And we are not going to get into details of specific items of negotiations because negotiating in public would not serve the goal here, but I would point you to the fact that the Joint Plan of Action lays out very clearly the elements for a comprehensive agreement and it talks about all concerns needing to be addressed, and it talks about making sure that we know that, in fact, this is an entirely peaceful program. It also talks about U.N. Security Council resolutions needing to be addressed, including provisions relating to ballistic missiles capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. So ballistic missiles fall into the topics under discussion that would need to be part of a comprehensive resolution of this dispute and this challenge. Without sort of teasing out any individual item and talking about how that concern would have to be addressed in the final product, what we will do is point you to those U.N. Security Council resolutions, the fact that the Joint Plan of Action explicitly calls for those concerns to be resolved, and make clear that everything in the JPA is on the table and has to be resolved for a comprehensive agreement to be reached. ENTITY, I have two questions. On the Ukraine elections, a statement that the Vice President put out this week used the word, delegitimize in the statement, that Russia would face additional costs should it disrupt or delegitimize the election results. My question is a follow-up on a question earlier, which is who is the arbiter for the results of the election, whether they are disrupted or delegitimized, since sectoral sanctions would be so important to determine a range. Who decides that? Well, first of all, there will be international observers organized by the OSCE who will be able to make judgments about the conduct of the election and any efforts to undermine the election or delegitimize it. The United States and the rest of our partners in the international community who have taken one side on this matter, and Russia, which has taken another side, I think will make judgments about how the elections proceed. President Putin, back when he also said or suggested that the so-called referenda should not be held on May 11, also said that the May 25 election might be a good step.


And we certainly agree with that -- not just might be, but a necessary and important step -- for the Ukrainian people because it would -- successful implementation of that election would allow the Ukrainian people to freely express their will when it comes to choosing their leader, their president. And we are very focused on ensuring, with our partners, that the election takes place. This is a small matter, but the President has a minor cold. I am not suggesting that he is ill, but here is the question -- I cannot find any public record that the President has had his full medical workup, his usual exam, since before the election. And maybe I missed it. Can you tell us, update us when -- I will have to take the question. I have not looked into that. Yesterday the FCC voted to create what they call Internet fast lanes. I am wondering, the President, as candidate in 2007, 2008, said he would oppose such efforts. Is the President disappointed by the FCC decision, or is he contemplating going back on his campaign promise from six years ago? The President has made clear since he was a candidate, ENTITY, that he strongly supports net neutrality and an open Internet. As he has said, the Internet's incredible equality of data, content and access to the consumer is what has powered extraordinary economic growth and made it possible for once tiny sites like eBay and Amazon to compete with brick-and-mortar operations. The FCC is an independent agency, as you know, and we will carefully review their proposal. The FCC's efforts were dealt a real challenge by the Court of Appeals in January, but Chairman Wheeler has said his goal is to preserve an open Internet, and we are pleased to see that he is keeping all options on the table. We will be watching closely as the process moves forward in hopes that the final rule stays true to the spirit of net neutrality. The President is looking at every way to protect a free and open Internet and we will -- and he will consider any option that might make sense. Does the rule that was passed yesterday meet the President's standards for net neutrality? Again, I think the rule -- what was passed yesterday was something that kept options on the table. Well, if you have all options on the table, then the President will be looking very closely to see that the outcome of this results in a final rule that stays true to the spirit of net neutrality, which he supports. I have got a couple questions.

Barack Obama Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney


Yesterday, Secretary Johnson said on PBS Newshour that you might be looking at changes -- or the President might be looking at changes to the Secure Communities program that is part of reforming the deportation policy. Does the White House have anything on that? I did not see that comment. What I think you know is that the President asked Secretary Johnson to address -- to review procedures when it comes to enforcement, and that review is underway. I would refer you to the department for any status update they might have. And also this week, there were some documents released to Judicial Watch through FOYA -- a lawsuit -- that did appear that the Washington office of IRS did have more to do with targeting some of the tea party groups in this. I did not see that report, so I do not have a response. Well, does the White House still believe that this was entirely out of the Cincinnati office, as the President said during the Super Bowl interview? Our position has not changed and I certainly have not seen any facts that suggest otherwise. But I have not seen the report that you mentioned. I am just curious about this sports concussion event. And what is the President hoping to get out of it? We hope to see and expect to see some public and private commitments made towards the study of and education about this problem. I think the President, as a father who also has on his staff others who are parents, knows that this is a topic that a lot of families are discussing right now as more and more information is provided about the problems associated with concussions in sports, especially for our young. And we have the ability here, because it is the White House and because he is the President, to help elevate this issue and help draw attention to it and support for efforts to make progress on it so that we can ensure that our kids are being able to get all the benefits that come from participating in sports but are able to do so in as safe a way as possible. I do not have a list of attendees at this time. What I can tell you is we are not prepared to announce participants or commitments at this time, but the President recognizes that raising awareness of and better protecting children and student athletes from concussions, and better identifying and treating them when they do occur requires a team approach. And professional sports leagues, including the NFL, are certainly vital members of that team. So this is an effort that a lot of people can be involved in and should be involved in.


And this is something that is often talked about within the context of football. I have a son who is expressing interest in playing tackle football, so it is something that I am particularly interested in, but it does not limit itself just to football. Obviously we have seen a lot of reports about concussions in other sports, including soccer. So this is something that I think a lot of families spend a lot of time worrying about and want to know as much as they can about, and want to be sure that they are taking all the precautions they can on behalf of their children so their children can get all the great experiences that come from participating in sports. How does he prepare for an event like this? Is he reading books? Frontline has done some documentaries. I know that it is something that he has addressed when asked a couple of times in interviews where he is noted that if he had a son he would have to think twice about saying yes to having him play football. There have been -- obviously the report that came out last fall that helped spark this conversation, and there is a lot of research that is been done within the government, including within the military, on some of these issues. So I do not have specific reading lists, but I know that it is a topic of conversation here just like it is around the country. I have two follow-ups. The first one is the ambassador already has retired and is expected to leave during this month. Who is going to be the top diplomat in Delhi? You are sending somebody from here to start the dialogue? I do not have any personnel announcements to make. It is obviously a very important post, but when the President has an announcement to make he will make it. Are you sending somebody from here, one of your diplomats, to start? Because if you see the baggage of nearly 10 years of visa denial, just a statement welcoming him may not bring him here. You would have to speak to him about his views on this matter. First of all, I think we have made clear that we congratulate the Indian people and Mr. Modi and his party on their victory. We await the formation of a government, and we absolutely look forward to continuing all the progress that we have made in our bilateral relationship, and fully expect to be able to do so. But just looking at the personal level, will it be kind of a hiccup, and if we are ready to do something to address that on a personal level?


Again, the Prime Minister of India will receive a visa to travel to the United States. We look forward to working with the new government and the new Prime Minister, and we congratulate Mr. Modi and his party on their victory. I do not anticipate any problem in that regard. What we do anticipate is moving forward with the new government and strengthening a relationship that has already been strengthened significantly over the past years with Prime Minister Singh at the helm in India. Do you have any result on the President's call today to President Erdogan regarding the mine disaster? I do not have a readout for you. When we do we will get it to you. Earlier this week, Secretary Hagel said that he was open to a review of the military's ban on transgender servicemembers. I was wondering if the President would back that review and whether or not he is had any conversations with the Defense Secretary about that issue. Well, the President speaks with Secretary Hagel regularly, meets with him weekly. I do not have a readout on all his conversations, but I would certainly point you to what Secretary Hagel said and certainly we support his efforts in this area. And the President I do not think has ever spoken out on this issue before. I would simply at this point leave it to Secretary Hagel's comments. I have not spoken to him directly about this issue, but I would note what Secretary Hagel said and that we support him. Does the White House agree with Chinese PLA General Fang who said yesterday that the Asia rebalance strategy has emboldened Vietnam in its territorial dispute with China in the South China Sea? I would simply say what I said earlier about the need for parties to these disputes to address them in a peaceful and diplomatic way, in keeping with international norms and international law. I would note what I said about the unilateral decision and provocative one when it came to the -- when it comes to the oil rig and our calling on all sides to restrain -- refrain from taking actions that inflame tensions, as opposed to actions that calm the situation and allow for peaceful dialogue about it and resolution about the dispute. ENTITY , before you give us the week ahead, can you just -- You got breaking news on your device? Can you give us the President's reflections as we approach the 60th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education? He is obviously meeting with some of the family members of the plaintiffs today.


