In your speech last night you said that drugs were wrong and deadly. But on MTV a couple of years ago, someone asked you if you could inhale-if you could do it over again, would you inhale, and you said, Yeah, I tried the first time. Because Republicans are planning on using this to attack you. Oh, they are using it, but all I said was-I was just trying to make the point that I had never-when I answered the question I told the truth. I just told the truth about the question. The question was, in context, it was a light-hearted-- It was a light-hearted question, and it was not in the context of some sort of endorsement of drug use, and they know that. If you look at the record I established as Governor, the record I have established as ENTITY, the things I have worked on, and if you look at the terrible price my own family has paid and my brother's problem which literally nearly killed him, I think that my position on this is clear. I am very concerned about it really because every so often, you know, years go by and we see drug use going down. We still see drug use going down among adults; that is the interesting thing. In the last 4 years, drug use among people 18 to 34 has gone down because people have begun to think more about their own lives, their responsibilities then when they have children, and they began to be concerned about the risks. The risks of, let us say, cocaine, heroin, and hallucinogens and marijuana are different kinds of risks, but there are real risks associated with all of them. And I am very hopeful, now that General McCaffrey has come on and agreed to be our drug czar and we are focusing now- I would not say exclusively but clearly primarily on people under 18, that we and people around the country will be able to do something about this. I wanted to ask you another question about the convention. I think a lot of people were confused by what they saw at both conventions; they saw singing Senators and delegates macarena-ing. Obviously it is a party, you know, but many people did not hear the message coming from the conventions. For instance, obviously Christopher Reeve has done a lot of good for people who suffer from his disability, but why is his disability an argument to vote for you? One is, Christopher Reeve made an impassioned plea for research.

Interview With Tabitha Soren of MTV


In my budget we have consistently invested more in research, both in health care areas like spinal cord disease, breast cancer, ENTITY, and ENTITY, and also in science and technology. We are now building with IBM a computer, a supercomputer that will do more calculations in a second than a person with a handheld calculator could do in 30,000 years-30,000 years. And I believe that it is very important to vote for ENTITY who believes in the future and who is really committed to science and technology and research. The second reason is, as Christopher Reeve so eloquently told me when we were visiting in the Oval Office, not everyone who gets a serious injury and becomes disabled is wealthy; most people are not , and even wealthy people can quickly be bankrupted by the cost of care. The Medicaid program which the Federal Government has maintained for 30 years contains a guarantee of aid to families with disabilities who are middle class or below, to enable them to maintain a middle class life, to keep their jobs, and still give their disabled family member some help. In the budget-which I vetoed-of the Republican Congress, which Senator Dole and Mr. Gingrich led through Congress, they would have removed that guarantee, just sent some money to the States, put a lid on it, and then let the States decide what to do. And I think it is highly likely that the first people to be sacrificed would have been people with disabilities. So those are the two reasons that his being there embodied the human connection to ENTITY and his actions, the Congress, and what happens to people's lives. And every other person that was there on Monday night, the same thing. The Brady bill, it was obvious because they talked about it. Mike Robbins, the Chicago police officer, was riddled with bullets by an assault weapon. The young AmeriCorps girl was important because the Republicans have tried to abolish AmeriCorps twice. The educator is important because they wanted to cut back on educational aid; I wanted to invest more money in education. So everybody there-the Toledo autoworker was important because we have opened new markets to Japan and other parts in the world and America is number one in auto production again. So we started our convention in a very different way. We had a whole series of citizens speaking to establish the connection between their vote and their lives.

Interview With Tabitha Soren of MTV


Speaking of Senator Dole and the Republicans, the Republicans are accusing you of theft of their values agenda, stealing their ideas and making them your own. Well, the Republicans tried for years to convince the American people that only one party had values. And unfortunately-I believe it was unfortunate-they were too often rewarded for that. But I never believed that only Republicans could stand up for the American family. I never believed that only Republicans could be tough on crime. The first bill I signed was the Family and Medical Leave Act. My predecessor, my Republican predecessor, vetoed it twice, and Senator Dole led the fight against it. I fought the crime bill through, which put 100,000 police on the street, banned assault weapons, and had tougher punishment programs and prevention programs for young people. The bitterest, I mean really, literally, bitterest opponent of the crime bill in the entire Congress was Senator Dole. Now, who is strong against crime? We have got 4 years of declining crime. So I did not steal their values. On welfare reform, long before they ever passed a bill, 3 months into my Presidency I granted the first waiver to a State to try a welfare-to-work experiment. We now have 1.8 million fewer people on welfare than we did the day I took office- before this welfare bill takes effect. So I did not steal their values agenda. I believe they are American values, and I did something about it. And I think they are angry because they made so many votes for years just by talking about it and not doing anything about it. So we did something about it, and they are complaining about it. Are you afraid of being seen as sort of-are you afraid of your politics being perceived as sort of Republican-like, a less radical approach to their ideas? Let me just take one other example. The only reason I ask is because people are wondering if you are the same person they elected in '92. If you look at what we talked about at the convention, if you look at what we have done over the last 4 years-including in the last 2 years-the budget that I passed, I put the Democrats on the side of deficit reduction and balancing the budget, because I believe that. That is what I ran on. But all the Republicans voted against our budget because it also made the Tax Code fairer.

Interview With Tabitha Soren of MTV


It lowered taxes on 15 million working people, asked those of us in the highest income groups, the top one percent of us, to pay a little more. They opposed me on family and medical leave, most of them did. They opposed my education reforms, all progressive things. They opposed the crime bill. Then when we finally got some action out of this last Congress, there was-the health care reform proposal was a big part of my health care reform bill that I signed. The minimum wage bill, the pension relief for small businesses, was legislation that I always advocated. But what was the biggest thing I did in the last 2 years? I vetoed their budget. I just think that they like saying, We are for a balanced budget; the Democrats are big spenders. We are tough on crime; the Democrats are weak on crime. We are for work instead of welfare; the Democrats are for welfare instead of work. And even some of our own commentators kind of got hung up in that. If we protect children and we give families the right to and the tools they need to make the most of their own lives, we should be for a balanced budget, a growing economy, work instead of welfare, and tough on crime. So I feel very good about it, and I do not think it is inconsistent. Dick Morris helped you make a political comeback over the last 2 years, and he is been running, according to just about everyone, a phenomenal campaign. Will you still be talking to him on the phone about politics? I do not plan to do that, no. But we do have a good team, and we all work together. No, because we have a good team. And everybody had a role to play, and we all agreed early on on a strategy. And then when we-we had a decisionmaking process which I think is very good, which I am just going to keep in place. I am going to keep the team I have got. I am going to keep the decisionmaking process in place. So you will not be communicating with him anymore? I do not have any plans to do that. I do not say I will not communicate with him. My wife and I and the Vice President all called him and just had a purely personal conversation.

Interview With Tabitha Soren of MTV


But this campaign is now the product of a record we have made and the proposals we have out there and the fact that we-our administration stood against what Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Dole tried to do in '95 and early '96. And those will be the salient elements that the American people will have to decide on, and we will do the best we can. But I feel good about it. There is talk in Republican circles of renewing character attacks on you because of their opinion that you surround yourself with questionable people. I am going to keep doing my job. I think the reason that talk is there, though, is that way they do not have to talk about over 10 million new jobs; they do not have to talk about the fact that my Democratic administration is the first one to reduce the deficit in all 4 of its years, since before the Civil War; that our budget would be in surplus today if it were not for the interest we pay on the debt run up in the 12 years of the Republican Presidencies before me; that we have made college loans more available and more affordable, and they tried to cut back on it; that the crime rate has come down under our strategy, and they opposed it. They do not have to talk about those things, but I am going to talk about what is right for the American people. The American people will make their judgments about-and probably already have made their judgments about that. And I do not intend to respond in kind. I like Senator Dole. I have had a good relationship with him. I honor the 35 years he gave this country in Congress, and I respect him for the way he fought back from his injury in the war. And I just do not think that it is good for America, and I am going to try to make this election about big things that touch the people we just saw on the side of the road there. Or little things that touch them, too. And the little things that touch them. You captured the imagination of young people in 1992, along with their votes. I saw young people at the MTV Inaugural Ball weeping when you arrived. Maybe their expectations were too high, but even with national service and all your educational programs, a lot of them feel just as disconnected today as they did 4 years ago. Do you feel like you have let people down? Have you not gotten your message out as clearly as you could have?

