 Good evening. I have a statement to read. Four times in my life I have seen America plunged into war. Twice as part of tragic global conflicts that cost the lives of millions. Living through that experience has convinced me that America's highest mission is to stand as a leader among the free nations in the cause of peace. And that's why hand in hand with our efforts to restore a credible national defense, my administration has been actively working for a reduction in nuclear and conventional forces that can help free the world from the threat of destruction. In Geneva, the United States is now negotiating with the Soviet Union on a proposal I set forward last fall to reduce drastically the level of nuclear armament in Europe. In Vienna, we and our NATO allies are negotiating with the Warsaw Pact over ways to reduce conventional forces in Europe. Last Sunday I proposed a far-reaching approach to nuclear arms control. A phased reduction in strategic weapons beginning with those that are most dangerous and destabilizing. The warheads on ballistic missiles and especially those on intercontinental ballistic missiles. Today, the United States and the Soviet Union each have about 7,500 nuclear warheads poised on missiles that can reach their targets in a matter of minutes. In the first phase of negotiations, we want to focus on lessening this imminent threat. We seek to reduce the number of ballistic missile warheads to about 5,000, one-third less than today's levels, limit the number of warheads on land-based missiles to half that number, and cut the total number of all ballistic missiles to an equal level, about one-half that of the current U.S. level. In the second phase, we'll seek reductions to equal levels of throw weight, a critical indicator of overall destructive potential of missiles. To be acceptable, a new arms agreement with the Soviets must be balanced, equal, and verifiable. And most important, it must increase stability in the prospects of peace. I have already written President Brezhnev and instructed Secretary Hague to approach the Soviet government so that we can begin formal negotiations on the reduction of strategic nuclear arms, the start talks, at the earliest opportunity. And we hope that these negotiations can begin by the end of June, and hope to hear from President Brezhnev in the near future. Reaching an agreement with the Soviets will not be short or easy work. We know that from the past. But I believe that the Soviet people and their leaders understand the importance of preventing war. And I believe that a firm, forthright American position on arms reductions can bring us closer to a settlement. Tonight, I want to renew my pledge to the American people and to the people of the world that the United States will do everything we can to bring such an agreement about. And now, I guess it's time for us to return to the conventional skirmishing. The question time. With business failures reaching the highest numbers in 40 years and no sign that your modified budget plan is making progress in Congress, what would you say to the nation's 10 million unemployed about their prospects for finding work and when will their situation improve? Their situation will improve. Again, I say, as I've said so often, that if you look back at the history of recessions, unemployment tragically is the last thing to recover. But it will improve. I think at the latter half of this year, I do believe that there is every indication that this recession is bottoming out. But the main thing is there isn't going to be any real improvement for anyone until interest rates come down. And the quickest way to get interest rates down is for the Congress to prove that it will attempt to reduce government spending. In other words, to pass that budget that has already been passed out of the Senate budget committee. And I think there's a very good chance of that. And I think that that will be the foremost step in answering their problem. In the meantime, there are other things that we are trying to do. I have written letters to 5,000 business executives with regard to summer jobs. This is part of a program, a national nationwide program. New York last January, I kicked off their program, which now has 12,000 pledged jobs, particularly for disadvantaged youth in New York. Their goal is 15,000. And there are other things we're we're spending all in all about $22 million, billion dollars, I should say, in the present budget on problems of this kind that the people who have need. If wiping out the nuclear threat is so important to the world, why do you choose to ignore seven long years of negotiation in which two Republican presidents played a part? I speak of salt too. We abide by the terms the Soviet Union does. Why not push for a ratification of that treaty as a first step, then go on to start after all a burden hand? Because, Helen, this bird isn't a very friendly bird. I remind you that a Democratic-controlled Senate refused to ratify it. And the reason for refusing to ratify, I think, is something we can't do. Well, but we can't ignore that. The reason why it was refused ratification salt stands for strategic arms limitation. And the limitation in that agreement would allow in the life of the treaty for the Soviet Union to just about double their present nuclear capability. It would allow and does allow us to increase ours. In other words, it simply legitimizes an arms race. Now, the parts that we're observing of that have to do with the monitoring of each other's weaponry. And so both sides are doing that. What we're striving for is to reduce the power, the number, and particularly those destabilizing missiles that can be touched off by the push of a button, to reduce the number of those. And there just is no, there's no ratio between that and what salt was attempting to do. I think salt was the wrong course to follow. You may know, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said yesterday that your approach might take far longer than the seven years it took to require to negotiate salt too. What sort of timeframe do you anticipate it will