 Hey, when I got the biggest laugh, I got the biggest laugh I got all night. Mr. Prison, can you hold that up, please? Can you hold that up? Is that the way you practiced it? Don't recall the way I even did practice it. I just knew what I was good at doing. I found my ears in the photograph. You've been having your troubles with the speaker in terms of, he said today that you will grow to the core and Wright said that you're an alibi artist? Well, he wants to know. Do you have any printable response? No, I thought once when he had done something like that earlier in my term, and I called him because I thought we had a better relationship, and he just explained to me that that was just politics, and at six o'clock at night we were friends. Is that changed? No, this wasn't six o'clock at night. Maybe he should have taken the show the night before. Maybe he had to be decent. But no, I could take issue with him on the things that he said. For example, let's take the years of 79 and 80 for which I cannot be responsible. I wasn't here. And a person with a pretty much poverty level $10,000 income in those two years had their purchasing power reduced to $7,900 by inflation. If they were making $15,000, they had their purchasing power reduced to $12,000. At $20,000 they had it reduced to $16,000 by two years of inflation. Well now in a little more than two years we virtually eliminated inflation. Is that being unfair to the people in the lower and middle income brackets? Our tax policies. I believe that he's made it plain he would like to repeal the third year of the income tax. He would like to repeal indexing. If he did, 78% of all of that added tax burden would fall on the middle and lower income earners from indexing and 72% would fall on the same people from the cutting of the third year. What do you say to their, they say there's some confusion about whether you really want to compromise in bipartisanship or confrontation and turning on and off the spigot as right was? Yes, I heard him on television what he was saying on the house floor. I think he talked anything that I might have said in my speech to the home builders which he was commenting on. But no, we've had bipartisanship and I asked for it in the State of the Union Address. Now their reply on their side was to simply go into committee and come forth with a democratic version of the budget which they didn't consult us on or attempt to make any bipartisan effort. But in reality, obviously there are differences between two parties or there wouldn't be two parties on domestic issues. The tradition that I have been appealing to and that has been successful and I have to express my gratitude to them for it. And that is that when you get to the water's edge on international affairs we speak with one voice as Americans, not with any political differences. So on bipartisanship on their dealing with regard to Central America, the MX and all, I think we've added. But we've also had some good bipartisanship in domestic matters, like the Social Security settlement, the jobs bill, a number of things of that kind. So I'm not turning my back on bipartisanship. Mr. President, I know I've brought along a few questions. True or false? I thought you just asked it. I'd like to ask you, how great do you think the recovery will be and how soon will it cut into the ranks of the 10 million plus unemployed? Well, I happen to be optimistic about it. I think we are on the way to a solid recovery and I think maybe it's going to surprise some people who are still being modest in the rest of us. With regard to the unemployed, however, for a couple of reasons. This won't be as fast as we'd like. Number one, and traditionally if you look back at all the other recessions, the last to recover is in the area of unemployment. That is the last economic indicator that catches up. But also this time, I do think that there is a problem of, well, maybe two problems. There's one is a problem of structural unemployment. That is new industries, new lines of work coming on, seen in possible reductions in some other lines of work in which that's why we made our principal attack on one of retraining to try and meet the structural problem. Coupled with that is the fact that we have had in just the last few years the greatest influx of people into the job market. It's hard to realize but right now with all of this unemployment a higher percentage or as high a percentage of the total pool of the employable which is considered to be every one male and female from 16 to 65. Today with all this unemployment we have as high or higher percentage of that overall pool employed than we have had in the past in times of full employment which means that there are more people, I think it's very possibly the more women attracted to the workforce, more young people going into it and this must be counted. In other words, we have got to have an economic recovery that not only restores what has been depressed but that meets the problem of providing more and creating more new jobs and again I'm optimistic there because in the last three years there has been the creation of new jobs. On the subject of economics what do you expect from the economic summit in terms of results and is there a tentative agreement among the seven nations to have some sort of a joint approach to economic recovery to minimize your differences on trade and monetary as we saw? I think this is something that we all know we're going to talk about but we've already made great progress at the ministerial level. The meetings of OECD and international financing meetings, IMF and all of these things there has been great agreement and I think that we are going to have a good meeting and that's why we're having it is to deal with those problems of how together, since we're all faced with the same problems there's probably among those nations 40 million unemployed that we've got to recognize that we must have