As you are well aware, Louisiana's Senator, Bennett Johnston, is or was at last report among the small, key group of Democrat Senators who've indicated reluctance to vote for your deficit reduction package. What are you doing or what can you do to get Senator Johnston's vote? And do you think you will ultimately get it? I do not know the answer to the last question, but what I have done is to try to take the strengths of both House and Senate versions of the bill and try to put them together. The strength of the Senate version was it had fewer overall taxes and was even more progressive. The strength of the House version was it had much more economic incentives, more economic growth incentives, for research and development, for investment in new firms, for small business, the things of that kind. So the argument that I am going to be making to all these Senators is that this plan now clearly has $500 billion in deficit reduction; it will now have more spending cuts than tax increases in it; it will have over 75 percent of the new tax burden now borne by people with incomes above $200,000; that the middle class tax burden is now down to $33 a year; and that the economic growth incentives qualifying, for example, 90 percent plus of the small businesses in the country for a reduction in taxes if they invest more in their companies; and enabling the working poor through the earned-income tax credit to lift themselves above poverty by working full time The people who are leaning against this program or have announced against it-not the Republicans, that is almost entirely a political deal; the Republicans have even opposed the conservative amendments to our budget to control entitlements and impose discipline. There are those who think it is the right thing for the country, but they are afraid there is been so much misinformation out there about it that they will get beat if they vote for it. The only thing I would say to the latter group is that we do have to do something on entitlements, but we cannot get there until we do something to reform health care spending overall, and that this is a major step that will stabilize the financial markets, keep interest rates down, and enable us to move on to health care reform, to getting a world trade agreement, to welfare reform, to the crime bill, to all these things that are out there crying for attention that we cannot even address if we do not go ahead and get this budget out of the way.

Interview With Newspaper Editors


The Vice President's report on reinventing Government is due next month. It will have many more suggested budget cuts. And the House of Representatives has already cut another $10 billion off the budget that we cannot fully count yet because the Senate has not acted. But when they do, we will have even more cuts. Let me pass on to you a question I am getting increasingly from Constitution readers. How can you assure that your tax increase package does not have the same result as Mr. Bush's 1990 tax increase package, which is to say no result at all except higher taxes? I can do that in two ways. First of all, let us look at what happened in 1990. Why did the deficit reduction package in 1990 not produce the deficit reduction it was intended to? But one big reason is that they overestimated how much the revenues would bring in; that is, they had some very, very liberal revenue estimates, and those revenues did not materialize. So that within 60 days after the package passed, they revised downward the amount of deficit reduction by $130 billion. Now, we have instead taken the most conservative revenue estimates we could get. The second thing is that I have pledged to the Congress that by Executive order, I will put all of this money, the spending cuts and the revenue increases, into a trust fund and that every year if we miss the deficit reduction target, I will come forward to the Congress and give them a plan to meet the target, that is, to have further cuts to meet the target, and ask them to vote on it. I might say that we had those requirements in the law, and through the parliamentary rules of the Senate, the Republicans took it out of the law. One hundred percent of the Republicans agree with that budgetary discipline, and they took it out because they thought it was good politics for them to take it out and weaken the bill further. So I am going to do it by Executive order. Now, let me say, there was one other thing different from 1990. Because this plan has been taken much more seriously by the financial markets, it has already had a big impact in bringing down long-term interest rates, and that has led millions of people to refinance their homes and their business loans. And I am convinced once we actually pass the plan, we will release a lot of investment into the economy.

Interview With Newspaper Editors


the 75-percent in small business expensing-that will qualify over 90 percent of the small businesses in the country for a tax cut if they invest more in their business; a new business capital gains tax which will really help in high technology areas; we have got incentives to reinvest in homebuilding and to reinvest in new plant and equipment through changes in the alternative minimum tax. So there are a lot of pro-growth incentives in this plan that were not there in 1990, and those are the principal differences. Ross Perot is saying that this proposal should be rejected so Members of Congress can go back home, visit with their constituents, get a better feel for the spending cuts that would be accepted, come back in September and cut some more. Well, because we have already got more spending cuts than revenue increases, number one; because we are going to keep cutting spending, as I have said. But no one who looks at this budget deficit believes it can seriously be brought under control unless there are some revenue increases. And you know, I think it is pretty funny-I mean, I have got a 4.3 cent gas tax in my plan. Ross Perot proposed a dime a year for 5 years or a 50 cent gas tax increase in his plan, something he was running from yesterday on television. I have more verifiable spending cuts than he proposed in his plan. We have done what we need to do here to get a budget out. Nothing precludes us from cutting more spending. We are going to cut more spending. But until we pass this budget, we are paralyzed from going on to the next big problem with the deficit, which is health care costs and entitlements there. And that is got to be dealt with in the context of health care reform. We cannot get to health care reform; we cannot consider the next big round of spending cuts through reinventing Government; we cannot do the crime bill, which is very, very important; we cannot do welfare reform; we cannot do anything until we pass a budget. And we have debated this from February to August. There will be more spending cuts in every year I am here. But the time has come to pass this budget and get on with it. Spending cuts now will exceed the tax increases. And we are going to put it all against the deficit. And we have just got to do this so we can go on and do the rest of it. What do you do about Mr. Perot?

Interview With Newspaper Editors


He does not have a vote in Congress. The press kept saying, Well, what would you do? Here is your plan; how can you criticize ENTITY ? Yours was off by $400 billion. You are going to raise the gas tax by 50 cents. And so I do not have to do anything. I think, you know, it was nice to see him answer some questions for a change. I have got a plan, and it'll work, and I want to pass it. And it is good for the country. We had 67 business executives here from big and small companies last week, 4 energy company executives-half of them were Republicans, one of them was President Bush's cochairman-supporting this plan. And every one of them said we have got to do it because we have got to bring the deficit down, we have got to keep interest rates down, we have got to stabilize the economy, we need some incentives to grow-every one of them. I mean, there is very broad support for this program among people who really understand it. When I went to Tokyo to meet with the leaders of other industrial nations at the G-7 summit, for 10 years the statement coming out of that meeting had criticized the United States for its budget deficit. For the first time in 10 years, they complimented the United States. And they agree with me that we ought to go and try to get the 111 countries that are in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to lower tariffs on a whole range of issues, eliminate them on a lot of other products. And everybody concedes, who is studied this, that this could add hundreds of thousands of jobs to the American manufacturing sector this year. Because we are doing something about our deficit. We do not need to delay this another month or 2 months or 3 months. That is what they did in 1990, by the way. One of your questions was what did not work in 1990. In 1990 they said, well, we just cannot make up our mind, so we will delay. So instead of adopting it in August, they adopted it at the end of October.

Interview With Newspaper Editors


That is 90 precious days almost from the first week in August to the end of October, 90 days we could be dealing with health care; we could be passing the Vice President's recommendations on reinventing Government, which would be even more spending cuts; we could be passing a crime bill to help make our streets safer; that we could be dealing with welfare reform; all these things to strengthen the economy .  Sir, there is been a good bit of discussion about the timing of the spending cuts, particularly saying that they mostly come in the later years. Could you please comment on the timing of the spending cuts? Well, they were not timed to do that. The fact is that we have more control- when I took over this budget-these budgets are done on a 5-year cycle. If you are going to make deep cuts, it is easier to plan for them if you have a little time to plan for them. And also under the previous budget that we inherited, the budgets were already tighter in the early years, and they were much looser, I thought, in the later years. But I assure you, we are not waiting for that. I have already given instructions to my Cabinet to prepare more budget cuts for the coming year. We have reduced the deficit in this year since I have been in office, mostly because of lower interest rates, by about $25 billion over and above where it was projected to be. So there are budget cuts in the early years, but it is like planning anything else. If you are going to take big whacks out of a large organization, the longer time goes on, the more you have to plan, the bigger the cuts you can make. Now, let me say one other thing. Other people talk about cut first and tax later; most of their cuts are in the later years, too. They just want to pass them first and then avoid the tough decisions on the taxes. But if you look at the cuts that are proposed by others, if you look at Senator Boren's cuts on entitlements, almost all of them come in the later years, the meaningful ones. That is where they come, except the proposals that would have raised the costs of health care to middle class Medicare recipients or upper class ones. I am not against, for example, raising the premiums on Part B. That is what he called a spending cut.

