I am convinced that history changes, and as history changes, attitudes can change, circumstances change, and that we have a possibility to see this issue resolved by strong and courageous leaders. I am pleased to see the amount of trade that is taking place between India and Pakistan. It is a substantial increase from July of '04 to July of '05. I thought that the the new transportation routes between India and Pakistan are hopeful signs. And so the role of the United States, in our judgment, is one that will help lead to a settlement that is acceptable to all sides. ENTITY, you also spoke about democracy in Pakistan; some distance has to be covered. And the Commonwealth has recently asked Mr. Musharraf ENTITY Musharraf that he must decide by 2007 whether he wants to continue as the Chief of ENTITY Staff or as the ENTITY, one decision. Is the United States comfortable with a leader who is also the Chief of ENTITY Staff in a democracy? Does it bother you that he his contribution as the Chief of ENTITY Staff? I have had discussions with the ENTITY quite frequently about his vision for a democratic Pakistan. And I am I believe that he is headed for a continue to head for on the road of reform. And he understands the pressures being put on him. As you said, the Commonwealth spoke, and I believe that he is committed to having a reform process come to fruition, and I believe he is committed to free and open elections. ENTITY, there is another issue that is particularly sensitive for both India and Pakistan, which is that Iran India-Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline. As we said, India need alternative sources of energy. So is it possible that decision, allow the construction of the pipeline? What is important is that India, Pakistan, and the United States work together to send a firm message to the Iranians that a development of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. You know, we energy supplies are important for India, and they are important for Pakistan. I fully understand that. But a country which has been unwilling to adhere to treaties that it is agreed to, a country the ENTITY of which has said the destruction of Israel is in part of foreign policy, a country which has not told the truth when it comes to whether or not they are enriching uranium or not, is a country that free nations need to deal with in a diplomatic way. And the best thing that the Iranians can hear is a unified message from all of us.

Interview With Pakistani Journalists


Does it mean that at some date you could decide to take military action against Iran? ENTITY, the recent incident in which U.S. military made a strike in the Pakistani tribal area in the Bajaur area. This has happened before also, and there was some outrage in Pakistan that there was no remorse from the U.S. Government on the action. These actions, when they are taken, is it because the unilateral action that the folks on the other side do not trust their colleagues on the side of the border, or it is the timing, is it intelligence, or the lack of operational capabilities on the side on the Pakistani side, that such actions are taken? We are we are partners in the war against terrorists, some of whom tried to kill your ENTITY. We are allies, and we coordinate nor do we talk about sensitive antiterror operations. Of course, the United States mourns the loss of innocent life. ENTITY, in your speech, you also you spoke about importance of prosperity, and you talked about offering business industry in Pakistan. Do you have anything specific in mind, such as Pakistan has been trying for some time to get an FTA? First step is a BIT, and we will discuss that we will continue to discuss that. We discussed that during the Prime Minister's trip, and we will continue to pursue this avenue toward opening up additional opportunities, commercial opportunities between our respective countries. We think it makes sense to have a discussion. Such an agreement, if a commercial arrangement, investment arrangement would be beneficial not only to Pakistan but to Afghanistan as well. And so there is a variety of discussions we are having to continue to open up ways to encourage investment and commerce. I must I applaud the ENTITY's economic reform package. It is yielded some strong results. You know, one of the key things is that people see the benefits of democracy the tangible benefits of democracy, besides being able to express themselves. Today I also referred to the Pakistan press, you might recall. I think I referred to you as lively, meaning that at least the Pakistan press I have been exposed to has never been afraid to ask any questions, or never been intimidated, particularly with the open press conference. So I want to talk about reconstruction aid right quick before you finish. It is very important for the people of Pakistan to and this is where trade matters as well, and commerce matters as well, that they see that the United States is interested in the lives of the citizens.

Interview With Pakistani Journalists


You know, sometimes in the way things get reported, our policies get disconnected from people's lives improving. And we want that to happen, because a prosperous Pakistan is will be a great example, a country that believes in markets and educating people to fill the jobs of the 21st century, and a country that continues to deal with rules and regulations that make investment difficult at times, will show what is possible. When the disaster struck, it took our Government no time to move. And we moved a lot of equipment and a lot of manpower and a lot of aid, because we cared about the people that were suffering. I remember ENTITY Musharraf calling me on the phone at one point to thank me. And it was a genuine thanks, because we were as you know, we transferred a lot choppers, which were necessary to be able to move manpower and aid into remote regions of your country. He also asked, would we make sure that beyond the recovery effort, that there was a commitment to help rebuild. And the reason it is important for your readers to understand, I said, yes, because this country cares about the families whose lives were turned upside down by this disaster. When we heard 73,000 people lost their life, it touched our hearts and our conscience. When we realized over 2 million people lost their homes, we cared about those who had been displaced. And so our commitment is to the people of Pakistan, and it is a genuine, real, tangible commitment that the people of the country can see. I understand there is politics, and there is there is people expressing their opinions. But one thing they cannot argue with those who want to be critical of the United States cannot argue with a genuine, heartfelt commitment to the improvement of the lives of those folks in Pakistan who suffered a suffered mightily as a result of the natural disaster. We captured the top lot of the Al Qaida, and 300 Pakistani soldiers died. There is a lot of expectation in Pakistan you spoke about bilateral investment treaty and stuff, access to the market more on access to the market. Are we moving towards free trade? And that is very important folks not getting to the U.S. for education, and can you help us? A couple of points one, there is no question that the Musharraf Government is committed to working to get Al Qaida brought to justice. It was Al Qaida that tried to kill him more than one time.

Interview With Pakistani Journalists


Al Qaida does not care about the people of Pakistan. They do not care about helping people get a good education, realize the vast potential of Pakistan. They are there to create chaos and murder. And so I appreciate that, and I appreciate his firm resolve. Secondly, we have been there is a tangible benefit for the Government and the security of Pakistan in dealing with using sharing with, providing equipment. We resolved a long-simmering issue in the F-16s. I recognize it has been put on hold, but the Government's commitment is a real commitment. It changed policy, as you recall. It reversed something that took place in the past. The BIT is a beginning of it is a step toward what you talked about, advancing additional trading. I agree with you on the issue of education. First of all, there are a lot of Pakistan citizens here, and a lot of Pakistani Americans that are making vital contributions to our country, proud United States citizens who honor their heritage. I agree with you that there ought to be more student exchanges. But this is not an issue just for Pakistani students; this is an issue for students from other parts of the world as well. We had a very restrictive visa policy right after 9/11. It was a our visa policy was a natural reaction to a terrible event that took place. But by it did not take me long to realize that we were missing a great opportunity to have students from Pakistan see the real America. And there is no better place, no better way in many ways to see America than to come as a student, study at our institutions, but more importantly, interface with people the same age and realize that ours is an accepting culture. And we welcome Muslims. And we welcome people that may be different, and that there is no better ambassador for the American way of life and the attitudes the true attitudes of the American citizens than to have somebody here who has seen firsthand what America is like and then go back home. Word of mouth is a pretty significant antidote to some of the propaganda that is being played out for others to hear. And so I agree with you, and we are Condi Rice is very much involved with constantly revisiting the visa issue student visa issue, in particular, and not only encouraging students to come here, but once they are here, not making it difficult for them to complete their education. In other words, there are some restrictions even after the students got here.

Interview With Pakistani Journalists


Finally, we are also along these lines announced a very strong language initiative so that more people are capable of will be capable of conversing with people in parts of the world where, frankly, we have not had that much conversation in their native language all aimed at creating a hospitable world. One, we are proud of the Pakistani Americans who live here; two, we want this relation to continue on. And as I say, I am pleased with my personal relationship with ENTITY Musharraf. I try to put myself in his shoes. He is he is got a tough assignment. On the one hand, he is got people trying to kill him, and on the other hand, he is taking this country toward further down the road of democracy, and in so doing, is dealing with as we speak, dealing with people who are taking advantage of a free press. And as I mentioned to you, I understand why people are reacting to that. It is very important, however, that they react in a way that does honor to the process and not resort to violence and destruction and, in some countries, to death. See you all there, I hope. About the visit, can you state if you ever think of canceling the visit No, I am not going to never thought about canceling it. So we are a good word for the students, they may get visas? Well, I think we are working it very hard to make sure. I will pass this on to Condi when I talk to her just to make sure that she is she is constantly calibrating and looking at the issue. We hear believe we have had a lot of there are a lot of folks here that in America, and a lot of Embassies around the world hear from respective governments when there is backlogs and slowness. These voices that are concerned about whether or not there is access to our universities are heard loud and clear.  ENTITY, best antidote is exposing people to American people.

