 Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States. Please be seated. I have a brief opening statement besides saying good evening. One week ago today in London, I joined the leaders of six major industrialized democracies for the annual economic summit, and we met to take the pulse of the world economy to measure the impact of the policies that we've been implementing during the past three years and to continue strengthening the freedom, prosperity and peace that we share. Change comes neither easily nor quickly in foreign affairs, but there was recognition in London that while we continue to face pressing challenges, we are on the right track. By working together, by sticking to our policies, we've made impressive progress since 1981. The Western democracies have been moving from weakness to strength, from disappointment and pessimism to confidence and hope for a better future. In 1981, our economies had an average growth of only 1.8% and 8.5% inflation. But led by the recovery and now the expansion in the United States, our average growth today is up to 4% while inflation has been cut in half. There was recognition that the incentives of America's recovery program, which sparked our economic takeoff and the creation of more than 6 million jobs in the last 18 months, have made a major contribution to the improvement in both the performance and the outlook for the world economy. I reaffirmed to our allies America's bedrock commitment to the NATO Alliance and to its mission to protect peace and freedom in the West. Europe and America have enjoyed nearly 40 years of peace. If NATO remains strong and unified, and I believe NATO is stronger and more unified today than ever before, then Europe and America will remain free and secure. We have re-established strength and confidence stretching beyond America's shores to Europe and the Pacific Basin, and we're trying as well to promote a better, more realistic long-term relationship with the Soviet Union. And that's why we and our allies have made so many initiatives to reduce nuclear arsenals, ban chemical weapons, break the impasse in the East-West conventional force negotiations, curb nuclear proliferation, and reach agreement on proposals for increasing confidence and reducing the risk of surprise attack in Europe. The West is doing its utmost, but to date we have met with continued Soviet unwillingness to return to the nuclear arms negotiating tables. America is standing taller in the world today, but if we're to continue on course toward a more prosperous, peaceful world, then we need the full cooperation of the Congress. The Congress must support our strategic modernization program to keep America strong and convince the Soviets it is in their best interest to choose the course of negotiation, not confrontation, so we can safely reduce arms while preserving peace and stability. The Congress must pass the recommendations of the bipartisan commission on Central America and the two supplemental requests now before it to promote democracy, economic development, and greater security in that vital region to our South. And the Congress must promptly pass our deficit reduction program to help ensure that our economic recovery remains strong. And now, Helen, you're number one. President, no matter what you say you've done so far, two Republican leaders don't think you've done enough, and they are urging you to hold regular summit meetings where fear will blow each other up with the Soviets without any conditions as to issues or outcome. Both you and the Soviets have said you will go to a summit if it's carefully prepared. My question is, where do we stand now? Are you willing to go for a summit to start the ball rolling? Well, Helen, the first place with regard to the two senators, and I did talk to them, they were talking about a goal that would be desirable that I think we all share. And we were agreed on that, and I told them some of the difficulties and problems that we've been having. But yes, I am willing to meet and talk any time so far. They have been the ones not responding, but we have kept in communication. There are a number of issues other than arms reductions that we have suggested talking to them about, and we're going to continue in the area of quiet diplomacy to bring that about. Are you going to make an affirmative move for a summit and to try to clear away some of these stumbling clocks that have really caused great east-west tensions? Well, this is what I meant with my remarks, that we are continuing to keep communication with the idea leading toward that very thing. Mr. President, do we understand you to say that you're willing now to drop your long-held view that a summit would have to be carefully prepared in advance and hold the prospect for reasonable success? Wouldn't really be necessary for me to drop that, since the Russians say that that's exactly what they feel must happen before there can be a meeting, that it must be carefully prepared. Let me explain maybe a little more fully what, when I say that, what I have in mind. There have been a couple of times in the past in which representatives from the free world and from our own country have gotten into things simply to get acquainted or say hello. And they have led to great expectations and they've led to great disappointment. And I don't think that we ought to go into something of that kind. But at the same time, I'm not talking about a pre-constructed meeting in which you've got a list of points. You can have an agenda in which it is the general area of the things that you think could lead to better understanding. And that's good enough for me. Right now, we're getting a response from them that they want a very carefully prepared agenda. Now, if they agree with me that there are things we can talk about that might clear the air and create a better