The United States has spent almost $300 million in humanitarian assistance. We have strongly enforced and pushed for tougher sanctions and embargoes on Serbia. We believe and the Germans believe the arms embargo ought to be lifted on Bosnia. I understand that. But that does not mean we cannot do anything together. And this, I think everyone would admit, is the most difficult international problem that we face. I am still hopeful that something humane, decent, and politically reasonable will emerge from this process before it is too late. But we all have a disagreement on that, and I am sorry we do. But we cannot agree on everything. I think events subsequent to the Athens meeting prove that beyond question. But nonetheless, I do not think that is a reason for us to give up on the European alliance, give up on NATO, give up on the G-7. With regard to Japan, I think everyone who has looked at the problem seriously thought there would have to be some realignment in our trade relations. And I think we are going to work that out. But there are lots of other things we have in common. Japan has supported the United States, and the United States has supported Japan in the things we have done to support democracy all over the world. I intend to reaffirm my commitment to that when I am in Japan, and my commitment to Korea and to Asia generally when I am in Korea. So I think a lot of this-let me-if I might, a lot of this uncertainty in Europe, particularly, is a function of two things. One is the economic problems that we all have which make people always just more insecure. And we have a new Government in France. We have a new Government in Italy. We have a new Government in Canada. And so a lot of these folks, we do not all know each other. And I think when people do not know each other, there is always a-but you are trying to get to know one another-there is the temptation to take whatever incident is in the moment and reach some huge encyclopedia of meaning in it, which may or may not be accurate. So I think a lot of these things that you are talking about will be taken care of by meetings like this, by trips like this, and by constant working together. I will say-but every opportunity I have had to work with the other European leaders has been satisfactory.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


I had good cooperation between the United States and Italy, for example, when we were trying to reinforce the security of the U.N. forces within Bosnia, because the U.S. is committed to defend them if they are attacked, and everybody knows that. So I am just a lot more hopeful about this than I think some are. I think a lot of this is just a function of economic difficulties and new players who do not really know each other thoroughly yet. ENTITY, if I may go back to trade, I would like to know what do you say to the French, who have decided that they will not sign anything regarding GATT at the Tokyo summit up until the United States lifted or the Department of Commerce lifted the sanctions of steel, and we insisted that the United States accept the principle of multilateral mechanism to solve commercial conflicts. First of all, the action that was taken on steel was taken after a lot of deliberation, most of which was done before I became ENTITY, subsequent to United States law, which is clearly GAIT-consistent. So, I think, you know, if the belief is that the United States has been wrong on the facts, then we can discuss the facts. But there is nothing wrong with our law, and it is not that different from the laws of a lot of other countries that are part of the world trading system. Secondly, with regard to the trading mechanism, I have no problem with a multilateral mechanism to enforce trading agreements. But the GATT clearly contemplates that every country in the world, including France, should have the right to act in its own interest if the international system breaks down, which is not to say that you lose some rulings. But if there is no resolution of a crisis, the international system breaks down. All our Section 301 trade law does is to provide for some ultimate reservoir of authority for the United States to act unilaterally if the system itself breaks down. If France, for example, would like to propose a stronger multilateral decisionmaking process as a part of GATT before any country could act on its own, I would be more than happy to discuss that. I do not see this Section 301 as giving the United States the authority, for example, to decide on its own about all these trade agreements and how they affect us without regard to what other countries want to do.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


It is supposed to operate only against countries that are not part of trading agreements at all, so we do not have a trade-countries with whom we have no multilateral agreements, or when there is a total breakdown of the GATT system in this case. ENTITY, you raised today for the first time, I think, the question and the very important question of the structural impediments to growth. And so far you have and your Government has somehow created the impression that Europe and the difficulties in creating jobs should be loaded at the doorsteps of the Bundesbank. And yesterday you even said, Well, this is a contribution to global growth. And you raised the expectation and the-that it was just a cyclical problem. Now, why did not you come out before with this very strong statement that you are looking for structural impediments, that the G-7 should concentrate on doing away with structural barriers instead of pushing all the time the micro question-the macro question, excuse me? Well, first let me say that I have not criticized Germany in the past, but I have complimented them when the Bundesbank has lowered interest rates. And I know that because I realize that, first of all, all nations with independent central banks-and the United States has one, too; that is, the Federal Reserve-independent of the-all nations that have independent central banks are very sensitive about political leaders from within the nation telling them what to do and even more sensitive to suggestions from political leaders outside the nation's borders. And so what I have attempted to do is to say repeatedly, ever since I became ENTITY, that I thought that the extent to which we could coordinate the economic policies with Germany and the rest of Europe, and Japan, that that was a good thing. Coordinated economic policies for growth, and expanded trade, and smarter internal, microeconomic policies were all necessary to create jobs and growth in the world. And when Germany-when the interest rates were lower a couple of days ago, I did applaud that because I think it makes a contribution to growth. But I think-and the only reason that I-and I have done it not to be presumptuous but only to say that the United States was asked for years by its allies to deal with our budget deficit. We are now doing that, and we are getting the results that we hoped we would. We have a 20 year low in long-term interest rates, in home mortgage rates.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


I wanted to ask about the debate that is growing in Washington over free trade, the trade deal with the Pacific, fast-track authority for you to finish that free-trade deal in the Pacific. And I wanted to start by asking you about your own party, the Democratic Party. When Nafta was voted through in 1993, there were 27 Democratic senators who voted yes, 102 Democratic House members who voted yes. You'd be lucky to get a fraction of those votes today for this deal. So what is happened to the Democratic Party on this subject? Well, first of all, we do not know how many votes we will get yet, so - so we will wait and take a look. A couple of things have happened. First of all, I think it is important for us to understand that free trade is good for the United States. We have the best workers in the world, the most innovative companies in the world, the best products in the world, the most productive agricultural sector in the world. We want to sell goods made in America elsewhere. And 95 percent of the world's market is outside our borders. If we are not selling outside the United States, then we are going to have problems. And we want to make sure that we are not being impeded by a bunch of unfair rules outside of the United States. And I think that back in the 1990s, when Nafta passed, President Clinton made the right arguments about why it was important. The problem was that, at that time, we did not get some of the protections around labor rights, environmental issues included in the agreement in an enforceable way. When WTO passed, that allowed China to come into the world economic system. That was the right thing to do geopolitically - it stitched China together with the rest of the world - but China was not subject to some of the enforcement mechanisms needed if they manipulated currency or engaged in non-tariff barriers in terms of entering into their market. And so, over the course of 20, 25 years, what you saw was trade benefit the U.S. economy in the aggregate with cheaper prices, inflation low, the creation of a global supply chain that was good for U.S. companies, but what is true, and the best economic data seems to show is that there was some erosion of our manufacturing bases at the time. There was outsourcing that took place.

Interview with Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal


When I was running for the U.S. Senate, I'd go into towns in Illinois that used to be strong manufacturing towns, and they had been hollowed out. And you'd meet workers that felt completely betrayed by, you know, the loss of good middle-class jobs - you know, if you went to a factory, you were willing to work hard, you could get ahead. And some people have been suspicious, feel burned from some of those experiences. The argument that I have made consistently is that is not a reason for us not to enter into trade agreements anymore, it is a reason for us to strengthen the trade agreements that we do enter into. And that is exactly what we have done with respect to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. What we are negotiating will be by far the most progressive, high-standard trade agreement in history. If and when this agreement is completed, you are going to have countries who have very low, if any, environmental standards in the past suddenly having obligations to deal with issues like deforestation or dealing with overfishing their waters or pollution or child labor. job training, rebuilding our infrastructure, making sure that we got the best education system in the world, making sure that we are protecting our workers and - and fighting for strong labor rights here in the United States of America. But what we are not going to do is to reverse the trends of globalization. We have got to be in the game. And we have got to make sure we are writing those trade rules in the fastest-growing region of the world, the Asia-Pacific, as opposed to having China write those rules for us, in which case American businesses will lose and American workers will lose. So do you think the people in the party, your party, who are not in favor of this - you know, the Rich Trumkas and Elizabeth Warrens - are they simply mistaken, or are they being dishonest about their criticism? I - I think that they are responding to very real anxieties and fears felt by U.S. workers who have not seen their wages or their incomes go up over the last 20 years, and then got hit by the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And so it is understandable that people feel, you know what, I have not been protected.