Interview With Pakistani Journalists


And it is a privilege having the opportunity to talk to you. I have got a couple of questions that I hope you have not heard thus far this morning. Yesterday it was announced that the First Lady was stepping aside as the administration's main point person on health care reform. Sir, is this a concession on your part that maybe she was just a little too visible in her efforts to get the health care package through Congress? What happened, I think keep in mind, we took this health care debate further than it had ever been taken in American history. For 60 years, Presidents have tried to solve the health care problem, to secure the health insurance of people who had it, and to cover help people who did not and to bring costs in line. And for 60 years, they failed because of the power of the organized health care interests. This is the first time we ever got a bill to both Houses of the Congress. We could have passed the bill this year if the Republicans had been willing to work with us in a bipartisan manner. But they abandoned their commitment to health care reform and decided to play politics with it instead. Are you going to let it rest for awhile, or are you going to go right back at it? No, we are going to try to what I have to do now is to figure out how we can go at it in a way that will make our plan less vulnerable to the $200 million or so that was spent to characterize it as a big Government plan that reduces choices for people who have health insurance. The truth is, our plan lets you keep what you have. It relies on private insurance, not the Government, and it protects people from losing their insurance. It covers people who do not . And then it gives small business people and farmers and individual people the opportunity to buy health care on the same basis as people who are in big businesses or Government. That is what we need to do. And I just need to go back at it in a way that is less vulnerable to the interest groups attacking it. But let me say, it is come out just since we stopped our health care efforts, because we could not pass it through Congress, another million Americans in working families lost their health insurance last year.

Interview With Jim Dunbar of KGO Radio, San Francisco, California


We are the only advanced country in the world, the only one, where people under the age of 65 are losing ground in health care coverage, where every year a lot of folks are paying more and more for less coverage, every year more and more people are losing their coverage. And we are also spending more for health care by far than anybody else. The money is going primarily to people in the middle, to clerical costs and insurance companies and what the doctors and hospitals and the others have to spend to keep up with the mindless paperwork of the way we finance the health care system. So we cannot walk away from it. It is killing the budget. It is bad for the economy. It is hurting working people. We are going to have to face up to it. I just have to find a way to do it that makes it less vulnerable to the insurance company attack that it is a big Government plan. ENTITY, I only have 5 minutes here, and I do have a couple more questions. You hear a charge in California we know you are heading here and going to be here over the weekend, and we are glad to have you but you hear a charge that Michael Huffington is buying his way into the Senate. But I point out that Dianne Feinstein, Senator Feinstein, has spent about $15 million in her efforts to keep that seat. And both would argue that they are doing it because the other fellow is. Is there some way we could put a cap on that so that being elected to Congress does not come down to the guy with the most money? But to be fair, Senator Feinstein's had to raise a lot of money because Mr. Huffington said he'd spend however much of his personal fortune he had to to buy the seat. And the really terrifying thing is that since people are awash in information these negative ads have an incredibly disproportionate influence over what they should. And people have no way of knowing whether the information's even true or not. I tried to pass a campaign finance reform bill through Congress, and the Republican Senators killed it at the end of the last legislative session. We could have had campaign finance reform, but they had the power to filibuster it, delay it, and kill it. The Supreme Court has said that we cannot legally stop a wealthy person from spending all the money that he or she wants on a campaign.


So the only way to discourage a wealthy person from doing that is to put limits on spending and then say if you go over these limits, we are going to set aside a fund, and your opponent gets a dollar for every dollar you spend over it. That would remove the incentive to do that and encourage people to be more efficient and to spend more time answering questions and being more positive. I mean, these campaigns have just turned into nothing more than multimillion dollar negativead slugfests, and they do not have very often they do not have a lot to do with what is going to happen the day after the election. I mean, I think the best case for Feinstein, for example, is that as far as I know, she is the only Senator in my lifetime who in only 2 years in the Senate, her first 2 years in the Senate, has sponsored three major legislative initiatives, the assault weapons ban, the requirement that there be a zero tolerance for kids having guns in schools, and the California desert bill, the biggest wilderness preserve in the history of the country. I know of no Senator in my lifetime who is done that. Now that, it seems to me, ought to be an argument for giving her a 6-year term. She did something in 2 years nobody else has ever done, and she ought to get 6 to keep on helping California. So to me I would like to see these races be more positive, talk about what ideas people have to build the future and help people and empower people to take responsibility for their lives. That seems to me to be what we ought to be talking about. We started our egg timer here 5 minutes ago, and it just went bing. And I agreed with your folks to let you go. You are welcome any time you have got a little time to devote to answering questions. You are welcome any time on KGO. I'd love to do that. I will be at the Kaiser Center in Oakland tomorrow at 2, and I hope some of your listeners will come out and see me.


You have been very busy these days; not much time for the saxophone, I guess, which happens to be my favorite instrument, by the way. I love it myself. I did get a chance to play a couple of weeks ago with a group that was in the White House, but I do not play enough. Well, your message seems to be getting pretty strong, seems to be playing pretty well with the American people. I see where your personal approval rating is up quite a bit, and Democrats in general seem to be a bit more secure for reelection. Well, I hope so, not for partisan reasons but because I think it is good for the country. You know, I came in with a commitment to try to make this country stronger, with more jobs and stronger families and safer streets and to make us stronger abroad. And we have still got some problems in this country, but we are plainly moving in the right direction. If you just take Delaware, for example, there have been 5 times as many new jobs coming to Delaware in 20 months of our Presidency as during the previous 4 years. And we were able to pass the family and medical leave law, which protected 147,000 families in Delaware, if a worker needs to take a little time off when there is a baby born or a parent sick. We have reorganized the student loan program to provide more affordable college loans to more middle class students. It made almost 42,000 students and former students in Delaware eligible for lower costs on their loans. So we are making progress. We passed the crime bill, thanks to Joe Biden's unbelievable leadership. And I have to say, that was an example of bipartisanship. You had Congressman Castle there coming in at the end and trying to help us to get through the crime bill. It is going to make a difference. It is going to empower local communities to reduce crime and violence. So we are moving in the right direction. And I do not want to see the country go backward in this election, even though there are a lot of people who are upset. I suppose you will be here to campaign for Attorney General Charles Oberly, trying to unseat Republican Senator Bill Roth. But Oberly is seen as something of an independent Democrat. No, I like Oberly. I think he is an exciting character to me. You know, the Democrats are not like the Republicans; we do not mind a little independence in our party. I think it is good for people to exercise independent judgment.

Interview With John Watson of WILM Radio, Wilmington, Delaware


I have just come from Iowa where a retiring Congressman, Republican Congressman Fred Grandy, was complaining about how the Republicans did not want any independence and that he pointed out how they were ordered not to work with me on health care. So I think Oberly has the kind of characteristics and character and ability and energy that would be very good at this time. Sir, what is your game plan, just in case the Republicans are successful, as they think they will be, and win control of the House? Could this work in your favor at all? Some people think it could work politically for me personally, but I am not interested in that. I am interested in moving our country forward. And the thing that bothers me is that the Republicans have committed to a program which would take us right back to the 1980's and what got us in trouble in the first place. I mean, their contract says that if they win control of the House and the Senate, they are going to they want to promise huge tax increases, almost all of it to wealthy individuals. They want to have an increase in defense again, and they want to bring back Star Wars. They promise to balance the budget. Now, one of two things that costs a trillion dollars. So if the Republicans get a hold of the Congress, one of two things is going to happen. They are going to do what they say, which means they will have to cut everything in the Federal Government besides defense and Star Wars by 20 percent, including Social Security We are almost out of time And on Social Security that is a lot. If they do not do that, they are going to explode the deficit, start shipping our jobs overseas again, like they did in the eighties, and we will be in big trouble. So I hope the American people will take a look at people like Oberly. He is an aggressive, independent, progressive person, the kind of person I think that can bring new ideas, new energy, and keep this country going forward, which is what I think we need to do. You are just about out of time, but you mentioned Congressman Castle is helping you. So how do you see the Republican Castle versus Democrat Carrie DeSantis? Well, I mentioned that Castle helped on the crime bill because I think it is important for me not to be as partisan as they have been, and I want to give him credit for that. But the reason that I am supporting the Democrats in these races is that even Mike Castle voted against our economic plan.