understanding between us, that's fine. Sir, I could follow up. Are you willing to take steps now to begin the process of working out an agenda so that a summit could ultimately occur? Well, we are taking steps. This is what I mean by quiet diplomacy. And I have been in communication myself, written communication, the Soviet leadership. There is one thing that I think I've said this before but that I think many of you failed to recognize and that is there have been three Russian heads of state since I became president. One of them I knew personally. The second one was we now know in ill health because he was virtually in communicato to anyone during his period. And now this newest one is setting up an administration and so forth. So it isn't as if we've been sitting here for three and a half years arguing with someone or not arguing with someone. There have been a lot of changes over there. But we're ready, willing, and able. Mr. President, nearly a year ago you said that you wanted to get to the bottom of the matter of the so-called briefing papers that went from the Carter White House into your 1980 campaign. I wonder, sir, if in that year you have ever talked to Mr. Baker and to Mr. Casey and asked them precisely what their roles were in that matter? Yes, and I think they're easily understandable. One has no recollection and I can understand that from a campaign of something that might have come through his office and been passed on, that goes on. I think there is one thing that ought to be cleared up about this whole case. And I did give orders to the FBI to make this investigation thorough and I gave orders to all of our people to cooperate to the fullest extent, and they did. And the Justice Department and the FBI were satisfied that there was no criminal intent of any kind. But the thing that I want to make clear is we still keep calling it the briefing book. Now it was established quite a while ago that the so-called debate briefing book of the Carter team never has been in our possession. That all that was uncovered were some position papers, the type of things that were issues during the campaign and all of it had been out in the open and made public as the campaign went on before the debate. But the briefing book, if you will remember, the briefing book it was pointed out, finally someone located on the other side and there it was and no one on this side ever saw it nor was it ever in our hands. Can I follow up, sir? There still seems however to be some conflict in the matter because although the Justice Department said no crime had been committed, a Democratic controlled committee on the Hill suggests that they may have been a crime committed. In view of the fact that there is this conflict, the Democrats don't believe your Justice Department and the Republicans don't believe the Democratic Committee, wouldn't it be better to have a special prosecutor to resolve the matter once and for all? Well that matters in the court now and if that is decided by the court I will give the same orders with regard to cooperation. Frankly, based on that Democratic Committee report, it didn't make any sense at all. This has been investigated thoroughly. Sam? Sir, in recent speeches this year about the Soviets, you have held out an olive branch to them but at the same time you usually either denounce their system or their actions. Would it be better in an attempt to get this dialogue started again, whether at the summit or back in Geneva, where you simply held out the olive branch without also taking a shot at them? Well I don't think I've gone out of my way to just call them names or anything. I've usually pointed to something that is counter to their protestations of wanting peace and cooperation such as walking away from the arms talks. I don't think that I've said anything that was as fiery as them referring to the funeral service or the unknown soldier as a militaristic orgy. If we're going to talk about comparisons of rhetoric, they've topped me in spades. Leslie? Sorry, if I may. You shortened the number of questions we get in with all these follow-ups. All right. Thank you. I don't know if everyone else is left as unclear as I am on where we stand with the summit with the Soviets. Are you inviting Mr. Chinenko to come and have a summit with you and are you willing to have your advisor sit down with his advisors to work out the pre-planning that you both say is necessary? We have been in contact with them on a number of issues that we think bilateral issues that should be discussed between us. Of course, there is the matter of the arms talks also, although we've not been talking about that since they have simply walked away. All I can tell you is that in what I call quiet diplomacy, we are in contact with their people trying to establish a basis for talks. Is this an invitation? We haven't reached that point yet. I'd like to join Leslie in not being quite sure here. There seems to be a change or something that we have at least not known before. Your communication with the Soviet leadership, has that been with Mr. Chinenko and what has the subject been a summit and meeting between you and Mr. Chinenko? No. The communication has been simply on the broad relationship between our two countries and my communication by writing has been with Mr. Chinenko. If I could just follow up, would you be willing to meet with Mr. ... Sorry, Sam. He's a much more gentlemanly person. Would you be willing to meet with Mr. Chinenko even if he won't send his delegation back to the nuclear arms talks? Yes. Yes, I'm willing to meet with him. Chris. Mr. President, you have said recently that you think that U.S.