 that we've seen during this debate go around the country either to their parishes or in other forms and say, as they are saying, that we think use of nuclear weapons is wrong and some of them are saying, in fact, we see no way that nuclear weapons should ever be used. Isn't that going to have an influence on the debate? Well, is it really? Is there anyone that really favors using those weapons or that wants to see them? Our own proposals in start and INF are aimed at starting to reduce those weapons, and my own hope is that maybe once we start that we can completely eliminate them. What we're talking about is a weapon that is so contrary to what used to be before Hitler invented total war, what used to be the policy of all nations by way of the Geneva rules and regulations concerning warfare, and that is that you did not make civilians targets of war. We used to have very specific rules about that in the rules of warfare. And then came total war and World War II, and yes, all of the nations finally were doing it with the conventional weapons, bombing and so forth. But this now, can anyone, granted that your weapons are targeted on weapons, but this kind of weapon can't help but have an effect on the population as a whole. So they aren't saying anything we don't say that God forbid those weapons should ever be used. Mr. President, based on what you've seen so far, there's nothing inconsistent in the Bishop's letter with your administration's policy? Well, as I say, I have not seen it yet, and 45,000 words are allowed to digest. But what I'm saying is that I think their purpose is the same as ours. They're looking for a way toward peace and promoting world peace, and that's what we're also looking for. And I think to just deal in the specifics and so far, all of the accounts of this and all of the reporting is dealt on that one word, as if the difference between curb and halt. We've had some indications that in reality there are many things in there that we'll have no quarrel with at all. Mr. President, Sylvia Leader Andropov yesterday made a new offer in the medium range, missile talks. Do you see anything positive in what he called for yesterday? Well, yes, the very fact that they have moved toward discussing warheads instead of missiles. We feel that way and have felt that way for some time, that this is what we should be negotiating. And we're going to give this serious consideration as we do any proposal that they make. And I will be talking to Dr. Nitze before he returns to the INF talks about this. And I can't go beyond that now in giving any indication. What about the fact that he continues to want to include the British and the French missiles, the fact that he's not talking about Soviet missiles in Asia? Well, this is, as I say, this is going to take careful consideration to see where it figures in with what we're trying to accomplish in those meetings. And I can't go beyond it because then you get into the very area of talking about negotiations and you can't do that in advance. Mr. President, I was wondering, the administration has initially seemed to characterize what Andropov said as less than sweeping in terms of the changes that he's offered. But I was wondering whether you felt, based on what you've seen, read and heard, whether this seemed to you like a sincere effort on his part to break the impasse or whether it was just another chapter in the propaganda back and forth? Well, this will be determined, I think, when the negotiators get back there and are actually at the meetings. But as I say, the encouraging thing was that he made a proposal and it was a proposal that aimed at something that has been a consideration of ours and that is that we should be negotiating warheads and not just missiles. Now, you won't know until you really sit across the table from them whether he was, whether this was just propaganda or a proposal. Are you saying that you think this improves chances for an agreement this year? I can't put a time limit on. Remember, it took seven years to get the salt agreement. I can only say that the very fact that they're at the table and returning to the table is encouraging to me when you look back at the history all the way to the end of World War II in attempting to get negotiations of this kind with them, that we're encouraged by the fact that they are there at the table and willing to discuss and have actually made a proposal of their own. Going back to Carl's question a second, some of your aides have expressed the opinion that the nuclear freeze movement may be on the wane. Do you share that view? Beyond the wane? No, but I could express a hope that I haven't given much consideration to whether it is or is not. I hope it is because I think it's counterproductive. Actually we're all talking a freeze, but we're talking something that is practical that if you once get down to a verifiable balance, they are talking and have been talking of a freeze even though there is a great imbalance which we think would increase the possibility of war if one side has too much of an advantage over the other. And so what we have said is reduce first and then freeze. And we've always thought the fallacy in the freeze movement was they wanted to freeze first and then see if you could reduce, but there wouldn't be any incentive for the Soviets with the margin of superiority they have once they had a freeze to then go for reductions. So as you say, if the movement is on a wane maybe they've begun maybe many of them who I'm sure are quite sincere have seen the fallacy of that position. Mr. President, moving on to another topic. Before this session began you asked why you shouldn't be scolding members of the House committee that voted yesterday to stop funding for overt operations against Nicaragua. Do you really see any consequences of that action? Does that vote stop you from doing anything or hinder anything your administration is doing? Well that's in a committee and there is a Senate yet to go on this