 We are sitting down to get a breakfast. Are you going to sit down? Are you going to sit down? You don't think we ever played? I guess because I am a very good student. You have a chance to get back at us. I was going to say, if you had ever been the victim of the virus, I think what you would find is bleeding. I'll sit down. I don't want you to think we're going to delay breakfast. I'll just talk for 20 or 30 minutes. I just wanted to say welcome and look forward to these meetings. They've been going on for a long time. I'm very pleased to have you all here. I understand that we'll make one ground rule now, since it's going to be a kind of working meeting, that anybody can talk with their mouth full. No one has to miss breakfast. I'm glad to have you all here. I guess I'll turn it over to you because you're going to monitor it. Thank you, sir. We'll get started. I want to thank you for what has come to be, at least we hope, our yearly get together with you. We'd be willing to do it more often, of course. I'm also very happy to see that you've survived good hours. You might tell them why you were able to. Just to tell me why you survived these clips as well as you did. Godfrey was wondering about the fact that maybe some of them might have cut a little deep or something, and that didn't seem to bother me. And I said, anyone who has been schooled in Hollywood to the Friars Club roasts would find even the sharpest quip at the grid are still a little mild. So I think I've been conditioned. Well, again, we have a lot of people here, and it's going to be hard to get to everyone. So we're going to start right away. The Brown rules are as usual, and I'm the record. And the embargo as usual is until tomorrow morning, that's Tuesday morning, 6 a.m. Transcripts, I understand, will be ready this afternoon. And with that, we'll get to the question here. Mr. President, you seem confident. You seem that way at the press conference. And since then, confident that there will be a summit. What I'd like to ask you is, have there been some quiet messages or signals from the Soviets that you haven't told us about yet? And do I understand that you think a September date is very likely? Well, there have been no signals. As I say, we let them know that we're open to this and that there is an invitation under the kind of protocol going back over the schedules, as I pointed out in the night. It is their turn to come here, so we've made that very plain that they're welcome. And as to September, whether it's likely or not, that again depends on Mr. Gorbachev. It's only the fact that in times past, the head of state, the Soviet Union has come for the opening of the United Nations. If that is convenient for him, I certainly wouldn't see any reason why that wouldn't be for us. But with him just coming into the job, we think that it's only proper that we allow him to set the schedule as to when it could be convenient. Is there something, though, Mr. President, that we don't know about? I mean, have there been some quiet signals? I mean, not just now, but over the last year or so, that have encouraged you to believe that a summit really is possible? I can't think of any specific thing, but then I don't believe that before, there was anything in the last few years other than the health of the individuals that held that post that kept us from having one before. I don't recall anything other than at least one of his predecessors in these last few years pointed out just what we have, that there must be an agenda and some legitimate reason, something to talk about. Well, Mr. President, you said that there were some issues being handled at the necessary level of being handled better or making more advanced. Some of these, you didn't say what they were. Can you say what issues? Oh, I didn't mean to imply it that way, that there are things that what I was trying to say is that just the fact that I have not met with a Soviet leader doesn't mean that we're in communicato, that there are things that normally should be talked about and that have been going forward, things like trees with regard to fishing rights and things of that kind, various commercial things. And these have gone on, we've been talking for a long time with regard to consular representation there and here. And what I thought was that these could be helped along, possibly by a summit. Walt Thompson, I think I saw your hand way back there a moment ago. I can't see anything now. Mr. President, you have now been here a little over four years and you've asked for the item veto and you've suggested that there are things about the presidency that you would like to possibly change other than getting rid of Congress possibly. How would you like to improve the presidency if you could do it? How would I like to improve the presidency? The office of the presidency. Power of the presidency. Well, I think there always has seemed to be a kind of a situation there of one branch of government trying to encroach on another and you wonder whether that's violating what the constitutional separations were. The thing of the line item veto, I think is only one of, it's just a plain matter of common sense and good management. The executive branch is the executive. It is supposed to execute the programs that have been adopted by the Congress and therefore as any executive should, you should be allowed to do that. And this whole is true with regard to the budgeting process. The fact that 43 of our states have had that for a great many years. I have the experience of using it because I had it in California and it doesn't take the