-Soviet relations would improve in a second Reagan term, but several other people who have been in Moscow, quote officials there is saying that isn't true, that they're not going to ever deal with you. They feel you have been too harsh. What hard evidence do you have that relations would improve after the election? Well, I've been too harsh. Maybe if I apologize for shooting down the KAL 707 and some things like that, maybe they'll warm up and be willing to talk. No, I think it's very obvious that ... and I wouldn't expect them to do anything that might help me in the coming election. But I think when it's over and they know that four years lie out ahead, if I'm here for four years, I think they'll talk. Well, that brings up the question. Do you think that the Soviets could get a better deal from your Democratic opponent than they could from you? Oh, I'm not going to comment on that. President, as I recall one of your previous formulations about a summit was that you would have to have something concrete to show for it. Are you willing to have a summit that does not have a concrete agreement or a piece of paper like the New Solver Star Treaty or some new initiative toward a Solver Star Treaty? Well, Lars, I've never thought about it in a specific of that kind. As I've said, there should be an agenda, a subject that both sides want to talk about and have some desire to get a settlement. And that holds out the promise then that something might be accomplished. When you don't plan that well, if I could recall, and I don't mean this to be critical of my predecessors, but there was a get acquainted meeting with Lyndon Johnson and it was nothing more than that. Then there was a meeting with Kennedy and Khrushchev that they didn't ease tensions or make things any better. This was the meeting in Vienna. It led to even more strains. So it is a two-edged sword, such a meeting. Yes, you want to accomplish something, but you want to be sure that you aren't going to lead to more trouble. My point was you're willing to have a summit that does not end in the signing of a treaty on arms control. Yes, I've said that once already. What is your timeframe on this? If you are now willing to negotiate the possibility of a summit, do you think it could be held before the election? Whenever the conditions that lead to having one would be fine, but one thing let me say and make clear, I'm not going to play political games with this subject and go rushing out for some kind of political advantage to announce that I have asked for a summit meeting. That wouldn't do either one of us any good and certainly wouldn't be fair to them. But this is legitimate. The door is open and every once in a while we're standing in the doorway seeing if anyone's coming up with steps. What's your estimation, sir, on a timeframe? I couldn't give you one. Mr. President, some of you advise the same privately. The Soviet leadership now is actually so divided and uncertain that there's really not much hope of progress at this time. And you've seemed to hint that when you say that there have been three leaders since you've been in office. Is that your view and what are the implications of that? Well, we don't know. There has been the theory advance that they're kind of marking time and perhaps in some disagreement about what course they should follow. But there's no way to know that. So we just keep on trying. Mr. President, if I could get back to political games for a second. Former President Carter said earlier this month that despite your statements generally in favor of a debate with your opponent that he thinks you're going to duck your Democratic opponent and will never face him in a face-to-face debate. Now that former Vice President Walter Mondale is the apparent Democratic nominee can you now promise that you will participate in a presidential debate with him? President Carter said that I would hide. There he goes again. I would look forward to a debate. Mr. President, today the Chief Kremlin spokesman said we want to have negotiations with the United States on a whole complex of issues which is certainly something different than Mr. Chernyenko said the day before. Do you read this as a change in Soviet policy or tactics? Is there something going on there that is happening very quickly in relation to two countries? We'll take a chance in finding out on that because I say we are in communication and if they're ready to talk, we are too. Mr. President, do you interpret the Supreme Court decision this week in the Memphis firefighters case as the death knell of affirmative action as we have known it in hiring and promotion? No, I don't think that at all. I think the Supreme Court was interpreting, giving an interpretation of what the law actually says and as a matter of fact, I think in the discussion up came the point that back when that was being discussed, Hubert Humphrey in the debate in the Senate said that the law did not provide for quotas. The law is to prevent discrimination against individuals and this was what the Supreme Court said in that case. Mr. President, last year you said in action a commission on organized crime. Could you tell me why, as the first part of a two-part question, why this commission refuses to say whether it is investigating Lewis Farrakhan despite seven Hanafi Muslims and Malcolm X being shot by Mr. Farrakhan and his accomplices? I would have no way of knowing but a commission that is engaged in a study, I'm quite sure that they're not going to talk about things that they are currently doing. I think the very nature of that kind of investigation would indicate that they will report when they have everything wrapped up and tied up and all the evidence that they need for any conclusions they come to. The follow-up, sir. In your setting up this commission under George Kaufman of New York, you specified drugs. Are you at all concerned about Bob Woodward's reports of widespread cocaine use at the Washington Post or do you kind of shuffle it off and explaining that this illustrates a lot about