recovery altogether. Isn't there a lot of friction though? I don't really think so. In fact, I believe that we will probably come together with already more accomplished and more recognition of our need for each other than in any of the summits that I've attended before. That's right. Mr. President, on the Middle East I'm taking the headlines but what is it going to happen now and with the Syrian rejection of the pact? Where do we go from here? Well, we're continuing to meet with the friends in the Arab world over there and a number of those have made it plain that they do not agree with Syria's position and I am hopeful that Syria will not want to become isolated from its Arab neighbors. We've made an agreement now that is based on guaranteeing the sovereignty of an Arab state, Lebanon and the other Arab states, Jordan. Well, Syria won't accept Habib. Would you send someone else? I mean, will they accept anyone else? Well, Phil is going on to Saudi Arabia right now. They've made a suggestion. This could be looking for something... They've made a suggestion for someone else, you mean? Well, maybe I'm public. Public suggestion, they did. So the public of this is in shorts? Yes, the secretary. Now, this may just be that they want to be... Since he was there for the original agreement between the other two that they may think that he must be present... Are you going to send him back? Well, we'll look and see when... If that's called for, of course, he'd go in a minute. How about the 75 F-16s to Israel? Are you going to release those tomorrow? We are in the consultation with the Congress right now as you know the law requires a notification from us too, Congress. And we're in consultation right now and I think that consultation should be ended in a day or two. So then you will notify Congress? Yes. I have to get to the re-election questions, but I'm sure you didn't foresee that. When do you think you'll announce for re-election? I haven't even decided that. Really? I don't think there's a time coming soon when I must in all fairness. Is soon before Labor Day? I honestly couldn't say. I haven't talked with anyone or strategized with anyone. I'm just going ahead with a day to day job that has to be done here. You know we're all wondering about it. I do. If you decide to run for re-election, would you win? Well, I've never gone into a game of any kind without going into win. So you think you would? Based on your polls and so forth? You trapped me a little bit there because you know I'm also... I hope I did. You know that I'm also one who has that, from my sports background, has that feeling of not wanting to jinx myself. Do you jinx yourself when you say you win? Well, you know it's a little bit like in baseball, the old thing of if a pitcher is pitching a no-hit game, you never mention it while the game is going on, because that'll jinx it and so forth. So it's things of that kind. I've always been a little leery about predicting things. But you've never predicted a defeat? No. Are you grooming George Bush as your heir apparent if you don't run? Well, I think that'd be a decision for him to make, but I must say that as I have already stated, I think that what he's doing, that we have a fine partnership here, he has been just super as a vice president. Do you think that he's won over the right of the ultra-conservatives? Well, I think certainly some people who were doubtful at first must see him in a different light and view of all that he has done. My last question, I think on that subject, is if you're not running, why are you wooing so many of your past supporters and campaigners? Well, maybe I'm just rewarding them. With your presence? No, with a visit to the White House. Well, they all seemed pretty fired up about going forward again. I know they were asking me some of the same questions you've been asking. And you didn't give them any satisfaction? No, they were getting the same answers you've been getting. Do you think your age would be a factor? And do you think your health could stand at mentally and physically for the long haul? Sometimes, yes, I've never felt better in my life than I feel now. That's not typical of presidents. Well, it is. At this stage of the game. It is at me. I've got a little gym up there. I work out every day. And actually, I didn't think at this stage of your life you built muscle. But if I don't watch out, I'm going to have to have some coat soldered. So you don't feel that the age would be a factor? No. And I stopped to think of the age of some people like Adna, or when he was serving Germany. England's... Trichel. Radist, I don't know Trichel, but Gladstone. Others... No, I don't think today that it's a factor. On Central America, Mr. President, are you willing to go along with proposals for unconditional talks between all sides in El Salvador without any condition? No, I think... No, the unconditional talks. I don't think people realize what this implies. We have an armed guerrilla force that is seeking to take over power out of the barrel of a gun. And yet we have a government that has opened itself to elections, that is an elected government with more than 80% of the people turning out to vote. They are having another election to elect a president before the year is out. Now, the unconditional thing would be bringing these armed groups in as a force in an attempt to divide up the roles of government and form a coalition with them without the consent of the people. And I think the negotiation should be the very kind that the government of El Salvador has agreed to. Granting amnesty. They lay down their guns, guaranteeing amnesty for them to come in and participate in the political, submit themselves to the voters. They've got candidates that they want to run for election, come in and use the democratic process. My memory goes back to one time in which our government did the other, what they're talking about. It was in Laos. When the