Interview With Tabitha Soren of MTV


But if you look at what happened on this train trip, that was my first real-I do not think polls can tell you these things. I do not think you can poll this. But when we were out there, and on this train trip we stopped-most of our rallies were in very small towns. We only had 2 stops where there were fewer than 10,000 people there. There were more than 150,000 total people who came to our rallies in those 3 days on the train. And then there were hundreds and hundreds of people, place after place after place, just on the side of the road as we were going. We had 30,000 in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, today, our first bus stop. Look, I think they feel like they are part of something bigger than themselves. I do believe in the first 2 years that-one of the things that I have learned over many years is that there is a time lag between when ENTITY or a Governor or a Congress takes an action and when it can be felt in the lives of the American people. So that we saw real economic growth coming from 1993 on, but there was no evidence until really about 8 months ago that the American people were beginning to feel it in their own lives, when paychecks finally started to go up again, when people saw that there were enough new jobs to make a difference in the local economy. It is the same thing with education. Now we are beginning-we have got a critical mass of young people who have been either in national service or even many, many more are getting the new college loans, the direct loans that they can pay back as a percentage of their income. We have reduced the welfare rolls by enough now that people are beginning to perceive it. The crime rate has come down now 4 years in a row so that people are finally beginning to perceive it. Their streets are safer, even though the crime rate in America is far too high still. I think that is a part of it. And so I think that my obligation is to go back to the young people of America and say, here is what I said I'd do 4 years ago; here is what we have done; here is what we are going to do in the next 4 years. And that is a lot of what we tried to do at our convention. Young people are alienated from politics. Young people think politics is rigged by money, and they are right.

Interview With Tabitha Soren of MTV


Democrats received tens of millions of dollars in corporate contributions. What are those corporations getting for their money? Well, I think it is fair to say that most of the corporations that contribute to either party agree with their policies. But keep in mind, almost all the wealthy individuals and some of the corporations that contributed to the Democratic Party are doing so even though their tax bills went up, because only the top 1.2 percent of individuals and corporations with incomes over $10 million a year had an income tax increase under our tax bill. And a lot of them supported us anyway, first of all because they knew I was right, that to get the deficit down, get interest rates down-they'd all do better with a healthier economy. I do not believe that any of them have supported me for some sort of bad or unseemly reason. On the other hand, I think it would be better if we had a campaign finance reform system that would enable people in public life to spend less time raising money and to be less dependent on it. But the only way you can do it is to give greater access to the airwaves, to candidates or parties, because it just costs so much to communicate. No, no, I do not mean it that way. Look, here is a country with a $1.5 trillion budget, an annual income of over $6 trillion. So you talk about a party raising and spending $150 million in a year and a half for an election, it sounds like a lot of money. Against that, it does not sound like so much money. It just costs a lot of money to communicate. The communications costs-not just on television-radio, print, mail, travel, it is very high. Do you think-so corporations are not getting access? I read a report that they get to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom once in a while, CEO's or-- Well, the people who sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom are people I personally invite, who have been my friends, and a lot of them have supported me. But I do not think any President has made a habit of inviting his opponents to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom. I mean, I think you normally invite your supporters. There is never been any attempt to raise any money with the promise that you can spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom. I have invited people who have been helpful to me to spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom, but it was never a quid pro quo there.

Interview With Tabitha Soren of MTV


No, I am not trying to imply that. You are doing really well in the polls, but there is a certain percentage of people who not only do not support you but they seem to actively dislike you. Why do some people dislike you so much? Well, I think-there is a sign on the side of your bus; it is a quote of Bill Cosby's that I just love. He says, I do not know the secret of success. But I know the secret of failure is trying to please everybody. And I have always believed that in public life, when you were given an office, you should outline the major challenges and go after them and really try to get something done. And you should enlist the energies of people and try to bring them together and do it. And I have always had a certain core of people who have opposed me. When I was Governor of my State, I got elected five times and would regularly get nearly two-thirds of the vote. There would always be a core of people who were intensely opposed to my policies. But people did not necessarily like Reagan's policies, either, but it did not seem to get as personal. Do you think it has to do with your generation? It may have more to do with the comparative tactics of the two parties. I have no idea. It may have more to do with the way people are talked about now. One of the reasons I have tried so hard- especially since the Oklahoma City bombing, which I say had a profound impact on our country and on me-I have really tried hard to bring a sense of civility and decency back into public discourse. I went back and read some of my own speeches in '92, and while they are not rough at all by the standards of today, I thought, well, I want to elevate what I am saying and how I am saying it a little more now. And if you go back to the early 1800's, for example, it is a period of real tumult in our country, what was said and done and how much people had it pretty rough. I mean, when Thomas Jefferson was elected President, the John Adams party-because Mr. Adams was trying to hold onto the Presidency-said that he would kill religion in America, he would end godliness among the American people. So we have always had some of this, but I think we need to resist it.

Interview With Tabitha Soren of MTV


I remember a very proud group of your inner circle of friends at the convention 4 years ago walking around boasting FOB pins. Jim Guy Tucker, Vince Foster, Webb Hubbell, even the First Lady? Well, I feel very badly, obviously, about Vince Foster because he was my longtime friend, and it is always tragic when someone commits suicide. And I do feel that a lot of people were targeted just because they were from Arkansas. Governor Tucker, for example, had-he was my Lieutenant Governor, we had been friends for a long time, but he'd never been part of my political life. But he was targeted, and I feel badly about that. And the country is going to have to evaluate, when this whole thing is over and there will be time for a fair accounting, whether they think it was the right thing to do. And I feel very badly about Hillary and a lot of her staff have been subject to, because it was just pure naked politics from the get-go. But that is what I am talking about. That is sort of the way of the cycle. It is the cost of doing business in Washington. I mean, the people-- Was that a surprise to you, that it was as harsh as it was? It is been deteriorating over time. Yes, it surprised me that you could be exonerated from one thing after another and it would never be noticed and then just another set of charges just to keep these going. That bothered me. But you know, the thing I think is important that I'd ask the American people to look at is that all these folks in our administration sustained all these hits, and we kept producing for the American people. We said, we cannot control this, we cannot do anything about it; all we can do is get up tomorrow and try to do our job. We came here to help move the country forward and bring the country together, and that is what we are going to do. And our convention showed how productive our administration had been and our country had been in the last 4 years. And I think the fact that we could do it while having people like Senator D'Amato on us day-in and day-out I think is a tribute to the character and the public devotion of the people in this administration. I am proud of them. That is what I wanted to ask you.

Interview With Tabitha Soren of MTV


If you can just-try to take this in the way that I mean it, but you have suffered incessant character assassination over the past 4 years. You get up, there is another funeral; you have probably only had a couple hours of sleep that night. Between the funeral, a scandal, another country maybe going to war, why do you want 4 more years? I mean, what are you thinking? It is the most rewarding thing in the world for a citizen of our country, who loves our country and believes in the promise of its people, to be ENTITY. To look back on the last 4 years and to go out here as I did on the train ride or on this bus trip, and you look into the eyes of people and you go through these crowds, and somebody will say, I have got a home because of one of your programs ; I have gotten a job since you were here ; I am on one of your college loans ; I am an AmeriCorps student -when you see how the country is changing for the better, it is immensely rewarding. And in this day and time-you know, as I said, we have had periods like this in our politics before. In the early 1800's, Mr. Jefferson faced many of the same things. When you live in a time which is really rough, with no holds barred, and a lot of people seek personal advantage by what I call the politics of destruction, you have to be always, always, always defining yourself and the quality of your life by what is inside. And you cannot confuse who you are and the quality of your own life with whatever is going on in the day-to-day headlines. ENTITY should always be trying to be bigger than he is and lifting the country up. And you just have to keep putting that out of your mind; you just have to let it go. I cannot do anything about anything that happened yesterday or even an hour ago; you just have to let that stuff go and keep trying to lift the country up.

Interview With Tabitha Soren of MTV


ENTITY, we are delighted to join you here today in the Solarium on the third floor of the White House, a charming and homey room. As you now round out your first year in the White House, do you feel at home here? Do you find that you enjoy the splendid misery of the Presidency, to use those famous words of Thomas Jefferson? It is a magnificent home, of course. It can get a little lonely at times. It is big, but there are so many wonderful things here that you can enjoy. It also gives you an opportunity to focus in on the problems, and it is the problems that come with the house that make it somewhat difficult at times to really relax and enjoy yourself. Speaking of those problems, ENTITY, I think many people regarded you as something of an interim ENTITY when you first assumed office. Do you feel now that a year later, that you have established a ENTITY Presidency? I think we have gradually put together a domestic program and a foreign policy that can be identified as a ENTITY Administration. As we move in the next 12 to 14 months, I think it will become more and more evident, which, of course, gives us an opportunity in the next election to lay that record out so the public can judge it against any alternative programs submitted by the opposition. I do not think there will be any problem in identifying what we have done, what we have tried to do, and it will be known as a ENTITY policy or a ENTITY program, so to speak.  What would you pick out as the things you have done in this first year that make it indeed a ENTITY Presidency, both in domestic and foreign policy? Before getting into foreign and domestic policy, ENTITY, I think it is entirely proper to say that I have tried to restore public confidence in the Government and, particularly, in the Administration, in the executive branch, in the White House. I do not mean to criticize anybody else, but all the polls showed that roughly a year ago there had been a great loss of confidence on the part of the American people in their Government. We, the new Administration, with our appointments, with our openness, with our attempt to be frank and honest with the American people, I think we have turned the corner, and there is a restored confidence on behalf of the American people in their Government. Now, let us turn to the policy areas. We inherited a very difficult economic situation. The rate of inflation was somewhere between 12 and 14 percent, the highest in a good many years.