It sounds like you are having a nice time back there watching the game. I cannot hear you, I am sorry. We made a lot of unforced errors, and as you were saying, UCLA had very quick hands. They played great defense, and I am looking forward to an exciting second half. But you have got to give it to UCLA. They played great defense, and they got a lot of very good shots on offense. I know you have tried to watch a few of Arkansas' games this season. Do you have any fingernails left? The games have been such nail-biters throughout the tournament. Yes, they always give us a lot of thrills. Basketball is exciting enough on its own, but they give us a little extra every game. We try to have a cardiologist at every watching party that we have. ENTITY, ENTITY Did you fill out your brackets this year? Did you get a chance to fill out the brackets at the beginning of the tournament? But I would have been wrong on all accounts except I expected these two teams to be in the finals. ENTITY, we know you are very athletic and earlier this week, on Friday I think, you were in Haiti. And we have some film, a tape of you shooting buckets out there on the grass with some of our good troops down there. And there you put up a bank shot. I do not know if you called it or not. You have got to call that one. Then you shot around at Arkansas State with Arthur Agee, from the documentary film Hoop Dreams. And ENTITY, who you rooted against last year, is going to go over your form on this. He is going to telestrate your form. This is his chance to get even. ENTITY, I am sure you are accustomed to some criticism, so I am going to critique you. And he puts it through. What do you think, ENTITY? What do you think? I think the feet were on the floor. You know, quite honestly, sir, what did you take away from your visit with Arthur Agee today? And I what I took away from it is, here is a young fellow that made up his mind he was going to make something of his life and try to live out his dream. He is committed to continuing his education until he gets his degree. He still wants to play pro basketball. But whatever happens to him, he is going to have a good life.

Interview With Pat O'Brien, Mike Krzyzewski, and Quinn Buckner of CBS Sports


ENTITY, as we speak to you in the Oval Office, you are really one of only two individuals that can view the Presidency through your dad's eyes and your own. What has surprised you about this job? I agonized for my dad. When they would say things about him that I did not think were fair, I agonized, because I love him so much. I mean I would get angry at whoever said it and, you know; anyway, I was frustrated. ENTITY is a much different role, and therefore, I mean, I understand it comes with the job when people say things about you. And so we have got kind of a role reversal. My dad agonizes when he reads stuff about me. So I found that being ENTITY is actually easier than being the son of the President in many ways. You took the job with a Florida recount, a shortened transition period, and as you reflect on that time 8 years ago, were you in any way at a disadvantage in taking over this office? I do think it-the Florida recount set kind of an ugly mood amongst some in the electorate. In other words, the election was-in their minds, was in doubt. That made it harder to come as a-to unify the country after the election. In terms of the transition, we had-I had a lot of experienced people that were ready to hit the ground. And they did a remarkable job of getting us ready to assume office when we did. Right. And this is an idea that President-elect Obama suggested here in the Oval Office when he came to visit me. And I am going to follow up on it. I will be the host, and I am looking forward to it. What will you talk about? I am sure he is going to ask us all questions, I would guess; if not, we will just share war stories. Will you deliver a farewell address in this office? Yes, I am thinking about it. I am thinking about it. A lot of Presidents have, and I am giving it serious thought. If I give it, it is going to be trying to leave behind some lessons learned. Well, let me share with you what two former Presidents have said. Crises will continue; . In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. And then he talked about the industrial-military complex.

Interview With Steve Scully of C-SPAN


And obviously, each farewell address is going to be tailored to the circumstances under which the President had to make decisions. And I suspect if I do one, and I really have not figured it out yet, but I have talked to a speechwriter about-should I decide to do it, what would we say? And one thing, of course, is going to be we have to be vigilant and cannot let our guard down, because a terrorist threat still exists. Ronald Reagan had said, Are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? In his statement of saying there is a great tradition of Presidential warnings as they leave the White House. I have not really viewed the farewell address in terms of Presidential warnings, but I can-it makes sense to say, I have learned this, and I wish my successor all the best, and America needs to be on the lookout. One option for me is to talk about isolationism and protectionism, and that it is very important for us to resist those isms. The world needs our presence. The people dying of ENTITY on the continent of Africa need a robust response by the United States to save lives. We need voices calling upon coalition members to stay in the fight against the terrorists. And protectionism is rearing its ugly head; witness the fact that we had trouble getting good free trade agreements through the Congress with Panama and Colombia and South Korea. And so maybe that is what I will warn about as well. How should we use former Presidents? How do you want to be used, in what capacity, as you leave this office? One thing I do not want to do is stay on the stage. The spotlight needs to shift to President-elect Obama, and it needs to stay on President-elect Obama, because he is the President. And therefore, I will not try to get it to shift to me. And I will be very respectful of him during his Presidency. I think each President is going to have to chart his own way. I am going to build a policy institute at Southern Methodist to talk about, for example, the isms -isolationism and protectionism, and the need to resist them-or the transformative power of freedom. President-elect Obama, I am confident, will call upon Presidents to take on a mission. I will be happy to do it, particularly if I agree with the mission.

Interview With Steve Scully of C-SPAN


For example, I asked Dad and President Clinton to help on the tsunamis. But, you know, each role will be defined according to the comfort level of the ex-President. Are there some things that you want in your library? Well, I do want to have a policy center. You mean in terms of how it is going to function? There will be the classic library, you know, rotating exhibitions to keep it relevant so people will be interested in it. They tell me that we moved 25,000 boxes full of files and memos, and I think they said, like, 30 million e-mails-or 300 million e-mails. I mean, a huge number of e-mails; none of which are mine, by the way, since I have not been e-mailing. And this is a place of debate, discussion, a place to herald freedom, a place to continue some of the initiatives that we have started, like the malaria initiative on the continent of Africa, or PEPFAR. And Laura is going to be wanting to be involved with women's movements around the world, the freedom movement in Burma. And that-the policy center and the museum are going to take a lot of time. You have had a tough couple of years. Most second Presidents have had tough second terms. Well, in my case, I was a wartime ENTITY, and war is very exhausting. War is hard for a country. And you know, I made the decision that we were going to win. And there has been some critical moments where I guess I could have taken the popular way out and retreated, like in 2006, but instead went with 30,000 more troops, because I felt strongly that defeat in Iraq would be terrible for the security of the country, it would be terrible for the morale of the military, and it would be really hard for me, the Commander in Chief, to face a mother who lost a son in combat. The other part of my Presidency that is been hard is we have had, you know, huge economic turmoil recently. But it is happening, and therefore, I have made the decision not to let there be a massive collapse, which would hurt the average guy in the street. And what is hard about this one is, a hard-working taxpayer is making his mortgage, wonders why ENTITY is using his money to save firms that got a little over-got a little excessive in their desire to make money. And I understand that complaint.

Interview With Steve Scully of C-SPAN


And my answer, of course, is, is that if I thought they could fail without causing the average guy real economic hardship, I'd have let them. Anyway, so it has been a-it is been an interesting Presidency from that perspective. the auto industry. Are you looking for concessions from the unions in order to try to figure out how this is all going to come together? Yes, you see, there is two principles that is driving me on this. In other words, I am concerned about a shock to the system. I am also concerned about putting good money after bad. And therefore, it is going to be very important that whatever we do, that there be a plan that the autos-that would be management as well as dealers as well as labor-show how they could be viable for the future. You know, this is just a very difficult economic time for the country. I am concerned about joblessness. But I made the decision that my team and myself will not let the economy go down. When you took office, did you expect to have the biggest expansion of the Federal Government under your watch? I knew the mandatory spending-that would be Social Security and Medicare-were going to rise substantially because baby boomers like me were getting ready to retire. I did not realize we'd be in war and-because, you know, the attacks of September the 11th came out of nowhere. But once we were in war, I darn sure was going to make our troops-make sure our troops had what they need to succeed. And most of the growth in non-entitlement spending came on the military and homeland side. And you bet I was going to fund the troops, and you bet we are going to make sure the homeland is protected. Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan in their 8 years used the veto pen three or four or five times as often as you have. You have used it about a dozen times. Well, primarily because I was working with people in my own party. In other words, for the first 4 years of my Presidency-see, up to '06, we ran the Congress, except in the beginning. And so therefore, I would sit down with colleagues-not colleagues, but party members and friends, and we'd work out our issues. And we got a lot done that I was satisfied with. Toward the end I had to veto because I did not agree with what Congress was doing.

Interview With Steve Scully of C-SPAN


And one area where it was very difficult for me was on the budget. See, you sit here in the Oval Office, and we'd agree with the-I'd agree with the Speaker and the leader of the Senate on the size of the pie. Here is what we need to spend, and here is this much for military and this much for education, this much for health. We all agreed to that. The problem was the slices of the pie got to be a problem because of earmarks. But I did not have the line-item veto. And therefore, once you agree to the size of the pie, you are pretty well stuck with what is in the pie until ENTITY gets the line-item veto. In terms of the institutions, do you think that the checks and balance work between this end of Pennsylvania Avenue and the other end? I mean-and there is constant back and forth between the executive branch and the legislative branch, and of course, the judiciary weighs in a lot. But yes, we got a great system. How often, if at all, do you talk to the Supreme Court Justices? You know, Laura and I hosted a dinner for the Justices and their spouses and-but yes, I may see them socially or, you know, at some of these banquets that you go to where the comedian makes fun of ENTITY, then ENTITY makes fun of himself, and everybody has a jolly time, except ENTITY. But yes, the Justices will be at some of these dinners, and I will just chitchat with them, but never talk policy, of course, with them. First of all, do you watch the programs? And have the media treated you fairly? I mean, I will tell you, my relationship with the media is-with the individuals in the media has been very good. Of course, I read what is written, and I, a lot of times, do not like what is written. Then I realize they may not like what I am saying. But I have no complaints. In other words, I am not one of these guys who'll say, Oh, man, everybody misunderstood me because of the media. I am a little disappointed at some of the platforms that encouraged harsh rhetoric. And there is a-it seems like to me that there is such competition for air space that some people feel like if they can yell louder, with harsher rhetoric, then they will get noticed.