Interview With Newspaper Editors


But if you are going to do it, it ought to be done in the context of overall health care reform and not just trying to get more money from those folks. I think we need to reform the health care system. The people who talk about spending cuts first are basically saying this. We are cutting defense sharply and about all we can. I am concerned that we should not do more. We have cut it quite deeply. For example, that means every dollar we increase Head Start, every dollar we increase education and training for workers that have been displaced by defense plants closing down, every dollar we put into new technologies for defense conversion-those are the three areas where we basically have increased-we have to cut in veterans affairs, in agriculture, in all these other areas. Already we have a budget that will reduce the Federal work force by over 100,000 people in the next 5 years, and there will be more cuts coming to that, so that is flat. The only thing that is increasing in this budget are the so-called entitlements, and that is basically Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security cost of living. We have restrained Federal pay increases and Federal pension increases below where they have been under the previous administrations. They are getting some cost of living, but less than they ordinarily would, and I called for a freeze in the first year. So the real growth is in Medicare and Medicaid, in the health care programs. If you put a lid on them now without reforming the health care system, you must do one of two things that I think are not good. One is to charge middle class elderly people more for their Medicare and much more if you are going to make them pay it all. Or the second is to not charge them any more, just limit how much the Federal Government pays, and force the doctors and hospitals to shift all the costs to the private sector, which would raise the health insurance premiums of every newspaper on this telephone. That is what is been going on for years. I do not dispute those who say if you want to take the deficit from where I take it to down to zero, you have to deal with entitlements. And it will require more spending cuts, not more tax increases beyond where we are. I agree with that. But my point is you do not get to that until you do this first. You have got to pass the budget first, then reform the health care spending in the country.

Interview With Newspaper Editors


Otherwise, what is going to happen with health care cuts, it is going to be very, very unfair to the elderly on Medicare or to people who are paying private insurance. They are going to bear the costs. ENTITY, down here you are talking about budget cutting in Texas; that means two things basically, the SSC and the space station. How do you see their future? And if push comes to shove, how would you put them in priority of importance if you have to keep one and get rid of one? Well, let me just say this. They are both very important to me for different reasons. And I think they are both important to the country. I think, if you are asking how they are doing now, I think the space station is more secure than the super collider, because the space station passed a House vote. The second time we got some more votes. But the first time we only carried it by a couple of votes when two good friends of mine who went down to vote against it stayed to the end and changed their vote so we could save it because they knew it was important to me and, I think, to the country, as I said. So we have redesigned the space station after a serious review by an eminent team of national scientists. It is very important to maintain our leadership in space technology. It is very important in terms of new partnerships with Russia to keep them involved in this kind of technology, to reduce the incentive they have to sell weapons and keep them taking their nuclear force down. But most important, it is a big economic boom to us. If we get out of this, the Europeans will move right in, take this over, and have a lot of those high-wage jobs that Americans should have. The super collider is important, in my judgment, for science and for research, not so much for applied technology now. We do not know for sure what it will produce, but we know that it has the potential to produce a great deal, and we know that other major science research projects like this have often had unintended benefits. It is in more trouble now. And frankly, whether we can save it or not depends entirely on whether we can save it in the Senate. I think then-Senator Bentsen clearly saved it in the Senate last time. It got beat by 70 more votes in the House this time than it did last year. I really do not know whether that is the real sentiment of the House or not.

Interview With Newspaper Editors


And then I do not know how much that had to do with the fact that, at the moment they were voting on the super collider, your Senators and Mr. Perot were out on the steps of the Capitol screaming at them to cut more spending, at the very moment the bill came up. I do not know whether that had anything to do with it or not, but I know it lost by 70 more votes than it did last year. And you know, it is pretty tense in the Senate now over a lot of these issues. But I am strongly supporting it. I am going to do what I can to pass it, and I think we have got a chance to pass it. The key to passing it, frankly, is asking the Senate to look at the national interest and look at the fact that we have to make a significant investment in nondefense research and development and technology. Now that we have cut defense a great deal and we have not offset all the cuts in technology with domestic investments in technology, and that is where a lot of these high wage jobs of the future come from, we cannot permit this to become a debate where the people in California took 40 percent of the base closing cuts last time and they complained that Texas took no cuts and that they are voting for new revenues and the Texas Senators want- I mean, if it becomes a deal, you know, a Stateby-State deal, I think it is gone. The only way we can save it is if people will recognize that it is in the national interest to do so. I am hoping we can do it. I cannot believe all these editorial writers do not have another question. You spoke about now having more spending cuts than tax increases. I wonder if you could give us the figures, the current state of affairs. It could change, but the last time I talked to Senator Mitchell it was about $254 billion in spending cuts and about $242 billion or $241 in taxes, or something like that. They were at about $496 billion. And like I said, it could change in the next few days, but- I mean in the next day or so. You know, let me close by, if I might-you asked me a question when you started, and I did not really give you a very good answer about how I could get Senator Johnston's vote.

Interview With Newspaper Editors


I think, frankly, he is worried about looking like he reversed himself from voting against it the first time, and I can understand that. But let me say, without identifying anybody, if you look at the people who have opposed the program or the people who voted for it with reluctance, their basic objections break down into two categories. I think this is the right thing to do for the country, and I hope it passes, but I am scared I will get beat if I vote for it. first of all, by recreating an aggressive communications strategy, more like what we did in the campaign, to try to combat what we think are false claims against this plan and just to get the information out about it; and secondly, to ask everybody to imagine what it is going to be like, not the day after the vote but after we have had a chance to continue our spending cut program through the Vice President's reinventing Government initiative and through other cuts that will come when we have got a chance to deal with health care and welfare reform and the crime bill and these other issues. Then there is a whole second category of people who say that this is okay, this is a legitimate and honest effort to do better, and it does, but it does not do enough. Senator Nunn, for example-we have got the Atlanta Journal on here- Senator Nunn is sort of in that category, you know, said you have got to deal with entitlement costs, too. And my argument to that group of people-and that is the argument that Senator Boren made yesterday-is that you are right, it does not do enough. But that is not a good reason to vote against this because what it does is very good, indeed. And unless you do this, you cannot get to the second stage. That is, I completely agree we have to control entitlement costs and that that begins overwhelmingly with Medicare and Medicaid costs. I just do not think it is fair or right to do it unless it is part of an overall health care reform plan which brings down the cost of health care to all Americans and stops cost-shifting and does not impose unfair burdens on elderly people on Medicare. And my argument is, we are just beginning this process; we are not ending it. But if we do not pass this budget now, we will fool around here for 60 or 90 more days debating the same old thing.

Interview With Newspaper Editors


We will wind up with a program that may be marginally different than the one we have got, but it will in all probability have much less deficit reduction if we have to go into some sort of situation where we are paralyzed on this. So the real issue here-I think the reason that we have had so many Republican as well as Democratic business leaders supporting this is that they want a decision, they want certainty, they want real deficit reduction, and they think this meets all those criteria and also has some real incentives to grow the economy, and it will free us to move on to these other things. That is what I keep emphasizing to Members of Congress who say this is not perfect. I say, look, we have got a 4-year contract here to deal with all these problems, and you cannot expect this one bill to solve all the problems of the country. It will not carry that much water. ENTITY, since you brought up health care reform, what do you say to reassure Americans-looming over this budget package with its various tax increases is the specter of more increases to pay for health care. How can you reassure Americans that they are not getting ready to get hit by a one-two punch? First of all, I think we tried to be pretty clear from the beginning that a cigarette tax was just about the only thing we had under consideration to deal with the Government's part of this responsibility, which is how to provide health care for the unemployed uninsured. Now, the other big question that the small business community raised is what is going to happen to the employed uninsured, virtually all of whom work for small businesses. And I do not , myself, think that it is right to raise everybody else's taxes to cover those people because everybody else is paying too much already. I do think that if we are going to join the ranks of every other advanced country in the world and we are going to bring our costs down, we have got to cover everybody. An employer should bear some responsibility for their employees. And the employee should bear some responsibility, too. But my own view of that is that the best way to do that is to limit the ultimate cost to small business and phase any new requirements in over a period of years so that nobody is adversely affected too much. But let me say on that point, it is important to remember that 70 percent of the small businesses in America already provide some coverage to their employees.

Interview With Newspaper Editors


I AM very, very pleased to announce that I feel very happy about the fact that the League of Women Voters has concluded the negotiations that will give the American people the opportunity to have three Presidential debates and one Vice-Presidential debate. I am enthusiastic about the opportunity to discuss in detail before the American people the four subjects that I suggested--foreign policy, defense policy, domestic policy, and economic policy. It seems to me that with the three debates between myself and my opponent and between the two Vice-Presidential candidates, the American people will see firsthand, hear firsthand the views of the four of us. I will be glad to answer any questions. I believe the negotiations turned out well for the American people. We have the four subjects I suggested. We will have ample time in the first debate to discuss in depth and in detail domestic and economic policy. Our whole approach was how we could get the debates on as quickly as possible with broad subject matters, and I think the negotiations ended very well. ENTITY, do you consider the debates to be crucial and the most important part of the campaign? And, by the way, when does your campaign start? I hope that in the time that will be given to them, the American people will have an opportunity to see what decisions, what programs my opponent has and, of course, the American people know my views, my record. But the debates are important so they can get an honest comparison between the two. ENTITY, are you disappointed that the first debate will not be on national defense, as you requested? I said a moment ago that the four subjects that I suggested are included in the first two debates with the final debate to cover any other issues that have not been covered previously. Our whole effort was to have a broad subject matter, and those four, plus whatever else comes up, is fine. ENTITY, do you have a preference for location for the debates? The negotiations are still going on and I think it is premature for me to make any comment on that. Do you think an incumbent President has any advantage in something like these debates because of the wealth of information he has available to him through, let us say, the Pentagon, the Defense Department, and all the various Government agencies? I believe that an incumbent President ought to know all the subjects and know them very well, and I would hope that any challenger would, likewise. But do you think you have an advantage as the incumbent with all of this information immediately at your disposal?