Interview With Paul Duke and Martin Agronsky of the Public Broadcasting Service.


That was our immediate economic problem, and we undertook some activities both fiscally and in a monetary sense to correct the situation. I am glad to report that it is now somewhere between 5 and 6 percent per annum. That is too high, and we had a little setback the last announcement on the CPI, the Consumer Price Index. In fact, it indicates it is going to go up 14 percent if it continues at this rate. But if you annualize the last 6 months of the Wholesale Price Index, it shows it is almost zero, because we had 5 months of, as I recall, negative increases in the Wholesale Price Index. So, I think you have to look at it in the broad span. We have made significant progress in the field of inflation, and we are going to continue to do so. Then, of course, we were faced in January with a precipitous drop in employment and a tremendous increase in unemployment. We adjusted our economic policies to meet that problem without sacrificing our effort against inflation. We did have an increase of unemployment up to 9.2 percent much, much too high but the last 2 months the unemployment figure has gone down from 9.2 to 8.4, and the most encouraging part is the fact that we have had an increase in employment of about 600,000, as I recall the figure. We are putting people back to work even though the unemployment figure is still too high. Now, this is a very narrow line to follow of still .trying to control inflation and at the same time reduce unemployment. I can just assure you we are going to follow a steady, firm, I think, correct policy to meet these two challenges. When you referred to a correct policy, ENTITY, I would like to remind you that it seems to us that in the past 2 or 3 weeks we have had an awakening, new concern that inflation may take off again, that unemployment is going to remain quite high through the election year of 1976. So, do you plan any new measures to deal with the economy? If we were to go along with the Congress that wants to spend a great deal more money I drew the line at a deficit of $60 billion the Congressional figures are up to $70 billion or $80 billion deficit for the current fiscal year if we were to go along with that kind of a deficit figure that the Congress proposes, I think we would be in serious trouble on the reigniting of inflation.


So, we are still going to veto bills that accelerate expenditures in the Federal Government beyond a reasonable figure. On the other hand, with the restoration of public confidence by our, I think, responsible action, I believe that we are going to regenerate industrial activity, which means more jobs. Now, let me take one aspect of the last 6 months. We have had the most rapid inventory sell-off in the history of the United States. The net result is that current inventories in many, many areas of the country, in industries in the country, are down. So, they have to come up with additional production to meet current daily demand. With consumer confidence coming back the way it has and all the pollsters show that I think our steady, firm, responsible course is going to meet the challenge of inflation and unemployment. They will not be as good as we would like I am very honest and very frank about it but we will be moving in the right direction. Let us take the direction in which we are moving, which we are in today, leaving percentages aside. We have got better than 8 million Americans who do not have jobs. We reckon now that there are something like 24 million Americans 12 percent of the population of this country that are at the poverty level or below. And many of your critics make the point that while you are a good man and a decent man, you do not show a sufficient amount of compassion, in their opinion, for the people who are unfortunate in that sense, for the people who are on welfare and people who live on food stamps. A good many Americans think that there are too many abuses both in welfare and food stamps, and I think there are too many abuses. If we could correct the abuses, we could be more compassionate to the people who have a real need for both welfare and/or food stamps or both. Now, you know, inflation,ENTITY, hits the unemployed even more drastically than it hurts the people who are employed, so my compassion is across the spectrum. It is not just aimed at the people who are employed. We want to control inflation to help all Americans, including the unemployed. If we do not control inflation, the ones who are hurt the most are the people who are unemployed and the people on fixed incomes.


ENTITY, no one would argue that inflation is not a threat, but the concern is that you seem to be more worried, really, constantly and it is a conscious decision on the part of your Administration with inflation than you have been with unemployment. ENTITY, I must respectfully disagree with you. This Administration has extended the unemployment compensation program to, I think, 65 weeks. We have broadened the eligibility of unemployment beyond what it ever was in the United States. We have paid more money out in unemployment benefits than any administration has ever done. So, we have shown in dollars and in programs a deep concern for the unemployed. We have gone along with a public service employment program up to the maximum authorized by the Congress. But yet you have also vetoed an effort for a job bill that was passed by the Congress. Martin, that was, I think, a poor label for a bad piece of legislation. The facts are, I sent up a request for $1,900 million for public service employment or a jobs bill that included $450 million for a summer youth employment program and the remainder for the public service employment. That shows my interest in the youth who wanted employment this summer, and it shows my interest in the people we could hire in the public service area. Now, what the Congress did was to take my recommendation and add $3 billion in pork-barrel programs that would not have solved the problem of the people unemployed today. It was pure Congressional politics of a pork-barrel kind, and that is the reason I vetoed it. After I vetoed it, the Congress recognized they were wrong and they sent back a bill that included my public service employment, my summer youth program, and added a few hundred million dollars just to satisfy their ego. Now, the truth is we got a good program through and we did not get a pork-barrel program shoved down the American people. Let me take this to a somewhat different plane, ENTITY There are critics who suggest that you have not provided the kind of broad roadmap for the country's future which this Nation with its many problems desperately needs today. Does it disturb you that you do not appear to have captured the hearts and minds of a great many Americans? I read both of those articles, and they are very able columnists. I think we will, with the next State of the Union message, have some areas that will point the direction in the long run for our country. I instituted this year what we call a no new program approach.


Why did we do that? We had to solve our current problems first in order to get our fiscal situation under control. Once we have achieved that result and I think we have made substantial headway then we can take a look at and make recommendations for the long range that will meet some of the problems that are raised by Scotty Reston and Dave Broder, and by others. How do you deal with this perception that people have about the lack of leadership, and not only for you but for the Republican Party? For example, Senator Brock of Tennessee, of your party, said the Republican Party must come to stand for something and until it does that the word Republican will be associated with Watergate and big business, hard times . Well, I, of course, deny that this Administration, the ENTITY Administration, is in any way whatsoever connected with Watergate. The ENTITY Administration is going to be known, in my judgment, for a successful implementation of economic policy that will provide jobs in the private sector in the long run and in foreign policy will expand our efforts for peace throughout the world. That is what this Administration will stand for. I think those are good things for an administration to be remembered over the years. If you achieve them. I think the record is going to be good, and I think right now the public, if you look at the polls, is beginning to perceive that. The polls show that, on a personal basis, I am doing much better. It is not as high as I would like, but not many people in public life are doing very well in the polls. But also, ENTITY, the polls show that only 7 of 100 Americans-by one pollster who happens to be from your home State, Robert Teeter-that only 7 of 100 Americans today regard themselves as strict Republicans. I think this relates additionally to the fact that rightly or wrongly, many Members of Congress and elsewhere, your critics, detect a negative quality about your leadership. And does not that do damage perhaps to your own Presidency and to the Republican Party? Well, let me quote, if I might, some other statistics. Most polls that are taken today indicate that a majority of Americans are in the middle of the road or conservative. Now they do not label themselves as Democrats or Republicans. They are talking about a philosophy. And maybe labels today are not the right way to identify people's views, whether it is Democrat or Republican. I believe the American people want a healthy economy, a firm and successful foreign policy.


That is what we are going to give them, and that is what we are giving them at the present time. When you talk about a healthy economy, ENTITY, there are other problems as well. What do we do about the rising cost of medical care, what do we do about the 12 percent of the population which ENTITY referred to which is now at the poverty level in this country? What do we do about the enormous problems of the cities which seem to be accelerating? Well, let us take the last one first. I think the cities have to recognize that they have a responsibility in the fiscal area as well. The Federal Government has done a substantial amount for cities through the general revenue sharing program, through a multitude of categorical grant programs. The cities have to realize that they have a fiscal management problem, too, and many of them have. Many of our cities are well managed; a few are not. I think the record speaks for itself. Well, ENTITY, in one area, the welfare area, your outgoing Welfare Secretary Weinberger suggested the other day that we should now be giving thought to some kind of negative income tax, in effect, a guaranteed annual income. Is that in the future as far as your Administration is concerned? Sometime this fall, there will be conducted under our Domestic Council and the Vice ENTITY is acting Chairman, Vice Chairman, but the actual acting Chairman of the Domestic Council and he and his associates are going to conduct some public hearings around the country where a number of areas will be examined by that Council, where people in various communities will have an opportunity to testify, proponents of one approach or another approach . Some people say we should modify the present welfare program. Some say we should junk it and come in with a new one. What we are going to do through the Domestic Council is give people throughout the country, not just the Washington complex, an opportunity to express themselves, to tell us what they think is the answer to the welfare problem. There is an awful lot of wisdom out in the country on what is right and what is wrong about welfare, what we today ought to do about medical care and the costs and the program. And as a result of those hearings on a nationwide basis, we will formulate our recommendations in those areas that need change. The decision has to be made ultimately in the Oval Office.


