 That's on Helen. Is this your first news pageant? Yes. No coaching. Doing everything we can. I only rescue people. Does that mean she owes you one? That's on her? No coaching. No people here. Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States. Please be seated. I have a statement. First, if just this one time I might speak for all of you as well as myself, I would like to extend my thanks to General Secretary Gorbachev, all of his associates in the Soviet government, and the people of Moscow for all they've done to make our stay here a pleasant one, and this summit conference, the success it has been. This is my fourth summit. We're summoning our governments and some of you in the media, the number is higher, but a good deal of important work has been accomplished here in Moscow. And the personal relationship between Mr. Gorbachev and me and the various members of our respective delegations has continued to deepen and improve. But personal relationships and hopes for peace are not by themselves enough. I think history will note that in our approach to the summit process, the United States has sought a consistency of expression as well as purpose. While at every turn I've tried to state our overwhelming desire for peace, I have also tried to note the existence of fundamental differences. And that's why it's a source of great satisfaction that those differences in part as a result of these meetings continue to recede. In addition, spokesmen for the Soviet government have noted the change of policy, indeed the profound change of policy that has occurred in their own government. The United States is fully cognizant of this change and aware of its implications. In noting the differences that still stand between us, therefore, my desire has not been to sound a note of discouragement, but one of realism. Not to conduct a tutorial, but to give the kind of emphatic testimony to the truth that over the long run removes illusion and moves the process of negotiation forward. From our standpoint, this approach has borne fruit at previous meetings and again at this summit conference. And here permit me to go back for just a moment to our first summit meeting at Geneva. There we agreed on certain fundamental realities that would govern our relations, that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, that the United States and the Soviet Union bear special responsibilities for avoiding the risk of war, that neither side should seek military superiority over the other. We affirmed our determination to prevent war, whether nuclear or conventional, and are resolved to contribute in every way possible along with other nations to a safer world. We also set out a broad agenda and initiated a new process of dialogue to address the sources of tension in U.S.-Soviet relations. Since Geneva, we have achieved, through a sustained effort, progress across this broad agenda. Our first discussions here in Moscow focused on the important matter of human rights, individual freedoms. The United States views human rights as fundamental to our relationship with the Soviet Union and all nations. From the beginning we have stressed this point and are encouraged by recent signs of progress in the Soviet Union. I believe that where people have the right to speak, write, travel, and worship freely, creative energies are released. On several occasions I have said that nations do not distrust each other because they are armed and because they distrust each other. For the past three years, General Secretary Gorbachev and I have worked to build a relationship of greater trust. And we both recognize that one way to do that is to improve understanding between our two countries through broader people-to-people contacts. A series of agreements to expand U.S.-Soviet bilateral cooperation, including cultural exchanges, have been concluded. We agreed to expand our student exchange programs with the goal of allowing hundreds and eventually thousands of Soviet and American high school students to study in each other's classrooms. For our future relations, academic, cultural, and other exchanges are of greater importance. Turning to regional issues, Mr. Gorbachev and I agree that there must be peaceful solutions to these conflicts. Our goal is to advance independence, security, and freedom. The Soviet decision to withdraw from Afghanistan is significant, and we agree that building on the Afghan settlement leads to an approach to other regional problems. Our discussions also dealt with Cambodia, Angola, Ethiopia, the Middle East, and the Persian Gulf and Central America. Each of our summit meetings moved us farther toward an INF Treaty, capped by today's exchange of ratification instruments, which now makes it a reality. Each meeting has also moved us farther toward meeting the even greater challenge of crafting a treaty to reduce our strategic nuclear arsenals. In Geneva, the General Secretary and I agreed on the concept of 50% reductions and in Reykjavik on numerical limits for warheads and delivery vehicles. In Washington, on intensive work to complete a START Treaty, including comprehensive verification provisions building upon those in INF. Here in Moscow, we've made important additional strides toward that objective. Verification is one of the most important and most difficult issues for us, and I'm pleased to report progress in this area too. We've moved forward in other areas as well, including agreements on an experiment to improve the verification of existing nuclear testing treaties and on notification of strategic ballistic missile launches. Finally, let me say how deeply moving I have found my discussions with various citizens of the Soviet Union. The monks of Danilov, the dissidents and refusenings, the writers and artists, the students and young people have shown once