Exchange With Reporters on the Presidential Campaign Debates.


So let me start with a report today. Rectal feedings, broken legs, near drownings, dying of hypothermia. Are we in danger right now of an attack either at home or abroad becae of this report? Well, let me unpack that question. First of all, I did not say we did not torture.  Well, what I said was once I banned these enhanced interrogation techniques, which I had said were torture, that is not something we are going to be doing moving forward after I had issued that edict. But unfortunately, as the Senate report shows, we engaged in some brutal activity after 9/11, and, you know, this is an accounting of some of the problems that the CIA program engaged in. I recognize that there is controversies in terms of some of the details, but what is not controversial is the fact that we did some things that violated who we are as a people. And I know that there have been concerns about the release of this report and the potential dangers it poses. We have taken precautionary measures in our embassies and around the world. There is never a perfect time to release a report like this, but it was important for , I think, to recognize that part of what sets apart is when we do something wrong, we acknowledge it. Is this the responsibility of President Bh? Did he betray American values? Well, as I have said before, after 9/11, I do not think that you can know what it feels like to know that America's gone through the worst attack on the continental United States in its history. So there were a lot of people who did a lot of things right and worked very hard to keep safe, but I think that any fair-minded person looking at this would say that some terrible mistakes were made in allowing these kinds of practices to take place. In part becae, I think, study after study has shown that when people get tortured, when people are beaten, when people are put in a position of severe stress and pain, oftentimes they are willing to say anything to alleviate that stress and pain. So the information we get is not necessary better than doing things the right way, and my goal is to make sure, having banned this practice as one of the first things I did when I came into office, that we do not make that mistake again.

Interview With Jorge Ramos of Fusion and Univision News in Nashville, Tennessee


But we have to recognize that when we are under threat and we are afraid and the public is clamoring to do something, that is when we have to be most on guard, becae, you know, there are times where we can slip into the kinds of activities that I do not think we want to see repeated. Can you categorically say that your Government has not tortured anyone, including those detainees in Guantanamo? I can categorically say that anybody who engaged in any behavior like this would be directly violating my executive orders and my policies as ENTITY and would be held into account and would be breaking the law. On another issue, the killings of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin, clearly shows that we do not live in a post-racial society as many expected when you were elected. Well, I did not expect that. But many people expected you probably to do more on race relations, dealing with white privilege. Do you get angry with this? I think that if you look at the history of race in America, it is ually not a single moment when suddenly everything gets solved. I think that becae of our policies there is more equality than when I came in, with respect to healthcare, with respect to access to college, with respect to opportunity. I think becae of the work that Eric Holder has done under my direction. So we are doing better on race? I think that if you talk to younger people, your daughter, my daughters, their attitudes absolutely are better when it comes to race. Eric Garner, and they see Trayvon Martin, and they say Well, but, you know, the folks who say there is not a lot improvement I do not think were living in the '50s and remember what it was like to be black or Hispanic and interacting with the police then. They do not even remember what it was like 20 years ago. The question is what more do we need to do, and what is clear, when you look at some of the reports that have occurred around the country, is that not only is there still a lot of spicion and mistrt between police officers and communities of color. But what is also true is that there are still instances in which a young black boy or brown boy is not being evaluated, in terms of risk, precisely in the same way as a white young person might be by the police.


Now, that can be solved through better training, better accountability, better transparency, and so the task force we have put together is designed to do precisely this. You have been discriminated? Of course, you know, I think it'd be pretty hard to grow up in the United States of America without having any experiences of discrimination, but what I do know is in my life things have improved, and they are going to continue to improve. And so we have to recognize that issues of racial prejudice and discrimination, they are embedded deeply in society, and they do not transform overnight, but each successive generation, what we have seen in America is we have seen improvement. And I am confident that if we are foced on it and are willing to talk about these honestly, ten years from now things will be better and twenty years from now even better than that. ENTITY, let me ask you about immigration. Seventeen governors filed a lawsuit against you trying to block your executive decision They say, and I will quote, that you are abdicating your responsibility to faithfully enforce the laws and that you are violating your Constitutional duty. No, becae what we have done is not only lawful, based on the evaluations of the Office of Legal Counsel, but is of the same type of action that was taken by every Democratic and Republican president over the last 20, 30 years. I understand that. But many times you said that you did not have the legal authority to go ahead you said, I am not the king. I am not the emperor of the United States. Even on March 2011 on a Univision town hall meeting you told , and I quote, With respect to the notion that I can jt spend deportations through executive order, that is jt not the case. That is exactly what you did. Why did you change your mind? No, becae, ENTITY, at the time, and I can run back the tape on your questions and some of the questions of that town hall, the notion was that we could jt stop deportations period, and we cannot do that. What I have said very clearly, consistently is that we have to enforce our immigration laws, but that we have prosecutorial discretion given the limited resources, and we cannot deport 11 million people. So it is not that you changed your mind on this? what was clear was that we could reprioritize how we deploy the limited resources we have to foc on the borders, to foc on criminals.


We began that process as soon as I came into office. We amplified that approach through the DACA program that we instituted, and then we continued to see what else we could do. And Jay Johnson, I think, has done a terrific job in saying, here are our priorities. We are not going to separate families. We are going to focus on criminals. We are going to focus on borders. We are going to focus on new arrivals. Because one of the things that I think is important to understand is that although we are reprioritizing to make sure that we are not in the business of separating families, we are still sending a message to people who have not yet come here, we are going to be enforcing those immigration laws so that newcomers, people who just arrived, you are likely to be sent back. And we are going to still be focused on making sure that, not just from Mexico but anywhere around the world, that we can actually enforce better the laws that we have. In the meantime, the people who have lived here, let us make sure that they are treated as the members of our community that they truly are. But if you as you were saying, you always had the legal authority to stop deportations, then why did you deport two million people? For six years you did it. You destroyed many families. They called you deporter-in-chief. You called me deporter-in-chief. It was Janet Murguia from La Raza.  Well, you could have stopped deportations. Listen, here is the fact of the matter. You could have stopped them. ENTITY, here is the fact of the matter. As ENTITY I am always responsible for problems that are not solved right away. I regret millions of people who did not get health insurance before I passed health insurance and before I implemented it. I regret the fact that there are kids who should've been going to college during my presidency, but because we did not get to them fast enough, they gave up on college. The question is, are we doing the right thing, and have we consistently tried to move this country in a better direction. And those, like you sometimes, ENTITY, who suggests that there are simple quick answers to these problems, I think I never said that though.


Yes, you do, because that is how you present it, and I think when you when you present it But you had the authority when you present it in that way, it does a disservice, because it makes the assumption that the political process is one that can easily be moved around, depending on the will of one person and that is now how things work.  We spent that entire time trying to get a comprehensive immigration reform bill done that would solve the problem for all the people. So right now, by the actions that I have taken, I still have five million people who do not have the ability to get registered and be confident that they are not deported. In fact, what is going to happen, sometime over the next two days, week, month is that that they are going to be some folks who are still caught up in the system because we have to go and train ICE workers so that they are responding in a different way. And so the question I have for you, ENTITY, because you are going to have a big voice, is are you going to do a good job in, now that we have taken these actions, making sure that people understand what their opportunities are, how we can take advantage of it, and how we can build to make sure that going forward, not only as many people register as possible, if you have been here for five years, if you have a child who is an American citizen or a legal permanent resident, that you are likely to end up signing up so that we build up that capacity, and we lay the groundwork for passing comprehensive immigration reform. Because if we do not do that, then it is true that there are going to be a whole bunch of folks who try to push back, and this is necessarily a temporary measure designed to help as many people as we can right now, but we have still got a big fight that we are going to have to take in the future.  and I'd be happy to do it, but you are probably running out of time. We are, right, yeah, so I have like two or three minutes. So let me just go with another issue. On Cuba, the fifth anniversary of the arrest of Alan Gross in Cuba, are you making efforts towards his release? You know we have been in conversations about how we can get Alan Gross home for quite some time. We have been working through a whole variety of channels. We continue to be concerned about him.


