Datasets:

pacoreyes

/

Speech-vs-Interview-Dataset

like 0

Obviously, Iran sits in a volatile region during a volatile period of time, and their own internal conflicts makes it that much more difficult, I think, for them to make big strategic decisions. Having said that, our goal consistently has been to combine pressure with an opportunity for them to make good decisions and to mobilize the international community to maximize that pressure. Can we guarantee that Iran takes the smarter path? Which is why I have repeatedly said we do not take any options off the table in preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon. But what I can confidently say, based on discussions that I have had across this government and with governments around the world, is that of all the various difficult options available to us, we have taken the one that is most likely to accomplish our goal and one that is most consistent with America's security interest. When you look at Afghanistan over the past three years - the policies you have adopted - would it be fair to say that the counterterrorism part of the policy, the killing bad guys, has been a lot more successful than the counterinsurgency, the stabilizing of vast aspects of the country, and that going forward, you should really focus in on that first set of policies? Well, what is fair to say is that the counterterrorism strategy as applied to al-Qaeda has been extremely successful. The job is not finished, but there is no doubt that we have severely degraded al-Qaeda's capacity. When it comes to stabilizing Afghanistan, that was always going to be a more difficult and messy task, because it is not just military - it is economic, it is political, it is dealing with the capacity of an Afghan government that does not have a history of projecting itself into all parts of the country, tribal and ethnic conflicts that date back centuries. Now, we have made significant progress in places like Helmand province and in the southern portions of the country. And because of the cohesion and effectiveness of coalition forces, there are big chunks of Afghanistan where the Taliban do not rule, there is increasingly effective local governance, the Afghan security forces are beginning to take the lead. But what is absolutely true is that there are portions of the country where that is not the case, where local governance is weak, where local populations still have deep mistrust of the central government.

dialogic

And part of our challenge over the next two years as we transition to Afghan forces is to continue to work with the Afghan government so that it recognizes its responsibilities not only to provide security for those local populations but also to give them some credible sense that the local government - or the national government is looking out for them, and that they are going to be able to make a living and they are not going to be shaken down by corrupt police officials and that they can get products to market. I never believed that America could essentially deliver peace and prosperity to all of Afghanistan in a three-, four-, five-year time frame. And I think anybody who believed that did not know the history and the challenges facing Afghanistan. I mean, this is the third poorest country in the world, with one of the lowest literacy rates and no significant history of a strong civil service or an economy that was deeply integrated with the world economy. It is going to take decades for Afghanistan to fully achieve its potential. What we can do, and what we are doing, is providing the Afghan government the time and space it needs to become more effective, to serve its people better, to provide better security, to avoid a repetition of all-out civil war that we saw back in the '90s. And what we have also been able to do, I think, is to maintain a international coalition to invest in Afghanistan long beyond the point when it was politically popular to do so. But ultimately, the Afghans are going to have to take on these responsibilities and these challenges, and there will be, no doubt, bumps in the road along the way. From the perspective of our security interests, I think we can accomplish our goal, which is to make sure that Afghanistan is not a safe haven from which to launch attacks against the United States or its allies. But the international community - not just us; the Russians and the Chinese and the Indians and the Pakistanis and the Iranians and others - I think all have an interest in making sure that Afghanistan is not engulfed in constant strife, and I think that is an achievable goal. As the Chinese watched your most recent diplomacy in Asia, is it fair for them to have looked at the flurry of diplomatic activity - political, military, economic - and concluded, as many Chinese scholars have, that the United States is building a containment policy against China? No, that would not be accurate, and I have specifically rejected that formulation.

dialogic

I think what would be fair to conclude is that, as I said we would do, the United States has pivoted to focus on the fastest-growing region of the world, where we have an enormous stake in peace, security, the free flow of commerce and, frankly, an area of the world that we had neglected over the last decade because of our intense focus on Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East. So if you look at what we have done, we have strengthened our alliances with Japan and South Korea - I think they are in as good of shape as they have ever been. We have involved ourselves in the regional architecture of - including organizations like ASEAN and APEC. We have sent a clear signal that we are a Pacific power and we will continue to be a Pacific power, but we have done this all in the context of a belief that a peacefully rising China is good for everybody. One of the things we have accomplished over the last three years is to establish a strong dialogue and working relationship with China across a whole range of issues. And where we have serious differences, we have been able to express those differences without it spiraling into a bad place. I think the Chinese government respects us, respects what we are trying to do, recognizes that we are going to be players in the Asia Pacific region for the long term, but I think also recognize that we have in no way inhibited them from continuing their extraordinary growth. The only thing we have insisted on, as a principle in that region is, everybody's got to play by the same set of rules, everybody's got to abide by a set of international norms. And that is not unique to China. That is true for all of us. Well, I think that when we have had some friction in the relationship, it is because China, I think, still sees itself as a developing or even poor country that should be able to pursue mercantilist policies that are for their benefit and where the rules applying to them should not be the same rules that apply to the United States or Europe or other major powers. And what we have tried to say to them very clearly is, Look, you guys have grown up. You are already the most populous country on earth, depending on how you measure it, the largest or next-largest economy in the world and will soon be the largest economy, almost inevitably. You are rapidly consuming more resources than anybody else.

dialogic

And in that context, whether it is maritime issues or trade issues, you cannot do whatever you think is best for you. You have got to play by the same rules as everybody else. I think that message is one that resonates with other Asia Pacific countries, all of whom want a good relationship with China, all of whom are desperately seeking access to China's markets and have forged enormous commercial ties, but who also recognize that unless there are some international norms there, they are going to get pushed around and taken advantage of. You think it is inevitable that China will be the largest economy in the world? It is now the second largest, even on PPP. Well, they are - assuming that they maintain stability and current growth patterns, then, yes, it is inevitable. Even if they slow down somewhat, they are so large that they'd probably end up being, just in terms of the overall size of the economy, the largest. But it is doubtful that any time in the near future they achieve the kind of per capita income that the United States or some of the other highly developed countries have achieved. They have just got a lot of people, and they are moving hundreds of millions of people out of poverty at the same time. You have developed a reputation for managing your foreign policy team very effectively, without dissention. So how come you can manage this fairly complex process so well, and relations with Congress are not so good? Well, in foreign policy, the traditional saying is, Partisan differences end at the water's edge, that there is a history of bipartisanship in foreign policy. But I do think there is still a tradition among those who work in foreign policy, whether it is our diplomatic corps or our military or intelligence services, that says our focus is on the mission, our focus is on advancing American interests, and we are going to make decisions based on facts and analysis and a clear-eyed view of the world, as opposed to based on ideology or what is politically expedient. And so when I am working with my foreign policy team, there is just not a lot of extraneous noise. There is not a lot of posturing and positioning and How is this going to play on cable news? and Can we score some points here?

dialogic

That whole political circus that has come to dominate so much of Washington applies less to the foreign policy arena, which is why I could forge such an effective working relationship and friendship with Bob Gates, who comes out of that tradition, even though I am sure he would've considered himself a pretty conservative, hawkish Republican. At least that was where he was coming out of. I never asked him what his current party affiliation was, because it did not matter. I just knew he was going to give me good advice. But have you been able to forge similar relationships with foreign leaders? Because one of the criticisms people make about your style of diplomacy is that it is very cool, it is aloof, that you do not pal around with these guys. I was not in other Administrations, so I did not see the interactions between U.S. Presidents and various world leaders. But the friendships and the bonds of trust that I have been able to forge with a whole range of leaders is precisely, or is a big part of, what has allowed us to execute effective diplomacy. I think that if you ask them, Angela Merkel or Prime Minister Singh or President Lee or Prime Minister Erdogan or David Cameron would say, We have a lot of trust and confidence in the ENTITY. We believe what he says. We believe that he will follow through on his commitments. We think he is paying attention to our concerns and our interests. And that is part of the reason we have been able to forge these close working relationships and gotten a whole bunch of stuff done. You just cannot do it with John Boehner. You know, the truth is, actually, when it comes to Congress, the issue is not personal relationships. My suspicion is that this whole critique has to do with the fact that I do not go to a lot of Washington parties. And as a consequence, the Washington press corps maybe just does not feel like I am in the mix enough with them, and they figure, well, if I am not spending time with them, I must be cold and aloof. The fact is, I have got a 13-year-old and 10-year-old daughter, and so, no, Michelle and I do not do the social scene, because as busy as we are, we have a limited amount of time, and we want to be good parents at a time that is vitally important for our kids.

dialogic

In terms of Congress, the reason we are not getting enough done right now is you have got a Congress that is deeply ideological and sees a political advantage in not getting stuff done. We had a great time playing golf together. The problem was that no matter how much golf we played or no matter how much we yukked it up, he had trouble getting his caucus to go along with doing the responsible thing on a whole bunch of issues over the past year. You talked a lot about how foreign policy ultimately has to derive from American strength, and so when I talk to businessmen, a lot of them are dismayed that you have not signaled to the world and to markets that the U.S. will get its fiscal house in order by embracing your deficit commission, the Simpson-Bowles. And that walking away from that,which is a phrase I have heard a lot, has been a very bad signal to the world. Why will not you embrace Simpson-Bowles? I have got to say, most of the people who say that, if you asked them what is in Simpson-Bowles, they could not tell you. So first of all, I did embrace Simpson-Bowles. I am the one who created the commission. If I had not pushed it, it would not have happened, because congressional sponsors, including a whole bunch of Republicans, walked away from it. The basic premise of Simpson-Bowles was, we have to take a balanced approach in which we have spending cuts and we have revenues, increased revenues, in order to close our deficits and deal with our debt. And although I did not agree with every particular that was proposed in Simpson-Bowles - which, by the way, if you asked most of the folks who were on Simpson-Bowles, did they agree with every provision in there?, they'd say no as well. What I did do is to take that framework and present a balanced plan of entitlement changes, discretionary cuts, defense cuts, health care cuts as well as revenues and said, We are ready to make a deal. And I presented that three times to Congress. So the core of Simpson-Bowles, the idea of a balanced deficit-reduction plan, I have consistently argued for, presented to the American people, presented to Congress. They did not have some special sauce or formula that avoided us making these tough choices. They are the same choices that I have said I am prepared to make.

dialogic

And the only reason it has not happened is the Republicans were unwilling to do anything on revenue. The revenues that we were seeking were far less than what was in Simpson-Bowles. We have done more discretionary cuts than was called for in Simpson-Bowles. The whole half of Simpson-Bowles that was hard ideologically for the Republicans to embrace they have said they are not going to do any of them. So this notion that the reason that it has not happened is we did not embrace Simpson-Bowles is just nonsense. which is what Simpson-Bowles - - which is what Simpson-Bowles called for, they would gag. There is not one of those business leaders who would accept a bet. They'd say, Well, we embrace Simpson-Bowles except for that part that would cause us to pay a lot more. And in terms of the defense cuts that were called for in Simpson-Bowles, they were far deeper than even what would have been required if the sequester goes through, and so would have not been a responsible pathway for us to reduce our deficit spending. Now, that is not the fault of Simpson-Bowles. What they were trying to do was provide us a basic framework, and we took that framework, and we have pushed it forward. There is no equivalence between Democratic and Republican positions when it comes to deficit reduction. We have shown ourselves to be serious. We have made a trillion dollars worth of cuts already. We have got another $1.5 trillion worth of cuts on the chopping blocks. But what we have also said is, in order for us to seriously reduce the deficit, there is got to be increased revenue. And if we can get any Republicans to show any serious commitment - not vague commitments, not We will get revenues because of tax reform somewhere in the future, but we do not know exactly what that looks like and we cannot identify a single tax that we would allow to go up - but if we can get any of them who are still in office, as opposed to retired, to commit to that, we will be able to reduce our deficit. Now, to your larger point, you are absolutely right. Our whole foreign policy has to be anchored in economic strength here at home.

dialogic

And if we are not strong, stable, growing, making stuff, training our workforce so that it is the most skilled in the world, maintaining our lead in innovation, in basic research, in basic science, in the quality of our universities, in the transparency of our financial sector, if we do not maintain the upward mobility and equality of opportunity that underwrites our political stability and makes us a beacon for the world, then our foreign policy leadership will diminish as well. Can we do that in a world with so much competition from so many countries? One of the things you do hear people say is, You know, we have all this regulation. You are trying to make America more competitive, but you have got Dodd-Frank, you have got health care. And in that context, are we going to be able to be competitive, to attract investment, to create jobs? Look, first of all, with respect to regulation, this whole notion that somehow there is been this huge tidal wave of regulation is not true, and we can provide you the facts. Our regulations have a lower cost than the comparable regulations under the Bush Administration; they have far higher benefits. We have engaged in a unprecedented regulatory look-back, where we are weeding out and clearing up a whole bunch of regulations that were outdated and outmoded, and we are saving businesses billions of dollars and tons of paperwork and man-hours that they are required to fill out a bunch of forms that are not needed. I just had a conference last week where we had a group of manufacturing companies - some service companies as well - that are engaging in insourcing. They are bringing work back to the United States and plants back to the United States, because as the wages in China and other countries begin to increase, and U.S. worker productivity has gone way up, the cost differential for labor has significantly closed. And what these companies say is, as long as the United States is still investing in the best infrastructure in the world, the best education system in the world, is training enough skilled workers and engineers and is creating a stable platform for businesses to succeed and providing us with certainty, there is no reason why America cannot be the most competitive advanced economy in the world. But that requires us to continue to up our game and do things better and do things smart. We have started that process over the last three years.

dialogic

I have no announcements to make, gentlemen, except that I want to clear up just one thing, and that is in regard to the procedure of the Ways and Means Committee. The Ways and Means Committee have been proceeding exactly as I have requested them to proceed. I asked them, in the first place, to consider social security ahead of taxes, and that is the reason they are doing it. ENTITY, Governor Dever was in here a couple of weeks ago and indicated that you favored a special inquiry by the Ways and Means Committee in the domestic watch situation. The matter was placed before me by the Waltham Watch Company and two or three other American watch companies. I made no comment on the situation, except to take the papers which they gave me and told them I would look into it. ENTITY, there is a report that the administration is going to propose home relief funds in the social security program. What kind of funds, sir, did he ask? I do not know what that means, but go ahead and explain it to him, Tony.1 Story out of New York, that is the reason. ENTITY, your military aide, Gen. Harry Vaughan, has been the recipient of a considerable amount of criticism in connection with the decoration offered to him by the Government of Argentina.2 He has been singled out for criticism, although a medal that medal and other medals under similar circumstances have been offered to other officials and other officers. Have you any comment on why he should be criticized? No reason in the world why he should be criticized. Stanley Woodward informed me the other day just accidentally happened to inform me that he has more than a hundred two or three over there in his drawer that have been presented to nearly every every general and admiral that we have got here in Washington, and more than twenty of these this same medal that General Vaughan received, in that drawer, and various other generals and admirals in the service of the United States Government. It was handled strictly according to law. And the only reason for the squawk is because General Vaughan happens to be my military aide. They are gunning for you over his shoulder? You mean, ENTITY, these generals do not pick up these decorations after they receive them? It is the specific the law is specific on it, that those decorations are to be not to be received individually until they receive permission from Congress to get them. That is the in the criminal code in the United States Code, not the criminal code United States Code.

dialogic

During wartime it was allowed by the Congress by specific law that the military services could receive and civilians, too could receive decorations from our Allies or associated powers in the World War. That period expired on the 30th day of last June, and the civil code went into effect at that time. I wonder if you will give us some of your ideas about it? My ideas were very clearly and specifically expressed by the Secretary of State yesterday after an interview with me.3 Resolution 239 was passed by the Senate and unanimously passed by the House. And I announced clearly in my message on the in the inaugural message, and in various messages on it previous to that, our stand in connection with the Atlantic Pact. ENTITY, what you said in your message still stands? What is your reaction, ENTITY, to the story that Secretary Royall asked to have troops withdrawn from Japan If I remember correctly, Secretary Royall categorically denied the statement. ENTITY, in his letter of February 14 to Secretary Krug, Mr. Pace said the Central Arizona project does not meet with your program. The Central Arizona project is under consideration by the Congress, and it has not been considered as whether it is a part of the program or not. The water situation in Arizona and in California is in a serious situation. I myself have been making some personal investigations on the situation, with the idea to try to find more water for both of those States. ENTITY, a subsequent letter to-Mr. Pace sent to Senator O'Mahoney has been interpreted by Arizona as a reversal of your position. If you will question Senator Hayden and the Senators from California, you will find that there is no confusion, and never has been. ENTITY, have you received a new report from your Economic Advisers? I receive a regular monthly report. Can you give us your estimate on what the business outlook is today? There is considerable apprehension, you know, about falling prices and unemployment. I think it is the leveling off that everybody has been wishing for. And I hope that is the case, and that we do not have another spiral in prices. ENTITY, do you think-are you in favor of modifying consumer credit controls, under Regulation W?4 I am not considering it at the present time. ENTITY, have you reached a decision on whether Dr. Bruce is going back to Argentina? I will tell you all about it later, after an interview with him.

dialogic

The McGraw-Hill Publishing Company sent out a lot of releases and stuff today, and one of them indicated that Ralph Bunche would be the next American Ambassador to Russia. Is that news to you? Yes, that is news to me. That is news to me. ENTITY, while we are talking about Russia, have you made a decision yet about Bedell Smith? That decision will have to be made by General Smith himself. He is under treatment now, on account of his health, and I have not had a conference with him lately. That is up to General Smith. He is still at Walter Reed? ENTITY, would you care to say anything further on the subject of taxes? There is some speculation that since you have put social security ahead of taxes, taxes will have to be abandoned. It is a matter of procedure-does not make any difference. ENTITY, would you care to comment on why you asked them to follow that procedure, of social security first? Because they are not we were not ready on the tax proposition as yet. ENTITY, are you would you be considering a compromise on taxes below $4 billion? I made my statement to the Congress in my message. Have you any ideas on the secrecy of those trials? I do not know anything about it, Pete5 The Constitution should follow the flag wherever it goes, and trials should be conducted as we usually conduct them in this country. That is my theory, and I am trying to enforce it. I do not know anything about this one to which you refer. ENTITY, in the Senate today, Mr. Langer said that you have dropped all pretense of continuing bipartisan foreign policy. ENTITY, would you care to comment on the Loyalty Board's clearance of William Remington? I think the Loyalty Board undoubtedly heard all the evidence and made the proper decision. That is what I set them up for. Will you clear up the Constitution following the flag? Those spies were tried in this city, those Germans that landed on Long Island, under the greatest of secrecy. That was during wartime. That was during wartime. ENTITY, I have been asked to ask you if you are opposed to building this Glacier View Dam in the Glacier National Park, which has caused a controversy between the Park Service and the ENTITY Engineers? I cannot remember enough about the case, Tony.7 That is the first I had heard of that controversy. Is that on the-that Hungry Horse Dam? First I heard about it was 10 minutes ago.

dialogic

Then I happen to know a little bit more about it than you do, Tony. ENTITY, getting back to that other thing on the Constitution, is there not a comparable situation in Europe, where you have an occupied area where you have saboteurs landing in Long Island in wartime? It is comparable to that, but I am very anxious that American citizens I do not want to treat I am very anxious that American citizens I am speaking strictly of Americans under no matter where they are, you ought to have the same privilege that you have at home, if you work for the Government. I do not care where you are, in the occupied areas, or the trial of these foreigners, it is comparable to that. ENTITY, on the other hand, do not you think American justice should be full and open? Well, that is a matter for argument, I think, if it comes to spies in enemy countries. ENTITY, what do you think of this controversy between certain reporters working in Japan and Secretary Royall, as to what he said, that we might have to pull out of Japan in case of war with Russia? I would talk to the Secretary for ENTITY. I could not understand what you said? I have no comment to make on that. The policy on Japan is set and fixed, and it has not changed. Philadelphia is having a transit strike that has everything tied up. Is there any law or provision under which you can intervene? I beg your pardon? They are in the course of preparation, and as soon as possible we will have them ready. Will it follow the plan of last May 24, in which you submitted a message to Congress outlining That is right I believe I referred specifically to it in the message in the Message on the State of the Union, I think. ENTITY, Senator Taft has said that the anti-inflation bill that went up the other day proposes a controlled economy. I was wondering if you have anything to say on that? I have no argument with Senator Taft. My views on the subject have been expressed in message after message to Congress. If the Senators want to have an argument about it, that is their privilege.