again that spiritual values are cherished in this nation. It's my fervent hope that those values will attain even fuller expression. And now I will be happy to take your questions, and Helen, we begin with you. At your first news conference in 1981, you said that the Soviets lie and cheat and pursue their ends of world domination. What has really changed your mind? Can the American people really trust the Russians now? And I'd like to follow up. Well, Helen, that was the first press conference that I had held since being elected president. And the question that came to me was, could we believe the Russians or would they lie to us? And my answer at that time was not expressing my opinion. I said I will answer that with their own words. And then I cited some of the leaders of the communist movement in the Soviet Union that said that the only immorality was anything that slowed the growth of socialism and that there was no immorality in lying or cheating or doing anything of that kind as long as it advanced the cause of socialism. Now, that was my answer. So it wasn't an opinion. I was quoting what their leaders themselves, the beginners of that particular system, had said. You still think that? And can you now declare the Cold War over? I think right now, of course, as I've said, dovia no provia, trust but verify. But I think that there is quite a difference today in the leadership and in the relationship between our two countries. And we have held very productive meetings that I think were productive for both sides. Mr. President, on the START treaty, what are the areas of progress and what's the specific progress that you achieve here? And why do you think that you can achieve a complete treaty this year when Senate leaders are urging you to go slow? And this summit, with all that momentum, wasn't able to break the impacts? Well, the Senate leaders themselves brought the verification of the ratification papers here that we just received today on the INF Treaty. It meant changing their own schedules a great deal and speeding up the ratification process. I think that we could count on them to feel the same if we are coming to final agreement on a START treaty. But I would like to remind you of one thing that we've said over and over again. The START treaty is infinitely more complex than the INF Treaty. And therefore, there's going to be continued negotiation on a number of points. And then it will depend on the Senate. Once, if we have agreed upon a treaty, it is their responsibility to thoroughly study that treaty and then issue ratification of it if they find it satisfactory. I would hope that before the year is out that we could eliminate the differences that still exist. But if not, I would hope that my successor would continue because here we are getting at, I think, the most important reduction that should take place in nuclear weapons. The most destabilizing are the intercontinental ballistic missiles in which someone pushes a button and minutes later, a part of the earth blows up. And the thing that I express my hope about is that not only have we said 50%, but in that first meeting in Geneva, the General Secretary proposed the idea also of reducing by half our nuclear missiles. Could you go over the areas of progress on the START that you were achieved here? No, I don't think that I should go on. The conversations are still going on and there are things still being discussed. And as I say, progress has been made or we wouldn't still be talking the way we are. But there's a young lady from the back that I think is native to the scene. Mr. President, is there something in Soviet-American relations that you would advise your successor to leave behind? And is there something that you would specially advise to take to the future? Wait a minute. I've heard the entire question. Special advice on what? Is there something in Soviet-American relations that you would advise your successor to leave behind? And is there something specific that you would advise him to take to the future? To follow up. To follow up, yeah. Yes. If these negotiations, no forth is still going on, I will do everything I can to persuade my successor to follow up and to continue. And as a matter of fact, I think I'll tell him that he will find the Russian people most warm and hospitable and friendly. Mr. President, Soviet officials have told us that they have dossiers on all of the dissidents who you met. And that some of those people, in fact, have said that all those people are not the best people representing Soviet society. How do you feel about the fact that they have kept dossiers on these dissidents with whom you met? And doesn't that contradict your view that there have been improvements here and that this is a more open society under Mr. Gorbachev? Well, no, the figures themselves reveal that improvements have been made. Some 300 people have been freed from imprisonment, a number of people. The list that we bring are names that have been brought to our attention by relatives or friends, their own relatives, for example, living in our country now. And I have brought those names to the General Secretary and explained the personal interest that we have in them. And a great many of them have since been allowed to come to our country or to other countries that they preferred, such as Israel. And so I think there has been a sizable improvement and we still are going to continue doing that. But, sir, what about the fact that the very people with whom you met have now been investigated by Soviet authorities and might be subject to some form of retaliation? And Mr. Gorbachev said today that you no longer feel that this is the evil empire, that you told him that, within the Kremlin walls. Doesn't this contradict your new feeling of optimism about the Soviet Union? No, because