Is it your thinking that the welfare system in this country is now in such a chaotic mess that some new system must be devised, and it is likely that some form of guaranteed annual income which was a concept that was put forward by Richard Nixon? There is no doubt that the present welfare program either ought to be junked and a substitute put in its place or the present welfare program has to be tightened up very, very greatly. Now, you can get proponents on either side. When I was in the House of Representatives, I voted twice for the program that was submitted by the previous administration, because I believed then and now that welfare reform was mandatory. Unfortunately, even though the House of Representatives passed that legislation twice, the United States Senate refused or did not act on it. Now, it is my judgment that we will come out of these public hearings, we will come up with either some tightening of the existing welfare program or will offer a substitute, and there are a number of alternatives. I am not going to prejudge what the public is going to tell us. We want the public to be a participant in this process. ENTITY, could we return to the question of confidence, which is a real concern. You have been ENTITY for a year, and looking back, would you agree with the conventional wisdom, as far as Watergate is concerned, that the system worked? I think the system did work, Martin. It went through a very traumatic period, but if you look back through what happened before August 9 and what has happened since, I think you must come to the conclusion that the system did work. And looking ahead beyond that, do you think that in this year that you have been in office that safeguards have been put into effect that would ensure that we would not have another Watergate? Do you feel there is a sense in the country that you have achieved that? Certainly what I have tried to do precludes a Watergate from happening under a ENTITY Administration, and I believe through the press, through the public, through the Congress, there would never be an opportunity for another Watergate to take place. Let me ask you to deal then with a rather remarkable and startling observation that was made to me by the Special Watergate Prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, a few days ago. I asked Mr. Jaworski, if your predecessor had destroyed the Watergate tapes, would he be sitting today in the White House, and he answered Yes.


I would not undercut any judgment by Leon Jaworski. He knew intimately the content of many of the tapes, and he had a special responsibility. So, if he made that judgment, I am certainly not going to contradict it. Let us carry it, not only the judgment but its implications-and you know the famous observation of Congressman Mann, Next time will there be a watchman in the night? What concerns everyone in the country is that after Watergate, we now have a crisis of confidence, in the CIA, for example, a feeling that it is out of hand, that it is not sufficiently accountable. How do you feel about the revelations of CIA? How do you relate them to the crisis of confidence? As a result of some of the revelations, I appointed the Rockefeller Commission. That Commission conducted a very thorough investigation of the allegations concerning the CIA. That Commission has recommended to me certain administrative actions that I should take and some legislative proposals that I should submit to the Congress. My staff has taken the Rockefeller Commission recommendations and the Murphy Commission recommendations-and that Commission got into the CIA to some extent and I intend to submit to the Congress specific proposals that I think will maintain the CIA and our total intelligence-gathering community so they can do the job which is essential for our national security on the one hand and at the same time preclude our intelligence-gathering agencies from violating our constitutional rights as individuals. That is a point that I would like to raise with you.   Now, those fellows in the CIA do not just report on wars and the like. They go out and make their own and there is nobody to keep track of what they are up to. They spend billions of dollars on stirring up trouble so they will have something to report on. They do not have to account to anybody. That is a very dangerous thing in a democratic society. Well, the recommendations that have come from the Rockefeller Commission and from the Murphy Commission and the result of the investigations in the House as well as the Senate, I think, will give to the Congress and to the ENTITY the tools to correct the abuses that Mr. Truman spoke of in his conversations. And that you perceive? And that I think have to be done in the future to eliminate any possibility of abuses such as Mr. Truman mentioned. ENTITY, the feeling is that perhaps you yourself as ENTITY, in terms of the record of the Presidency versus the CIA, may not even be aware of many areas in which the CIA operates.


I can assure you, Martin, of two things. One, as a Member of the House and a member of a committee that had some jurisdiction over the CIA, but more specifically as ENTITY, I have probably gotten into the operations of the CIA and other related intelligence agencies in greater depth than any other ENTITY. And as a consequence, the proposals that I will submit and the administrative actions that I will take will correct those alleged and actual abuses. I think I know more about the CIA than any other ENTITY, certainly since 1945 or 1946 when it was established, and either in the rules and regulations or the law or the personnel, we are going to make certain that the CIA does its job in the gathering of foreign intelligence and the analyzation of that intelligence for the benefit of the ENTITY, the Department of State, and the Secretary of Defense, and at the same time will not abuse the proper constitutional rights of 214 million Americans. We are going to do that. Well, ENTITY, you served in Congress for a long time and Congress is the people's instrument that was really supposed to be protecting us against the excesses of the CIA. It is obvious now that Congress never did its job adequately. Did you ever have any inkling when you say you have been familiar with the CIA since 1946 did you ever have any inkling that these things were going on? I must admit, ENTITY, that I was not familiar with some of the details that have been brought to light. I was among a very limited number of Members of Congress, House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, who analyzed the CIA budget and their overall programs. But I must admit that that kind of control by the Congress, in retrospect, was not adequate. Do you feel that members of the CIA lied to you as a Member of Congress? No, I do not think they lied to me. I will not pass judgment on what they said to others. But I do believe that the control of the CIA by the Congress over a period of years was not as sufficient as it should have been. Do you feel this is now essential for the future, that Congress must exercise greater control over the CIA? I think there has to be some improvement in this area, but I am not passing judgment on this program as to the specific recommendations I will make. We are now analyzing various proposals, and what the Congress does, of course, is their decision.


But I can make recommendations as to how we can tighten up the control and at the same time give to the ENTITY and other people who have an interest the information on foreign intelligence which is so essential to our national security. You have to balance the two, and that is a very fine line. And I think we can do it. The Attorney General, Mr. Levi, in reading the material which you sent over from the White House which has not been released to the public about CIA activities, said he was appalled by some of the things he read. I think some of the things were improper, but I must say, Paul, people can judge what others have done and unfortunately sometimes do not put themselves in the position of a previous ENTITY or put themselves in the position of a previous Secretary of Defense. I think we can recognize the areas of mistake, but I do not like to be a Monday-morning quarterback. I think we ought to deal with the facts and we ought to deal with what we should do in the future and learn from the past, and I think we can correct these things. What we learned from the past, even despite your dislike of being a Monday-morning quarterback, is that your predecessors accepted proposals which called for the assassination of a foreign chief of state, for one thing, and brought about the overturn of a government in Chile, for another thing. ENTITY, I am not going to pass judgment on whether there was an order or was not an order about assassination. I do not want to point a finger at any other ENTITY or ENTITYs. I have looked at all of the material. We have given the material to the Church committee, and it is their obligation to, I think, analyze it but not do any finger-pointing. Now, the CIA has two kinds of operations one covert and the other overt. Their covert operations, under the procedures we have under this Administration, are carefully monitored carefully monitored, and I can assure you that every one that is done is in the national interest of the United States. But your predecessors might well have thought the same thing. The concern is the use of the CIA covertly, if you like, as an instrument of policy and foreign policy by your predecessors. ENTITY, I think we have to understand we live in a real world. Every nation, either a friend or an adversary, has a comparable intelligence-gathering, intelligence-operating organization in their government. And they do it for their own national security.


Now, the United States has to compete in this real world. It is a tough world, and our national security on many occasions involves doing things in a covert way. I can only assure you that if and when we undertake them under this Administration, they will be carefully monitored and they will be directly related to the national security of this country. I am not going to pass judgment on what other ENTITYs did. I can only pass judgment on what I want us to do, and those are the guidelines that we will follow. Speaking of national security and foreign policy, ENTITY-and I must say parenthetically that you look very fit and relaxed for a man who just came back from Europe nonetheless, your trip to Helsinki has encountered a substantial degree of hostility in this country, as you perhaps well know, and, rightly or wrongly, some people are suggesting that the Russians were the winners at Helsinki and we were the losers. What is your response to that criticism? I think that is a completely inaccurate interpretation concerning the CSCE Conference in Helsinki. I think it is a judgment some people make, but I thoroughly disagree with it. Let me just put this in perspective, if I might. We predicated many of the decisions involving borders on what? No border was agreed to in Helsinki that was not previously agreed to by previous American ENTITYs or by previous governments in other countries. We provided in that Helsinki agreement for peaceful change of borders. We made it far less likely that there will be military intervention by one country against another. What we have really done is to make it possible for people in the East as well as in the West in Europe to communicate, to reestablish family relationships. I will come to that in a minute, ENTITY. We have made it possible for the news media to have greater freedom in all of the 35 countries. In my speech before the Conference, I said, on paper this is good. We have 2 years between now and the next meeting in 1977, and the test will be, have all 35 countries lived up to the agreement? It offers a hope. The reality will depend upon the execution. I happen to believe that world pressure will force all countries, Communist countries and other countries, to live up to the agreement. But let us just take one example, ENTITY. You talk about a peaceful change in borders being in the agreement. Now realistically speaking, do you think that the Russians would give up the Baltic territory, which they took over at the end of World War II?