Interview With Steve Scully of C-SPAN


And the tone has not been good in Washington, and I have been disappointed in that, and I bear some of the blame for that. I am optimistic that we can change the tone in Washington. I believe things happen for a reason, and I hope the long wait of the last 5 weeks will heighten a desire to move beyond the bitterness and the partisanship. That was a hopeful person saying that. In other words, the tone did not -it changed some initially. Remember, we got No Child Left Behind done; we got some-we worked together on PEPFAR. I mean, this is a- some people here in this town use the politics of personal destruction to advance their agenda. But no, I was hoping for a better tone, and it did not happen. So what would you tell President-elect Obama? He will have a Democrat in the House and the Senate, like you did in 2001, and he is talked about trying to unite the country again. I wish him all the best. He may be in a position-maybe he will not have to deal with quite as contentious as issues as I did, or maybe he will, who knows. He came in with a strong vote, and he is got good majorities in the House and Senate, and maybe he will get some things done. You have talked about your faith. In those quiet moments of prayer, do you want to share what you are thinking about, what you are praying for? Probably not, but I can tell you the effects of prayer have made this a very-my life is joyous, believe it or not; some days happy, some days not happy, every day joyous. I pray for a lot of things. I mean, I pray for my-I pray for strength, and I pray for comfort; I pray for friends; I pray for my family's safety. My relationship with the Almighty is a very personal relationship, as is yours. Do you think this job has aged you? I do not know, what do you think? I mean, I think I am wiser, and that I have seen a lot more. But you tell me, has it aged me? I cannot -I am not one of these guys that kind of, you know-- You are biking on weekends. Would you say you are among the healthiest Presidents to serve in this job? Would I say that? So how do you do it?

Interview With Steve Scully of C-SPAN


I work out every day except for one day, and I make sure my scheduler knows this. Early on in the Presidency I said, I want time to work out, because I think it is -I know part of being a-doing this job is to be a disciplined person. Like, I start meetings on time; I end them on time. I have got a routine that obviously varies depending on the moment, but a routine that is pretty well set. You know, I get here early in the morning and meet with the Chief of Staff and the National Security Adviser, then meet with the intelligence people. And the reason why is, is that I think it is important for ENTITY to be predictable among the people with whom he works, so that there is not a sloppiness in the organization. And anybody can find time to exercise if they put their mind to it. What in your life created the schedule that you now carry out? I was undisciplined at times. But you know, I used to drink too much, which is a sign of being undisciplined. And it took discipline to quit and maybe a little help from a higher authority. But I was not a knee-walking drunk, but I was-you know, I was drinking, and alcohol was beginning to compete for my affections. One night I had too much to drink in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and have not had a drink since. I do not know where it comes from, maybe my mom and dad. I have not sat around and tried to figure it out; I can just tell you it is true. How much time do you spend reading? I do not really watch a lot of TV, in all due respect. Of course, if I did, I'd be watching you. But I read a lot. I read a lot on airplanes; I read a lot upstairs at the White House; I read on the exercise bicycle. What do you take away from books? I mean, how do you translate what you read into how you make decisions or how you go about your business? Well, sometimes books are just to escape, like mysteries, and it is just a chance to get your mind off the moment. Sometimes I read books to-a lot of history books, and I can take lessons away from the books, like Abraham Lincoln. I just finished a James McPherson book on Abraham Lincoln and his relationship with his generals, which is an interesting topic for a Commander in Chief.

Interview With Steve Scully of C-SPAN


One of the lessons of Abraham Lincoln that all Presidents ought to understand, particularly at times of war, is that the President must pay attention to the troops. And Lincoln went out of his way to be with the sergeants and the enlisted personnel as well as the generals. And he-you know, he visited the wounded a lot, and he visited with widows a lot. And it is a good lesson for any President. And the lesson is, pay attention to your military and work with your military and show your military that you care for them. And you go to a hospital and see these wounded kids and word gets out all across the-you know, all across the system, where-and I have met with a lot of the families of the fallen, which is my duty, but I think the troops appreciate that, that ENTITY cares enough about their comrades' families that he would meet with them. And yes, it is an interesting experience to do that. The comforter in chief is the person who usually gets comforted. You have had a number of events here as we begin to commemorate the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's bicentennial. His picture is here, obviously, his bust in this office. That is one example about the Lincoln Presidency. But what else in the 17 or 18 books that you have read on Lincoln do you take away from what he meant for this office and the country? Well, he spoke with moral clarity on certain truths. And one basic truth was, all men are created equal under God; 1864, he could have easily have said, well, maybe not all of us are created equal. But Lincoln spoke with certainty. And I think Presidents need to do that, need to speak moral truth, have a set of principles that are inviolate. Why do I have to carry this burden? And first of all, I do not believe it is a burden to be ENTITY. I do not believe there is -it is not a burden to deal with problems. But Lincoln keeps things in perspective. If you think you got a lousy time, think about what Abraham Lincoln went through. 600,000 people died; he lost his son up-stairs-Willie died in the White House; his wife was not happy. And yet he was a man who stuck to principles and stayed strong and died not having any earthly idea of where his standing would be in history.

Interview With Steve Scully of C-SPAN


My question is, whether it is Scott McClellan or Paul O'Neill or others, does that affect the way a President deals with his Cabinet, his staff, and does that worry you? It is interesting you said that. That is a very interesting question, because I had staff members walk up to me and say, How can you trust me? Trust is a very important part of the White House. Every President is going to have to deal with that. And it is essential that the President assure the people-and when these books come out, assure the people here that- I trust you a lot. And I think my words calmed some of the folks I work with down, that they did not feel alienated. First person who is asked me that. In our remaining minute, let me ask you about this office. It is based upon a Methodist hymn called A Charge To Keep I Have, that was sung when I was first inaugurated Governor of Texas. And my friend O'Neil, Joe I. O'Neil, from Midland, Texas, said, I got a painting based upon that hymn. Would you like to use it? And I looked at it and said, absolutely. It is by W.H.D. Koerner. The thing about O'Neil that is important is he introduced me and Laura in his backyard. He and Jan had a little barbeque out there, and there was two other guests, me and Laura. The importance of that painting is that it is obviously a religious painting. And I tell people ENTITY should never promote a religion. But ENTITY always ought to jealously guard and defend the right for anybody to worship or not worship, that we are all equal, if we are Hindu, Jew, Muslim. The greatness about America is you can choose and worship the way you want to worship. I entertain people here quite a bit. I said, What are you talking about? Well, it turns out the Resolute is famous in National Treasure, which I have not seen yet. But it is even more famous because Presidents have used it. Roosevelt put the door on there. Out the door John-John Kennedy poked his head in the most famous Oval Office photo. And President Reagan put the bottom there to lift it up. The desk was given to us by Queen Victoria. The wood is from a ship called the Resolute, HMS Resolute, that we rescued in the Arctic.

Interview With Steve Scully of C-SPAN


Right now, I'd like to bring in the Speaker of the House, ENTITY. thank you so much for joining us and, I want to say thank you. You set aside $322 billion in emergency loans for small businesses. People across this country need it. But, already today, the head of the Consumer Bankers Association said that we would need a trillion dollars to meet small business demand. Well, this is $322 billion on top of the $350 that we had done a couple of weeks before. I think it is all in the execution. As the Secretary of the Treasury says, let us see how this works and where our needs are. But first, let me just say, watching your report and the rest, how much we pray for everyone in our country, those who have lost their lives. When businesses are opening, I think that is unfortunate because we are not protecting the investment that we have made, but that is a choice. And I pray for those people, too, that they do not get sick. And we have the lives at stake and we have the livelihoods at stake. the entrepreneurship of America, the optimism of it all, the courage to start a small business. And we really need to help them. So, we are all committed to that. We were very pleased in our last bill that we expanded that opportunity. The so-called underbanked, those who would have less possibility of being first in line with some of the banks. And so, in any event, let us see how this goes. But, we have to do other things. It is about jobs, jobs, jobs. And the issue is that we have to have state and local. the health care workers, the first responders, police, fire, emergency services, people transportation, food, the postal service and the rest. Those are jobs, too, and when you open up your business, you want to have customers. You can have the rent paid and employees paid and electricity - the utility bill paid, but you still have to have customers. So, we want to, again, make sure that these people who are risking their lives to save other people's lives are not risking their jobs as well because the state and localities cannot pay them. It is not about bureaucracy. It is about delivery of service to the American people. So, we want to have a vitality throughout our economy. We may have to think in terms of some different ways to put money in people's pockets.