power away from the Congress any power that they presently have. It can be overturned as any other veto can by a two-thirds vote. Now in our state, the legislature had to pass by a two-thirds vote the budget. Therefore they've already passed these items. And I found 943 times in eight years that by picking out some particular item that for political purposes or whatever had been added to the budget or into a spending bill and appropriations bill, tagged down, as is done so often here, that when it was vetoed and sent back and then that same legislature had to vote again by a two-thirds majority whether to override your veto, 943 times in eight years they wouldn't do it, which is sort of an indication that they themselves did not want to stand before the public and face up to the fact that they were willing to have this item in the budget. This sequence for the next few minutes, Bob, Andy, Jerry and Carl. And then we'll look around. Mr. President, at your news conference last Thursday, you downplayed the idea of direct American involvement in peace negotiations in the Middle East. At some point you said it wasn't our business to get involved in that. And yet I think history indicates that the agreements that have been reached over there from the Sinai Disengagement Accords in the 1970s to Camp David have been the result of direct American participation. Don't you think it's going to take direct American involvement since we are the one country that has good relations with countries on both sides over there, Israel and the Arab countries, to actually get an agreement? And would you be willing to take part in direct negotiations as well as if I would lead the peace? No, I don't believe that we should. The problems are between the Arab states and between the Israelis. We'll do anything we can to help. And we have, ever since my first proposal in September of 82, tried to convince the Arab states that we can be even-handed in this, that we're not in there to be on one faction's side or the other, and we'll do anything we can to help facilitate and bring these negotiations about. But I think this is a problem that just as the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel came about as a result of the negotiations and meetings between representatives of those two countries, this is what should happen. And I don't think there's anything untoward in this, or that we're ducking out in any way. I think it's only proper. Would you be willing to take the kind of role that President Carter took in the Camp David Accords, not directly negotiating but bringing the two sides together in that intimate way if it looks as if that's not going to be about negotiations? Well, this, we think, is what we are trying to do, and we're willing now. We've been talking on both sides, but it is, rather than being engaged in the negotiations, it is being, trying to be helpful to find a way that we can bring it about for them to come together. And I think that that's what Camp David did. All right, Andy, and then Jerry, and then Joe Creft, and back to Phil Jalen, and I saw, I think, George Hansen's hand up, and let me have a look at that. Oh, please. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about your views on the situation in Europe. Do you see the division of Europe and camps between East and West is currently, I think, through our lifestyles, we have to reconcile ourselves too. Do you see the possibility that Eastern Europe might move towards Western Europe and the Soviet influence there could diminish? I know I recall the Vice President spoke about this in Vienna some years ago, and I wonder what your views were on that issue. This is a very tough thing to comment without finding sticking your foot into it or something, but I don't think that any of us can, in our own hearts and minds, believe that forever after those countries should be subjected, as they are, to dominance by the Soviet Union, it was never a part of the Yalta agreement. They were supposed to have right self-determination and so forth. I think that we should continue, and this would be one of the things to talk to the Soviets about, but what would it require? What is the most practical way to bring about such a change? I think it actually comes down to trying to eliminate the suspicions of the Soviets with regard to us and our intentions and so forth, to deal with them. Jerry? George, you remember what we said we'd tell you. No, and George understands this also. I think there's too much on the plate of great importance right now for us to join the speculation about 1988 and what we're going to do, and we're going to continue to try to get those things done. Now, lest someone reads anything less than friendship into that, let me say I have said it before and I'll say it again. I don't think there's ever been a vice president that has been as much involved at the highest level in our policy making and our decisions than George Bush or that has been a better vice president than he has. He's been the best. There isn't that much difference between the two jobs. Now, the way he's doing it. Yeah, Carl and then Gil and then Bill. Are you willing to accept a defense at a level somewhere lower than what we've had so far in order to be the budgetary compromise with the Senate? I think I'm completely in line with what Don Regan said yesterday and that is if this can be done without endangering national security, without reducing our ability to take care of ourselves in that way, but yes, in a matter of fact, the cuts that we ourselves have made and when I say we ourselves, I mean that