Do you think they would give up the Eastern European countries? Do you think that they would negotiate to give back these countries their independence? Let me put it the other way around. If we had not gone to Helsinki, do you think the Russians would have permitted any of the things you are talking about? In Helsinki, they at least signed an agreement that says you can change borders by peaceful means. But does it mean anything, ENTITY? Well, they have signed something that says you can change borders by peaceful means. ENTITY, you used a very good phrase at Helsinki. You said Peace is not a piece of paper, a very memorable phrase, and it conveys this idea that we are talking about now. Many of your critics and let us take it all of the way from Solzhenitsyn 1 to George Ball, a former Under Secretary of State-have voiced concern about legitimizing what, for example, George Ball calls the Soviet stolen empire, and asks, how do you reconcile that with Western ideals? that it is our obligation to follow policy that is more concerned with morality and principle than the acceptance of these borders would indicate. Well, Martin, I go back to the peace treaties of Yalta and Paris and Potsdam and the agreement by the Germans themselves to establish those borders. Those were peace treaties that established borders for all of Eastern Europe and all of Western Europe. Those are factual things done in the forties, the fifties, et cetera. The Conference on European Security and Cooperation did not change any of those, but it did say and every one of the nations did sign something that is different, that there can be peaceful adjustments of borders. But despite what you are now saying, ENTITY, there is in this country, as you well know, a rising amount of criticism about detente itself, people questioning the value of detente. What is your feeling about this criticism, and do you think this is endangering detente? I hope it is not endangering detente because I think there are many pluses to us and, yes, to the Soviet Union. I believe that SALT I was an outgrowth of detente. Does anybody want to tear up SALT I? Anything that puts a lid or a limitation on the development of nuclear weapons, the expansion of nuclear weapons any agreement that puts a lid or controls, that is good. So, detente helped achieve SALT I.


Detente may help I hope it will SALT II, where we will put an actual cap on nuclear weapons and other nuclear weapons systems. One of the happiest dividends that detente could possibly produce would be a reduction of forces by the Soviet Union as well as the Western allies in Western Europe. Was that raised at Helsinki? Did you get anywhere at all with that with Brezhnev? As you know, historically, when CSCE was originally agreed to as a program, it was also agreed to that there would be negotiations for mutual and balanced force reductions in Europe MBFR. Those negotiations have been going on now for about 2 years. They are presently stalled, but now that we have the Helsinki agreement, it is my judgment that we have opened up encouraging prospects for additional movement in the MBFR negotiations. I think the Allies and the West are getting together for perhaps a new position. I believe that the Soviet Union and its allies are taking a look at the current stalemated negotiations and may come up with some agreement. The prospects for a mutual and balanced force reduction in Europe have been enhanced by the Helsinki agreement no question about that whatsoever. Well, ENTITY, to go back to SALT I for a moment, you said at a recent news conference that according to your investigation the Russians had not cheated on the agreement limiting the use of certain strategic weapons. Your old friend, Melvin Laird, had written an article suggesting they had cheated. Since then, you have talked to Mr. Laird. Have you changed your mind about what you said earlier? I naturally investigated the allegations that were made by a number of people, including Mel. And after a thorough investigation, I have come to the conclusion that a person might legitimately make the charge there had been violations, but on complete and total investigation I think any person who knew the facts as I know them would agree that there had been no violations of any consequence. There are some ambiguities I want to be frank about it but all of the responsible, knowledgeable people in the Pentagon or in any of the other responsible agencies would agree with me there have been no serious violations, and any that have been called to their attention have been Stopped. Very minor, but we have what we call a consultative group where if we think they are violating something, we make that point. It is investigated, and in the cases where there was any instance that might be an honest charge of a violation, they have been stopped.


The Soviet Union has raised some questions about certain activities that we have undertaken, and we have investigated them. And I think that arrangement of the consultative group has been very effective in making sure that SALT I was lived up to. Let me turn now to the Middle East, ENTITY. You beat me to it. We have had intensive negotiations going on now for about 2 months to try to get a peace treaty moving in this area. I am optimistic on an increasing basis, but I have learned that until it is signed in black and white that I should not predict that it will be finalized. Let me ask you - I want to just ask you one more question in this area. Do you find the Russians are now less troublesome in the Middle East in the efforts to achieve a peace agreement? They have acted in a very responsible way, during my time, in the Middle East. Let me just turn to the question of these negotiations that are going on between Israel on the one hand and Egypt on the other. Both of those countries have to understand that flexibility at this crucial time is important for the peace of that area of the world and possibly peace in the world. If there is not movement in the Middle East right now, the potential for war is increased significantly. And a war in the Middle East today has broader potential ramification than any time in the past, and we have had four wars in the Middle East since 1946 or 1947. A fifth one not only means that Israel will be fighting the Arabs but the potential of a confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union is a possibility. You must have raised that with Brezhnev. How did he react to it? We talked about the Middle East. We told them, or I told him, what we were doing. Secretary Kissinger had had a previous meeting with Foreign Minister Gromyko. I repeat what I said a moment ago, ENTITY. The Soviet Union has acted in a very responsible way. I think they understand the potential consequences of no progress for continued peace and understanding in the Middle East. What do you see, sir, as our future policy toward South Vietnam? Do you think that we will recognize that Communist regime in the foreseeable future? Their current actions certainly do not convince me that we should recognize South Vietnam or North Vietnam. We have taken a very strong stand that we would not agree to the admission of South or North Vietnam unless and until South Korea is admitted. We believe in universality across the board.


We do not believe in kicking nations out kicking Israel out, for example. Did Mr. Brezhnev say he agreed with you on that they were supporting that movement? We let it be known very, very strongly that we believe Israel should be permitted to be a member of the United Nations. But on the other hand, we also believe that if you believe in universality, which includes South and North Vietnam, you have to have South Korea. ENTITY, when you first took office, you obviously relied a great deal upon Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Do you now make more of the decisions on your own? Do you rely less upon Mr. Kissinger? I am not going to get into that discussion. Henry Kissinger and I have the closest possible rapport, personally and professionally. I see him every day for roughly an hour. We talk about the Middle East. We talk about SALT. We talk about our total foreign policy. It has been from the very first day. It is now, and I expect it to continue in the future. And I do not want to get into whether I do more or do less. We are a good team, and I think we have made some good decisions. Are you aware, ENTITY, of the criticism at the Capitol - ENTITY.from Republicans and not just Democrats, that in the Turkish aid fight, for example, that Mr. Kissinger was responsible for your losing that battle to lift the ban against military aid. I have heard those arguments but I do not think they are valid. I think the Congress, or the House of Representatives in this case, made the most serious wrong decision since I have been in Washington, which is 27 years. The Congress was totally wrong or the House of Representatives. Why do I say that? First, they have not solved the Cyprus problem. Number two, they have weakened NATO. Number three, because of the Turkish aid embargo, they have lessened our own national security capability by preventing us from using intelligence-gathering installations in Turkey. Are you saying Congress is harming our foreign policy? The decision of the House of Representatives to continue the Turkish arms embargo has seriously jeopardized our foreign policy and undercuts in a significant way our own national security, including that of NATO, and it has not solved it has not solved the Cyprus problem. There was a law that said that aid that was given to Turkey could not be used as it was used against Cyprus. We have lived up to the law.


We have stopped, because Congress told us to, the shipment of military hardware that the Turks bought and paid for. And incidentally, they bought and paid for the hardware, and because of Congressional action, the Turks are now being charged warehouse storage fees for equipment that they own that Congress said they could not get. But anyhow, aside from that, which is, I think, a ridiculous development, we have lived up to the law. We are not sending them any military hardware, and unfortunately, the net result is what I told you. But, Martin, I think you have to recollect a little bit. Who started the problem in Cyprus? It was the Greek Government, it was the previous Greek Government that tried to throw Makarios out and assassinate him, and the previous Greek Government wanted to move in with Greek troops and take over Cyprus. And as a result of Greek violations, the Turks moved in and have, unfortunately, dominated the situation. But the whole program or the whole problem arose by the unwise action of the previous Greek Government. ENTITY, our time is almost out, and I must bring up a subject with which you are obviously quite familiar, namely, the rumors in this town that Nelson Rockefeller may not be your running mate in 1976. Is he going to be back on the ticket? I have read the various reports, and frankly, I think it is a tempest in a teapot. That is what he said. I happen to agree with him. Nelson Rockefeller was selected by me because I think he would make and has made a first-class Vice ENTITY. The realities of the political situation are I am going to go out with my campaign people to get my delegates. He, of course, will seek his delegates in the interim. I think the team of ENTITY and Rockefeller has done a good job, and at this time, I do not see any reason to change it. Is the position you take one that might finesse Mr. Reagan out of the picture, too? I only talk about the affirmative things, Martin. I do not want to get into who did this or who did that or what is going to happen. The realities are Nelson Rockefeller has done an excellent job as Vice ENTITY He works hard. He has taken every job I have given him and done really a great job. When you have somebody that works on a team with you, why do you want to change?


