 Good morning. I have a few words first here before taking questions. It's no exaggeration to describe the Tokyo summit as the most successful of the six that I have attended. The atmosphere was cordial. The talks were candid and constructive and a strong measure of Allied unity on the fundamental issues of our agenda was achieved. All we sought to accomplish at the summit was achieved. This triumph of Tokyo was due in no small measure to the leadership of Prime Minister Nakasone. The Summit 7 agreed upon the menace posed by the scourge of international terror and upon new political and diplomatic measures to deal with it. We agreed that the Libya of Colonel Gaddafi represents a unique threat to free peoples, a rogue regime that advances its goals through the murder and maiming of innocent civilians. We arrived at this summit as a rising tide of prosperity in the industrial democracies was demonstrating to the world the wisdom of the free market policies that we pursued. And together we committed ourselves in Tokyo to strengthen those policies when we return home. For developing countries as well as a robust and free Asia demonstrates, the principles of the free market are more important to progress than any level of economic aid. On the emerging issue of agricultural overproduction, it was agreed that the primary cause of the worldwide surpluses of food and fiber is domestic government policies that must be addressed. One danger to the common prosperity we all recognize is the specter of protectionism, that veins search for security behind tariff walls and inside closed markets. History has proved again and again the fallacy of that reasoning and the folly of protectionism. In Tokyo, we have obtained a green light for the commencement of a new round of trade negotiations beginning in September. The way to resolve trade problems is to seek open, not closed markets, to seek multilateral negotiation, not unilateral legislation. We made progress in strengthening economic policy coordination with our summit partners. This will help reduce trade imbalances by tackling their underlying causes and promote greater exchange rate stability. We also believe this will result in greater stability in the yen-dollar relationship, something with both the United States and Japan desire. We also want an endorsement for the US Initiative for a Joint Debt Strategy for Developing Nations. And finally, as events of the past week startling demonstrate, we need more openness on nuclear accidents. A breakdown at a nuclear power plant that sends radioactive material across national frontiers is not simply an internal problem. But let me now thank our Japanese hosts and particularly Prime Minister Nakasone. They put up with the inconvenience that thousands of summatering politicians, bureaucrats, and press must have caused them with unfailing courtesy and graciousness, and we are in their debt. Now, you came to Tokyo saying that you didn't want a grandiose statement on terrorism. You wanted action. Now you have your statement. But your fellow summit leaders say that nothing really has changed. What actions do you expect to get done? Well, I find it difficult to believe that the people that I've been meeting with the heads of state would have indicated anything otherwise. Because what we have agreed upon is that terrorism is a threat to all of us. It is an attack upon the world, the determination of terrorists to murder and maim innocent people in pursuit of some political goal, and that the way to deal with it is not individually or unilaterally, but to deal with it together. And this was the sense of the agreement that we arrived at, that we are going to act together with regard to opposing terrorism to isolate those states that provide support for terrorism, to isolate them and make them pariahs on the world's scene, and even if possible to isolate them from their own people. You finally follow up, sir, for the sanctions or joint actions specified, could you tell us what action you do expect? We discussed at great length specific actions and all. But the statement was one to simply say that we together will decide upon what is appropriate, depending on the acts, what is the most effective thing to do in the instance of further terror incidents. And we didn't think that it was perhaps useful to put all of that into a public statement, telling the terrorists exactly what it was we intended to do. Helen? President, there were courts that you are preparing a missile attack another round against Libya with conventional warheads. Do you think that the summit statement on terrorism gives you a license to bomb any country that you suspect is harboring terrorists? Helen, I have to tell you, I read that little item myself this morning. No one was more surprised to hear that I was planning that than I was, because I'm not planning that. As I said, we'll work together on these things, but we do feel. And this was part of the gist of the conversation that we all had and the agreements that we came to. And that is that we can take whatever action is necessary to curb, to stop, and to punish, if they are successful in a terrorist attempt, those who practice terrorism and the states who back and support it. The United