dialogic

And it is my great honor to welcome to the White House the 2019 NCAA Women's Basketball National Champions, the Baylor Lady Bears. And I watched that last game, and that was a tough, rough game with Notre Dame. To ENTITY, I want to just congratulate you and the entire team. And you know, interestingly, I got a little bit of a rsum about you, Coach. Should I-can I read a couple of lines from this? Do you mind if I do that? No matter what ENTITY has attempted in basketball, whether it be the court or along the sidelines, has found tremendous success. In 18 seasons as the head coach, she has attained a 576 career victories and ranks number two among the winningest Division I head coaches in the winning percentage of .853. And she does not like number three, but she is going to catch it. She is number three alltime, by percentage, between two mentors, second ranked, Leon Barmore -that is at .869. So you are pretty close to Pat Summitt. If you have a couple of more seasons, good, you can maybe even take that percentage. And you started off, and you inherited a team that was 7 and 20 and was going nowhere. And look what you have right there. Here we are in the Oval Office, right? I just read that through. I heard great things, and I read it, and I felt we should let people know, because that is an incredible-7 and 20 to the national championship. Would you like to work at the White House, by any chance? We will take you. We need that. We met him. So, again, to your team, you deserved it. I also want to recognize Baylor President, Linda Livingstone. I am very proud of this team. We need to remember that. These are friends of mine. Congressman Bill Flores. Do you go to a lot of the games? He is been with me for a long time-Louie, right? We fight that fight. You'd better believe it. And a friend of ours also-a great attorney and a great talent-is Attorney General Ken Paxton. How you doing with all those cases? We do not let him lose any cases. The championship game will go down as one of the greatest in the history of women's college basketball. You would say that, I think, Coach, right?

dialogic

You dominated for most of the game and led Notre Dame by 12 points going into the final minutes of the third quarter. You'd better turn on this game. Then, one of your true star players-a great player-team captain Lauren Cox suffered a painful MCL sprain and had to be taken off the court in a wheelchair. After seeing such a vital member of the team go down, Notre Dame surged in the final quarter, tying the game with 16 seconds left. And you had an angry coach. As the clock ticked toward zero, Chloe Jackson hung back at half court, drove toward the key, and made a game-winning layup with less than 4 seconds remaining It was a play for the ages. And I have heard that from a lot of people. Then, the game almost went into overtime when Notre Dame was given two free throws with 1.9 seconds left on the board. Well, they do not have that. So tell me, how many of the-one was made? She missed the first one. She missed the first one. And I am sure you were very-you felt badly about her missing the first one. So she-she went one for two, and that was that, huh? But in the end, you won the game 82 to 81. And it was a thrilling victory that people will be talking about for many, many years to come. God is good. He has blessed these kids. That victory was the culmination of an incredible year. The Lady Bears had a stunning 37-and-1 season. What happened after Christmas? Stanford has a very good team as well. You beat your chief rivals, the Texas Longhorns, not once, but twice. And you scored nearly 1,000 more points than any of your opponents and blocked more than three times as many shots. You have left an enduring mark on college basketball history. And you will all be incredibly proud of what you have achieved in many years to come. You are going to be looking back, and you are going to be thinking about that incredible season, and you are going to be thinking about being in this incredible office, right? I have had the biggest people in the world come into this office, and they stop, and they look. Can you believe it? I have seen them, where they cry. I sort of say-you know what I say?

dialogic

With the Coca-Cola 600 coming up this weekend, how confident are you that the four days of racing in the Charlotte Motor Speedway can be done safely? Did North Carolina health officials learn anything or see any concerns when they attended the health screen process at Darlington? Our health officials have worked closely with NASCAR and the Charlotte Motor Speedway to ensure a safe Coca-Cola 600 this weekend. I know a lot of people are looking forward to this live sporting event on TV. We are glad that since NASCAR, North Carolina is the home of NASCAR, that we are going to be having this event here. NASCAR was very thoughtful in their plan for protecting employees and drivers and pit crews and people working on the cars from ENTITY. They submitted a plan to our Department of Health and Human Services. Also, local health officials work with them. Our local health officials gave them feedback on the plan. I think that they are ready to put on a very safe race. Obviously no spectators will be there, and that is because we know that gatherings together, when people gather together, that the risk of infection is so much higher. This is why we continue to have in our executive order the mass gathering ban. I do not know about the situation regarding Darlington. Do you know anything about it, ENTITY? About any feedback we got? From everything I have heard, things went fine there, but we will get any reports back to see if any changes are going to be made at the Coca Cola 600 from things learned at Darlington, but I do not have the answer to that right now. My question for you is about youth sports. The only part of the executive order that explicitly mentioned sports dealt with, we presume, NASCAR, because it mentioned for broadcast on television. We have been getting a lot of questions from little league administrators and other youth sports coordinators, swim team, travel, basketball, you name it. Is that in your opinion right now, a Phase Two thing, or is that a Phase Three thing or is it somewhere in between? Sports are so important to the formation of character, for fitness. I love sports. I grew up participating on sport teams all the way through high school, and I know how important they can be for the education of children. Start out knowing that this is something that we want to have happen as much as we can as we approach the school year. At the same time, we have to understand the presence of ENTITY. I do not think that we have all of the answers to those questions yet.

dialogic

I know that our staff is working closely with the North Carolina High School Athletic, and I think I will let ENTITY come up and make a few comments about that and what she has been doing on that front. As far as high school and other youth sports, we will be putting out guidance today on that. The reason you did not see it in the executive orders is there are no requirement, but we do have public health recommendations for folks, particularly that run the leagues and the facilities that host these sporting events. Our recommendations generally fall in one big bucket here is around contact sports. We know that contact sports like basketball or football, where you are in each other's personal spaces and you are breathing out respiratory droplets on other, we know that that is a higher way of spreading the virus as opposed to non-contact sports like tennis or baseball or individual sports like swimming or golf. Those non-contact sports, we said that that is fine to proceed from a recommendation perspective, but then we do have some guidance on how to do each of those activities safely. We are not recommending contact sports go forward, but for non-contact sports to go forward, but with a set of guidelines. Again, all of these are recommendations and we have worked, as ENTITY mentioned, with athletic associations across North Carolina. We hope to have that guidance posted today for folks to take more of a look at. This is ENTITY from Channel Nine. My question for you is, are you personally comfortable with eating inside of a restaurant this weekend? I have been the executive residence and I have been here at the emergency operation center. Yes, I would feel comfortable going to a restaurant, not saying that I am necessarily going, because I hope I can spend some time with my family this weekend. We are continuing to work on issues here and we will be working through the weekend. I would certainly want that restaurant to be following all of the personal safety rules and doing everything they can to prevent the transfer of ENTITY. We hope that that people will feel safe enough to go to our restaurants throughout the state. We hope that all of the restaurants continue to obey the rules. I think they will find that that is good business for them to do that. Wanted to ask you please, what conversations are you having with large entertainment or convention venues? Should they expect to be closed for months to come? And ENTITY, ..., is the state tracking the number of positives that are from asymptomatic versus symptomatic people?

dialogic

And I will let ENTITY address both of those, but our office is having conversations with these large event venues who obviously want to begin the process of having people back in them. These are the kinds of places that are much higher risk for ENTITY and transferring it from one person to another. So, obviously right now where we are in phase two of the executive order, we would not have any of these large gatherings, but we are certainly planning ahead for the potential of them being open at some capacity and are trying to figure out exactly what that would look like safety. And I will let ENTITY answer both of those questions if she would. So, let me do that symptomatic and asymptomatic. We do not track that for all of our cases, but what I would draw your attention to on our website and on our dashboard, we post surveillance data and I would direct you to that surveillance data, which does show some information that we are starting to collect about symptomatic and asymptomatic spread. As we have been talking about related to ENTITY, is that we are seeing a fair amount of spread of this virus by folks who do not have any symptoms, who are asymptomatic. That is one of the primary reasons why the three W's is so important. So, we are not tracking that for all of our cases. When we get information back from the lab, it is very minimal data. There are certain places where our public health team does more in depth study, particularly the surveillance work and prevalence studies. Those are the things where we are going to be able to get more symptom-based information and link it with some of this data. So, I direct you to our surveillance data to start. And I will just echo what the ENTITY mentioned about large venues. We know mass gatherings are places when folks, particularly when they are indoors, close together for longer periods of time and sitting, those are the places where they are higher risk. We actually know that North Carolina's first cases here in the state were seeded from a mass gathering up in new England. So, we know that those kinds of events have huge implications, not just for here in North Carolina, but can cross state. We definitely want to take precautions as we go here, and I think that we are trying to step through that.

dialogic

We want to look at our numbers and understand how are we doing with the easing of restrictions that we are putting in place that only just start this evening. Let us look at our numbers and we will see as we go here. But again, mass gatherings is one of the hardest because it does bring so many people together and has such a high risk of spreading the virus to so many people at the same time. What is the responsibility of restaurants, businesses, churches, anything not open from the public to report to the public and state about new cases or outbreaks tied to their establishments? I will let you handle that, ENTITY. There are certain industries that are regulated in terms of required to report to us. As was mentioned, the restaurant industry is highly regulated and we continue to do inspections, but in terms of reporting outbreaks, that would be two or more cases or reporting clusters, that would be five or more cases. Restaurants are not one of the industries that are required to report back to us. Now, we often do want those restaurants to get in touch with our public health departments if there is an issue, because we want to work in close collaboration with them to make sure that they are doing all of the right things to prevent further spread of the infection. But there are just a few industries that are required by law to report to us. Those are settings like nursing homes and again, that is why you see those reported on our website. I wanted to ask you about lawsuits. First, there was the suit on behalf of churches and then one that was going to be filed on behalf of salon owners. Now, our state representative for Beaufort County is organizing a suit that, if successful, would allow all businesses to reopen in phase two. What is your reaction to these legal challenges and they are affecting how your team's making policy? It would be irresponsible to remove restrictions all at once. Clearly, that is a situation that could result in a massive spike in ENTITY. And our entire effort here has been to slow the spread and to keep our hospital system and medical providers from being overwhelmed, and we have been successful with that. We are beginning to turn the dimmer light up to move into phase We moved into phase one first. Now, we are moving into phase two and we are slowly easing restrictions here while remembering that the vast majority of businesses in North Carolina can be open.

dialogic

Some of them are not because of the consequences of this pandemic, whether it be supply chain, whether it be employees that have to stay home. There are businesses that are not operating at full capacity for a lot of reasons. We did have the one lawsuit regarding houses of worship, where we have made accommodations for that in this order. And we believe that this is a smart way to move forward, to protect the health of North Carolinians while also trying to boost our economy. And that goes hand in hand, and we have got to make sure that people have confidence to be able to go out into the economy. And we are doing that and giving them that confidence by talking about things like Count On Me today, but also using the data to make decisions about when it is safe to do more easing of the restrictions. And when people know that that is what we are using to make decisions, not emotions, not politics, but science and data, people will have more confidence and not only will people be healthier but our economy will improve faster. This is ENTITY from WRAL. Today, Senator Berger sent DPS a letter demanding answers to questions and documents that reporters have been asking for for weeks. Do you intend to ensure DPS will provide those answers and documents, both to Senator Berger and the media? Well, first we want to make sure that all our employees at prisons and inmates are safe and we want to make sure that we abide with all of the public records laws. I have not seen this letter you are talking about, but I do have ENTITY here, our director of prisons, who can provide a response. This morning, I did receive a communication from Senator Berger's office and we will be sending a response back very timely. We look forward to the opportunity to answer all of the senator's questions. And quite frankly, we look forward to the opportunity to set the record straight. We look forward to the opportunity to set the record straight. Thanks ENTITY, can you provide more clarity on how craft breweries in the state are classified under the Phase 2 guidelines? The NC Craft Brewers Guild and others have said they do not believe brewery ... or brew pubs meet the order's definition of a bar, but there seems to be a lot of confusion around this as far as reopening, Our legal team and our departments will be issuing guidance on that this afternoon, regarding what establishments fall under what category, there will be a legal distinction there.

dialogic

It is important to know that we have worked very closely with the Restaurant Association, making sure that we put in place protections with this count on, on ... program that is going on right now. And we feel really good about where we are with our restaurants, but that clarification will be coming this afternoon. This is ENTITY from the Asheville Citizen-Times Newspaper. Since about April 10th, I have been reaching out consistently to Department of Employment Services, or security rather, asking them for this one metric, number of individual applications they either accept or reject every day. Through several exchanges of emails they have promised to give me these numbers, and then either those have never materialized, or they have cited vague concerns with timing that it was not right time to answer this. has tried to help me get those numbers, and we have not been successful so far. Is there a reason that you know that would not provide those numbers to the public? It is an important metric to show how quickly they will be able to dig themselves out of the backlog and one that they should have readily assessable if they are monitoring their progress. Thanks for that question, and I am not familiar with that number that you are talking about. They do post numbers of claims that were rejected and claims that have been paid. And right now about 585,000 people are receiving benefits of almost $2.4 billion. But this division knows, and I know that there are thousands of people who have yet to be paid. And every single family that has applied for unemployment benefits deserves a fair adjudication, and deserves to get paid if they qualify. I know that additional federal money has been activated today, so there will be more opportunities for people to provide unemployment insurance. But I will take those concerns that you have today and make sure that our communications people get up with you to provide that information to you, if that is something that can be provided under the Public Records Law, and it is supposed to be given out. But thank you for that question, and we will try to get that information to you. Thank you for taking my question, this is Derek with Fox 46. We have heard from gyms who have said that they have spent literally thousands of dollars to be ready on everything from air purifiers, hand sanitizers, body wipes, different protocols.

dialogic

Well, I guess you know everybody's anxious to talk about the economy. And I might preface this, Mr. President, saying some of the questions I am asking reflect some feedback that we get from our audience. Unemployment about 6.8 percent and not really changing very much; 25,000 manufacturing lost in the last year alone; people out of work who have never been out of work before and not the chronically unemployed. And I am getting a sense of maybe frustration, maybe even anger on the part of these people. And I wonder, what can you tell them? What can you tell them about the future? I can tell them we have been through a tough time. We have been through a recession. And I say through because technically I do not believe this country is in a recession. In this area, we have had some economic dislocations because of our success, the success in beating down a military threat that still exists, incidentally, but has enabled us to make some substantial cutbacks on defense. And so, what we have got to do is to incent this economy in the ways I have been proposing to the Congress for 2 years. And I am talking about capital gains, R&D, IRA's, enterprise zones; a transportation bill would kick the economy right now. So, we have got some answers. I have got a big problem with the Congress. And apparently the people blame the Congress. I will take my share of the blame. But we are going through a transitional period here, and we have got to help these people. who says you have no sense of leadership. You are frozen by insensitivity to what people are thinking. I am disinclined to respond to those kinds of personal attacks. I do not agree with that, and the American people, fortunately, do not agree with that. I think the American people see Congress as a major stumbling block, and he happens to be the leader of the House over there. And if they would go forward and do some of the things I have asked, I think we'd be far further along in the economy. But today, for example, we get a breakthrough on unemployment compensation, helping people whose benefits ran out. But we did it by beating back a lot of bad ideas that would bust the budget agreement and tax all the people that are working, the 94 percent of the people that are working. And I do not want to do that.

dialogic

And I have a big difference with the liberal ideology of the leadership in the Congress. Some cynics might say that you agreed to that unemployment benefit extension because the polls show you losing in popularity or losing in this rate of approval. Some cynics might say that, but they do not know the facts. The facts are, if the Democrats had done what they are willing to do now, we could have had a bill 2 months ago and should have. But they asked me to bust the budget agreement and further tax the 94 percent of the people that are working. And by standing up and saying, No, we are not going to do it that way. We are going to beat back the liberal idea that you can just keep on spending forever, that got us partially in the mix we are in now. And so, I had to stand up against it. But now, apparently, we have got a deal. But I do not think somebody will charge that because they can see the evidence of the legislation. You are familiar with this Times-Mirror poll that was taken that showed this drop in popularity. There was another statistic in that poll that is disturbing to some, that 39 percent of those polled are afraid that some member of their family is going to lose their job. And is not it very difficult for people to spend money to stimulate the economy when they live with this fear What do we do about that? What we do about it is passing the incentive programs that I have got up before the Congress. It is long overdue that they go out in my opinion. And then I will make some proposals at the State of the Union message and take my case directly to the American people. And I think they will support me. But even if they are not, I am going to have a program that I will say look the American people in the eye and say, Look, they have tried it their way. I have had to block some of the lousy ideas that the Democratic leadership has come up with. Now, you back me, and let us try to get it done. Interest rates are down, and today yet there is another very important credit card company came down on their rates. At some point when those rates are, people see the rates are where they are, I believe you are going to see confidence start back in housing or in consumer buying. And that is what the economy needs. But people do not have jobs, sir. They do not have any income. They cannot spend any money.

dialogic

They cannot borrow any money. There is 94 percent of the people that can stimulate the economy and help create jobs, however. Two Governors were in town here yesterday, both Republicans, Ashcroft and Edgar from Illinois. And they say we need a new bridge across the river, a very expensive bridge that has to be built. The rest of the infrastructure here could be helped. I was just wondering if you would approve or consider some sort of WPA kind of thing. If you will, that would stimulate the economy and also rebuild the infrastructure. Before we need a whole new WPA program, what we need is you are right, we need to do something about the infrastructure. And they ought to pass our transportation bill. You remember last March when I challenged the Congress to pass it in 100 days? Cannot you at least pass something that will help the infrastructure, help the highway system in 100 days? We might still get it before the end of this session. But that is the kind of thing we ought to do rather than go out and try to think of some big new way to spend money. We have got a good transportation bill that would do exactly what you are talking about. Now, whether it takes care of that bridge or not, I do not know. Not far from here, we have a McDonnell-Douglas plant, where you have already alluded there is a lot of unemployment because of defense cutbacks. Will you support the sale of F - 15's to Saudi Arabia that would keep employment there at a good level through the next several years? We have no requests, and I will consider all these requests when they come to me. We have no requests yet. There is an economist and this will be my last chat here who says that it is not high taxes and it is not high interest rates that are the problem, it is low wages, that people are not making enough money in this country because all of our manufacturing jobs have gone someplace else. Do you think there is any truth in that? No, I do not think there is any truth in that.

dialogic

ENTITY we are here with our eyes open, wide open, we understand that ENTITY use the media to build consensus and shape public opinion, why are you turning to KVIA and El Paso? Well, El Paso has a huge stack in the debate around trade. You know you have got 14 billion dollars worth of computer and IT services and products. It is a major hub of the El Paso economy, partly because of an outstanding University there. Texas and the United States benefit from exports. About a third of our economic growth during this recovery have been export driven. Folks are already selling stuff here, we want to make sure that there is a level playing field for US businesses and US workers. And we know that workers who are employed by exporting companies typically make about 18% more in wages than folks who are just focusing on the domestic market. So this gives me the authority to create higher standards in countries that are a part of the Asia Pacific Rim, that includes by the way Mexico. And a lot of people have concerns about NAFTA, well what this does is it actually raises standards and obligates Mexico in a way that it has not before to raise labor standards and working conditions for folks on the other side of the border that creates more of a level playing field for folks-folks here in the United States. I saw that beautiful brochure, and you have campaigns, even mentioned El Paso, but what do you tell El Pasoens who have a direct effect of NAFTA since 1994? What do you tell them to reassure them that this is a good thing for not only the border land but for Texas? Well I think it is important to recognize that there were real problems with some past trade agreements because they did not have strong enforceable labor and environmental provisions. Globalization and technology has sometimes made it harder for workers to have leverage in terms of getting raises and incomes. But the truth is that if a company is looking for low wage labor, they have already left, they are not here anymore. And if it has not been because they have moved overseas, its because technology replaced those jobs. The key now for us is to make sure that the jobs we are creating, the place were we have the advantage, in high skill, high value jobs, that we are able to compete on a world stage and we are able to sell our products made in America anywhere in the world. And that is what this trade authorization does.