I am seeing these trends where people at the top are doing very well, folks who are involved in the global economy, part of the winner-take-all economy, are excelling, but I am getting squeezed. And they are right to be concerned about those trends. I am, too, which is why everything I have done since I have been president has been focused on what I call middle-class economics. So make the case to the average working-class American about why the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Asian trade deal, is good for them. The argument is, number one, that is the biggest market in the world and it is going to continue to be the biggest, even more so the biggest market in the world as, as we go forward, the most populous, fastest-growing. We have got to be able to sell our stuff there. Number two is those countries are already selling to us. I keep on pointing out there are a lot of Japanese cars here in the United States, almost no U.S. cars in Tokyo. And so the more we can get access to markets that are currently closed, but that are selling to us, that is better off for U.S. workers. Number three is that if we do not write the rules, China will write the rules out in that region. That will mean a loss of U.S. jobs. You know, when I was in Panama during the Summit of the Americas, Boeing had just made a multibillion-dollar sale to a Panamanian air carrier. Boeing has suppliers all across this country, small- and medium-sized businesses who are directly benefiting, who are going to be employing people as a consequence of that sale. And we want to continue to make those kinds of sales in the region. And the last point I would make is that, when you look at some of the provisions that we are negotiating in TPP, we are raising the standards in many countries, in places like Malaysia or Vietnam, in ways that directly help workers there, directly help the environment, directly go after some of the trends that are causing climate change. And if you are a progressive, you want higher standards, enforceable standards, in those regions. And when it comes to some of the things that we do best, like innovation and tech, we have got to have strong intellectual property protections that ensure that our stuff does not get pirated or stolen or copied illegally there.


If we can strengthen those standards there, that is going to be good for industries where we excel. Are you disappointed that your former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has not spoken out in favor of the Pacific trade deal? And what would you like her to say on this subject? I think she said what she should be saying, which is that she is going to want to see a trade agreement that is strong on labor, strong on the environment, helps U.S. workers, helps the U.S. economy. It seemed to me in the last week or so that you take some of the criticism from the left on this subject kind of personally. Well, I do not think I - you know, I - I said I take it personally. Right. or destroy our democracy is a little unrealistic. And they know it. This is part of what happens in this town when you end up getting into a policy debate, is you end up getting a lot of exaggeration and a lot of histrionics. I think it is entirely appropriate for folks to have strong views, and trade deals have always been controversial. It is part of, you know, American politics. And so I do not mind people saying, you know what, we are not getting enough of this or we are not getting enough of that, I'd like to see more of this, I'd like to see less of that. And I have met with all of the opponents and my team has met with all the opponents, and I am willing to continue to engage and debate, and there will be a broad, open debate about this issue. But when people start suggesting that these are secret deals, that there is some hidden agenda, I have to remind them of who I am and what I have been doing for the last six and a half years and - and ask them maybe to - to keep things a little bit in perspective. This issue of secrecy, by the way, is - is particularly of concern to me because the way we have set this up, the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement - where it is right now - it is not closed, it is not finished; we are negotiating with 11 countries - but the text of what we have right now has been on file in Congress for weeks. Members of Congress have been able to go in there and take a look at it. Now, what you will hear critics say is, but it is not public yet.


Well, the way that the trade authority that is coming out of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Finance Committee and that will soon be voted on provides is that, if and when we complete an actual agreement, we have closed the text with these other countries, then for 60 days before I sign the agreement we have to post this up on the Web, the public will see it, every member of Congress will see it. It will be debated for two months before I even sign the agreement. Once I sign the agreement, it is going to take several months before Congress votes on the agreement. So there are going to be many months in which people will be able to look at every comma and period and semicolon in this deal. And I feel very confident that when people evaluate the actual deal that is done, that they will see that in fact it is the most progressive trade deal in history. What we have not been able to do is to disclose how much market access we are getting on rice in Japan when we have not come up with an agreement yet. We have not finalized an agreement with respect to what Malaysia's environmental obligations would be. We are trying to drive the hardest bargain possible. I want to ask you about Japan in a second, but you have referred to China a couple of times here. Let me ask you about that. I looked up the numbers. So, Chinese exports to the rest of Asia have more than doubled since 2009. They are setting up a new infrastructure development bank. They are literally paving roads so that they can export their own goods. Is the U.S. losing the economic competition in Asia to China right now? Well, I think the way to think about it is China's a massive country with huge gravitational pull. And they are going to be the dominant economy in Asia for decades to come, just by virtue of sheer size. We want China to continue to embark on its peaceful rise. I think that is good for the world. You know, China lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty is good for us. We just want to make sure that the rules of the road allow us to complete and everybody else to compete. We do not want China to use its size to muscle other countries in the region around rules that disadvantage us. And so what we have said consistently to China is, you know, we want you to succeed. Obviously you are free to sell goods here to the United States. We want to make sure that you are not manipulating your currency.


We want to make sure that you are not, you know, having state-sponsored organizations subsidize and effectively dump goods into our markets and undercut our prices. We want to make sure that our intellectual property is protected, that you are enforcing fair and neutral laws when it comes to U.S. foreign investment and not forcing technology transfer. You know, so there are just a whole range of rules that we want to make sure they are abiding by. And we want to make sure that the other countries surrounding China are abiding by them as well. Should they be in TPP eventually, the Chinese? Well, you know, what is interesting is that if we are successful in setting up a high-standards trade agreement that sets up rules where everybody can compete fairly, we have already heard from the Chinese they are going to be having to adapt in many ways to these new high standard rules. And then if it is a level playing field, I have complete confidence in America's ability to compete. We have got the best workers. We have got the most innovative products. We got great businesses. What we cannot do, though, is withdraw. And I think the most important point that I have made to critics of trade deals generically is if you are not satisfied with the status quo, why would not you want something that deals with the problems of past trade agreements, or the existing trade regime? You know, the truth of the matter is that there are problems with our global trading system. And let us fix them. Mexico and China-Mexico and Canada are our parties to the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. If you are still mad about Nafta from 25 years ago, because the labor and environmental provisions were in a side letter as opposed to in the agreement and could not be enforced, well guess what? Effectively, we are renegotiating Nafta to solve some of those problems through the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But you talk about - with the risks of withdrawal - when you look at Congress today there is reluctance to renew the Export-Import Bank. There has been a confluence of anti-global engagement from both elements of the right and elements of the left that I think are a big mistake. We sell tons of goods through the Export-Import Bank. Effectively, what happens is we provide some advantageous financing, but we get our money back from the sales that we end up making.


And every other country when it comes to major capital purchases like airplanes, they are helping to finance these exports. The notion that we have problems getting reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank makes absolutely no sense. And the fact that we are getting resistance within the Republican Party from tea-party elements absolutely makes no sense. We cannot sell overseas. We cannot compete against Germans or Chinese competitors if the Export-Import Bank is not there. You know, it defies imagination that we would not want to support a very robust Export-Import Bank. The IMF - when I came into office we negotiated to makes sure that the United States did not see any of its voting shares diminish in the IMF. We got the Europeans to agree to give up some of their voting shares to accommodate rising powers like China and India. So we brokered something internationally, had to twist some arms to do it, it is good for us, it maintains our influence without us having to put more in, and we are the only country that has not But you cannot do that. In five years you have been trying to sell this. And it makes no sense. Why would we not want to maintain influence in one of the most powerful multilateral institutions out there? And there is this knee-jerk suspicion of multilateral institutions that makes no sense, because we set these institutions up after World War II. And it is a force-multiplier for us. It is a way for us through peaceful means to expand our influence and our power and to make sure that the international rules of the road are working for us and working for everybody who is following basic international norms. I wanted to ask quickly about Japanese Prime Minister Abe. You are going to talk about trade, I assume - a lot, probably. Are you close to having a bilateral agreement with the Japanese that would be part of the overall Asian trade deal - in fact, would open the way for this whole broader deal to get done. Well, Japan is a huge component of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Prime Minister Abe, to his credit, has been, I think, bold and aggressive in trying to shake up the Japanese economy that is been now in a couple-decade-long slump. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is part of his agenda. Negotiations are tough on both sides because he is got his own politics and interests. Japanese automakers want certain things. And so I do not expect that we will complete all negotiations here.


I am not going to be sitting across the table from him trying to finalize a deal. I will say that the engagement has brought the parties much closer together.  Are you going to be able to convince American auto makers that this is a good deal for them? Well, you know, I think what I will be able to show is that it is a good deal for them. Whether I can convince some who are, you know, more comfortable with the status quo, you know, that is an open question. You know, there was a lot of skepticism about us saving the auto industry. I was confident that if the American auto industry retooled, if management and labor got together and changed the way it did business that it could prosper. I am also confident that over the course of 10 or 15 or 20 years that the American auto industry can continue to thrive. But what we have learned is that the American auto industry does not thrive when it tries to avoid the future. It thrives when it seizes the future. And that is true of our economy generally. We know that even though gas prices are low right now, over the long term fossil fuels are going to be more expensive. Detroit needs to be focused on capturing, you know, the lion's share of the market for fuel-efficient cars. And you know, they worked with us to double fuel-efficiency standards. We like big cars and we like driving long ways and we like cheap gas. And I keep on telling folks, enjoy the fact that gas is cheap right now, but we have got to plan for the future. And just as it is true with the auto industry generally, it is true for American manufacturing. It is true for American services. It is true for American energy production and innovation. When we are bold and we, you know, take a look at where we are going to be 10, 15, 20 years from now, we plan for it, we invest for it, we go after it, we succeed - nobody can beat us. And when we hunker down and we are defensive and scared of the future, that is when we get our clock cleaned. So let me - let me ask you about the broader economy. So for six years it is kind of been getting better, getting better, we are in a recovery, and then things have stalled out And we are at one of those points again where there is some economic data that suggest maybe things are going down.