and I would hope that maybe we could do better there. It also had an element in it that looked at partisanship since the vote was on straight party lines. And I don't believe that that reflects the thinking of a great many Democrats because many of them spoke up right after my speech. Does this vote indicate that you failed in your objectives in that speech? No as I say because I know that there are still a great many Democrats who have been quite outspoken including some of the leadership in the House of their party in support of what I had proposed of making this a bipartisan approach and even being critical of some of their members who did seem to sound partisan. The thing that needs telling about this whole situation in Nicaragua, I thought I had covered the subject but maybe I didn't cover it enough the other night. And that is that right now these forces that have risen up in opposition to the Sandinista government are under what you might say is a sort of a group of a controlling body that formed in the northern part of Nicaragua. There are about seven leading members to this kind of committee. Most of them were former anti-Samosa people. They are people who simply want this government of Nicaragua to keep its promises. If you remember the organization of American States asked Samosa to resign at that time and Samosa his reply to them was that if it would benefit his country Nicaragua he would and he did resign. The organization of American States also gave four points to the Sandinistas that they the organization of American States would support them if their goal was these four things of promoting democracy, of immediate elections, of concern for human rights and the Sandinistas acceded to that and said yes those were their goals and they would keep those four provisions or promises and they haven't. They never made an effort to keep them. They violated all of them. Now this is what makes me say that there's a great hypocrisy there of the Sandinista government protesting what is happening in its own country and from people who were once part of its own revolution at the same time that they are supporting people in another country who are seeking to overthrow a duly elected government of the people. Mr. President, in referring to these groups you seem to suggest that these groups are seeking a change in Nicaragua itself and how does that statement square with your saying that we're not violating the law in aiding groups who seek the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government? Well do they or are they asking that government or that revolution of which they themselves were apart? Asking it to go back to its revolutionary promises and keep faith with the revolution that the people of Nicaragua supported. Many of these people are businessmen whose businesses have been taken over. They are farmers whose land was seized by this government, farmers whose crops were they were forced to sell them to the government at less than the cost of production and their protesting this violation of what had made them support the revolution to begin with. But the whole purpose of the Sandinista government seems to be not only with El Salvador but the export of revolution to the other neighbors, to countries that are already democracies. Honduras has taken that step, Costa Rica is the oldest democracy of all and all of them are plagued by radicals in their midst who are encouraged by the Sandinista government. Mr. President, I'd like to go back to what the committee actually did yesterday in voting the Cut-Off CIA Director Casey has reported to have said it would lead to a bloodbath for the guerrillas inside the country. Do you agree with that and how seriously do you take what the committee does? How bad would it be if that Cut-Off of Covert aid went through? Well, I'm saying if that became the policy, I think it was set a very dangerous precedent. The executive branch of government and the Congress has a shared responsibility, as I pointed out in my speech, for foreign policy and we each have a place in formulating foreign policy but we each have a responsibility also and I think that what I said about this was that it was very irresponsible and it literally was taking away the ability of the executive branch to carry out its constitutional responsibilities. Do you believe that it would lead to the bloodbath that the CIA director talked about? Well, I haven't heard his entire remark in connection with that term or how he described it or what he meant with it. I'll make it a point to find out. I once used a bloodbath term as governor of California and one individual reversed it in the press and had it saying the opposite of what I had intended it to say and I never did quite get the situation cleared up. I don't understand what's wrong with the committee's position? What difference does it make if instead of giving covert aid to the guerrillas in Nicaragua you give overt aid to the countries of El Salvador and Honduras to stop the flow of weapons through their countries, which is what you say you want in the first place? Well, except then the only help that you can give is through other governments and I don't think that's an effective thing to do and how do you know that the other governments would want to themselves then participate in helping the people that need the help? In other words, we'd be asking some other government to do what our congressional or our Congress has said that we can't do. Let me ask you a broader foreign policy question that comes up with some of these other negotiations. You've been in office more than two years, more than half of the term for which you elected and the arms talks are going along with no clear end inside. The Middle East situation, if anything, has gotten worse that we're trying to get an agreement now to get the Israelis out of Lebanon where a year ago they hadn't gone even gone into Lebanon yet and in our relations with China have deteriorated. We've had a lot of