 Well, I am pleased to announce that General Secretary Gorbachev and I will meet October 11th and 12th in Great Jovek, Iceland. The meeting was proposed by General Secretary Gorbachev and I have accepted and it will take place in the context of preparations for the General Secretary's visit to the United States, which was agreed to a Geneva in November of 85. And I might say the United States and the Soviet Union appreciate the willingness of the government of Iceland to make this meeting in Reykjavik possible, so I know you'll all be on your best. Well, Mr. President, do you think this increases the chances for an arms agreement, the fact that you're going to meet with Mr. Gorbachev before he comes to the U.S.? Will that mean that you have something ready for signature then when you meet with him here? I don't believe anything of that kind. I don't think this is going to be just a signing meeting at all, and I have no way of knowing what the outcome will be as we continue with our people. What do you think the chances are, sir? Well, I've said for a long time that I think the chances are better than they've been for in many years for reaching some agreement on arms reductions. Mr. President, why did you change your mind on this? All year you would seem to oppose the idea of a meeting in a neutral country and demanded that it was the General Secretary's turn to come to the U.S., and is there any agenda for this meeting? Are you going to have any kind of agreements on INF or risk reduction centers? No, this in no way discounts the fact of what we've said about a summit. This is not a summit. This was a suggestion by his that he and I, one-on-one, meet earlier and make that in a neutral country because we have agreed that, as to the summits, that this one would be here and the next one would be in their country. No agreements at this meeting, sir? No agreements at the meeting next week? I don't know. All we've agreed upon is that we're going to have a meeting. Mr. President, does that commitment still continue, though, for the General Secretary to come to the United States for a summit that would actually produce some sort of arms control agreement? I hope for that the last time we met, and I'll continue to hope for that. And our arms negotiators have continued to meet, both sides have made proposals, and there have been differences between them, and so far those differences have not been reconciled. Mr. President, we believe that the- Mr. President, how would you now say the Danilov affair either laid the groundwork for this special meeting, or created an obstacle? What is your assessment of this whole- The release of Danilov made the meeting possible. I could not have accepted and held that meeting if he was still being held. Mr. President, on that subject, we believe the Soviets seized Danilov because of our arrest of Zakharov, and they wanted Zakharov out. They're now going to get Zakharov out. What do you say to those who say that you've lost on that trade, and they got what they wanted? This will have to be the last question, please. No, not at all. There was no connection between these two releases, and I don't know just what you have said so far about this, but there were other arrangements with regard to Zakharov that resulted in his being freed. Well, sir, do you think the world is going to believe that there was no connection when in fact Danilov comes out one day and Zakharov goes zip through the magistrate the next an hour? May I point out to you that there have been several instances over the recent years in which we have arrested a spy, convicted a spy here in this country, and in each instance we ended up, rather than giving them board and room here, we ended up exchanging them for dissidents and people who wanted exit from the Soviet Union. Are we getting more than just Danilov or are there other dissidents, sir? I'm not going to comment on that, somebody else has already. Mr. President, you said that Danilov was a hostage. What message do you have for other American hostages today, for instance those in Lebanon, who have not been beneficiaries of these negotiations? I'm glad that this is the last question, and I have looked forward to answering this one. I understand I'm scheduled soon for a press conference, and I'm going to save all the ammunition for that, so I'll see you again. When is that? It's still announced in the proper time. It's still announced the date of the proper time there, see? But to answer this question, I understand the sorrow, the grief of the families of the hostages who were held in Beirut, and we assume they're held in Beirut, because that's the kind of hostage situation this is. There has never been a direct contact with us from the holders of those hostages, the kidnappers. But there hasn't been a day since they were taken that we have not been engaged in efforts to get them out. And I can just add this, that sometimes we've thought that we were on the verge of doing that, and then there has been a sharp disappointment. And so as I say, I can understand the families as if this looks at one, but look at the difference. Here we are dealing with a government in which we have diplomatic relations. In the other, we're dealing with faceless terrorists who have only, through others, issued a demand that cannot be met. And we, as I say, there's not a day that goes by that we're not bending every effort to get those people home. Come back when you can stay longer. Come back when you can stay longer. You still say the Soviets blank, sir? The Soviets blank? Soon to set back.