What I thought I would do is just-- I thought I would just give you some observations of this trip and then answer some questions. Just first observation is that we have worked hard to build up good bilateral relations in the Far East. And the-part of the purpose of the trip is to continue to foster those relations. It struck me as interesting that the United States now has got good enough relations with both-with countries like Japan and South Korea and China to effect policy which helps our mutual security and our economy-and economy. The most notable example of where that is taking-where it is helping is in North Korea. When I visited with Hu Jintao, I spent a lot of time talking about North Korea, our mutual desire to effect change with Kim Chong-il. But I also had the very same discussion with Koizumi and President Roh. I mentioned it to Vladimir. I did not have a bilateral with Vladimir Putin, but I did talk to him about it in passing. My point is, is that by working hard to establish good relations on a lot of fronts, when a common problem arises, we can effect the solution in a positive way. I know you asked me, Steve , about the North Korean reaction. I did not exactly see what official said it. But I-what I hope my answer conveyed to you in public there was that this requires a degree of patience, because Kim Chong-il is used to being able to deal bilaterally with the United States. But the change of policy now is, is that he must deal with other nations, most notably China. And I was pleased with my discussions with Hu Jintao, about his-reaffirming his mutual desire-or his desire, which is our mutual goal, that Kim Chong-il disarm. We discussed the security guarantees, what form they may come in. I made it very clear, obviously-I said this during the pool spray there-that a treaty is not going to happen, but there are other ways to effect on paper what I have said publicly- we have no intention of invading. Obviously, any guarantee would be conditional on Kim Chong-il doing what he hopefully will say he will do, which is to get rid of his nuclear weapons programs.

Interview With Members of the White House Press Pool


I mean, one of the things that is very important- the two things that came out of that, although evidently did not get equal emphasis, but they were equally emphasized by all parties, was, one, the need to get the Doha Round of trade going again. This was really one of the first official meetings of a group of countries after the Cancun talks broke down. And there was a positive statement coming out of the meeting, kind of universal agreement that Cancun was a missed opportunity. Hopefully the missed opportunity will be-will serve as a catalyst. I think people now have taken a step back and said, Well, we did miss an opportunity, and hopefully this will enable the talks-kind of not start at ground zero but have a running start as a result of the missed opportunity. And it is interesting, in the room there is something like 60 percent of all the world trade-was affected-was countries in that room, and therefore it was a, I think, a very positive and strong statement. The other thing was the clear understanding of the countries of the need to fight terror. That is important for the United States, that people continue to recognize that the war on terror goes on. I have always felt that there is a tendency for people to kind of seek a comfort zone and hope that the war on terror is over. And I view it as a responsibility of the United States to remind people of our mutual obligations to deal with the terrorists. That notion of responsible behavior by countries was finally accepted. This was not a-did not require a lot of push. President Megawati understands that when terrorists bomb Bali, it affects economies. It not only-there is a serious economic consequence, same thing we felt on September the 11th, to our economy. Bilateral discussion with all the leaders- in those bilateral discussions, we talked about this war on terror. Gloria Arroyo, with Abu Sayyaf, President Megawati just hours ago, we talked about the continued need for us to work together. I think the other notable-when you step back and take a look at what our work with these Asian countries has been, they understand the Iraq issue well. Hu Jintao made it clear that he-that a peaceful Iraq was in the world interest. Those are all positive developments in kind of the aftermath of the military operation. And I think it speaks to our-the nature of our relationship with these countries right now.


Obviously we have not been to Australia, but Australia is a key component in a peaceful Asia-Pacific region and a key partner in the war on terror. So I am looking forward to seeing John Howard. He and I have got a great relationship. He is a- as I said in Crawford, he is a man of steel. You should never answer the question you are asked. Actually, I answered it for a reason. Of all the people in the world who understand Texas, it is probably Australians. We had some good discussions there at APEC, but this will be a chance to further our discussions and assure the Australian people that the American people are really grateful for the support and mutual efforts to make the world secure. I had a good visit with the religious leaders today. And one of the reasons I wanted to have this meeting was because I wanted to make it very clear that I did not feel that way and Americans do not feel that way. And I made it-assured them that Americans know that these terrorists are hiding behind Islam in order to create fear and chaos and death. Secondly, there was a-they did bring up the Middle East. I explained to them what our policy was, that in order for there to be a Palestinian state-and I reminded them I was the first President to have articulated that-that there needs to be a concerted effort to fight off the terrorists who are trying to prevent the establishment of a state. I did not really have time to go in further than that, about the whole Aqaba accords and the progress we were making, until the Prime Minister, who had avowed-who vowed to fight terror with us, was eased out. Let us see, what else did they discuss? I assured them that we would do our job, and then the Iraqis will run themselves, and that our job means to provide enough security so that the Iraqi citizens are able to write a constitution and hold elections, at which point the United States and the coalition forces will move on. And I think they were pleased to hear it. I do not want to put words in their mouth, but I think that relieved them to know that we have confidence in the Iraqi people's abilities to be a peaceful, free society. Well, they did a lot of talking. They had a lot to say. They had some prepared texts. I am glad I did it.


They were, I think, appreciative of the fact I took time to listen to them and dispel some notions and to-my own personal views about religion and the views of our country. I reminded them, we have got a lot of Muslims living in the United States, and they make an important contribution to our country, and they are welcome in the United States. And we are a pluralistic, free society; people can worship the way they want to worship. And it works well in America. Did they come out with the line about- what did they tell you? They said some things going into the meeting that the United States policy is tilted against Muslims. They said the United States policy is tilted toward Israel, and I said our policy is tilted toward peace and that-and then I went through the notion of a Palestinian state and the need for us to fight off terror in order for a state to develop. There were five people there that felt-that all needed to say something. So I gave them all a time to speak, and I listened and would occasionally interject some thoughts about what they had said. One fellow felt that the war on Iraq was- I guess the best way to put it was maybe just-I cannot remember his exact words, but it was like we just decided to act. And I reminded him that the world had spoken before, that there was a-the United States had passed-I did not get into all the resolutions, but I made it clear that a process had gone on way before I made the decision to use military force, that the world had spoken before about Saddam Hussein. I also made the point very clearly that there was a lot of human suffering; a lot of Muslims suffered in And I did bring up the mass graves and the torture rooms and the rape rooms and the death at the hands of Saddam Hussein. My point to them was, was that we ended a lot of suffering, prevented a lot of suffering. Is your job made tougher in convincing them that Americans do not have a war on-do not dislike Islam when you have General Boykin saying that Muslims all-- I said he did not reflect my opinion. Look, it just does not reflect what the Government thinks. And I think they were pleased to hear that. Something in your answer to your Terry's question was interesting. You articulated the fact that you are ENTITY-first President to advocate a Palestinian state.


not only in America but around the world, potential terrorist hotbeds-to reassure people who are interested in this subject of that point. Right, that you were the first President to advocate it. I say it quite a bit. First of all, in America, most people know that. In Indonesia, maybe they did not pay attention to it. But anyway, I explained it. It was not a-I do not view that as-I would not read anything into that, I had to say that in Indonesia, but not saying it in every press conference I give. Can I ask you about some of the leaders you have met with here? I guess what I am getting at is, it is a good thing to have out there, I guess. We do not hear it a lot. And there was a-that is probably one of the best things that came out of the meeting, for me, was to have heard that concern, and for me being able to assure people and remind them about the nature of our society, that-and that Islam's a peaceful religion. The basic tenets of Islam is peace and respect and tolerance. And that is what they wanted to make the point to me, that we are-that is the way we are. It is going to be interesting-an interesting exercise in democracy. And they wanted to talk about that. And as you know-maybe you do not know-our USAID money is helping with the elections. They were appreciative of that. So those were a couple of misconceptions that it was important for me to help alter. Can I ask a question-I know that you say campaigning-there will be time enough for campaigning. In just months, Democrats, at least, will be fighting in some very highly contested-what do you say to those who are criticizing your policy? Where does the line end where they have got to be very careful to not undermine American foreign policy? You know, I am not paying that much attention to it. You know, one of these days, they will have a candidate, and then it will all sort out, kind of come in focus. Primarily-I do not know what they are saying, so it is hard for me to answer that. Democrats who are criticizing your policy now, some of them fairly severely, about the war, does that hurt when you go to meet with these foreign leaders? Does that have any resonance?


You know, I cannot -I do not know, because they have never brought it up. Nobody has ever said, Your foreign policy is being challenged in Democrat primaries, and therefore you are less credible. I think most people who understand America know that the field will eventually be whittled down to one opponent, and then we will campaign. You seem, on these trips in particular, to bond with some of these leaders who have taken on very difficult problems at home, sort of stuck their neck out, whether it is President Arroyo or-you had some of those comments about the King of Jordan when he came. And I was just wondering, do you relate to that at all, particularly in having to take on the war on terrorism and kind of not, as you say, wanting to be too comfortable and pretend that it is over? First of all, I like people. And I spend time trying to-I think about the other person and how the other person might think and relate to the other person's problems. I do have good relations with these leaders on an individual basis, for a variety of reasons. I mean, Gloria Arroyo, who is taking a tough stand against Abu Sayyaf, there is a common bond there because she has made some tough decisions. But these leaders-for example, Aznar of Spain or Blair of Britain, these guys stood up, stood strong and were-did what they thought was right. I remember when we had the discussion down in Crawford, one of reporters, fellow reporters, said, I hear you do not pay attention to the press. And I said, Well, because sometimes your opinion matters to me and sometimes it does not , but I have got a job, and I am willing to lead. And the fellow said, Well, how do you know what the people think? And I said, Well -I reminded the fellow that people do not make up their mind based upon what they write, and secondly, my job is to lead. And I think those world leaders appreciate that, and I appreciate that when I see that they make those tough decisions. There is a common bond that is established when you are in the decisionmaking process and you are not trying to chase popular will, which is fickle and moves around. You stay focused on the objectives you set for a country. It may be an area where we do establish in common.