And maybe tell us why that event is closed to press. It is a private meeting that the President is having with families. I would note that the First Lady will be speaking publicly about the anniversary of this landmark Supreme Court decision this evening in Topeka, Kansas. The President feels, as I think so many people do around the country, that this decision was historic, that it enabled millions of Americans to get a better education. There was a good story this morning about the First Lady and how that decision affected her life, which I think speaks to why it is so appropriate for her to be speaking on it tonight. We have more work to do, and that is why the President has the aggressive education agenda that he has. That is why he is focused on making pre-kindergarten education available to all in this country, because that early start is so essential for a child's future. So I think that we have come a long way in 60 years, and this is an important anniversary to note. But the President's views are that that is true and that also we need to keep moving forward when it comes to ensuring that we are doing everything we can to provide a quality education to all of our kids. Let me give you the week ahead. On Monday, the President will have lunch with combatant commanders. In the evening, the President will attend a DCCC event. On Tuesday, the President will attend meetings here at the White House. On Wednesday, the President will participate in an ambassador credentialing ceremony in the Oval Office. At this event the President will receive the credentials from foreign ambassadors recently posted in Washington. The presentation of credentials is a traditional ceremony that marks the formal beginning of ambassador's service here. Afterward, the President will welcome the Super Bowl Champion Seattle Seahawks to the White House to honor the team and their Super Bowl victory. On Thursday, the President will travel to Chicago to participate in two events for the DSCC. The President will remain in Chicago overnight. On Friday, he will return to Washington from Chicago. And I would be remiss in noting -- in not noting as I leave here that today is Kathy Ruemmler's last day, and we at the White House will all miss her wisdom and good humor. And we wish her well.


But as you talk about a kinder, gentler Nation, it is difficult for Houstonians who are being robbed at Randall's to relate to that. What can you do as ENTITY to make the streets safer right here in Houston, your hometown? ENTITY, there is not too much ENTITY can do, but there are some big things ENTITY can do if he can get cooperation. One, we need to worry a little more about the criminals and their rights and soften the criminal anti-crime legislation, hoping that you can rehabilitate; and there is another school of thought, which is mine, and that is that we need to be tougher on crime. reviews the exclusionary rule, protects the police more, reviews the habeas corpus rule, cracks the death penalty on those who create the most heinous of crimes. And we have got a philosophical difference, particularly in the House. The Senate Democrats and Republicans have come together for a good bill. Help us pass our anti-crime legislation. And then, of course, a lot of it has to be done through the police at the local level. She is good, and she is working on it. But these policemen that are out on the beat need help, and that is what we are trying to give them through our anti-crime legislation. But we are caught in a philosophical debate. The most liberal Members of Congress simply think I am on the wrong track, and I think they have been proved wrong. We may get one this year, incidentally. Let me ask you a little bit about the economy here. Compaq let go some 1,400 folks; Transco yesterday announced 500 folks being laid off; Halliburton; Tenneco. The evidence here in Houston is pointing to a recession. What can you tell those folks who are out of work? I'd tell them that, Look over your shoulder and recognize that in spite of the hurt today we have come a long way in Houston. I think about a few years ago when we were going through the same credit and financial institution problems that some of the rest of the country is now. I'd also tell them that what we need to do in Washington to assist is to have a growing economy with less regulation, with a new banking reform bill, with a transportation bill that creates instant jobs. I happen to believe a capital gains cut would stimulate more Compaqs -- companies being started.

Interview With Sylvan Rodriguez of KHOU - TV in Houston, Texas


It would stimulate jobs in small business that present 80 percent or 85 percent of the jobs in this country. So, we have got good programs, but again, I am in a fight with the Congress. I also think there is this one of unemployment benefits. But I do not want to do it in a way that burdens everybody that is working or people that are out of work and are paying taxes. So they ought to lay politics aside. And the Democratic leader in the Senate was reported in the paper today to be holding out against the other Democrats who want to do what I want done. He wants to, as I said last night, Stick it up my ear. I was trying to think exactly how to phrase that, but this is not any time for politics. People are hurting, and I want to send them the checks. But I also want to protect the rest of this country by not busting the budget agreement and adding to the deficit. A lot of folks are hurting here in Houston because of these layoffs. Can you give them an idea as to how long that is going to last, how long the recession -- In the first place -- and this is no help to somebody that is hurting -- the recession that we have been in, had been in, is not near as deep as the one that I lived through as Vice President in '81 and '82. So I think we have less far to come to get out of it, in other words. I think when you see growth in the third quarter, that was a good sign. When you see unemployment -- do not tell this to an unemployed guy -- but when you see unemployment substantially lower than it was in the heights of the last recession, that is a good sign. But yes, I'd say to them, I do believe things are improving. I do think we ought to help those who are out of work. But I do not want to be a part of trying to talk this country into a recession, a deepened recession. And I do not want to win by just talking negatively about everything. I know that very candidly, politically, some of the liberal Democrats that control this Congress think the only chance they have to defeat me is to talk this country into hard times. And I do not want to be a part of that. One, we want to help you. Two, I believe we are going to be out of this thing and may be out of it right now.


And three, work with the Congress to get the kind of incentives in the economy that I have been talking about for a long, long time. ENTITY, I hope to be with you on the campaign trail during this next year. You are not a stranger to it, nor am I. I meant that, what I said last night. I have been trying to be kind and gentle and absorb these political shots from not all the Democrats -- you do not hear some of our Texas Democrats be this personal. But I am a little tired of having the liberal Democrats up there in the House and the Senate, these entrenched leaders and chairmen of these little subcommittees, dictate to the American people. I know what the American people elected me to do, and I'd like to be able to do it. I felt good after that last night. I came home, and I said to Barbara, You know, one, it is great to be back in Houston, and I feel good. I thought I'd be dead tired, having come in from Madrid. And I felt good because I slugged back at these guys that have been sniping at me for 6 months. Are you ready for the fight? And we are going to be in a real fight. I am not going to roll over and let them misrepresent my record. And I had fun pointing out that they say to me, What is the difference between foreign and domestic policy? you do it. And the people support you. Domestic policy, you have got to come up against this old thinking. Well, tell me what the focus of the campaign, then, will be. Economy. Getting America back to work, helping those who are out of work. But then, of course, you mentioned crime. It is right up on the forefront. Get me some Members of Congress that will support my crime bill. Republicans are supporting it. Get me some on the other side so we can move it forward. We have got a fantastic Education 2000. Democratic Governors are supporting it overwhelmingly. But some of the old thinkers in Congress want to have Congress tell these schools how to do it. They are subject to the power of the labor union in education. But I am not worried about that labor union, the NEA. They never voted for me in their life. The union fights me. So, I am going to fight them. Let me ask you a little about the middle class.


That recent Washington Post-ABC poll indicated that 47 percent are inclined to reelect you, and the others say it is because of the economy and especially the middle class are hurting so much right now. Any time you have got a bad economy, people are going to look at anybody that is in office. One of the reasons you see term limits so popular, and I support them, is people are saying, Hey, they are not helping us. I cannot ask a guy that is thrown out of work at Compaq to think everything I am doing is perfect. But what I will do in the campaign is draw the lines and say, Here is what I have tried to do. Do you know this? And if you believe in it, send me some help up there. But yes, I think the economy is going to be the driving factor in these elections. The lack of consumer confidence worries me because if they hear all this bad news all the time, people are going to get gloomy about it. It is a good time to buy a house. It is a good time to buy a car. But as long as people are worrying about their jobs, they hold back. So, I have got to border between cheerleading and saying, Hey, good banks make good loans; let us move things forward, and not seem uncaring. I am walking a tightrope. I have time to ask you one more question. You are from Houston -- -- You want to put me on the spot, do not you? Look, this one is not that tough for me. And I have said this before, and I will say it again. I know Joe Gibbs, and I respect him. And yes, I take pride in the Skins' record. I talked to Jack Pardee just before I came down here, told him how great I think he is doing. Got a little secondhand message from Warren Moon, sending his best, and I scribbled out a note back to him. And so, I am for the Oilers, and I hope they win. And I hope they go on to the Super Bowl, and I hope I get the honor to have them back in the White House. It is good to see you.


But still, the city, right now, even as we speak, is bracing, expecting huge demonstrations. And the largest police force in the history of the city has been mobilized to protect you. Not only against terrorism- yes, I guess. It is not only about the terror threat, which of course is on everybody's mind. Have you been made aware of that? See, I love to visit a place that is confident in her freedom, a place where people feel free to express themselves, because that is what I believe in. And so I am looking forward to my visit. I am going to have a great visit with the Chancellor. I will be at the Bundestag, and I look forward to a speech there that talks about the importance of our relationship; that is, the relationship between Germany and America and what we can do together. I am anxious-I have never been to Germany, so I am anxious to go, and I am looking forward to it. It is too bad that ENTITY never gets to really see a city like Berlin. And that is part of my life; that is part of the-that is one of the drawbacks of being ENTITY. You really are encapsulated into a bubble, whether it be in Germany or in America, for that matter. There is, beyond the demonstrations and beyond the people who show up everyplace just to cause havoc, there is a mood in Germany right now, pervasive among decent people, who are concerned about an America that more and more seems to stand in many important questions outside the global consensus, from the Kyoto agreement to the International Criminal Court to Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, military options versus Iraq, all these questions. Is your Government really still part of that global family? Or is it more, America looks for coalitions of the willing, meaning if you go with us, fine; if you do not , we find somebody else or we go it alone? I am coming to Germany to say that together we can work to achieve peace, and we must work together to achieve peace. I am going to talk about a NATO-the idea of expanding NATO to help achieve peace. I am going to reaffirm those institutions that are important, where we can cooperate. I am-listen, I believe in alliances. I know America cannot win the war on terror alone. I understand there is some reluctance about some of the positions I take.