Cap Weinberger from Defense has come in with it. He himself has volunteered. They totaled more than $150 billion in just these last four years. So that door is always open. The one thing, as I say, we will not do is compromise national security. Do you think that's possible to be done to lower the security? Well, I have to say when you use the word possible, I have to say the possibility is there because it's been going on for four years that we ourselves have found these. The cuts right now are in the budget for $85 or $16 billion less than we ourselves had projected it would have to be two years ago and those cuts were made voluntarily by the Defense Department. Well, Mr. President, this is a question about the Star Wars or I think it's more frequently known around here the Strategic Defense Initiative. Ambassador Paul Metzer has set forward two fairly stringent conditions for moving from research to deployment. Are those his conditions or do you share his views on that? I can't say that I actually recall what he has said about this but I can tell you what... I should say the conditions are survivability and cost effectiveness. Those are two of the things that will be part of the research. Yes, that you have to find out whether this is practical or not. Remember, we start from scratch. As I said, to research and find if there is such a defense that is practical and workable. And I believe very much that we should go forward with that. This could be the greatest hope for ridding the world of nuclear weapons. My challenge to the term Star Wars is I think it creates a false image. I'd go along with the star part if they change wars and change it to shield. I'm going to get over this table here. Mr. President, do you feel that cost effectiveness is an absolute requirement before moving to deployment? I think it's one of the things that has to be considered. Obviously, if somebody was dreaming up something that was absolutely impossible for you to envision creating because of a cost factor I don't really anticipate anything of that kind being a block to this. I'm going to go over this table a little bit. Mr. President, I feel like I missed out on how probably at Jimmy Hart you two were going alright. I had to figure out what his name was. I'm calling on the ones that have names I remember. Mr. President, connection with the line-up and the speech I'll express that I think some reservations about the War Powers Act. Consider that a congressional invasion of Europe that's presidential abiding. Do you think they were either appealing or amending it? I don't think that that's a thing for me to comment on here. I think that that's a subject that should be between me and the Congress or any future president. How are you going to get your message through? Directly. Mr. President, someone asked about tax simplification. Do you expect to get tax simplification more specifically? Will you support the Treasury's proposal to repeal tax allowance and two major tax allowances for the oil and gas industry? You make or break their day today, Mr. President. The only thing that's making somebody's day is that I want to break mine. The whole matter of the tax thing, and I'm not stalling now on this, we're going to do and follow the same process we did with the budget which requires long hours around the cabinet table while we settle on specific issues. Overall, the Treasury proposal was probably the finest proposal for tax reform that has ever been handed down. But there are a number of options in there. There are things to be considered. And what we'll do in those long hours around the cabinet table is take them up one by one and decide whether they will be a proposal in a plan submitted by us. And then when we're agreed on what we think should be the final proposal, submit that to the Congress, not in the form of legislation, but simply as a plan and turn it over to them to put into legislative form. Vendan, I'm Jimmie. Mr. President, there have been questions many times about Central America. There isn't support on the Hill for your plan in the past to continue to aid the financial support and let them reach the conquerors who are opposed to the current Japanese government. There's also a good deal of opposition to your desire to do that. And as the situation now stands, we're sort of in the dark as to exactly what you would like the Congress to do and you think that if you do submit a plan to the Congress for direct aid to the Sandinistas, whether it's covert or overt, that the Congress will accept it. I'm hoping they will because what we're talking about with aid to the Contras is what I said the other night. We're talking about whether this country is going to follow a tradition it has before of helping people who are trying to bring about democracy and human rights in their own land. And all that we're seeing here is the fact that the so-called Contras are basically, or at least the biggest share of them, many of them are former Sandinistas who recognize that the original revolution has been betrayed. And with regard to our help to all of Central America, we look back over the years and find that one of the great problems that has opened so many countries there to subversion, the things of the same kind we're seeing now in Nicaragua, is the inability of those countries to have the open kind of society where people have an opportunity to rise from poverty, to build their own economic strength in their countries. And that's why to date our aid in the last four years to all of Central America has been about 78% economic and social and 22% security