dialogic

So it has a lot of safe guards that were not there before, but more importantly we cannot just shut ourselves off. If you are not happy with the fact that it is real easy to sell Japanese cars here,but a lot hard to sell them-to sell US cars over in Japan, then I do not know why you'd just settle for the status quo, let us get a better deal. And that is what we are trying to do. Through fast track, I think there is been a lot of concern. What we are voting on now is the authority, that every ENTITY previous to me has had, to negotiate. Now, lets say we get an agreement with all these specific countries that we are negotiating with, then for 60 days before I even sign the agreement, we will have to post every term of the agreement on a website. Everybody will be able to see it. Then I sign it. So they have already had 60 days to review it, and then there will be an entire debate afterwords before Congress has to vote on it. So by the time we are actually completed and members of Congress are taking a final vote on any particular agreement, probably four, five, six months of review will have been taken place. All we are taking about right now is the authority for me to negotiate these agreements. Well it is hard to negotiated, if you think about it, you are negotiating with ten other countries. If I do not have the authority to be able to just present an agreement that has been negotiated before congress, if it is subject to all kinds of amendments and each member of congress says Well I want a little more of this or I want a little more of that, you can imagine that you'd never actually get it done. So at some point you have got to be able to say Alright here is what we have been able to negotiate, you get an up or down vote, if you do not like it, if you think its the wrong deal for the american worker, you can still vote against it. But I am confident that it will be a good deal, because the truth is is that a third of our economic growth since the recovery has been driven by exports. The future for us is in this part of the world where, you know you have got the biggest population, a fast growing market, they are becoming wealthier, they are buying more stuff, they are eating better food, and they are a right market for us.

dialogic

ENTITY, you came to town, like Jimmy Carter, as an outsider, but the results have been vastly different. How do you explain your mastery of the legislative branch? Well, I do not know whether I'd have the nerve to use that word mastery as you did. But I had 8 years experience as Governor of California in which for about 7 of those 8 years both houses of the legislature were of the opposing party, and we managed to get a great many reforms in the welfare reforms that were so tremendously successful, things of that kind. But I came here with the same idea, that we are coequal branches of the government. They have got their problems, and it is a ease of common sense and consultation. And I have had 11 formal meetings with the leadership of the House and the Senate here. I have gone to the Hill 9 times myself, and I understand that for 18 months that is kind of a record. Senator Baker, the Republican leader, said that you have an instinctive feel for how the legislative branch works, and others who've come down to the White House say that you have also capitalized on your charm and your personality and your persistence. And I am wondering, did acting give you the training and the skills to sell your program to Congress? Well, I suppose we are all the sum total of everything that is happened to us and all the experiences we have had in our lives. So, whether that contributed something or not, I do not know. I must say this about getting along with the Legislature. I am deeply indebted to Senator Howard Baker and to Representative Bob Michel, the Minority Leader in the House, for the great cooperation and the help that I have had from them, the masterful job they have done in those two positions that they hold as leader of the Senate and Minority Leader of the House. Also, when I say consultation, I find that the job of keeping track of what is up there, of not pulling surprises, of letting them know we have a group in the administration here that is appointed expressly for the purpose of legislative strategy, to keep track of our own proposals and I try to remember that the ENTITY proposes and the Congress disposes to keep track of these things. If there is something that we feel we'd have trouble with and, perhaps, have to find ourselves in a veto position, we see that they are aware of that and what it is that puts us in that position in advance, and then keep in constant touch.

dialogic

And it does not hurt, every once in a while in keeping in touch, to say some thank you's. Well, you go beyond that, though, ENTITY, because, when you talk to people on the Hill, there is a common refrain that comes through. They all say, we go down to the White House, and Ronald Reagan is a terribly charming man. Is there a politics of affability which has served you well? Well, I do not know whether it is a skill or not, but I like people. And I certainly do not meet them with a chip on my shoulder. I think of it as the ENTITY is the only one in town who is elected to represent all the people. Their problems are that, as Senators, they are elected, yes, to represent the people of this country, but, also, to have in mind the particular interests of their State and the problems of their State. A Representative, again, represents all the people, but also has specific things that he is responsible for with regard to his congressional district. So, I know that. And I know that they, too, have problems. And sometimes it is going to weigh on them that something that they might be able to feel might have some benefit nationwide, but would be at a cost to their district or their State, that they cannot support, and so you try to reconcile all of those viewpoints. And that is difficult, because we know that there is a great deal of hypocrisy which goes on at all times. I mean, we know that Members will get up on the floor, and they will do a great deal of grandstanding, and they will talk about cutting Federal spending. And then they will be running down to the White House or running to some of the agencies, demanding that no cuts be made in my tobacco subsidies or my sugar subsidies, or the dam project that you want for back home, additionally. How do you deal with all that? Well, again, as I say, it is one in which you I can understand their responsibilities for those particular areas or projects of their district or State. And then I have to weigh that against the advantage or disadvantage for the whole country. And if it is one in which they must lose, that the national benefit outweighs the local benefit, then it is just a case of presenting that to them.

dialogic

So you see it, though, primarily as a matter of give and take on both sides, your side as well as their side. ENTITY, I think one of the things which surprised us a great deal in Washington was that you turned out to be a far better politician than a lot of us thought you would be. And people will tell me that you have a gritty, competitive side to your personality. Do you enjoy the attack and counterattack that characterizes so much of the warfare between Capitol Hill and the White House? Well, I have not thought of it as warfare. But in the last analysis, you have to come down on the side of what you feel inside is right, and then you do your utmost to convince someone who is in an adversary position at the time why you feel you are right and why you feel you must take the position that you do and have what you have asked for. But that is the motivating force as you see it. When you get into battles with Congress, obviously there is a matter of timing when do you call Senator X who is been wavering; when do you make the practical compromise; how do you decide that? How involved do you yourself get in the legislative strategy of the White House? Well, I must be honest and confess that it would be impossible with all that is on my plate to know the timing of things of that kind. And so, there I depend on, again, this group in the White House to tell me, because in other words, is something coming up in committee; is it coming to the floor; is this the time now; and that it is the best time to make the call before something comes to a vote. So, I depend on them for that. But do you feel that the experience you have gained as Governor of California, in dealing with the California Legislature, has enabled you to have this sense of timing, to know when to move, when to maneuver? Well, I think from experience, yes, you have some of that. You could do it too soon and memories are short-and it is worn off by the time the vote comes. But you also have to be constantly vigilant, always protecting your flanks, do not you? It is not totally, 100-percent favorable from the Hill standpoint,

dialogic

While everybody does talk about your affability and the fact that they come down they love to come down to see you, and they love the stories which you spin-you also get another side from some Members who say that you are not always strong on substance, that sometimes you are out of touch, and that sometimes you have too simplistic a view of things. How do you see yourself? Well, I know there are criticisms of that kind. I think now and then to use an anecdote saves a lot of words sometimes to be able to tell something that illustrates what it is we are trying to do. If you have some example, for example, of bureaucratic dillydallying or repetitive things that are not needed and you can tell that example, it saves several paragraphs of just trying to reason with someone in explaining what it is that you are trying to correct. And I find, though, it is not only that you come down at the moment of consultation-for example, something to do with foreign policy right now and the act that requires consultation with the Congress with regard to well, my announcement recently of saying that in principle, if it was essential to bring peace to the Middle East and to Lebanon, the use of American troops in a multinational force. But the other day, I did not wait they had not been invited, so there is nothing to go to the Congress about but since the word was out and was in the press and had been leaked that this had happened, I had a very fine meeting with the leadership of the Congress on this in explaining exactly where we were and so forth, in advance, a totally informal meeting that would precede, if the need arises, when I must go to them formally. And I understand that some of them from both parties went out and said it was one of the best meetings of that kind they'd ever had. But would you concede, ENTITY, by nature that you are the kind of political leader who sees the broad, general picture and is not that interested in the specifics or the detail of a lot of legislative matters? No, I think I brought that from the experience in California, that I know the importance of the detail. My job, of course, is to sell if there is a dispute there is to sell the overall goal that we are trying to achieve. And so I center on that. In talking with many Republicans at the Capitol in recent days, I find a common thread running through what they say.

dialogic

Most of them say we do not have that much quarrel with the ENTITY himself, but they do say that your agents and the administration's representatives on the Hill frequently are too arrogant, that they do not return phone calls, that they do not pay attention to the advice given from Capitol Hill, that they are insensitive to the political needs of Members of Congress. Are you aware of that? I think anyone can find some incident or some oversight or something and complain about it. But I have to again say that I became accustomed in the 8 years in California, and already here, that there is a tendency to invent a palace guard and pretend that the ENTITY is being protected from the palace guard, and therefore is not aware of these things. I know that in the hectic pace that now and then something can slip by. I have not heard anyone if there is anyone on our side that is being arrogant, I certainly want to know about it. But I do not know of anyone that is, and I have not had that complaint come to me. Now, I get the summary of all of the mail also, and it is a considerable reading problem, the congressional mail. And I see all those letters that are written and some with an individual or particular problem or some with a group of Representatives or Senators that is all put on my desk. So, you do not feel that the ship may be run a little too loosely, that perhaps you have delegated too much authority? And some of the Republicans at the Hill say there is a problem in that they will negotiate deals with the Democrats, and then White House officials and others will come along and undermine those deals. And this makes it much more difficult, that it affects their credibility at the Capitol. That, I think, is a part of the whole process that goes on. Let us take the economic program a year ago in the combination of the tax program and the budget reductions. We did not get all we wanted, and we had to in addition to not getting everything we asked for, we also had to take some things that we had not asked for. Now, that is a case of in the give and take in the legislature, of what they can get. Well, then, still I am a party to that also, and I have to speak up, or my representatives, if there is a price that we feel is too high. I cannot accept something that is totally contrary to the principle that we are trying to obtain in that program.

dialogic

And the same was true of this most recent budget bill. That was not the bill that I would have submitted and there were seven versions on the floor at one time, most of which were unacceptable, because they would not do the job, and they would not come close to the goal we are trying to achieve. But they did evolve one that I could call back and say, yes, this one I support. Now, I am sure that someone, say, on our side who has negotiated something and been willing to give to get something in there, can be a little irked if I do not agree that he was paying the right price. ENTITY, you have started to veto some of these bills now. Can we expect a lot more vetos in coming weeks and months? I said that. They have passed a resolution, a budget resolution. I realize that that must be followed by appropriation bills. If they ignore the ceilings that have been put in the budget resolution, which they can do, send an appropriation that would, if passed, have the budget go way beyond the bounds that were set, then I have to veto it. We are also into an election campaign, and it may be a tough year for the Republicans. Some of the polls indicate that. If the Democrats, for example, pick up 10, 20, or 30 seats in the House of Representatives, what happens to your conservative majority? How will that affect your program? Well in the House, you say? Well, if they only pick up 10, then we have won a great victory, because if you look back in history, the first off-year election the party that is out of power in the White House normally picks up about 40 seats. And so you start from behind with this bielection that is coming up. And I am just I'd like to pick up some more. I'd like to have more Representatives in there than we have. But I understand I would be bucking tradition and history. So, when you use that figure 10, that would be only about a fourth as many as traditionally you are supposed to lose. Tip O'Neill you and Tip O'Neill have mixed it up a bit. He says he likes the Irish side of you, that he wishes you were a little more Irish and a little less Republican. I will tell you, Tip and I, we get along fine.

dialogic

ENTITY, Colonel warned that as a consequence of American hostility towards Libya, his country could come even closer to the Soviet Union than it already is and that he may transform it into another Cuba. First of all, do you think he could achieve this goal? Secondly, would you prepare to tolerate it, and would this develop into something to be stopped? Well, I do not think there is any question but that the relationship between the Soviet Union and 's Libya has been very close. Soviet arms and weapons have been coming in there and stockpiled in there for a number of years. We are well aware of all of that. So, I do not see that there could be very much more than is already going on, and I do not think that the fear of something else or the concern about that should in any way make us unwilling to isolate Libya, as long as insists on backing terrorism the way he is. We cannot allow that to go unanswered in the world. I would not hazard a guess on that. It does not seem to me that it is in exactly the same kind of satellite position that Cuba is in. ENTITY, the Italian Government has decided to stop sales of arms to Libya and will not allow Italian workers to replace American workers. But it is also said that further sanctions should be decided jointly by Europe and not independently by-. Are you satisfied with this measure? Do you feel that Europeans would be able to do something together? I appreciate very much the fact that Prime Minister has made that statement about not replacing Americans; other states are following suit and saying the same thing But with regard to it being a joint decision, yes, we would be very much supportive of that. Those who have made statements that sanctions do not appear to work-well, one of the reasons is because for an individual nation to put forth such sanctions, when their trade or the things that they are trading is available from any number of other suppliers, indicates that maybe sanctions have not worked because we have not jointly gone together. And we'd be most pleased if we could sit down with the European community and together say to , We are going to isolate you in this way unless you will change your ways and give up this backing and promoting of terrorism. But do you feel that the measures that the Italian Government took are enough, or did you expect more?

dialogic

Well, except that his suggesting that on sanctions that there should be a joint discussion of whether this should take place-but, yes, I appreciate very much, as I say, what he has said so far. ENTITY, you said in your news conference that you had irrefutable evidence about 's involvement in the Vienna and Rome attacks. Now Mr. Andreotti said that he would want to see more proof. Next week you are sending Mr. Whitehead to Europe. Will he disclose to the European governments some of the evidence that you have? Yes, as a matter of fact, the State Department has released quite a document now. Perhaps some of you have seen it; I know it is available to everyone. Now, that document is based on unclassified information. To go further with classified information would run the risk of revealing some of our sources and so forth-the type of thing you do not want to do. But I am sure that Mr. Whitehead will be discussing with them this and whatever else can be released at that level to them about the information that we have. And there is not any question-a matter of fact, the unclassified document that you have makes it pretty evident that he is widely connected. We know for a fact that he is met a few times in just recent months with Nidal. Are you disappointed by the Europeans' attitude so far, and what kind of minimum cooperation do you expect from them? I recognize the problems they have in many of them with trade on a far larger scale than we have, but I have to say that I think there is a moral issue involved here with regard to a sovereign state that is so obviously resorting to terrorism literally against the world. And I am hopeful that, as they continue to consider this and learn more facts-and that is why Mr. Whitehead's mission-that we may find that we can come together on isolating this outlaw among the world's nations. ENTITY, could I ask what your reaction would be to the suggestion by Senator Howard Metzenbaum that perhaps the time had come to consider assassination. No, I was quite surprised at that. You do not join them at their level; terrorism in response to terrorism is not the answer. This is what I am hoping that our friends and allies will consider.

dialogic

Can we place trade, everyday relationships, ahead in value of the immorality that is inherent in people who will come in, as they did, into an airport and just simply shoot human beings that were there-men, women, children-with no regard to what participation those people have in anything that is going on? So, you may have anticipated that reaction and also the reaction of the Arab States. In that case, why did you feel that you needed to go on with sanctions? Well, for one thing, we were a little defenseless with regard to taking actions in response to this terrorism while so many of our citizens were there and potential hostages. So, we felt that we should untie our hands with regard to whatever action might be necessary in the future. And, as I say, I am hopeful that our allies might see that sanctions can be successful if enough of us do it. Sir, could I ask if the Europeans still show reluctance after Mr. Whitehead's visit and after your evidence that you have shown them and they take a position that you feel is not fully supportive, are you afraid that this might develop into a kind of split with the European allies such as developed over the Soviet gas pipeline? I think our relationship is too strong for this. It certainly would not make us turn on them, and I am quite sure that they desire to keep the relationship the way it is. I do not believe that there has ever been a time when the outright friendship between governments, or allies, has been as strong as it is now. ENTITY, the Austrian Government has, as recently as yesterday, made a point again that she has no information of Libyan involvement in the airport attacks. Since Austria, as a matter of principle, does not impose sanctions on any country except if it is in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolution, what would you expect the Austrian Government to do? Well, they have taken some positions, as you say, on a matter of principle, not just aimed at this particular incident. On the other hand, perhaps if we make available to them the information that does indicate the guilt of Libya, they might reconsider and realize that this was an assault, literally an act of war, against Austria. You have not yet made available all the information, I understand from your answer now, ENTITY.

dialogic

Well, as I say, Mr. Whitehead is going; and to some of our immediate allies, such as in the economic group, I have asked our people to send on my behalf, personally, to the heads of state this document that I was describing a little while ago. ENTITY, has threatened to hit American bases in Europe and the people around them. And Italy is particularly exposed in this case. Do you take the threat seriously? Have you done anything about it? Oh, I think we have to take the threat seriously. As I said in the press conference the other day, through our intelligence and our cooperation with other countries in their intelligence gathering, we have been able to abort 126 terrorist missions in the last year alone. So, yes, we take those threats seriously. But do you know anything about this particular threat? A matter of fact, he has not weighed his words carefully at all with regard to his feelings about us. Sir, in Geneva you spoke with Mr. about terrorism after the Soviet Union, itself, and its diplomats became a victim of terrorism in Lebanon. Did you feel after the summit that there was a certain common understanding between the superpowers concerning terrorism? And what do you make out of the recent Soviet reactions as, for example, today Foreign Minister Shevardnadze, who said that the American actions threaten Libyan sovereignty? Well, I have recognized that there are certain elements of propaganda that go on in this relationship. But at the same time, in my talks with Mr. , he expressed his repugnance, the feeling that he had of repugnance for terrorist acts. ENTITY, do not you think that the sanctions will have an impact, whether they are positive or negative, on the peace process now going on? I do not think that there would be a setback with regard to that peace formula. We are having some problems with it, with moving forward on the peace process. I have to tip my hat to King Hussein, who has been most courageous in trying to carry this forward. And I believe that we have established some basis of trust with many of the Arab States, and I do not think that that will be actually affected by this. But the reaction of the Arab States were not exactly positive at this time. Well, I think there was maybe some feeling that publicly they had to stand together in the world today as it is. But I have not seen any real evidence of a falling away of relationships with us.

dialogic

ENTITY, may I just ask you one more Austria-related question. What is your evaluation of the fact that Austria-which has very close connections with the Arab countries, which has tried to at least have some moderating effect on Yasser Arafat, has welcomed in Vienna a couple of years ago-that Austria was chosen by the terrorists as one of their sites for their attacks? What does this prove, or does it prove anything? The only thing I know is that I have had a report that Austria is holding in jail at least three members of the Abu Nidal group. And this, in itself, could be a reason for them taking an action in an effort to blackmail Austria into releasing its members. Sir, said at his press conference yesterday that you had concentrated on the activities of Palestinian terrorism-I think he used that word-and ignored the root causes for it. What would your reaction be to that? Well, again, Mr. 's speaking quite loosely and without any regard to the truth and the facts. We have said from the very beginning in the peace process that the problem of the Palestinian refugees had to be a part of the peace process and there had to be a resolution of that problem, and we still feel that way. ENTITY, economic sanctions against Libya would evidently hurt the German economy. The sanctions you have ordered do not necessarily hurt the American economy. If Chancellor , for example, would sit here with us, how would you try to explain to him that it might be worthwhile in the long term to pay a price? Well, as I say, I understood the problems of some of our allies and friends. Their trade is on a greater basis than ours. And a matter of fact, we are probably the lowest on the ladder of trade with Libya, and this due in part to the fact that we already had partial sanctions that were put in effect a few years ago. So, I am aware of that, and I know that problem. Is it a permanent trade that they can go on then-and we have seen the newsreels on television-the armed guards, the military forces, policemen carrying submachine guns and so forth at the airports and the various public buildings of countries such as West Germany and the others, the United Kingdom, all these other allies-can they see this as a fair trade? That in return for maintaining economic relations, that their countries must continue in this armed state with this sense of insecurity? What is going to happen to international travel?

dialogic

I have had any number of people that, just coming in casual contact with, have gone out of their way to tell me that they'd canceled any plans for travel, whether it is business or pleasure. Now, is this a fair exchange for retaining the trade? And remember, I do not think you should think of the sanctions as something that is forever. You think of it as something that says straighten up and fly right to Mr. , and then things will change. ENTITY, you said before that having taken the Americans away, you feel more secure about acting towards Libya. Are you assuming that your next step should be the use of force? No, as a matter of fact, you have me here; I cannot discuss things of that kind. I think Mr. would be pleased to hear my answer, but, no, I cannot answer that. I just say that I think that we should be ready for any contingency. So, when would you be satisfied that had ended his links with terrorism to the point where you could form a new, useful relationship and remove the sanctions? Oh, I think it would have to be more than words; I think by deeds alone. For example, in reading this material there, you will find he does engage in training and in financing-through accounts in many of the banks, including banks in Europe as well as the United States-terrorist movements. He would have to reveal by action that he has severed those connections and is no longer backing these terrorist groups. So, you would have to be satisfied there was no financial link, no training camps left in Libya- ENTITY, did you not have about I year ago, when you were in Los Angeles for the Olympic games, an approach by the Italian Foreign Minister about starting discussion with ? Did you not have any attempt either from Middle Eastern diplomats or European diplomats so that you can open a dialog? I am trying to recall, but I do know that there have been proposals of that kind. And before anything could be done, why, he would do something else that made it rather impossible. Do you think the Austrian Government could be helpful in trying to exert any moderating influence on? But as I say, I would think that if basically the Western World said, The line is drawn; we are no longer going to tolerate this activity So, again, you do not expect any problems with the allies in the next few weeks regarding the mission and so on?