Transcript of Pelosi Interview on MSNBC's Live with Stephanie Ruhle


But we know that the needs are massive in terms of economically. From a health perspective, we are preparing people to live without a vaccine for a year, but from an economic perspective, look at PPP. Even with all this money, we are only creating solutions for two months. Two months from now, when the majority of these businesses do not open back up, then what? Well, I think we should extend the time. I think we should extend the time. I think what you suggest makes all the sense in the world. what is operational and what needs other attention. Others have suggested a minimum income for - a guaranteed income for people. Is that worthy of attention now? Perhaps so, because there are many more people than just in small business and hired by small business, as important as that is to the vitality of our economy. And other people who are not in the public sector, you know, meeting our needs in so many ways, that may need some assistance as well. But we are talking about the lives of the American people. And, again, the pull and push of should we open up or not, if it jeopardizes the lives of the American people, we have to handle it with care. What is the execution of it? And what is - what are we getting our money's worth on? I think we have to look at that, too. With all the best intentions in the world, but nonetheless, we want the money to go where it needs. there are three things that I hear from the American people, from - by way of my constituents, but also the constituents of hundreds of Members of Congress. They know they are risking their lives to save other lives and, now, they are risking their jobs, as I mentioned. Secondly, they want their check. They want their direct payment check, their unemployment check or they want their small business - their PPP check. They want their check. And, third, they do not want any of this hundreds of billions of dollars that we are injecting into the economy, that some of which goes to major corporations, any of that money to be use for anything other than keeping people in their jobs. They do not want any buybacks, corporate whatever, dividends, bonuses, CEO pay, the rest of that. That really angers the American people. It is sort of a hangover from the Great Recession. So, it is important that we have oversight to see exactly how all of this is spent.


Not in a pointing a blame - point the fingers, but just to make sure everybody knows that there will be transparency and there will be accountability. I agree with you wholeheartedly, but then I have to impress upon you, it is the government's responsibility to do that. As it relates to PPP, it is the media who has outed all of these companies who took the money. It was the media who talked about hedge funds and private equity firms and law firms taking the money. The government sets the rules, ma'am. And we passed the law, but the Executive branch puts forth the advisories and the regulation. So, when I suggested to the Secretary of the Treasury some of the concerns we have about what you have just described, he said, 'Well, I am the one who put out the list. They would not have known that had I not put out the list.' So, I guess that was his way of saying, 'Let us all take a look at this as we go forth.' They make a world of difference, life and death to the survival of a company, for some companies, and others really do not need it that much. And we have to take a look at how banks are compensated. They get a higher percentage for a small loan. But if you get five percent on a $50,000 loan, that is a lot less than getting one percent on a $5 million loan, and again, is that right? And others - just to subject everything to the scrutiny that needs to be done for the taxpayer dollars and how they are spent. I think we have to do what we need to do. Others are talking about the deficit - 'Oh, the national debt.' Well, they never talked about the national debt when they spent nearly $2 trillion for a tax bill to get 83 percent of the benefits to the top one percent in our country. I do not like building the national debt, but a lot of what we are doing is stimulus. Food stamps are stimulus, even though we cannot get them to agree with us on that. Then let us break down all of these issues because the idea last week that angered so many people was that bigger companies with other access to capital were using PPP. But the idea of PPP is the Paycheck Protection Program, and if you no longer want some of these larger businesses in there, what are you going to do, A, to help them?


And, B, you know they are going to lay off thousands and thousands of workers, especially restaurant chains. Well, look, I come from a city of San Francisco. Hospitality - we have a diversity in our economy in San Francisco, hospitality being a very important part of it. But it is important in many places throughout the country, actually throughout the whole country as I am finding out. And we really do have to address that, as if they are not being able to get the same kind of small business loan, perhaps in some cases, again, as you said, we have to extend the time. But in some cases, we have to also perhaps expand it to 1,000 people rather than just 500. That would help some non-profits, which we hope would be able to participate in all of this. But they are larger in number and lower in pay that they pay people. There is some limitations on what can be done in that regard. I have spoken to the Chairman of the Fed about that and, of course, to the Secretary of the Treasury. where are these dollars are going and what is it in there that is, in a sense of decency, that the banks and the bigger businesses who really do not need it have deeper pockets, a longer survival capacity than some of the small businesses which will be gone, as you said, longer than two months. Many of them will disappear, never to return from what they are telling me. So again, we all join together for PPP. We believe in that, but, again, we want to make sure it works. If we scrutinize it after the fact when time is so essential, we could lose businesses, and right now we are arguing over which businesses need it most. With the exception of just very few businesses, most industries across the country are in desperate need. Do we have to start to focus and say, does the federal government need to just take over payroll, create mortgage deferment or just say we need to create a national economic holiday until it is safe? Because right now, we are bickering over who is suffering more. I think it is a legitimate discussion of, again, when we passed - I saw you had the leader of their Floor debate on our bill we passed the other day, on there saying, 'We could have done this two weeks ago.' They could have agreed to the additional - they had $250 . We brought it up to $480 .


And when we brought it up to $480 , it had $100 billion for hospitals and testing in there, which is essential to our opening up. But we also had $120 billion for smaller businesses, which are getting left in the shade, and that just was not right. So, it is not a question of bickering. It is about establishing priorities, and we have a differences between our parties. The gentleman that you interviewed, Mr. Brady, he said on the Floor of the House, 'We could have done this two weeks ago, except they had extracurricular stuff.' Extracurricular stuff? 120 billion for small businesses, more in terms of the EIDL loans, which are flying out the door because they are easier to get for businesses. They have a longer - a long-term and a low interest rate, so they are very appealing. And the grants and aid that never do have to be paid back, in addition to $250 billion more for PPP. So, we have to be smart about this. What they rejected two weeks before, they passed unanimously in the Senate and overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan way, in the House. Every bill we have passed has been bipartisan, but we have had to make the case about lower-income, smaller businesses, again, women, minority - we do not want to put any - prioritize anybody over anybody else because it is about jobs. You know it is about jobs. No matter where you work, it is about jobs. So, if that business needs the infusion to keep people on the job, then that is what this is about. But it also has to not ossify any disparity of access to credit in our country, which does exist. So, we want everybody to enjoy the vitality of it all. you had said on Friday that you were disappointed that the banks did not act as better stewards. Banks are going to protect themselves because that is what they have to do, and they asked the government to release them of some of their risk review requirements because, if what the banks did was give loans very quickly to borrowers who they did not know, if those were not good loans, those banks could be on the hook months from now. If the government wanted it done differently, why would not the government do it itself? The IRS, they know how to collect our money. They could give the money out.


Well, it was a decision that Secretary of the Treasury made to go through the banks for facilitation, that perhaps it would be faster to do than to go through a SBA - a Small Business Administration process. In my - I do not want banks to be made villains in this. They are facilitators, and this should be something we go forward with in a very positive way. It is interesting, though, that they make a lot of money off of it and, therefore, it could affect their behavior in all of it. But what I had said is, with the fact the SBA has kissed this loan, there is no risk. And as well as the Fed enabling them to not have this count. If I may, the reason for the delay, if I may, the reason for the delay, the banks need to do a risk review process. After they do that, they then go to the SBA. One of the main reasons for the hold-up, banks did not have to do a very long risk review for clients that they already knew. That is one of the reasons it went so quickly. For new borrowers, it took some more time. So they are on the hook before they go to the SBA. These banks lived through this in 2008. They did not make good decisions and they paid for it after. If they did that again, they'd get annihilated. Well, I would say that in 2008, they were part of the problem. I do not see that this time. But let me say that that is why it was hard to understand why our Republican colleagues were not embracing our initiative of $60 billion that would go to community development financial institutions. So those institutions who know the neighborhood, who know the community, know the customers, know the businesses, know the culture would be able to make loans, smaller loans, into the community. I thought it was really something that they would welcome because, therefore, those who know that community better would be meeting their needs. Will they get to go before the big banks to make sure the money goes to the small borrowers? And the Secretary has been very - working very hard in my view, when I talked to him about it, he said, 'We are working it, we are working it.' So that these portals, or whatever, are for that community. The $250 is already going to the PPP. This is additional and specific to that community.