Larry Summers talks about secular stagnation. Are we in secular stagnation or are things slowing down? And what can we do about it? Well, it is important to remember that, over the course of five years now, we have had job growth every month. The unemployment rate's come down from 10 to 5.5 , and it continues to improve. It has not been improving as quickly over the last several months as it was, let us say, last year. Now, there are some specific things we could do that would make a difference. If we move forward on a strong infrastructure bill, which traditionally has received bipartisan support - if you talk to Republicans and Democrats, they will both say we know we got to fix our roads, our bridges, our ports, our broadband lines, our smart grid. If we did that, we'd put people back to work right now, it would be a huge boost to the economy, and it would pay off for decades to come. That is what we need to compete. And so there are certain things that we know can make a difference. We should be doing it right now. But weakness in the economy that we see primarily as coming out of Europe, which has been soft for a long time now, and China, which is trying to transition away from solely relying on exports to a more domestic consumption model - that is actually a good thing over the long term, but short term it means that demand globally is a little bit soft. But overall, we are doing better and have been doing better than any other of the advanced economies, and we can continue to do that as long as we make some smart decisions starting now. We talked about a visitor, Prime Minister Abe. What are you going to tell him? What do you expect he is going to want to tell you? Well, I have had the honor of meeting him already once, and extraordinary individual, I think a transformative leader, not just within the Catholic Church but globally. You know, in our last conversation, we spent a lot of time talking about issues of poverty and how we help the least of these across the globe, and I suspect that that is a theme that he is going to continue to be interested in.


We are going to talk about climate change, I am sure, because he is very clear that part of the Church's teachings and part of my faith is we have to be good stewards of this incredible planet that we have been given, and there are steps that can be taken there, and the vulnerabilities of the poorest of the poor when it comes to climate change if we do not help deal with the issue. And I think issues of war and peace. You know, he is somebody who rightly, I think, expresses concerns about reducing conflict and reducing war, including in the Middle East, where Christians have been viciously attacked. And we consult with the Church very closely about how we can protect religious minorities in some of these war zones. So he is going to stop in Cuba on the way. Are you going to get to Cuba before you leave office? You know, I do not know if I will - I will get to Cuba, but what I know is is that a lot of Americans are going to get to Cuba over the next couple years. I mean, we are already seeing an incredible interest in trading with Cuba, investment in Cuba. Ninety-seven percent of Cubans approve of this new approach that we are taking - including, by the way, in conversations I had with a couple of Cuban dissidents while I was in Panama, who were fierce critics of the Castro regime but also confirmed their belief that engagement stands the best chance of actually creating new openings and new possibilities for freedom for the Cuban people. Well - well, first of all, Chicago-Washington would require them getting though Atlanta, and Cleveland. I am just assuming that. I think it is fair to say that anytime the Bulls are playing, I am rooting for the Bulls. But the - you know, Washington's been able to turn the season around. I think they kind of limped into the playoffs but they have - they have gotten their mojo back. So who knows, they may end up having a nice little run. So you are picking the Bulls for the Finals, that is the bottom line? Golden State looks tough once you get to the Finals.


ENTITY, I want, first of all, to thank you very much for this opportunity that, let me tell you, we have not had for several years. So, I thank you. And first of all I want to ask you, this Tokyo trip, it is for you the first appearance on the international scene. But at the same time, the expectations have never been so low for a G7 summit. You know the difficulties of the different countries and no trade agreement; Soviet aid, we do not know how much, how it will go. So, sir, what do you really think to accomplish? Well, let me say, first of all, I think the direction of the G-7 meeting is more important than the declaration. I think you put too much, sometimes, stock in the statement. I think it is very important that as world leaders we recommit ourselves to a strategy of global growth, to a strategy of open trade, to seriously examining the problems we are all having with creating jobs, and to dealing with the common security issues that we face. I predict that we will have a very successful meeting as regards Russia. And I still believe that we can make a lot of headway on the issues of trade and global growth. You know, what we really need to do with all the economic problems our nations have and the political problems is to remind ourselves that these are still very great countries with enormous possibilities and a great future. And we need to sort of lift the spirits of the people and focus on what we can do instead of what we cannot do. With regard to the political issues, we still, as you said so many times, ENTITY, we live in still a very dangerous world with so many challenges and crises. For example, you probably knew that today three Italian peacekeepers have been killed in Somalia, a dozen injured. Sir, you go to Tokyo; have you some new ideas on how to confront this dangerous world, the challenges? Well, first of all, let me say that my trip to Tokyo is a trip to the G-7 but also to Japan and to Asia. So one of the things that I intend to do is to make absolutely clear the United States' continuing commitment to engagement in Asia. I hope that we will have some time to talk at the G-7 about some of our other problems. But I would point out that the greatest security challenge we have faced in my judgment in the last 5 months was the threat to democracy in Russia.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


And the G-7 met the test. We rallied behind Yeltsin. We rallied behind democracy. We supported a free market economic reform in Russia. And I hope we will do so again at the G-7. We have not solved the problem in Bosnia, and our nations are somewhat divided about it. But I do have some ideas about those things that I will be discussing with the other leaders. ENTITY, let me start my question with your view on Japan. Since you took office you have mentioned Japan several times. At times you were somewhat stem, expressing its remoteness from an open market. At times you were generous for expressing the relationship of the most important bilateral one for the United States. Which of your assessments is true to your feeling? First of all, I probably have more admiration for your country in more ways than any ENTITY who has ever served. I have had the privilege of traveling to Japan many times. I actively sought Japanese companies to come to my State when I was a Governor. I believe you have a very great country with an even brighter future than your past. I think that our relationship is based on our ability to stand up for our common security interests, to promote the values of democracy and free markets, and to have a reasonable trade relationship. I think that there are things that we need to do in our trade relationship that will benefit both of us. I do not want to create American jobs at the expense of Japanese jobs. I think that changing the nature of the trading relationship is in the interest of both countries, and I do not think it is fair for an ENTITY to ask another country to do something that is good for America but bad for the other country. If I did not think it was good for both of us, I would not push that. But I think we will work that out. And the main thing I want to say to the people of Japan is that this period of political turmoil is not a bad thing for Japan. I know it is different from what you have experienced in the last few decades, but Japan has had an astonishing amount of success with the certain political arrangement. But as the global economy changes, as the people of Japan themselves change in their aspirations, the political system will have to alter to reflect that. And the people of Japan should be, I think, very hopeful about their future. Well, I think it depends in part on the development of ideas in Japan, both within the government, both elected and civil servant personnel, and among the people themselves.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


But I think you will see a resolution of this. I am not pessimistic at all about it, I am very hopeful that we will work these things out in ways that are good for both countries. I want to emphasize that. I have seen some of the press reports in Japan of some of my statements as if I want to protect American jobs and take Japanese jobs away. It is far more complex than that. I think that both of us have to undergo changes. Every nation represented in this circle, with the possible exception of Russia, has hounded the United States, has asked the United States for years to do something about our big Government deficit, saying that that caused a big imbalance in global trade. We are doing that. And change is not easy, and I think all of us will have to make some changes. I think we will see-my hunch is that the capacity for adjustment in both countries is greater than we sometimes think, and I think we will resolve this pretty quickly. ENTITY, may I begin by asking you about Bosnia? There is an impression that the indecisive way in which you have handled this issue is an illustration of the widening gap of trust between America and Europe. You advocated lifting the arms embargo on the Muslims and striking at some Serbian positions. And then you appeared to back away from that. Then you moved to a compromise plan for setting up safe havens. Now, that is a concept which you, yourself, described as a shooting gallery. Are you preparing now to wash your hands of this whole affair and possibly to blame the Europeans for the failure? Let me, first of all, point out what the United States has done just since I have been ENTITY. We spent a great deal of money on humanitarian aid; we have pushed hard for strengthening the embargo against Serbia; we have pushed for a number of other things to try to help resolve the situation that we have all agreed on. I did not back away from my position, sir. Britain and France and Russia said they would not support that position within the United Nations. The United States cannot act alone under international law in this instance. No, they disagreed with me. We had an honest disagreement about what the right policy to follow was. I expect as we go through time we will disagree about other things.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


