 case of the Soviet Union. Tomorrow, the United States will join the Soviet Union and 33 other nations at a European disarmament conference in Stockholm. The conference will search for practical and meaningful ways to increase Europeans. We will be in Stockholm with the heartfelt wishes of our people for genuine progress. We live in the final challenges to peace, but also opportunities to peace. Through times of difficulty and frustration, we believe that 1984 find the United States in the strongest position in the East to establish a constructive and realistic working relationship with the Soviet Union. We've come a long way since the decade of 70s constructed. Over the last 10 years, the Soviets devoted twice as much of their gross national product to military expenditures that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap. To keep the peace, we and our allies must be strong enough to convince the date from the American people to change course, and we have. With the support of the American people in the Congress, we halted America's decline. Our economy is now in the midst of the best recovery since the 60s, and us to keep weakening ourselves. They've been saying for years that our demise was inevitable. They said it was when the economy started believing it. Well, they've started, I think they can see now, they were wrong. This may be the reason that we've been hearing such strident weapons out. America's deterrence is more crazy, and it is making the world a safer place, safer because now there is less danger that the Soviet leadership will underestimate our strength or question our resolve. Yes, our deterrence has made the world safer, is not to say that it's safe enough. We're witnessing tragic conflicts at many parts of the world. Nuclear arsenals are far too high, and our working relationship with the Soviet Union is not what it must be. These are conditions which must be addressed and improved. Wish away the differences between our peace societies and our philosophies. But we should always remember that we do have common interests. The foremost among them is to avoid war and reduce the level of violence. There is no rational alternative for competition. And if we do so, we might find areas in which we could engage in constructive cooperation. Our strength and vision of progress provide the basis for demonstrating the legal conviction, our commitment to stay secure and to find peaceful solutions to problems through negotiations. That's why 1984 is a year of opportunities for peace. But if the United States and the Soviet Union have arrived to the challenges facing, I propose that our governments make a major effort to see if we can make progress in three broad problem areas. First, we need to find ways to reduce and eventually to eliminate the threat and use of force in sub-evented nations that confronted wakes and exporting violence only exacerbate local tensions, increased suffering, and make solutions to real social and economic problems more difficult. Further, such activity carries with it the risk of larger confrontations. We would ask, should we find ways to reduce the vast stock price of violence in the world? It's tragic to see the world's developing nations spending more than 150 billion dollars. We must find ways to reverse the vicious cycle of threatened response, which drives armed races everywhere it occurs. With regard to nuclear weapons, amongst people in the Western world, it reduces it. Peaceful trade helps, while organized theft of industrial secrets certainly hurts. Cooperation and understanding are especially important to arms control. Examples I've cited illustrate why our relationship with the Soviet Union is not what it should be. We have a long way to go, but we're determined to try and try again. We may have to start in small ways, but start leaving us. In working on these tasks, our approach is to recognize that we are in a long-term competition with a government that does not share our notions of individual liberties at home and peaceful change abroad. We must be frank in acknowledging our differences and not afraid to promote our values. Strength is essential to negotiate successfully and protect our interests, if we're weak, and if we were three years ago. Our strength is necessary to deter the war and to facilitate negotiated solutions. Soviet leaders know it makes sense to compromise only if they can get something in return. I don't know why this should come as a surprise to Soviet leaders who never shy from expressing their view of our system, but this doesn't mean that we can't deal with each other. We don't refuse to talk when the Soviets call us imperialist aggressors and wuts, or because they cling to the fantasy of a communist triumph over democracy. The fact that neither of us likes the other system is no reason to refuse to talk. Living in this nuclear era, indeed, we fought common enemies in World War II. Today, our common enemies are poverty, disease, and, above all, war. More than 20 years ago, President Kennedy defined a sale, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. Well, those differences are differences in governmental structure and philosophy. The common interests have to do with the things of everyday life for people everywhere. Just suppose with me for a moment that an island and an island could find themselves in a waiting room and sharing a shelter from the rain and a storm with a German salad. Sorry. It's not out of me, since I roughly know it. I appreciate it if you remember very much. All I can say is, strongly