 It wasn't nice of us to get you all out in the spring weather here today. For taking your questions, I want to offer one or two remarks concerning the situation before us in the South Atlantic. From the outset, we've made clear our wish to assist in finding a basis for resolution of this difficult issue. It was for that purpose that I sent Secretary Hague to both capitals last week. During his travels, I have remained in close communication with him and today have had the benefit of a thorough report on where matters stand. The situation is most sensitive. Nonetheless, ideas have been presented which are being seriously considered on both sides. Peace is our common cause. In the interest of finding a solution, I have asked Secretary Hague to return shortly to Argentina for further talks. In view of the sensitivity of the situation, I have no further comment on this matter. It wouldn't be appropriate at this time, and I will defer all questions until further developments occur. The United States is helping Great Britain in several ways in this crisis. Can you not comment on that? I cannot comment. This situation is too critical that any comment, I think, can be taken one way or the other and endanger the peacekeeping or peacemaking process. The last time you spoke, you said that both sides were our friends and you implied that there was a certain even-handedness in our attitude. Is that still our position? We are still trying to be a fair broker in this situation and bring peace and again. We lose translation between here and when someone may hear them on either side. That's why the safest thing is to not comment. How much time does Secretary Hague, does the United States have to bring it to some resolution? I don't think anyone could speculate on that as to what the time situation is. How concerned are you that Israel will find some pretext or put some pressure on the Nakham Begin to renege on his pledge to return the Sinai to Egypt? All I can tell you is that I have his pledge that the turner-over is going to occur and that they're going forward with the Camp David in the framework of the Camp David talks. And we have Secretary Stessel over there talking to them about various problems. So I'm going to have confidence in that statement that he's made to me. He stopped the bloodshed of the Israeli occupation against the Arab shooting of children and women. This is a tragic affair. Obviously, the individual who perpetrated that horrible deed at the temple was deranged and now for this to lead to the great unrest, yes, it's a great tragedy. Would you accept, are you willing to accept? Are you willing to consider a temporary surtax of perhaps four percent as part of a package to reduce the deficit? The discussions that are going on, and in which we're not, I'm not participating, are discussions that are exploring every avenue of what can be a package that hopefully can bring about a bipartisan move to meet the deficit problems that we face this year. And I have not been party to any of the many alternatives, both with regard to revenues and regard to cuts in spending that have been made. And what will happen is the leadership on both sides, myself on this side and the Speaker and others on the other, Congressman Wright, when the discussions have led to something that they think is a package that now has reasonable success of being negotiated out, then we'll treat with the whole, the thing in the whole, the whole package. So I'm not going to have any comments on consideration of any of these things that are being talked about. Wait a minute. Mr. President, you're not, there are those who feel because of your strong stand for tax reduction that the surcharge has sort of automatically been ruled out. You're not doing that, are you here? I'm neither ruling out nor ruling in because, as I say, I'm on the sidelines until those who are carrying on the discussions, and they're not negotiations, they are discussions, they feel that they have something that has a possibility of success with both sides, and then I will see it. I understand that they're reasonably optimistic with the discussions that have been going on. Mr. President, next week do you think you'll become personally involved? Senator Dole said the other day it was time for the principal players to suit up for the game, yourself and Speaker O'Neill. They're coming close, but I'm going to, they're going to have to set that time when they decide that it is time to come forward and say, here, our discussions have led to this. What do you think the chances are that Secretary Hague can find peace? Again, this would be commenting in a way that could be detrimental to the process that's going on. I'm just going to say that what he's doing, I think we should all be hoping and we should all be praying, and he's working extremely hard as you know on this. Does Ian Baker have your authority to proceed, the way he's been proceeding in discussing at least the surtax and other tax issues? He's there, but mainly he's there observing and listening and, as I say, it is not, it's been portrayed as negotiations, they're not. So he's there with my encouragement to go forward with this process. According to the participants, he's been doing more than listening. He's been suggesting and offering ideas as well. Well, I'm sure in a discussion type meeting that there are moments when that takes place, but he's not going there in the sense of going with positions that I have backed or offered or said do this or do that. How would a surtax fit in with your supply side philosophy, with what you hope will be an incentive to people to invest? Again, you've asked me, well, I'm just not going to comment while they're going forward. I'm just going to complete their discussions and then I'll look at the package as a whole. I, but I won't comment on any particulars until I get the whole package. Tell me. I haven't said anything about whether the U.S. is supplying any intelligence information to the British, but could you comment on reports that the Soviets are supplying intelligence information to the Argentinians? Well, that has been reported and evidently is established. And I think that it's, I'd like to see them butt out. To confirm the Soviet. No, no, I said all I know is what I've heard and read. And if that's going on, why I would rather the whole balance of the situation in the whole Latin American region with the Soviets, who you claim are helping the Nicaraguans and the guerrillas in El Salvador, siding with the Argentinians, who are apparently against the Nicaraguans. I mean, how does this... But now you see, you've just made my case for me. You've just indicated that there's no way to comment on these things without running the risk of saying something or creating some perception that will make it more difficult for Al to do what he's doing. So I just can't do it. This will have to be the last question. Ed Rollins says that Republicans in Capitol Hill who don't support your program should be disciplined. Do you agree? And if so, what's the difference between the Democrats last year who supported your program? Shouldn't they have been disciplined? Well, no, I don't agree. And I intend to support as many Republican candidates as I can in the coming election year. And I've never used that in spite of all the inferences in the many meetings that I've had with legislators on the issues that have come up and the votes and so forth. I have never used anything or attempted anything, but to try and persuade them to my viewpoint and there's never been any club held over any of them. Thank you. Thank you. That's got to be the last question. Sorry. Thank you. Will you give Mr. Rollins about that? Huh? Speak to him about that. We're happy. He says it's the last question. Thank you. I've had the last question. If you hold one of these, will you let us carry it live? I think you shouldn't say anything if you wouldn't mind being heard live, did you? I never say anything that I would mind being heard live. We'll tell your aides that you said that, sir. We have an audio man who will carry this live. He didn't show up in time. He's a union man.