 Good morning. Good afternoon. Yes. It's afternoon. With this kind of government support, Britain's efforts to free its hostages in the Falklands in exchange for Mrs. Thatcher's support for freeing American hostages in Iran. You've asked a question in a way about a particular facet of it. Let me just answer it in a little broader context. It's a very difficult situation for the United States, because we're friends with both of the countries engaged in this dispute. And we stand ready to do anything we can to help them, and what we hope for and would like to help in doing is have a peaceful resolution of this with no forceful action or no bloodshed. And to that extent, we support the resolution that's already in the United Nations, that there be a withdrawal of forces, and we resolve this at the UN. Mr. President, British television news. Have you spoken to Prime Minister Thatcher this morning? No, but I received a message from her with regard to the appointment of the new minister, or foreign minister. What else did she have to tell you? What? Well, she appreciated very much our efforts in my attempt to... Is America prepared to offer military assistance if the British ask for it? Again, as I said, we're friends of both sides in this, and we're going to strive for, and I think that they will be willing to meet in the idea of a peaceful resolution. Mr. President, are you meeting with the Argentine foreign minister who's here today, talking to the organization of American States? No, I don't think...no, there isn't any meeting of that kind on the schedule. Mr. President, the British government has threatened to use force if diplomacy fails, and it's regarded as a serious threat to Britain. What would your position be, sir, if diplomacy did... Well, you're getting into a hypothetical question that I hope I never am faced with. Both sides have threatened with the use of force, as is evidenced with Argentina's military landing there. And I just don't think that it's an issue that should come to that point. Mr. President, why do you think your polls have gone down so much recently? Well, they have followed a pattern that's been historically true of every president, and whatever the degree might be, I guess depends on the pollsters. I think there's been quite a drumbeat of criticism that has gone largely unanswered by us with regard to some of the programs that I've advocated. And of course, there is the unhappiness that exists for all of us in the present recession. But as I've said, I think the polls are only as good as at the time they're taken. Well, do you think more of you? Mr. President, you say it's largely unanswered, but do you mean that the answer hasn't been reported adequately or you haven't been making it adequately? What do you mean by that? Well, I think in the debate, it's true that there has been far more criticism of the plan and that is more newsworthy when someone stands up with a new viewpoint and attacks facets of the program. And we have submitted our budget, and while we're now continuing in meetings with them to hear what alternatives might be proposed, there is much news in us just continuing to say, well, we're still supporting our program. Isn't this about time for some new move on the part of the White House? We hear that you may be willing to make some cuts in the defense program. The, as I've said, finally, there are meetings that have been going on. And I've had people from my staff up there in the place of observers or witnessing or hearing of what is being proposed between the legislators, both Democrat and Republican. It so far has not reached a point in which it comes to me with any concrete proposals of one kind or another. How about the defense? You're willing to make some cuts in defense? I have said that any government program obviously has areas where savings can be made by management changes and so forth. And I am open to any suggestions of that kind. However, the basic program of upgrading and building weapons systems that we need in order to close the window of vulnerability, I will, I would have to oppose that. We can't send that kind of a message. But the President is going on to say that they disagree with your assessment, the United States is behind the Soviet Union. But beyond that, they say you were wrong to say it because it gives a perception of weakness. Are you sorry you said it? No, I'm not sorry I said it because I think as we know for sure the Russians know that, I think the American people ought to be able to know everything they know. Mr. President, is that the impression that we are weak? And therefore doesn't it, it's been said, it's been said over and over again many times it's been said for the last few years that we were in a deteriorating position militarily in comparison to the Soviet Union. But nobody's ever said they could deliver a second strike. Do you really believe that? That has been published in articles by various people commenting on what should happen. But let me make one point about this. The idea is that we must have a deterrent. Our goal is peace. And to have peace, we must have a deterrent that would prevent someone from adventuring aggressively in the world using nuclear weapons. And for one point with regard to our inferiority, we are presently negotiating that in Geneva. The fact that the Soviet Union has 300 intermediate missiles with 900 warheads aimed at Europe and can hit the Middle East and North Africa and there is nothing to counter them and our allies have asked us for cruise missiles and Pershings as a deterrent to be stationed in those countries in Western Europe to be deployed there. And we have agreed to do that. Now there