problems in western Europe. What do you say to those critics who say that your foreign policy has been very bad so far and they just produced nothing? Well, I say that that's a very distorted picture and I think that we've made great progress. Beirut is no longer being shelled on a daily basis around the clock, 15 hours of bombardment in one day. Yes, we're down to negotiating. Sure, there were incidents, but we're down to negotiating the withdrawal of foreign forces after eight years of combat and invasion and harassment from outside as well as inside in Lebanon. With regard to western Europe, I don't believe that the NATO alliance has ever been any more solid than it is now or that there's been a better relationship between us and our NATO allies. The same thing is true in Asia and Japan with the ASEAN nations. I could wish that we could move faster in some of these things and when you say the arms talks, as I said before, it took seven years for the SALT talks. Four years ago when the Carter administration was in its third year, they had completed the Camp David agreement and the treaty from that. The SALT treaty was about to be negotiated. Oh, normalization with China had taken place and the Panama Canal treaty had been approved. There were tangible things which they had achieved. Can you name several besides the opening up of Beirut that you've achieved? Well, in the first place China racial relations had been normalized by the visits of a previous president to the previous administration and he carried on from there and I'm not at all sure that added anything to what had already been accomplished. With regard to the Camp David agreements, yes they started and they were proceeding within the framework of those agreements because those agreements were simply to begin negotiations and it was after we got in that the principal step between Egypt and Israel was carried out which was the return of the Sinai and what we're actually doing now is trying to bring about the negotiations that had been proposed and apparently then accepted which was to negotiate the West Bank and try to bring peace in the Middle East but we are the ones who have gone a step beyond that with regard to trying to have an overall peace in the entire area. That had never been proposed. Mr. President you said the other day that too much attention had been focused on bringing the PLO into the negotiations. I'm wondering do you have a plan to proceed without the PLO if they decide not to become a part of the process? Well this would require of course the agreement of the other Arab states, of the Arab states and since the negotiations were trying to bring about are between the Arab states and Israel for peace in the region we have to recognize their position with regard to this. It would take them agreeing to go forward in negotiations without the PLO. I must say that the contact we had with the heads of many Arab states after the change in the supposed agreement between King Hussein and Arafat when the Council overrode Arafat and then demanded things that Hussein could not accept that none of the others could accept. I talked to all of them and none of them wanted to back the PLO in that new proposal. They felt about it the same as we did and the same as King Hussein did. Now they continue and their talks with Arafat and I have been told that Arafat himself did oppose the Council on that change but was overruled by the Council. Now the thing we must see is do we let that Council which certainly was never elected by the Palestinian people and millions of Palestinians and are they going to stand still for their interests being neglected on the basis of an action taken by this group, the PLO which as I say was never elected by the Palestinian people. These are some of the things that we're trying to work out. Would you like to think of encouraging for instance a referendum among the Palestinians to see whether some other leadership or representation could be? If such a thing were practical and could be worked out, I don't know in the scattered nature of them. There are Palestinians in virtually every country in the Middle East. I don't know whether you could ever get them together and bring about what or even do the educating of them. I don't mean that word to sound demeaning or degrading to them but I mean the informing them so that they could go in with some concept of what it was they were voting on and so I don't know but I do know that the Arab Nations are very serious about wanting the continuation of the peace talks. And that is an option that has been discussed, you've discussed with them as some kind of referendum? No, I've never discussed that but we're in communication with them all the time about how we proceed and as I say I think that for a time there and the way that was portrayed to think that all of us could be blocked by just this decision by that council was giving them too much importance. Mr. President, on another topic once again there have been another rash of stories about feuding among your senior staff some of the stories relating to various issues that have run into trouble in Congress have indicated this is not just a matter of internal rivalry but it's affected strategy has caused you some setbacks and defeat. Sometimes from some of your remarks about this in interviews you seem like the only one in Washington who doesn't believe that some of your top aides are at each other's throats and some of us wonder when you read these stories do you call people in and ask them about it? Do you not believe them? Do you think they just should be dismissed out of hand? Is it not a problem in your administration? Well I have to say that I think there's been great exaggeration and I think to portray that there are factions trying to win over my mind probably as I've said before springs from the fact that the manner in which I asked the cabinet to operate my administration to operate is one of that I want all options and I want them debated in