I thought I could persuade them that we ought to try this because I was convinced that the reason Milosevic, Karadzic and others were making concessions to try to bring this conflict to an end is because the West was turning the pressure up. The leaders of Britain and France and Russia honestly did not believe that lifting the embargo would make things better, would hasten the day of peace. We had an honest disagreement. The German Government agreed with the position I took. But it was an honest disagreement within the most complicated foreign policy problem that any of us have faced in years. I do not seek to place blame anywhere. When my position did not prevail and when I did not have the power to implement it unilaterally because of the U.N. embargo on arms- all I could do is do what we did last week. I voted with many of the nonaligned nations in the United Nations, and we did not win the battle. But then I went back when you talk about changing my position, what I did was I went back to the British, the French, and the others and I said, Okay, what can we agree on? We do not want to say, 'Well, we did not get our way; so we are going to go home.' We will work with you. What can we agree on? They proposed a course that we then embarked on, and they agreed not to totally rule out lifting the arms embargo at a later date. So I, frankly, was pleased to try to work with and to support the efforts of Europe in this regard. I did not point the finger or blame. But we cannot deny the fact that there was an honest disagreement. So may I, as a follow-up, press you on this? You see, as you say, you voted at the United Nations with Djibouti and Morocco and Pakistan and the Cape Verde Islands on this issue about the arms embargo against Britain and France. Now, the impression still, though, is that nothing very much is happening and that it is felt it is very different when the issue, say, is Iraq when the job can be done with unmanned Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from a safe distance. There seems to be a difference of emphasis there in the urgency in the way these matters are handled. Well, I disagree with that.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


that in Iraq we had clear evidence that the government planned a terrorist attack and an assassination of a former President of the United States for actions he took as President. We clearly had the right to take action under international law, clearly. Secondly, if you forget about that action and you look at other actions against Iraq, they were taken within the framework of the United Nations and United Nations resolutions. The United Nations operates against, if you will-the governing resolution of the United Nations is against the policy that I have advocated in Bosnia. Therefore, it would take a change in the United Nations posture to effect that policy. The United States cannot go out and violate international law or go out on its own. That is not-we have never been for that. And we are well aware that even though our military establishment is the biggest and we are the most powerful country in the world militarily, we are well aware that when we commit ourselves to working with our neighbors, through NATO, through the U.N., through the Organization of American States, through any other group, that we have to be prepared not to always have our way just prevail overnight. I care just as much about those Muslims in the heart of Bosnia as I do about any other group of people in the world. I would give anything to somehow bring an end to the ethnic cleansing, to somehow have a resolution of that. And I think that we are still talking to one another and working in good faith and trying to come to grips with that. I do not believe, if you meant to ask me this, I do not believe that the United States or Europe should send huge numbers of soldiers there to get involved in a civil war on one side or the other. I do believe that we should use as much muscle as we can muster to try to bring a humane end to the tragedy. And I do not want to get into finger-pointing or blame-making; that is not the point. And as far as our willingness to commit troops, you know we put troops into Somalia, and I would say to the people of Italy and to the family members of those three soldiers, you have my gratitude and my deep condolences. A lot of these problems are not going to be easily solved.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


It looks like in both of our countries, in the United States and in Russia, what you see over the last few months or maybe in a short time is a growing awareness that, in spite of the fact that the cold war is over, we still have a lot of differences, that our national interests do not coincide as often as somebody would like them to do, to coincide. Now, when you meet President Yeltsin in a few days in Tokyo, on these lines what would your posture be there? How would you address these issues? And let me remind you that our Prime Minister Chernomyrdin was unable to come here because there were some differences unresolved yet. I would say first, we have a lot more in common than we have which divides us, that I am very proud of the support that the United States and, indeed, that the G-7 gave to the movement toward democracy and the fact that President Yeltsin stood up for the democratic process in Russia. And I am proud of the courage shown by the Russian people in trying to move toward a market-oriented economy as well as to preserve democracy. And our overriding interests at the C, -7 meeting in my judgment is to continue to provide assistance to Russia in that effort. And I will strongly support it. Now, are we going to have differences of opinion from time to time? I called President Yeltsin about that matter. We are trying to work it out. I still think we really need this bilateral cooperation. I want the Vice President and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin to meet and to talk about what we can do on cooperating in space, cooperating on nuclear issues, cooperating on environmental issues. But we are going to have differences from time to time. That happens in life. You are talking about support. Can we expect anything significant and concrete at the G-7 concerning the aid to Russia? The United States committed $1.6 billion at Vancouver. We have another bill moving through our Congress that deals largely with energy and nuclear issues and environmental issues, as well as student exchanges and the attempt to privatize-assistance to privatize industry in Russia. It has passed one House of our Congress overwhelmingly and will pass the other shortly. The IMF, 2 days ago, released the first $1.5 billion in authority to Russia.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


And I think you will see the G-7 agree that we ought all to contribute to a fund to help privatize industry and to start new enterprises and to do things like that. I think this G-7 meeting will be good for Russia. You think they will be cooperative, the rest of the countries? We are all having economic trouble, so there will not be probably as much money as I would like because of the economic difficulties that all the nations have. But I think given the problems that the people of these countries have, the commitment to do more for Russia will be clear, substantial, and generous because of all the problems all of our countries have at home. ENTITY, Prime Minister Balladur has warned there will be no world trade agreement unless U.S. penalties on steel are lifted. What can the United States do in Tokyo to try to diffuse the confrontation? And do you think there is any room for a political compromise? Well, let me say, first of all, the White House had no involvement in that case. We have a process here which is almost like a judicial process in a court for dealing with these things. Clearly, it is legal to have this kind of operation under GATT. So the legality is not in question. If the Prime Minister believes that the facts are different from the facts that were found here, obviously, we can discuss that. My attitude about that is that all these issues ought to be subject to discussion at the C-7 meetings. I mean, one of the things that really bothers me about some of these meetings in the past is that we have all been so afraid of making a mistake, that we have all of our aides around, and we have got everything written down on paper. And if you spend all your time trying to avoid making a mistake, it is hard to make anything good happen. And so one of the things that I am really working for at G-7 is a totally open framework where we can honestly share with each other what we feel and how we can resolve this. France, if I might say, France has 'had some truly astonishing economic accomplishments in the last 10 years, many years in which the productivity growth in France was higher than any other European country and higher than the United States' growth. And yet France has had some continuing problems with persistent high unemployment, even with high growth.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


So my own view is that it is very much in the interest of France to have a GATT agreement which opens trade and gives the incredible productive capacity of France broader outlets around the world. And I do not want to do anything to stand in the way of that, but we are going to have to work through some of these issues. And I realize how hard it is in France or in any other country with a high unemployment rate to conduct a trade agreement, because people are afraid of change. But when you are in trouble, that is when you need to change. Sir, you have been elected to put America back to work. Do you think the United States has a leadership responsibility in helping the world economy get back to work? And I do not believe that Americans can go back to work in sufficient numbers until the world begins to work more. For example, we have created in this country in the last 5 months about 960, 000 jobs. That is about the same number we created in the previous 4 years. In the last 5 years, two-thirds of our jobs have come from exports, two-thirds. Even though I think it is the fight thing to do, it is not simple generosity that prompts me to try to put this money into Russia. I think who is going to be the United States customer in 5 years or 10 years? Look at all the people who live in Russia. Look at all the people who live in Ukraine. Look at all the people who live in the other Republics. My job is not just to go to the G-7 meeting and negotiate for the United States. My job is to try to help us all do something that is good for the world. ENTITY, during the campaign you talked a lot about American leadership. So far we have not seen it. Europeans are confused about your direction in foreign policy, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia. You did not solve any of these problems really. How would you define your leadership role? First of all, the central challenge that we have faced since I have been ENTITY was the crisis in Russia. And the United States did lead and Europe participated in and Japan participated in an aggressive response from the advanced nations of the world in standing up for democracy and market reform in Russia. That overshadowed every other challenge that we have faced in terms of what it is going to do for our long-term interests. And let us not be confused about that. That was the central challenge that will affect our interests.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


And we did respond, not just the United States, all of us did. And we did the right thing and so far it is had the right consequence. With regard to Somalia, I frankly just disagree with you about that. I think the United States, under my predecessor-I cannot take credit for it-he led the way for a multinational coalition to go into Somalia. We saved hundreds of thousands of lives. We restored order. Children can go to school again. Now, Somalia did not have the infrastructure of a nation. Aideed presented us a problem. We did our best to break the back of his military capacity to disrupt Somalia without appearing to go after him personally. I would like it if he were arrested but without trying to just take him out personally. I think we are on the right path in Somalia, but we have to have patience in nation-building. With regard to Iraq, the action I took in Iraq was specifically designed to respond to the attempt to assassinate President Bush. There are a whole set of other issues which have to do with Iraq's defiance of the U.N. resolutions. The Security Council issued a very stern warning to Iraq, and I think there will either be more compliance or some sort of appropriate action. But again, I would say to you if you look at Iraq and you say we did not solve that, it seems to me that the west did the right thing in not being obsessed with deposing Saddam Hussein. We acted against him because he invaded Kuwait. So he was removed from Kuwait and has been confined in a lot of the mischief he might have otherwise have wreaked. So I do not know if you can tout that as a failure. Bosnia is a disappointment, but it is the most difficult problem, not only in Europe but in the world. We have honest disagreements among ourselves. I still have every hope that something can be done. And I have said repeatedly that the United States would be prepared to contribute to a genuine effort to maintain the peace if an agreement can be signed. I had thought, as you know, that lifting the arms embargo would accelerate movement to a genuine peace. I still believe that. That is the way it is in the world we are living in. But I am prepared to make a contribution to maintaining a genuine settlement in Bosnia. I do not believe the West should send in huge numbers of troops to get involved in trying to fight all three sides in a civil war.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