In front of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, you said that negotiating with Iran is pointless. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama? People need to read the speech. What I said was, is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you got to take those words seriously. And if you do not take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we did not take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolph Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of Al Qaida and Hizballah and Hamas, and the need to make sure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. It was a but I also talked about a vision of what is possible in the Middle East. Repeatedly, you have talked about Iran and that you do not want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability? You know, ENTITY, I do not want to speculate, and there is a lot of speculation. We need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we will continue to rally the world to isolate them. You have been rallying the world. Have you had some success on this Arab tour to try and and Israeli tour to mobilize this community against Iran? Is that part of your mission? No, it is not so much; actually, the place where I am spending time, in terms of dealing with serious economic isolation, is with our European friends. They are the ones who have had significant trade with the Iranians. We are dealing with it not only in goods and services, trying to convince them to hold back goods and services until there is a verifiable suspension, but also dealing with the Iranian finances. I do not have to spend too much time in the world in this part of the world creating concerns about Iran. There is big concern about Iran, given the fact that Hizballah is destabilizing Lebanon, Hamas is trying to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state, and, of course, Iranian action inside of Iraq.

Interview With Richard Engel of NBC News in Sharm el-Sheikh


A lot of Iran's empowerment is a result of the war in Iraq. that Iran is its position in the world is rising because of your actions in Iraq? See, I am not so sure I agree with that. As a matter of fact, I think Iran is troubled by the fact that a young democracy is growing in Iraq. I you know, this notion about somehow if Saddam Hussein were in power, everything would be fine in the Middle East is a ludicrous notion. Saddam Hussein was a sponsor of terror. And can you imagine what it'd be like to see an arms race between Saddam Hussein and Ahmadi-nejad, in terms of creating instability in the Middle East? As a matter of fact, the way to ultimately defeat those who use terror to destabilize young democracies is to help the young democracies succeed. I have watched Iran's influence grow in Iraq. It is been very steady over the years. Yes. Well, Basra, for example, is we stood by the Prime Minister's decision to move into Basra and to continue to encourage the Prime Minister to go after Shi'a criminals and Shi'a armed militias that are doing harm to the average Iraqi and, at the same time, encourage him to use some of the Iraqi wealth to improve conditions of life. Basra is it is still obviously got work to be done, but it was a successful operation, as you know better than me. He is now heading into Sadr City he, the Iraqi Govern-ment all aiming to protect innocent people from people who are operating outside the law. And to the extent that those are folks who are supported by Iran, it will serve as a defeat to Iran. You know it better than anybody; you have been spending a lot of time there. And it is in the interest of the United States that we help it continue to change to the better. You talked about Iran being a major threat to American policies in the region, with Hamas, Hizballah, militia groups in Iraq. Do you intend to finish your term in office with a military action of some kind against Iran? I have always made it clear that options are on the table. But, you know, the biggest weapon we have against those who cannot stand freedom is the advance of freedom. I am going to give a speech here in a minute that talks about the need to advance the freedom agenda in the Middle East.


And my you know, Iran is a threat to people who want to live in peace. That is what they have clearly shown. I mean, the interesting thing in Lebanon is that Hizballah, which had sold itself as a protector against Israel, all of a sudden turned its weapons on the people of Lebanon and all the the true colors. And sometimes in life there needs to be clarity in order for people to rally to solve a problem. And so the best way to deal with the Iranians in the Middle East is to help the young democracy of Lebanon survive, is to stand up a Palestinian state obviously, subject to the roadmap which we intend to do before my Presidency, and succeed in Iraq. How are you going to prevent Hizballah from taking over in Lebanon? They had a small coup. The army did not do anything. And they proved that they are clearly in control of the streets when they want to be. And obviously, one thing to do is to help strengthen the Lebanese ENTITY, which I sent General Dempsey to Beirut I do not know if he was there when you were there, but he was there precisely to help inventory the Lebanese ENTITY is to make it clear to Prime Minister Siniora, we stand strongly with you. We will see what happens out of this agreement and how whether it sticks or not. But we strongly support the March 14th Coalition. Perhaps one way to help deal with the situation is to get the U.N. tribunal up and running that is investigating the death of Hariri. I mean, this is and yet the Lebanese people deserve a peaceful democracy, and our aim is to help them. It sounded like, when you were addressing the Israeli Knesset, you gave a green light to Israel to take action against Hizballah and Hamas. I do not ENTITY, you can read into it what you want to read into it. My intention was to say that all of us need to understand that radical groups are the threat to peace, whether it be Al Qaida or Hamas or Hizballah. Negotiations with Iran is that appeasement? My position, ENTITY, all along has been that if the Iranians verifiably suspend their enrichment, which will be a key measure to stop them from gaining the know-how to build a weapon, then we they can come to the table, and the United States will be at the table.


That is been a position of my administration for, gosh, I cannot remember how many years, but it is a clear position. We have stated it over and over again. But I have also said that if they choose not to do that verifiably suspend we will continue to rally the world to isolate the Iranians. And it is having an effect inside their country. There is a better way forward for the Iranian people than to be isolated, and their leaders just need to make better choices. In Iraq, I recently met a soldier. He was medevaced out on his first tour. He is now back on his second tour was already medevaced to the green zone. How many more tours do these soldiers have to do? Well, first of all, the fact that this person volunteered again speaks to the great bravery of our troops. And we need to honor them and will honor them. in for 12, out for 12. The other thing is to take care of their families, and when they are veterans, take care of the vets. You know, the fact that you told me about a guy who got medevaced twice only says to me that we have got a courageous military. In terms of success, we are returning troops on success. You might remember, I had to make a difficult choice to put more troops in. Those troops are coming home by July. And then, of course, General Petraeus and his successor will assess the situation on the ground, and we will end up having the troops necessary to help the Iraqis succeed. It just sounds like we need to support them as much as we can and keep them there for as long as we can. I think the end, ENTITY, is, I told you, return on success. The more successful Iraq is, the fewer troops we will need. The security situation has changed; the political situation is a lot better; the economic situation unlike other parts of this world are pretty strong. And now the question is, are they going to be able to get the resources in an efficient way to the people, so the people see the benefits of democracy? And they are doing a better job of that. You still view Iraq as a success. Because on the ground, it looks very bleak. People still want to leave the country, and people are Well, that is interesting you said that.


That is a little different from the surveys I have seen and a little different from the attitude of the actual Iraqis I have talked to, but you are entitled to your opinion. The Iraqi Government, I think, has one position, which is that it is seeing a lot of progress. But Sadr City has been up in revolt. I was just in a major firefight in Sadr City, hit by an EFP. But there is no question that the Iraqi Government are dealing with the violent people. It is like this attitude about Basra. What you are watching is an Iraqi Government take care of extremists in their midst so that a democracy can survive. And it is essential that this democracy survive for our own security as well as the stability of the Middle East. You have talked about having a Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement by the end of this year. What gives you hope that that is not overly ambitious? Because, first of all, people in Israel understand that in order for them to have long-term security, there has to be a democratic state. People in Palestine want a democratic state. Secondly, I know their leaders. I spent a lot of time with Prime Minister Olmert and ENTITY Abbas. They are dedicated to doing the hard work. And yes, Hamas was elected, and they have done a disaster in of running Gaza. And it is that vision, the competing visions that will be put forth to the Palestinian people at some time. And I believe a state will exist, and I know it is necessary for peace in the Middle East. And I think I feel good that we can get it defined during my Presidency and implemented subject to roadmap. Going back to your vision and the message you have been pushing about democracy and supporting moderates across the region, if you look back over the last several years, the Middle East that you will be handing over to the next ENTITY has is deeply problematic. You have Hamas in power, Hizballah empowered, taking to the streets, more stronger than the Government, Iran empowered, Iraq still at war. What we are handing over is a Middle East that, one, recognizes the problems and the world recognizes them. They have been that is why we put them on the terrorist list before my Presidency. And what you are beginning to see is new democracies. You will see a Palestinian state. The freedom movement is a challenge to a system that said, the status quo is acceptable, when underneath was brewing all kinds of resentments.


