 Gert Helwig of ZDF German Television, Charles Gunnhausen of NOS Dutch Television and Jean-Pierre de Menier of TF1 French Television. If I could start immediately on your relations with the Soviet Union, do you feel that the failure to set a summit date is a maneuver by Mr. Gorbachev or is it a serious diplomatic setback? I don't think it was a serious diplomatic setback and whether it was a maneuver or not, I wouldn't have an answer to that. I know that there was nothing negative to the extent of saying that they didn't want a summit. We were hoping they would set a date, which we have said to them that is up to them to set the date that they would like to have it. I have not counted it out as yet and I don't think that it was a deliberate negative because I think then they would have simply said that they weren't going to be here. So do you agree with Secretary Schultz that said that yesterday he said that your patience is running out with the Soviets and let me ask you something else. Do you, are you comment this kind of miscalculations about, I mean everybody was so optimistic here in Washington DC about the summit, everybody was saying Gorbachev desperately needs a summit and Gorbachev just said no. Well are we talking about the intermediate range weapons, the so-called INF agreement because if we are there were no real setbacks to that. It seems that our negotiators have eliminated all the major differences and there may be a few little details to work out but we do believe that that's going to be signed. The second agreement, the one that has not really been fully discussed between us yet, which we call the START agreement is the strategic arms, the intercontinental ballistic missiles and both sides had expressed a desire to reduce them by 50% on both sides and that was the thing that we're hoping would be talked about in a summit meeting. So of course we're a little up in the air now as to about when that's going to happen but we still believe that we will get the intermediate range agreement and I hope so. I think our allies are all in favor of that. If you recall that came into being when the Soviet Union set up the SS-20 missiles aimed at targets in Europe and under my predecessor before I was here our allies in NATO asked for help in something to counter that and it remained to us after I got here to send the Pershings and the cruise missiles and so forth as a counter and this was the standoff of ours was supposed to be a deterrent to the river using theirs. Well a deterrent is only good up to a point if someone is foolish enough to ignore it then you have a destruction. So from six years ago I suggested a zero-zero option on that particular weapon. They get their medium range weapons out, we get ours out and at first if you remember they walked away from the table and refused to negotiate but they came back to the table and now we are I think we're going to have success on that one. Mr. President this situation reminds me a little bit of Reykjavik when success was so imminent and then it failed because of SDI. You probably won't tell us but I ask you anyway is there any room left maneuvering on SDI on your part? Well there may be some maneuvering on deployment and so forth but not to the extent of making that a bargaining chip in which we would give up SDI in return for something they might give up on their side. We can't do that. And I think that your audiences in your countries should understand better what SDI really is. Presently there is no defense against nuclear weapons and I don't think very many people are really aware of that that what we have is the mutual assured destruction idea that we keep our missiles they keep theirs and then if either one fires their missiles the other fires back and the world blows up again a deterrent. Well we believe that there could be a madman one day who might challenge that deterrent and declare war on the world. So what we are proposing is a sizable reduction a 50% reduction in those weapons but in the meantime we have set out to see if there isn't a defense against the ballistic missile and it looks like we are embarked on a path that is going to bring us into achieving such a defensive weapon. But I have always said that in my view once that becomes a reality then rather than have it appear that we want our missiles and the defense to protect us from others that no I would like to see is make the technology available to all in return for that all of us then give up our offensive weapons. The so-called mad policy mutual assured destruction this is a thing of killing people and the threat of killing people is to try and maintain the peace. If we could have a defensive system that would protect people against that we are talking about protecting lives on both sides and I have described it somewhat as a little like after World War I when in Geneva all the countries of World War I decided against poison gas but everybody kept their gas masks well we need a gas mask for nuclear weapons and we think that we are on the road to developing such a thing and therefore it is not a bargaining chip. I say we are willing to be most reasonable about it our goal is to free the world ultimately from the threat of nuclear destruction. Until now your position for example on INF has been very firm although the Russians walked away from the negotiations in Geneva and they came back you said are you expecting concessions from their side now we have the problems for example on SDI are you waiting for them to make concessions instead of making concessions yourself? Well no we are willing to talk and discuss with them as we have already in fact we did in Reykjavik and there we had come to great agreement both of us on the desirability of doing away with nuclear weapons but suddenly they threw that in the last moment that nothing could be done unless we agreed to destroy and stop trying to build such a defensive weapon and how could you guard against it we all know how to make these missiles how could you guard against someday someone secretly deciding even after you have done away with them to build some of those and then blackmail the world so we don't think it should be a bargaining chip but also we think progress has been made in that they are just willing to discuss elements or deployment and so forth and they have not come down as they did in Reykjavik with just a flat demand that that be eliminated. Mr. President maybe we can talk about another subject this morning there was a new dive at the New York Stock Exchange in New York and you had a meeting with members of the Congress would you give up and accept to raise the taxes in your country? I cannot hold still for a tax that would reduce the economy or as I've said would be deleterious to the economy in this country we have found that you can go and I think in any country it's true you can go beyond a certain point in taxes and you don't get more revenue you get less because the tax burden reduces the economy when we came into office this administration almost seven years ago this country was in a recession we had interest rates that were just beyond reason we had inflation that was out of control we had great unemployment the major part of our economic reform was a reduction of tax rates and now we are in the midst of the greatest longest expansion of the economy that we've had in the history of our country and I and we did not reduce the government revenues the reduced rates plus the increase in the economy are bringing us in more revenue not less and therefore I don't believe that it anyone should propose to go back to that policy of a tax increase that would suddenly reduce our growth we have almost doubled our gross national product since we took office now our taxes bring in about 19 or amount