because obviously, such as in Sandinista, they've made it very plain with three elections in two years that they are on the road to democracy, are striving for democracy and is being made more difficult by reason of there, the guerrillas that are fighting for another cause and another way of governing. And they shouldn't have that handicap. That's why there is some security aid so they can have peace in their country and go forward with the democratic experiment. Yes, well, whether we can or can't, in a time when this country's tradition of private giving has not been recognized, you think back in other kinds of aid, whether it's this or whether it's disasters from earthquake and flood that were right now famine, and we found that the American people have a way of not waiting to be ordered or told. They go to work to try and come to the aid of these distressed peoples and I think that's so much a part. Right in this room if I could just tell you, I won't name the country because I don't want to embarrass anyone, but my dinner partner one night was the wife of an ambassador at one of the dinners we were giving here. And I can't remember the exact specifically we were talking about, but it was something about having to do with private aid and contributions and this lady said to me, yes, in your country. And I said, well, what do you mean? She said you are unique. She said in the rest of the world in our other countries, we don't have the tradition that you do. We don't do this as you do it. And I was quite touched by the fact that she was talking about her own country too, but also the fact that she recognized this unique thing that we have here. Can I break in just a second? A sequence and a comment. You know, we're doing pretty well. It's half past seven and a half hours. It's hard to do. Everyone I look at is so anxious. But I think we're going to make a good many of them here. You can just be a little patient. I'm trying to be fair. I'm going to be trying to move ahead. You've had this problem too much, Mr. Cannon. It is going to be all the time. I would appreciate it anyway. This sequence really will be next far on. And I know George answers. I mentioned his name earlier. He's involved and Rick Smith. And then I'll catch some more here people. I'm going to run your job. The way it really was. Are you sure that he says. This, of course, is why we keep stressing verifiability. Now, granted verifiability can never be an iron curtain without some cracks in it. But, and then you have to keep watching. But this comes back again to something I said in the first press conference ever held here. And that has many times since been quoted is that I was accusing them of all sorts of things when actually, as I recall that first press conference, I was quoting them as that in their society they believe in the right to take advantages if the other fellow doesn't keep watch on them. And I think we have to understand that. We have to go into these meetings with that knowledge that they have a different view than we do. But the other thing in talks that we're in right now, we must always recognize that they're never going to give in on something because we have looked so nice that they decide to be nice fellas too. It has to be to their interest as well as ours. And I think that this is the difference in these talks that are going on now and any talks that I can remember, and there have been what, 19 attempts to talk with them about arms since World War II, usually brought about by us and never getting a successful response from them. But the difference is now that they can see a practical good for them with regard particularly to nuclear arms. And I think that's why they're at the table. And if we keep it on that kind of a practical sense that it is to their benefit also, in other words the choice between do they want to get into a hostile arms race confrontation with us on down through history, or do they want to go a more practical and sensible way in which we both maintain our own security but at a lower level. Mr. President, you've said that a strong dollar is a sign of our strong economy and confidence in our economy. Nonetheless, there are many people here and abroad among our friends and allies who fear that the dollar might fall sharply, which would do great damage to our economy and the world economy. Secretary Baker has indicated that he might be interested in another look at the international monetary system. Is this a concern of yours, sir, and is it something that you might bring up at some of the international meetings, including the summit, to which you'll be going shortly? Well, this has come up before in international meetings. There are others that look back at Bretton Woods and all and wonder if we shouldn't take another look and see if there have been distortions or whether something better can be worked out. We're always willing to listen and look at this. And I agree that if there was a sudden, you might say, collapse of the dollar way down, I think it could be very harmful and it would lead the world to believe that we're all in greater economic trouble than we are. I think the strength of the dollar right now is in comparison with those other currencies in countries where the recovery has not been as great as ours or is not proceeding at the same pace as ours. And as they improve their economies, their currency is going to come up. And I think that would be beneficial to all of us because our country has the ability to export economic trouble as well as economic recovery. And I think so far our recovery has begun to