Interview With Claus Kleber of ARD German Television


But one of the things that the German people at least ought to respect is, I speak my mind. Gorbachev, tear down the whole wall. He did not say, tear down a couple of bricks. He said, tear the whole thing down. But the German people will know, if they listen to my speech, that I care deeply for the alliance and friendship we have with the German people. And I believe together we can do a lot of good in the world. Iraq is an issue very much on everybody's mind in this context. Your Government seems to be determined to end the regime of Saddam Hussein by any means necessary. This seems to include military options. Is there any way that this man, this dictator, can address your concerns and stay in power? Or are we drifting towards a war? Well, first, let me say this, that Iraq ought to be on the minds of the German people, and they ought to be on the minds of the American people, because the Iraq Government is a dangerous Government. Iraq ought to be centerpiece in our thinking. This is a Government that is gassed its own people. This is a Government that is not transparent, and this is a Government we know wants to develop weapons of mass destruction. They may have weapons of mass destruction; we just do not know. And for the good of freedom and for the good of our future, we have got to deal with it. Now, I am not going to-I have no military plans on my desk that calls for-that plots out a military operation. I am looking at all options. And of course, I will consult closely with our allies and friends. I look forward to talking this subject with the Chancellor of Germany. I will be very blunt in my assessment of his- his being Saddam Hussein's-threat to the freedom of the world. But this is a threat that we better take seriously, and we better take it seriously now. I do not care about this Washington second-guessing game; this is really not what I am getting to. We have pictures of your travel pool on Air Force One looking in horror at this little flat screen which was back in the plane, seeing the second tower collapse. I wondered what was going on at about that time in the front of the plane? First of all, I learned about the attack- the second attack; I knew about the first attack when I walked into a schoolroom.


I am glad to hear your voice. Sorry we missed each other. You were in Los Angeles. I was supposed to meet you at an event. Sorry we missed each other. Are you in New York? No, I am in Los Angeles right now. Yes, I can hear you fine. No, I am in L.A. right now. We were supposed to meet at an event a few weeks ago, and we got-we missed our signal, so we did not hook up. Well, I am sorry I missed you. My publicist told me that you are a big fan of mine. I just want to hear you say that out loud. I am a big fan of yours, and I hear all the clapping in the background, so I want to please everybody for you. You just pretty much made my whole career. ENTITY, we are fans of yours here, on The Beat. I cannot speak for the entire radio station, but I know I am. I have always been a fan of yours and your work and your community development towards the African-American community. I have one question for you. I want to ask you, point blank, what can African-Americans and the Latino community expect from the Democratic Party in regards to education and affirmative action? Well, I think first of all, you can expect them to build on the progress of the last 8 years. Remember-let us start with affirmative action-remember, there was a lot of pressure to eliminate affirmative action, both from the Republican Party and from some court decisions, which required us to change it. And we took the position that we should mend it, not end it, and that is the position that Vice President Gore has steadily defended. I noticed in his third debate that he was the only candidate who would say that he was for affirmative action. And I can tell you, we had long, long discussions about this. He believes strongly in it. And I believe virtually every one of our candidates for the Senate and the House does. I know that my wife, who is running for the Senate in New York, strongly feels that way, and I believe all the others do, as well. So I think you can feel very good about that. On the education issue, I think the choices are quite clear here. The Vice President and all the Democratic candidates, first of all, think that America ought to know our schools are getting better and our students are doing better.

Interview With Steve Harvey of KKBT-FM Radio, Los Angeles, California


The college-going rate is at an all-time high because we have pushed through the Congress the biggest increase in student aid, from Pell grants to work-study grants to the Hope scholarship tax credit, in 50 years. So what does Al Gore want to do? What do the rest of our Democrats want to do? They want to finish the job of putting 100,000 qualified teachers in our schools. They want to provide funds to poor school districts especially, and growing school districts, to build new school buildings and to overhaul others. They want to finish the work of connecting all the schools in the country to the Internet and all the classrooms. When Al Gore took on this project for our administration in 1994, only 3 percent of the classrooms were connected. Today, 65 percent of the classrooms are, and 90 percent of the poorest schools have at least one Internet connection. So we want to do that. He wants to provide universal preschool and more after-school programs for the kids who need it, and he wants tax deductibility for college tuition. Plus which, we have a Hispanic Education Action Plan that is designed to deal with the fact that the dropout rate among Latino students is still too high, and he has promised to build on that. So we have got a very, very good education program. It is been our top domestic priority, and I think you can really depend on the Vice President to deliver. That is why both the major teachers' organizations have endorsed him, and a lot of other educators around the country, because they believe that we have a program based on the research and what the educators are saying. He has got a good accountability program that we ought to identify failing schools, turn them around, or open them under new management. And all over America, you see these schools that were in trouble just a couple of years ago that are turning around. I was in a school in Harlem the other day where 2 years ago, 80 percent of the children were doing math and reading below grade level, and today, three-quarters of the kids are doing math and reading above or at grade level. That is after only 2 years. So we have got a program that is working out there at the grassroots. We need to bring it to all of America, and you can trust Al Gore to do that. He cares a lot about it. And you can trust the Democratic Party. We care about it. Now, ENTITY, you were at the Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza on yesterday.


We thank you for stopping by, lending your support to the campaign. We thank you for all of the work you have done over the past 8 years. And we do applaud you in both of these directions, especially in terms of education and affirmative action. We appreciate you so much. We know you are busy; we know you are on a tight schedule. And hey, man, we just want to say thank you for calling. Let me say, I wanted to go back to Watts, a place I have been visiting for many years now, to thank the people of Watts, of L.A., and of California for being so good to me and Hillary and Al and Tipper Gore these last 8 years, and for proving that we could turn America around economically, educationally, environmentally, that we could provide more health insurance. And you know there is a lot of laboratories of success there. But I also wanted to emphasize that in California and throughout this country, there are races for the Congress, for the Senate and the House, which are also terribly important. They are just as close as the Presidential race. And if we can win a majority in the House and in the Senate, we will be in a position to really pull this country together and move forward to build on the progress of the last 8 years, to keep the prosperity going. That is really why the young people of this country ought to get out and vote, because we have come so far in the last 8 years, but all the best things are still out there. When Al Gore says, You ain't seen nothing yet, that is not just politics. We can turn the country around, and now we can make big, big strides in the economy, in education, in health care, the environment, and pulling this country together. But we have got to have the right leadership. Quickly, ENTITY, after it is all over, when the election is done and Gore is President and you finally, after 8 very successful years, step down, what do you see yourself doing, man? What do you think? Well, first of all, I have got to be an ordinary citizen again, and I have got to go out and make a living, so I will do that. But what I want to do is find a way to be a useful citizen, in a way that does not in any manner interfere with the next President. Jimmy Carter has been a very great ex-President; he is done a lot of good.


ENTITY, I wanted to open by asking you a question that one of my editors wanted us to ask you, but it may require some participation on your part. How much cash have you got on you? How much cash do I have on me? You never carry money? It just seems no way to do it. I mean, I get bills for things, but, no, there is no opportunity. I cannot go shopping or anything like that so Do you miss it at all the feel of coin in your pocket? I make up for it, because every once in a while people will give me something like a good luck piece or something of that kind, and I put those in my pocket. We wanted to ask you on the eve of this Liberty Weekend and your trip to New York to celebrate the Statue a couple of questions about that. Do you think it is time for Lady Liberty to put up her hand and say Stop to immigration at the Mexican border? I think that well, at any border. I think that something very definite would go out of America if we ever forgot our heritage. That is sort of like all of us came here from someplace else or by way of our ancestors-our parents, grandparents, and so forth and that is a little like getting on board and once we are on board let us pull up the gangplank and not let anyone else on. Does that mean you would not support the immigration bill that is now Oh, I am supporting the immigration bill because I think we have to have rules and regulations, and I think what that bill is meant to correct is some loss of control at our borders, where illegal immigration is threatening us now. No, we have to have control and have had; it is been traditional in our country for many years. And I agree with that, and I agree with the part of the legislation which says that some people even if they did illegally enter the country in times past have established themselves, have been law-abiding, raised children, and so forth here that there should be a provision whereby their status can be made legal and permanent. This weekend, which is a celebration of liberty and our 100th anniversary of our lady in the harbor, do you feel that South African blacks should have that same kind of liberation? And I have never yielded on that point. I know that it is a difficult situation, and we want to remain in contact and be able to help bring about a change. I do not think anyone can support the policy of apartheid morally.