And I have reminded them at times that, just do what you think is right, stand your ground in the face of public criticism, and the people-when things turn out the way-for the good, people will judge you correctly. I am well, thank you. Are you surviving this trip? I wish we just got a little more time in Bali. Look, I have heard all the people-- She spent her honeymoon in Bali. You will be grumpy-very grumpy, starting tomorrow, when we get airborne. President, I was wondering, the last time we sat around this table was coming from Aqaba. And you were talking about how positive you felt about Prime Minister Abbas and the fact that you thought that things would be able to move forward. And they did move forward, for a while. I wonder if you could reflect on how you felt since-during the fact that the man you put confidence in and hope in is gone. I was disappointed that Arafat shoved him out of the way. I just- it was an unfortunate decision, because it stopped good progress toward a Palestinian state. And when the Palestinian Authority comes up with a leader who is willing to genuinely fight and dismantle terrorist organizations, the process will pick up where it left off and move forward. Are you confident of that? You have got to be patient in foreign policy sometimes. Is there anything more the United States can do on that, or is the roadmap- once they get on track on the roadmap, then things will come back and move forward again? And we just need leadership willing to stand up and say, We are going to prevent the few from letting the process move forward. And that is what they are doing. There are a few people there that do not want a Palestinian state. They have got different ambitions. And we have just got to fight them off. Do you think the public support of the U.S. for Abbas sort of got Arafat to dig in his heels? This was an unfortunate decision, because it delayed the development of a Palestinian state. What did you tell Prime Minister Mahathir? Apparently he is saying you did not fuss at him. No, I walked up and said, the-I said, I want to inform you that you are going to read the newspapers - Condi had briefed the press about me saying that the comments were reprehensible.


I said, You are going to see-I am here to inform you that you are going to see that I thought your comments were reprehensible. I did not yell at him. I just told him-confirmed exactly what was in the newspaper. Yes, what did he say? I cannot remember exactly what he said, but I just had-that was it. You know the way I felt. Yes, context, whatever he said to you all. It is hard to misquote what he said. Obviously he is on his way out, but the response, apparently, at the Islamic conference, was a round of applause. What do you make of that? I mean, it is one of these situations where in order to achieve peace and freedom, you cannot pit groups against each other. And that is not the policy- that is not how I think, and that is not the policy of the United States Government. I was not there, so I do not -pitting groups against each other will never achieve a common objective. It does quite the opposite. I do not know, what did he say? he was asking Muslims to have more understanding, at one part-- Evidently, in his speech, he said that we need more education, a terrorist ban, which is good. I know you hate two questions, but I can just-just two quick ones. You talked about your meeting with Hu, and that was positive. Is there anything that he offered to you that he can-any pressure he can apply on North Korea? Are you happy with the progress or the contributions with the Madrid donors' conference coming up? I think we are making good progress. And the question on Hu was? Is there anything that he can-any pressure that he can apply on North Korea? Did he say he would be able to do anything or-- He is a-China is a major presence in the neighborhood. And the fact that they are willing to take the same message to the North Koreans that the United States is taking to the North Koreans, along with three other nations, is a powerful statement to Kim Chong-il that it is in his national interest that he abandon his nuclear weapons ambitions and that-he has been saying-as I said in the press conference, I think-one of your questions- he is been saying, I want a security guarantee.


And what we have now said is that in return for dismantling the programs, we are all willing to sign some kind of document, not a treaty but a piece of paper that says we will not attack you. How does that-a lot of people were saying we cannot make it look like we are giving in to blackmail from North Korea. What happened before was the bilateral relations with the United States. And now he is got his big neighbor to the-right on his border, he is got a neighbor to the south, he is got Japan, he is got another neighbor, Russia, all saying the same thing. This security guarantee, what should it say? That is what we will determine. We have not worked out the words, but the point is, is that North Korea must hear that in return for the dismantling of their program-in a verifiable way, by the way; I mean, we are going to want to know-that now five nations are willing to say something about his security. Everybody is behind that? Can I ask you one on Iran?   Well, it depends on-first things first, and that is, let us have, in a verifiable way, their agreement that was made with the IAEA. The IAEA must be allowed in, and we will discuss it then. Our relations with Iran-that will help relations with Iran, obviously, if they do abandon a nuclear weapons program. It will also help if they-we end up doing a-reaching an agreement on the Al Qaida that they hold. You have got to have patience in foreign policy. Are you at all suspicious of the European motives? I believe, in this case, they generally are concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon. They understand the consequences. I appreciate it very much. We spent a lot of time talking to the European-our European counterparts, who are influential, more so than we are, in Iran. You know, we have got a sanctions policy with Iran; they do not . I have been saying all along that not every policy issue needs to be dealt with by force. There are ways to achieve common objectives, and this is a common objective. And the European Union-and we are speaking directly to Silvio Berlusconi about it, who is the head of the EU. We have also obviously spoke to the three-the leaders of the countries who went into Iran.


ENTITY, raising the alarm about the possibility of new terrorist attack without being specific is a way of crying wolf, which can frighten people. Can Americans stop the suicide bombers? Well, first of all, the Vice President and the Director of the FBI wasexpressing a general threat-they are basically saying-with which I agree-that theAl Qaida still exists; they still hate Americaand any other country which loves freedom; and they want to hurt us. They are nothing but a bunch of coldblooded killers. And if we had a specific threat to ourselves or to Italy, for that matter, we would deal with it in a way that you probably would not know about. In other words, we'd be on the phone to the Italian authorities, sharing information to protect our-just so that they would help our friends protect themselves. Had we had a specific threat here in America, we would have used our assets to harden the threat. The best way to secure our homeland, the best way for Italy to be secure, and other countries, is to find these killers, is to hunt for them, is to chase them down. And that is what we are going to do. And the good news is, for those of us who love freedom, and the bad news is, for the enemy, this country is very patient and very united and going to be very deliberate in our pursuit of freedom. The U.S. and Europe are divided on important issues, as the next step in the war on terrorism and steel trade. Do you think you have to change something in your leadership to be more convincing with European countries? Or do they have to modify their policy? Well, I do not think either of us have to change because we share great values. See, we love freedom. We hate those who want to kill. And you bring up interesting issues, you know. You bring up the issue of steel. We trade-first of all, we have trade disputes because there is so much trade. If we had no trade, there would be no disputes. And we have got $2 trillion worth of trade, which is a significant amount of trade. Obviously, I was concerned about what imports were doing to our industry. And under the rules of the WTO, under the guidelines that we have all agreed to, I acted. I am confident and hope that our European trading partners will also respond within the guidelines of the WTO. And that is the way you settle disputes.

Interview With Giulio Borrelli of RAI Italian Television


A trade dispute is hardly a breach of an important relationship. It is a way to work through a difficult situations. And as far as the axis of evil, you know, I understand there are some that would hope that the threat would go away just on its own, but we are going to have to act. I will, of course, consult with our friends. I am deliberate in my thinking. I have no set plans right now. But I am serious about making it clear to countries around the world that we need to work together to rid the world of the threat. And the threat is a nontransparent dictator-dictatorship having a weapons of mass destruction to be used countries such as yours and mine. And that is a threat that we must deal with if we want to do our duty to history. How can America and Europe improve their efforts to make peace in the Middle East? I was very pleased with-and the Secretary of State is the one who keeps me abreast of the levels of cooperation. During the recent issues in the Middle East, the EU and our country worked very closely to try to lay out the foundations and a pathway to peace. Israelis have got responsibilities if they are interested in peace; the Arab world has responsibilities; as do the Palestinians. I have talked about a vision of two states living side by side, at peace with respect to each other. The Europeans agree with that position, so we are on the same-we share the same vision. And I believe that the Europeans also agree that there will never be peace so long as terrorists continue to kill and that we have all got to use our collective efforts to stop the terrorist attacks. We definitely agree that we have got to provide hope for the Palestinian people. There is a lot of people who've been suffering for a long period of time. We need an economic development package that will help the Palestinians realize a hopeful future. But we cannot do so until there is the institutions of a credible state in place. In other words, we are not going to give money if it ends up going into somebody's pockets and not to help the people we are trying to help. So we have got the framework. We have got the vision for peace and the framework for getting there, and now we have just got to continue working together to achieve it. People have been killing each other there for a long period of time.