stimulate improvements among our trading partners in the world. Do I take it then that a new look at the international monetary system is not a top priority on your agenda? No, you're right. Well, yes, no it isn't. All right. Rick, George, and Anson, Jody and Paul West. Mr. President, two questions. One, do you have any comment on the shooting of the American officer in East Germany today? And secondly, Senator Rudman and others have suggested that one way to save money and the Pentagon budget is to reduce some of the personnel costs, the large numbers of support people put off and pay raise, that kind of stuff that this will not endanger national security. Do you agree with that approach? First of all, the comment on the shooting, the tragedy that's occurred over there, I'm still waiting for more information as I'm sure we all are. I was awakened early in the morning when I hear the phone ring in those early morning hours. I know that all I have to do is pick it up and say hi, bud. And he's there on the other end. We don't know the details. It's being investigated by our embassy there. And I'm sure as the morning goes on, we'll get more details. Obviously, we're resentful and feel that it is an unwarranted tragedy. Now, the other part of your question had to do with whether or not it was possible to reduce the personnel costs without endangering national security, putting off the pay raise and so forth. I think the things we look at are in areas, I don't particularly see that one as a problem right now. I think if I understand correctly what you're talking about in support forces, probably civilian employees in contrast to the uniformed. And there has been an increase in that. But where we've been reducing the number of employees in other areas of government, we recognize that that change in the defense department to a large extent has been getting civilians, such as privately contracting out and so forth, getting civilians to do things instead of having uniformed personnel doing them. Strangely enough, it is actually more costly to have to take a uniformed personnel out of the ranks of the fighting men and women and turn them loose or put them into jobs that can be done by civilians. So this is not an extravagance the other way around. The other thing is, I think that we have, we've been spoiled back through the years by the draft. You force someone into the military and then because he's forced in there for a given period of time, you don't think that you have to compete with the job market for him. And military pay was therefore much less than the normal scale. And I think the fact that we have been able to bring military pay up closer has resulted in having the highest level on basis of intelligence, the highest level on the percentage of high school graduates in the military, the highest level of retention and morale that we've ever had in the history of our military. We have today, and I think part of that is because we're trying to reward them with what is comparable to what they could do on the outside. So you're against then any reduction in personnel costs, is that right? Except for where we can find things that are unnecessarily being done or maybe there are more places where we can still contract out for civilians doing things that presently are being done by the military. We're continuing to look at those kind of management things. And those are the type of things that you would look first to see whether if more savings are needed, whether you can obtain them in areas of that kind. Okay, we'll have this sequence. Now, George, you're next. Paul said he passes, so we'll go to Jody. I'll wave back to Lars and Bill Ringo and then to Mary McGraw. Mr. President, the Agriculture Department now says that a total of 93,000 family-sized commercial farms are either technically insolvent or soon will be. And Mr. Block now says that the administration's debt adjustment program is going to help probably no more than 6,000 of these family-sized commercial farmers. In view of this, is there any additional federal aid or program that you can support or approve of that will help some of these farm families stay in business? I don't know about that figure of 6,000 or whether he's referring to some of the limitations that have been imposed by the banks, and we've been working with them on this. This is with regard to the $650 million that was put up quite some time ago to help, and only a few million was used, not because the farmers couldn't use it, but because banks did not want to go along with what we were proposing. Maybe in part because they kept watching Congress and listening and thinking that they could get a better deal if they waited for some legislation from Congress. But it is true about the 93,000. What we have are about 43,000 that are technically insolvent. We have another 50,000 that within the coming year could be unless there is some reorganization of their debts. There's another 126,000 that have financial problems of that kind, but they've got from two to five years before they would face the emergency situation. Now, we have been making available and will by the end of April, made available in the regular CCC programs some $12 billion or more than that, I think about $14 billion that is available, and then we'd be going forward with the 86 funds, but we also have made some changes in this $650 million to encourage the use of that, and have some other areas where we can be of help. But to Natalie in regard to the argument that came up in the media recently about it, does 93,000 are only 4% of the total number of