The German Bundestag decided today that Germans also can stay in Somalia. I am very grateful for that. Do you expect Germany to make their troops available for peacekeeping and peacemaking missions, or is this perhaps the price Germany has to pay for a seat at the Security Council? Well, as you know, I favor a seat for Germany and for Japan in the Security Council. I do not think I should involve myself too much in the internal politics of Germany over this issue except to say that as ENTITY I am profoundly grateful for the position that Chancellor Kohl has taken on these issues and the willingness of the German people to support involvement in Somalia, to try to help insofar as they could in Bosnia. And I think it is very hopeful for the future. I think all of us will have to get into more of these difficult situations like Somalia that have no easy immediate answer if we are going to try to help. If we can reach an agreement in Bosnia and we wind up sending troops there as a result of a peace agreement, there still will be ragged edges to it and difficult moments. ENTITY, I'd like to turn if I could to the issue of the North American Free Trade Agreement. As you know, there was a U.S. court ruling this week that said that NAFTA could do serious damage to the environment and ordering your administration to conduct an environmental impact review. You have decided to appeal that decision. What happens if you lose the appeal? Are you going to at that point bull ahead with NAFTA and ignore the court order? Well, in our country we cannot ignore court orders. But, first of all, we announced that we would appeal within the hour of the decision. We also are exploring other options for compliance that would not delay the treaty, and we are proceeding full-speed ahead. But the irony of this is that, as you know, this administration has taken some extra time with NAFTA to try to conclude environmental agreements that would make it absolutely clear that the NAFTA agreement would improve the environment on both sides of the border. So this is a delaying tactic but does not square with the facts. NAFTA will help us to improve the environment on both sides of the border. That is what we are negotiating so hard with the Mexicans on, and the Canadians have been supportive of the idea that we ought to try to make sure that there is no environmental degradation. So I still think we can pass it. And we are going to work on it.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


You will not play in an hour and a half, I guarantee you. Gaining some of the weight back, are you? Do you still do the stair-climber? Is that a vicious assault on my figure, or what? Actually, I got it down. The medicine drove it -- now I am at 190. Can you feel the thyroid medicine's side effects? I feel it in that it is not quite right in the tummy and stuff, when it affects you in that way. By the end of the day I am probably a little more tired than I would have been, but I have a full schedule. Like yesterday, though, I came home before going to the ball game and took a little nap, which I might have done anyway because of the 3-hour time change. Have you had any other recurrence of the accelerated heartbeat? I think it is supposed to from time to time, but if it has, it is been very, very short. But I think it is been normal 99.9 percent of the time. They do not seem to worry about that anymore. ENTITY, as you know, abortion may be a key issue in the 1992 Presidential campaign. You have supported the overturning of Roe versus Wade. Well, because I think there are too many abortions, and I favor life over abortion. I have said this in the past, but I think adoption is a good one; I think education is one. The spiraling rate of abortions in this country just bothers me from an ethical standpoint. Incidentally -- you put it in a context of an election -- I remember in 1988. It is but one of but many issues. And in the Republican Party, for example, we have people that agree with me and we have people that disagree with me. And so, I think it will always be that way, and it is a very tough personal issue for the American people. But that is my position, and I am going to stay with it. Pete Wilson, Governor of California, has taken a very strong position against your position, that is, your position supporting the law which would prohibit Federal funding of clinics that disseminate abortion information. He would use scarce California tax dollars to supplant those Federal funds that you are trying to cut off. How do you react to that? Is that frustrating to you? What is frustrating to me is using Federal taxpayers to promote or counsel on abortion.

Interview With Linda Douglas of KNBC, Jim Lampley of KCBS, and Paul Moyer of KABC in Los Angeles, California


That is against the policy of this and previous administrations. But whatever somebody else at State levels do, I cannot argue with the Governor. We have a difference on how we look at that very sensitive question. But there are so many other issues with which I agree with him that it does not bother me, if that was the question, at all. So, I think the thing is, look, here is what I believe. We have got people in our party that agree and people that disagree, so stay with your position. And have people understand that we have got a big tent approach in our party, and I think the Democrats do. I think many, many Democrats support my position. You know, they had some protesters out at CalTech where I spoke yesterday. As I said to the crowd there, it was kind of beneath the dignity of my office because there were so few. Normally, we can attract more protest than that. But they had gags. They were the noisiest people with gags in their mouths, I will admit, that I have ever seen. What they were protesting, though, is something quite -- a misunderstanding. I think they were saying the Federal Government says you cannot inform people about -- I mean, that the policy in the country as a result of the Supreme Court decision is that you cannot inform people about abortion. I just do not want them done with Federal taxpayers' money going in a way that would promote abortion. But people are free to do it, but I do not want the Federal money going into that. The sanctions before the war did not get him out. His people did not overthrow him, as you called for them to do. He put down two rebellions, one in the north, one in the south. What is it going to take to get him out? Well, may I remind you a little history. The policy was not to get him out of office; the policy was to get him out of Kuwait. International statements by the United Nations in concert said, this aggression will not stand. The original call for sanctions by those who opposed my policy right up to the very end was, Sanctions will get him out of Kuwait; sanctions will reverse the aggression. It was very clear to me that it would not . And so, out he went from Kuwait -- which would have, under the policy of everybody, achieved all the objectives. It achieved ours.


And my view is, we will not have normalized relations with Saddam Hussein as long as he is behaving this way. Do not change the goalposts, I tell my critics. And it was an enormous victory that was properly celebrated here and all around the world. Will we lighten up on international sanctions as long as he is there? But I must clarify, because the way your question came at me made me think of some of the political critics who were saying we did not succeed. And our objective was never to throw him out of office. So, I am still hopeful that, recognizing the economy in that country is very sorry, that the Iraqi people will do what they should have done long ago, in my view. What he is done to the environment, what he did to the people of Kuwait, what he is doing to his own people is unconscionable. But it was not an objective of the United Nations resolutions or the U.S. policy to throw him out of office. The objective was to throw him out of Kuwait, and boy, did our people perform well. If I can follow up, your people are interviewing an Iraqi defector, and they take great credence in what he is saying about the fact that there are maybe four nuclear installations in northern Iraq that we did not know about, one hidden in a mountain. Forty percent of his chemical capability could still be there. What are the implications of that, ENTITY, to Israel's security, to the United States, and what are we going to do about it? The implications are that he is violating agreements with the overall peace agreement. The implications are that he is got to -- I mean, the answer to these charges is that we are going to have to find out how much of all these allegations are true and make him comply with what is now international law through an agreement with all the parties that they would fully account for what is left. I think you are dealing, understandably, with part of the data. I hope I am dealing with more of the data. I do not think either of us is dealing with all of the data. So, one, we have got to establish the facts, and two, we have to make clear that he will not remain with a nuclear capability. And, yes, probably some of it did survive, obviously. His ability to project all this into an atomic weapon has been set back into the Dark Ages.


But nevertheless, you are right when you say there should -- or indicate that there should be concern about his possession of any of these things. The U.N. has a committee; they must go and examine every lead. They must go into the geography, into the places that defectors or any other pieces of intelligence lead us. And he better be open about it. And that is one more reason there will not be any normalized relations under the status quo. ENTITY, let us turn to the subject of our military defenses and California's economy. We are 2 weeks away now from final recommendations as to how many California military bases are going to be recommended for closure. The Long Beach Naval Shipyard, just for one example, turns a profit, returned $56 million to the Treasury last year, and is targeted for elimination. What do you see as the most important criteria in making these final decisions? What I see is the most important criteria is what is best for the overall defense of this country. We have seen in the war the need to have a rapid-deployed force that is the best in the world. And we have seen in this, out of the Gulf Desert Storm operation, Desert Shield, the need to project naval forces around the world. So, the policies of the Defense Department are based on this national interest. Now, there is a Base Closure Commission that will be making final recommendations, and they are trying to approach this without regard to politics. They are trying to say what is the best for the national defense. And as you would cite the concerns from a shipyard that has performed well, I can shift you to the east coast and cite the concerns about an airbase that my airplane lands in that was the first one -- Air Force One up at Pease Air Force Base, the SAC base -- that had a useful role to play in Desert Storm and is targeted for the first airbase to be closed. I would also make a political statement that I hope is not misinterpreted by the people of Long Beach. Every Congressman I know wants to close bases, but they want to close them in the other guy's district. And so, what we are trying to do is take into consideration the economic facts, take into consideration how well an installation has performed, but do what is best for the national good. And then it will go up to the Congress, and it will be fine-tuned there.