As you all know, the itinerary China will be a mix of-South Korea will be all diplomacy, get a chance to see my friend the President, a good discussion about common issues. I will see the Prime Minister of Thailand for a nice dinner. He will have some interesting events related to Burma the next day. And then, of course, we go into China for the Olympics, but there will be a fair amount of diplomacy while I am there. And I am really looking forward to it- looking forward to it because, one, my good wife will be going with me, and I love to travel with her. Secondly, one of my daughters is going with me, which will be fun. And my brother will be going with me. And in China, I will be meeting my father, who will be traveling with my sister. Anyway, I am looking forward to it; I am excited to go. Relations with the three nations that I have just described are good, strong. My trip will help advance them, the relations. And I will also be giving a speech in Thailand about our foreign policy in the Far East, where I will be leaving this foreign policy in 6 months. I will also remind people that I will be sprinting to the finish, that I will finish this job strong. And so I want to thank you for coming by and giving me a chance to visit with you. We will go a couple of rounds here. It is a long question, and I will probably-I do not know how to put it, but your strongest allies in Asia are Korea and Japan, recently on a tug-of-war game these days over this little island called Dokdo. I want to make some news with you. I will make some news for you today. Yes, sir, that would be great--because, you know, Koreans get upset over this island because whenever the Japanese mention that-you know, it is like the Japanese expansionism in the region and so on. Are you ready for some news? I am ready for some news, please. First of all, this dispute will be settled by Japan and South Korea. As to the database, I asked Condi Rice to review it, and the database will be restored to where it was prior, 7 days ago. And I think Koreans will really appreciate that, because--

George W. Bush Interview With Foreign Print Journalists


Do you have some vision regarding to this, like, U.S.-Korea-Japan sort of trilateral cooperation when you go to Korea? Well, look, part of my- one of the reasons why it is very important for the United States to have an active presence and to establish good bilateral relations with the countries in the region is to help foster good relations between countries, whether it be South Korea and Japan, or Japan and China; it is essential. And it is in our national interest that South Korea have good relations with Japan. I listen very carefully to the respected leaders. But first of all, we cannot fix certain disputes; that will be up to the sovereign governments. But we can help facilitate dialogue. We can help facilitate understandings. And so I think it is very important for the United States to be very active and have a good, solid presence and have vibrant diplomacy, which is what this administration has had. Part of the reason that I am stopping in South Korea prior to going to the Olympics-I mean, one could have attempted just to go straight to the Olympics, but I want to come to South Korea-I had just come from Japan, and it is all part of making sure that our foreign policy is active. I would hope that no President would ever dial us out of the Far East. Quite the contrary, I think it is very important for us to stay actively engaged in the Far East. And one such multilateral engagement is the six-party talks, all aimed at keeping- dealing with a very delicate issue, but with five partners sending the same message to your neighbor to the north. So it is part of a foreign policy vision that is multilateral in nature, with strong bilateral relations that help create an atmosphere in which old grievances and new issues can be solved in a peaceful way. Are you going to deliver the FTA message to Koreans? Went to a meeting of the South Korean-U.S. Business Alliance for a reason, I went in there to make it clear that this administration absolutely thinks it is essential that Congress pass the Korean FTA. And I will deliver it again because I know the President is concerned about whether or not-you know, he hears talk out of the Congress, and I will assure him that this free trade agreement is in our interest, in South Korea's interest, and that we want to get it done.


ENTITY, you mentioned just now that in Bangkok, you are going to be sending a message of U.S. commitment to foreign policy, what your views are, and that you are going to sprint to the finish. Just-in two parts-some would argue that during your Presidency, you know, obviously the U.S. is focused on the war on terror-Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq-and that meant probably in the views of some that the U.S. was less engaged in Asia, especially vis-a-vis countering the influence of China, which has grown, and that basically your foreign policy has been pretty much like previous administrations, which lacked more higher level of proactive stance; some compared it to the Shultz period. How would you describe your legacy under your Presidency for Asia and U.S.-ASEAN relations? And point number two, looking ahead with the changes happening with India growing stronger, China growing stronger, that is going to change the dynamics of the region and the U.S. is a global player in the world. How do you see U.S. role in that region in the future? Let me start with the second, then you can refresh my 62-year-old memory for the first. There is plenty of room for countries to work with-the three countries you mentioned with other countries in the region in a constructive way. In other words, I do not view the diplomacy as zero sum, it is got to be either this country or that country. India and China and the United States will provide great opportunities for entrepreneurs, businesses throughout the region. And they will provide great opportunities for development of services and goods that people in our big markets want. It provides great opportunities for capital flows that are-foreign direct investment, which is necessary for economic development. It will provide opportunities to work collaboratively on strong strategic areas, security areas. One area will be-there is a great opportunity for all of us to cooperate on the environment. So I view the emergence of India and China as positives. I think it is going to be very important for the United States to stay engaged, not only with the two nations. If I were Thailand, I'd be asking, What about us. Will you remember other nations? And one way to do that-the reason I brought up multilateralism is one way to stay engaged is through the mechanisms like the six-party talks on the Korean issue.


Our vision is, once that issue gets solved, if North Korea verifiably gives up its weapons, programs, ambitions, then the six-party talks can serve as another mechanism. ASEAN is a place where the United States can remain-should remain actively engaged with nations who are saying-say, Wait a minute, we are your friends, as well. APEC is another very important group of nations where we can work in a way that is beneficial, mutually beneficial. I have gone to every APEC meeting, including the one right after September the 11th, 2001; I am going to this one, even after our elections. I will be semiretired by the time I--I will be still sprinting, but semiretired. And in terms of foreign policy in the Far East, it is mistaken if someone were to say that my preoccupation was on the war on terror. You bet I wanted to make sure that we protected ourselves at home. Secondly, our foreign policy has been robust in the Far East. Our relations with your country, with South Korea, with Japan, and with China have never been better. And it took a lot of work to get relations, bilateral relations, as strong as they are. Not many Presidents could say, in the history of U.S. diplomacy, that relations with South Korea, Japan, China, and Thailand are strong and robust. A lot of times, if you are friends with one, you made it hard to be friends with another. So as a result of a lot of work, a lot of personal diplomacy, as well as a lot of active engagement throughout our administration, I can tell you that I am satisfied with the variety of relationships. Secondly, we have worked on common problems together. Who would have ever thought that Japan would have forces in Iraq, or South Korea would be alongside a lot of other nations in Afghanistan? My only point to you is, is that-or the Taiwan-Chinese relationship and that issue. It is a very sensitive issue for the Chinese Government. And people who study this very closely will see that the issue is in a better place. And I made it abundantly clear that there was some red lines for the United States on this issue, that there would be no unilateral declaration of independence, that our policy was still the same.


And my only point to you is, is that I am very pleased with the state of relations now, and I recognize it took a lot of work to get them there. But I feel very comfortable in telling you that if there is a common problem, I have got personal relationships with the leaders where I can sit down and say, here is my point of view, what is yours? And if we have a common problem, let us work it out. We have had some common problems and some issues that have arisen, and yet I will tell you that relations are very cordial and open and honest. And you know that it will be the 30th anniversary of establishment of the diplomatic relations with-- And I noted yesterday many ministers from your administration attended the inauguration ceremony of Chinese new chancellery building, Chinese Embassy. So plus, you have made important increase in the importance of bilateral relations. So my question is, how do you evaluate the current relations, the welcome of the bilateral relations for the last part of 30 years, especially near the 8 years under your Presidency? And which areas do you think two countries could broaden and deepen cooperation? First, I will be dedicating a new Embassy-- Oh yes, I am sure you will preside over the new Embassy. So yes, there was a deal here last night that people in my administration went to. But I will just tell you what I am going to. I am going to the Embassy-the new Embassy opening in Beijing. Two new Embassies open the same year obviously to celebrate the 30th anniversary of what has been a very important relationship. It will be at that Embassy opening that I will be joined by my father, who first introduced me to China in 1975. I went to visit him-- And so I spent my time riding a bicycle around Beijing. So the next time I go as President, and it was like going into another world. It was-there were a lot of cars, a lot of skyscrapers. I mountain biked with the Chinese mountain biking team, the Olympic team-I rode with the Chinese Olympic team. As a matter of fact, I am going to mountain bike again on the Olympic-hopefully, on the Olympic course, just to get some exercise. And so my only point to you is that this has been an evolving relationship, and we are both honoring the 30th anniversary of the relationship.