as I say, he has received the latest list that I brought here. And previous experiences with this, a great many of those people have been allowed to come to our country. And, well, Sam? Sir, yesterday you did say you no longer believe the Soviet Union is an evil empire. You said that was another time, another era. What's changed? Is it just Mr. Gorbachev's succession to the General Secretary's ship, or have you yourself changed or expanded your view of the Soviet Union? No, I think that a great deal of it is due to the General Secretary, who I have found different than previous Soviet leaders have been. But that also, as we have pursued this, we have found them willing to enter into negotiations with us. And I think that enough progress has been made that we can look with optimism on future negotiations. Sir, I suppose I'm asking if you think that there's anything that you have learned that you personally have expanded or changed your views because you've had an opportunity to learn more about this country over the years and about their systems, so that you think you are part of the process, or is it just Gorbachev? Well, a large part of it is Mr. Gorbachev as a leader. And I think there have been changes here as they have sought to make, well, I read Perestroika. And I found much in it that I could agree with. Mr. President, Mr. Gorbachev said in his new conference that he thought you could have achieved more in this summit. And specifically, he went on to say that on the issue of the ABM interpretation and treaty, he said that you had gone back on your word that in Geneva you had agreed that you would no longer seek military superiority and that by holding to SDI, the development of SDI, you were seeking superiority in outer space. And that therefore you had gone back on your word. Are you seeking superiority in outer space? Can you reach a start agreement without some accommodation on SDI and the ABM question? SDI, in my mind, maybe some of my people wouldn't agree with me, but the whole thing was my idea to hand see if there could not be developed a defensive weapon that would make it virtually impossible for nuclear missiles to get through to their targets in another country. And from the very beginning, I have said that even when such a system can be developed, I would support the idea of making it available worldwide because since we all know how to make nuclear missiles, sometime there could be a madman come along as a Hitler came along who could then make those missiles, but that my idea would be the sharing of the knowledge of SDI as a defensive weapon would be accompanied by the total elimination of nuclear weapons. And I happen to believe that this will be a lot better world if we get rid of all the nuclear weapons. And that is what my dream of SDI is that it can be the tool by which we eliminate those weapons. Well, sir, if I may follow up. Mr. Gorbachev said today that he did not believe that it's for defensive purposes. I know he has said that before. And I failed to convince him, despite the fact that you're on such good terms with him. Well, maybe he just doesn't know me well enough, but from the very first I have said that that is my goal for that defensive weapon. There is nothing offensive about it. It cannot hurt or kill anyone. It can just make it impossible for missiles to get through the screen. Now, you and then I'm going to start spreading around here. Mr. President, I want to ask you about this effort you again stated today to try to get a start treaty before you leave office. You have less than eight months left in office. Mikhail Gorbachev could have 20 years. By setting up any kind of deadline, no matter how unofficial, aren't you putting all the pressure on the U.S. on? Oh, no, no. We set no deadline. I said we're going to continue working toward that. And I could hope that maybe in that period of time, but no, I am dead set against deadlines. You don't make a treaty just to simply have it be achieved at a certain point in time. The treaty is ready when it is a good treaty and good for all sides involved. And that's what we'll do instead of setting a deadline and then saying, well, let's sign it because we've reached the deadline. It has to be good. Let me give my follow-up, sir. There is also talk about a fifth summit sometime this year to sign a treaty, which might come sometime in the fall. To prevent U.S.-Silviate relations from being mixed up in politics, are you willing to rule out a summit until the presidential campaign is over in November? I'd make any decision of that kind based on how I thought it could affect the situation. And if it gave a promise of success, then go for it. You've made me. The young lady, and then I'll take you. Mr. President, you were asked by one of the students at Moscow University yesterday about the practice in the United States of limiting presidential terms. So I believe you said you were going to go out in the mashed potato circuit next year and campaign for repeal of that constitutional amendment. Were you aware that Mr. Gorbachev, as part of his reforms, is promoting the idea of limited terms for the leader of the Soviet Union? And do you think it's a good idea for the Soviet Union? Well, I would hesitate to comment on that. This system of government here, you do not have a national election in which all of the people vote to see who would be the leader. My objection to the constitutional amendment that was passed in our country limiting a president to two terms was the fact that that is the only office in the United States in which all the people vote for the candidates for that office. And it seems to me that it is an infringement on the rights of our people in a democracy to tell them that they can't vote for someone because of a time limit. I think it impinges on their