 So, I guess, Barry, you want to do the first question? Yes, I could. Mr. President, if we could start out with a non-summit related question having to do with the topic of the moment, there seems to be drugs. In your announcement yesterday of the formation of this bipartisan executive legislative task force for drugs, you said, quote, nothing should be overlooked or ruled out in the purview of this group. Yet you went on to say several things that strongly implied that you were quite prepared to rule out one thing and that is the complete legalization of drugs as a means of drying out the market. Could you tell us why you are against that if indeed you are? Oh, yes, I am definitely against it. I think it is silly to think that that could do away with the drug problem. We're talking about something that destroys people's lives, that takes their lives or destroys them to the point that they're no longer normal human beings. And so I don't think that's for consideration at all. What I wanted from the commission and also was not a report on what the situation is, we were well aware of that. What I want is specific things that can be of help. And a couple of my mention in my remarks yesterday, such as their recommendation on the death penalty for drug related deaths caused by the drug merchants, the killers of cops and so forth. Things of that kind, we know this is the frustrating thing in this. When I hear these people that with some critical sound in their voice say, well, we're losing the battle or we've lost it, as if somehow we've let down and not doing all we can do, we are intercepting more drugs than we've ever intercepted before. The money that has been seized, the vehicles, the airplanes, the boats and so forth, broken all records. But the drugs are still coming in because our boundaries are the same as they are and it's a thing that can be grown someplace in the world, the source of this. And so what we have come to realize is that the only real way, you don't let up on the other. You make it difficult for them to get that in. But then you've got to take the customer away from the drug instead of the other way around. And that's why we've got to find out are there things we're not doing or are there things we're doing but could be done better or more of to head off and make the people turn against it. And I would like their recommendations on that. But I'm sure you're familiar, sir, with the argument for legalization, which is that if there were no risk involved, you would dry up profits of these drug traffickers and therefore that market that comes out of Columbia and other places in the world would dry up and have a severe impact on the availability of the drugs and allowing the government to concentrate its efforts on the demand side. On the other hand, though, what you're talking about is, first of all, there'd be an industry there, whether it be the same people, whether the proceeds would be as lavish as they are now, price wise and so forth, on this. But you're talking about the idea of something that destroys human beings. And by legalizing it, then you drive down the highway and you look up and there's a billboard and it doesn't say eat jello, it says try cocaine. And your papers and your magazines full of attractive ads saying, oh, have a ball. Get stoned on cocaine. You'll never try anything else. And it's ridiculous to say that you take something that is as destructive human beings as this and then turn it out to where the merchandising of it, to increase profits, will be a constant effort to increase the demand. Mr. President, yesterday the Vice President said some things about dealing with drug traffickers that differ from the policies that have been coming out of your administration as far as Mr. Noriegar is concerned in the last few weeks. Does he have your blessing to separate himself now politically from you and his campaign? He's got to do what he feels is right for him in his campaign and I'm going to help him all I can because I think he is the candidate on the horizon that is best suited and qualified for this job. I think what he said largely I could say in generalizing without picking out an individual and that is, no, I don't want to do business with drug dealers. And that was in fact what he was saying. And I know he was referring to a specific case probably that is very much open to the people but here again the people have not heard the true situation or all the facts surrounding this particular thing and I can't answer your questions on that now because it's in a very delicate stage of the negotiations and it's only if and when that I will be able to then say and tell and I will tell exactly what is going on and what we're trying to achieve. Basically what we're trying to achieve is the restoration of democracy to the state, to the country of Panama. If I may return to the political question Mr. President, have you and the Vice President discussed the idea of him going off on his own stating policies that may differ from yours, has it brought it to you directly? And I have made it plain to him that I know that he's going to have to do what he feels is right for his campaign. Do you have any timetable for getting Noriega out of there? I gather you came pretty close. You've come pretty close this week. Well, I wish it were like last month. But no, I don't know what the time situation can be and again as I say, negotiations at a stage that I can't comment. Let me turn to this summit for a second. Do you expect to make enough progress in Moscow to have yet another summit before you leave office? I don't know. I think there's a possibility of that. That would depend mainly and probably on the START Treaty because it seems very doubtful. That's a very complex treaty, much more so than INF. And I think that it's very doubtful that that could be ready for a signature on