dialogic

ENTITY, a lot of the local government officials who have been listening to you talk about your dream of returning responsibilities and resources are saying that they have received the responsibilities, and now they are wondering when the next shoe is going to fall. Will your 1983 budget have a definite source of revenue for the local government? Well, we have been meeting with them, and they have been here in meetings with our people at OMB and with Don Regan of Treasury about these. I know that there has to be some pain for them also. But during these 10 months, I have met with over 1,200 State and local officials, going from Governors on down through counties and mayors and so forth, legislators, on all of these. And we have a commission, as you know, appointed to see how we can turn back tax sources to the local government. This is what it comes down to. We wanted and asked the Congress for far more block grants than we got, a block grant where they can set the priorities within that and the method of using it. I'd learned as Governor that the categorical grants where the government ties the red strings to it and tape to it and says this is exactly the way you have to spend it and so forth results in a large administrative overhead cost. And we did not get all that we wanted. We did get a certain number of categoricals into block grants, but there still remains too many categoricals. And, then maybe this is more than you bargained for in this answer, but let me get it all in my dream is that the block grants are only a means to an end. And the end is that the government, which has preempted over the years so much of the tax revenue potential in this country, that we could turn back not only the responsibility to governments of tasks that I think they can perform better than the Federal Government can perform, but turn back tax sources so that the tax source itself goes to them. And they, therefore, then have the responsibility for collecting the money which they are going to spend for this by way of the tax. And this is not original with me. This was first suggested when the first proposal for Federal aid to education was made.

dialogic

Norris Cotton, then Senator from New Hampshire, looking at the amount of money that was suggested and the Federal Government was protesting that it meant no interference; just wanted to help by giving money and he said, Well, if that is really true, he said, why do not we turn the tobacco tax over to the States and the only restriction is that it be used for education? And you know how they defeated him? They said, Well, it would not be right to educate our children with a sin tax. So the Federal Government got its foot in the door and went on from there. Realistically, is it possible that there will be room in the fiscal 1983 budget for some turn back of a tax source to the States and local governments? We have a task force, as I say, working on that under Ed Gray, that is to work and see how this could be done, what the mechanics of it would entail, and whether we could do this at the same time we give the responsibility that goes with it. But it just seems to me that there is an awful lot of money lost, simply in the process of bringing it to Washington and then sending it back out there minus a carrying charge that comes off the top here in Washington. It would make a lot more sense if it was there in the first place. ENTITY, the Governors have suggested a sorting-out process of what the Federal Government should have and what the States and locals should have. One of the things they suggested is, as you know, that the Federal Government pick up most of the welfare costs and that they would then pick up more schooling costs and more transportation costs. Would you go along with that? And if not, what sort of sorting out would you like to see? What functions do you think the Federal Government should have on the domestic side, and what would you pass on to them? Well, we have, again, a Presidential commission that is made up of representatives of State and local government, only their own people on this, to sort this out. But I would think that we might start with the tenth article of the Bill of Rights, the 10th amendment, which says that the Federal Government those powers which are granted to the Federal Government are in the Constitution, and all others shall remain with the States or with the people.

dialogic

I think that over the years, probably coming out of the Great Depression and the traumatic experience of that, the Federal Government has gradually involved itself in areas that were never before thought of as the Federal Government's province. I am not sure that I agree with some of the suggestions they have made because let us take one, such as welfare, for example. The problems of a welfare client in New York City are far different than those from out in some small town in the rural areas in the Middle West, or something in more rural States. I believe that there is much more chance of waste and of fraud in trying to run it from the national level than there is in running it at the local level. Now, when we reformed welfare in California-and it was the most successful reform that is ever been attempted while I was Governor there we found that our biggest difficulty was getting waivers from the Federal Government in order to do some of the things that we felt had to be done. And when we finished, we not only over a 3-year period had saved the taxpayers of California $2 billion, we were able to give the welfare recipients the first cost-of-living increase they'd had since 1958 and average increase of 43 percent in their grants. And it was simply just the application of common sense and the fact that these are your neighbors there that you are trying to help, and you are better able to know what to do for them than Washington is 3,000 miles away. ENTITY, in your dream of the future of American federalism, what domestic functions do you believe should be Federal, as opposed to State and local responsibilities? Well, the first one, of course, is national security. That is the prime responsibility of the National Government. You would have me doing the sorting out that we have got a commission trying to do. But I would think that first of all, education-we built the greatest school system the world has ever seen and built it at the local level and the local school district level. And then the Federal Government got into the school business only by having preempted so much of the tax resources, and those tax resources that grew with the economy faster than something like the property tax, which is the principal basis for educational funding. Then they got into it through that money thing, having preempted the money, created the problem, and then they said, Well, now we want to help you.

dialogic

But in return for the help, they wanted to also regulate, and have interfered to a large extent. Welfare welfare is presently administered at the local level. It is, in most States, done at the county level. They have a county welfare department, but they do it under regulations imposed from Washington. And I can tell you, those regulations would line the walls of this room, and they are constantly changing. They have got employees at the county level that do nothing but try to keep up and inform the workers of what the new regulations are. Incidentally, we have already been pretty successful here with something of that kind. The regulations that govern HHS grants out there used to fill 318 pages of the Federal Register; they now only fill 6. Do you continue to oppose such things as increasing the gasoline tax and perhaps then giving the States a part of that increase? Again, you are getting to the area that we have not thought of nothing should be ruled out until you see if it'll work. I have spoken of such things as, What if the Federal income tax had a provision that x percent of that tax would not even come to Washington, would be retained in the States where it is collected for the States to use as they see fit? Excise taxes of the kind you have mentioned might be a way, as the example I gave of Norris Cotton when he suggested one. I think it would depend a lot on what is the revenue that is going to be gained, compared to the responsibility that you want it to cover. Or is it going to be a static kind of tax that might meet the situation now, but will not meet it down the road a ways? So, as of now, you would not rule out possibly increasing the Federal gas tax and giving some of that increase to the States? Oh, I will not rule anything out. Right now there is a sizable Federal gas tax, and most States like our own has a gas tax also. The Federal gas tax came into being for the Federal interstate highway system and I am wondering if that is ever going to be completed and it was supposed to be a temporary thing.

dialogic

ENTITY, towards the sorting out, there seems to be a new mood of great impatience among the Governors, combined with this year's budget situation, the growth of the entitlements, the defense budget, the tax cut, which the Governors perceive as being negative to the interest of the State and local government, which took a large portion of the cuts in the first round and then will be hit again by the 12 percent that you proposed in September. And as a matter of fact, they are so angry, the Western Governors' meeting in Scottsdale 12 days ago passed a resolution saying they would flatly oppose further cuts in the domestic discretionary budget proposed by your administration unless negotiation begins for a significant sorting out of functions between the Federal Government and the States. Could you give us your reaction to their position? I think most of those Western Governors are Democrats now- it might have had something to do with it. No, we recognize that we have to straighten out this financial situation on the Federal level. They will benefit, also, to a great extent by the fact that inflation will come down. Now that is got to be reflected somewhat in their costs. And as I say, we did not get all that we wanted with regard to the switch to block grants, and I am still going to continue striving for that because, again, the savings to them we can reduce the amount of money in a block grant to less than a categorical grant because of the savings in administrative overhead. Along the same line of sorting out, would you like to see a continuing role or a continuing relationship between the cities and counties and the Federal Government? You know, if we remember back some years toni think it was around 1914 or something, that was recognized in the fact that Senators were not popularly elected. They were chosen by State legislatures to represent the State. The House of Representatives represented the people. And then they made the change in the Constitution and changed it to make them all popularly elected. That was why in the whole bill of impeachment, the Senate had been picked to be the trial court and the judge, because they would not be bound by political considerations. And I hope that not just on these things of budget and so forth, that bring in the people that we have met with the 1,200 or so that we would have ongoing meetings. And I should, while I am here, have a department for that purpose.

dialogic

Do you think it is at all the responsibility of the National Government to redistribute resources between the States that are relatively well off and the States that are not? No, I think that is up to the States. My first reaction to that is that this is one of the the built-in guarantee of freedom is our federalism that makes us so unique, and that is the right of the citizen to vote with his feet. They will either use their power at the polls to redress that, or they will go someplace else. And we have seen industries driven out of some States by adverse tax policies and so forth. But ENTITY, on that very point, Senator Durenberger has made quite an issue in the last few months that some States are energy rich and some energy poor; that there is a transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars within this decade going from the energy poor to the energy rich States. So he asks whether it is in any way fair to expect the States and localities that suffer from a declining economy to provide the same level of public services, including new services devolved from the Federal Government, as to expect from those States that are flush with energy generated revenues. Well now, if you take it that way, just in energy, then could not you make the same argument with regard to the great agricultural States that provide the food for the people of this country? California, for example I hope it still prevails in spite of the fruit fly but California, over the years, puts about 40 percent of all the fruits and nuts and vegetables that are on the tables of America, puts them on those tables. I just think the marketplace regulates that. How do you feel about States putting fairly steep taxes on the resources that they extract from the ground whether it is food or minerals or oil and ship to other States and thereby in effect pass on that additional tax burden to the consumers in those other States. Well, you are speaking of severance taxes that come on. Well again, does not that balance out with everything else? I once asked an automobile manufacturer several years ago that what if they put out a price tag that incorporated all the taxes that were paid in the manufacture of an automobile, and put the price tag out there like the gasoline pump does x amount for tax, price of the automobile here and I said, Have you ever figured out what would it look like? And he said, Yes, we could tell you what it would look like.

dialogic

And he told me then of some model of car that they had that was about $3,800. And he said it would be $800 for the automobile and $3,000 tax. By the time you go to the market and buy an egg, there is 100 taxes in that egg; none of them put there by the chicken. In the Senate hearings that were held on the 5th of November, Governors Snelling and Busbee and Matheson made a point that the State budgets were in a condition of disarray and chaos because of the deep and the continuing Federal budget cuts. They pointed again to the inflation driven entitlements, defense spending, the extent of the tax cut, feeling that more should be seen in that area in terms of the next economies. And Governor Snelling, for the Governors, proposed a 2-year moratorium on further cuts and discretionary grants to the States and localities so they would have a chance to catch their breath, institute some rational budgeting and planning, perhaps start some discussions with you about more block grants and a sorting out of responsibilities. Could you give your reaction to the proposal of the moratorium for 2 years? I think it would be great if we could afford it. And I know that part of their problem which you did not mention there it was not just the change, it is the fact that the States all have varying budget or fiscal years and in many States were caught with their budget already determined. And then we, by doing something at the Federal level, changed their or ordered their estimates of revenues and so forth. And I just think our emergency is so great, I do not know how we could hold back and wait for all of this. What we have tried to do and now with these meetings, and with Rich 1 in continued contact with them, is try to not throw any surprises at them, but to keep them informed so that, for example, in planning the next budget, they will know what we are considering and they can make allowance that in case we get what we ask for, why, they will know what it is going to be like. ENTITY, the idea that Americans can, as you say, vote with their feet, if necessary, we have heard this from some of your other spokesmen in the government. If someone, say, in New York City were caught I am talking about in a pocket of poverty. I mean, what can you say to them? They have no money to move, really.

dialogic

I mean, in the best of all possible worlds, perhaps they could move. What do you say to them? How do they get out of this? Well, I never said that anyone tells them to move out. No, I know that. I think that as the people we have been and still are a very migrant people. I think Americans move more than anyone else. And in many instances, it is the job holder; something happens and he starts exploring for work some place else and maybe goes and then sends for the family. But whatever means they have to use they do it. I cannot see any way that the Federal Government could set up a program for moving people, because then you get into the element of would there be something compulsory about it, would the government decide that somebody had to move. And many people during the campaign I talked to people out in Ohio and Michigan there, and the great unemployment in the automobile industry, and you talk to someone who'd say, I am third generation in my family living here. So he is going to sweat it out until jobs open up and he can get a job there. ENTITY, I know that there are not many final decisions on the budget, but I assume that you are probably far enough into that process that you have some general idea where you stand. Is it going to be possible, for example, to hold general revenue sharing at its present level? Is it going to be possible to hold the new block grants at their present funding level, or are all of those programs at this point still subject to further reductions in fiscal 1983? The suggested 12-percent cut we did not see how and I think all of us recognize that this was going to be a blow to many communities, particularly the local level, not the State level, and again I'd seen it in our own State work. But we felt we had to go across the board, and we were asking other equally important programs to take that cut. You could not cut that. But it extended to every place, including the White House, and so we felt that we had to do it. Now realistically, the question is are you doing to get 12 percent and I doubt it-from the Congress?

dialogic

But again, as I say, we had to hope that if we get control of this economy at this end, that this might be a temporary setback to some communities a painful one, but the off-setting thing of reducing inflation and interest rates and, hopefully, having a surge in the economy would also begin to offset that. I think one of their concerns when they came here I have just met with a large group of both city and county and State officials, Governors, on this. And a lot of them, it was a fear they'd been led to believe that maybe we were phasing it out entirely. And I could assure them that there was no such thing in our minds, that the only way it would ever be phased out is if we had an alternate source, a tax that we were going to give to them for their own use. ENTITY, could the economic recession delay your plans for implementing some of the. I am not sure that it could, because I believe that in the federalism thing that we are approaching or approving, I believe that there is, in the long run, the reduction of government cost, as I say, the administrative overhead that is involved in the Federal Government doing so many of these things. This little case you know an example of what we are trying to cure is this one that, God bless him, Dick Schweiker grabbed a hold of after I made it public the other day of the little girl out in Iowa, and how quickly we made this change. To think that our government and I was wrong; I had old-fashioned figures when I said $6,000. It was costing between $10,000 and $12,000 a month for Medicaid, and even the doctors said she should be home, that she'd be better off at home, and it would only cost $1,000 a month at home. But that was more than her family could afford, so they could not take her home because they could not take over the cost. But here was the government shelling out $10,000 or $12,000 every month, when a silly regulation stood in the way of them getting it for $1,000 a month. Dick found a way to ignore that, make an exception to that regulation, but you wonder how many more eases are out there in the country like that.

dialogic

If the people in that community had been in charge of that program, you know darn well they would not have stood still for a moment for that cost differential. The opinion of the Governors and the local officials seems to be that deregulation is not going to get them where they need to be quickly enough to run their own operations properly. In the same Senate hearings I was referring to on November 5th, Governor Busbee, for example, expressed such distress about the current national and State and local fiscal dilemma and the lack of legitimate Federal reform, as the Governors see it, that he said it is time that we had a domestic economic summit involving the ENTITY, the bipartisan leadership of the Congress, and our, that is the Governor's leadership, so that we might gain general agreement on ultimate prime responsibilities for government programs, the budget targets we should all plan for, and the time frame in which we are going to reach these goals. It seems to be the Governors would like a much larger role not to be informed, but to be in at an early point of taking part in the decisions. Listen, I will buy that, because those Governors, and led by Busbee, were the greatest help in the world in our getting the economic package that was passed. But where we all were helpless was, we could not convince the majority leadership in the House, particularly, to give up Federal strings on so many particularly the block grants. So here was Busbee and the Governors who had helped us get this, and they were helping because they want the block grants. They know how it would benefit them. And we just had to stand here, and we were helpless to get them. Washington does not give up authority very easily. All I could say to them is, Look, I am going to continue to fight for them and please help. In a thing of this' kind, maybe they could, because there is a feeling among a great many people in the Congress well, let us say less a feeling than a lack of understanding-of the State problem. In fact, some of the Governors told me that at the Inaugural, when I made a statement to this effect, and they were the Governors were seated right behind many of the House of Representatives-they said that many of them, when I made that statement about the States' powers and so forth, turned around to them and mouthed, Over our dead bodies.

dialogic

And with that, I will be glad to go to your questions. Does the President know about, and approve of, this probe that is being announced by the House and Senate of the leak of the story about the CIA secret prisons -- I just saw the announcement on that. That was a decision made by the Speaker and the Majority Leader. I want to know what the President thinks about it. Well, we just found out about it not long ago. Well, I think that you have heard him express his views. The leaking of classified information is a serious matter and ought to be taken seriously. But this is a congressional prerogative, and it was a decision that was made by those leaders, and that is the way I would describe it. I just wondered whether the White House basically endorses this under the circumstances. It was their decision, ENTITY, is the way I would describe it. You might want to ask them questions about their decisions. Can you describe in some fashion what the presentation is that White House staffers are hearing for an hour, and what you are trying to accomplish? First let me step back and just talk about these so everybody in the room is familiar with what we are doing. The President takes the issue of the handling of classified information very seriously. And about a week ago, or just over a week ago, at Camp David, he visited with his Chief of Staff, Andy Card, and his Counsel, Harriet Miers, about some steps that we should take here at the White House. And the President directed that action be taken to provide refresher briefings for all White House staff -- that includes staff within the White House, as well as staff within the Executive Office of the President; that would include agencies that operate within the White House, such as the Office of Management and Budget and the Counsel on Environmental Quality and a number of others. The White House staff knows very well what is expected of them. They are expected to focus on the people's business and they are expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards. The President has made that clear for quite some time. And he directed Andy Card and Harriet Miers to do these refresher briefings for all White House staff. And they focus on general ethics rules, including rules governing the handling of classified information.

dialogic

So this week there will be eight hour-long sessions that will be conducted for all White House staff that has security clearances of any level, whether that -- well, all staff that has any sort of security clearance. And so there will be -- in these briefings, which started this morning, they are organized in an alphabetical way -- there will be a general overview of ethics issues, such as the standards of ethical conduct that are expected. There will be a discussion about classified information and the proper handling of classified national security information, how that material is classified, by whom, for how long, who has access to it, how the material is declassified, the badges that people wear to show their security clearances and so forth. The briefings discuss the security precautions that are in place for handling classified information such as the use of safes, or the use of specific locations to view classified information like the Situation Room here at the White House. It will talk about the proper disposal of classified information. It will talk about the handling of classified information when you are transporting that classified information. And the briefings will include the rules and laws relating to classified information and what is expected of people. So that is kind of a general overview of these briefings. Is there underlying concern that the highest ethical standards have not been observed by everyone? Well, this was -- the President made this decision in light of recent circumstances, that we should take this action. And that is why he directed the Counsel's Office to proceed with these refresher briefings. Every White House staffer has to go through ethics briefings when they come on to the staff. You also have to go through detailed briefings when you are provided security clearances -- before you are provided those security clearances you go through very detailed briefings. And next week there will be briefings conducted for remaining employees that do not have security clearances. So we thought that -- the President thought that this was an appropriate time to move ahead with these refresher briefings, and that is why he directed this course of action be taken. They are held over in the New Executive Office Building, or the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Is this all we should expect from the President, the ethics refresher courses, the extent of his reaction to the indictment? Well, as you are aware, if you are asking a question about an ongoing investigation, we are not going to have further say at this point while it continues.

dialogic

That is what the President directed us to do and that is what we are doing. I asked you a different question. Is this the full extent of what the President deems necessary, in light of circumstances? The President is always free to take the action that he feels is appropriate. Does the President think that Karl Rove lived up to the highest ethical standards -- Again, that is a question relating to an ongoing investigation. The President was asked about it last week; he reiterated what we have previously said. This is a serious matter, it continues, and what we are going to do is continue to cooperate with that investigation. And that is why I made the point, too, that all of us here at the White House understand what the expectations are. We understand that we are expected to adhere to the highest standards. We understand that we are expected to focus on the work of the American people, and that is what we do. Do you think that while Karl Rove is under investigation that he should retain his security clearance? I am just not going to talk about an ongoing investigation. You are asking that question in the light of an ongoing investigation; it is something that continues at this point. It just -- it strikes me as odd that, given the fact that Karl Rove has not been charged with any crime, he is merely under investigation, so far as we know, that the President's language about him and his confidence in him has been so distant, that he simply refuses to comment on his standing within the White House because of a pending matter. No, I do not agree with that. I mean, Karl Rove is continuing to perform his duties as Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor. We appreciate all that he is doing. So the President stands by Rove a hundred percent? Well, I have made it clear to you that everybody who works here at the White House has the confidence of the President. Does he stand by Karl Rove a hundred percent? the investigation relating to him is something that is ongoing, and the President has addressed that. forward-leaning as that, to say the President stands behind Karl Rove a hundred percent? I'd like you to clear up, once and for all, the ambiguity about torture. Can we get a straight answer? The President says we do not do torture, but Cheney -- Yes, but Cheney has gone to the Senate and asked for an exemption on -- Are you claiming he is asked for an exemption on torture?

