wasn't understanding and I proved that he wasn't understanding because I told him a couple of jokes and he never laughed until he heard my interpretation but let me just say and I have to go here and George is coming in I just have to say what all my belief my most sincere belief that we did establish a relationship that is as you know now scheduled and going to lead to future meetings and it really did happen not as the result of negotiation out on or in one of the meetings we were concerned this was an important agenda item for us future meetings and we were concerned as to whether we could get such an agreement and he and I coming back from that little walk in the woods down to the cool house that we're talking and talking lightly and about various just the things that fellas would talk about and he said something that I took as a kind of a queue line and I invited him this coming year to come to our country to come here for a meeting and he said I accept and then he says and I invite you to come to a subsequent meeting in Moscow and I said I accept and I think when we both went in and told our teams that this was all settled they almost fell down there was no fight there Secretary of State is back from