States so bereft that it has to drop tons of bombs on a country to get one man. Again, you touch upon something where military action is deemed necessary. I'm not going to discuss that, because I think it would be counterproductive to do so. But we weren't out in the sense of getting one man that we were dropping those tons of bombs hoping to blow him up. I don't think any of us would have shed tears if that had happened. But we were out to damage and destroy those facilities that were making it possible for that particular state under his guidance to back and support terrorism. Sam? Sir, a moment ago, you talked about people who commit terrorist acts in pursuit of a political goal. Do you really think you're going to stop that kind of action until you deal with the root causes of terrorism? The Secretary of State seems to suggest, or at least indicate, that it's just a question of people who are not us. Where is the emphasis on trying to revive the Middle East peace process? Where is the emphasis on trying to settle the Palestinian problem? Has there been any? All of those things are still goals of ours, and we're still doing everything we can to arrive at solutions. But Sam, I think it is. That's the same thing as the cliche line that is going around that, well, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. No such thing. The people that are customarily called freedom fighters are fighting against organized military forces in what, if even if it is a civil war, it is a war. Terrorists, as I said before, are people who deliberately choose as a target to murder and maim innocent people who have no influence upon the things that they think of as their political goals, and therefore, those people must be treated as to what they are. And that is, they are base criminals. The Soviets have now admitted that they miscalculated the accident at Chernobyl in the first few days. Their officials complain that your focus has not been on sympathy for the great tragedy that their country has suffered, but that you're more focused on bashing their system and their country and taking advantage of this tragedy. What's your response? Well, my response is that our first response when word came to us and not as information directly from them, but that there had been such a thing happen there, was an offer of any kind and every kind of aid that might be helpful to them. And certainly, an expression of sympathy went with that for those who might have suffered in the accident. Since then, the effort to, for a limited period at least, to cover up and confuse the issue, we think was the wrong way to go. We're not bashing at all. We're simply citing the need for any one of us if that happens to let the neighbors know that they may be threatened as the outcome of this. But I am pleased to say that in the last few days, there has been a change. And the Soviet Union has been more forthcoming about this with regard to getting information and so forth. Have you received a message from him saying that he still wants to have a summit with you this year? No, I have not received such a direct message. On the other hand, I haven't received anything that said that he's changed his mind and that we won't have a summit. Wait a minute. Here, Gary. Mr. President, as a result of this summit meeting, how soon can we expect the $150 billion trade deficit of the United States to come down? Well, I don't think that I could put a time on that. But I think that we did things at this summit that are dealing with that kind of problem and are going to do our utmost to see that markets are opened and trade restrictions are removed. That was one of the prominent subjects here and one in which we'll be treated with the forthcoming GAT rounds. Now, Gary. Mr. President, do you have a deadline in mind for US companies, especially the oil firms, to get out of Libya? Yes, we have told those that have a share in oil firms in Libya. They're none of them, I think, a majority owner, that they are to dispose of their holdings by June 30. Andrea? Mr. President, you and Mrs. Thatcher worked so hard to get Libya mentioned in the summit declaration. Syrian President Assad has said that there should be more terrorist acts against Israel. Why did you not work to get Syria mentioned as a terrorist-sponsoring state? Well, right now, the one stated on which we all have irrefutable evidence of their support of terrorist acts. Indeed, we had intelligence information that knows in advance of 35 planned operations backed by them, so we tagged them. What we have made plain is that if we have the same kind of irrefutable evidence with regard to other countries, they will be subject to the same treatment. Chris? Mr. President, I'd like to go back to the terrorism statement signed at the summit. The leaders did agree to some specific actions. Most of them are things that they are already doing, but they explicitly decided not to endure us, either economic sanctions or military action. Are you saying that there were some secret agreements and that they have approved economic sanctions or military action? I am saying that in our discussions, leading to what we really wanted to accomplish, and that was a recognition that instead of each one of us treating