right to vote for whoever they want to vote for for as many times as they want to vote for them. That is the principle of democracy. Mr. President, can you just ask one more question for the students? You talked a lot about how it is a positive thing for students from both countries to mix and mingle to get to know each other to understand each other. Do you think part of your positive feeling about the Soviet Union these days comes as a result of greater tolerance that you've developed as a result of your meetings with Mr. Gorbachev over the past few years? Well, I have found that Mr. Gorbachev and I, I think, have a very satisfactory relationship. But at the same time, I am never going to relax my belief in the need for verification of agreements that we might make and I'm quite sure he feels the same way. Now, where is the gentleman? Mr. President, I understand that in your first meeting with Mr. Gorbachev, he suggested the reduction of half a million military personnel at certain conditions, but there was no follow-up, as it were. Was this subject raised again and what was your response? No, this proposal, this has just been a suggestion made of the removal of a half a million men on the NATO line in the European front. This is, this has to be considered, we think that we are coming to a point and that he himself is willing to, of reductions in conventional weapons along that front and conventional forces as well as the nuclear forces. But the simple removing of a half a million men would not be exactly equal because his men, his military would be moved a short distance back away from the front. Well, there's a 3,000 mile ocean between where our men would have to be moved and in the event of an emergency, we'd have an ocean to cross to get our men back there and equal, so that has to be considered. Yes, lady? Mark's earlier this afternoon was talking about your comments here on human rights and he said, I did not have a lot of admiration for that part of the trip. When you met with the General Secretary privately, we know, of course, that you discussed human rights. Did he say anything to you specifically about the meeting of dissidents or your remarks at Dunneville of Monastery or the remarks yesterday at the Writers Union? No, but I do know that he and others have had a feeling that in some way our concern with this is interfering with your internal government policies. I have explained to him, and I think maybe he has seen the point, our country is very unique. All of us, either by ourselves or through our ancestors or our grandparents or parents, came from someplace else, about the only nation in the world that can say that. As a matter of fact, the estimate is that one out of eight Americans traced their parentage and their heritage, if not their own, emigration to the Eastern Bloc. And so I have put it this way that you don't stop loving your mother because you've taken under yourself a wife. So the people in America do have a feeling for the countries of their heritage. In my case, it was a great grandfather on one side and a grandmother and grandfather on my mother's side. Well, Americans retain that feeling of friendship and loyalty to the countries that, as I say, are their heritage. And so when we feel that people are being unjustly treated, imprisoned for something that in our country would not be a crime, calling for such a sentence, our people get aroused and they come to us and they want help, they want something done. A wife who's been waiting for eight years for her husband to be allowed to leave this country to join her. Things of this kind, we don't think are really interfering with someone else's business. We think it's very much our business to bring it to the attention where we feel that there is an injustice to the government. And I have explained this to the general secretary and I think he has seen the justice of what I've said because many of the individuals that we've brought to his attention have now been released from confinement here and have been allowed to emigrate, come to other countries, to our country. Mr. President, Mr. Gorbachev says that he proposed a draft statement that would use the word peaceful coexistence. And he said that your first response to that was, I like it, but that when you came back from meeting with your age, you seemed to have changed your mind. Did you and why? Well, I like the whole tone, the general tone of it and what it was seeking to achieve was what we're both seeking to achieve. But I said at the same time, I would take it to our people and I took it there and they studied it and saw where there could have been certain ambiguities in there that would not achieve the general thought of what was being proposed. We were in agreement with the general thought, so some rewriting was done by our own people. And when the total statement is released to you, I think you will find that we have achieved what it was he had with the paragraph that he'd proposed. And it has been achieved and improved to the point that it is clear and unmistakable that it achieves the purpose that he had in mind. Well, I'm sorry to sort of tease this now, but give us some sense of what you've proposed to substitute for peaceful coexistence. What's the better term that your aides have advised you to use? No, peaceful coexistence, both pieces achieve the same end, but the other one had ambiguities in it and I don't think they were intentional. But they could have been used to justify doing something else that was not in keeping with the entire goal of the statement here, the young lady. Mr. President, if I could follow up on your comments on immigration. Yesterday when you were talking about a family denied the right to emigrate, you said that you called it a bureaucratic problem. You said you blamed the