take to negotiate these limits on warheads? Well, I don't know that there, that you could project a timeframe on that when you look back at the history all the way back to the end of World War II with the Soviet Union on the negotiations. But I do think there is one thing present now that was not present before. And that is the determination of the United States to rebuild its national defenses. And the very fact that we have shown the will and are going forward on the rebuilding program is something that I think offers an inducement to the Soviet Union to come to that table and legitimately negotiate with us in the past several years. Those negotiations took place with them having a superiority over us and us actually unilaterally disarming. Every time someone wanted a little more money for another program, they took it away from defense. And that isn't true anymore. Yes. Mr. President, there have been calls in recent days for the United States to renounce existing NATO treaty under which policy, under which we would retaliate against the Soviets with nuclear weapons if they attacked Western Europe with conventional arms. Under what conditions could we pledge that we will never be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in any conflict in Western Europe? I just don't think this proposal that has been made about to renounce the first use of weapons, certainly there's none of us that want to see them. But I don't think that that any useful purpose is served in making such a declaration. And our nuclear, strategic nuclear weapons, unfortunately, are the only balance or deterrent that we have to the massive buildup of conventional arms that the Soviet Union has on the Western Front, on the NATO Front. Now, this is why in Vienna, we're trying to negotiate with them on a reduction of conventional arms also because they have an overpowering force there. Mr. President, what can you tell us about the progress or lack of progress concerning a negotiated settlement on the Falkland Islands? Could you explain a little bit what role the United States is playing? And if you could elaborate a little bit about what our situation is now with respect to other allies in Latin America and in South America, since we have so firmly come down on the side of the British? Well, I think there's a tendency in the part of many of the countries of South America to feel that their sympathies are more with Argentina than ours. I don't think there's been irreparable damage done. The negotiations continue to go on. They've moved to the United Nations now, and the Secretary General there is very much involved in them. This morning, yesterday, in my talks with the President de Guaredo of Brazil, he too is interested and has volunteered his good offices to try and help. And all those of us who want to be brokers for a peaceful settlement can do is stand by and try to be helpful in that. There are reports that some of the issues between the two have been agreed upon. There are still some. Basically, it is down to a situation of withdrawal of what will be the interim administration on the island itself and what will be the period of negotiations then of what the ultimate settlement is supposed to be. Up until now, the intransigence had been on one side, and that is in wanting a guarantee of sovereignty before the negotiations took place, which doesn't make much sense. I understand that there's been some agreement now on awaiting negotiations on that, so we'll continue to hope and pray. Mr. President, on the subject of the economy, the American people have heard two consecutive administrations promise to balance the federal budget and then have to postpone that achievement, and your administration has had to postpone its predictions of when the economic recovery would occur, even when next year's federal budget is arrived at. How will the lenders who are controlling the interest rates and the American people be able to believe that any projected set of figures really will come to pass? I believe that if two years in a row we show that the course we embarked on last year is going to be followed until we have reduced the percentage of government spending or government spending as a percentage of the gross national product and that we're continuing along that line, plus a tax program which I think is designed to help the economy get back on its feet. I think we'll see the interest rates come down. I believe they'll come down if this budget that has been outlined right now in the Senate is passed. And you see in the past, and this is what has them pessimistic, you're right, that the interest rates are up simply because the money market has so little confidence that government will stay the course in the past seven or eight recessions since World War II. The normal pattern was to suddenly flood the money market with printed money, paper money, to artificially stimulate the economy. The main target always then was the reduction of the unemployed. That was believed to be the political problem that first had to be solid. The only trouble was within two to three years after each one of those quick fixes, we went into another recession, and each time if you look at a chart of those recessions, you'll see that each one was worse than the preceding one. And once they are convinced that we mean it, and I think that what we're doing right now, two years in a row, I think could have that effect on them because we have no intention of sending inflation skyrocketing again. Thank you, sir. Mr. President, do you intend to reactivate the memorandum of understanding with Israel? And do you believe Egypt should agree to hold a meeting of the autonomy talks in Jerusalem? Well, now I'm not going to comment on that last part of the question there because we want to stand by and be of help there. And this is one to be worked out between them, but I do have faith that both President Mubarak and Prime Minister Beggin intend to pursue the talks in the framework of Camp David, the autonomy talks, and we stand by ready to help them. In the thing that you mentioned that has temporarily