But also, $50 billion in EIDL loans, the Emergency Injury Loans, and that is $50 billion leveraged to over $300 billion in loans. No matter how big you are or how small you are, people like the long-term, low interest and the immediacy of getting that. So, that was a very important part of this as well. And then we have the grants that every small business can apply for. But you have said it very clearly. Is it number of employees? Is it length of time? Is it in terms of non-profits, the 501, , ? Let us see how we can expand this. Because we could actually, with the combination of all of these things, be reaching maybe 90-something percent of all the small businesses in America. And that would be a wonderful thing because, again, the entrepreneurship, the vitality, the courage, the optimism to start a small business. And then people have them for a number of years and then you see their hopes just fade because of something so beyond their control. So, make no mistake, this is central. That is why we made it the centerpiece of the first - of the first distribution of funds into the business community. We also had a big program for those aerospace industry, airline industry, which, again, in order to keep people on the job, they received - the Secretary has the discretion to spend a great deal of money there, but we do not want to see any of that money squandered on anything other than job retention because that is what the point of all of this is. And that is how people are going to be able to spend in the economy, have consumer confidence, be able to meet the needs of their families, as we deal with the suffering that is going with this. So, in this next bill, we will be supporting vote by mail in a very important way. We think it is a health issue, at this point. And I did not want to leave this conversation without mentioning the importance of the life, the livelihood - the life of our people, the livelihood of themselves and our economy and the life of our democracy. American business needs it. I appreciate all that everyone in our government is doing right now to help us in this trying time. Well, thank you for your objective view of it all because that is all very helpful.


As the country knows, we are in a great deal of turmoil. When you think about the names of Mike Brown, of Tamir Rice, of Eric Gardner, and even now of this young man in Phoenix, the country is concerned about can we trust police, are we safe with police. My first question for you is, in the midst of this and all that is going on you did not start this. This problem did not begin under your watch. But how much of it does your administration feel you are responsible for making an impact on? Well, I think an enormous amount. Not just because, as President, you are always responsible for what happens in this country and you have got to be part of the solution, not part of the problem, but because of my particular experiences that I bring to this office. I had a group of young people come before we met, a wider group of civil rights leaders and law enforcement. Most of them were somewhere between 18 and 25. A couple of them were from Ferguson. And when they described their own personal experiences of having been stopped for no reason, or having generated suspicion because they were in a community that supposedly they did not belong, my mind went back to what it was like for me when I was 17, 18, 20. And as I told them, not only do I hear the pain and frustration of being subjected to that kind of constant suspicion, but part of the reason I got into politics was to figure out how can I bridge some of those gaps and understanding so that the larger country understands this is not just a black problem or a brown problem, this is an American problem. So we take this very seriously. Eric Holder obviously takes it seriously. He is got a similar set of stories and experiences he can share. And in some ways, we have made progress over the last six years on a wide range of criminal justice issues, making sure that we looked at how are drug laws being enforced; making sure that we are shifting how at least federal prosecutors think about the charges they bring against low-level drug offenders. And we have had some success. I mean, that is part of the reason why we have seen, last year, for the first time in 40 years, the incarceration rate in federal prisons actually went down 10 percent at the same time that crime was still going down by 10 percent. And that showed we can have good policing and good law enforcement and be fair and be smart.

Interview with Jeff Johnson of Black Entertainment Television


But the fact is that what we have seen now on videotape because it used to be folks would say, well, maybe blacks are exaggerating, maybe some of these situations are not what they describe. But we have now seen on television, for everybody to see. It gives us an opportunity I think to finally have the kind of conversation that is been a long time coming. And with that conversation, I think JFK said that those who stand in the way of peaceful revolution make for violent revolution inevitably. He was not talking about the states, but it is relevant now. And so how necessary are the protests that we are seeing all over the country? How necessary are they to the process of moving the ball, the policy ball, the legislative ball? Absolutely. And that is why I had them in the Oval Office, some of these folks who've been organizing these protests. Because the old adage, power concedes nothing without a fight I think that is true. But what is also true is that a country's conscience sometimes has to be triggered by some inconvenience, because I think a lot of people who saw the Eric Garner video are troubled, even if they have not had that same experience themselves. I think there are a lot of good, well-meaning people I think there are probably a lot of police officers who might have looked at that and said, that is a tragedy what happened, and we have got to figure out how to bring an end to these kinds of tragedies. And the value of peaceful protests, activism, organizing is it reminds the society this is not yet done. And part of what I said when we convened a meeting on Monday here at the White House was not only that I was announcing a task force that has to report in 90 days with specific, concrete steps around training, around how we are equipping police, how we are holding police officers more accountable, not only were we going to put more funding into some of the training and technology that can prevent these things from happening, but I am going to stay on this. And not only am I going to stay on it; by virtue of this staying in the news because of some of these protests, hopefully the entire society says let us finally try to make some real progress on this. And progress means different things to different people. So there are those that want body cameras. There are those who want civilian review boards. And much of this is not a federal mandate.


Most of it is not federal, but the federal government can have an influence. We fund a lot of jurisdictions all across the country. And if we can identify best practices, then for us to be able to say, you need to adopt these best practices, and if you do not , then perhaps some of the funding that is available around some things that law enforcement cares about become less available. We are going to provide more to folks who are doing the right thing and we are going to be investigating folks who are not doing the right thing. I think that becomes an important part of the leverage that we can exert. And does that happen through federal legislation, or does that happen through utilizing the DOJ as a we saw Eric Holder in Cleveland yesterday, and the decision, the supervision agreement I think was a good one that said to the city of Cleveland, here is what you have been doing wrong, systemically, and now we are going to hold you accountable. Let us look at what the task force generates. I mean, I have confidence we have got a police chief, we have got a criminologist, we have got civil rights leaders, we have got activists as part of this task force process. Let us see the specifics that they generate. But I will tell you that the Department of Justice already has authority. So in the Eric Garner case, Eric Holder, I think properly, said we are going to initiate a civil rights investigation. We already have the ability to take a look. Now, the standards at the federal level are higher, and there are so many local municipalities, local police departments that doing it at the local level, doing it at the state level is going to be a lot more effective, because to bring federal cases, it is a high bar. It is got to be not just something that happened where there is some questions; there is got to be a sense that maybe justice has not been served by the existing process at the state and local levels. But I think that everybody should feel confident that this Justice Department is taking this very seriously, has taken it very seriously. What I'd like to do, though, is to change what happens on the ground, because that is going to be more lasting. And I will just give you a couple examples.


When I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we had problems with racial profiling when it came to traffic stops, and we had problems repeatedly with confessions in crimes that later on there were suggestions maybe they had been coerced. So two of the things I am most proud of was passing a law requiring videotaping of interrogations so that my argument was this protected the police as well as the accused because there is not going to be any question. If they confessed, it is all there on tape. If they did not , then the suggestion that they did is not going to make sense either. On racial profiling, it was a simple matter of just keeping data. You have to record who it is that you are stopping. The minute somebody knows they are being watched, somebody is looking over their shoulder, then they are a little more intentional about is this a legitimate stop? Is this a stop that I am making because somebody is really breaking the law, or because I just do not like the looks of the person who is driving through this neighborhood? And what we saw was not only a reduction in the disparity on traffic stops, but my argument, again, to the police department was, this will make you a more effective police force, because instead of wasting your time with folks who should not be stopped you can focus on the folks who should be stopped. And one of the things that I want us to make sure we understand is that, communities of color need good law enforcement. I mean, there is a lot of crime, and one of the things that we talked about on Monday here was you have got young people who end up getting caught between police that they do not trust and folks on the streets who are trying to rough them up. And they should have confidence that the police are on their side. And if they have that confidence then the police are going to have an easier time doing their job, and they are more likely to come home safe. And when they do not have that confidence and we are seeing that with young people all over the country. There are a lot of people that in many cases do not think that you have been aggressive enough in talking about the numbers of African American men that are overwhelmingly shot versus white. Are there ever times when the responsibilities and obligations of President get in the way of how you want to respond as a human?