dialogic

He did not ask for that? Are you denying everything that came from the Hill, in terms of torture? No, you are mischaracterizing things. And I am not going to get into discussions we have -- Can you give me a straight answer for once? Let me give it to you, just like the President has. He does not condone torture and he would never -- I am asking about exemptions. And he would never authorize the use of torture. We have an obligation to do all that we can to protect the American people. It is an answer -- because the American people want to know that we are doing all within our power to prevent terrorist attacks from happening. There are people in this world who want to spread a hateful ideology that is based on killing innocent men, women and children. We saw what they can do on September 11th -- and we are going to -- -- answer that one question. I am asking, is the administration asking for an exemption? I am answering your question. No, you do not want the American people to hear what the facts are, ENTITY, and I am going to tell them the facts. I am asking you, yes or no, did we ask for an exemption? You have had your opportunity to ask the question. Now I am going to respond to it. If you could answer in a straight way. And I am going to answer it, just like the President -- I just did, and the President has answered it numerous times. Our most important responsibility is to protect the American people. We are engaged in a global war against Islamic radicals who are intent on spreading a hateful ideology, and intent on killing innocent men, women and children. Did we ask for an exemption? We are going to do what is necessary to protect the American people. We are also going to do so in a way that adheres to our laws and to our values. The President directed everybody within this government that we do not engage in torture. Are you denying we asked for an exemption? ENTITY, we will continue to work with the Congress on the issue that you brought up. The way you characterize it, that we are asking for exemption from torture, is just flat-out false, because there are laws that are on the books that prohibit the use of torture. And we adhere to those laws. We did ask for an exemption; is that right? I just answered your question. The President answered it last week.

dialogic

What are we asking for? Would you characterize what we are asking for? We are asking to do what is necessary to protect the American people in a way that is consistent with our laws and our treaty obligations. Why does the CIA need an exemption from the military? David, let us talk about people that you are talking about who have been brought to justice and captured. You are talking about people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad; people like Abu Zubaydah. I am asking you -- No, this is facts about what you are talking about. Why does the CIA need an exemption from rules that would govern the conduct of our military in interrogation practices? There are already laws and rules that are on the books, and we follow those laws and rules. What we need to make sure is that we are able to carry out the war on terrorism as effectively as possible, not only -- What does that mean -- What I am telling you right now -- not only to protect Americans from an attack, but to prevent an attack from happening in the first place And, you bet, when we capture terrorist leaders, we are going to seek to find out information that will protect -- that prevent attacks from happening in the first place. But we have an obligation to do so. Our military knows this; all people within the United States government know this. We have an obligation to do so in a way that is consistent with our laws and values. Now, the people that you are bringing up -- you are talking about in the context, and I think it is important for the American people to know, are people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh -- these are -- these are dangerous killers. Did you ask for an exemption on torture? That is what I told you at the beginning. You want to reserve the ability to use tougher tactics with those individuals who you mentioned. Well, obviously, you have a different view from the American people. I think the American people understand the importance of doing everything within our power and within our laws to protect the American people. What is it that you want the -- what is it that you want the CIA to be able to do that the U.S. Armed Forces are not allowed to do? I am not going to get into talking about national security matters, ENTITY. I do not do that, because this involves -- This would be the exemption, in other words.

dialogic

This involves information that relates to doing all we can to protect the American people. And if you have a different view -- obviously, some of you on this room -- in this room have a different view, some of you on the front row have a different view. We simply are asking a question. What is the Vice President -- what is the Vice President asking for? It is spelled out in our statement of administration policy in terms of what our views are. no, it is not -- In terms of our members -- like I said, there are already laws on the books that we have to adhere to and abide by, and we do. And we believe that those laws and those obligations address these issues. So then why is the Vice President continuing to lobby on this issue? If you are very happy with the laws on the books, what needs change? Again, you asked me -- you want to ask questions of the Vice President's office, feel free to do that. We have made our position very clear, and it is spelled out on our website for everybody to see. We do not need a website, we need you from the podium. And what I just told you is what our view is. But ENTITY, do you see the contradiction -- Will the President pledge not to pardon Lewis Libby? I am not going to discuss an ongoing legal proceeding, and I am not going to -- No, I am not going to speculate about any matters relating to it. I was asked this question last week, and that is -- I am just not going to speculate about things at this point. So if he is interested in seeing the legal process continue, that means he will not pardon him, is that correct? That would interrupt the legal proceeding. that is going on relating to that individual. And we are not going to comment on it while it is continuing. And I am not going to -- certainly not going to speculate about it, as well. Should we take that to mean it remains a possibility? It should mean exactly what I said. ENTITY, before my question, I would like to thank the President and Mr. Andy Card for -- at the White House -- --. My question is that we do not know when the immigration law pending in the Congress will be through, but at this time, trafficking problem is a big one, especially the -- That is a high priority for this President to stop the trafficking in persons.

dialogic

especially from South Asia, and now India Globe is working a story on a woman from Bangladesh. They bring them here, and then they will not give them a green card and citizenship and work. And then they exploit them and rape them and use them. And then these women have nowhere to go, and they seek help from -- what they should do because there is no one to help them out. And then Immigration have them deported -- they said you have no legal citizen here. What the President is going to do -- Well, the President has made preventing the trafficking in persons a high priority, particularly trafficking that is involving sex crimes. That is something that he has talked about at the United Nations. It is an issue -- the trafficking in persons is an issue that he talked about just the other day when we were in Brazil, and the President was participating in a roundtable with some young professionals. And one of those persons was someone who worked for an organization that was committed to doing what they can to stop the trafficking in persons. It is not only the sex trafficking, it is also the trafficking in persons that are seeking to come to our country illegally, simply to provide a better way of life for their families back home, their children, because they know that they might be able to provide a better opportunity for their families back home by coming here to the United States. And you have these coyotes, as the President has talked about, who illegally smuggle people into this country. That is something that we are focused on when it comes to enforcing our borders. That is why one of the President's top priorities on his agenda is taking steps to strengthen our border enforcement and to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform, because people have lost their lives needlessly and we have got to do more to enforce our borders, as well as to move forward on other initiatives to improve our immigration system. We need a more practical and realistic immigration system to address these problems. At that meeting at Camp David, the President, Harriet Miers and Andrew Card talked about steps that would be taken -- does that mean there is going to be something in addition to the ethics -- No, he was -- thank you for the opportunity to talk further about that. What the President directed them to do at Camp David was to move forward on the action that is taking place this week and next week, as well.

dialogic

If you are asking me to limit the President's ability to make decisions that he deems are appropriate, I am not going to do that. But this is the action that directed to be taken last week at Camp David. ENTITY, is anyone in the White House exempt from participating in these and -- It is mandatory for all White House staff. That is who it is for. All White House staff is required to participate in these sessions. ENTITY, if that is a refresher course, the initial time that they took this class, was there any kind of statement that people had to sign saying they understood what they had been trained or taught -- Well, when you go through the clearance process to receive classified clearances, or security clearances, you have to sign information and you go through detailed briefings. And is there a portion in this training that says there are consequences if you do not follow the rules, if you do not follow these procedures -- As I indicated at the beginning, everybody at the White House understands what is expected of them. And they acknowledge that in a statement? No, I am not going to get into talking about everything that has to be signed when you go through a classified briefing on security clearances. But you do have to sign forms when you attend those briefings. Saying that you understand the rules and the regulations, and that type of thing, and the training -- that you have taken this training and you understand the consequences? Well, this is relating to classified security clearances, and that is all I will say on it, and it is what I just said. First of all, on the Australian arrests, has the U.S. coordinated with them, and is this as a result of Australia's cooperation with the United States? That is something that you ought to direct to Australian authorities. They have talked about it and you can check with our law enforcement authorities to see if there is any additional information. I will be glad to check on that, as well. Are you pleased with Australia's actions? Do you have any comment? Well, they are a good partner in the global war on terrorism, and they have been pursuing individuals who seek to do harm to their citizens. And they have announced some of the steps that they have taken and some of the results of those steps. I do not have any additional information on it at this point, other than what they have said publicly, Connie.

dialogic

On the French riots, do you have any message for the French, and for Europe, in general, in light of these riots? And should Americans be encouraged to go to France and other countries which might -- Well, Americans should always look to the guidance put out by our State Department in terms of travel, wherever they are traveling. It provides information regarding any security precautions or warnings that they should heed. And beyond that, you ought to talk to France about the steps they are taking to address that. ENTITY, the President was asked about an apology to the Wilson family, and he did not answer it. And if -- I am wondering if that non-answer goes to the fact that an apology would be under review right now from the administration. It goes to the fact that there is an ongoing investigation and legal proceeding, and we are not going to have any further discussion of it while it is ongoing. So are you saying an apology would compromise the investigation? I do not know how I could make it more clear, in terms of our response to questions relating to an ongoing investigation. You said that Chief of Staff and the White House Counsel were involved in planning the ethics classes. Karl is a pretty hands-on guy; how involved was he in the planning -- The Counsel's Office is the one that is responsible for conducting these ethics briefings. Richard Painter is our ethics counsel, and he is the one that conducts these briefings. So he was not involved at all in setting it up, as Andy Card was? No, this was the President talking with Andy Card and Harriet Miers at Camp David, not this last weekend, but the weekend before. So then you talk about having them in light of circumstances, is that a tacit acknowledgment that classified information has, in fact, been leaked? It was the way I described it. You said that we can direct questions to the Vice President's Office and, presumably, the Vice President is operating with the full knowledge of the President, in terms of lobbying to get an exemption for the CIA. What ENTITY was asking earlier was the exemption for torture, and that is just a flat-out false characterization. the question was -- -- the President has already made it clear that we do not torture and we do not tolerate torture.

dialogic

In fact, if you look at -- let us go back and just step back from this and let us look at some of what has happened that has put a stain on the image of the United States abroad. And that was what happened at Abu Ghraib. Well, what our military has done is acted to hold people accountable for their conduct, and to take steps to prevent something like that from happening again. They went through some 12 major investigations or reviews and looked at these issues. And now they have been implementing steps to prevent something like that from ever happening again. Now, I welcome an opportunity to talk about this -- uninterrupted, I might add -- to talk about the importance of what we are working to do in the global war on terrorism. And the American people I think ought to hear what we are working to do, because the President takes very seriously his responsibility to do all that he can to protect them. Hang on, I am coming to your question. We saw what happened on September 11th, when some 3,000 innocent men, women and children were killed in New York, in Washington and in the fields of Pennsylvania. The President made a decision on that day that we were going to go on the offensive, that we were going to use all available tools to bring to justice those who seek to do us harm before they could carry out their attacks. And he also made a commitment to work to change the status quo in the Middle East by spreading freedom. For too long we thought we had stability and peace in the Middle East, and we got neither. It became a breeding ground for terrorism. And that is why it is so important what we are working to achieve in the broader Middle East. That is why it is so important that we succeed in Iraq, because Iraq will be an example to the rest of the Middle East, just like Afghanistan is, in terms of that. And in terms of what Congress is considering -- or, at least the Senate, in terms of this amendment -- the President answered this question just the other day. He talked about how we would continue to work with members of Congress to address this issue. What is the White House -- -- there are already laws on the books, but not only laws, they are also values that we very much adhere to. But we have an obligation to the American people -- How do values blend with what you said earlier, which is what is necessary ?

dialogic

If what is necessary needs to be done, does that -- does what is necessary necessarily fit in with our values? What is necessary within our laws and within our values. So that means not torture -- You bet, the President is going to act to do what he can to prevent an attack from happening on the American people. That is what the American people expect. But we are going to do so consistent with our laws and values, and we have made that repeatedly clear. So what is the Vice President lobbying for? And is he doing it on behalf of the White House, or is he operating independently? Again, I just said we are going to continue to work with Congress. Why do not you answer the one question on exemption? Does the Vice President's Office have -- I mean, you blanket -- covered the White House. The Vice President's Office is under the Office of the White House. I am not going to get into all the discussions we have with members of Congress. If they want to add additional information, you are welcome to contact their office, as well. You are at that podium. We need to hear from you. are the Press Secretary for all -- There is a statement of administration policy that has been put out. And -- but let us talk about what this issue is relating to. This issue is relating to the protection of the American people and making sure that the President of the United States has the tools he needs to be able to prevent attacks from happening, and to be able to stop those terrorists who still seek to do us harm from carrying out their attacks in the first place. the Vice President wants torture? What is the Vice President doing? I just told you. I am not going to let you -- you are mischaracterizing what this is about. It is clearly in the statement of administration policy. April, look, you can keep showboating for the cameras, but we have made clear what our views are. Thank you -- I showboat well, thank you -- Let us be honest about it. I want an honest answer from you. And you got it in the statement of administration policy. You got it in the statement of administration policy. There are already laws on the books that cover these issues. I will be glad to provide it to you. And I just told you what it is. I just told you what it is.

dialogic

ENTITY, the Department of Defense is revising -- ENTITY, the Department of Defense is revising its policy guidelines for the treatment of detainees for the war on terror -- Vice President Cheney's office, his senior staff, had advised the uniform military lawyers working on this document that the White House is opposed to including any reference to Geneva Convention terms for humane treatment of detainees. Vice President Cheney's spokeswoman told us last week that that -- that the Vice President is pursuing the President's policy in holding that -- I do not think -- who told you the first part of this? Let us talk about where that came from, first of all. Well, the -- what are you talking about? The Vice President's office I do not think told you that first part of that, and you made it sound like the first part of that was from the Vice President's office. I do not think they told you that. Well, you are declaring that as fact. published reports in The New York Times and The Washington Post -- we are reporting, as well. So the question is, what is the President's view with respect to this Department of Defense policy guideline on the treatment of -- We have great confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld and the Department of Defense to move forward on steps to prevent something like what happened at Abu Ghraib from happening again. And that is what this comes out of, because, as I pointed out earlier, the Department of Defense undertook some 12 major investigations and reviews -- and/or reviews. They also pursued a number of cases against individuals who were responsible for these abuses, and they pursued people and held them to account. That is what the United States does. And that is the way we show the world what we are all about. We are about values and laws, and about adhering to those values and laws. And that is what we will continue to do. So they have taken steps, and are continuing to take steps, to put in place some policy directives that will build upon what they already had in place. Is the President opposed to any reference to Geneva Convention or adherence to the Geneva Convention, directly, in this Department of Defense policy guideline? Well, in terms of the guidelines, those are guidelines that the Department of Defense will issue. And so I'd encourage you to talk further with them about that.

dialogic

Anytime there is something like this, there is an interagency process that goes on, and a number of people are involved in providing input into that process. That is part of the interagency process; that is a healthy part of being able to come to these decisions. And so that is what you are talking about. The President has no view? We support the action that the Department of Defense has taken, and have great confidence in the steps that they are taking to address these matters. In terms of views that we express, we do that through the interagency process. Reuters, AP, and The Los Angeles Times all reported yesterday that the IRS has threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California, because its retired rector, George Regas, implied to parishioners before the 2004 election that Jesus would not have voted for George W. Bush. Is it possible that the President supports any such attempt to muzzle the pulpit? I do not think the President gets involved in decisions that are made by churches. Since President Bush supports the creation of a separate Palestinian state to halt Muslim violence in Israel, will he now back the creation of an autonomous Paris-stinian state to quell violence in France? The President has made very clear what his view is when it comes to the Middle East peace process. And he was the first President to articulate a policy of two states living side-by-side in peace and security. We are making great progress there. In terms of what is going on in France, you need to talk to the French government on how they are working to address those matters. That is a matter -- internal matter to France. Senator Grassley has come up with the idea that even though the administration is opposed to windfall profit tax, that major oil corporations voluntarily hand over 10 percent of their vast oil profits to help pay for -- to help direct this money toward low-income housing, or home fuel heating expenses. there are some congressional leaders who have talked about the importance of investing in our energy infrastructure. That is a goal that the President shares. We all have a responsibility to do our part. That means the federal government, it means businesses, and it means consumers. We need to do more to invest in our energy infrastructure and address the root causes of high energy prices. Now, energy prices have come down some in recent weeks, but there is action that we need to continue to take.

dialogic

That is why we acted with Congress to pass a comprehensive national energy strategy. That is why we are working with Congress to look at ways we might be able to expand refining capacity. And the private sector has a role to play in all this, too. And all of us need to do our part. Would that include the private sector having some responsibility in helping to alleviate the cost of home heating? What you are talking about -- in terms of the goal that members of Congress are talking about, which is that we need to do more to invest in our energy infrastructure, that is a goal we share. And we are going to continue to work with them, and we are going to continue to urge all people, in the private sector and in government, to do their part to help address this issue. And Secretary Bodman spoke some about this last week. With respect to the ethics classes that are being conducted, do they address the grounds for dismissal? And the reason I ask that is because, as you know, the President changed the ground rules on the grounds of dismissal by saying initially that those involved will be dismissed, and then later saying, only those that are convicted will be dismissed. Does that mean that -- Everybody at the White House serves at the pleasure of the President. And I have made that very clear to you. So I would not agree with your characterization. Do you ever say to yourself, I have had enough of this, Austin is really nice this time of year? I am glad to help the President implement his optimistic agenda for the American people. And I enjoy working with the people in this room most of the time. How about today? Sure, I enjoy it because -- an important topic was raised at the beginning of this briefing, and I am glad to talk about it. And I understand that. They are just trying to do their job. But there are important -- there are important points that need to be made to the American people. There is a reminder that we will continue to make to the American people. We remain a country that is engaged in a global war on terrorism. And it is important that we do everything within our power to go after those who seek to do us harm and to prevent attacks from happening in the first place. And this President will do that. But he will do so in a way that is consistent with our laws and our values.

dialogic

But when we are talking about this issue, let us have an open discussion about it, and let us talk about the type of people that we are talking about who have been brought to justice, people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, people like Binalshibh. These are people that were operational planners involved in carrying out attacks that led to the death of some 3,000 Americans. And the President is determined to prevent something like that from ever happening again. And he is going to do his part to make sure he fulfills the obligation he has to the American people, which is to do everything he can to protect them. So I welcome the discussion. ENTITY, who would be the highest ranking staffer whose attendance is required at these briefings? Yes. He is an assistant to the President. He participated in the meeting this morning, absolutely. In fact, I think a number of assistants to the President participated in the first meeting, even though it was for A through B. And I think C through D was later, and E and F later, and then more over the next couple of days. So they cut one? But all the assistants to the President were ones -- Would you make Richard Painter available to us? Would you make Richard Painter available to us? Well, he is conducting these briefings for staff. This is relating to classified information, so you can understand the nature of the briefings, and I do not think you have security clearance. But he could tell us what the guidelines are for what people are -- He is not talking about classified information in the briefing. Well, we will be glad to provide you public information that is on general information guidelines. But information related to classified security briefings, some of that information, by nature, is involved just for people with security clearances. And I am not aware that you have one at this point. He is not talking about classified information in the briefing. He is talking about the guidelines. He is talking about guidelines. No, it involves talking about classified matters -- You may have noticed that The Washington Post, The Financial Times have had reports about a human rights lawyer in Beijing whose office was forced to close down because he wrote an open letter to the Chinese leader asking them to stop the persecution of Falun Gong spiritual movement in China. Since President Bush is going to Asia next week, do you think this is some issue he will address? Well, the President had some interviews earlier today.

dialogic

I would encourage you to look at those interviews because one of the topics he talked about was human rights. That is something we talk about publicly and privately as a high priority for this President. We have always made the promotion of human rights and human dignity at the top -- always put it at the top of our agenda. And that is what we will continue to do. And, yes, the President will continue to talk openly and candidly with leaders he meets with, including when he goes to China, about the importance of freedom of religion for instance. Tomorrow the President and Mrs. Bush look forward to welcoming His Holiness the Dalai Lama to the White House. He is met with him on a number of occasions before, and they will talk about issues relating to Tibet. And you bet when the President goes to Asia next week, he will continue to talk about the importance of promoting human rights and human dignity for all. We have an obligation -- all of us in the world have an obligation to speak out about human rights. And where those human rights are being undermined, we have a right to speak out about them in places that the -- in countries that the President has talked about before. One question he got earlier today was relating to North Korea and the treatment of people in North Korea. And he talked about that at length. There are negotiations underway today to further liberalize the Open Skies agreement between Canada and the United States, essentially the fifth freedom which would allow, in this case, Canadian airlines to compete for the lucrative domestic international market. Considering the state of the American airlines, five now seeking bankruptcy protection, does the President believe that this is the right time to open up this market to -- That is something we continue to discuss with Canada. I do not have the latest update on any of those discussions. We have been in South America for the last few days focused on some other matters. But I am sure that if you direct those questions to the appropriate agency, they can provide you an update, in terms of that. But in general terms, considering the state of the American airline industry right now, does the President believe that it is a good time to start changing -- Well, the American airline industry is going through a transition. They have been going through that transition for some time because of the changing economy that we live in, and the changing nature of their business.