Interview With Johanna Neuman and Karen DeWitt of USA Today


And I know that the present government has taken steps, wants to find a solution to this problem, is opposed by another faction that does not want to change, just as sometimes we are opposed here in our own country with political factions. What things do you point to that they you say they want to find a solution and that they have arrested 3,000 people-leaders, black leaders, put them in jail; they have got a state of emergency. I mean, what kind of things have they done? Well, we have expressed our displeasure with the state of emergency. What we believe is that there must come a meeting and negotiations between leaders of the various black elements and the present government as to the formation of a government. Now, they have taken such steps as single citizenship already. They have done some things about the onerous pass laws and all of that the right of labor unions and so forth. They have arrested all the labor union leaders though, sir. I know, and this was part of, again, this emergency thing that we think should be done away with. But I think the complication that is overlooked too often is that it is not solidly a racial division between the white minority and the black majority. The black majority itself is divided, and there are tribal divisions that have a long time heritage there in Africa. And we have seen that in the violence between those groups now. Is there something the United States can do to bring that about? Well, we are continuing to try, and I think that we have a better chance by remaining in contact with that government than following the lead that is been suggested up on the Hill with some legislation in which we would walk totally away and then be on the outside with no contact at all. I think that we have a long history, a relationship between the two countries, and that this is what has enabled us to keep a hand in so far. ENTITY, may I switch subjects on you? Vice President Bush said a couple of weeks ago that the administration was considering use of the military on drug smuggling. In light of the recent deaths of some famous athletes, I wonder what thoughts you have, whether you have made a decision? Well, remember, right now we have some participation by military, and I do not think that he was talking about making policemen out of soldiers at all. We had a task force that we set up down when Florida was the great entry point.


And it was probably the first, most successful working together of levels of law enforcement at local, State, and Federal, and the various agencies of all of those working together, plus help from the military with radar, Coast Guard things of that kind. And it was so successful that we now have 12 of those task forces working because of the extensive borders and coastlines that we have. And we are always watching; if there are more opportunities for increasing that kind of cooperation, to deal with the problem of drugs coming into the country. Again, as I say, we want to draw the line at not saying that we are suddenly going to make our military have a police capability. But might you allow the military to use some of its assets, like radar Well, yes, and, as I say, if increasing that will help, because we already have that at work. I might also add that the military, like every other facet of our society, had its own problem with drugs internally. And they have done a magnificent job. They have virtually reduced it almost to zero in the military. I think what we have to face is there is a limit to what success we can have with simply trying to shut off the inflow of drugs, to take the drugs away from the users. I know that what Nancy's been engaged in is, I think, what ultimately must be the answer, and that is to take the user away from the drugs, to turn the users off. And I think the terrible tragedy of these two young men and what has happened to them that maybe their lives would have had and will have a real meaning if we will, from them, move on to utilize all the resources we have. Now, I know that Nancy has participated in movements all over the country that are showing remarkable success the Just Say No movement among children is having a great effect and the way parents have suddenly moved forward to enter into this battle. But that is going to be the only way, eventually, that we will resolve it is when we, the people and as individuals and as groups, say we have had enough of this, and we are going to stop feeding the monsters money so they can continue their living in style at the cost of health and the life of our young people.


I would think that these two athletes, also this could be a great example to the athletes in our country, the professionals who are such heroes to our young people and to children for them to recognize their responsibility and for them to organize and take a position in this fight. Soviet dancing of late seems that you are a madly-in-love suitor courting this coy woman over in the Kremlin sometimes. You two seem to be in your own little dance. Are you planning to write to him soon? We have an answer in which he has made additional proposals with regard to not only the subject of arms control but the other things we discussed at Geneva, which had to do with the regional conflicts going on in the world, had to do with human rights and emigration and so forth. And we have that letter in our possession, and we are putting together our own reply because, again, I think it opened additional doors that make me optimistic that we are not only going to have a summit but that we are going to have a summit where we can reach agreement on some of the things that we obviously or the goals that we share. We have said from the very beginning that we would like a reduction of nuclear weapons, leading to the ultimate elimination of such weapons. Well, now they have said the same thing. And if we both want the same thing, we ought to be able to find a way to reach that goal. What will you tell him in this new letter? Well, as I say, this was quite an extensive letter that he sent. The one that you just got back? I cannot remember the exact number of pages, but it was quite a packet and worthwhile. And so, we are studying that and our own reply, and, as I say, I hope that this will all become part of the agenda of a summit meeting. You do not have a Shultz-Shevardnadze meeting date, do you? That, as you know, they had called off earlier on when we thought it was going to be held in July. We believe that there was some reason for that because this is a new administration there, and maybe we had been overly optimistic as to how quickly they could get together and move forward. But now we have reason to believe that such a meeting is possible. In November, you think?


Besides your good lady, ENTITY, who is a good friend of yours; who is someone that you call up to talk about those deep nights of the soul, when you have those kinds of questions? Or do you ever have those? When you have sort of questions or when you feel introspective or perhaps you never do feel introspective. Who do you talk to besides Mrs. Reagan? Well, first of all, I am surrounded here by some very remarkable people who made great sacrifices in order to come into government. Yes, but I mean your best friend. I mean one always has a best friend. Well, I have to say I am very blessed with a number of friends, and I am in frequent contact with many of them. And I do not know if I should go if I start throwing names around, then I am apt to miss one. But, no, I have been very blessed with a circle of friends that are very dear to me, and, as I say, we stay in contact. On that line, how frequently do you talk to President Nixon, to Mr. Nixon? Well, as you know, we try to keep all former Presidents informed of things that are going on check with them, get their thinking, and so forth. And he is one of those and particularly has he been helpful in foreign affairs. Do you mean to suggest that you talk to President Carter as well? I have personally, but mainly this is carried on by others in our NSC group who keep them informed and But our impression was that your relationship with Nixon was more in the manner of picking up the phone. I have done that, because he and I had a long friendship that, as fellow Californians, went back many years long before either one of us, I think, ever thought we would be in the present position. My acquaintanceship with the most recent is very slight. I knew him slightly, or for a short time, when we were Governors together. And then my relationship with President Ford was much more recent than that. Has Nixon given you any advice during this recent Soviet dancing? ENTITY, we had good news this morning in the release of an American in Beirut, not usually counted among the Americans held there. I wondered what your view is about whether that will improve the chances of the others. I did not know about this. I have been in meetings all morning, so I have not been informed of that. You are giving me the news now for the first time.


But, yes, that would the only problem is there is such a variety of groups that what one group may do may not have an effect on the other. Now, we know, with those hostages that we have been working so long and so hard at, the four or five that are still there we know that that particular group is the one known as the Hizballah. And there has never been a minute contrary to what some people think that we have not been working and following every lead we can that could lead to their release. And we have had some sharp disappointments when we thought maybe we were making some progress. But those disappointments do not stop us from continuing to try. So, I will have to wait until I find out who this individual is and what group held him. In any event, do you have any news or hope on the other five? As I say, there is not anything I can talk about except that we continue following every lead, every channel, that seems to offer an opening. I wanted to ask you about Mr. Waldheim and whether you think he did anything wrong during World War II? Well, the evidence certainly has been inconclusive, and we know that he was a member of the military, but then so were a great many people. But so far, there seems to be great controversy over to what extent he might have participated in the terrible deeds that made up the Holocaust, and until we do know, why I think that we should hold our fire. So you would have no objection to meeting with him either there or abroad? Well, I have no plans for such a thing, but we continue to, again, listen. And I think some investigation is going forward in our own Justice Department to see if we can find out, because we do have some laws that are based on war crimes. And so we are trying to find out for ourselves legally what his position is. May I just top that with one thing, though? We must remember our relationship with Austria is a relationship between two nations, and Austria and the United States have had a friendly relationship and one which we hope will be maintained. The shuttle any thought of have you made a decision on whether to replace the shuttle and build a fourth orbiter? We have turned over the Rogers report to NASA, to Jim Fletcher there for him to take action on the things that are called for in that.


One of our problems is that this tragedy has brought about a backlog of satellites for transport into space, and this may call, in an effort to reduce that backlog, may call for some immediate emphasis on unmanned launchers. And all of this is in the mill right now, and no final decision has been made. Do you worry that the recent space disasters could impact the SDI program? Does it trouble you that there are articles being written, America cannot get anything into the sky how could we possibly have a defense shield? Well, I think before we get around to anything of that kind, we are still in such a state of research, although great progress is being made. But we still have some years of research ahead of us on this before and I think the other problem will be taken care of long before there is any need for testing. We also wanted to ask you some personal questions. Is there anything that you wish you had been that you have not been? But is there any other profession that you would like? No, I will tell you again. The Lord has been very good to me. When I was a sports announcer, I loved that, and I believed that that would probably be my career on out and was very happy with it. And then the opportunity came to switch to what originally had been a love of mine-acting and I enjoyed that very much. I was a reluctant entrant into public life. I never believed for one minute that I would ever be tempted to want to serve in public office. As I say, I was so happy in what I was doing. And I was really kind of dragged kicking and screaming into seeking the governorship and thought that what I was doing was kind of a very temporary thing, because it was put to me on the basis that, with our party very divided after the '64 campaign, at odds that I might be able to help bring the party together, and that I offered a chance for victory in that gubernatorial race. And I have often said that I think when I finally, grudgingly, said yes that I really thought no farther than the election. They kept stressing that so much that it was not until after I had said yes that I said, hey, if I win this it goes on beyond November.