farms in the United States? Mr. President, the 93,000 or 14% of the family size commercial farms in the United States. But beyond that, Mr. Block has said that the $615 million is not a limit. Is that true? He has said there's no limit. We're finding, and they're finding, wherever they get other sources for this, yes. But just recently, there were only a few million dollars, like eight million or something that had been used out of this, and as I say, it wasn't because the farmers weren't trying, it was because the banks were not taking advantage of it. All right, Jody, Lars, Bill, Mary, and I miss you all the way here, you're beneath. Mr. President, could you tell us whether the line about exporting farmers is a contribution from Mr. Cannon? Whether it was or not, is that one in retrospect you just assumed you hadn't told? Yep, because I didn't get a laugh. But I thought that the gridiron was supposed to be off the record, that there were no reporters present. I think if that isn't true any longer, why it's kind of going to curb the humor at the forthcoming grid irons? A lot of things. Mr. President, some of your trade negotiators are beginning to voice frustration with the pan over their unwillingness to admit American products, particularly high-technology communication products. And it seems to me some move at the time is not to get tough with the pan. Have you focused on this issue? Do you have anything planned on the trade negotiations with the pan? Well, we've been working with Prime Minister Nakasone, and I have to say he's been most cooperative. He has a very forward-looking view with regard to our commercial relationship between the two economic top powers today, ourselves and Japan. He has political problems. There's no question about that. I can understand him very well, and I have some of the same problems. But we continue to work with him, whether there will come a point of no response at all on some, and it certainly won't be his fault for lack of trying. Then we'll have to look at what other actions we can take. But we have made some pretty sizable progress in these last couple of years with regard to opening up markets in Japan. Bill and Mary. Mr. President, Richard Pearl told the Senate Armed Services Committee that if the Soviet Union violates a provision of an arms control treaty, as you have said they have in some cases, the United States is entitled also to violate a provision of that treaty, not necessarily the same provision. Is that the policy of this government? I would think what he was probably saying, I don't think we would ever do it surreptitiously or simply without saying. I think that our attitude would be to say to them, this is what we see that you are doing that we believe is in violation of the treaty, and if we were going to do it, then say to them, henceforth, this is how we're going to view the treaty, so that they understand that there is a price for this. Sometimes in looking at violations, we have found that the language problems between our two countries have contributed an ambiguity to some terms, where they can stand and look you in the eye and say, we interpret this clause in the treaty to mean the following. And so they claim that it is not a violation. It is their understanding the treaty. Well, in that sense, we would either have to say no and try to persuade them that that isn't the meaning of the treaty or we would have to say to them, all right, if that's the way you interpret it, then that's the way we're going to. But haven't we come to the end of the road on those kinds of contentions? Aren't they adamant that they have not violated the treaty and that we have to do something about it now? Well, we're, as I say, this is a part of the negotiations that are going on. I think this would be a subject that would very definitely come up in a summit meeting because I think we have to recognize one thing with the Soviet Union, that they themselves, just like us, they've got suspicions that they think are legitimate with regard to our intent. And maybe sitting face-to-face, we can work on the thing of convincing them that we are as untrusting of them as they claim they are of us and find ways where we can, by deed, prove what our intentions are. I've got several in this table. Mary and I saw David Broder. You're going to be next here. I saw John. And anyway, I'm going to hit this table for a little while here. Mary, please. This is a live conversation versus partisan politics. Specifically, Congressman Van der Jack's campaign to soften up Democrats in our views. Last Thursday, the Congressman Neil of North Carolina asked you to have this campaign with Mr. Van der Jack's stock. He said that you promised that you would. How long did it take you to tell us what would happen and what would you do? Yes, we have, I can understand the enthusiasm of our own people and it is basically a two-party system here and we compete with each other. And the other side has been already, and some of their fundraising letters have been pretty partisan too. And I expressed to him my desire that we stop this and go forward with those areas where partisanship should stop, particularly at the edge of the water. No, I haven't personally, but I've given the orders that we are to, but yes. You're next. And then David Boder, then Pat Ferguson, and then Charlotte here. Mr. President. I left John out. Excuse me, John. Mr. President, in your February press conference, you said you felt Mexico was cooperating fully in the search for a missing U.S. drug agent. Since then, the drug agent has been found where administration officials of your administration are all levels have said that the Mexican government is not cooperating. You today, you really believe the Mexican government that all it could to keep that agent alive, would you assess the strain this has caused on U.S.