been suspended, we regretted having to do that, and we look forward to when that will be implemented again. What does the United States do to keep the peace along the Lebanese border? Well, with some minor flurries, our ceasefire has held for nine months now. The word we get from both sides is that they want it to continue, and I could probably answer your question better when I get an assessment. I will be seeing Ambassador Habib this, I think Saturday it is. Sam, better come to this side of the room for a bit. Mr. President, the Republican leaders in the House say they will not support that portion of the Senate Budget Committee's proposal. You've endorsed that proposal. It calls for a $40 billion three-year savings in Social Security. So I have two questions for you. Will you insist on that portion of the Senate plan, or will you agree to another plan that does not contain any savings from Social Security? And second, what do you think of Representative Michael's idea that Social Security and other trust funds be separated from the unified budget? I think it's something to be looked at. Here's a fund that is not funded out of general funds. It's funded by its own tax, and it's something I can't give you commitment one way or the other. I can tell you that I think it's an interesting idea to be looked at. I think what we have to understand is in all of the demagoguery and all of the outright falsehoods that have been uttered about this, that the Senate put the number in to the budget only because they believed that it was honest to call attention to the fact that that is the figure by which and the amount of which Social Security is insolvent, that this must be corrected before the end of next year or there isn't enough money in the trust fund to carry through. Now we announced that last year and it was denied by the Democratic leadership in the House that there was no such insolvency problem. There has been an actuarial imbalance in Social Security the first time I publicly called attention to it was in 1964 and it was then 300 billion dollars out of balance and nothing has been done down through the years except such things as in 1977, the gigantic Social Security tax increase that was passed that we were told would make the program solvent to the year 2015 and it already can't get through 1983. Now on the House side immediately when some of their colleagues in the House jumped on this Senate figure and instead of admitting what it was said that we were proposing to cut the beneficiaries of Social Security by all those billions of dollars and a betrayal of our trust. Well I have made a pledge that the benefits due to the people now dependent on Social Security they're going to continue to get and on July 1st they're going to get their 7.4 percent cost of living increase. The I think that the leadership Republican leadership in the House who said take it out simply we're trying because it was becoming again a political football which was obscuring the main problem which is pass the budget and they thought okay set it aside because the Commission does not report till December 31st on a plan for making the program solvent and to get back to the business of the budget. Now this is to be worked out in the legislative manner between the members in the House and the members in the Senate and I'm sure they'll come to some kind of agreement on it. You'd agree to set it aside then. I mean you would you'd agree to set it aside if the Republican leaders in the House want to. I'm saying that I will let the members of the Senate and the members of the House work that out that's their job. President as you know there is wide spread concern in the business community that the recovery from the recession which you expect will occur in the fall will be a short one and a shallow one not enough to create too many jobs and stimulate investment. I wonder sir whether you share those concerns and whether you have some long term views or projects in mind to stimulate the economy to ensure that this recovery is a lasting one. I think this recovery will be a lasting one if we follow and stay on the course and the plan that we started with last year. The thinking that simply beginning recovery means instant recovery and back to normal I think is asking too much. Remember that some of the things upon which that recovery is based for example the tax program. The real first installment that will have some effect begins on July 1st but just the fact that it begins does not mean that then there is this total effect that it's going to have. It is based on the idea that more money in the hands of the people for saving for investing for purchasing is going to have an effect in the economy but you have to wait until they begin to have some of that money in their pockets and then the following installment that comes along as well. Yes Leslie. I'd like to ask you two questions. First off could you comment on the brand of situation a large American company going bankrupt and secondly Dun and Brad Street says that 530 American companies were forced into bankruptcy in the first week of this month alone. Will you take any action to help all these companies that are going under or will you just do nothing and wait for the interest rates to go up that will eventually help them? Leslie I don't see where government can put itself in the business of in some way bailing out at the taxpayer's expense companies that go bankrupt and maybe part of the increase in the bankruptcies is due to the fact that there have been some changes in the bankruptcy laws. Now there's a little difference in a bankruptcy and as brand of itself has stated and let's say the usual thing or the thing that we think of as someone just going broke and being left flat in destitute they have a great many assets that will be sold there will be a reorganization and brand of expects to go back in business back more in the pattern that it had followed before it went into the overwhelming expansion and bankruptcy means that those assets then are used to pay the debt the creditors and so forth. So I don't see