But, again, we were blessed because it was only after a few months of the governorship that Nancy and I, one night sitting in the living room in Sacramento, looked at each other and decided what we were doing made everything else we'd been doing look dull as dishwater. Okay, now you are in the White House. How does that, you know, with the whir of choppers, the Ruffles and Flourishes how does that make the governorship look and all the things in the past? Well, I will tell you, I am very grateful for that period there, because I think the closest thing to the Presidency in line of a job is being a Governor. There you sit at a desk in which the buck does stop when it gets there, and there is a great similarity. We are a federation of sovereign States, and so, the Governor sits closest to the salt in his State, above anyone except the President. Karen mentioned the whir of helicopters. I have often wondered how you feel when you come back from Camp David and the helicopter lands and the noise is horrendous and reporters are shouting questions at you what goes through your mind when that happens? But, as I say, you are prepared for some of the things. It was not the great surprise that it must be to some other people who had not previously sat there and known that every day someone was going to put a schedule in front of them of what they were going to be doing every 15 minutes. I will say this, however, it took me quite a while to not turn around and look behind me when they played Ruffles and Flourishes I was still wondering who they were doing that for. And it, well, I guess I can only tell you that the way I accept this is that maybe some people become President I do not know. I think the Presidency is an institution over which you have temporary custody. Speaking of that temporary custody, how would you like to be assessed, say, in 2050? I do not let myself think about that much. I just hope they spell my name right. How do you feel about your son going around in underwear? Well, now, you have to remember his earlier training as a dancer. He was pretty fully dressed in his viewpoint. But he also was doing a takeoff on a current movie. I was, as a matter of fact, a little surprised. At that particular the way he carried off that takeoff on the movie.


ENTITY, you are going to Europe to celebrate this great anniversary, the 50-year anniversary of the grand alliance against fascism and tyranny. But it is said that the present generation of leaders, yourself included, have somehow not got the vision of the Churchills and the Roosevelts to lead us into the next century. How do you respond with some ideas about your own vision? I think we are all deeply grateful to the generation of D-Day and the Second War for what they did and the freedom they bought us. I think we are also grateful to those who fought and won the cold war. And what we have to do now is to work out how we are going to face the challenges of the post-cold-war era and what our responsibilities are. The United States is still prepared to lead in a world in which our concerns are clear- security, prosperity, democracy, and human rights-and in which we know there is an interdependence, a level of cooperation required, because we want to maintain a discipline that was not there before the Second World War, a discipline that was not there before World War II, a discipline that will permit us to work on these problems, contain those we cannot control, and prevent the whole world from becoming engulfed again. And that is what we are attempting to do in working with the British, the French, and others in Bosnia, what we are attempting to do in leading NATO to take action out of area for the first time and trying to support the attempt to secure peace in Bosnia. That is what we are trying to do with the Partnership For Peace. Eighteen nations have now signed up to cooperate with NATO in a way that gives us the opportunity, for the first time since nation states came across the European continent, to unify Europe rather than have it divided. So, I am quite encouraged, actually, about the way things are going. We are engaging Russia; we are engaging the other republics of the former Soviet Union. In Asia, the United States is engaging Japan, is engaging China, is engaging a whole lot of other Pacific powers in an attempt to preserve the peace there. In our own hemisphere now, 33 of the 35 nations in Central and Latin America are now governed by democracies. So, I think that we are trying to forge this newer world. I admit there are ragged edges and uncertainties, but that was the case after the Second World War for a few years as well. Well, one of those ragged edges is Bosnia itself.

Interview With Gavin Esler of the British Broadcasting Corporation


You are going to a Europe which, for the first time in 50 years, is at war with itself. You are the Commander in Chief of 1.6 million men and women under arms. Why is it so difficult to do what Roosevelt did, to send some of those men to put the fire out in Europe? Well, first of all, Roosevelt sent those people after Pearl Harbor, after there was an attack and after Germany declared war on the United States, when the whole future of Europe was at stake. What has happened here is that European nations under the U.N. mandate have gone into Bosnia not for the purpose of ending the war but for the purpose of preserving the U.N. mission of preserving some limitation on the fighting and some humanitarian aid. We have acted in support of that in several ways. We have provided through our air power the longest humanitarian airlift in history, now longer than the Berlin airlift. We have worked hard to get our NATO allies to agree to use not only the threat but the reality of air power to stop the war in Bosnia from spreading to the air. We have shot down planes in aid of that objective to protect Sarajevo and other safe areas. And we are aggressively involved with our European allies in trying to get a peace agreement. I do not think it is an appropriate thing for the United States to send ground troops to Bosnia to become involved in the conflict itself. Now, if we reach an agreement in which NATO has a responsibility to enforce the agreement along lines agreed to by the parties, that is a different matter altogether. The United States still has troops in the Middle East enforcing the agreement reached by Israel and Egypt at the Camp David accord. If we are talking about limiting the conflict, we have troops now in Macedonia, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, designed to limit the conflict. I think that that is the appropriate thing for us. I think the Europeans have done the right thing in putting their troops in in the U.N. mandate to try to limit the fighting. But in the end, these parties are going to have to make an agreement. Otherwise, there is a risk that they will collapse the U.N. mission. They are going to have to decide that they cannot win, either side, by fighting and make an agreement. They reached an agreement tentatively before the terrible problems in Gorazde. And we need to get them back to the negotiating table. Your critics say that you have been inconsistent in your Bosnia policy.


Some Western diplomats have said to me that on the 17th, 18th, and 19th of April you seem to have had three different Bosnian policies. You raised the possibility of discussing lifting the trade embargo on the Serbs. You talked about lifting the arms embargo on the Muslims. In any event, you did not do any of those things. Can you see why your friends are perplexed by this because you seemed to have changed your mind? A lot of times people have said things in this Bosnian thing, not only about me but about others, as a way of shifting to others the responsibility they have for their own frustrations. Let us just be frank about this. I did not raise the prospect of any kind of unilateral lifting in the embargo on Serbia. I said that any discussion of that, any discussion of that, could not proceed until there was some sort of cessation of hostilities and that I personally would not favor changing the position of the United States, which is that that embargo should not be lifted until there is a peace agreement in force in Bosnia and some other changes have occurred in Serbia. I have not changed our position. With regard to lifting the arms embargo, I have always thought that the arms embargo was unfair to the Bosnian Government, always. That has been my position from day one. I have also always thought that the United States should not unilaterally lift it, from day one. Our European allies have not favored lifting it for good reasons. They have soldiers on the ground there. There are British soldiers in Bosnia; they do not want them subject to attack, to capture because the arm's embargo has been lifted. Therefore, I do not think the global community will vote to lift the arms embargo unless the U.N. mission collapses. What I said about the arms embargo was quite simple, and that is that I think it is a possibility if the U.N. mission does not succeed. I said what I did in hopes that we could spur the Serbs to understand that they are going to have to make a reasonable agreement or fight a very long war. I do not think any of that is inconsistent with the position I have taken. The problem is-let us face it, the problem is everybody is so frustrated about Bosnia that it is easy in our frustrations to point our fingers at each other. I believe that we have a common policy.


I believe that we are working very closely with our friends in Europe and, by the way, with the Russians, who have been quite constructive in this. And my position is that as long as the Europeans are willing to be part of the U.N. mission and as long as the Russians are willing to follow a responsible course in their relationship with the Serbs, we ought to try to make a decent peace. Could we turn to Ireland now, ENTITY; that is been a bone of contention with Britain. Was your decision to allow Gerry Adams in here, in retrospect, a mistake because the IRA have still failed to endorse the Downing Street declaration on the peace process? The decision to let him come was plainly taking a risk for peace. I think that Sinn Fein ought to renounce violence and ought to join the peace process. I am very frankly pleased that at long last they issued their questions and the British Government provided answers and all that is been published. And I am hoping that after the June 12 elections, that we will see some real progress there. But I do not think we can know yet whether the decision was or was not a mistake in terms of what will happen over the long run. I think plainly it was designed to further the debate, and I hope it did that. Finally, ENTITY, you go to Europe at a time when you are facing the kind of criticism, sleazy criticism, at home and in the British papers that no President has ever had to face before. How distracting is it for you that people are raking up financial dealings and personal affairs going back years? Well, unfortunately that is become part of the daily fare of American public life now because of certain extremist groups and because now it is part of our media life, like unfortunately it is a part of your media life. But I know that the charges are bogus and that they will ultimately be disproved or they will die of their own weight. And they do not take up a lot of our time and attention here. My job is to lead this country in its own path of internal revival and engaging with our friends and allies. And I cannot really afford to be distracted by it. I just get up here every day and think about what an incredible historic opportunity and what an obligation it is, and I do my best to fulfill the obligation.