with this alone, we are going to treat with it on a united front. And in those discussions, we discussed all the things that could be seen as possible tools or weapons in this war against terrorism. But we didn't feel that this was something that you put down in a plan. You then treat with an incident in which we all come together and say, now, what are the things here that we think are the most effective to use? Were there any commitments made to the French and the Japanese who were already saying they don't view this summit statement as binding? They all decide to do whatever they wanted it. Well, as far as I know, seven heads of state agreed to a statement that said that we believe the way to deal with terrorism is on a unified front, that we're in this all together. Now, Bill, and then you. Mr. President, there are those in the administration who say that a decision has been made to take two decisive submarines out of service to observe the limits of the salt treaty, the ratified treaty, when that deadline comes around. Can you tell us if you have made the decision or if it's imminent? And if, when you do make it, and if you do do that, if you're going to say that you're going the extra mile once again? No decision has been made. And with regard to the two submarines you mentioned, I might tell you that no decision has made there either. But a decision has to be made that has nothing to do with the salt treaty restraints. The thing is a practical question of whether it is better economically and for our strength to try to refurbish, to aging submarines, or whether to put them out of action simply because they are no longer and their lifespan is so short. And we haven't made the decision on either one of those things yet. It sounds like you're not going to characterize it, sir, as going the extra mile to keep on observing the salt treaty if you do that. No, as I say, no decision has been made on either one of these two things. Here and then you. President, when you were in Indonesia, what did you tell President Suharto about the human rights situation there? And as a follow-up, what would you like the Secretary of State to carry in the way of the human rights message to South Korea like those there today? Well, I have to say with regard to my conversations with Suharto, and I've always believed this with regard to human rights things and anyone we're talking with, I found that it's far more productive if quiet diplomacy is practiced and if you simply discuss those things in private. So I won't refer to that. I will call attention to the fact, though, that with all of the criticisms that are being made, and particularly since the issue of whether some reporters could or could not land, the progress that has been made by Indonesia, the fact that they have become totally self-sufficient in providing food for their 165 million people, a number of things of this kind, the economic growth. He has much to be proud of in the record that has been established by his government. As a follow-up, sir, if you won't tell us what you discussed, can you say whether you brought the subject up and again on South Korea with the Secretary going today? Will those be discussed? Well, I haven't had time to talk to the Secretary of State or he to me about what he's going to be discussing there in South Korea. Now, I recognize this gentleman right here. You. You. Yes. Then I'll take you. What is, you say the allies have signed a statement pledging joint action on terrorism. Does that mean that precludes unilateral American military action in the event of a terrorist attack? And a follow-up to an earlier question, what exactly is the state of the solution to the Middle East problem, the Palestinian problem? Let me just say that with regard to the first question, no, there wasn't anything in there in which we said that we would try to preclude some nation from acting. We simply said that it shouldn't be dependent on a single nation to try and find an answer, that we, all of us, were united, that this was an attack against all of us. Now, your second part of your question was the Palestinian. Well, look, we continue to try and have tried to be helpful in bringing about peace negotiations in the Middle East. And we have stated from the first and still state that the solution to the Palestinian problem must be a part of any peace settlement. We haven't retreated from that. Yes. Mr. President, while you've been here, you've been losing ground in the Senate. The Senate voted against arms sales to the Saudis. And the Senate Tax Committee has approved a plan that abolishes capital gains and does quite a few other things that you've said you're not for. What are you going to do about it? Well, let them just waddle the old man gets home and see what happens to him. Oh. Exactly. On taxes, what part of the Senate Committee is doing? Are you going to try to change? On the tax reform, well, there are a few things in there and we've got some questions about, but haven't had time to really study it in depth with all that's been going on here. I have to tell you that overall, I think the Senate Finance Committee's tax recommendation, tax plan basically meets the four requirements that I had always set down for a