Well, sometimes people's concerns are not based on fact, because if you look at after what happened with Michael Brown, if you looked at what happened after Trayvon, if you looked at the decision after Eric Garner, I am being pretty explicit about my concern, and being pretty explicit about the fact that this is a systemic problem, that black folks and Latinos and others are not just making this up. I describe it in very personal terms. I think what sometimes people are frustrated by is me not simply saying, this is what the outcome should have been. And that I cannot do, institutionally. It is my Justice Department that is investigating these cases. And part of the rule of law is that I am not putting my fingers, my thumb on the scale of justice. And it could compromise investigations if it appeared that I was trying to steer to a particular outcome. So I am sure that there is some folks who just want me to say, in such-and-such a case, this is what I think should have happened, and if I had been on a grand jury this is what I would have said, and so forth and so on. I will leave it to people to speculate on what I am saying to myself or Michelle when were alone at night. But what I can say is that this country is at its best when everybody is being treated fairly. We have a history and a legacy of people not being treated fairly in all kinds of walks of life. It is particularly important for people to feel like they are being treated fairly by law enforcement and police, because the consequences when they are not treated fairly can be deadly. The vast majority of law enforcement officers are doing a really tough job, and most of them are doing it well and are trying to do the right thing. But a combination of bad training, in some cases; a combination in some cases of departments that really are not trying to root out biases, or tolerate sloppy police work; a combination in some cases of folks just not knowing any better, and in a lot of cases, subconscious fear of folks who look different all of this contributes to a national problem that is going to require a national solution. And when I told the young people who I met with and we are going to have more conversations like this over the coming months is this is not going to be solved overnight. This is something that is deeply rooted in our society; it is deeply rooted in our history.


But the two things that are going to allow us to solve it number one is the understanding that we have made progress. And if you talk to your parents, grandparents, uncles, they will tell you that things are better. And the reason it is important for us to understand progress has been made is that then gives us hope that we can make even more progress. The second thing that I insist of these young people is we have to be persistent, because typically progress is in steps, it is in increments. When you are dealing with something as deeply rooted as racism or bias in any society, you have got to have vigilance, but you have to recognize that it is going to take some time, and you just have to be steady so that you do not give up when we do not get all the way there. I said to somebody, we are not going to make it perfect, but we can make it better. And better is good, because over time, you have enough better, 10 years, 20 years from now, our kids are safer, the community is more confident about its place, the police officers are going to be in a position to do a better job. We talked about having 15-year-old daughters. And at one point those daughters may have children. What is the vision that you have not necessarily as President of the United States, but as ENTITY , the man for those children that is different than what Mike Brown, Tamir Rice and others have had to face? I want my children to be seen as the individuals that they are, and I want them to be judged based on the content of their character and their behavior and their talents and their gifts. I do not want them to be objects of fear simply because of misguided attitudes. Part of what I think is so heartbreaking and frustrating for a lot of folks when they watch this is the recognition that simply by virtue of color you have got less margin for error. And that is particularly true for black boys. Young men, teenage boys sometimes they are going to do stupid stuff. You did stupid stuff. I did stupid stuff. Most of the time it is harmless. And then we grow and we progress, and we become, hopefully, solid citizens and men who are contributing to our society.


We also want a boy who is a boy, or a young man who maybe is a little confused, maybe makes a mistake we want them to be given the same benefit of the doubt as any other man would, or any other boy would be given. Because this does not just begin on the streets. We have been working with the Department of Education on the fact that you have got black kindergartners being kicked out of school at significantly higher rates. By nature, they are disruptive. And if we are already making judgments at that early age in a school system then what can we expect when those kids get older? And they are on the street. And they are on the street. And that is that attitude, the mindset that we have got to change. You have got when you talk to the white friends of your daughter or my daughter, they have got a better attitude and a clearer mindset and a greater empathy for what is going on. And I think each successive generation, as it gets more understanding, more familiarity, more comfort with people of other races and other cultures, then some of this dissipates. But we cannot just wait for that process to happen on its own. It also requires policy changes. It requires training. It requires specific steps by police departments, starting from the top, in order to change some of these mindsets. I mean, there are police departments that do a better job and police departments that do a worse job. I want my grandsons to be treated like anybody else's grandsons. If they are messing up, I think they should be corrected they will first be corrected by me or their mother or their father. But I do not want them to be subjected to the kind of constant bias that makes them feel as if this is not their home, and that they are not safe in their own neighborhoods, or that they cannot trust the institutions that are put in place supposedly to serve and protect them. It is interesting, having conversations with a lot of white staffers and friends of mine just over the last several days as these issues have come up, I think there is a clear understanding that there is a problem here. I do not get a sense that this society is simply ignoring this or suggesting this is not a problem. I think people also recognize that police officers do have a tough job, that, in some cases, it is a very dangerous job, and they have got to sometimes make split-second decisions.


Can you hear me all right? I can hear you fine, thanks. You know, I wanted to start this out with kind of a lengthy question. 4.1 million new jobs in the economy in the first 17 months of the administration; 2 consecutive years of budget reductions; new tax cuts to 90 percent of small businesses; a low inflation rate, lowest in 20 years, in fact; the signing of the student loan reform act; the passage of the crime bill, including the assault weapons ban, millions of dollars for local law enforcement; the victories that you have scored in foreign policy affairs, in Haiti, the Persian Gulf, North Korea, the Middle East, and all that do you ever find yourself sitting back at the White House and wondering, What the heck do I have to do to have high approval ratings? I think what you have to do is, the people have to know it. They have to know it, and they have to believe it. And I think that we had lots and lots of evidence that even now not all these things have been known. But as people know more and believe more, then they tend to want to support what I am trying to do for our country and the Members of Congress who are supporting that direction as well. I think that if you look at just the things you mentioned, when I ran for ENTITY, I said that if I were elected, I'd try to make the Government work for ordinary Americans, empower people through education and training to compete in a global economy, get the economy moving again, and make the world safer and more prosperous. On those scores, we are in better shape than we were 21 months ago. Now, there are a lot of people, to be fair, ENTITY, who have not felt that. They are insecure in their job, or they are afraid they will lose their health care, or they have not gotten a raise. But our country's moving in the right direction, and I think as more people know it, there will be more support for this direction and for these candidates. And I have just got to make sure that insofar as I can effect it, that people know about it and believe it by next Tuesday. Maybe we can just ignore that. I'd like to speak with you as a parent. Now, I have two small boys myself, a 3-year-old and a 2-year-old, and I am frightened for them.

Interview With Ken Herrera and Jayne Bower of WWJ Radio, Detroit, Michigan


My oldest celebrated his first birthday in Los Angeles as the city was burning. We are hearing about two kids in Chicago accused of dropping a third child out of a window. Now, the crime bill may be a step in the right direction, but I think I speak for a lot of parents when I ask you, how do we give our children some hope? And what is in the future for them? Well, first let me say, you gave the right answer yourself. The crime bill is a move in the right direction. And if the people in the local communities around the country use it, they can lower the crime rate and lower the rate of violence. They can do it by using the police, the punishment, the prevention, and the prisons, all four. But in the end, what we have got to do in this country is to get back to the basics of childrearing. And those children who are not getting the support they need at home, who are growing up in very mean neighborhoods, still have to have somebody to look up to and someone to learn from. And what is happening is, you talked about those two kids that dropped that 5-yearold out of a high-rise what is it that makes the heart of a 10-year-old turn to stone, feel no guilt, feel no remorse? What is it that makes an 11-year-old shoot another 11-year-old for gang reasons? We have got to have a system that Government cannot provide alone, that people in every community deal with to reach out to these kids and make sure that they have somebody to look up to, someone to learn from who is a good, positive role model, and a future out there for them. I am doing what I can as ENTITY by trying to get the economy in shape, trying to provide educational opportunities, trying to support working families on modest incomes with things like family leave and income tax cuts and other supports. But we really have got to have a grassroots sea change in America in every neighborhood in this country. People who can do it have got to be willing to step in and help these kids that are not getting the support they need at home or that are spending too much time on the streets because they are , say, the children of single parents who have to be out working to try to support them.


And if we will do that, we can then take the prevention programs, for example, in the crime bill we can take the police programs in the crime bill and use them to actually build up people's lives and turn this situation around. It is in many ways the most significant challenge facing our country. We cannot expect to do well over the long run if we continue to lose massive numbers of our children to this kind of lifestyle. Again, we are speaking live with ENTITY on WWJ. ENTITY, following along those same lines, last August you signed the student loan reform act. In fact, you talked about it a little bit earlier today, authorizing the implementation of what is known as the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program. How does this differ from previous efforts to make sure that all those who want a higher education can, in fact, get a higher education in this country. Well, what this student loan bill does is to enable people to borrow money to go to college at lower cost, either lower fees or lower interest rates or both. And then it allows them four different options about how to repay the money. For example, if someone gets out of school, and they decide to become a teacher, then the teacher let us say the teacher starts and he or she has a low wage in salary in the early years, you can pay back the loan as a percentage of your income. Then let us suppose at some point in the future you get a higher paying job, and you want to pay the loan off quicker so your interest payments would be lower, you can convert to a different system and repay it in that way. Now, in addition to that, we have taken huge amounts of the bureaucracy and paperwork out of this, and we have strengthened the ability of the Government to collect the loan when it is due by involving the IRS and other Federal agencies in the process. And we also cut out a lot of the middle men in the process so that we saved $4 billion in Government money over 5 years and saved the borrowers $2 billion over 5 years. And today I was at the University of Michigan Dearborn campus. A lot of the students were talking there about how this was going to be better for them and their lives and their classmates. You will get more people coming to college. You will have fewer dropouts. And you will have a higher repayment of the loans when they get out.