dialogic

It is ENTITY with ENTITY. I have been dancing a little bit, ad-libbing for an hour and a half, but I know you are a busy man. I owe you one. You know what I could use, a hug right now is what I could use. If I could give you one of those, I'd do that, too. I asked the callers to give me some suggestions for you. And do I have to call you ENTITY? In all respect, it is a very personable show. Can I call you something that-- Call me whatever you want. No, you tell me what to call you. I want it to be comfortable here, because, ENTITY, that puts me at a disadvantage, asking you sports questions. You do not have to call me anything. Could I call you ENTITY? You can call me whatever you want. It is fine with me. What are you doing with all those jerseys that you get when teams come to the White House? Believe it or not, I save them all because I am such a big sports fan. And when I get out of here, I am going to put them all together and decide whether to either display them or take turns wearing them. But I actually save them all. Have you put one on in the White House and maybe, you know, tossed a football or played basketball in them? Yes, I played-I shot a few baskets with a Kentucky jersey they gave me the other day, not very long ago. Now, what is the one event you would want to go to that you have not been to, sporting-wise? That I have never been to? I'd like to go to a Super Bowl, and I'd like to go to a college championship, now that the new football system is in. You have not been to the Super Bowl? I have watched a lot of them, but I have never been to one. You can come with ESPN this year; it is in Atlanta. You know, I have seen some great events. I went to the NCAA championship game in Arkansas, one in '94, and that is the only time I have ever been to that. And then I went to-I saw the women's World Cup finals this year when we beat China with the overtime, with the kickoff at the end, which was stunning. It was one of the most exciting athletic events I have ever seen in my life.

dialogic

Set the scene in the White House when you are watching SportsCenter. When I am watching it? Well, I watch it all the time, you know. I am either in the kitchen, where Hillary and I and Chelsea, when she is home, we have our meals in a very informal atmosphere in the kitchen when there is no one else there, or I am upstairs in what is called the Solarium; it is up on the third floor, and it is a big kind of sunny room. And I watch TV there at night, especially when my brotherin-law or someone else is staying with us. Normally, I am watching SportsCenter either around dinnertime when I come in or late at night when I come in from an event and I am sitting, visiting with other people. Have I said anything stupid on SportsCenter that maybe you wanted to criticize or critique me? Feel free; you can take a shot at me. I think as long as I am in office, I should be criticized but not return the favor. Everybody in America gets to criticize ENTITY. That is part of the privilege of being a citizen. The President of the United States, joining us on the ENTITY Show here on ESPN Radio. You are a part of this new markets incentives. I know you are in New Jersey. The Nets are donating to the city of Newark, which I think is great. Do you see teams that do not give back to the community enough? The taxpayers build these stadiums, and maybe they do not get something in return for promoting and supporting their teams. Well, let me put it in more positive terms with regard to the Nets. I think that taxpayers finance these things because they enjoy having professional teams in their communities, because they believe it brings their communities some prestige, and because they think it generates a lot of other economic activity. But I think that the opportunity for a professional sports team to give something back to the community on a scale far greater than anything that is happened so far is embodied by what the Nets are doing. I mean, this is a stunning thing that Lew Katz and Ray Chambers are doing with the Nets. And now, you know, they are partners with the Yankees, and so they have got a smaller percentage of the overall joint operations are going into community operations not only in Newark, New Jersey, but also in the Bronx, where the Yankees are.

dialogic

Here are these two guys that have made a lot of money, and they are going to dedicate almost 40 percent of the profits of this sports franchise to redeveloping the economy and developing the lives of the children of Newark. We finance these stadiums. Should taxpayers finance the stadiums if we do not have any say on when those teams can leave? The practical answer to that is that stadiums cannot be financed unless the political leaders support it. And so the political leaders should decide on the front end, I guess, what they expect out of the teams in return for financing the stadium. You know, it was interesting when Bob Lanier was mayor of Houston-one of the most popular mayors Houston ever had and a very able man- he let the football team go to Tennessee because he did not want to finance a new stadium. So it is not like-nobody makes these communities do these things. They make their decisions. And I think if they think there ought to be some conditions or some requirements, that ought to be discussed with the owners in advance. We are going to have Casey Martin on in a little bit. But you being the avid golfer that you are, do you think that having a golf cart is that much of an advantage in-I mean, the outcry over Casey Martin using a golf cart, did it surprise you? And where do you stand on that issue? I am for him. I am solidly behind him. The only way it would be an advantage to him, in my view, is if he really did not have the debilitating condition in his legs that he has. So I think that to me, this is like the golf version of the Americans with Disabilities Act, you know, where we try to make the workplace accessible with people with disabilities who are otherwise just as good at work as all the rest of us. Well, Casey is just as good at golf and better than most of the rest of us, and he is got this condition, which will probably shorten his career, anyway. And so I think that the proper course is to say, Look, we cannot let everybody start running around the golf course. We do not want to change the nature of the game, but this man has a unique disability which prohibits his walking around but does not prevent him from being a terrific golfer, and for however many years he can be competitive, we think we ought to give him a chance.

dialogic

I agree with you, and I just thought that it was interesting, the outcry from everybody. What they are worried about, I think, is all the people who have to be the keepers of the tradition of any game or any club or anything else, they are always afraid that when they change any rules, it is a slippery slope, and pretty soon the whole character of a contest will be altered in ways that are not good. But I just do not think that that objection holds water here. I do not know Casey Martin. I have had some limited contact with him, but he seems like a terrific young man. He could have folded his tent in the face of his physical disability. He could have sat around feeling sorry for himself. And instead, he shows up every day, and he is obviously got a lot of courage. And I think that we ought to support that. I think that is in the finest tradition of the sport. So to me, it is not a difficult question. But I sympathize with the people who have the responsibility of preserving the traditions and the heritage of the game. I sympathize with them, but I just think all this resistance has been wrong. Can I ask you one final question, aside from the question I just asked you? Who is the number one athlete of all time, in your mind? The Sports Century countdown of the top 50 athletes-who would you vote for number one? Now, I know you released kind of a top 10; maybe it was a top 5. But if you were going to single out one athlete, who would it be? I believe the athlete in the 20th century that made the most important contribution was Jesse Owens, because he won the multiple Olympic gold medals in the face of Nazi Germany and against Hitler's racial theories. So I think he was both a great athlete who had to show an extraordinary amount of personal courage, and he did something that was of profound significance at the time. I think the most talented-physically talented athlete that I ever saw play, I think it would be a toss-up for me between Michael Jordan and Willie Mays. Once you get up to that stratosphere, then if you pick out somebody and-I always thought Jackie Robinson, to me, signified greatness as an athlete and what he overcame.

dialogic

So there is no secret that you were a jet pilot, so how would you describe, in a couple of sentences, where is Latvia on your radar? Latvia is a country that has made a big difference in important alliances to the United States, like NATO. I remember when the moment came when the countries-the new countries admitted to NATO came into the room that I was sitting in, and I turned to the person I was sitting next to and said, It is going to be so important for NATO to have these fresh-these new countries, because they bring a fresh outlook to freedom. These are people that have recently lived under, in this case, communism and realized what it means to be free, and it is going to be very important. And so Latvia is very high on my radar screen. Well, first of all, she is a straightforward person. I like straightforward people. You know, sometimes in politics you get people who say one thing and do not mean it. When she tells me something, she means it. She is very engaging and-very intelligent woman, and I admire her courage. And so I am fond of her. You are good friends with President Putin of Russia. Do you think you could encourage him to admit historical justice and admit the fact that Baltic States were occupied in 1940? Well, yes, I have talked to him about this issue when I was in Slovakia. I said, Do you understand, friend, that you have got problems in the Baltics? You have got problems with Latvia because people do not like-the remembrances of the time of communism are unpleasant remembrances, and you need to work with these young democracies. I explained to him that it is best that there be democracies on his border, free countries, because free countries do not attack people; free countries listen to the hopes and aspirations of people. I do not know if I have made any progress with him or not, but I have made my position clear. I understand there is a lot of people in the Baltics who are-you know, do not view the celebration in Russia as a day of liberation. Frankly, it is the beginning of a difficult period, and I can understand why some leaders of countries are not going and some others are. That is a decision each leader must make, and I respect the decision of each leader. But I am going to continue to speak very forcefully on freedom and liberty, and the Baltics are a great example of free countries.

dialogic

But you are pretty certain that Russia is at least on the right path of development, and it does not pose any threat to its smaller neighbors? And one of the reasons a relationship with the United States and Latvia is important is, is that we will stand with Latvia if a larger country tries to intimidate the people. That is the great thing about Latvia joining NATO, is that the security is now guaranteed by not only the United States but all members of NATO. Listen, the President and I speak about relations between Russia and Latvia quite frequently. And my job at times is to send a message that says, Look, treat your neighbors with respect. Free nations, democracies on your border are good for you, whether that be, by the way, in the Baltics or in Ukraine. I have sent that same message-or Georgia. In other words, countries that are free countries are countries that will be good neighbors. What can we do about Belarus, because a couple of hundred miles from where you are going to be visiting there sits the last dictator of Europe. What can we do about it? The last dictator of Europe is right, and we will continue to pressure Belarus and call upon the world, the rest of the world, the free world-not the whole world but the free world-to work to give the people of Belarus a chance to live in a free society. When I was in Slovakia I met with people of the freedom movement. I know when Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, was in your part of the world, she met with leaders of the freedom movement too. President Putin must understand that a free Belarus is in his country's interest. The sentiment of anti-Americanism, as I am sure you know, is quite widespread in Europe and in my country as well. Do you think there is any degree of your own fault in the fact that this sentiment is on the rise or-- I made some hard decisions. You know, going into Iraq was a hard decision. I can understand people not liking that. But I would hope people in Europe would understand that freedom is not owned only by Europeans, that people around the world deserve to be free. And as we act in our self-interest to fight terrorists, as we work to make sure terrorists cannot get weapons of mass destruction to cause great harm, that we will also work to free people.

dialogic

ENTITY, your meeting with Mr. Gorbachev is only 3 weeks away now; everyone regards it as crucial. What do you hope, personally, to get out of the summit with Mr. Gorbachev? Well, I think that the most that we could get out is if we could eliminate some of the paranoia, if we could reduce the hostility, the suspicion that keeps our two countries particularly but basically, should we say, the Warsaw bloc and the West at odds with each other. And while I know everyone is looking toward and emphasizing a reduction in arms this is vital and important, but I see reduction in arms as a result, not a cause. If we can reduce those suspicions between our two countries, the reduction of arms will easily follow because we will reduce the feeling that we need them. Shultz is off to Moscow on Saturday to do the groundwork for this summit fully aware, as he himself admits, that there are major differences between the United States and Russia. Apart from the paranoia which you talked about, what are those differences as you see them? Here are two systems so diametrically opposed that-I am no linguist, but I have been told that in the Russian language there is not even a word for freedom. And two nations everyone's referring to as the superpowers obviously are competitive and our philosophies and our ideas on the world and that probably cannot be corrected, but we can have a peaceful competition. We have to live in the world together. There is no sense in believing that we must go on with the threat of a nuclear war hanging over the world because of our disagreements. We do not like their system; they do not like ours, but we are not out to change theirs. I do feel sometimes they are out to change ours but if we could get along. They have a system of totalitarian government and rule of their people; we have one in which we believe the people rule the government. And there is not any reason why we cannot coexist in the world. Where there are legitimate areas of competition, compete; but do it in a manner that recognizes that neither one of us should be a threat to the other. When Mr. Shultz talks to Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Shevardnadze, what will be the topics of discussion? Will it be trying to find some groundwork, for example, on arms control and reduction?

dialogic

No, I would think that probably the main point in their meeting ahead of the major meeting is to establish an agenda. In other words, Secretary Shultz would tell them the things that we feel are important to be discussed. Minister Shevardnadze will probably have a list of things that are on their agenda, so that we can plan and neither one of us be caught by surprise at the summit with having a subject come up that had not even been considered. So, I think that this is probably the main, useful purpose that will be served by their getting together. Is there any chance at all that the discussions Mr. Shultz has in Moscow might enable you to produce an initiative before you go to Geneva? Right now we are in the position of studying what we call a counterproposal. In Geneva, where our arms control delegations are meeting and have been meeting for a long time, we have had a proposal for a reduction of nuclear weapons. Now, for the first time, the Soviet Union has made a counterproposal. We have put that in the hands of our people in Geneva now for them to look at; we ourselves are studying it. There are some elements in there that are well, we have called them seeds to nurture, things that we look at and say, Yes, these could very easily be acceptable. At the same time, in their proposal there are some things that we believe are so disadvantageous to us that they should be negotiated and some changes made. And with all of this going on, I am not in a position to say now at what point will we make our reply to their counteroffer and state where we are or where we differ and so forth, and then, that should be the area in which negotiations would take place. Now, whether that does not happen prior to the summit meeting or whether our team in Geneva tables it before they adjourn for their recess that is coming up, that I cannot answer; that still remains to be seen. But I must tell you, ENTITY, that Mrs. Thatcher has already told the leader of the opposition and she said this today in the House of Commons-that you were going to come up with an initiative before Geneva. Well, I am personally hopeful of that, also. So, she is right that that is what we are striving to do.

dialogic

Now, can we look at some of the things which obviously are going to affect Geneva, but particularly I'd like to talk to you about the Strategic Defense Initiative and how important that is going to be. Can anything be achieved in Geneva without some understanding from both sides in this area? Probably not, but I think there can be an understanding when they hear what we have in mind. I believe that this is something that is probably one of the most momentous things in a century. We have a team that, within the terms of the ABM treaty, is researching to see if there is a defensive weapon, the possibility of a defensive weapon that could intercept missiles before they reach their target, instead of having a deterrent to war, as we have now, which is both sides with massive weapons of destruction nuclear missiles and the only thing deterring war is the threat we represent to each other of killing millions and millions of citizens on both sides. Now, if we can come up with a defensive weapon, then, we reach and we know that we have it, that it is there, that it is practical, that it will work then, my idea is that we go to the world, we go to our allies, we go to the Soviet Union, and we say, Look, we are not going to just start deploying this at the same time we maintain a nuclear arsenal. We think this weapon, this defensive weapon we would like to make available, and let us have the world have this for their own protection so that we can all eliminate our nuclear arsenals. And the only reason, then, for having the defensive weapon would be, because since everyone in the world knows how to make one, a nuclear weapon we would all be protected in case some madman, some day down along the line, secretly sets out to produce some with the idea of blackmailing the world, and the world would not be blackmailed because we would all be sitting here with that defense. I have likened it to what happened in 1925, after World War I all the nations got together and outlawed poison gas, but everybody kept their gas masks. So, we would have a world with some nuclear gas masks, and we could sleep at night without thinking that someone could bring this great menace of the nuclear threat against us. When you say, ENTITY, you'd go to the world once you had proved satisfactory to yourself that here was a weapon which would actually work. If you go to the world, would you include Russia in that?

dialogic

I think that what could be safer than today everything is offensive weapons. It is the only weapon I know of that is ever been developed in history that has not brought about a defense against it. But what would be safer than if the two great superpowers, the two that have the great arsenals both of us sat there with defensive weapons that ensured our safety against the nuclear weapons and both of us eliminated our nuclear missiles. But the Russians, presumably, would have to make their own SDI. You would not offer it to them, would you, off the shelf? And I think this is something to be discussed at the summit as to what kind of an agreement we could make in the event. I would like to say to the Soviet Union, we know you have been researching for this same thing longer than we have. We wish you well. There could not be anything better than if both of us came up with it. But if only one of us does, then, why do not we, instead of using it as an offensive means of having a first strike against anyone else in the world, why do not we use it to ensure that there will not be any nuclear strikes? Are you saying then, ENTITY, that the United States, if it were well down the road towards a proper SDI program, would be prepared to share its technology with Soviet Russia, provided, of course, there were arms reductions and so on on both sides? In other words, we would switch to defense instead of offense. That, of course, is quite a long way away this idealistic world of yours, if I may say so. We have had some good breakthroughs in our research so far. And is the research going so well as to suggest to you that a defensive weapon of this kind is really practical now? As a matter of fact, very leading scientists who are involved in this have said that, that they can foresee us achieving this weapon. Oh, I think we are talking a matter of years. Let us say, though, this is not going to come about, as you say, for a matter of years. And Mr. Gorbachev, as we all know, is very worried about SDI. Would you be prepared to negotiate on SDI at Geneva? Well, negotiate in the sense of coming to an agreement, which we are bound by in the future for whenever that weapon happens bound to this matter of worldwide sharing.

dialogic

Gorbachev, I think, accepts the idea that you could do nothing about research because it is not really verifiable; testing, on the other hand, worries him. Now, does testing, in your view, come within the ARM treaty? I think that we are well within it and within a strict adherence to the treaty, although you could have a more liberal interpretation of the treaty that I believe is justified. But rather than have any debate or argument about that, we are staying within the strict limits of the treaty. Do you think the SDI is likely to be a stumbling block at Geneva, bearing in mind what Mr. Gorbachev thinks about it, these reservations? I think it should be one of the most helpful things in erasing some of that paranoia I mentioned or that hostility or suspicions between us. You have a horror of nuclear weapons and that is why you say that SDI is a good thing. If we had SDI worldwide, would there still be nuclear weapons available? I would not see any need for them at all. I would not know why a nation would strap itself to invest in them. But, as I say, there is always the possibility of a madman coming along, and, as I say, you cannot eliminate the knowledge about building those weapons who might seize upon them. We have had an experience in our lifetime of a madman in the world who caused great tragedy worldwide. ENTITY, can we turn now to some of the things you said in your U.N. speech? One of the central themes you brought up there concerned those areas of regional conflict, such as Afghanistan, in which the Soviets have a hand. Are you going to bring these up with Mr. Gorbachev? Well, I would think that this is very much a part of trying to rid the world of the suspicions. They claim that they fear that we of the Western World threaten them, that somehow we are lying here in wait for a day when we can eliminate their method of government and so forth. If you look back to the end of World War II, our country, for example, absolutely undamaged we had not had our industries destroyed through bombings and so forth-and we were the only nation with the bomb, the nuclear weapon. We could have dictated to the world; we did not . And today those erstwhile enemies are our staunchest allies in the NATO alliance.

dialogic

They, on the other hand, have created-well, they have gone through the biggest military buildup in the history of man, and it is basically offensive. Now, we, therefore, claim we have got some right to believe that we are threatened; not the other way around. Now, to eliminate that suspicion or that fear, if they really want to live in a peaceful world and be friends and associate with the rest of the world, then, we need more than words. And the deeds could be the stopping of their attempt to either themselves or through proxies and through subversion to force their system on other countries throughout the world. Do you think you were being a bit optimistic in your U.N. speech? You proposed the idea that these areas of regional conflict should be discussed. But, of course, you took them much further than that. What you actually said they should be discussed up to the point when they are just eliminated. Now, do you think you are being optimistic when you recognize the fact that the fellow sitting opposite you is Mr. Gorbachev, and he is tied up in these things. But on the other hand, he has some practical problems in his own country, some problems of how long can they sustain an economy that provides for their people under the terrific cost of building up and pursuing this expansionist policy and this great military buildup. And if we can show him that he can resolve those economic problems with no danger to themselves, convince him that we represent no threat, then I could see us as I have said before, we do not like each other's systems, maybe we do not like each other; but we are the only two nations that can probably cause a world war. We are also the only two nations that can prevent one. Will you want to talk to him about human rights? You have probably heard that Mrs. Yelena Bonner has just been granted a visa to come to the West so she can get medical treatment, but she will have to go back to Russia, of course. Do you see that as a propaganda move by the Russians? Or is it a step along the road? I would like to feel it is a step along the road, and there needs to be more. I do not think, however, that the human rights thing should be a kind of a public discussion and accusing fingers being pointed at each other and their claim that this is an internal matter with them.