government of Laos was beset by the path of Laos, the communists backed guerrillas in their country. And a coalition with our help, a coalition was put together. No voting of the people or anything. And in a very short time, the path of Laos was in charge. Well, I think that Ambassador Stone sort of indicated that you might go for the unconditional talks, but without power sharing. Well, I think maybe he's saying the same thing that I'm saying and interpreting the unconditional talks then. Well, then would war be the only way to stop the real challenge of Marxism in Central America? This is what has been imposed on Central America. The radicals, the groups that are battling with the government, not on the same extent at level, but in a minor way of harassing the governments of Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala, they are coming from the same source. They are encouraged by and helped by Nicaragua, the government of Nicaragua. They have the same background of training and being armed by those other forces. And my belief is that all of us must stay together, resist this, so that we can go forward with the pursuit of democracy. Is there possibility to win? Well, look, it's Costa Rica. Costa Rica is probably the oldest democracy there. It doesn't even have an army. Honduras has come from a military dictatorship to democracy. Guatemala is doing the same thing. El Salvador has done it already and has a government that is the result of an election. Now, all of them in their efforts to bring about a better social order and a better standard of living for their people, improved economic conditions, all of these things are delayed by the armed forces when the guerrillas in El Salvador destroy the power plants and industries have to close down and people are unemployed and out of work because of it. This is counter to what everyone wants to accomplish there. This is why our ratio of aid in the area is three fourths to economic development and help of that kind and only one fourth to military. But you have to put up a shield so that these democratic processes can go forward. You could have land reform as they have in El Salvador. They've given land to 25,000 people or more. But what about the fellow that can't go out and farm that land or he could get shot in the head because it's part of the battleground with the guerrillas? Mr. President, why do you reject negotiations with the Soviets on the next generation of nuclear space weapons with the chance that those negotiations could lessen future dangers to the world? Why couldn't you begin right now discussing space nuclear weapons with the Soviets and verifiability at the same time? Well, we have an awful lot on the plate right now in the balanced forces, the conventional forces negotiations that are going on that in the two areas, the intermediate range, the strategic range, the start talks, the INF talks. Aren't they all, aren't they in the same mix though, really? Yes, but you know, you have to, you could move from one to the other, but also we have wanted to discuss verifiability, improved verifiability on testing and the Soviet Union has refused to discuss this with us. There's no discussion going on. And by their choice, so... They won't discuss it at all. Not the improved verifiability of testing, things of that kind. No, they just said they won't discuss it. So you don't think that this whole business of nuclear vehicles in space is really adding to the danger? Well, they're the only ones that have so far tested and demonstrated that they have satellite killers, in other words, weapons that they can send up in space and knock down satellites. And there is an agreement now between all the nations that space is of awful limits as to military action. Now, if we're not going to be permitted to verify what they are doing in that regard, I don't see where there's an area for us to negotiate. Do you have any policy of launch on warning? And do you take seriously the Soviet threat of a launch on warning if we deploy the Pershing inclusive missiles in Europe by the end of the year? Well, evidently they must be interpreting launch on warning as simply being that they will take the deployment of missiles as a warning to them. Well, they've had and have now... Do you think they could take it that way? Well, it must be their interpretation because they've said the one thing that if we deploy that there will be retaliation. Well, we're going to deploy. At the same time, we're going to continue negotiating. They have more than 1,300 warheads aimed at all the targets of Western Europe. And they were adding to those all during the time that these INF talks have been going on. They have continued to add the SS-20s targeted on Europe to their arsenal. We have zero... What kind of retaliation do you think that they would resort to? And what do you mean a launch on warning? Does that mean that? Well, I think what I believe that we would interpret launch on warning is that if we were sitting here, for example, and we had verified that they had pushed the button and their missiles were on the way, then the thing is do you sit here and wait until their missiles land or do you shoot your missiles at them? Because the targets for both sides are each other's missiles. And do you sit here and let yours get blown up to the place that they then have you with their mercy and you can say now surrender? Do you know what you would do under those circumstances? Yes, but I don't think I should say it. Have there been any close calls? I don't know of any. In your own as presidents? No, no, no, none. For any real threat. But in terms of the Russians, if we do deploy, do you think that they would take some strong action? Well, this is what they've said. I can't believe it. What I do believe is that all of their, all of their protests, all of their propaganda in Western Europe, aimed at the governments of Western Europe, their attempt to