We have taken on Al Qaida in the Middle East. It was from here that they recruited people to launch attacks. Do you believe that Iran is now more of a threat in Iraq than Al Qaida? I believe yes, I bet I think they have both been seriously hurt in Iraq. And you know, Al Qaida thought they were going to have a stronghold in Anbar Province. They proudly proclaimed this was going to be their capital from which they were going to launch missions around the world and throughout the region, and they failed. And in Iran , * Shi'a groups funded by Iran have tried to take on the Government. And the Government is succeeding, and it is but it is going to take a while. The war on terrorism has been the centerpiece of your Presidency. Many people say that it has not made the world safer, that it has created more radicals, that there are more people in this part of the world who want to attack the United States. That theory says, by confronting the people that killed us, therefore, there is going to be more; therefore, we should not confront them. Or creating more people who want to kill us, one could also say. Well, you can say that, but the truth of the matter is, there is fewer Al Qaida leaders; the people are on the run; they are having more trouble recruiting in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, our partner, has gone after Al Qaida. People now see Al Qaida for what it is, which is a group of extremists and radicals who preach nothing but hate. We should have just let the beehive sit there and hope the bees do not come out of the hive. My attitude is, the United States must stay on the offense against Al Qaida two ways. But have not you just smashed the bees two ways in the hive and let them spread? One, find them and bring them to justice what we are doing; and two, offer freedom as an alternative to their vision. And somehow to suggest that bees would stay in the hive is naive. They did not stay in the hive when they came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.


although it is good evening for Russian audience because of the time change. So how important the D-day is for you, personally, and for your family? He is he was alike many in America and in Russia that were called upon to defend the world against nazism. And today, the celebration in Russia will remind us all about the sacrifices of, in my case, an individual I love, but also a generation, a generation of men and women who made extraordinary efforts, inRussia's case to defend the homeland, in America's case to work with allies to defeat Adolf Hitler as well as the Japanese. And so it is a special day for me, personally, because it reminds me of the willingness of a young kid to go fight. But it also reminds me of the duty of my generation to work together to make the world a better place. The after-war Europe has been reshaped according to the Yalta Conference of 1943, by the decision of three very important personalities of this time, Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Churchill, and Mr. Stalin. How fair is it to hold only Russia responsible for all the misfortunes of Eastern Europe and Baltic States over the last? Obviously, it was a decision made at the end of the war. I think that the main complaint would be that the form of government that the Baltics had to live under was not of their choosing. But no, there is no question three leaders made the decision. So not only Russia the bad guy of history? Well, I think everybody ought to bear theas historians look back at Yaltagot to recognize that it was you are rightly so in pointing it outit was not only the Russian leader but the British and American leader were at the table and agreed on the agreement. In Russia, we are very concerned on the rise of neo-nazism in Baltic States when Russian war veterans are humiliated publicly, when monuments to Russian soldiers are vandalized, and at the same time, where, on May 8th, there is a plan to open the monument to Nazi Brigade, that is well known only for fightingnot only for fighting against Russians but also for quite ugly things that were common for SS troops. Well, look, there is I have got a message when I go to the Baltics, and that is it is important to respect democracy but, also, the respect of democracy is respect for minority rights.

Interview With NTV of Russia


In other words, a true democracy is one that says minorities are important and that the will of the majority cannot trample the minority. And as to whether or not nations are honoring nazism, I mean, of course that should be rejected. We are celebrating the defeat of nazism. It is an extremist point of view that believes that you should be able to trample the rights of minorities. It was the Nazis who annihilated millions of Jews, for example, and there is a classic example of the rights of minorities being trampled. And we must never forget the lessons of why we fought together in World War II. And so I am looking forward to delivering that message of tolerance. There is a question that has nothing to do with your visit to Russia but is very important to our country as an oil-producing country. Once you mentioned that you will be happy to find a magic wand and to cut the price on oil. So what oil price will be acceptable for the United States, and what do you think is the chance of finding this magic wand? A soldier asked me, he said, Why do not you lower gasoline prices, as if the government controlled price. And in our country, the Government does not control price. And I told him, I said, If I had a magic wand, I would wave it and lower your price. This is a world based the price based upon supply and demand. And demand has been going up relative to supply, which has been beneficial for oil-producing countries like Russia. Obviously, the lower the better for our economy, because every time the money the dollars go up on the gasoline price, money leaves the pocketbooks of the working people. Hopefully, higher price will stimulate more production. More production will then help the price reach an equilibrium. I would hope that Russia would encourage a lot of investment, to open up the vast reserves she has. We need to do more exploration here. I spoke to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia who assured me that he is trying to put moreto find more oil. And that is what high prices do. But people who have got oil have got to understand if the price gets too high, it could wreck economies, which will mean there is less purchasing power for the product.

Interview With NTV of Russia


What an honor for me to say I am live at the White House, and I am joined by ENTITY of the United States. Michael, it is great to be on the show again. Every time we'v been on, it is been a great time, so I appreciate the opportunity. They are anxious to pose some questions about health care to the President of the United States. More than 5,000 e-mail suggestions have flowed through my web site in just the last 24 hours alone. If it is all right, I will start by posing a couple of questions and some of the things that I continue to hear from folks, and we will welcome phone callers as well. Allow me, sir, to begin with this. You know, a great deal has been made as to what she said pertaining to the so-called public option. The surprising thing is, she'd been saying this all along. She said the same thing a month ago. We have consistently talked about the need for health care reform because family premiums are going up three times faster than inflation and wages. The costs of Medicare and Medicaid will bankrupt this country if we do not reduce the cost inflation of health care. You have got families who cannot get health care because of preexisting conditions, or they bump up against some lifetime cap if a family member gets really ill. So what we have said is, there are a number of components of health care. One is that for people who already have health insurance, they can keep their health insurance, but we are going to have some consumer protections to regulate how insurers operate. For example, they cannot prohibit people from getting it-health insurance-because of a preexisting condition. They cannot have lifetime caps or yearly caps that prevent people from getting the care that they need. We are also going-for people who do not have health insurance-to set up a system similar to what Congress has, where you can buy into a bigger pool, get better rates, have better protections around you. You would be buying that insurance from private insurers. But one of the options we talked about was a public option, where there would not be a profit motive involved; it would be non-for-profit. And that public option would give you affordable health insurance. Now, what we have said is, we think that is a good idea. But we have not said that that is the only aspect of health insurance.

Interview With Michael A. Smerconish of the Michael Smerconish Morning Show


And what she essentially said was, is that all these other insurance reforms are just as important as the public option. The press got a little excited, and some folks on the left got a little excited about this. We think that the key is cost control, competition, making sure that people have good, quality options. If we are able to achieve that, that is the end that we are seeking. And the means-you know, we can have some good arguments about what the best way to achieve it is, but we have got to change, because the status quo is unsustainable. ENTITY, there is a mindset among many folks in my audience who say that the endgame, it is all about single-payer, that it is a public option or it is a cooperative. And, sir, you know that there is a perception out there that you want it all. You know, you want to be in the banks, you want to be in the automotive industry, and now you want to be in health care. Can you address that mindset? First of all, look, the intervention in the banks was not started by me; it was started by a conservative Republican administration. And rightly so, because our banks were on the verge of meltdown. The only thing that we have done is said let us put in place some financial regulations to make sure that this does not happen again. The auto interventions were not started by me; they were started by a conservative Republican administration. The only thing that we did was rather than just write GM and Chrysler a blank check, we said, you know what, if you are going to get any more taxpayer money, you have got to be accountable. They went through a record bankruptcy, and now GM for the first time is actually hiring folks back. So I know that there is this perception that somehow we have engaged in these extraordinary interventions. Part of it had to do with the worst financial crisis in history. And the fact that both the auto bailout and the bank bailout were started under a previous, conservative Republican administration indicates the fact that this was not ideological; this was a matter of necessity. Now, as far as health care goes, I have consistently said I would love the private marketplace to be handling this without any Government intervention. What we are seeing is about 14,000 folks lose their health insurance every single day. We are seeing health care inflation go up about twice as fast as regular inflation. Businesses are being crippled by it.


Small businesses especially have almost no access to the marketplace because they have got no leverage with insurance companies. So all we have said is, let us keep the private system intact, but let us make sure that people who right now cannot get health insurance-about 46 million-that they are able to buy into the market. And number two, let us have some consumer protections to make sure that those of us who have health insurance do not end up getting a bad deal because we did not read the fine print and we think that we have coverage; when we finally get sick and we need it, it turns out that we are vulnerable because insurance companies are not operating in the interests of their customers. I like to drive an MDX and an F-150, and I have communicated by e-mail in the last 24 hours with the woman who sold me the MDX and the guy who sold me the F-150, and each of them, ENTITY, are saying that Cash for Clunkers has been a great idea and a wonderful initiative, and they have closed a lot of deals, but the payments are late. And I am hearing from a number of folks who say, Come on, if the Federal Government cannot get it together relative to Cash for Clunkers, I do not want to entrust my health care to the Federal Government. Well, let me first address Cash for Clunkers. It has been successful beyond anybody's imagination. And we are now slightly victims of success, because the thing happened so quick, there was so much more demand than anybody expected that dealers were overwhelmed with applications. Now, this program has only been going on for a few weeks, and we have hired three times as many people to process this stuff as we originally had. I understand dealers want to get their money back as soon as possible, but the fact of the matter is, this is a good-news story; they are seeing sales that they have not seen in years. And they will get their money, but we have got to process it properly, because if we were careless about it, if we were just sending out checks where applications were incomplete and so on, first of all, we'd be breaking the law because there are statutes set up in terms of how this is supposed to go. And secondly, there'd probably be some story-you'd be asking me about scandals, where there were a whole bunch of checks of taxpayer money being wasted, going out to people who had not actually bought cars.