why the Post publishes some of the things that it does? I only say in with regard to that question is that you are tempting me beyond my strength. You noted in your opening remarks the debate on the hill about the deficit reduction package. Given some problems we're having with the spending side but not on the tax side, would you be willing to sign a tax package without a spending package attached? Only if I had assurance that the spending package was coming along, there would be no point in the other. This triad that was worked out, this three-legged stool of domestic spending, defense cuts that we finally agreed to and some changes, some reforms in the tax structure that closed some certain loopholes and so forth. This has to go together. I made the mistake of going along with the tax increase in the guise of the same kind of treatment on the promise of cuts that I never then obtained and the deficit would be considerably smaller if I had gotten those cuts that I had asked for. This time I'm going to be pretty sure. Would that mean then you might want them to wait from sending a tax package up until they've actually completed the spending? If there is assurance that the appropriation bills are going to come up, that they're working on that also, I'm prepared to look them in the eye and say, all right, and wait, yes. Mr. President, you and your campaign organization have spent a lot of time trying to increase your support among Hispanic voters, yet you continue to support the controversial immigration bill on the Hill now. Will that not hurt you with its Hispanic voters in the fall? Well, I know that there are people, I can understand their concern and their fear. I think that if we take every precaution we can in that immigration bill to make sure that there is not discrimination simply based on the not wanting to bother as to whether an individual is legal or not, I think we can protect against that. But the simple truth is that we've lost control of our own borders and no nation can do that and survive. And I think the thing that they should be looking at that should be the greatest appeal to them is the very generous amnesty that all the way up to 1982 we are ready to give those people permanent residency. Mr. President, you've said tonight that you're ready and willing to talk to the Soviets, but Mr. Chenyanko has proposed negotiating a ban on anti-satellite weapons and other space weapons. Can you tell us why beyond the fact that you believe there can't be verification as you said last weekend, why can't verification be negotiated once you sit down with the Soviets to discuss those weapons? Well, there are a number of things and we are studying that. We don't have a flat no on that yet. We're studying that whole situation. The Soviets are way ahead of us in that field. They've been at this for about 10 years or more. And we are just in the field of beginning research. And I think we've got some definite reasons there for wanting to know our way before we talk. But we haven't slammed the door on that at all. Can you also confirm reports about the verification issue that there has been significant Soviet violations of all of the treaties going back to 1958? We turned over 200 page report to the Congress that was classified. We made public a summary of that, declassified in the summary. The other and lengthy report is still classified because of the risk of exposing sources. But it was a report on outright violations of many of the treaties in the past and also some ambiguities in which maybe based on language differences or not, they claim a different interpretation of the treaty and that therefore they're not violating it. They're doing what they think the treaty prescribes. But between those two things, yes, there have been those violations. Mr. President, before you came along in recent years, the talk had been between the two governments of parity and force between the United States and the Soviet Union. Your supporters who wrote the 1980 Republican platform called for military superiority over the Soviet Union. It's been a little bit fuzzy since, although you and a couple of speeches, I think starting with the Star Wars speech, have gone back to using the parlance of parity. How do you feel the Republican platform has handled that issue? Between those two key words, superiority and parity, where should that platform go and your administration go? My own view is that we should maintain the strength and deterrent that is necessary to assure as much as you can have such assurance that there won't be a confrontation because the price would be too high. But at the same time, emphasizing that we want more than anything else to join with them in reducing the number of weapons, we've had arms limitation dealings and treaties and so forth, even such as the SALT treaties. All of those simply legalized an arms race. They were limitations or rules and regulations as to how many more weapons you could have. As a matter of fact, the Soviet Union added almost 4,000 warheads after the two sides had signed the SALT to agreement. That's not my idea of what we really need if we're to reduce the tensions in the world. What we need is to reduce and hopefully to eliminate the strategic nuclear weapons. If you're on record, I think at least twice of saying that we do not seek anything more than parity in the long run, would not a platform that goes further than that and repeats the call for superiority give a wrong signal to the Soviet Union? I would prefer that we not ask for superiority now that we've entered into and started this whole area. We are negotiating with them with other countries in two negotiations that are going on that they did not leave or walk away from. Yes, I believe that could be counterproductive now to ask for that. Mr. President, if you win a second term, are you