as four years ago when I got here, there was really a campaign of everything to me, not to you, but to me. And I've now got three years in the GSA and I've seen how it works. I've seen what we've done there. And I'm more convinced than I ever was convinced that the fat and the waste and the inefficiencies that we talked about are there. And I don't know how to express it this moment, but I really feel it. Good to see you. Is that right? No, OK. How are you? Good to see you. How are you? Good to see you. How are you? Good to see you. Good to see you. Please, everybody, sit down. It's a pleasure to welcome you all here and share a great many concerns about the situation in the Middle East. Our goal, let me just say briefly, is what it has always been on the time. I made a proposal a year ago, September 1st, about a peace process. I meant for the entire Middle East. Naturally, it had to start with trying to resolve the situation that was tearing Lebanon apart. I think we've made some great progress, but I think we've got to make a great deal more. We've got to stop the killing. I just want to assure you, before we get into anything here, I am convinced that some of the talk has been going on and criticism that if we withdrew the multinational force, there would be a disaster. I want to try and hope we can prevent that disaster. Now, I know you have some things that you want to. Yes, sir. We've spent some time putting together what we would call an overview of our fundamental concern. Before I get into that, I'd like to first say on behalf of all of us here, and in fact, all of the members of the National Association of Arab Americans, we want to thank you for this opportunity. We appreciate it very much. We do think that if possible, a regular exchange of ideas has got to be done. I don't remember having that chance to reach you. I don't know how many of you have heard about that. That's right. Hi. I'm there. Trying to go around the table, because that's easy. Yes. Shorten our time. Be ready. Be seated down. Thank you. Mr. President, remembering your admonition that I'm working lunches, it's OK to eat and talk at the same time, we're going to take advantage of that today because we have so little time and use all the minutes that we have available. I think most of the people around the table here have already been introduced to the visitors. Jim Baker has joined us here. Dick Darman, Dr. Rudy, Jack Swan, I think I think only two coming in. Of course, the last president, who we've already talked to. So Bruce, why don't you take over and go from here. President, I'd like to introduce our guest, who I've spent a very excellent two hours this morning discussing some issues affecting the family. They represent various disciplines, backgrounds, and points of view, I might add. On your right is Dr. Charles Murray, who's a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. You may remember him, but he has been writing now for about working for about 10 years as a chief scientist at the American Institute for Research and has a book coming out of the Southern Great Society. And sitting on Mr. Meese's right is Connie Marshner, who is the chairman of the Family Policy Advisory Board for the 1980 Reagan-Busch campaign. She writes a regular newsletter report called Family Protection Report, and is the chairman of a 40 pro-family organization group that meets regularly. And then sitting on Dick Darman's right is Marie Wynn, who is the author of the book. I'm going to sit in the back, Mr. President. It's very good to see you, Mr. President. I mean, I think you know some of these other people. Oh, it's happy to hear you're taking it. It's only your little boy the other night for dinner. I've been doing it. Yeah, the night's done. Cocktail, too. My follow-up, I need to see you, sir. I'm really, really good. Spice, why don't you take that pants off and maybe put it in your pocket? I thought that was a better chance for you, sir. I don't think you'll want to do it. It's just exactly what we're going to do. I got to learn that my confidence was in my story and then I read it. How much the rush is additional. They seem to be very fair, and I didn't like it even before you gave it. They managed that. Thank you, sir. You got more out there, don't you? Mr. NC Otto, is the ambassador out of the job now? Just in suspension, suspension. Just recently, a little bit. I just told you, Bob, this is the rules. How we're doing? You're something, looking away. Superb, Bob. You going down? I was having you do initiatives to offer to Romyco. Sir, could you tell us how you feel personally about the reaction to your speech? Here we are. We're taking questions. We're not supposed to be talking about that. He's not ahead of state. All this time? Alice. No, I thought it was reasonably right. He's not at the state? I've seen. We've been careless about so long. Just a couple of those gals, those TV cameras on the show that are very short. They came on the tail and they all had the time to squeeze on and shove the camera between them. They're always laughing, laughing, having to peek through them. In front of the line, let me in first. I really felt that that kind of thing had been outdated in diplomacy. And people no longer did this kind of very strange, complicated, and involuntary Machiavellian procedure. This business of Kuitsinski proposing to me that I consider the suggestion of equal reductions on both sides. And then later, they called me out of bed one night to tell me that they had an instruction from this government.