tax reform. And I find that there's overall, it is far superior to the Congress version or the House version. And I think that very likely I can find myself supporting the Senate Committee's version. I hope it comes out to the floor. As a matter of fact, there's a possibility it may have been that they may be voting around it right now. Now. Mr. President, in your discussion with the allied leaders, did they tell you of any specific new economic measures they planned to take shortly against Libya? And if they did, how soon? Well, again, I would be violating a confidence. All of them were talking about their problems, their relationship with Libya, and many of them were making suggestions as to what they thought they were going to do. But I don't think that I should be quoting them or making that public, because those were in private conversations. Now, I have to come to this side for a while. As you know, your government has information suggesting that the perpetrator of the Berlin disco bombing got the explosives from the Syrians. Do you intend the agreement that you all signed here this week as a warning to the Syrian government as well as to the Libyan government? We think that this agreement that we signed, yes, is one that is saying to those other countries, which there's reason to suspect have, if not openly supported, certainly not discouraged terrorism coming from their countries. We intend this to make them think also and realize that they're covered by this agreement, that they will have to face all of us united if we get evidence that they are doing this. And a quick follow-up, sir. Do the various enforcement measures contained in the statement apply to suspected terrorists of other countries other than Libya? For instance, if Washington or London were to expel, say, three Syrian diplomats for alleged terrorist activity, would Paris be required to deny them diplomatic status as well? Well, here again is a decision that would then be made by all of us. And as a matter of fact, the weather to, without waiting for incidents in a particular locale, whether to start at least reducing their personnel or sending them home entirely, that is a decision that we will all make. And that is one of the things that needs to be done. Mr. President, you and Mrs. Thatcher managed in 1984 to get through a statement on terrorism that at the time you considered quite forceful. And yet the incidence of terrorism increased, and you didn't get cooperation on the April 15th raid. Is there any reason to think that this time it would be different, that the allies would be willing to do what they seem to be unwilling to do the last time after passing a declaration like this? I think there is reason to believe that, because we've all seen the evidence, and we've all seen the fact that the victims of the terrorist attacks and the place where the attacks take place are such that almost any incident is involved as more than one country to begin with, that they, as I said last year, we were able, and together with sharing intelligence with other countries, we were able to abort 126 planned terrorist acts. Now, we, as I say, have evidence ourselves of 35 planned attacks, but they're in a number of countries. And in many instances, however the targets would be specifically Americans, but in other countries. The incident in France, and I had a congratulatory President Mitterrand on it, they discovered this incident that was to take place very shortly, and this was when they expelled the members that was for this reason, through the Libyan organization that they don't use the word embassy, but it amounts to that, in Paris. Weapons had been provided to terrorists who were then going to set up and outside the American Embassy, where people line up to go in and get visas to come to America. Those aren't Americans. They don't need visas if they're Americans. So those innocent people of whatever nationality, probably predominantly French, were going to be mowed down with small arms, fire, and hand grenades. And that was aborted. And they sent the diplomats home and are sending additional ones home. But again, it reveals that we all have come to an awareness that we're all targets. President, if you compared our relationship with France to a marriage that can have some problems, well, do you think the next time we need French airspace, they're going to say yes, or are we headed for a divorce? Well, that's one of the wonderful things that came out of this summit. They may and will, I'm quite sure, be differences here and there between countries on a method or what to do. But I don't see a divorce in the opening. I think the marriage is happier than I've ever seen it. As a matter of fact, people who have been more familiar or familiar with more summits than I have said the same thing that I have said. Of all the six I've attended, I never have attended one in which the sense of unity and the cordiality between us and whatever differences they were more of how to accomplish something than whether to accomplish something. And we are all going home pretty much inspired by that. Oh, I'm sorry. Helen has given me the word. The time is up. I'm going to hold that Saudi arm sail. You didn't get a chance to do the answer.