-Mexico relations? I just, here's one that is very difficult to comment on. I believe the President of Mexico and there are others in that government that are trying to get at the bottom of things of this kind, but I also believe that they have great problems. And we know that there is corruption and we know that it must go into governmental circles, various levels. But I do not challenge the sincerity of the President de la Madrid and others who are trying to deal with this problem. Who planned to meet with the President there? For the moment, there is not either one of our schedules, any meeting that kind planned, but we have kept in touch. And as I said four years ago or more, that I believe that there should be regular contact between certainly the three countries of North America. And this was part of why there was a summit there recently with Canada. And I might say Prime Minister Mulroney shares my view that we should, more and more all three of us, become closer together. David, Pat, John, Charlotte. Mr. President, as a result of the Supreme Court decision last week, there are now limits in effect on how much an individual can contribute to a candidate or to a political party, but there are no limits on what a person can spend on behalf of his own candidacy or a group of people can spend promoting somebody's candidacy. Does that seem reasonable to you and do you have anything in mind as to how to straighten out this campaign finance level? Yes, Dave, I think that if we look at the Constitution and the right of individuals, there should be no limitation on what anyone wants to give or any group wants to give, except that what we do have a right to do, the government has a right to do, is to say that whoever gives, they and the size of their gift must be revealed publicly. Then let the voters make up their mind as to whether they believe a candidate might be unduly influenced by the size of a gift or not. But I, to me, this is a part of free speech. In a day when in the country this size, you've got to reach 220 million, 250 million people in campaigning. And at the cost of doing that, there is no reason why as long as it is reported, as long as it is out in the open. Will the administration be recommending legislation embodying the principles you just stated? Well, with all that's on our plate right now, I don't know that we've dealt with that problem as yet. But I just, right now, we have a situation where there are some groups that can spend limitless amounts as long as they claim that they're spending it for educational purposes or something and not actually contributing it directly to the candidate. And yet it is a contribution, in fact, in the manner in which it is done. Mr. President, over weekend, former President Carter issued a lot of criticism about your administration and to a specific word that you had not made any progress in international agreements or arms talks, any kind of solid progress that I keep on this point of view, and that during your administration the College of Human Rights came in and let down. Would you give us a comment on that in general? And specifically, do you see any virtue in trying to reach short, limited steps, agreements in arms talks as a symbolic show of progress toward either a summit or more something in the previous slide? As to the last part of that question, no. Agreements just to have your name on a piece of paper and say you've got an agreement don't mean anything. The purpose of these negotiations is to start reducing on both sides the number of nuclear weapons hopefully to arrive at what Grimiko himself in Shurnenko before he died said, and that is the total elimination of such weapons. A practical reduction of arms should be our goal. As to the other, and with regard to 60 minutes and the comments there, I'd prefer that anybody ask the questions about what we've done with regard to civil rights or what we've done with regard to international relations be asked directly on that basis. I'm not going to comment on what President Carter said. Mr. President, you have more than 100 vacancies for federal district judgeships to fill. What will be your main criteria for filling those judgeships and will a potential nominee stand on abortion if you want them? My criteria is going to be what it was when I was governor of California and as a governor had the appointment of judges as one of the facets of the job and that is that it would certainly be non-political and to be based on qualifications and quality and as to ideology or principle it would be that I would want judges that would think that their job was to interpret the law and the Constitution and not write it. Charlotte and Elio. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about the PLO. You have said that the United States will not talk to the PLO unless the PLO recognizes Israel's right to exist. What is the rationale for that policy? Shouldn't the United States be willing and able to talk to anybody at any time, at any place if that opens up the possibilities for peace? Haven't we boxed ourselves in the middle of this? I don't think we really have. This, to me, is one of the most important facets of this agreement. Remember that the very basis of the Israeli-Arab wars down through the years has been a refusal in the part of one side to recognize that Israel has a right to exist as a nation. In fact, they used such terms back in when the hostilities were more open than driving them into the sea. And this thing of the resistance to the PLO does not include Palestinians. This is why, right now, we would encourage Hussain to have representatives of the Palestinians because we have said that the Palestinian problem must be one of the things that is settled in any negotiations if there's to be peace in the Middle East. But as long as the PLO, as an organization, says that number one, they refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist as a nation. Number two, they refuse to recognize 242 of the UN. Then, I don't think there's any way that we can talk to them. And it's a very simple thing, I think, for them is to make the decision that, for example, Hussain has made to recognize that we're talking about nations that mutually have a right to exist and that this would mean, then, that that other group has given up its terrorist activities and so forth. So I don't think there's anything wrong with us saying that we can't negotiate with the PLO as long as they have that feeling. Mr. President, the Israelis have said that they will look very carefully at the credentials of a joint Palestinian Jordanian delegation which suggests that their position is somewhat more flexible than yours. Couldn't you accept a delegation on the same basis? I don't believe that we are saying anything different. I think they use the word Palestinian. We use the word Palestinian also. And I don't think that I've ever heard anything. I certainly have never heard anything from them as accepting the PLO as the representative of Palestinian interests because of this position that the PLO still adheres to. Richard? Mr. President, you said at your press conference the other evening that you did not want to continue the federal supplemental unemployment program that expired at the end of this month because you thought that job training was the way to go. But at the same time, you had your budget proposal that suggested cutting that job training program by almost a half, maybe even a little more. How do you reconcile these two views? Our program, the partnership job training program that we've had, the one in which we, in that program, it is administered at the local entity with a partnership there of local and private to make sure that people are being trained for the jobs that are available in that area has had a success record of almost 70% placement of the people that have been trained in that program. This we're continuing. Some of the other job programs of the government back over the years have averaged a cost of about $15,000 a year per trainee. And we haven't seen very much of an effort made at placement after they've gone through those training programs. And there certainly has not been a great effort made to see are they training them for jobs that are lacking. For example, when you go into a major city in this country and right now pick up their Sunday paper and see 60 odd pages of help wanted ads and yet that particular city is in an area that has a pretty sizable unemployment rate say above the national average. You have to ask if the efforts of the past have been directed properly. We're going to continue with our program as to the supplemental unemployment insurance. There has to be a limit in how far you can go with that particularly now that we're averaging 300,000 people a month finding jobs, new jobs being created for those people. We seem to be running out of questions and that's very good, Mr. President because this is the end of the hour. You've seen that at a press conference, have you? No more hands. Anyway, that's where we are. I have a little note here from Pete Rossell saying that the transcripts will be ready at 4 p.m. And again, Mr. President, I want to thank you very much for having us drop by. I'm comfortable, I think, with the decor and the lighting, the food. We really like it and just want you to know we'll be over here in a moment's notice any time at your call. But thank you. I mean, this is three years in a row and it's been very nice. Well, I've got to thank you very much and as I say, enjoy it. I may at 4 o'clock this afternoon read the transcript and say, why did I say that? I doubt that. No, but I'll tell you, I have to say this and please don't get the idea that the press conference has ought to be an hour long in order to eliminate all the hands that have been raised, but it does bother me. Now, a few people could ever get together on something and figure out some process whereby I wouldn't have to turn my back on so many hands that are still raised. Well, here's the process and of course I think, I don't ever heard you say it, but I've heard that some presidents have a rowdy bunch, so look at this. Is this a rowdy bunch? No, and I haven't thought that. No, Mary just asked if I would hold more press conferences and the number of questions were limited. No, what I worry about is that there are some people there, there's no way to avoid this, that with a great number of people in a press conference that there are some that maybe you never do get to and they never get a question. We have a suggestion, sir, and that is if you just... You don't mind that? All right. If that's the difference between having more of a press conference and having more of a press conference being one doubt, I don't think all of us should be in a press conference. We wear red threats. I've got to suggest to Mr. President with all this, I know I can speak for this group. We don't call on television.