And I have great confidence in the Secretary of Defense and in Colin Powell and the Chiefs to make these very tough decisions. But I remember the campaign and the politics where -- Why are you spending so much on defense? Well, defense has taken a big hit, and we can live with it. But we have got to live with it in a way that projects force rapidly and so I can go to the American people and say, look, we have got the adequate defenses -- sea and air and ground -- to, one, safeguard this country, and two, to do what is right around the world. So, are you saying that you are likely to go down the line with the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure Commission regardless of whether those recommendations run counter to your short-term economic goals and dollars? I will go down the line with the recommendations of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense, just as I did when we waged war in Desert Storm. If they say Long Beach, Long Beach goes? I have great confidence in them. And if I did not have confidence in them, they would not be in their jobs. It is not a President's role to second-guess the fine-tuning of the defense. It is his dire responsibility to guarantee to the American people that the national security interests are being met and that our military is second to none in the world. So, I have to look at it that way. If they recommend to close the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, you will close it? I will not use politics to counter a decision by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense. And Congress will take a look at these matters. But do not count on the ENTITY to look after my political interests, confident as I am of the ability of that shipyard and other shipyards around this country, air-bases around this country. That is, the ENTITY has to rise above politics no matter whether it hurts him or helps him politically. And I have to look at it that way. And my appeal to the American people if I run again will be, look, we are doing what is in the best interest of the United States. And I make one more observation. And there is also a history that after bases close, if the economy is in good shape, there is a vigorous private sector that comes in and that gets these facilities in one way or another. There is a public service aspect where some of these could be turned into facilities for other purposes.


But I am not going to use politics to second-guess my Secretary of Defense. And I hope the American people understand that. ENTITY, the Office of the Vice Presidency has always been the most powerful springboard into the Presidency that has existed over time. Look, let me say something about that. I was there for 8 years. You say it is a powerful springboard, but do you remember the flak I got that no Vice President since Martin Van Buren had ever ascended to the Presidency in his own right? My view on Dan Quayle is he is done a good job. He is getting the most unfair rap from his critics of anybody that is been in this job. And you are talking to the wimp. You are talking to the guy that had a cover of a national magazine that I will never forgive that put that label on me. And now some that saw that we can react when the going gets tough maybe have withdrawn that allegation. The job does not lend itself to high profile and decisionmaking. It lends itself to loyally supporting the ENTITY of the United States, giving him your best judgment, and then when the ENTITY makes a decision, supporting it. May I give you an example? He just came back from Eastern Europe. I do not remember any front-page stories or spelling out the great success of that trip. He is over there reassuring the Eastern Europeans that we are interested in their recovery. All you read about is the Soviet Union in that regard. He did a fantastic job there. He is done it in South America. He is done it in Asia. He is done it domestically, supporting my domestic agenda that we do not read too much about. And so, he is doing a first-class job. And I will let the system work on the politics, but I am glad to have this opportunity to defend him fully. You are not going to get me into 1992 politics as it relates to the Vice President or this one except to say he is going to be on the ticket if I run again. I gave you my answer. Do not try to get me -- and listen, I have learned a lot since I saw you guys last, and that is to answer what I want to answer, not what you want to ask. I am going to ask you this anyway. Let us talk about Dan Quayle, the man, all right? Your support for him is undeniable. We have just heard it.


What is it about Dan Quayle, the man, that prompts these jokes from Carson, Letterman, the piling on, as one Congressman put it the other day, and the impugning of this man's character? What is it about Dan Quayle, the man, that created these kinds of jokes? Hey, listen, you are talking to the number one butt of the jokes for Leno and Letterman and Johnny Carson for 8 years. I think I led the parade. Every once in a while, Ronald Reagan, popular as he was with the people, would take a couple of broadsides. But I led the parade. It goes with the territory. It has nothing to do with Dan Quayle's performance because his performance is superb. Same way it started with me. Same way it starts with any Vice President. So, it just goes with the territory. Do not you remember what Herbert Hoover said -- I mean, who was it said -- Vice President Garner -- The Vice Presidency is not worth a warm bucket of spit. Now, try that one on for size and see how Jay Leno goes with it. Are you suggesting that if Pete Wilson were Vice President he'd be the subject of just such jokes and barbs? I am suggesting that when I was Vice President for 8 years, I was the subject of such barbs. It goes with the territory. And I tell Dan that. I say, hey, start the word with a B, not a Q, and put history in perspective. I admit they are piling on more. But the only explanation I can give you to a very good question is, it goes with the territory. Some good things go with it, too. Here I sit, Martin Van Buren to the contrary. The implication of some of these comments about Dan Quayle, ENTITY, to be quite candid with you, are that he is not very bright, that he is a dufus. And they are just so unfair and so grossly wrong that I can think of no other answer than it goes with the territory. I really believe that. I see the guy every day in action. He asks the tough questions. And I ask him -- I challenge him on things inside. And I could ask for no more loyal supporter in that job than Dan Quayle. So, I cannot explain it. But you know, I will tell you something.


After I had a little fibrillation cum thyroid, there was kind of a -- there was a piling on. Any fair-minded American knows that. Might have been a joke; might have been a hype in these news magazines -- regrettably, some of them going more to the gossip, the little squibs in the front. And I am confident when all look at him on the merits, they will see what I see. So, I enjoy defending him because I know I am right. I see him in action. Jay Leno does not ; he needs a laugh in 1991, just like he needed one off of me in 1987. It took me a while, incidentally, as Vice President to get used to it. Then they were saying to me, hey, he is spelling B-U-S-H right, so why not let him fire away. You cannot do anything about it anyway. Well, sir, I guess you do appear to be willing to talk about Mr. Quayle, so I guess I do not understand why you are not willing to address the question of whether or not you'd like him to be President some day. I answered your question as best I can, and I am not going to answer it anymore. I think he is well-qualified to be, but please do not inject me into 1996 politics before a final decision's been made on 1992. If you are asking me, is he qualified, the answer is, absolutely, yes. So, let me go a little further and tell you that. ENTITY, there is a brand new book by the political writer of the Washington Post, Why Americans Hate Politics. Recently we had a municipal election here, 5 city council seats up for grabs; voter turnout was well under 20 percent. Do Americans hate politics? I do not agree with whoever the writer is for -- Who wrote the book? I have not read the book, regrettably, so I -- -- Maybe they are happy with their President. They are making a big mistake if they do not . And I think there is a turnoff on politics. I have been pointing out some of it recently in the fact that I think there is a frustration with the legislative branch as a body because I think people see the Congress, as a whole, not acting. And maybe it is my own frustration because we have proposed initiative after initiative.


an anticrime bill that we put forward 24 months ago, I think, today, and no action has been taken on it. And American people look at their neighborhoods and they say, wait a minute, we have 535 Members of Congress, and why has not something happened? This could be part of it. I do not know why there is a frustration, but I mean, I should, in fairness, look at Dionne's book because I think he is a cogent observer of the American political scene. But I had not heard of the book or seen it. ENTITY, I know that you recently wrote a letter to former hostage William Morehead, I believe, is his -- Eight of the former hostages have called for an investigation of the accusations that the Reagan campaign people delayed the release of the hostages until after he was inaugurated, signed also by a local hostage by the name of Jerry Plotkin, local former hostage. I know your feelings on this. Let me ask you, you do not like what you call the rumormongering and the speculation. Would not a bipartisan congressional investigation with subpoena power put all that to rest? It could, and Congress is looking at it. Would you like to see it? I have not seen any evidence to support it. But if Congress concludes it, I'd welcome it. But I have seen enough rumormongering and hatemongering, accusing me of things inferentially that I do not like, that I can categorically deny it, as I did to Morehead Kennedy. I think he is accepted that. They had me in Paris on October 20th. So, what did we do? We put out a play-by-play, an hour-by-hour part of the schedule. And so, some of them had the decency to retract that charge. Let Congress do it. I think anything by the executive branch would be suspiciously viewed as something less than objective. But you'd welcome a congressional investigation? If they see the evidence to go forward. But to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars based on rumors, I am sorry, I do not think that is good. But let me tell you this on that one. To assign to me the motive that for political gain I would assign an American to captivity one minute longer than necessary, I think is a vicious personal assault on my integrity and my character as ENTITY.


I do not think I'd deserve to be in this Office if for one minute I suggested a person be held hostage so I could get political gain. And I know the same is true of President Reagan. So, this is what troubles me about these allegations. But if there is evidence -- the Congress is looking, they have got committees looking at it -- let them go forward. I have nothing to -- would not stand in the way of that. But if there is no evidence, I think they ought to say so, to lay it to rest. If I were a hostage -- I told Kennedy, hey, if I were in your position and I read a bunch of allegations about me or anyone else, I'd be heartbroken. I'd want to get to the bottom of it. So, let me tell you, Morehead, what I know. And I know I had nothing to do with it, and I have no knowledge of anybody that had anything to do with it. To the best of my knowledge, I can. I know of nothing, direct or indirect, that would suggest this. And I can categorically deny that I was not in Paris when these rumors and these allegations put me there. How do you clear your name? Maybe the investigation is it, but it has to be based on fact. It cannot just go out there and have a billion-dollar witch-hunt. So, I'd love to get it cleared, and I have done it as emphatically as possible. Because this gets to the heart of character. This gets to your soul. This gets to what is decent and right in the world. And to suggest that a sitting President or a then Vice President would in any way, direct, indirect, know of and condone this, it touches me much more than some that -- like disagreeing on abortion or disagreeing on closing bases. This one gets to the soul. And I am glad you gave me a chance to wax emotional about it because it really turns me off, these little clever suggestions that I might have been involved. And all I can do is deny any knowledge of it, direct, indirect, for me or anyone else. And I have a feeling that the American people are fair and they will understand this. This is the most emotional I have been about it, but you touched a real nerve, and so did Kennedy.