influence the election in Western Germany, all was based on trying to turn the NATO allies around so that they would ask us not to deploy. Now remember, the deployment of those weapons is at the request of our allies. They are the ones. Are they willing to say so? Oh, they have openly. They asked us for those weapons to be a deterrent force to the SS ones. And will that be reaffirmed at the Senate? I'm sorry, at the summit? Yes. Oh, yes. We know that, yes, all of our NATO allies are in agreement with us on going forward with the deployment. Frankly, I am optimistic rather than being frightened by anything they're saying. I believe they feel so strongly about that, that maybe we won't make progress until deployment starts. When they see we're really going to deploy, maybe then we'll really get into some negotiations. And when we give them support, we're convinced that dialogue is the best way to advance the cause of peace. Yes. The question is why don't you meet with Andrew Poff and personally explore his views and get acquainted, see if there's room for accommodation to taunt. And why do you have to have everything settled by your lieutenants before you meet? You're not doing that at the economic summit. Well, if you look back at the history of summits, I remember one previous president and I won't name him, but he had a summit just for the sake of having a summit and getting acquainted. And expectations were raised because most people, well, I think everyone assumes that if you go there, you go there to settle something. I don't think that's necessarily true. You've already laid down the edict on the economic summit that it might be just a talk. But in that case that I mentioned in that previous case, the letdown and the disappointment worldwide was so great that the summit meeting was not only not profitable, it was counterproductive. And I believe that I think that a summit is likely, I can't give you a time, but I think you have to have an agenda in which you both agree that there are some things that you could probably resolve by meeting and then you get together and meet. So there would be no indication of that. Do you think it's possible this year? I would not be optimistic about this year, more possibility next year. But the, and I think that part of it is legitimate. I don't think it's reluctant. They're part of you. If you watch what's going on over there, it's apparent that, and drop off, is setting himself into his government, making the changes he believes in. Do you have any context with him correspondence as you did in Broschnit? No, I don't recall any direct correspondence with him, but there is great cable traffic back and forth, and we have a number of channels open. We're in contact at every level. How about Castro? Would you talk to him concerning, since you think that Cuba's a chief foreman of strife in Central America, would you have a dialogue with him? We actually tried to make contact. And bid him out at nothing very early on. Back when he was doing all that fantastic predicting that we were planning an invasion or something. And there just is no, there's no contact with him. Thank you. And let me look at my best question to see. They're all good. President, several years ago Henry Kissinger gave Israel a memo, promising U.S. would not talk to Palestinian representatives until they have recognized the existence of Israel. And you and your predecessors have followed that. My question, President, is what Israel should the Palestinian representatives recognize? The Israel of 47 partition plan, Israel of 48 war, Israel of a 67 war, 73, or the annexation of Syria's Golan Heights, or the Israel of 83? Well, I think that we're talking there about previous wars and things that are going on. I think it's been the same Israel all the time. And I think it simply has to be what Sadat was willing to do, what Jamiah and Lebanon have done. And that is to simply recognize Israel's right to exist as a nation. That doesn't mean that you foreclose the door on negotiating with regard to occupied territories or anything. But just that remember that the concept under which all those other wars were fought was a concept that the Arab nations at that time had said they reject the existence of Israel as a nation, the right of Israel to exist as a nation. So it would be right as a nation without any particular bound borders. That's right. You don't prejudice in any way the negotiations. As Sadat did not. Sadat said, all right, let's come together and talk. And the result of it was that the sign I was given back. What about what's going to happen on the West Bank? Will the settlements continue? Well, you're going to do anything about it. It seems they're planning, but that again, the West Bank I think is one of the items to be negotiated. And what we've been waiting on the settlement of this Lebanon issue for. And this was where King Hussein, once this is settled, is prepared. What he wants to know is that he has support from the other Arab states in representing the Palestinians. Obviously, their situation with the Palestinian people must be treated with in these negotiations. Israel has made it plain that they're continuing to go forward with these settlements. I would hope that once the negotiations start, that then they would stop. Won't that be too late? There might be a de facto annexation by then. Well, I don't think they can get people in there that fast. There's quite a population, more than a million people already in the West Bank. Well, I always have to sneak a question. What are you going to do when your presidency is over? Just go back to the ranch and enjoy everything? That I'd like very much. Rest a little while. And we don't get enough time there. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I don't even know how to close this. See you at the stop. It must be some way or other anyway. Thank you a lot. I have to go into the electronics business.