dialogic

But I think it should be explained that some of these violations well, first of all is the violation of the Helsinki pact. This was one of the main reasons why we are signatories to that pact is this agreement about not separating families and so forth, allowing people freedom to choose. What they have to understand is that in some of the major areas where we could seek agreement, we have a better chance in our type of society of getting the approval that we need from our Congress, from our people of some of these agreements if these issues, these human rights problems are not standing in the way. And maybe I can point that out. ENTITY, there have been fears expressed in Europe that arms control will be pushed right down the agenda at Geneva in favor of issues like regional conflict and human rights, which we have been discussing. Can you give an assurance that that is not the case? But, as I have said, that follows another thing. The effort is to arrive at an understanding about our ability to live in the world together and at peace and the other that can follow. Nations are not suspicious of each other because of their arms. There is a feeling, ENTITY, that Mr. Gorbachev has seized the initiative in Europe. European leaders have undoubtedly been impressed by his performance. Thatcher, as you know, said that he is someone she can do business with. What do you think about it? Well, I do not know him as yet, but he seems to have shown more of an interest in the people, the man in the street, than other Soviet leaders have. He has expressed great concern about the economic problems and the improvements that he feels that should be made there. And he is younger and more energetic than some of the more recent leaders have been. And I am optimistic by nature, but I have to be optimistic that he is looking at the entire picture. On the other hand, I do not think we should believe that he is not dedicated to the principles of their system, to communism and so forth. Do you think he is , in terms of youth, energy, if you like, intelligence, and obviously a powerful grasp of public relations do you think he is a pretty formidable Russian leader to deal with compared with his predecessors? On the public relations thing, he did far better with some of our own press than he did with the French press on his recent visit when he was there. I cannot judge him on that. Sometimes public relations are made by those reporting, not by those doing.

dialogic

Can I take one or two other areas with you, ENTITY? We know how you handled the Achille Lauro affair, but does that carry the risk of alienating friendly governments? Well, I know, and yet we felt that we had no choice in the matter if we were going to prevent those terrorists from suddenly, as so many in past have, disappearing into the rabbit warrens that abound the Middle East, Lebanon and so forth; and therefore they would escape being brought to justice. They had murdered a man, a helpless individual. We felt we had to do it. But I am pleased to say, now, that I think the flurry is over and that both Egypt and Italy want to continue the warm relationship that we have had. ENTITY, would you do it again, even if it meant, say, violating international law? Well, it actually did not violate international law. But terrorism is always with us. And I think that you'd have to judge each case on its own as to the need to bring terrorists to justice; the need to convince them that terrorism is not going to be successful, it is not going to make governments, like your own or our own, change their policies out of fear of terrorism. If that ever happens, then, the world has gone back to anarchy. So, you would have to judge that against how much you would be violating international law to achieve your goal. But if it was necessary, I take it you would. And you would pursue terrorism as hard as you can, as often as you can? It is been very frustrating for a number of the things that have happened, and I have been taken to task by members of the press that I talked, but I did not take action. The terrorist blows himself up with all the innocent people that he also kills at the same time. So, there is no way you are going to punish him. You now seek to find well, who does he belong to? What group brought this about? But also, even if you do get some intelligence that indicates it is a certain group, they are in some foreign city and you say, Well, how do we punish them without blowing up a neighborhood and killing as many innocent people as they did? And this has been our problem up until this last time when we had a very clear-cut case. ENTITY, this may be a difficult question for you to answer, but what would you most like to be remembered for by history?

dialogic

The United States economy I remember attending my first economic summit in Ottawa, Canada and that was just in the spring of the year, my first year here and I remember our friends and allies, the heads of state of the other summit nations there, beseeching me to stop exporting our inflation and our recession to their countries in this world of international trade and all that we were exporting bad economic situations to the rest of the world. The Soviet Union again, as I say, through surrogates or on their own-there was Afghanistan, there was Ethiopia, South Yemen, Angola, Nicaragua, and they had forced governments of their choosing into all of those countries. We have the greatest recovery, economic recovery that we have ever had in our history. It is not we who are exporting inflation anymore. Inflation is down from those double-digit figures well, for the last 5 months it is only been 2 1/2 percent, and none of our trading partners can match that . We have created almost 9 million new jobs over these 5 years with our economic recovery. And in the world abroad, the Soviet Union has not stepped in or created a government of its kind in any new country in these 5 years. It is not moved under one additional inch of territory, and I just like to feel that maybe some of the things we did here the American people, their spirit was down, they had heard talks, prior to our arrival, that maybe we should give up our high expectations, that never again could we look toward the future as we had in the past, lower our expectations, and so forth. Today we have a volunteer military, we exceed our enlistment quota every year. We have the highest level of education in the military, in this volunteer military, that we have ever had in our history, even in wartime drafts. The American people have rallied, and with a spirit of voluntarism, voluntarily stepping into problems that once they just let go by and thought somebody in the Government would take care of them. And as I say, the economy last year some 600,000 new businesses were incorporated in our country. I would like to be remembered not for doing all those things I did not do them; the American people did them. All I did was help get government out of their way and restore our belief in the power of the people and that government must be limit ed in its powers and limited in its actions. And that part I helped in I'd like to be remembered for that.

dialogic

ENTITY, I'd like to start by asking you, you frequently have referred to the tremendous impact that Franklin D. Roosevelt had in reshaping the country, and in your first year, you have made a tremendous impact in starting to reshape the country. And I wondered how you judge your impact in the first year and also what sort of legacy you hope to leave. Well, I believe that we have started government on a different course, different than anything we have done in the last half century since Roosevelt began with the New Deal. And that is the recognition that there must be a limit to government size and power and that there has been a distortion of the relationship between the various echelons of government Federal, State, and local. And I think that we have the most to do with yet, because the higher levels of government are reluctant to give up authority once they have it. History shows that no government has ever voluntarily reduced itself in size. So, in effect, you know, we are part of government. We are trying to bring about that change. Now, this does not mean that we do not recognize government's basic responsibilities, the things it is required to do. And with all of the criticism of national defense, one of the top priorities that is listed constitutionally for the Federal Government is the defense of the Nation, the national security. That prime function has been one that has been sadly neglected in recent years. But I think the very fact that we were successful in getting the biggest single package of budget reductions ever adopted, the single biggest package of tax reductions and ongoing that have ever been adopted, has set us on a course of trying to bring back the idea heralded by all our Founding Fathers, and reiterated so often by leaders in government. It is that government must stay within its means. And we have not achieved that yet. But by cutting the rate of growth in government more than in half or about in half, we are trying to bring those two lines closer together the line of the normal increase in revenues that comes from the tax structure, and the growth of the country and the economy and the normal increase in government spending, which would reflect the growth in the country. Today, you have to add to that inflation has been responsible, because government's expenses go up, too, with inflation, just as the individual's do. Now, I know I am getting very lengthy with this answer, but let me just add one thing. And you were a Democrat once.

dialogic

The ENTITY, Yes had adopted deliberately a policy of planned inflation. And they heralded it as the New Economics, that was their term. And they said that a little inflation was necessary to create prosperity. And they claimed that it could be controlled, that you could have a small percentage that we could easily absorb, and growth would take care of it and people's earnings would stay ahead of it. And I used to proclaim in my mashed potato appearances that it was like radioactivity, that it was cumulative. And you could not continue it without it one day getting out of control. And one day, it got out of control. So, could you just sum up very quickly, though, what do you hope your legacy will be as ENTITY? I hope my legacy will mean that we restore the balance between the levels of government, meaning that we restore to local and State government functions that are properly theirs and belong there, and restore to them the tax sources necessary to support them, which have been also usurped by the Federal Government; that we set a policy that I would hope could be legally imposed, barring an emergency such as war, that the Federal Government, like the various States, must live within its means. And a policy, before I leave, that we could begin, no matter how small, paying installments on the national debt as a signal to those who will follow, that the national debt is not something that we will either default on, as all other governments in the past have done when it got unmanageable and too big that we'd not default on and that it will not hang over, forever, succeeding generations. Let me just interject there before I ask a question. Would you favor a constitutional convention to propose a balanced budget? Well, constitutional conventions are kind of prescribed as a last resort, because then once it is open, they could take up any number of things. I have always thought that the regular procedure that is prescribed first, of a constitutional amendment Would you like to see Congress pass a constitutional amendment? There must also then be some limitation on the percentage of the people's earnings or the gross national product that the government can take in taxes, because you can always balance your budget just by taking more money away from people. So, that would not help any. I remember once that Milton Friedman said that the problem is the cost of government, not just necessarily the deficit.

dialogic

And he said he would prefer this was a time when the budgets were approaching $400 billion and so forth he said he would prefer an unbalanced budget of $200 billion to a balanced budget of $400 billion, because 400 would be taking more money from the people than it should. I was going to ask you a question about the balanced budget. We took a poll, and it showed that three times as many people would rather have a balanced budget as increase defense spending or even income tax cuts. And you seem to be moving in a direction where your top priorities are a defense buildup and also tax cuts, and the balanced budget is not quite so high anymore on your priority list. Well, George and without appearing to be personally critical or anything of your profession is not this perhaps a reflection of what is constantly thrown at the public, publicly, that and all of us are responsible. We all talk about the evils of deficit spending, and just as I have finished talking here we want to get back to where we stay within our means. But I also promised all during the campaign and I do not know who took that poll, who they talked to but I remember if you remember, I used to do Q and A an awful lot, and I remember when repeatedly the question would be asked, if the choice came down to restoring our military security or balancing the budget, which side would I come down on? And I said I would come down on the side of restoring our defenses, our national security. And inevitably, I never in fact, I never gave that answer to an audience that I did not get enthusiastic applause. So you feel you have a mandate to do that. But what I do think lately is when you start talking about all the cuts and everything, and then usually the military budget is treated as a swollen thing and out of proportion and so forth actually, it is not . We are spending a smaller percentage of the gross national product on national defense than we used to do years ago in what were considered normal times. But we are playing catch up. We are restoring something that was allowed to diminish and deteriorate. I think that the people hear that, and the people have heard so much about that their troubles are due to the deficit in part they are. It is harder to explain that reducing the tax rates can result in even the government getting more money, that the tax cuts are not just simply to relieve an individual of tax burden.

dialogic

They are to restore a balance in government and private spending that will increase productivity, broaden the base of the economy, help provide the jobs for those people that are unemployed. And when that all happens, as it did in the Kennedy years, the government itself ended up getting more money. We should talk tax rate reductions. And it is a difficult thing to explain to people, that those reductions in rates for each individual are intended to result in more people paying taxes and better earnings so that government will get a normal percentage increase, even though the individual is better off. Do you see any circumstances where you might want to delay or cancel these tax rate cuts of last summer in order to balance the budget? As a matter of fact, I will tell you, I firmly believe and I have the support of a number of economists on this that had we not been forced to compromise, had we been able to make these tax cuts first of all, we asked for 30 percent, not 25, over the 3 years. We had to take that cut to get it. The second thing was we had asked for it to be retroactive to last January 1st so that the people would have been having a tax cut immediately retroactively, in fact. And we then first had to compromise down to July last July lst and finally it ended up October 1st, the beginning of the fiscal year. So, in effect, the actual tax cut for 1981 is only about 1 1/4 percent. Well, that is not exactly a stimulant to the economy that we had in mind. Now, these people, these other economists and, as I say, I myself believe that had we not had to compromise, very possibly we would not have had this recession. So, rather than push it back or postpone no, the thing that I would yield to if it could practically be done would be to move it forward. But politically it might be impossible, because if we once open that subject, that we know is what will happen. Let me jump in here with another impact type question. When you ran against Carter and during the debate, you asked people to judge his impact on their lives, and you asked them to ask themselves whether they were any better off now than when he first became elected. Do you think it is now fair to ask people whether they are better off than when you became elected? Yes, but I was asking at the end of 4 years. Now they are comparing me to 1 year ago and with a recession.

dialogic

I think by actual figures I could prove that they are better off. First of all, the interest rates are over five points lower than they were when I took office. The inflation rate is down to single digit, when it was almost 14 when I took office. Their rate of taxation is now lower than it was when I took office. So, I would suggest that if the people actually looked at the figures but I think in a recession it is easy to find people out there who say, No, I am not, and particularly if you ask around Washington, because we have drastically reduced the size of government. There are fewer government employees and one of them, if he has not found another job would say. ENTITY, in your first year you had extraordinary success in cutting the rate of growth in Federal spending. Would you favor, to hold down the deficits, beginning to cut into those entitlement programs, social security and such, or perhaps go to the excise taxes on gasoline and cigarettes? Well, social security, of course, is now in the hands of a commission and that was something else, again, that I'd always spoke of during the campaign, and then thought maybe we were going to be able to get something done without going that route. But we are going back to it. So, I except that and take the others. And it is not a case as when you say cut down, immediately the impression is given to anyone who is dependent on government that they are now going to have less than they had before. I think that there are great improvements that can be made with regard to eligibility and ensuring that those who are getting entitlements are truly in need of them and justified in getting them. There are corrections that can be made, such as our own Inspector General's finding out in the last 6 months that 8,500 and this is not the final check, this was just on a first check, partial check that 8,500 social security recipients have been receiving checks for an average of 7 years, that they have been dead that long. ENTITY, one of the measures that you supported last year in budget cutting was the elimination of 13 extra weeks of jobless compensation. With the unemployment rate now at 8.9 percent and some predictions it'll go higher do you see any chance that you might support a move to restore that extra 13 weeks? Well, this is one that I just do not think I could give you an answer on this, because we have not discussed that.

dialogic

That is, there is been no discussion of this, and I have not seen the facts or figures on that. Also, on the unemployment picture you were asked, I think, at the press conference about what did you plan to do about the 17 percent rate among blacks, and you pointed to the local newspaper and said you'd made it a point to count the number of pages in the want ads, 24 pages. And then you said that you needed to get more qualified people to apply for those jobs, and you would do what you could to see that there were more qualified people. Do you have a specific program in mind? Well, we have been working with this national task force that we have on voluntarism, and they have been discussing some plans that employ a combination of government and private for this. Now, there are a number of programs that are going forward. For example, in five States, started by the governments which ought to restore some people's faith that our turning back of things to the State governments is not in these five States they have started programs, not statewide, but in several important, key cities as an experiment and a very successful one so far in which the private sector is involved in taking the least likely to succeed seniors in high school into job training programs. They do not go for the best they do not , those they figure but they found some actual statistics of the percentage of high school students that were you could really conceive that they were going to have trouble when they got out and they probably were not going to go on to any additional education in college or anything. And 60 percent of them wind up within 2 years on welfare. So, they started this experiment, and it has been, I think it is something like up in the 90 percent of salvage of these students who were judged by their associates and their teachers and so forth to be the least likely to make it. But you do not have a specific government program in mind at the time to do anything? Well, only to the extent of as I say, right now the government is working with the private sector on some programs of this type. And it is a little premature for me now to say what they are doing or how they are succeeding. You are going to comment on this in your State of the Union? Will this be in your State of the Union?

dialogic

On another matter, in bringing Bill Clark here as your assistant for national security you brought a longtime associate and close friend who, other White House officials say, will have enormous influence beyond this area of national security, both because of this rapport with you and because he knows so many other people in the administration. Can you comment on that? And do you see the so called troika that people say runs the White House will now be transformed into a quartet? And I think that you will find that the job that Bill Clark has, that is a round the clock job, and he is working very well in that position. Now, we had always planned well, not always, but I mean recently planned having started on one system before there was ever any thought of a change of personnel, we were looking toward a more direct access on the foreign policy matter. We found that what we had, the system we were working with was more cumbersome than it had to be. So, that change is already taking place. But he obviously discusses matters other than national security with you, does not he? With the state of the world today, I could tell you honestly, every conversation he and I have had has been on national security. Speaking of the state of the world, some people in the Pentagon are worried that after a year or two, because of the realities and pragmatism of economics and politics, that your commitment to a defense buildup may slack off and that you will not be able to carry through with the big defense spending that you are now planning to. How committed are you to carrying forth with a No, I am committed to The ENTITY I do not think that the people I think they sense it; they did all during the campaign that we are not where we should be with regard to our ability and security, and we are not. That window of vulnerability term that we used, that exists. But I am optimistic that there can come a day when we can slack off, if we are successful, in what I believe goes along with this. And that is true, legitimate, verifiable arms reductions of our adversaries, such as the Soviet Union. Now, up till now, my criticism of the negotiations that have been held, such as the SALT talks, my criticism was that on one side of the table sat the Soviet Union in the midst of an enormous the greatest that man has ever seen in the buildup of their military.

dialogic

And they were seeing us across the table in these recent years, unilaterally disarming, which meant that all we could do to them was ask them, Why do not you do it, too? They did not have to give up anything. And we were already giving it up voluntarily. Now, as we go forward with our program, the Soviet Union realizes they are no longer going to have that free ride. And I believe since they have strained their economy to the limit, they are not really able to adequately provide their people with consumer goods and food, because everything is devoted to the military buildup. So, strained to the limit as they are and suddenly faced with the prospect of maybe trying to have to match the great industrial capacity of the United States now turning to a military buildup, that we can get legitimate reductions in arms. Do you think that is likely in the next 3 or 4 years, in your term? Well, I think it is going to take a while to build up, but we have started in Geneva with the intermediate range missile program. Now, if we had not gone forward with a program of promising missiles and cruise missiles to our NATO allies to match the SS 20's and 4's and 5's that the Soviet has based, targeted on Europe, they could wipe Europe out. But now, faced with our buildup in which we will put a deterrent force in Europe aimed at their cities, they are willing to sit down in Geneva and have a meeting with us on this. Where would we be in those kind of talks if we were sitting there with no plan of a deterrent force at all and simply asking them to give up their SS 20's? What you are saying is you are going full speed ahead on the arms buildup, at least until we get a verifiable arms control pact. Yes, until things can develop that we can in other words, I am very willing to talk arms reduction. legitimate arms reduction. But let me tell you what out of the SALT talks, to illustrate what I was talking about. I have been given figures that if the SALT II treaty had been ratified, it would have permitted the Soviet Union to add to its arsenal nuclear explosive power equal to what we dropped on Hiroshima every 11 minutes for the life of the SALT II treaty. Now, how do you call that strategic arms limitation?

dialogic

On a corollary issue, do you see any circumstances where you might approve of a peacetime draft, reassess your opposition that could please the allies? My change of mind on the registration was only because I had accepted, as most people did, even when the head of the Selective Service himself testified in 1980 that that rather costly operation would only shorten mobilization time by a few days. However, I have now since and greater study has been made and the information has been brought to me that, no, we can shorten mobilization by as much as 45 days. I will continue the registration. The peacetime draft we have now seen an upgrading in the type of personnel enlisting, an increase in the numbers, an increase in the numbers who have reenlisted. There is an entirely different spirit in the armed services, and I believe that the voluntary military, which has been traditional in our country, other than in wartime, will work. If there were anything at all you said, could anything make it peacetime I would have to hark back to the days preceding World War II, and there for the first time we instituted a peacetime draft. But the rest of the world was at war; the whole world was going up in flames. And so, hypothetically you'd have to say there could be a situation where you thought the risk was so imminent that you might do this. But I do not see that risk as imminent now, and I am philosophically opposed and practically opposed to the peacetime draft. But are you concerned though that there is sort of a growing movement in the United States of people who do not seem to take seriously the warning that you have given about the Soviet buildup and who do not think that we should be preparing for the possibility of a nuclear war? And what can you do to convince the American people that you are right about that? We tried one thing. We put out that booklet, that pamphlet Well, yes, and a great many of those skeptics are people that I think could be described as figures do not lie, but liars figure. I think the skeptics are wrong, and I think they are doing a disservice to the country and to the people of this country, because our situation is dangerous. Is it more dangerous now, do you think, than in recent years? I mean, in the past year or so has the world situation changed so much that it is more dangerous?