That is why I wrote him the letter I did, which categorically denied it, direct or indirect. ENTITY, is George Deukmejian on your list of candidates for Attorney General to replace Mr. Thornburgh? Hey, you know something? Two, that matter's been thrown into a cloud, a judge intervening in the process up there, so I do not know there is a vacancy. And three, I do not have a list. He seems very happy in what he is doing. Can we get, just very quickly -- we touched on it in the beginning -- -- But I have enjoyed it very -- -- I know you have got to go tee it up at Sherwood. Are you still taking the medication? Yes, I take medication, and I have brought along my doctor, who is tethered out here somewhere, who would be glad to give you -- oops, he is not tethered out there somewhere. But if you really want it, on-camera question, I am sure he'd be glad to answer it. I am on medication. The medication is trying to get the thyroid in balance and guards against, in the process, fibrillation of the heart. Incidentally, I think every other guy on the street has had a heart fibrillation. I have never seen so much mail from people across the country. They are all telling me exactly what to do. We had a letter from one saying it was a conspiracy of the Mossad, which happens to be the very good security agency in Israel. And I am flattered with the interest. I ran 2 miles on Monday. I worked out on one of those bicycles this morning. I cannot tell you I feel perfect yet, but I am getting there. But I want to get off all this medicine. And I think they proclaim in a couple of weeks I will be there. Are you going to endorse Senator Seymour in his race against Bill Dannemeyer? Listen, there is a thousand issues, and I am proud to have his support. You know, you asked a good question. What is it that tries to find a difference -- I guess it is because you do not want to talk about all the banks that were not robbed today, that were not robbed today. So, everybody looks for a difference between me and another Republican, just as they look at the differences the Democrats are fighting endlessly about in the same way.


Maybe it is more tranquil, the Willie Brown versus whoever it is in the Senate. But nevertheless, I support Seymour. It is my view that the country has got other issues on their mind -- national security, the economy, the environment -- a thousand issues, including pro-choice. Are you for abortion or are you against it? A lot of people have that one as the number one issue. But elections are not decided on that. And then you have another layer which is the values. People tease me about talking about family, faith, all this kind of thing. So, it is not as simple as some proponents of a special issue would have you believe. And I learned long ago, there is not one single Republican that agrees with me on every issue. I am not going to ask that there be a litmus test on every single issue. I want somebody else to vote for me besides me. And so, I support Seymour. I think I am going to be out here in the fall for a fundraiser for him and I hope it drags in some bucks. We have got a Representative Tom Campbell from up around Stanford who is a moderate Republican; we have a conservative by the name of Bruce Herschensohn, who is a political commentator. How do you handicap that one? The same way I did in handicapping when I ran for ENTITY in '88. Let the voters decide it. You want to endorse somebody there? Let the voters decide it. I do not get into primaries. I am supporting tickets, but I do not get into primaries. Sir, you say if you run again in `92. Oh, you are pressing me a little early. I'd owe it to the American people to say, hey, I am up for the job for 4 more years. I am absolutely convinced on that one. If you had to ask me that one today, I think health's in good enough shape to certify, yea, but I want to take a look at it later on. I have got a strong-willed wife. But if the family appealed that I not do it, I'd have to say that would weigh with me. Hey, Mom, I am on TV. And others want to shun the -- they want to protect their privacy. I think we have worked out a balance as a family, but in all seriousness, that could have an effect. It would not be decided on running away from a battle.


I think it is good politics, too, not to have to get out front and have, Here is my campaign manager for Orange County, or Here is who is going to run the fundraising effort in San Francisco. You know, one more point on the politics. The political observers -- you had mentioned one. I do not know about Dionne's position, but many of them -- it is brutal. It is unfair to the American people. So you oppose moving the California primary to March, as opposed to its present position in June? I am going to take an heroic position on that one and say let Californians decide. I am going to go tee it up. A quick one for him, one for her, and then I am history. And do not ask me the same question again, because I just cannot answer it. I will ask you a different one. You are perhaps one of the most qualified Presidents in our history in terms of your experience, before you became President, in government. and tell me what is it, the one thing about this job that is just so doggone harder -- much more difficult than you thought it would be? In many ways it is less hard. But the one thing that is harder, or if I could substitute the word frustrating, is the inability to get my domestic program through. We are in a fight on civil rights, for example. I pride myself on having a record of conscience and compassion on civil rights. We have before the Congress a civil rights bill that, in my view, would go a long way to eliminating discrimination in the workplace. And it would not result in quotas, direct or indirect. It would not compel employers to put in quotas in order to avoid lawsuits. I feel strongly about this legislation. I cannot get my legislation seriously considered, hearings before committees on it. It is harder, given the fact the other party controls both Houses of the Congress, to get the things done I want done -- or put it more broadmindedly, get the things done that I think I was elected to do. But I have to accept the fact that the executive branch is ours, the congressional branch is controlled by the leaders. So, when we get into the campaign you are pushing on, I will go after them. They have already started going after me. And I have started a little bit kinder and gentler approach so far. But the American people will get this in focus.


But therein is the harder part because I spell out an agenda, I take my case to the people on an agenda, and we are frustrated. We needed the support of the Congress. Sanction the use of force. Do what every nation in the world has done almost through the United Nations sanctions. There it was different because the President in foreign policy and in running a war, if you will, has much more power in the ability to call decision. I did not have to call the subcommittee on military defense to ask if the air war should start. I did not have to summon the congressional leaders to say, please give me a vote, 6 to 4, as to whether we are going to start the ground war. And so, that part -- not that the war was easy, not that the committing of forces was easy, but from a running-my-job standpoint it was easier. I could assign the duties to Norm Schwarzkopf, through Colin Powell, through Cheney, and not have to worry about a subcommittee wanting to take a look and now we will reallocate -- hey, Norm, do not send the 81st Airborne there; put them over here in Iraq somewhere. It is a big difference; foreign policy is a big difference, not in funding but a big difference in how you run, making something happen. And that is going to mean I need more support in the Congress -- excuse the pitch. In a sense, you are saying that, as for your job, the war with Iraq was easier than the war with Congress? I am going to put your son in harm's way; I am going to send your daughter to be the first woman that might be in combat -- thinking of a dead woman who performed heroically, the helicopter pilot. I confessed the other day -- I do not like these personal confessions, but I confessed that up at Camp David the tears came down my eyes as I had to contemplate this. So, it is not easier in that, in the moral obligation you have, but it is easier in getting something to happen. Can you imagine, understanding that you want to stay away from the '92 campaign, that you or whoever runs in your place will, nevertheless, make a point of those Democrats who voted against the war, a strong point, to defeat them on that issue? Well, you are already seeing some of that on both sides.


You are seeing people defending their votes, and you are seeing people attacking some on their votes. As I told you, I have not contemplated tactics or campaign. I think on that one I would say, look, you are -- kind of like I did just now -- here is what I had to do, here is how the American people responded. You see, I do not think it is wrong to have these parades. When I go down -- yesterday, riding in a big limo in areas where people -- I am sure they did not vote for me in overwhelming numbers, some of the neighborhoods we went through. They were just areas that demographically are tough for Republicans. But when you see them out there with a little American flag, they are not saying hooray for George Bush; they are saying something's different in our country. And back inside the beltway, on some of these deadly talk shows, some of them do not get it. They do not understand what is happened in the country. I do not have to flog this. I do not have to put it, I did it. This team -- these are young men and women, many of whom are -- put it in political terms -- for me, against me, they did their duty for their country. And I think the American people will understand that without my having to throw a partisan spin on it for 1992. It was bigger than that. It was more majestic than that. And I will try to resist demagoguery because I really feel so emotional about what our troops did and what our general officers did and how the war was done, compared to other wars. And for that, I salute those who had the authority to make decisions. So, I hope I can rise above a temptation to politicize something that was noble for our whole country and in which everybody -- Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservatives -- should take enormous pride. We were wound up as well as you, sir. Well, I enjoyed it -- as you could tell -- very, very much.


ENTITY, your interest in Basketball has been well documented, in that there are a few things going on in your world everyday, how often do you get to come out here and play? Not as often as I like, but during say, the Health Care Debate, when things are just, you know, going crazy over on Capitol Hill, a lot of times I will just come out here and shoot or I will play a game of HORSE it takes an edge off things. Now these days when you are involved in Pick-Up games, do you feel that you are dealing with less physical contact since you became ENTITY? Well it is true I usually have guys with guns around. So, if somebody, you know, takes a real hard fall -- foul, they could get in trouble. Nobody ever lets me with because if you let me win, you will never hear the end of it. I will talk a little trash about you. I will make you feel bad about yourself if we beat you real bad. Now, I am assuming that Bowling is not on the schedule? So Marv, you are touching on a slightly sensitive point. I am not going to walk off the set here but, we do have a bowling alley here at the White House and I have gotten a lot better. Now do you find yourself, as we all have back in the day on the playground, doing play-by-play to yourself? You come out here, maybe count it down. For example the game is tied -- In the back of my mind, ENTITY is making the call. So, it is Obama with the ball. I have your voice in my head as I am shooting the three. Now I know you do not want to be accused of tampering for your Bulls but, any advice that you might have, for LeBron James as he approaches free agency? I think that the most important thing for LeBron right now is actually to find a structure where he is got a coach that he respects and is working hard with teammates who care about him and if that is in Cleveland, then he should stay in Cleveland. If he does not feel like he can get it there, then someplace else. The one thing I remember about the Bulls was it was not until Michael had confidence in Phil Jackson, Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant; it was not until you got that framework around you that you could be a champion. Same thing happened with Kobe.