bureaucracy. Do you believe that essentially it is just bureaucratic lethargy that has caused that problem in the Soviet Union? Well now, somebody distracted me back there. I think someone else thought I had pointed at them instead of you. Yesterday when you spoke to the students about, you were talking about immigration and a family in particular that had been denied the right to emigrate. And you said you blamed the bureaucracy. Do you view the immigration problem from the Soviet Union as essentially a problem of just a lethargic bureaucracy? I'm afraid that I have to confess to you that I think one of the sins of government and one with which we must deal and never have been able to be completely successful with, and this includes our own government, is that the bureaucracy once created has one fundamental rule above all others, preserve the bureaucracy. And I think that governments will always have find that they are having to check on bureaucracy and make sure that it is not abiding by its own rules and taking the easiest course. And so I wouldn't picking on one government other than another. You said that you believe you persuaded Mr. Gorbachev on some of these immigration questions, but he said on human rights in the United States that he did not find your arguments convincing. Do you consider that a failure in the summit? I think that there is a mistake, a mistaken view and oh how I yearn to have him come to our country for long enough to see some of our country. I think there's a mistaken view about the things that occasionally dominate the press, about prejudice, racial or religious in our country, about people, the so-called street people that apparently have no place to live. And I think these problems, these are socioeconomic problems in our land, we have them of course. We also try to deal with them, but I don't think he quite could understand a recent situation. A young lady living on the sidewalks of New York, living out there on the sidewalk winter and summer. And so for her own sake the police picked her up to bring her to where she could be placed in a shelter. And she took her case to court and won her case in court that she should be allowed to go back and sleep on the sidewalk where she had been because that's what she preferred to do. Well, when you have a free country how far can we go in impinging on the freedom of someone who says this is the way I want to live? And I think we could straighten him out if he saw what we did in our country. Yes, sir. Mr. President, in this room on Monday you heard moving stories of people who had been in prison. And you wrote it off to bureaucracy. Is that really your view that it is only to bureaucracy, it is not a willful policy of the government here to keep these people from immigrating? No, I can't say that it's one I don't know that much about the system but it was a question which presented to me on the basis that it possibly was a bureaucratic bungalow. Maybe I should illustrate to you why I feel the way I do about bureaucracies. Once during the war I happened to be involved in a situation in which one level of the military wanted a warehouse full of filing cabinets, wanted permission to destroy the files so they could use those filing cases and they were able to prove that the documents had no historic value. They had no bearing on present-day government at all. They were just useless. And so the message went up through the ranks requesting permission to destroy these obsolete files and then back down through the ranks from the top command endorsed by each level of command came the reply. Permission granted. Providing copies were made of each file destroyed. Don't you think you're letting Mr. Gorbachev off a little easy on just saying it's bureaucracy? No, as I said, the way the question was framed I thought that there was a possibility of that. No, but I just have to believe that in any government some of us do find ourselves bound in by bureaucracy and then sometimes you have to stomp your foot and say unmistakably I want it done and then maybe you get through with it. But I have great confidence in his ability to do that. Thank you, sir. You said starting at the beginning of this year and going into this summit that if there was this progress on toward a start treaty you would come together, be willing to come together a fifth time and sign it, but only if it was a good treaty. You've said today, you've referred to that today again several times, what is your judgment, your best judgment on the basis of this summit as to have you made enough progress that you now think that a start treaty is likely within your term? Lou, I honest, I cannot answer that. I don't know. Let me just give you what the mechanics are that our people have been steadily in Geneva, both sides, Soviet people and our people, working on this treaty, knowing what we hope to achieve and they're working there and as I say, they've made progress. There is no way to judge and there is no way that I would give them a date and say please you have to get this by such and such a time because that's not the way to get a good treaty. I want a good treaty. Sir, if I could follow up. Is the only condition under which you would have a fifth summit with Mr. Gorbachev is if there was in fact a what you thought was a good start treaty ready to be signed? Well, you can't rule out something else might come up that necessitates our getting together and settling something other than that particular treaty. So no one can say no, there will be no need for a summit and when Helen says that, I'm sorry, I have to leave. I'm going to do one answer because I wanted to say this and I say it anytime I get a chance. I think that one of the most wonderful forces for stability and good that I have seen in the Soviet Union are the Russian women.