 I believe it's important for the federal government and the state attorney general to have a strong and constructive working relationship with the administration of the Department of Justice under Attorney General Bill Smith has made that relationship a priority. And I noticed some familiar faces from last year's meeting. I also noticed a number of new faces including Attorney General Brian McCabe from Nevada and Attorney General John Bandicam from my home state of California. And it's also true I've got a couple of other home states in Illinois. The large attendance that your conferences attracted is a comment on the need to confront the many law enforcement issues that face our society. Tomorrow I'll announce my intention to send to Congress a package of legislation on the criminal justice area. While there may be some difference over detail, I believe there will be broad pipewires in support for these measures. I think many of you will be supportive of our ideas in the area, bail reform, exclusionary rule, and whose court is sentencing. And I understand that you have the opportunity to discuss this package briefly after I leave this meeting. And incidentally, something that's just developed is on the South Florida Task Force with regard to the concept of regard to the drums. It's being extended nationwide under the direction of the Vice President as the South Florida Task Force. Remember, there is direction also. And it's peaceful to tell you one of the details after I leave, which I understand I'm going to get out of here when we're still in session. I just want to say, again, the support from your organization, from you as individuals, will be extremely important. And I look forward to your comments, not only on crime baggage, but also on the issues that you've raised today. So I will now call your Chairman, Attorney General William Bestie. Mr. President, to all of us who are indeed honored to have achieved legal officer of their state in all and some of the chief law enforcement officers in all have something to do with law enforcement. As you know, we span the broad spectrum of Republicans and Democrats and liberals and conservatives. But nevertheless, we've been able in this association to find common ground on the single issue that we all are opposed and want to do all we can to fight crime and do the best we can to represent our states and the fiscal interests of our states. And that's where we stand one. On most issues, we're unanimous. On many, they're all most unanimous. So we're very happy that you've done this. This is the third time, by the way, that you very readily schedule this meeting. Three years ago, you were scheduled, and you were unavoidably delayed by an incident that took place that year. It had to do with crime. Very much so. So at this point, we want to make just a few points and we understand that your agenda is crowded. We'd not like John Ashcroft to say a word at this point. Mr. President, we again want to express our gratitude. Is that good? I'm trying to go around. I know everybody's impressed with the time. I appreciate all of you coming down here to review the nuclear arms resolution before the Congress. I think we all share the concerns that motivated the Sovaki Resolution, H.J. Resolution 13, that passed in committee last week. However, a freeze at current levels would not promote progress in arms control. The contrary, it would make further progress in arms control difficult if not impossible. And I know that our negotiators and informants is so written and communicated with that effect. But it also seems there are long overdue modernization program and leave our aging forces increasingly vulnerable. I think we'll be putting out a book this time. Maybe there's a little more information for people where we are and that we're not the great nuclear monster that can dominate the world as we work. We're quite behind the times. But let me review with you why we oppose this freeze-first resolution. In Geneva, my administration has proposed 50 percent cuts in strategic ballistic missiles and the elimination of an entire class of intermediate-range nuclear missiles. Now, a freeze would remove Soviet incentives to agree to reductions and be virtually impossible to verify. An example of that is we found right now in the missile bay recently tested and the charge that it violates our kind of gentlemen's agreement that we've observed the terms of the soft-toed treaty. We find that we really believe it does. We find that it is impossible for us to prove that it does. We can do better than a freeze at current levels. And the negotiations already have the role that the Soviet Union has publicly recognized the need for reductions. Although Soviet proposals are vague, the Soviets have already gone further than they were willing to go in prior arms control negotiations. I look back over the history of them and all the way back to World War II, this, our government has died and tried and made proposals that have always been re-elected at the other end. Understandably, therefore, we support the room to a Carney-Straton price resolution which expresses support for the ongoing nuclear arms reductions negotiations in Geneva, followed by a freeze that equal and substantially reduces levels. And we hope this resolution will find wide bipartisan support. We need to stick together Republicans and Democrats to set the right course over meaningful arms control. If the room feels Straton version is not successful, you may wish to consider a perfect amendment instead of the Zablaki resolution. I recognize that the outlook for tomorrow's whole thing will not be promising. But I intend to continue to carry the truth to the American people. We should convey to your colleagues my determination and personal commitment towards substantial, verifiable, equitable and militarily significant reductions and we are going to keep trying. And it's my belief that particularly in the INF talks, which started first, it's my belief that the Russians wouldn't even be at the table. They would not set out a proposal to put missiles in as a deterrent on the NATO line and on the NATO allies. As it stands today, they have many people don't understand that they've continued building those SS-20 missiles all during these negotiations. They now have well over a thousand warheads on those more than 300 missiles and no deterrent of any kind in Western Europe. How do you have a freeze that leaves you more than a thousand to zero behind and what deterrent is there then or anything? Well, that's my song. Would you take a look at that song? It's a nice picture. It sounds so much better. I'm sorry to catch you waiting. No problem. I'll tell you, it's kept a record straight. I have said, anytime I have to meet with congressman, my schedule is off from then on. I just come from a meeting with bipartisan meetings. Please sit down a little bit. We absolutely had no problem. I'm an adult pro basketball game at college when I get home. Excuse me, they are fighting their head. Time is no problem. Our school is at spring break right now. The basketball team is in the NAI tournament. We won our first round. So we're down to the top 16. And we beat Sharmanoff. We beat the University of Virginia. It was beaten by a little student in the bar you called Sharmanoff. You know, first of all, before I say this, some basketball also, but let me thank you first of all for that ad, but more than that, I know what you've been doing yourself and on the radio and everything else in support of us. And I really want to tell you all, grateful I am. Well, I debated last night. I'd like to meet you. I'd like to see you. Please tell me. Oh, it does then. The message, again. It did message and developed. Well, I am to be honest. Well, I appreciate that very much. Thank you for the exception. Thank you very much. And the Prime Minister, Elisa. For real? Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Useful. He's caught that. He's got enough. What you continue to do so. That's sort of this issue. As fairly as we expect. And just so we can go on to the top of that. We should try. Mr. Welcome here again for you. Please tell President Jemile that we believe we've made some progress in our talks with the Israeli government. Shamir, who has been here, has now gone back to him. They are concerned about security. So are we, but we don't believe they can obtain that security in the expense of Lebanese sovereignty. And I think that it's essential that we continue the dialogue. You perhaps continue the dialogue with Syrian PLO because that's one of their concerns. They have a suspicion that Syrians in the PLO will drag their feet, try not to leave. The crime package at 1.30. Oh, great. And I guess it'll be a little discussion on that. But we're delighted to be doing it finally and getting a little attention on this initiative. The interest in completing hearts on the Democratic side do about that now. Well, I know. I've just spent five and a half hours up there testifying for congressional committees. I'll have to say that is hard work. I know. Thank you.