front of me. So it is true and this is very upsetting and disturbing then for someone to go out and leak some information that makes it look as if well there was a loser. Now this bothers me from the standpoint that in cabinet this could inhibit the process that I want. What we have is because most issues don't just occur in one cabinet agency. They do spread across a lot and so here you have this debate going and yes there will be disagreement but finally in the basis of the information that has come out of the debate I make a decision. Well in that decision there's got to be some who were on the wrong side and some on the right side but the very next cabinet meeting it may change and so far it hasn't inhibited them but when you pick up the paper and then read well secretary there was a loser in this he was opposed to this and then it makes it sound like this is all some kind of feuding. It isn't. It's what I have asked for. Why do you say the impression is that you stay aloof from the fray when there is criticism following up on Carl's question that your foreign policy conduct is being affected by the continual criticism from this building of Judge Clark and now in Capitol Hill too. Why do you not get involved in that? That is I am and I am believe me trying to find out who is who is carrying this out. When we sit in here in a briefing on foreign policy we're all in here together all the top staff and everyone has a chance to speak up whether they agree or disagree and the same is true on domestic policy. When we sit in here in this room discuss domestic policy as well as when we do it in the cabinet meetings and yes I am very upset by whoever is carrying these tales. How are you trying to find out what? Well that I can't give you specifics but just let me say that I am dealing with this. Are you satisfied with the way the staff is working now or do you intend to make some changes? Well I am satisfied because it is working. Are you telling us for instance that you do not believe the theme of persistent stories in specifics such as that there is a great deal of serious friction between Judge Clark and Jim Baker? Are you saying that that's an exaggeration and not an accurate betrayal? Yes I am and I think what happens sometimes is people at a different level go out with stories because they think that they are speaking in behalf of their side of the fence or their superior and they are causing a lot of needless trouble. Mr. President may I ask another question about Central America? Many members of the administration say that our commitment there must be in El Salvador, must be a sustained one and that it could take 7 to 10 years to turn things around. I think Ambassador Hinton suggested as much recently. Is that your view? Well I think that he, I may be wrong, but I think that when he made that statement he was talking with regard to the limited way that we have been trying to perform there. I know that guerrilla wars, time is on the side of the guerrillas and they aren't something that is instantly resolved, just as terrorism isn't something that can be curbed just by normal police actions. These are very difficult things. The hit and run tactics of guerrillas are similar to terrorist activities. It's I suppose based on an extension of the same principle that you can't ever totally eliminate crime. But do you think if this aid package were approved by Congress that it would be sufficient to turn things around there this year, your own proposal calls for less aid next year and it seems to suggest that this surge of aid would do the trick? Well the surge we're asking for right now is a restoration of what we asked for in the first place. And as I say it's better than two to one economic aid. The problem with a country like El Salvador and what its problems are right now that requires military aid in the sense of more training so far only having trained a tenth of the army, more training that we could offer, more military supplies and ammunition and so forth we must do is when you've got a government that is trying to reverse the history of the country and bring about democracy and human rights and things of that kind and you have guerrillas that are making it impossible to functional for those programs to function. What good does it do to have a land reform program and give land to the peasants if the peasants can't go out and work the land for fear of being shot by the guerrillas? What good does it do to try and improve the economic standards of a people if they're out of work simply because someone has shut off the power and the factory can't operate or transportation is broken down so that the supplies that are needed and the products from whatever they're working on cannot be transported because of the bridges and so forth that are blown up. When one area of the country a third of the year they were totally without power. Well then you have to say if we're going to make this economic improvement work we've got to stop that conflict. We have to stop those people that are preventing the economy from moving with their firearms and their murders and so forth and this is what it seems that sometimes the debate in the Congress they seem to be ignoring. Mr. President can I follow up on something you said earlier? Did I understand you to say that if you were forced to stop aid to the Nicaraguan guerrillas that you would try to funnel it through other countries? No I was saying that's what the committee said. That the committee said we would have to go over it and then in going over it you can only give money to another government and if you did that then you would have to be depending on maybe those other governments in Central America would give that money to the freedom fighters in Nicaragua. Now if they want to tell us that we can give money and do the same things we've been doing, money giving, providing subsistence and so forth to these people directly and making it over it instead of covert, that's all right with the