So I think this is actually a high-class problem to have, that we are selling too many cars too quickly and there is some backlog in the application process. ENTITY, Ernie is a listener of mine on WTKK in Boston and wishes to pose the following question. I understand you have said that the Federal health care plan for Government employees is a pretty good plan. And Congress has voted, to my understanding, not to join the public plan once it passes because they want to keep their good Federal plan. Would you be willing to either urge Congress to have the Federal employees join the public plan, or would you be willing to urge Congress to somehow open up the Federal health plan to all Americans? I hear this all the time, ENTITY. First of all, understand that currently, Federal employees have a very good health care plan because they are able to leverage the insurance companies. There are so many members of their-of the Federal workforce that they can get the best rates possible, for every insurance company wants to do business with the Federal Government. The same concept is what we are trying to do in setting up what is called a health insurance exchange. Essentially, it'd be a marketplace where people who currently do not have health insurance or small businesses could pool their numbers so they have leverage over the insurance companies. And they could go on a web site and look at the various options, the types of various private health insurance plans that are being offered, and choose the one that is best for their families. So we are actually trying to duplicate what exists for Federal employees. We want to make that available to everybody else. Now, what we have said is, let us make a public option one choice of many choices that are available to people who are joining the exchange. And I see nothing wrong with potentially having that public option as one option for Federal employees as well. Nobody would be obligated to choose the public option. If you went on that web site and you said, you know what, Aetna or Blue Cross Blue Shield are offering a good deal, and I would rather choose that plan than the public plan, you'd be perfectly free to do so. Nobody would be saying, you are obligated to go into a public plan.


I think what folks are saying is that they'd love it if you'd stand up and say, whatever it is that we are creating, be it a co-op, be it a public option, whatever name ultimately might be ascribed to it, we in the executive branch, we in the Congress, we will live with exactly these parameters. I think there would be-I think it would make perfect sense for us to make the public option available to Federal employees as well. But keep in mind, it would just be a choice. Tracy listens on WXNT News Talk 1430 in Indianapolis. Until I heard you say that a private option is just a sliver of your health care proposal recently, I think myself and many Americans thought that pretty much was your proposal. So my question is, could you please quickly list five or six bullet points of what legislation must include for you to be willing to sign it? Must it include a public option? First of all, you mentioned illegal immigrants. This has been an example of just pure misinformation out there. None of the bills that have been voted on in Congress and none of the proposals coming out of the White House propose giving coverage to illegal immigrants-none of them. That has never been on the table; nobody has discussed it. So everybody who is listening out there, when you start hearing that somehow this is all designed to provide health insurance to illegal immigrants, that is simply not true and has never been the case. Because there is a 1986 law on the book that says if you show up at an ER, you have got to be treated. Well, that will continue, because we do not want a situation in which some child, even if they are an illegal immigrant, shows up in an emergency room with tuberculosis and nobody is giving them treatment, and then they are going back to the playground and playing next to our kids. So there-I think there is a basic standard of decency where if somebody is in a death situation or a severe illness, that we are going to provide them emergency care. But nobody has talked about providing health insurance to illegal immigrants. Now, Tracy, you had a good point about what are the bullet points that I want. This has to be paid for, because in the past, some of the health care plans that we have put forward have not been paid for. A good example of this was the prescription drug benefit for seniors.


That was a important thing to do, but we never actually figured out how to pay for it. That just went directly into the deficit and the national debt. We cannot afford to do that. Point number two, it has to bend the cost curve. What that means is that we have got to create a plan that experts credibly say will reduce health care inflation, because if all we are doing is adding more people, but we are not controlling costs, that will blow up the deficit over the long term, and it will blow up the burdens on individual families and businesses. We have got to get control of our costs. We spend $6,000 more than any other advanced country per person on health care. Number three, we have got to have the insurance reforms I talked about for people who already have health insurance. And that means making sure you can get health insurance even if you have got a preexisting condition, making sure that you are not burdened by lifetime caps, making sure that insurance companies cannot drop you just because you get sick or because you are older or because you are not as healthy; so making sure that there are basic insurance protections, that is very important. Number four is I want to make sure that we have a health exchange, as I just described, that is similar to what Members of Congress have, where you will have a set of options. If you are a small business, if you are an individual, self-employed, you have trouble getting health insurance right now, you can go and look at a bunch of options. And we have got to make it affordable for middle class families, so part of the plan has to be that if you cannot afford a market-based premium, that we are giving you a little bit of help and you are able to get health insurance. Choice, competition, reducing costs-those are the things that I want to see accomplished in this health reform bill. Where, ENTITY, does personal responsibility factor into all this? There was a front-page story in USA Today recently that talked about obesity being the single most significant factor. How about rewarding those who get on a StairMaster every day? Well, the interesting thing is, you are already starting to see this happen among a lot of private companies. Safeway, for example, is a company that has done a great job in helping encourage its employees to get fit, and they actually give them an incentive.


They say, Look, we are -you are going to save X amount on your insurance premiums; you will see that in your paycheck if you are taking steps to take care of yourself. And I think that creating incentives like that for prevention, for wellness, creating cash incentives for people who-where it shows up they are saving money on their health insurance because of it, I think that is something that should be part of this. listens to me at Home Base, which is the Big Talker 1210 in Philadelphia. Oh, I am scared out of my mind talking to you here. I am a supporter, worked hard for you last year. You have an overwhelming majority in both the House and the Senate, and you own the whole shooting match. And I am just not getting-it is very frustrating to watch you try and compromise with a lot of these people who are not willing to compromise with you. Well, look, I guarantee you, Joe, we are going to get health care reform done. And I know that there are a lot of people out there who have been hand-wringing, and folks in the press are following every little twist and turn of the legislative process. You know, passing a big bill like this is always messy. It is -FDR was called a socialist when he passed Social Security. JFK and Lyndon Johnson, they were both accused of a Government takeover of health care when they passed Medicare. This is the process that we go through, because, understandably, the American people have a long tradition of being suspicious of government until the government actually does something that helps them, and then they do not want anybody messing with whatever gets set up. And I am confident we are going to get it done, and as far as negotiations with Republicans, my attitude has always been, let us see if we can get this done with some consensus. I would love to have more Republicans engaged and involved in this process. I think early on a decision was made by the Republican leadership that said, Look, let us not give them a victory, and maybe we can have a replay of 1993, '94 when Clinton came in. He failed on health care, and then we won in the midterm elections, and we got the majority. And I think there is some folks who are taking a page out of that playbook. This is a issue for the American people. There are a bunch of Republicans out there who have been working very constructively.


One of them, Olympia Snowe in Maine, she is been dedicated on this. Chuck Grassley, Mike Enzi, others-they have been meeting in the Senate Finance Committee. I want to give them a chance to work through these processes. And we are happy to make sensible compromises. What we are not willing to do is give up on the core principle that Americans who do not have health insurance should get it, that Americans who do have health insurance should get a better deal from insurance companies and have consumer protections. We have got to reduce health care inflation so that everybody can keep the health care that they have. A bit off message, today the Scots released the Lockerbie bomber due to-actually, maybe it is health care-related. He is got terminal cancer. We have been in contact with the Scottish Government indicating that we objected to this, and we thought it was a mistake. We are now in contact with the Libyan Government, and want to make sure that if in fact this transfer has taken place, that he is not welcomed back in some way, but instead should be under house arrest. We have also, obviously, been in contact with the families of the Pan Am victims and indicated to them that we do not think this was appropriate. ENTITY, in each of our prior three conversations, I spoke with you extensively about the need for closure, and we agreed relative to bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. And as a matter of fact-and this is well documented; I have written and spoken about it extensively-things that you said during the course of the campaign played a critical role in my personal decisionmaking pertaining to the 2008 election. So I feel I'd be derelict in my duty if I did not come here today and say, where are we? I know we had a major victory recently with the number-one individual for the Taliban in those tribal regions. But pertaining to bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, where is it? Well, here is where we are at. We are continuing to ramp up the pressure in Afghanistan. And we had a-what appears to be a successful election in Afghanistan despite the Taliban's effort to disrupt it. You have got General McChrystal now over there and more troops who are putting pressure on the eastern and southern portions of Afghanistan. Right. the top Taliban leader in Pakistan, who was also one of bin Laden's key allies.