absolutely committed to serving all four years? I ask the question only because a Washington Magazine report, and I don't know how they knew, that you and the First Lady had discussed the possibility of if you win again and if the economy is in good shape when you're 75 or 76 years old, possibly turning over power. Have you ever thought about that? Have you considered it or discussed with the First Lady that in any case? What the devil would a young fellow like me do if I quit the job? Have you not discussed it with the First Lady? No, there's never been any such talk at all. Mr. President, there is a move of foot in the Congress that had the support of many of the Democratic presidential candidates to change the federal civil rights law to prohibit job discrimination against homosexuals. Is that something that you would favor? Now, I was so... You're going to have to start again here with the first few words I missed them. I was so confused about three of you. There's a measure before the Congress to change the federal civil rights law to specifically prohibit job discrimination against homosexuals. Is that something that you would favor? Well, I just have to say I am opposed to discrimination. Period. Would you support the measure, Mr. President? Would you support that measure? I want to see what else they have there. Mr. President, the current report says that the United States is moving towards two societies, one black and one white, separate and unequal. Now, with the outcast from blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, and women against your civil rights policies, aren't you moving this country towards two separate societies, one of white males and the other of blacks, Hispanics, American Indians and women separate and unequal? I don't believe there's been any violation of either the letter or the spirit of the civil rights laws, nor would I stand for such a thing. There has been no discrimination of any kind in this administration, nor would I stand for that on the part of anyone. And I think that what we have done if we will get our information from the horse's mouth, our administration, and not from the political rhetoric that has been so prevalent in the last year, I think we can establish that no administration has done more than we have done with regard to any of these people that you speak of, with regard to women, I think our appointments themselves, but I think more than that. No government, no administration has ever done what we have done in the government itself, but everything that we have done, we haven't done anything that in any way discriminated people, we have done things that we think are helpful. The Leadership Conference just which met this past week said that you are the greatest opponent to civil rights as a president in the last two decades. And they gave very specific showing that your policies are attempting to reverse the civil rights games. And now these grassroots people believe that you have been blaming the leaders and Brad Reynolds has been blaming the media. But aren't you underestimating the intelligence of the grassroots people that you think that they don't know what they are suffering from? And this is going to be, isn't this going to really cause a division in this country rather than a unified country unless you can convince these people who are the victims of these policies. You can't convince them that their conditions are better than you're working to disunit by a country. I think the reduction in inflation certainly has got to help people. I'm sure you're talking about people at the lower end of the earning scale. Our tax policies have been more beneficial to them than to anyone else. This idea that we hear on Capitol Hill all the time that our tax programs benefited the rich, the figures belie that. The people at the upper income brackets are paying a greater percentage of the overall income tax than they were paying before our tax program went into effect. The people at the bottom of the scale are paying less lower percentage. But now in the other point the inference that programs of welfare nature, social programs and benefits have been reduced to the place that people dependent on them are now suffering. That is not true. We are helping more people and paying more money than ever in the history of this country in all of those social programs. The government is providing 95 million meals a day. I could go on with the others. Some of the things that have led perhaps to confusion has taken something like the educational programs. We found out that people were eligible when we came here for college grants and loans for their children and their income level was too high for this to be warranted. So yes we changed the income level but this allowed us to increase further down to the people with real need and do more for them. For example we probably eliminated 850,000 people from food stamps but we increased the number of people who were getting food stamps because we transferred this from people who were to higher level. Our level now of income or most of these programs not all is 130% of the poverty level. If you are below that you are eligible and most families would find themselves eligible for 3 or 4 of the programs at the same time. This is a falsehood that is being pervade to people that their problems whether through unemployment or whatever look at what we have done by the increase in unemployment and granted that blacks in this country had a higher rate of unemployment than whites in the time of the recession their rate of recovery is faster than the rate of recovery for whites. Are you willing to separate these summer job programs from the Nicaragua aid, COVID aid? I want COVID programs I want jobs for the young young people summer jobs Do you drink your wine yet? Do you summit wine? Do you drink it? Nope. Okay.