this coming summit. I just don't think it's possible. But if we're going to continue working as hard and as fast as we can, as we have been in the last several months, and I would like to think not just to catch it on my watch that we get to sign this, but I would like to think that we could get an agreement in the earlier the better because that would start the reduction of the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles that are aimed at each other. Sir, what is the likelihood of your signing something in the Moscow summit, a status report, for example, on where the United States and the Soviet Union stand on arms control has been mentioned as a possibility? Do you foresee that sort of thing? Well, I don't know about that particular thing, but I know there are a number of bilateral issues that we'll be discussing. Also, things that we're coming to agreement on, having to do with things like fisheries and things of that kind. So there will be some things accomplished and tied up while we're there. But could you weigh the likelihood of those being signed on either bilateral issues versus some sort of arms control agreement? Excuse me, let me remove the word agreement, but simply status report, as I said before. Well, I think we'll, yes, we'll be discussing if it is not, as I say, it's not very likely that it will not have been agreed to in the start agreement. But he and I am sure we'll carry on then with where are the areas in which we are together and where are the things that are still left undecided. And we'll try to see if we can't come up with them, help for the people that have been handling the details of this. On, you finished Barry? Yes. On the details, Mr. President, what would, would you be prepared to enter into an agreement in which the sea launch cruise missile issue is not settled or at least certain limits are accepted without verification if we could get the agreement in your term? Oh, I don't want to ever sign anything without verification. That I think is, is vital. And even though he's getting very tired of hearing me recite my Russian proverb, Dovayi, no Provyi, trust but verify. Let me ask you for a second about your broader attitudes towards the Soviet Union and how they've evolved. Do you still like the Soviets are out to rule the world? I think in the same sense that we say that we think that all men should be free and have the ability to determine their own governments and so forth. I'm sure that he believes in the system in which he's been raised, he's young enough that he's spent his entire life in that system. I think that also one of our problems is that he's inclined to believe the propaganda that he's heard all his life about us. But at the same time, we have managed to make a great deal of progress as is evident in things like INF. And I have to come back to what your original question was here. I got sidetracked on what you were specifically. Do you think, I'm interested in how your own views have evolved towards the Soviet Union, whether, let me rephrase it, do you still think the Soviet Union's an evil empire? Well, let me put it this way. I think under this leader, more progress has been made toward the things that we ourselves believe in. Is Glasnost, is Perestroika, I read it, cover to cover. And I think this indicates that there are changes. That he is advocating, as a matter of fact, I'm, we're quite well aware that he's meeting with quite some opposition among the bureaucracy, the nomenklature as it's called there, in the Soviet Union. But these are things that bring him somewhat closer to our views, for example, recently. It was revealed that he has told the Orthodox Church there that some restrictions that have been imposed upon them are lifted, going to be lifted, and they're going to be freed somewhat. We have four main areas that we're going to discuss, and one of them will be human rights. And there is some progress now being made in that area. The arms agreement, since the attempt to reduce armaments and there again, he has showed a willingness. In INF, that treaty, this, I think I can say without any argument, this is the first time that any Soviet leader has ever agreed to destroy weapons they already have. And then there are the bilateral agreements, the things that I mentioned earlier here and that we'll be taking up when we get there. That's three of them, arms control and the human rights and the bilateral agreements. The fourth one, regional, yes, regional. I should forget that when they're already marching their troops out of Afghanistan. That's silly of me. But there are other areas there, Angola, Nicaragua, other spots of that kind. But the very fact of the leaving of Afghanistan after nine years shows that this man is approaching things in a different way. Have you managed to close the distance between the two of you on the subject of strategic defense at all? On strategic defense? Well, when you stopped to think that that ended the summit meeting in Reykjavik because of their demand, just cold demand, the elimination of it. And since then they have come back and that has not been a factor in the things we're dealing in. So I don't think that that's going to be an issue in the arms race. Mr. President, there has been some speculation that Mr. Gorbachev may, either just before your summit meeting or at the very beginning of it, announce a major troop withdrawal from Eastern Europe, say 100, 200,000 troops. This would be by most accounts a fairly major public relations move on his part. But I'm wondering how you would react to that. Well, again, I think it's a part and parcel of the difference between him and the previous leaders we've dealt with. Because when you talk about NATO versus the Soviet Union, you can't ignore the fact that if there ever were or there was a conflict between the two, the Eastern Europe would be a part