a place for government I think government's main thing that it can do is everything possible to create a better business climate and to bring the interest rates down because companies now that some that are declaring bankruptcy in normal interest rates a time of normal interest rates they would be able to borrow the money to tide them over. When do you think the interest rates will come and start helping? Well as I say I think we're going to see a change once they see us pass the right kind of budget. Yes. Mr. President for many years your critics attacked you as being too bellicose and too hawkish on foreign affairs. Now you're getting criticism from some of your old friends that you're turning moderate and pragmatic. Human events and publication you've admired wants you to fire your Secretary of State conservative digest says Mr. Bush is taking over your administration. Mr. Podhoritz wants you to stick in your foreign policy here. How do you respond to this kind of commentary from your old friends? Oh about the same way I respond to the commentary from those who haven't been friends. How do you respond to the commentary that you're changing that you're moving in effect to the left? I'll answer your question legitimately I haven't changed. I know that in the first press conference I was asked a question and you have many of you referred to it constantly as my attack on the Soviet Union and I've tried over and over again to call your attention to the fact that I was quoting representatives of the Soviet Union in the fact that the Soviet unions openly states that the only morality it recognizes is anything that will further world socialism and the only thing that is immoral in their eyes is anything that is counter to that that counters this and so this was made my own statement as if I were castigating them and for lack of character it's just that they don't think like we do but if you go back to the campaign time after time in the campaign I said that my goal was going to be to try for an outright reduction particularly of nuclear weapons and I think I'm being consistent just take me a little while to get there we have some other things to do but that's what we're trying to do. I have not changed my mind I believe that it would be naive for us to go into any of these negotiations without complete protection with regard to verification because I believe that there are two moral standards at issue there. Yes Gary. Mr. President do you have any position on the flat rate tax proposal that's now kicking around up on the hill that many of your economic advisors Milton Friedman and others are saying that they support do you have a position on that? No I haven't taken a position I I have seen and over the years I've seen this proposal of a flat tax no deductions simply a gross tax like you have to pay your agent but the the thing is I think there it's not as simple as it sounds because I think there are differences in well what would it have an effect on all those institutions educational artistic humanitarian that exist on contributions what would it do to some people I recall one I won't name him he is now deceased but in the last years of his life was giving his total income to a very charitable medical cause total and I'm just I wonder I just wonder if it's if we've maybe there's a happy medium maybe there's a way where you can leave some things what about a family that has the same income as another family but has a long time catastrophic illness to care for in the family. President in your arms proposal you focused on the central intercontinental missile systems of the two sides the Soviets were to come back and say they wanted to talk about bombers about whose missiles about other weapons systems would you be willing to include those are those excluded. No nothing is excluded but one of the reasons for going at the ballistic missile that is the one that is the most destabilizing that one is the one that is the most frightening to most people and let me just give you a little reasoning on that of my own on that score that is the missile sitting there in its silo in which there could be the possibility of miscalculation that is the one that people know that once that button is pushed there is no defense there is no recall and it's a matter of minutes and the missiles reach the other country those that are carried in bombers those that are carried in ships of one kind or another are submersibles you are dealing there with a conventional type of weapon or instrument and those instruments can be intercepted they can be recalled if there has been a miscalculation and so they don't have the same I think psychological effect that the presence of those other ones that once launched that's it they're on their way and there's no preventing no stopping there are many arms specialists however who say that the multiplication of cruise missiles in particular those can be put on land can be put on sea ships submarines and so forth also have that same effect you can't call them back once they're launched they have very short flight time and they will there will be thousands of them when they have a much longer flight time actually in a matter of hours and they're not the at the speed of the ballistic missiles that go up into space and come back down again but this doesn't mean that we ignore anything as I said we're negotiating now on on conventional weapons but I think the you start with first things first you start with you can't bite it all off in in one bite and so our decision was to start with the most destabilizing and the most destructive now let me I could the president during the past 10 days black americans have received a lot of your time specifically your visit to maryland to the home of the butler family your call to the woman with hotchkins disease at the request of her husband and then of course your visit to providence st mel high school in chicago this past monday my question now why all the sudden attention focused on black americans and what's the purpose it isn't all of a sudden at all I've been doing things like that all my