It is nice to talk to you again. Can you hear me now? I can hear you. Can you hear me? We have not talked since very late in the campaign. You were in an automobile someplace, and you were running out of voice. But you were in high spirits, and now we know why. It is nice to hear your voice again. I got to hear a little bit of your last conversation. ENTITY, are you going to get your tax bill and your budget bill through the Senate? Carl Levin is on this program a little bit later. We have already taped that segment. What do you think? It is not easy ever to make these kinds of tough decisions. There are $250 billion in budget cuts in that bill that affect everything from agriculture to veterans, to Medicare, to virtually all the specific programs in the Government. And this will bring the deficit down by $500 billion, and it will keep these long-term interest rates coming down, which is what is so necessary if we are going to have reinvestment in our country and rebuild the manufacturing sector and get this economy going again. And those who have tried to fashion other alternatives have come up with programs that hurt the vulnerable in our country and the middle class more and hurt the business economy more. And I think that is why we have had people from companies representing the automakers to high-tech companies in California supporting the program. It is a little-known thing that over half the 100 biggest companies in the country have supported the program, that the labor organizations have supported it, that the home builders organization, a largely Republican group, have supported it because it will bring interest rates down and create jobs and incomes for the American people. But if it does pass the Senate, and apparently Senator Levin feels you have enough votes, 50 or more votes, it has to go back to the House. It is been changed significantly from the bill approved by the House. We hear the Black Caucus may be falling out of step. Can it pass the entire Congress? I think what you will see is, when the bill passes the Senate, if we can pass it in the next few days, then there will be a conference of the Senators and the House Members.

Interview With J.P. McCarthy of WJR Radio, Detroit, Michigan


And they will try to take the best parts of both bills and come up with a bill which has more budget cuts than taxes, fair taxes, but still has some of the incentives we need for small business job creation, for the high-tech job creation, for empowerment zones to get private sector investment into the urban areas and to the poor rural areas, and also some of the money for Head Start education and training and for joint projects with the private sector for new technologies to help to deal with the defense cuts. And I expect it to pass both Houses. Like I said, these are difficult times, because for 12 years the American people have been told one thing and had another thing happen where the debt just kept getting bigger and bigger, and it is eating us alive. And interest rates were high, and we could not get investment. We could not get jobs. We are going to turn it around, but it is not easy. A couple of things started to leak out this weekend on those weekend Washington shows. One item was that entertainers and sports people, people who make big salaries for usually a relatively short period of time, would be exempt from the new higher rate of income tax. Apparently it was on Face the Nation or one of those shows yesterday. I think what you are going to find is that people who make a lot of money for just a couple of years may wind up doing something that many of them already do, by the way, which is structuring their contracts so they get paid over a longer period of years than they play. But I know of no exemptions for any high income people. And the surtax on the capital gains tax, everyone was figuring maybe there will be a capital gains cut. That is in the Senate bill. But I am not sure how it will come out in the end. I think one thing you can look forward to is a so-called venture capital gains on new business capital gains tax, where people who put their money into new businesses will be given big incentives to do so. That is, if you take a risk on somebody and you start a new venture and you hire some new people to create new jobs in the economy and you hold that investment for 5 years or more, you will be able to reduce your tax liability if, in fact, it turns out to be successful. We have to have more people trying to start new businesses. So I think you will see that.


I asked this morning in my morning show-I mentioned, of course, that I would be talking to you. And I said, Give me some questions that you'd like me to ask ENTITY And I heard from several small business people. Look, I wanted to open two new businesses this year -this was a fellow who was in the fast-food franchise business, but he said, With all that is going on relative to the proposed new legislation on taxes, I am afraid to build any more restaurants. I heard that over and over this morning. Let me just mention two or three things that should be reassuring to small businesses. If these provisions of my plan pass, first of all, anybody who starts a new venture will be able to get investment for that new venture. And if the investment is held for 5 years or more, the tax rates will be much, much lower than the ordinary income tax rates, if it passes. Secondly, for ongoing small businesses, today the write-off for expensing on the tax form is $10,000 per year. We propose to raise that to $25,000. That will be a substantial reduction in the tax burden of most small businesses and will be an encouragement, I think, for them to hire more people. Thirdly, if someone has a chain of restaurants, for example, like the person who called in, in the plan that I presented to the Congress that the House of Representatives adopted, we have some changes in the alternative minimum tax provisions which operate as real incentives for people to continue to invest their profits in the expansion of their businesses without running up bigger tax bills. So I would urge the small business people who are listening to us to really look at what is in that House bill. There are a lot of very strong pro-business and pro-small business provisions in the bill that have not gotten a lot of attention. That is why, let me just mention, the National Realtors Association and the National Home Builders Association, two groups not normally associated with the Democratic Party, have already strongly endorsed this economic program because of the incentives for economic growth and because it is bringing down long-term interest rates. Any business person who has to borrow money in all probability is going to save more money in lower-interest rates than they will pay in higher taxes. ENTITY, one of the thrusts of your campaign was jobs. That is right, but simple economics dictate that the ENTITY stop telling everybody what they want to hear and start telling the truth.


That is what simple economics dictate. I mean, in 1981 we cut taxes and increased spending and nearly bankrupted this country over the next 12 years, and we have been paying for it ever since, so that we had very high long-term interest rates, and credit was expensive, and job generation was weak. That is a problem, by the way, for wealthy countries throughout the world. Even Japan's having trouble creating jobs now. But look what is happened since I announced my plan and it started to pass its way through Congress, just in the last 4 or 5 months. First, we have had 755,000 new jobs in this economy, over 90 percent of them in the private sector, in the first 4 months of this administration. In the previous 4 years, we only had a million jobs. Second, in construction, part of the economy very affected by interest rates, in the first 4 months we had 130,000 new jobs, that is the biggest increase in 9 years. Has that affected every State and every community yet? No, but it shows that we are really moving in the right direction. If we can get everybody in this country to refinance their home loans, their business loans, to take available credit because interest rates are lower, that will put tens of billions of dollars back into this economy to create jobs. What inflation rate, sir-I do not mean to interrupt you, but we are short on time-what inflation rate would you be happy with one year from now? But if we got unemployment down to a very low level and every American had a job, it might be a tad higher than it is now, but right now we think we are in good shape on inflation. What we need in America are more jobs and higher incomes, and that is what we are working on. How is David Gergen doing in his new job? Is the Washington press corps still braying at the moon, sir? I do not even know how to answer that. The moon still comes out here, though, at night, and the sun comes up in the morning. I hope you get a chance to visit us.


I came this morning not with any particularly brilliant ideas about the future, but I did want the opportunity to say goodbye to people that I have been associated with now for 8 years, mostly I think on a friendly basis and at least it certainly has always been interesting. There is one man here who has attended every press conference that I have had, at home and abroad, and who has been of inestimable service to the Government and to all of you, and I think most of you have never seen him. It is Jack Romagna, and I am going to ask him to stand up.  ENTITY, more than 2 months have elapsed since Senator Kennedy's election and the problem of transition began. Do you feel this transition period should be shortened or changed in any way? Well, my ideas are more radical than that. I think that we ought to get a constitutional amendment to change the time of the inauguration and to give dates for election and assumption of office in such fashion that a new President ought to have at least 80 days or something of that kind before he meets his first Congress. ENTITY, in the 8 years of your Presidency you have had a Congress of the other party for 6 years. How do you, would you describe that experience? Has the loyal opposition been pretty loyal or have you been frustrated by Congress? I think I said, I made a little talk last evening you may have heard and I said on vital issues I thought that the record of the Congress was really cooperative and no one could fault upon that. ENTITY, you had one talk with Mr. Kennedy; you are about to have another. I wonder if you could give us your personal impression of the man. After all, this is a new President coming in and I do not think it is up to me to talk about personalities. As I said last evening, I wish him Godspeed in his work because I will tell you I mean, what I mean more specifically, how do you think the transition is going? ENTITY, you sounded a warning last night of the dangers to our democratic processes implicit in unparalleled peacetime military establishment. But some of your critics contend that one liberty, the people's right to know, has suffered under your administration because you have tolerated the abuse of Executive privilege in the Defense Department and other departments and agencies and because you did not hold frequent enough press conferences. Well, they are critics and they have the right to criticize.