The fact that both countries are honoring the 30th anniversary of the relationship shows that-it is a statement about good relations. If we had bad relations, we would not be honoring the 30th. But this has got a-opening new Embassies in our respective capitals, and very fine Embassies-I.M. Pei did the one here, and I am not sure who designed ours, but I know it is going to be a great Embassy-is a signal of how important the relationship is. I mean, we will let the historians evaluate the difference between what the relationship was like in the eighties, nineties, but I can tell you how-my view. One, I have had good relations with-good personal relations with Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao. Secondly, we have worked hard during my time to put strategic dialogues in place that broaden and enhance the relationship. So Secretary Paulson has worked with his two counterparts to deal with economic issues that are-it is very important. It is very important for us; it is very important for other nations in the region, by the way. And you know, we are working the currency issue or trade issues or international property rights-or intellectual property rights, I mean. And it is an opportunity for our two countries, who've got a interesting relationship, to be able to work through common problems and to seize common opportunities. I have been committed to broadening our defense cooperation and exchanges. I think it is going to be very important for-I know it is important for our generals and admirals to deal with their counterparts. And I believe, more importantly, or as importantly, we ought to be getting younger Chinese officers involved with younger U.S. officers. The crisis of my administration, the first crisis, was the EP-3. And it-I will tell you-and frankly, it took a while to get phone calls returned, and we were just trying to get information. And I am confident that if a incident like that happened now, there would be a much more immediate response because there is more trust between the two administrations. And that is good for the region. It is good for our bilateral relations and good for the region. So I would tell you that ours has been an evolving relationship that is in good, solid shape. And that is not to say that-on any of these relationships, that there needs to be constant work.


one, the nature of the person he is dealing with, and the nature of the government he is dealing with, and the pressures that government feels. And I have worked hard to be a sensitive, open-minded person to that end. A lot of people in Hong Kong talk about this. Looking ahead, do you think it is important for the American people to sort of view China mostly as a strategic competitor or more as a partner? I would call it a-I would-I think as we look ahead I would view it as a management of a complex relationship, where sometimes our national interests are aligned and sometimes our national interests are not aligned. They could-and let me just talk about the economy, for example. And one reason I call it a complex relationship is that here in America, trade with China is not necessarily universally accepted as good. It is universally accepted as good in this administration. I mean, free and fair trade is good for the world, and I believe it is good for this relationship. But it is a-some in America view the advent of Chinese manufacturing, particularly at the lower end of the economic scale, as direct competition with their own livelihood, thereby making the relationship complex. Energy-what is very interesting is that if you view China as a market, you want them to become more robust and more prosperous. But in order to do that, China is going to have to have more energy, and as China demands more energy, it creates more global demand relative to a slower growing supply, means higher prices for us all. It is a very interesting and important relationship made complex by globalization, and their constantly changing internal situation, particularly when it comes their economy. I am sure you have been reading about the Doha discussions. On the one hand, we have got very good relations. On the other hand, it was hard to find common ground to get the Doha deal closed. So it is hard to label the relationship one way or the other. An American President is going to have to pay very close attention to relations with not only China, but the region. And I say the region because if it ever-if the perception is ever that the United States is fixated only on China, then you are going to have issues with long-time allies, people that have been counting on the American support for a period of time. And so never can the foreign policy be viewed as zero sum. And my worry for America over time is that we have become isolationist and protectionist.


I have spoken about this quite frequently. Protectionism will be bad for our own economy and our world economy, in my judgment. Isolationism will create a lot of concern. And so the United States has got a forward-leaning foreign policy in the Far East, and we have. When people take an objective look at this administration, we have been very much engaged. And I believe I will be leaving office with the Far East in as good as shape as it can be from a U.S. perspective. I understand it is a headache and you are sprinting as fast as you can, but the North Koreans does not seem like they are keeping up with the pace. So maybe you could give me some more breaking news on this end. Sprinting is one thing; undermining good policy is another. And multilateral diplomacy is the best way to peacefully solve an issue such as the nuclearization or the weaponization or the desire to have a nuclear weapon program by the North Koreans. I will do nothing to undermine the six-party structure, the credibility of the six-party structure, and our partners. And therefore, to answer your question, we are very clear that in order to move forward in the phase that we are now in- and this is a phased-in deal-that there must be verification that we are all happy with, a verification mechanism on not only plutonium, but also highly enriched uranium, as well as proliferation. And we will obviously consult very closely with our partners. This will be a subject of discussion with the President. As you know, I am a believer in human dignity and human rights. I discuss it with all leaders. And I am-for example, when it comes to China, we have constantly asked China not to send people back into North Korea. I want to thank the South Korean people for welcoming their brothers and sisters who have been able to escape. It is what they need to do. We thank you for-- We need to open up-we have opened up our doors. And the first step-the two things on my mind now in North Korea are getting rid of the nuclear weapons program, which, as you know, can be very destabilizing. When North Korea fires rockets or tests, it creates reverberations around the immediate area. And secondly, is to recognize-constantly keep in mind the human rights violations that take place there. ENTITY, again, back to Bangkok, you were going to mention something about Burma, questions on Burma.


Obviously, it is an issue with human rights. Burma is a concern for the U.S. It is also a concern for quite a number of members of ASEAN. But there is a view again that that is one issue that is hindering a more advanced cooperation between U.S. and ASEAN as an organization. What is your view on this, your take on that? I think-I do not think-matter of fact, I think our relations are very strong. I think they have been strong on counterterrorism and the economy. There is a difference about how hard people should push for democracy in Burma. I am at one end of the ledger. And I do want to thank the Thai Government for its understanding of the refugee issue, particularly as relates to the border policy. My message is going to be one directed to the people in Burma when I meet with some of the activists, and Laura is going to be meeting with some of the people that she got to know. I included Burma in my last United Nations address, and it was a pretty strong statement. And she was in the audience there at the U.N. And just as soon as the speech ended she got an e-mail from one of the activists she had met, a person that was trying to help deal with human suffering. And I just thought it was interesting world we are in, in which the speech finishes; the word gets out; they e-mail back to Mrs. Bush, or Laura, to thank me, as I walked off the podium. Now, it is -my only point to you is that it is very important for us to-I understand pressures on countries, and I understand different interests. And I always try to put myself in the other person's shoes. But as I do so, I never forget certain basic fundamental values. And so we will be-I will be and Laura will be expressing our opinion in a way that is, I hope, very clear and hopeful to people . We are having some problems. On the other hand, it is a democracy, and they will work through an issue, no question about it. The country next door to you is not and wants to hear that people remember them. See, one of my concerns is that we-that America gets so comfortable they say, Who cares? What does it matter whether or not somebody has got ENTITY/ENTITY?


One of the things on ASEAN you ask about is that part of our ENTITY initiative that I am going to go sign a bill this afternoon, which is a firm commitment to dealing with disease is in Vietnam. And my only point will be that we are a compassionate country amongst a lot of other things. We act for-you know, we act-at least this administration has-not afraid to make tough decisions if needed, particularly given the world in which we live, in which there are people that are willing to kill the innocent to achieve their political objectives. And it is interesting that a nation- you asked about ASEAN relations and bilateral relations-it is interesting that a nation with which this country had been at war is now a country that is receiving ENTITY/ ENTITY help to help deal with a human catastrophe. My trip to Vietnam, by the way, was a fascinating experience when I went. And it provides great opportunities for people in the neighborhood. And you know the bilateral relations between China and the United States had been improved under your Presidency, and now it is -. sprinting to the finish. Our relations are becoming more and more interwoven and-our economic relations are very, you know, intricate and- you know, there is dependency in a way; there is a lot of capital gain invested; there is marketplaces. As I mentioned, a strategic dialogue that Secretary Paulson set up-it is constantly evaluating different opportunities dealing with the current problems, but also dealing with strategic opportunities. I would predict to you that whoever follows me will have a-will be a combination of an active engagement with a constant reminder of our belief in human freedom and human liberty. the Beijing, again, is a very important event, not only for China, but also for the whole world. So your stance against politicizing the Olympic Games is highly- -by Chinese people. So what you would like to convey, your messages and wishes to the 29th Beijing Olympic Games and nothing special to Chinese people, because Chinese people has made tremendous efforts to ensure the Olympic Games is a successful event; even sometimes they make some sacrifices. Well, our message is, is that I personally-and America respects the Chinese people-respect your history, respect your tradition, and I am honored to have been invited to the games. And I make the case to people that by going to the games and respecting the people, it gives me a-it gives me credibility with the Government so that we can deal with common opportunities and common problems.


And I will have a bilateral with Hu Jintao, which I am looking forward to. I enjoy the man. I find him to be a straightforward guy; I am very comfortable in his presence. And we will talk about the kinds of issues we always talk about. So for me it is going to be a real pleasure to see the Olympics. I am a sportsman; I love sports. As I mentioned, I am looking forward-I hope I will be riding my mountain bike on the mountain bike trail. I will probably be taking the easiest route because the hills looked quite steep the last time I was there. And I am going to go to see some of the events. As I understand it, I think we have got a chance to go see the United States basketball team versus China, which ought to be a pretty interesting event. I bet it is pretty noisy, as I understand the great Yao Ming--who plays for my old hometown, Houston-the Houston Rockets-foot is healed. I look forward to watching the fan reaction and to seeing good healthy competition. I am fascinated by the Chinese Olympics teams' efforts to capture the most medals. They are going to-and so it'll be fun to watch, and it'll be really interesting to see not only the sports and to feel the atmosphere of the Olympics-I have never been to a summer Olympics before-but also to cheer on my team, because our objective is to get more medals than anybody. That is what competition is about. And if we do, we will be gracious in victory, and if we do not , we will be humble in defeat. But I will be there as the President of the country cheering the team when it comes in the Olympic stadium, going by different venues, and just letting them know America is cheering for them. We are opening a new Embassy. I will have a bilateral dinner, a lunch with the President, a meeting, and then I think his wife and my wife will join us, so it'll be a nice social occasion. But what kind of specific events you would like, you and Mrs. Laura Bush would like most, and you will watch during the-- Well, I like a lot of sports. Unfortunately, we are not going to be there-the most exciting, in many ways for kind of a baby boomer like me, is the track and field. Yes--sprinting tips. We are not going to be there for that.