to about 19 percent of the gross national product now when the gross national product was two trillion dollars and you were still getting 19 percent in tax rates but when the gross national product went to four million and you were still getting 19 percent of that increased amount it shows the tax taxes can be a threat to the economy but mr. president might you be open to persuasion either by some very persuasive congressman or by a further slide in the stock market to change your mind and put in some limited more taxes well since we this morning have arrived at the at the decision of the agreement that we're all going we're going to put together their team and ours now to negotiate on the matter of our deficit reduce the deficit no I'm sure that there is matter of fact I had suggested in my budget that I sent up in which they refused to consider some adjustments to some of our taxes but not the just flat going out and raising say the income tax we once had a top bracket in our income tax when I was a civilian out there making motion pictures that was 90 percent the tax rate well I saw it firsthand my own experience what that can do after I reached the 90 percent bracket I just vacationed they could send me a script and I wasn't going to do another picture for ten cents on the dollar well now we have come down in our tax reform to where the top rate is only going to be 28 percent but as I've said we have seen the same people in the upper brackets were bearing the greatest part of the tax burden they are paying today a greater share of the total tax revenues since we reduce the rates because there's an incentive now to make more money so do you still consider realistic to cooperate with the Soviet Union on the Persian Gulf particularly on convincing the Iranians to accept the ceasefire I mean it's what happened in Moscow it's the fact that the Soviet Union says that all the forces from the Persian Gulf has to be withdrawn and they disagree on sanctions against Iran. Well the main thing is to end the war and the Soviet Union and the Chinese were both with us solidly in the Security Council voting of resolution 598 which was the one that both countries should agree to a ceasefire stop a war with no victor no defeated just agree to separate and return to their own borders at peace the second part of that which had to be voted on again and has not been yet was that if one side or the other refused 598 then the world agreed to embargo or boycott them for any sale of munitions or weapons now Iraq agreed to 598 Iran did not now before the UN is the consideration of whether we will go for the second the boycotting of arms sales to Iran they're going a little slow because and that's because the General Secretary I get mixed up the Secretary General General Secretary is Gorbachev Secretary General of the United Nations is still working on Iran and trying to persuade them to agree before we take or require to take the second action there has been no indication in the part of the Soviets that they would turn and not support the second resolution as they did the first please forgive me mr. President if I return to the money market and the economics again because I think there's an important question they have been confusing signals by Secretary Baker concerning the exchange rates would you consider the value of the dollar okay where it is right now well I think I think Secretary Baker has been misunderstood he feels as I do that the Louvre agreement that we've all agreed to there that that agreement about maintaining the stability in the currency exchange is effective and that we're we pledge ourselves to go by that and I don't wear this misunderstanding came that he was suggesting something else but we are we're convinced and we're satisfied to observe the Louvre agreement to maintain the stability the currencies I wonder sometimes if what happened in the market is not a case of maybe the market overpriced itself and is now making a corrective change mr. President a few weeks ago when mr. Sheffernaza was here the summit was announced yeah an agreement was announced Howard Baker said the lame duck status of the president is postponed for a long long time what's the situation after last week the problems on Wall Street no summit not yet a complete INF agreement are you a lame duck again or still I don't think so it's a term we use here of course when anyone in high office is prevented by law as I am from seeking another term so that the people in the legislature don't have to wonder whether you're going to be in a campaign or in an election again they we use that term but no I think the very fact that today I met with the congressional leadership of both parties we are we did make progress we are going forward with two negotiating teams to come together on how we can deal with the budget deficit which we do think is the biggest threat to anything it's and it's been going on for many many years and far too long and I set out to try and eliminate the deficit when I first came here but unfortunately the Congress has the last word about spending money and they have been more willing to spend than I would have been so each budget that I've sent up they've ignored because I they said I had too many spending cuts in it but I think that we are going to work together and we will come to a settlement and that's going to take a little give and take on both sides Mr. President I'd like to ask you a personal question last week everything was going wrong you are a human being as well as president of united states did not ever think I would be better riding in my ranch would know I would be better riding in my ranch instead of being here in the White House with all these problems well on the other hand I have to say that there's something to be well someone a very wise man once said life begins when you begin to serve and I think he was right if I can do some good for this country that I love so much for the people and even for the world with regard to peace and so forth all right I'm willing to do that and I don't ride as much as I used to but I get a few opportunities and when the congress takes its leave and I can get back to the ranch it makes sense giving what like Thanksgiving yes in August they take a very lengthy recess of about three weeks I was riding every day cutting wood in the afternoon or do you wonder sometimes sir that your legendary luck is running out I never called it luck no I think we have an unusual situation that parliamentary forms of government don't have and that is here that you can have as I have now a congress in which both houses of the legislature have a majority of the opposition party well they're not too enthusiastic about doing everything that I want done and for the six years up until this present year I at least had one house the senate and I think that then they in the legislature because both senate houses have to agree on measures well there some compromising was done when they formed agreement on a piece of legislation and many times it was something that I could then sign but as I say that's an unusual thing in our our government here that we should have this we've had it for quite some time in our congress that kind of a a division between the executive branch and the legislature I don't mean that I'm opting for a parliamentary system I think our systems work reasonably well for a couple of hundred years and we'll stay with it but it's been more difficult since the 84 election when the balance changed and they had both a majority in both houses still this morning I think we were all agreed that we want to seek an answer to this problem Mr. President they're signaling to me that our time is up and thank you for sharing it with us well thank you very much thank you very much