 Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States. Thank you very much. Well, thank you very much. It's good to see so many of you back in Washington. This has been another hectic week here, working on a continuing resolution, and Graham Rudman Hollings, the Superfund Farm Credit. I wonder sometimes when you meet old colleagues who are still laboring on the Hill, who envies whom? I'm very glad that I have this chance to talk with you today because now that we've been back from Geneva for a couple of weeks, it's time to assess what we accomplished there, what our course for the future should be. My meetings with General Secretary Gorbachev were unusually frank and open, lasting over 15 hours altogether, and five of those hours were one-on-one. He and I, and a couple of interpreters. And our agenda covered arms control and security, human rights, regional conflicts, and bilateral matters. We didn't skirt areas of discord, and no issue was papered over. We went to Geneva in a spirit of realism. We didn't expect fundamental changes in Soviet philosophy or behavior, but we were determined to broaden and deepen our dialogue, and wherever possible, narrow our differences. We did agree to accelerate and intensify negotiations where there is common ground, and we agreed to the principle of a 50% reduction in nuclear arms. I believe that's the first time that in any of our arms talks that the Soviets have ever suggested a reduction by actual number of percentage of weapons. And we also agreed to seek an interim agreement on limiting longer-range intermediate missile systems. These are the SS-20s that are aimed at the European targets and for which we are putting a response, a deterrent force of Pershings and cruise missiles into our NATO allies' countries. We agreed to enhance cooperation on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. And we agreed to new efforts to combat the spread of chemical weapons and move forward on a chemical weapons ban. And of course, in light of what we know, Soviet bloc violations of existing treaties in this area and the use of chemical, biological weapons by the Soviets and their proxies against populations in both Afghanistan and Indochina, we know we have to be cautious and realistic about the Soviets' true intentions here. As I've said many times before, Soviet treaty violations will not simply be papered over by new treaties. Our objective is not a piece of paper and a few signatures. Treaties must be verifiable and we must be adequately assured of Soviet compliance. Of course, the least we must ask is that ongoing violations of present treaties be stopped and where necessary reversed. That's the minimal assurance that we need of the Soviets' intention to abide with the terms of any future treaties that they sign. We agreed to study the concept of risk reduction centers so that we can make sure that no nuclear war ever begins accidentally. And along these lines, we reaffirmed the need for concrete confidence-building measures on both sides. We both emphasized the importance of our mutual balanced force reduction negotiations and aimed at reducing conventional weapons in Europe. And finally, we agreed to broaden our people-to-people contacts as well as pledged scientific cooperation in cancer research and the development of magnetic fusion and inexhaustible energy source that would benefit all mankind. Of course, differences remain. On regional issues, Soviet policy continues to undermine peace in many areas, especially in the many regional conflicts in which Soviet-backed governments wage wars on their own people. On human rights, respect for the individual and the rule of law is as fundamental to peace as his arms control. Again, continued Soviet violations of the Helsinki Accords, guaranteeing basic human rights to their people, is a constant source of concern to us and severely damages Soviet credibility when we sit down to negotiate other treaties with them. Finally, we agreed to differ on strategic defenses. As I said before the summit, our strategic defense initiative is non-negotiable. This, what we're researching, is to see if there is a protective shield that can keep nuclear missiles from reaching their target. And this is a door that would open the way to a non-nuclear future. And I just couldn't bargain that away. Their idea was that they might be more willing with regard to the reduction of the number of weapons if we would give up on just researching and studying this particular defensive system. And in Geneva, they insisted that SDI was a fantasy that it wouldn't work. They insisted that we'd just be wasting money on it. Well, I must say I was gratified and touched that the Soviets were so concerned about our budget deficit. But I guess you could say that was another issue in which we would agree. But I did note that they've been working on a strategic defense for well over 10 years now. So maybe they're not so sure that it won't work after all. It's hard for me to understand why they're worried about it if they're so sure that it won't work. We're kind of optimistic about it. But we had a response to them also because I told them that if our research revealed that there was such a defense possible, my idea would be not that we would use it to our own advantage to create the possibility that we could engage in a first strike, but that we'd sit down with them and with everyone else and figure out how we could make this available to all the world in exchange for all the world doing away with their nuclear weapons. But because we went to Geneva free of illusions about the Soviet Union and because we were prepared the way by rebuilding our national defense and revitalizing our economy with increased incentives, we could approach the difficult negotiations with the Soviets from a position of confidence and strength. In other words, our realistic strategy worked. I don't think there would have been a summit if we hadn't done the things that I've just mentioned, both with our economy and our national defense. I keep remembering a cartoon back when we first started a few years ago to rebuild our defenses. It was a cartoon of two Russian generals and one was saying to the other, I like the arms race better when we were the only ones in it. Well, that's why if we hope to continue the momentum toward peace, we must continue our positive economic and defensive policies at home. To undermine our defense revitalization is nothing less than to undermine the structure of peace that we're trying to build. A true peace will never be constructed out of wishful thinking, only on a hard-headed appraisal of realities. And we went there, as I said before, believe me, with that kind of a sense of reality in mind. Our first meeting was Mr. Gorbachev and myself alone in a room together. We were supposed to spend about 15 minutes. We spent more than an hour. And I told him that all of the things that we talked about were going to talk about arms reductions and everything else. All of those could be achieved if, between us, we could eliminate the causes for distrust between us. The others would naturally follow. And so we then proceeded to talk about why they distrusted us and why we distrusted them. And it's true, they believe their own propaganda that we are a threat over here of capitalist imperialism. But I chose to cite some facts and figures about right after World War II when we were the only nation on Earth that had not been bombed into rubble. Our industry was intact. Our military was at its strongest point. We hadn't lost 20 million people in war as they had. And we had the only nuclear weapon in the world. And I said, we could have dictated to everyone. And we didn't. We set out to help everyone rebuild and get back on their feet. So I said, if we passed up an opportunity like that, it must be hard for you to believe that we now are nursing aggressive intentions when you have more nuclear warheads deployed than we have. Of course, I didn't get a response. But I think we had some good, solid discussions and there wasn't any table thumping or anything back and forth. Well, I've relished this opportunity to be able to speak to all of you if you're speaking to those contemporaries who are now up there nervous and tense. If you can encourage them to keep on doing some of the things we've been doing, I'll be most grateful. Thank you all. God bless you.