The President's News Conference


ENTITY, at your first press conference you came into the room here and you said there had been some speculation in the press that there would be a great deal of antagonism develop between you and the reporters over the years. You said that through the war years and ever since, I have found nothing but a desire to dig at the truth, so far as I was concerned, and be openhanded and forthright about it. That is the kind of relationship I hope we can continue. Do you think during these 8 years we have continued it? so far as I have known the facts I have given them responsively to every question, and where I thought the national security was involved, I was honest enough to say so. I meant, did you feel that reporters had been fair to you, too, in their questions? Well, when you come down to it, I do not see what a reporter could do much to a President, do you? Could you expand a little more on your ideas about a constitutional amendment on the reelection of the President? Do you have any particular dates in mind when the election should be held or Well, I am going to be talking, as I warned someone the other day, much more in the future than I thought I would; so, I am going to put these ideas out. I do not mind giving the general idea that I just did, but I would not want to put the details and dates right down until I had studied them completely through in this way. But I do think that a President ought to have the task of completing and finishing his Budget Message, his Economic Reports, and recommendations, and his State of the Union Message during a period while he is still responsible. So we can give him a period in which he is responsible for that, before you go before the Congress. Because now the old President has got to put these things in and the new President has different ideas, he just has to start changing them right away. It seems a little bit silly to me. I wonder if you could tell us for the historical record, this has come up a number of times, could you say whether at any time you advised or counseled Vice President Nixon against engaging in televised debates, and whether you felt that you, your participating in the campaign began as early as it should have? Well, you have a lot of questions this morning. First, I was not asked for any advice on debates.

The President's News Conference


Secondly, I carried out exactly the schedule that the headquarters of the Campaign Committee asked me to do. ENTITY, can you tell us yet what you think has been your most satisfying achievement and the most heartbreaking failure in your 8 years? You came into the office, I know, with many desires of what you could do. Well, I think possibly, that there will have to be more reflection on my part to give you truly a definitive answer. The big disappointment I felt is one not of a mere incident, it was the fact that we could not in these 8 years get to the place where we could say it now looks as if permanent peace with justice is really in sight. But, on the other hand, if you take achievement over the long run, let us remember what has happened in these 8 years. Our opponents achieved the nitrogen hydrogen bomb. They began to build up an arsenal which, of course, we know is many thousands of megatons in expressed power, in its power; and at the same time during those days we were already fighting one war, there was danger that there was going to be a spread of those hostilities. During the entire first 4 years, I think, the Red Chinese were constantly threatening war, saying they were and they were not only threatening, but often making moves in that direction and at the same time the Russians were saying, We are going to support our Red China allies. Now, there was I believe in this in the governmental actions of the 8 years, the kind of understanding and firmness and readiness to take the risk that prevented those things from happening because I am perfectly sure that weakness would have allowed them to, and a display of weakness, and I mean either moral or physical would have allowed them to spread this war to the great and disastrous consequences of all the earth. So, the achievement I think, one of the achievements has been that we actually have stopped many of these risks from becoming realities, and on the other hand the disappointment is that we have not done better in getting a more constructive and positive indication that real disarmament is around the corner. Now if you want, if you want a very particular incident, I'd say November 8th was one of another bad disappointments.

The President's News Conference


ENTITY, I wonder if you could tell us in some detail your work and travel plans for the near future, and also whether you want to do this, or prefer to do this work and travel as a civilian, an ex-President, or would you like to have Congress restore your five-star military rank? Well, let us start, so I may not remember all your questions, I will start with the end of it. By Democratic friends of mine in the Congress it has been proposed to give me back my rank that I resigned in July of 1952 and that, of course, would be a satisfying thing to me simply because it was the 40 years that I put in the military service that would give me a title of my own rather than how do you say Mr. ex-President ? Now, as to what I want to do, I do want to explore my own mind and have a bit of perspective in looking at these 8 years rather than being in the midst of them and seeing whether I have anything that I think is worthwhile to providing for the public; and in doing that, I will possibly do some traveling. I have, as I think some of you know, I have tentatively agreed to go to Japan in some time later, I do not know just when, but later and as a matter of fact it has been very gratifying to know of the extraordinary numbers of groups and the really, literally the millions of people that have expressed a desire for me to come back. But that is not as gratifying as the fact that every single election held in that country. since last June has been very, very favorable to the United States and to the treaty that was really at the heart of the whole affair. ENTITY, have you come to a firm decision on the value of the third-term amendment-no third-term amendment? A funny thing, ever since this election the Republicans have been asking me this. No, I think I told you that I had come or, I think at first way back even when I had no intention of ever going more than once that I was sort of against the third-term amendment because I thought the American people had the right to choose who they wanted. But we do know there are possibilities of building up great machines in a democracy and so on, and finally I came, on balance, and I think I so said to this body, on balance to decide that I believe the two-term amendment was probably a pretty good thing.

The President's News Conference


ENTITY, this is a question about the past and the future. Could you tell us what you personally think were the major points which lost the Republicans the election; and do you have any counsel for the Republicans in '62 and '64 to avoid a repetition of November 8th? yes, of course I have ideas but here is one case that I think it would be better for me to keep still for the moment. I have to meet with these Republican leaders of the future and talk to them and give them the lessons I think I have learned, and where together we can point out what we believe are mistakes, and where together we can say what we believe is the best method to make sure that this country will have balanced government. ENTITY, last night you called attention to the danger that public policy could become the captive of a scientific technological elite. What specific steps would you recommend to prevent this? I know nothing here that is possible, or useful, except the performance of the duties of responsible citizenship. It is only a citizenry, an alert and informed citizenry which can keep these abuses from coming about. And I did point out last evening that some of this misuse of influence and power could come about unwittingly but just by the very nature of the thing. When you see almost every one of your magazines, no matter what they are advertising, has a picture of the Titan missile or the Atlas or solid fuel or other things, there is becoming a great influence, almost an insidious penetration of our own minds that the only thing this country is engaged in is weaponry and missiles. And, I will tell you we just cannot afford to do that. The reason we have them is to protect the great values in which we believe, and they are far deeper even than our own lives and our own property, as I see it. ENTITY, in line with your opening statement and a question earlier, it is agreed that at times over the last 8 years we at the press conferences may not have been too charitable in our questioning of you. Now could you elaborate, sir, and relate to us your feeling about your relations with the press and these press conferences in particular? I will say this, the other evening I asked the people that they call the regulars around the White House, and you people know them as well as I do, and I guess there was, what, seventy?

The President's News Conference


Now I did not ask them whether they were critics or particular friends of mine, some of them are, they have been warm personal friends, whether they were Democrats or Republicans or Socialists but we had a good time I think, everybody seemed to, and I think on a personal basis it was a friendly thing. So I have never objected to penetrating and searching questions. The only thing I object to is something that tries to it is like the beating of your wife question, I do not like that, and but I have no one that I could single out and say that they have been annoying nor have I anyone to argue with. ENTITY, this question concerns your budget, this proposal on the Office of Executive Management. Would you discuss that for us some and tell us, does this not mean that there will be more centralized control over our public works projects, as to whether or not they would be started or they would be stopped? There, you can have supervision not only subjectively, like the Secretary of the Interior over the Interior subjects, but you can have it functionally because you have two great areas that cause a President work and study every single day of his life. One is everything that touches foreign relations. This is his constitutional duty, and here where we used to think of it, those things falling only within the Department of State, we have now we have representatives of the Labor Department, of the Commerce Department, of the Agriculture Department, we have ICA, we have USIA, and then the Defense Department which now obviously with the stationing of troops abroad everywhere, has a great effect on foreign policy. Now, it is therefore a very tough problem to keep all of these things always on the same road going the same way. This would be the job of the First Secretary, as I see it, not that he takes the place of the President at all, in the foreign field, but to day by day watch what is going on in the world keep everybody in all the several departments aware of what they must do so as to have a completely coordinated policy. Now, in the management field you have everything from rates of pay that are different in all sorts of different departments, you have all different kinds of accounting methods in different departments, you have got different methods of procurement and all of this sort of thing in my opinion ought to be coordinated. Now, you do not get into their business of running the Defense Department or the State Department or the USIA.

The President's News Conference


You make sure that the business arrangements that they carry out are good, and this has nothing to do with the starting of a new dam or not. Can you tell us, sir, what you think is the greatest problem confronting your successor? Well, I think that is answered almost by the fact that the thing that causes all our problems is the intransigent, unreasonable attitude of the Communist bloc and therefore his basic problem and as a matter of fact not just the President's, everybody else's, is what do to keep ourselves strong and firm and yet conciliatory in trying to meet this this terrible problem that is none of our making One indication of what the succeeding administration may have in mind is apparently contained in the report by Professor Samuelson in which he recommends an increase of $3 billion to $5 billion immediately in certain domestic programs. Do you take the view that the economy is moving into a dangerous period that would require this additional governmental action, or do you feel that the proposals made may be extreme and not necessary? of course I am no while I am one of seven sons, I am not the seventh son of a seventh son, so I am not a prophet. Now, we believe, and I am now talking not out of my guesswork, I am talking about the economic analyses, that the economy is swinging and it will be swinging up gradually but steadily so as to provide more revenue than it currently is doing, I mean Federal revenue. Now, this business of going into public works all of a sudden to cure what someone believes is a recession, or to stop a recession I have had a very, very searching study made of this thing and it is not quite complete, but I am going to use it someday in trying to point out that that kind of a problem, or that kind of dependence upon stopping a recession usually gets into effect about 18 months after the recession is all over and you are in your boom period. it picked up the tab for all of the unemployment insurance benefits that had been exhausted by people in the several States and where there was no help. So the Federal Government I think probably put, I do not remember the figures, let us say 600 or 700 million and that 600 or 700 million was far better because it alleviated suffering at the moment and restored some confidence and people naturally began to build and buy again.