is the greatest proof of superiority. They already have their SS-20s, 4s and 5s in place, although lately they have said that they're withdrawing the 4s and 5s, which are an older and lesser missile. We are negotiating from a standpoint of something we yet have to do in providing those missiles, but which we won't do if they will agree to take theirs out. Do you guys have a first strike capability against the United States? I think that at the moment, on the strategic, intercontinental, ballistic program on our triad, I think that we do. Those people who say that, well, we have something of a deterrent now, yes, I think so too. Can they strike us with impunity? I think I spoke of that the other night, that, yes, we would have surviving missiles in our submarines airborne of those planes that were airborne at the time of such an attack. Missiles are aimed at our silos, our ballistic missiles, land-based missiles. But would our retaliation result in further devastation to the United States? So I think I made a clear look. I tell you something. Let me give you the answer. Tomorrow, in Georgetown, Secretary Hague is going to be making a speech on this entire subject of nuclear deterrence and the nuclear power. So I recommend that you hear the speech. You said last Friday in analyzing the new unemployment rate going up that this was evidence of further deterioration in the economy. You have said that we are, that recovery is just around the corner. I've said we're in the trough, the bottoming out of a recession. And one of the characteristics of being in the trough is, if you look back at all the other recessions we've had since World War II, you will find that one of the characteristics is that employment lags behind, and very often in that trough there is a continued increase in unemployment for a while. So you disagree that this is evidence of further deterioration in the economy? There may even be more unemployment, because I guess that's why they call it a trough. Are you concerned that many members of Congress are saying that you will not have a budget until there is a land-up session of Congress that might be another six months? Not have a budget until, we haven't had a budget for two years really, and we're not that far behind schedule. As a matter of fact, we've presented this budget earlier than we did last year, and I look forward to progress being made as soon as they come back from the Easter recess. That's why we're negotiating so fast. What about a summit meeting on housing-centered leadership on the budget? I think that that would, that that will be a part of the procedure before we finally arrive at a budget. Let me just say in closing, though, since we can't take any more questions here, and we were on that very big subject of nuclear weapons and all. I'm, as you know, in June, early June, we'll be going to Europe for a meeting with the European Economic Council, the leaders, the heads of state of European countries. I will be meeting with the Pope in Rome, and then I will be returning, and at the same time you know in June and early July, the United Nations is having its meeting on arms control, and I will be returning and addressing that conference at the United Nations myself, and I hope very much that President Brezhnev will be on hand to do the same thing and address the same group. I think that this whole idea that I've been talking about since back in the campaign of arms reduction, arms control, is one of the most important things that is facing us, and as I say, I hope that we'll both be able to address the conference. If he does come with a guy, he's very bad at health. Thank you. We've had no confirmation of anything of that kind. Would you like to meet with President Brezhnev? I will answer that. Naturally, head of state that here in our own country, yes, I would very much think that he and I would have a meeting. You're proposing an effective summit here. Well, the imagery that you bring up with that, whether that means a full-blown summit conference, no, I think that if he is here and we both address that subject, I think it would be well if he and I had a talk. That will be in June, in June, and in New York. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there a role upon this broker in the Port and Islands Disputes, sir? If we can be of help in doing that, yes, anything that would bring a peaceful solution to what seems to be an unnecessary disagreement. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you very much. We start on time. We quit on time. Yeah, because heaven sakes, yes, I'm due over at the Hilton hotels. You guys just need to meet them. You know, I was speaking to that group last year. I've got to speak again. Do you have any clear interpretation about going back? No, but I'm wearing my oldest suit today. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Lights. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you. You know, these are going to do one thing. If you will all remember. I leave every press conference, as I told you before, with a great feeling of guilt about the unrecognized... Oh, incidentally, that's part of the new rules. There will absolutely be no questions. No, sir. No answers for you. You will not answer. Take care of it. And I think, why is it not said there would be no questions? We can still ask questions. It's just that you may or may not answer. That's correct. Okay, you can, but I can sit there with a bar of soap, a pan of water in my hand. Ready to wash. Anyone's mouth out? Yes. How frequently do you want to meet with us? Every day. Every week. Every week. Every week. Every week. Every week. Every week. Every week. Every week.