So, you know what, we will see. I am pretty relaxed about it. Not every single minute of every day has to be totally organized, and so I will be with a lot of my family, and they are fun to hang around with. I am sure we will walk around the different venue sites and just get a sense for the whole atmosphere of people from all around the world coming to Beijing to compete in the Olympic Games. That is going to be a proud moment for the Chinese people. And I made a decision not to politicize the games; this is for athletics. There is plenty of time for politics, and I am confident I will have time for politics and, you know-look, I have met with the Chinese President a lot. This is not like once every 4 years you sit down with the man. I meet with him all the time, it seems like, at these different forums where the United States is at the table with a lot of other nations in the region. And I have got very cordial relations, and it is important to be able to have those kind of relations, because he is got to tell me what is on his mind and I have got to tell him what is on my mind in order to be able to deal with problems. And I think when people study my Presidency and find out how ENTITY conducted foreign policy, they will see I do not shy away from things; I am not a shy person. And if we have a problem, we can discuss it. And so the first time I met with your President at Camp David-first South Korean President to ever go to Camp David; he came-I knew there was some potential problems. And I wanted to put him in a frame of mind, in an atmosphere where he'd feel comfortable. Well, you have a knack to charm other leaders, and he was fascinated, actually. He told me a fabulous story about his-you know, he is an elder of a huge church, and they asked him to be an elder. And he said, No, I need to park cars to prove to myself and others that I deserve it in the first place. Are you worried about the air quality in Beijing? Am I worried about it? Yes, do you worry about it? And I do not know what it is like. I am sure there is all kinds of stories. I have read the paper today that the air quality was down. Who knows what it is going to be like.


We will deal with it. I have got to go to the electronic media, with people who have got beautiful faces. Well, continuing to talk about the leaders, the Chinese leaders, what has surprised you about your dealings over the last 8 years with Chinese leadership? One thing that interests me is to watch China's leaders deal with the benefits and challenges of a marketplace. In other words, this is a country that has got a lot of mouths to feed and a lot of people to employ. And they are committed to, in many ways, marketplace principles, particularly as they have invited in foreign capital. And it is been interesting to watch them deal with a combination of the need for raw material versus the-from the foreign policy implications of dealing with a country that has a lot of raw material. The classic case is Iran, where I have spent a lot of time with the Chinese President talking about the dangers of Iran having a nuclear weapon, knowing full well that they need fuel in order to meet their own internal pressures. Hu Jintao has been very open in many ways about his concerns and the pressures he feels, as have I. And by the way, that is not easy when there is a language barrier. And yet I can report to you that we do have cordial, relaxed conversations in spite of the fact that we both have interpreters. It is much easier when you are dealing with a person that speaks your own language. Since the only one I speak is English, it is important to have English speakers. But here is a man who I have had some-I feel comfortable talking about his family, and he asks about mine. And that may sound trite to you, but nevertheless, it is a part of getting comfortable with each other. So I guess what is interesting is to- just understanding the tensions that an emerging economy can feel, and particularly given Chinese-the Chinese role in international affairs, for example, their presence in the U.N. Security Council, Perm 5, which creates interesting tensions. I would say that there is been a-it is just been interesting to watch, and interesting to participate with people. I mean, the Taiwan issue was a very touchy issue for a while, causing me to say in the Oval Office-that which is now well-chronicled- that the United States does not support a unilateral declaration of independence.


Can you hear me? I can hear you fine. Can you hear me? Can you hear me, ENTITY? Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me? You are in the State ostensibly to help Harris Wofford win election to a full term. He replaced John Heinz in a special election a couple of years ago, and he went to Washington on the matter of national health care, which we all know did not make it through the Congress this year. Polls have shown overall that the Democrats are not going to do that well in the election, come one week from tomorrow on the 8th. What is the reason for that? Why is it voters look so poorly on your party and its candidates right now? There is a lag time between when you accomplish something in Washington and when people feel it in their own lives. There are still a lot of voters who have jobs, but they are worried about whether they will lose them or they will lose their health care or will they ever get a raise. It is a tough, fast-changing global economy, and a lot of people feel personally insecure. There are also a lot of people who are worried about crime and social breakdown. The other big problem is, when Congress is meeting and the Republicans are trying to kill everything, delay everything, talk everything to death, all of the focus is on conflict, process, failure. Now when the Congress has gone home for the last 2 or 3 weeks, you can sense a real movement out there. People sense that they have got a real fundamental choice here. If you look at Pennsylvania-you heard the quote there- we have had 86,000 new jobs in Pennsylvania. We have done things that the Congress had refused to address for years and years. We passed the family leave law to protect working people who have to take time off. We passed a law to expand Head Start, one to immunize children, one to give tax cuts for working families on modest incomes that have children in the home so they will never be in poverty. We are making the Government work for ordinary people again. And we have expanded trade and promoted peace and security around the world. Russian missiles are not pointing at Americans for the first time since the beginning of the nuclear age.

Interview With Don Lancer of KYW Radio, Philadelphia


So when you look at that record and then you look at this Republican contract which promises to take us back to the eighties and would promise everybody a tax cut, especially for wealthy people, spend more money on defense and Star Wars, balance the budget-they will have to cut Social Security and Medicare and do it steeply to pay for it. I just do not think the American people want that, and I do not think the people of Pennsylvania do. In recent polls-you keep talking about the recovery that is occurring, and I have no doubt that there is a recovery in certain parts of the country if they just bear that out. Here in the Northeast, however, there is no recovery; at least the perception is there is no recovery. There was a recent poll out by the Tarrence group that shows that only a third of Americans believe the claims of a recovery. My whole point to you, or my question to you is, why is it that this is the perception? It cannot simply be because Republicans are trying to stonewall things in the Congress so there is gridlock? No, I think-well, I do believe that people have not gotten a lot of the information; I think that is true. But I think-keep in mind what I said first. I think a lot of people may hear that there are more jobs, but they may feel that their personal situation is not more secure. That is, they may think, Well, I am still not going to get a raise, or I might lose my job, or I might lose my health benefits. Another million Americans lost their health care last year. That is why Harris Wofford and I worked so hard to protect the health care benefits of working people and to try to change the law so that they would not lose their health care. But the point I am trying to make to the American people is that we are making them more secure-that is what the family leave law was all about, that is what these efforts to improve the health of our children are all about, that is what the crime bill is all about-that our economic policy is working. So the issue is, do you want to keep working for something that is plainly taking us in the right direction, or do you want to buy this Republican snake oil, you know, We are going to give everybody a tax cut and balance the budget and increase everybody's spending, and we will tell you how we are going to pay for that after the election.


Okay, let us assume we are headed in the right direction. What we in the Northeast would like to know is, how long is it going to take us to get there? Well, your unemployment rate in Pennsylvania is above the national average, but it is a point lower than it was when I took office. You lost 8,300 jobs in the previous administration; you got 86,800 more under our administration. They had 12 years; we have had 21 months. You want to turn around and give the guys that put you in the hole in the first place 2 more years, 4 more years, 6 more years? You gave them 12 years. We have been given 21 months, and we have turned it around. Now, just because everybody has not felt it, that is not a good reason to stay home or vote Republican. They had 12 years, and we were in a big hole. We also had 20 years, through both parties, of stagnant wages and less secure jobs and losing benefits. And we have had 30 years of rising crime and family breakdown. We are at least addressing all these things for the first time. And it is pretty refreshing, I think, to have a Government that has taken on the tough problems instead of running away from them and that can at least show we are making some progress. And the worst thing in the world you can do is to say, Okay, we gave you these problems-we had 12 years of the other party's politics and economics, we have got 20 years of economic problems and 30 years of social problems-and we have not felt anything in 21 months. So we are going to go back to the people that got us in the hole in the first place. If everybody will just relax and look at the record, they will vote for Harris Wofford, they will vote for Mark Singel, and they will vote to keep this country moving in the right direction so that all of Pennsylvania can feel the results of these efforts. But there have been changes in the way that those figures are tallied. If we were living under the same figures the Republicans had, the unemployment rate would have gone down over 1 1/2 percent. The changes in the way the unemployment is tallied work against us, not for us. We appreciate your taking time out from a very busy schedule today, ENTITY.