Interview With Marv Albert of Turner Network Television (TNT)


First with Shaq then later with Gasol, you know, he is gotten that sense of a team around him and I think LeBron has not quite been able to get that yet; that is what he needs to find. Could you, on behalf of the Bulls, throw in perhaps a night in the Lincoln Bedroom or ride on Air Force One? I will say this, Rose, Noah -- If you were NBA Commissioner for a day, what changes would you make? You know, I will be honest with you, I think the game is in a good place right now. The way they are calling the game right now returns basketball to where its supposed to be; more of a finesse game. The biggest change I'd probably propose right now is, the commissioner needs to figure out how to price tickets so that ordinary people can go to the games. I mean I think that ticket prices have gotten so high, and I understand that salaries are high, ticket prices are going to be high but, you know, you hate to think that the only person that can go to a game is somebody who is got a corporate account. And that is something that I'd love all professional sports, that is not just NBA, but all professional sports to be thinking about a little more. Alright the Phoenix Suns, in the news recently wearing the Los Suns jerseys on Cinco de Mayo. And they took a stand opposing Arizona's immigration policy, how do you feel about sports franchises getting involved in political issues? You know, I think that just because somebody's a sports figure or you got a sports team does not mean that you are not part of the community and you are not part of our democracy. I think it is terrific that the Suns, who obviously feel very strong about their community, recognize that a big part of their community felt threatened by this new law. You know, when I was growing up, you had figures like Arthur Ashe and Bill Russell who routinely would talk about the world around them. You would not always agree with them but, that sense that, you know, people are engaged in the big issues of the day, I think is a positive thing and I do not think that either players or franchises need to always steer away from controversy. I happen to personally think that the Arizona Law is a bad idea, I have said so publicly and I see no reason why these guys cannot make the same statement. Here in Washington, it is a great deal of excitement.


John Wall of Kentucky would be, I would guess, the early line favorite. What is your, I know you watch a lot of college basketball, what is your scouting report? I mean, you know, he is got the NBA speed, NBA body, great jump shot, unselfish, really impressive. And I think it'd be great for him to come to Washington. I became very close to Abe Pollin, who was a great supporter, he and wife. He just passes away recently but there is an example of a guy who constantly gave back to his community. I mean, almost single-handedly, he invested in downtown Washington at a time when it was in really bad shape. You know, generated huge affection in this city and it was wonderful to see his widow there; getting that number one pick and I only wish the best for that franchise. What is the Presidential pick for this season's NBA Champions? Boston surprised me. They gelled in the playoffs in a way that they had not all through the season. Rondo's become one of the best point guards in the league in no time. I mean, when he gets a real jump shot, he is going to be unstoppable but I have got to go with the Lakers again. I think Gasol may be the best big man in the league right now. Great footwork. Kobe is, you know, the fiercest competitor in the league and they have got, you know, what I continue to believe is the best coach in the NBA right now in Phil Jackson so there going to be formidable and I think it'll be a tough series. ENTITY, we appreciate your taking the time and I really like your back yard. Listen, you are welcome, Marv, to call play-by-play in any pick up game that we have. I want you to let Kenny know and Charles know, that I appreciate them. And I am curious about Charles' golf game though. A lot of people are curious about that.


Earlier today, in a speech at Georgetown University, I discussed the opportunities now before our Nation. Before I take your questions, let me just take a moment to recap what I believe is America's agenda in the coming months. Our trip to Europe advanced America's ideals and interests. Working with our partners, we won an agreement to ban abusive child labor everywhere in the world, took new steps to strengthen the global economy, agreed to triple the debt relief provided for many of the poorest nations, and to strengthen democracy and reform in Russia. We also worked to put together, to put in place the building blocks of peace in Kosovo and to put the Balkans on a shared path to a prosperous, united future. I will meet with the region's leaders later this summer to give the process further momentum. I met with Kosovar refugees in Macedonia who are planning to return home. They thanked America and our Allies for giving them a chance to reclaim their lives on their native lands. I also met with and thanked some of the American air men and women who achieved the success and with some of our and other NATO troops who are going into Kosovo now to make sure we win the peace. They know that they are doing the right thing, and I am very proud of all of them. While America is enjoying success abroad, it is important that we keep pushing forward on our challenges here at home. This is a time of great hope for our Nation. Just today we learned that the American economy grew at a 4.3 percent in the first 3 months of this year. America plainly is on the right track. But we will be judged by what we do with this opportunity, whether we seize it or squander it in petty bickering and partisan animosity. This summer should be a season of progress. legislation to let disabled Americans keep their Medicaid health insurance when they go to work; an increase in the minimum wage; campaign finance reform; a strong and enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights. I was heartened that earlier today the House overwhelmingly passed legislation making sure that foster children are not cast out in the cold when their time in foster care ends. This is a vital issue, one that Hillary has championed for many years. And I am very pleased by the House action. Then we must turn to broader ways and, in some ways, more difficult challenges facing our Nation.

The President's News Conference


First, we have a duty to maintain the fiscal discipline that has produced our prosperity and use it to strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the 21st century and to pay down our national debt. On Tuesday I will propose the detailed plan to modernize Medicare, cutting costs, improving service, and helping senior citizens with their greatest growing need, affordable prescription drugs. Second, we must widen the circle of opportunity by investing in education while demanding accountability and insisting that the Congress keep our commitment of last year to finish hiring 100,000 more teachers to lower class size in the early grades. Third, in 2 weeks I will be joined by corporate, civic, and political leaders of both parties on a 4-day tour of America's new markets, the places in our country which have not yet felt the surge of our prosperity, to mobilize the private sector to bring jobs and growth to our poorest neighborhoods and to build support for our new markets initiative to give tax credits and loan guarantees to those who invest in America on the same terms we give to those who invest in developing economies overseas. And fourth, in the wake of the tragedy at Littleton, we must continue to meet the challenge of youth violence. Hillary and I are developing a national campaign on youth violence, working with parents, educators, the entertainment industry, and others. But we also must take sensible steps to take guns out of the hands of criminals and away from children. We cannot expect young people to stand up to violence if Congress will not stand up to the gun lobby. I proposed and, with a tie-breaking vote by Vice ENTITY Gore, the Senate passed the measure to close the gun show loophole. The Senate also passed legislation to require child safety locks, to ban large ammunition clips for assault weapons, to ban violent juveniles from owning handguns as adults. Two weeks ago the Republicans in the House blocked that measure. They would even weaken the current law by letting criminals store their guns at pawnshops. Republican leaders could appoint legislators as negotiators to craft a bill that includes the tough Senate provisions. I hope they will do that and send me a strong bill. Plainly, the country wants that. Again I say, this is sort of like the Patients' Bill of Rights; it is really not a partisan issue anywhere but Washington, DC. I hope they will send me a strong bill. If they send me one that weakens current law, I will send it back to them and keep working until we get the job done right.

The President's News Conference


Now, this is, admittedly, an ambitious agenda, but it can all be done in the coming months. I will use all the powers available to me as ENTITY, working with Congress and with my executive authority. I will summon the citizens of our country to help us to solve these problems. This is a good time for America, but we will be judged by whether we make the most of it. I look forward to making the effort. despite the end of the war, there is still a new wave of violence and terror in Kosovo, only this time it is Serb homes that are being burned, Serb stores that are being looted, and Serb civilians who are being killed. Cannot NATO do more to stop it? Well, first of all, NATO is not letting it happen. We are doing what we can to stop it. And I am concerned about it. I am not particularly surprised after what they have been through. But we signed an agreement with the KLA in which they agreed to demilitarize. The leader even asked the Serbs to come home. And we are deploying our people as quickly as we can. Obviously, if we can get all of our people in completely and then get them properly dispersed around the country, we will be able to provide a far higher level of protection. And for those people who lose their homes, they are entitled to have them rebuilt, along with everybody else, and I intend to do that. ENTITY, you covered the waterfront on domestic issues you think are very important. And I understand there is a report in the White House, already in second draft, and it is supposed to be a political hot potato, and therefore you are hesitant to make it public. There is a draft of a book that I wanted to produce and asked for help on from Chris Edley and from others on our staff and not on our staff several months ago. And Chris gave me his draft; then the staff looked at it and talked about where it was and was not consistent with present policies we were pursuing. They gave it all to me. I was involved for the last 3 months with the conflict in Kosovo. And what has really happened is that I want to do this right. I think all of you know how important this whole race issue is to me, and it is been amplified in its potential future importance because of the problems that we see involving race and ethnic and religious problems around the world.

The President's News Conference