life you just haven't paid attention and as to calling on the butler family I read that story in the paper I was incensed that anything like that can still go on oh I know it does but there are still people around that are motivated by hatred and bigotry and I went into the office and I said I'd like to I'd like to go see those people I'd like to tell them that their government doesn't feel that way but lest you and I sense in your question that you there may be a little cynicism and that you think that there's some theatrics in this you might as well know that I didn't want any of you around I told our people that I wanted to do it I just wanted to go over there and meet with them and I didn't want any attention and it was my people who said that if I did such a thing you would never trust me again and you'd start spying on me and you'd never let me get out of sight and they won the order of the day why did you tell the students in chicago that when you made the decision about tax exemptions for segregated schools you were unaware of court cases since you had signed off on a memo which cited such cases and secondly can you explain why you said you did not know there still are segregated schools well as I said maybe I should have I just thought that that had been that question had been resolved notation went on the went on the letter students was that when you made the decision you did not know there were court cases and that was after you had read the memo from congressman law no the decision that I'm talking about is I said to the secretary of the treasury that he ought to look into the activities of treasury agents who were going into desegregated schools and who were then on their own just in their own belief and what they thought ought to be done harassing the schools and saying they ought to be doing better they ought to be instituting scholarship programs and so forth well many independent schools like the one I just addressed last weekend live in genteel poverty there's a limit to how much they can do that kind and yet they're totally desegregated and have no bias whatsoever and I had told him that and having told him that that was I went on about my business and then sometime later this order was issued and that was the first time then and the minute that I heard about how it was interpreted that this was going to change the whole situation with regard to segregated schools and tax exemption I said well then the answer lies it should be by law not by bureaucratic regulation and I said let's send some legislation up taking care of the situation but now I'm glad you asked me because now just like the children I've told you the truth yes I understand that you have said that you'll guarantee for social security recipients that they will not only have their current benefits cut but they'll get the July increase but let me ask this as narrowly as I can will you support in the future any kind of freeze on the cost of living increases in social security benefits and what about those down the road those in their 40s and 50s who've paid into the system will you guarantee them social security benefits that will keep pace with the cost of living the whole matter is in the hands of the commission that I finally appointed when I discovered that to talk about social security led to it becoming a political football and a terrorizing experience for the people dependent on the program the I don't know what the commission is going to come up with but the program has expanded to where it has a number of different facets that were never a part of the beginning and that are not associated with the benefit payments to senior citizens who have no other source of income now there are reorganization things that can be done the one that we proposed last year believe it or not would have made the program solvent and that was one which simply changed for a brief period of or added a brief period of time to early retirement now that's a new facet that was passed after the program was well underway I don't remember the exact year it was passed but suddenly saying that well people at 62 could retire on 80 percent of their full payment we had proposed last year that in an effort to make the program solvent that we extend that that they could they could retire at 62 but they would not get 80 percent until a period later before they became 65 and that would have been enough of a change to make the make the program solvent there are other things there is the program of social security disability and social security itself it is admitted and in 1980 under the previous administration a law was passed to try and clean up what was believed to be a gigantic abuse of that program so there are things that can be done there one of the problems with the two tax increases still scheduled in social security that were passed again by the pre under the previous administration the possibility exists that young people today may find that their social security tax is so high that they could never expect to get from social security what they pay in and they would be far better off if they had that money in their own hands to buy a retirement policy of some kind so there are all these things open all I know is that I told the people that I appointed the commission that one thing had to be certain that whatever plan was selected those people now dependent on social security must not be deprived of their benefits or have their benefits cut back now was right regarding your question about cost of living here you're talking about I think there are times in which the temporary situation such as we are now that you could temporarily put a ceiling on a cost of living adjustment and remember you're not cutting them back there you are simply reducing the amount of their increase if you did that but we have no plans for that because I'm kind of of the mind that once they get this 7.4 by the time next year rolls around there maybe won't be any cost of living increase because there won't be any increase in the cost of living oh Helen you looked around at all those hands that I've missed