of the military force of the Soviet Union. That is in the very manner in which it is established there that the Soviets could give the orders. So this withdrawing of troops and so forth I think is another indication of a change of attitude but I think it's also motivated by the economic problem that he has. There's no question but the armaments in the military have been one of the principal factors in their economic disarray. Can I come back to SDI just for a second? You said that it, since then they've come back, you said it's not a factor. You don't think it's going to be an issue in the arms race. That's a pretty strong statement. You don't think it's going to be, that SDI is not a factor anymore in you? I doubt that there would be some time where like coming down to the ability to sign, to agree on reductions of arms and then make that as a price. I don't think that would happen. And if it did, I'd do the same thing I did in Reykjavik. I'd go home because I think that this could be one of the biggest potentials for making nuclear weapons obsolete. If a defense could be perfected in which each country knew that the chance of getting a number of nuclear missiles through the defense was so limited in those numbers, then I don't think you'd see anyone daring a first strike knowing that the other fellow could shoot back. And I have said repeatedly that I am willing, once we've established that we have this and that it is that kind of a almost, well, a defense that is almost impenetrable, I would be pleased to see the world to provide this information to the world with the price being the elimination of nuclear weapons. And then as I just told someone earlier today, you'd say, well, what if you've done away with nuclear weapons, why do you need this? Why do we need gas masks? We were supposed to have done away with gas. As long as the world knows how to make a nuclear missile, you have to be prepared that someday, even if the rest of us have done away with them, someday there can come along another madman and who could decide secretly to arm himself with those. So it'd be awfully nice to do what we did in Geneva after World War I when we all agreed to rule out gas, poison gas, but everybody kept their gas masks. The president, I'd like to come back to Mr. Gorbachev. You've mentioned him as being a different Soviet leader. You also talked about new religious freedoms that may be coming in the Soviet Union, two parts. Do you think he is perhaps deep down a religious man? I would have no way to judge that. I thought I did once, because in fact, I mentioned once that twice in a conversation he had invoked the name of God. And this happened more in the several times during the summit here. And I was really, thought I was in the track of something and it was, you say, I wanted to see if I could find out. But then, a very knowledgeable Russian expert told me that, no, they all do it, but it's God with a small G. It is just an expression, a manner of speech. Was that Mrs. Massey by any chance who pointed that out? No, no, and said that this was just an expression. It was just in their vocabulary and dialogue. How would you characterize your relationship with him and how do you think that relationship can be used to solve international problems between the US and the Soviet Union? Well, he's different, in my view, than any Russian leader that I've met and dealt with before, in that he somehow can keep, oh, we argue. And there's no question, as I say, he believes the propaganda that he's grown up with about us. But at the same time, and I don't think that it is just playing a part by him, that when the battles and the arguments are over, there is a personal relationship there that I've never felt with any of the others. What is it? What is that feeling? Well, I think that he can do this, and it's an argument over these facts and so forth. It does not become a personal distaste for the other individual in the argument. And how important is that to US-Soviet relations? Oh, I think that it's been a great help. I think we've, well, we have gone, as I say, so much farther than has ever been done before. And I think that that's a good part of it. I've got one if I can sneak in another nonsummit question having to do with the trade bill. Why are you waiting to veto this bill? The trade numbers came out the other day. It seemed to be just the ideal time to come in with a veto that you've been more or less promising for weeks now. And yet, you don't seem to be taking that moment. Why not? Well, we'll be coming to that because our plate has been so full, and we did have some leeway there some time. And it's a pretty complicated thing itself to look at. And I just haven't felt that we've had enough time to sit down with that on the table before us as we have with some other things that are going on, including the Panama situation at all. But you've known for some time, and have said publicly many times over the past month that you would veto that bill, particularly because of the inclusion of the plant closing provisions, what's to learn more about it? Well, there are a lot of things in there in the bill also. They kind of acted with that like they do with the budget where they throw in the kitchen sink and the... Like the continuing resolution at the end of the year, you mean? Yes. So I want to look at it because out of it not only comes whether you're going to veto it or not, but what you're going to say about it, the things that you're going to agree with and wish that they would send back without the excess baggage. Thank you, Mr. President. That's it. Thank you, sir. Right. Well, you've done much more fun than going out and breathing on me. Don't forget your tips. Oh, thank you. Thank you, sir. Good to see you again. Well, good to see you. Thanks very much. Thank you. See you in the morning. Whoops. Yep. All right.