dialogic

Well, our own deterioration had continued right on down to when we took office and then started to reverse it. We have now put into operation the first realistic buildup of forces and strategic forces in over 20 years. May I ask you a question on another subject? David Stockman, your budget director, is a very important figure in your economic program in the first year. Of course, he offered his resignation after the article in the Atlantic Monthly criticizing your program came out. A lot of Republicans not just Democrats but Republicans have said he is lost his credibility on Capitol Hill. In view of that, do you expect him to continue as budget director throughout your term? But he still lost credibility though? Recently, in the last efforts up on the Hill there on the thing of getting the continuation that we wanted for covering these months and so forth, he was the man with the figures and the man that certainly our side was relying on. And I had any number of them come down and say that they would have been lost without him. Is he going to resume dealing with Democrats, because he has not been doing that since the article came out, according to Congressman Jim Jones, the chairman of the House Budget Committee. Well, maybe he was speaking from a partisan standard. I would not have seen where there was much of a need lately. He will be involved now as we go forward with the as we present the 1983 budget. Do not you think that the Democrats are waiting in ambush for him when he comes on Capitol Hill next time, with the information from the Atlantic Monthly article? I think that they are laying and waiting ambush for me. Stockman said that it is not uncommon for him, when he is preparing our budget, not to be talking to Democrats. I have got to ask you an environment question. When you became Governor of California, people were very concerned about your environmental positions. So, the first thing you did was appoint as your resources secretary, Livermore, who had great environmental credentials from the Sierra Club ENTITY, and he gave you environmental credentials. You did just the opposite here, it seems in many people's view. You appointed a guy Interior Secretary who is perceived to be the extremist on the developmental side. And I am wondering, do you have second thoughts about maybe the way the environmental issues were handled? And, George, let me remind you of something. But a lot of people do not fancy Watt as that.

dialogic

I know, except that I can remember when a man from the Federal Environmental Protection Agency came to Sacramento to make a speech toward the end of my terms there and said that California was ahead of the National Government in what it had done. That is why I am wondering whether you might have second thoughts about what you have done here. No, let me point something out. It was considered to be autonomous, and no one could control it. And if you remember, there were always battles going on in the State because if they decided this is where the highway's going to go, they did not care whether it went through a grove of redwoods. Do you remember Pat Brown once saying, when it was going to go through a grove of redwoods, Well, we will plant some more ? And the people were very well, one of the first things I did when I got in was make a change in the highway commission and dictated that if a slight curve was necessary to preserve an historical monument or something unique, like a grove of trees or a beauty spot or something, they'd make the slight curve. And the result was that California won in 9 out of 13 national awards for highway building that preserved the environment and historical artifacts and so forth. How about all that offshore drilling that your administration has to do now? We were the ones who stopped the offshore drilling until we were satisfied after the oil spill and the oil spill was Federal, not State. And, George, the head of the oil company told me afterward, he was not he had risen to his point from the commercial end of it, not from the engineering end and he said what he had learned in that whole thing was that had they been drilling outside the limit, under the State regulations instead of the Federal, there'd never have been a blowout. No, because and I wonder why everyone I saw again, that was was it 60 Minutes or someone did the thing on Watt and the million petitions that the Sierra Club got, asking for his resignation. Why has not anyone mentioned that in response to that, a petition of over 7 million signatures was brought in wanting him retained? I think that what happened, and what happened in our own State was and I was seeing it happen that the environmental movement there .had not been such a thing before our administration. It started during my terms as Governor. I do not say I started it it started. But it got out of control. And we had environmental extremism that was going beyond all bounds of reason.

dialogic

And I felt that way then, and I feel that way now. And I think that Jim Watt he is not going to destroy the environment, but he is going to restore some common sense. ENTITY, Larry's waving us out of here, so may I ask you one very quick question and make it a couple of parts? One, did the assassination attempt in any way sort of change your outlook on the Presidency and what you, you know, on how you are proceeding in your job, how you look toward the future? And most of your aides say you really enjoy the job here. Do you really enjoy the job and do you miss the California weather very much? Oh, well, I think anyone from California is kind of perpetually homesick. I am, and particularly because California means to me that ranch, which I love very much, and that kind of life and all. But, yes, I enjoy it. I have talked for so many years without ever thinking that I would ever do anything except when I say talk, make speeches; you know, I have always described it that in Hollywood, if you did not sing or dance, you ended up as an afterdinner speaker about the things that I felt should be corrected. And it was the same thing I discovered as Governor, that the satisfaction in being able instead of just talking to cope with them and try to get things changed yes, I like very much. So, we can expect you to be running for reelection in 1984? Well, I have always said the people tell you that, whether you So the people tell you you should run? Will you talk about how the assassination attempt really changed any way you look at life or the way you approached your job or the way you feel about things? Well, I think you are more aware, and I am also very aware that the Lord certainly was watching out for me on that day. Yeah, does it give you some sense of redoubling your efforts to do what you are trying to do as ENTITY, or is that As I say, I think that He has the first claim on my time from now on. You were going to ask a question, I thought. I was just going to follow up and ask one there. I also was really wondering if we have got half a second to ask you about you were talking about the danger that the country is in and the threat of nuclear war. What is your personal view of the intentions of the Soviet Union?

dialogic

Do you think, as some people do, that they are primarily a sort of a defensive, fearful country, looking in Afghanistan and Poland for buffers, or do you think they still have an appetite for other people's territory? Well, I think there is a combination of both. At least they talk a great deal about their fear that the world is going to close in on them, but the other, you cannot deny that the Marxian theory and Lenin's theory and every Soviet leader since has at some time or other publicly reaffirmed his dedication to this and that is that Marxism, the theory, can only succeed when the entire world has become Communist. So is it a little naive, perhaps, to think that if we just reassure them, placate them, that they will moderate their They have got to, and maybe the failures of their own system, which make them dependent on the rest of us for help as they are maybe this will help them see the fallacy of this. But this is why I mean it is a combination not only of fear; it is not just defense. They believe that that religion of theirs, which is Marxist Leninism, requires them to support world revolution and bring about the oneworld Communist state. And they have never denied that. And we have to, you feel, have to contain that, have to stop that, not just in places like Poland but in Africa Yes, because I they have proven that their system is not of increased freedom. It is one of dictation. Can anyone say that the Tsar any more repressive on the Soviet people than this regime is? Did the aristocracy in the old days, did they have any different elevation of luxury over the peasantry than the hierarchy has over the average Soviet citizen, the so called masses, today? Beach homes on the Black Sea, private jets, helicopters, country homes outside, special stores where only they can purchase the certain special kind of goods they have created an aristocracy. What is ever happened to that equality of man that they teach? Incidentally, since it is almost time that you will be hearing it anyway why did not you, in your interview, ask about yesterday's press conference and the fuss about the number of unemployed in '80 and '81? Well, we will ask about it. In fact and the others were right. But the others compare the number of unemployed in December 1980 and December 1981. But the figures that are normally taken are the average for the year.

dialogic

First of all, let us talk about why you came, and that is Medicare. And you know I mean, this is something that is been important to you for a long time getting Medicare, part of the prescription drug program included in Medicare. Talk about why that is so important to have that. Well, Medicare is a program that is 35 years old, and it is been a godsend for 35 years for a lot of our seniors. But when it was established, most of medicine was about doctors and hospitals and very little about prescription drugs. Now, the average 65-year-old has a life expectancy of 82 or 83 years, the highest in the world for seniors. And more and more, people need these drugs to stay alive and also to stay healthy. Over and above that, America has about 5 million people on disability who are eligible for Medicare, and they need the medicine even more. So what we have been saying is, Look, we have got this surplus. We have the money. We should add a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare, because we have, all over America, seniors who are choosing every week between food and medicine because they cannot pay their medical bills and because there is no other viable way to give them the medicine they need. So I proposed this program, and I told the American people how we can add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, still have a family tax cut, still invest in education, and keep paying us out of debt. I think that it is so critical to provide for the elderly and disabled in America. Do you think it will happen before you leave office? I think the problem is the Republicans in the Congress believe that the program might be too expensive, although it is not nearly as expensive as their combined tax cuts, and they want they also want a private insurance plan. But the bill they passed is just like one that got passed in Nevada, and not a single insurance company would offer the drug coverage because they knew they could not offer it at an affordable price. Now, what is really going on here is that the pharmaceutical companies that make the drugs, they have reservations about it because they are afraid that if you put 39 million seniors, including 2.7 million seniors in Florida and 5 million disabled people, if you look at all of them and a significant percentage of them get in one program, that the people buying drugs for that one program will have too much marketing power, and they will get the drugs for too cheap.

dialogic

Because what happens is, our pharmaceutical companies charge Americans more for drugs to cover all the research costs in America. Then they can sell them much, much cheaper in Canada or Mexico. You have seen all these press stories about people going there. Now, I just think that is not a very good reason to deprive senior citizens of medicine, and I do not think it is a partisan issue outside Washington. I think out here in Tampa or in Arkansas or New York or California, nobody asks you what party you are in when you go to the drugstore to buy medicine. In Washington, it is become part of an issue because the drug companies are against providing prescription drug coverage for Medicare. Let us talk about the importance of Florida for this Presidential election. We have a Republican Governor popular. His brother is running, but tell me what the Democrats are going to do to win Florida. For one thing, I think we have worked very hard here for 8 years. We brought the Southern Command to Miami. We brought the Summit of the Americas to Florida. We worked on the plan to save the Florida Everglades. We have worked on trade policy. Our trade policy has helped a lot of Florida economic sectors. I was just here with Congressman Davis meeting with people from the Tampa area who would benefit greatly from the opening of trade to China. So I think we have got a strong record to run on. If you look at Tampa when I became ENTITY, unemployment here was 7.1 percent. So, first we are going to run on our record. It is been good for America and good for Florida, and Al Gore will continue that economic policy, and I think that is important. Then, the second thing I think is just what we have to do is get out the differences on the issues. For example, Senator Graham has a bill of his own to provide prescription drugs for seniors that is a little different from ours but essentially in the same ballpark. And I know how much credibility he has with the Florida voters. So we can talk about Medicare, and we can talk about education, and we can talk about paying the debt off. I think when you see the Vice President and his running mate and Bill Nelson and all of these other Democrats out there just having a conversation with the people, we do not have to have a mean election this year. This year the economy is in great shape. The country is doing well, and we ought to have an old-fashioned citizenship lesson in this election.

dialogic

And it is like you said in the speech a little while ago, you are talking about the differences. Well, I think it is because they know that there is a tendency in the country to give the other crowd a chance after they have been out a while, and they know that Governor Bush is an immensely charming, attractive man, and Mr. Cheney, Congressman Cheney, is a very nice man and has had Washington experience. So what they want to do is to seem safe and reliable and compassionate and inclusive. So they are not going to be up there saying, Vote for us. Our favorite Supreme Court judges are Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia, and we are going to repeal Roe v. Wade, but that is what is going to happen. But they are not going to say that. They are not going to be up there saying, Vote for us. We want to weaken air pollution laws on the chemical industry, or, Vote for us. We want to make sure that we do not have a Medicare prescription drug program that works, or, Vote for us. We are going to give all your money away in tax cuts, and we will have higher interest rates and a deficit. But what I think is important is, they should be able to defend their policies, but what they want to do is to obscure the differences. I see this as I travel from State to State now. They accuse the Democrats of running negative campaigns if they have advertisements pointing out how the Republicans voted. It is like they are almost saying, We have a right to obscure our record from the people if you want. What I think the voters need is clarity of difference. Let them state the differences honestly, but do not pretend the differences do not exist, because an election is a choice, and choices have consequences. And the American people should know the choice, know the consequences, and then make up their mind. And what we should do is to say, Hey, this country is in great shape now, and we have a unique moment in history to make the most of our prosperity. So we will bring our ideas; they will bring theirs. Let us clarify the differences. Let us do not say bad things about our opponents. Let us assume everybody is patriotic, loves their family, loves their country, is honest, and would do what they have said they would do. But let us do not pretend that they did not say they would do some of the things they said they would do.

dialogic

Let us just clarify the differences, and let the people make their mind up. That is my whole theory of the election. Now that you are in the last few months of your Presidency, your wife is just beginning her own political career. I am very proud of her. I know you are so proud of her. But on the other side, politics is mean- spirited. How do you feel about that? It hurts me. I get more nervous about her than I ever did about me, and everybody that always hated me all those years and were so mean to me, they have all transferred all their anger to her now. It is almost as if they have got one last chance to beat me. And then there are some people who voted for me that think they are mad at her because she is running in New York, and we just bought a home there. All I can say to them is, it was not her idea. The New York Democratic House delegation came to her and asked her to run. And before she said she would do it, she said, I am going to go up there and look around, talk to people, and see if I could serve. She spent almost a year doing that, and then finally she decided that she would like to serve if they wanted her to. So I think if we can get this election again in a position where they just look at who is got the greatest strength, who is got the ability to do more, and which candidate do they agree, I think she will do fine. I am really proud of her, though. As you said, it makes you very nervous thinking about what she is getting into. I guess when you are in a campaign, you do not have time to think about it. But I spend a lot more time worrying about her than I ever did worrying about myself when I was out there running. I feel like I just wake up every day wishing I could do something else to help. What are you going to do when you leave office? Everybody's talked about all kinds of things, and I know you probably have not decided yet. Well, I am going to build a library and a public policy center at home in Arkansas. I know I am going to do that. And I will be there a couple of days a week. And then I will probably be with Hillary a couple of days a week in New York.

dialogic

And then, of course, she will have to work in Washington if this election goes well, and I believe it will. So I will just decide what to do. There are a lot of things that I have in mind to do, but I do not think I really should make final decisions until after I leave here. What I want to do is to spend every last waking moment I can doing as much as I can for the people of America. When I lay the job down, then I would like to rest a bit and have a clear head and decide what to do. I will try to find something to do to be useful for the rest of my life. I think I will be able to find something to do. You are so young, so you have got so many opportunities. You have got to be so proud of your daughter, Chelsea. I mean, we reported last week she is made a decision to take a break and spend time with you that is wonderful and to help her mom campaign. When your children grow up I can say, now that I have this experience you are always mildly surprised when they still want to spend time with you and completely relieved and happy. So you know, she is lived 40 percent of her life in the White House. She is 20, and she was just, when we came here in '92, she was still 12 years old. She was actually I mean, in '93 she was still 12 years old. She had her 13th birthday in the White House, in February. She wanted to help her mother some; she wanted to be with me when I would otherwise be alone; and like, she went up to Camp David with me and stayed the whole 15 days and kept everybody in a good humor. She flew to Okinawa with me, and she did a great job. And I think the third thing she wants is just to be in a place that has been her home for nearly half her life, every night she can be. Because she knows when she leaves, it is for good, you know, and she will never be back, I mean, as a resident. So I think it is a very smart decision for her, and I am thrilled. I mean, everybody's fallen in love with her. I think she is an unusual young woman, and we are very proud of her and very grateful. You know, tomorrow she and her mother are going to Long Island together. They will have a big time.

dialogic

One more can I ask about Mid East peace, because I know how important that is? You spent 3 tough weeks. Do you ever foresee a time when there is going to be peace in the region, and is Jerusalem the sticking point there? The answer to both questions is basically yes. I think yes, I think there will be peace in the region; yes, Jerusalem is the most difficult issue. They did not agree on everything else, but they are close enough that I think that we can still get an agreement. Just a few hours ago, before we sat down for this interview, the Barak government, Prime Minister Barak's government in Israel was confirmed in a no confidence vote; that is, they did not vote him out of office. So I think now, we just have to see if we can get some movement from the Palestinians, as well, and see if we can put this thing together again. If they want it, they can get it, because they are close enough now. They can get it. And I saw something after we had been there 2 weeks sort of the body language that the Israelis and the Palestinians, the way they relate to each other. They know each other. They call each other by their first names. They know they are neighbors, whether they like it or not. And they know their children are going to have to be partners and hopefully friends; and I think they will find a way. I do believe that. I think it is just a question of making sure that we keep pushing them. When you deal with issues this difficult and this painful, it is like going to the dentist without having your gums deadened. You are not going to do it unless somebody herds you on, and you do it. But the calendar is working against them a little bit, because they have pledged to finish by the 13th of September. And that puts all kind of pressure, especially on the Palestinians. They have got to do everything they can to get as much as they can done over the next 6 weeks. They have got to make the decisions and live with them, but we will do everything we can to help. Will you try to bring them back to Camp David? It is too premature to make a decision. What I will try to do is do whatever I can to get the peace process up and going and to bring it to a speedy conclusion.

dialogic

ENTITY, it is nice to see you. I have had the pleasure, as you know, to sit down with you one-on-one a few times in the past, and so I know that asking you to make a prediction is like wasting my time. So I am not going to ask you to predict anything about tomorrow's elections, but let me ask you, on a scale of 1 to 10, if I can, 10 being confident, 1 being apprehensive, how do you feel about tomorrow on this election eve? And I will tell you why. If you look at it, first of all, in the House of Representatives, there are probably 36 elections that could go either way. And in my opinion, it will depend overwhelmingly on the turnout. Then there are in the Senate seven, perhaps eight, elections that could go either way, depending on the turnout. It is clear to me that our message has resonated with the American people, though we have been at an enormous, enormous financial disadvantage, the largest in my lifetime. The Republican committees-the Senate committee, the House committee, and the national committee raised over $100 million more than their Democratic counterparts in these last 2 years. I feel good about it, but it depends upon who votes. You mentioned just a moment ago that this may be the election where the imbalance has been greatest with regard to fundraising in your lifetime, Republican and Democrat, that you have been involved in. Speaking of your lifetime, let me ask you whether or not it would be fair for me or anyone else to suggest that this election is not just important to the country, it is not just important to African-Americans, but it is, in fact, quite important to ENTITY. Would I be wrong in my assessment that this may be the most important election day of your entire political career? No, I do not agree with that. No, no, it is not the most important election in my career. But it is very important to me because it will determine how much I can do for the American people in the next 2 years. We did very well here in this budget this year. We got a downpayment on our 100,000 teachers; we got programs for hundreds of thousands of kids after school; we fended off a Republican attempt to raid the surplus before we fixed Social Security.

dialogic

And there is so much we still have to do that if we got a few more Democrats here, we could pass this Patients' Bill of Rights; we could have modernized schools and 100,000 more teachers; we could raise the minimum wage; we could secure Social Security; we could reform Medicare in the right way; we could do something for child care; we could do more for the areas of our country which still have not felt the economic recovery. And so the last 2 years of my Presidency, I think, would be far more focused on progress, as opposed to this Washington partisan politics. So I would like it very much. It is terribly important to me. But the most important elections were the election and reelection in '92 and '96. Let me follow up on that, and again I ask this respectfully, and I will move on. The reason I asked that question in the first place is because you and I both know what you personally have at stake, what personally is riding on this election tomorrow. And you mentioned that the two most important elections were the one when you were elected in '92 and, of course, reelected in '96. And I would expect you to say that. But the reason why I asked whether or not you felt there was more riding on tomorrow is precisely because this election, depending on the outcome, could be the beginning of the undoing, the unraveling of what those two elections were all about. And I hope that the American people will turn out, and I hope that the electorate tomorrow will reflect what we know the electorate as a whole feels. The American people as a whole want us to put this partisanship behind us, want us to get back to their business. They think altogether too much time is spent in Washington on the considerations of the politics of Washington and altogether too little time spent on the real problems and the real opportunities of people out there in the country. So I agree with that, and I think that they can do a lot tomorrow to reduce partisanship and to increase progress if they all show up. It is really a function of whether the people who show up tomorrow are fairly reflective of what all the research and all our instincts, mine and everybody else's, tell us where the American people as a whole are.

dialogic

We will move on and ask a couple of questions that I admit at the outset I am somewhat apprehensive in asking, but I ask them because they are things that you have spoken about in the past, and I want to give you a chance to expound and extrapolate, if you will. You have talked in the past a great deal about atonement, leading up to this election day tomorrow. one, atoning as ENTITY, and secondly, atoning as a husband and a father. With regard as atoning as ENTITY, you promised to work harder to be a better ENTITY. the budget deal with Congress; the historic peace agreement between Israel and Palestine; I note last Friday the G- 7 nations agreed on your proposal to put money into markets that are jittery at the moment. You are on a roll, domestically and internationally, with regard to that atonement issue and your being ENTITY. What you have not talked about much lately- and I want to give you a chance to respond if you so choose-is how the atonement process is coming along with regard to your being a husband and a father. I have not talked about it deliberately, because I think that it ought to be a private matter between me and my family. All I can tell you is I am working at it very hard, and I think it is terribly important. It is more important than anything else in the world to me- more important than anything else in the world. But I think the less I say about it, the better. I think one of the things that I hope will come out of the reassessment of this whole business is a conviction again, which I believe the American people already have, that even people in public life deserve some measure of private space within which to have their family lives and to deal with their-both the joys and the trials of their personal lives. So I do not think I should say more about it except that I am working at it. I respect that. As you know, there was not a single reference-not a single reference-to Whitewater, as your White House staff and the entire Clinton administration reminds us every day-not a single reference to Whitewater in the Starr report. On the eve of this election day, though, it occurs to me that you still, though, have not been, despite that reality, you still have not been officially exonerated with regard to the Whitewater matter.

dialogic