The President's News Conference


I really do not go in very much for the theory that by suddenly expanding $3 or $4 or $5 billion worth of Federal programs that you get a tremendous boost. We are talking of $503 or $504 billion GNP, and this is 3 or 4 or 5 billions now that we are going to put somewhere, and it takes a long, long time to get it used. But it does mean that it stays permanently as a debt that we have to pay sometime. How active a role do you plan to play in the effort to strengthen the Republican Party; and can you tell us whether this role will be nearly as active, for example, as Mr. Truman's in his own party? You mentioned making a lot of speeches. I am now, I think this is the fourth time that I am supposedly going to retire, and I feel this, the Republican Party is necessary to this country, I believe in its general policies and if the leaders of that party want me for any service in which I can be helpful and by that I would assume we were talking about consultation from time to time and not any truly active thing, I will be available. I will not be around trying to lecture them, but I should like to converse with them if they want me. You mentioned you were going to make a great many more speeches than you had planned. Not speeches; no, not speeches, I will probably stop that. ENTITY, you mentioned a short time back the need for the United States to remain firm and strong and at the same time conciliatory. Would you relate that to our policy toward Laos, sir, particularly the reports that the United States had turned down the invitation of Cambodia to attend a 14-nation conference? Well, at the moment there is no point, of course, of going into a conference unless everybody thinks this would be a good idea. You cannot haul anybody into a conference. Now, the thing that has been proposed most has been a reconvening of the ICC and if that could be done in proper auspices and where it was recognized that the government of Phoumi, which has been now approved by the Parliament, if that was recognized as the proper government I think there might be a useful purpose of reconvening this ICC to be served.

The President's News Conference


Actually what again causes the trouble is the determination of the Communist bloc, as expressed again yesterday in Mr. Khrushchev's speech to exacerbate and support what he calls wars of liberation and which are revolts of Communist elements to overturn constituted governments in authority. Now, the United States has tried to do this within the limits of the United Nations Charter. We believe that unless there can become a greater adherence to these principles, and unless that charter can be supported by more of our nations, then the outlook for peace becomes dimmer. On the other hand, as all of us take the United Nations Charter as our guide and as we have tried to do so earnestly, and I think most of the Western nations have tried to do also, then I think the chances of settling this as well as other problems will be greater. Sir, the House of Representatives will vote soon on a proposal by Speaker Rayburn to add two Democrats and one Republican to the Rules Committee for the announced purpose of clearing the way for some of these welfare and spending bills that you vetoed in the past. Would you advise the Republicans in the House to vote solidly against this proposal which has been called the packing plan? Well, I think one thing that is scarcely proper for me to comment on is how the two bodies of Congress rule themselves. This, for the reason that I believe the Constitution says that they have established their own methods of operation and I do not think the President has any real right to interfere. you referred earlier to the great values to be considered in our way of living. Would you sum up for us your idea of what kind of a United States you would like your grandchildren to live in? I'd say in a peaceful world and enjoying all of the privileges and carrying forward all the responsibilities envisioned for the good citizen of the United States, and this means among other things the effort always to raise the standards of our people in their spiritual, their intellectual, their economic strength and generally and specifically and that is what I would like to see them have.

The President's News Conference


You plan to deliver a major speech in Bangkok on Asia. This will be probably my last speech in the Far East. The main theme is that the United States of America has got strategic interests in the Far East. This administration has worked hard to make sure we have good relations with all the countries of the Far East, that there are opportunities to work together to solve problems. I will talk about accomplishments; I will talk about challenges. And I am looking forward to giving it. It is interesting that I am giving a speech about the whole Far East in Thailand. Well, because it is -first of all, the assumption is that when you give a comprehensive speech in the Far East, it would be in, you know, China or Japan or, you know-and Thailand is, one, a longtime friend; two, is an important part of ASEAN. In other words, there is -the Far East is more than just the countries that dominate the news. And so therefore, if you are going to give a comprehensive speech, you give it in a country that makes it-just by the sight alone, indicates how comprehensive the policy must be. In other words, you cannot ignore other countries if you focus only on a few. One hundred and seventy-five years. At this juncture in history, why is Thailand still important to the United States? Hopefully, Thailand views us a reliable ally; we certainly view Thailand as a reliable ally. That is right-always had been close related in all major challenges. And it is a great country, and it is a beautiful country with a great history and tradition, and I am looking to going again. What would be the single most important pillar in Thai-American relations, if you can cite one? And obviously, we are pleased that democracy is still very much alive and well in Thailand. And I think democracy is the pillar, and the Government's respect for human rights and human dignity and individualism. I understand that you are meeting some Burmese dissidents too. Yes, the First Lady has shown great concern about Aung San Suu Kyi. Here is a very heroic woman that was elected overwhelmingly by her people and has now been under house arrest by a group of military guys that just simply will not allow the will of the people to flourish. And so we are concerned about that. And I do want to thank the Thai people and the Thai Government for its humanitarian missions on the border.

Interview With Suthichai Sae-Yoon of the Nation Multimedia Group in Thailand


And I will be speaking to activists to let them know that the United States of America hears their voices. And you know, it is a tough issue for some countries. Will the First Lady meet the dissidents and also call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi? I am sure she will do that. I mean, she does that all the time. You caught me off guard about her schedule, but I can assure you it will be comprehensive, and she will make a very good impression. Why have not the sanctions against Burma worked? Because not every country is applying them. And sanctions-the idea of unilateral sanctions, they are effective only to a certain extent. And therefore, other countries must also join, and frankly, there is some countries in the neighborhood that are not interested in joining. You are going to Beijing Olympics. Because some people say that you are going there as a sports fan, but are you going as a sports fan or as ENTITY of the United States? I am going as the ENTITY who happens to be a sports fan. No, the signal-look, there is a couple of signals, and it is very important to understand, one, is I do not think the Olympics should be politicized. I mean, it is a sporting event of the greatest caliber. Secondly, I am going out of respect for the people of China. This is a big deal for the Chinese people, and I am -and that is why I am going. Thirdly, I will have, and always have had, very frank and candid discussions with the Chinese Government on a variety of issues. And I am confident that by showing respect to the people, to the Olympics, it will give me-put me in a position to continue to having frank and candid discussions. It is -when you show respect to a group of people, it gives you credibility when it comes time to discuss difficult issues. And we will discuss difficult issues in a very cordial and respectful way. Yesterday you met five Chinese dissidents-- And what did you tell them? Are you going to tell the Chinese leadership about their concerns? I do it every time I meet-oh, absolutely. And I discuss religious freedom and political freedom with the Chinese leaders every time. No, I do not think so, because they know it is done out of respect. It is done out of-you know, in a way that I hope is-in a way that they will listen.


If you treat a people with respect and when it comes time to discuss your differences, people will be more willing to listen. And, look, I am the only ENTITY to have ever stood up in public with the Dalai Lama. I told President Hu Jintao I was going to do that. He did not like it, but I did it. You did it anyway. And so my only point is there are moments of great opportunity for us to work together on a variety of fronts, and we have. But I have worked hard to make sure those moments of disagreement are done in such a way that it does not rupture relations or does not embarrass somebody or does not humiliate. And I think when people look at my Presidency, when it is all said and done, they will say, It is amazing that the ENTITY administration had good, strong relations with South Korea, Japan, China, Thailand, India. And I happen to believe that it is - it enhances the stability of the region and helps all of us grow in a constructive way. I will be dead when they finally figure it out. But what do you want history to remember you-- Somebody who took on tough challenges and did not shy away from doing what he thought was right. And, you know, look, I am a big believer in freedom and liberty. That is been a hallmark of my agenda. But I-there is no such thing as short-term history, so I am very confident in telling you that I will be long gone before somebody finally figures out the true merit and meaning of the ENTITY administration. Were you impressed by the meeting between Secretary of State Condi with the North Korean representative in Singapore recently? If you want to move forward, verify, honor your commitments; if you do not honor your commitments, then there will be additional sanctions and additional measures. There is a lot of doubt as to whether or not the six-party talks will bear fruition. They destroyed their cooling tower. Everybody saw that. But will they verify their plutonium programs and HEU programs and proliferation programs? Now, whether or not they put a verification regime in place that we can trust, we will see. What do you plan to do? You know, I am going to write; I am going to share my experiences. I am going to build a policy center and library at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. Hopefully, I will contribute to mankind in positive ways.