It is one of the best things we have done long-term for the United States since I have been ENTITY. ENTITY, we heard you urging people to get out and vote next Tuesday when you were at Cobo Center this afternoon. Does that low voter turnout of course it concerns you, but what can be done to change that, and more importantly to change the image of politicians? Well, if you looked at the '92 campaign, you see what can be done. If you have a vigorous debate on the issues and if you have a real hopeful campaign, if you are trying to build up not tear down, then people come out and vote. If these campaigns are totally dominated by the negative, not the positive, and by people trying to tear down, not build up, then a lot of voters just stay home. They turn it off. And then the election tends to go to the person with the most extremist support, which is why a lot of these extreme Republicans have worked so hard on their negative campaigns and to raise so much money. They want to drive down voter turnout, diminish confidence in the political process, and give the election to the extremist element in their own party. But I have to tell you, I think in the last couple of weeks, Americans are getting more realistic and more hopeful about their country again. They see that we are improving the economy, that we are making this Government work for ordinary people. We have got a smaller Government and a smaller deficit but a more active approach to facing the problems of this country. They see other people in other parts of the world, from the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, to Korea, to Haiti, to Northern Ireland, looking to us for energy and support. And I think they are feeling better about themselves and their country. And if that happens, we will have a higher voter turnout. We know you are getting ready to leave Detroit now for Ohio, ENTITY. We'd like to thank you very much for joining us this afternoon. Thank you, I have enjoyed it. And I remember the interview I did back during the campaign when your station was supposed to be interviewing my wife, and she was asleep on the bus, so I took the interview. We got you instead. So, I finally got one in my own right today. I appreciate that.


Okay, we will jump right into it here. what do you intend to do about the House Democrats who have said that they are not going to bring your plan to a vote in its current form? that nobody -- Democrat or Republican -- wants to see people's paychecks smaller on January 1st because Congress did not act. And I think that the framework that we have put forward, which says not only that people's taxes do not go up on January 1st, but also that we extend unemployment insurance for a year, that we make sure that key provisions like the college tax credit, the child tax credit, the earned-income tax credit are included -- that that framework is going to serve as the basis for compromise. But Democrats have said they are willing to let that go if they do not get some changes to this plan. Well, what I suspect is that there are going to be some discussions both between the House and the Senate. My understanding is that the Senate's going to vote on the package over the next several days and that at the end of the day, people are going to conclude we do not want 2 million people suddenly without unemployment insurance and not able to pay their rent, not able to pay their mortgage, not able to pay their house note. I think that people are also going to understand that the single most important thing we can do for all of our constituencies is to make sure that the recovery that is taking place right now gets stronger. And over the last 48 hours, a range of independent economists -- both left and right -- have concluded that this package would, in fact, increase potential economic growth by as much as 1 percent and could end up meaning an additional million and a half jobs. And that, I think, has got to be the highest priority for everybody. When you negotiated with Republicans, or after you finished, you compared the situation to negotiating with hostage takers. Now that your fellow Democrats, some of them, seem to be the hostage-takers, are you going to be able to give some ground to them? The bottom line is for everybody to act responsibly and to think not in terms of abstract political fights here in -- here on Capitol Hill, but to think about those families that in the middle of the holiday season, are trying to figure out -- are they still going to have unemployment benefits at the end of this month?

Interview With Steve Inskeep on National Public Radio's Morning Edition


But can you accept some changes to this plan or is it the kind of deal you cannot change -- My sense is, is that there're going to be discussions between both House and Senate leadership about all the final elements of the package. Keep in mind, we did not actually write a bill. We put forward a framework. I am confident that the framework is going to look like the one that we put forward. Meaning maybe you could add something to it, but not subtract. That is what I am hearing you say. That is -- that is not what I said. What I am saying is, is that I am confident that we are going to be able to get this resolved by the end of the month. Let me ask you about something that we heard from one of our listeners. We told our listeners we were going to have this conversation today. We got many questions for you. One came from a man named Tom Pluck of Montclair, New Jersey -- a man who describes himself as a supporter. Please ask him how keeping the tax rate for the richest the same as it has been for a decade creates one single job. It does not , which is why I was opposed to it -- and I am still opposed to it. The issue here is not whether I think that the tax cuts for the wealthy are a good or smart thing to do. I have said repeatedly that I think they are not a smart thing to do, particularly because we have got to borrow money, essentially, to pay for them. The problem is, is that this is the single issue that the Republicans are willing to scotch the entire deal for. either I allow 2 million people who are currently getting unemployment insurance not to get it; either I allow the recovery that we are on to be endangered or we make a compromise now, understanding that for the next two years this is going to be a central battle as part of a larger discussion about how do we reform our tax code so that it is fair and how do we make sure that we actually are dealing with the deficit and debt in an intelligent way? You mentioned having to borrow money to do this. Let me ask you about something that both Democrats and Republicans have raised. If you are going to allow these tax cuts to continue, if you are going to approve the other tax cuts, why not make corresponding spending cuts to finance it so they do not add so massively to the deficit?


Well, we are going to have a long discussion next year about spending. I put together a fiscal commission -- over the resistance, I should note, of a number of Republicans who originally had supported it. I think that Bowles-Simpson did a good job of sparking a conversation about how we need to move forward to deal with our medium- and long-term deficits. There have been other commissions that have been put forward over the last several weeks. And I am going to have to put a budget out that shows how I think we make some -- a serious dent in our debt and our deficit. I think every economist -- and by the way, the commissions who looked at this as well -- realize that because we have got a recovery that is still not as strong as we'd like it to be. The vast majority of economists, as well as both the chairman of the Bowles-Simpson commission, as well as other commissions, have suggested that because the recovery is just taking off and is still not producing as many jobs as it needs to, that it actually makes sense for us not do anything that contracts the economy right now because the single most important thing we can do for deficit reduction is actually expand economic growth. That 1 percent of additional economic growth brings in a whole lot of revenue even with no changes in the tax code. And so the payroll tax provision that is included in this package is going to help spark economic growth that will help. Now, it does not solve our medium- and long-term problems, so we are going to still have to make some very tough decisions -- and these too are going to be unpopular. I am going to get criticism from Democrats and Republicans throughout the year in terms of the choices that I am going to be forcing Congress to take a square look at. Because look, the fact of the matter is that for a decade now, we have had the tendency to think that we can keep on having all the services we want and we keep them -- can keep cutting taxes as much as we want and that somehow things are going to magically balance out. What are the programs we do not need, that do not contribute to growth, do not contribute to competitiveness, do not make sure our kids are -- are not contributing to making sure that our kids are learning and able to compete in this 21st century economy, and which things are vital investments that we have to make?


And that conversation is going to be one that cannot just happen in Washington; it is going to happen all across the country. And I am looking forward to leading that conversation. Will not Republicans argue -- and, in fact, will not reality argue -- that any cuts will have to be even deeper because this package that you are pushing for now will mean there is even less government revenue? Actually, I think that if you talk to economists, both conservative and liberal, what they will say is the problem is not next year. The problem is, how are we dealing with our medium-term debt and deficit, and how are we dealing with our long- term debt and deficit? And most of that has to do with entitlements -- particularly Social Security and Medicaid. We have made some progress as a consequence of my health-care bill in identifying areas where we can start bending the cost curve on health care. But we are going to have some more work to do across the budget. But there are very few people who think that we would be better off if we have got a contracting economy or economy that is growing very little over the next year -- that that somehow is going to be good for our deficit. Let me ask you about two or three years out. I am thinking of the 1990s when President Clinton famously said, The era of big government is over. Because of the medium- and long-term need to restrain or cut spending, are you going to be in a position where the era of big government is going to be over again; there is going to have to be a fundamentally different approach to things? I think there is going to have to be a fundamentally different approach to things. It is not an issue of big government versus small government. It is an issue of smart government. You know, when -- when families sit around the kitchen table, they say to themselves, what are the things we have to have -- College education for our kids, paying our mortgage, getting the roof repaired, a new boiler. And if they can afford it, they'd buy things that they'd like to have, but the first thing they do is take care of the things that we have to have. And under that category, I'd put things like research and development, education, making sure that we are sending our kids to college, rebuilding our infrastructure to compete on the 21st century, making sure that this country is safe.


The other stuff then we have to debate and figure out, can we get by with a little bit less in some of these other spending categories? You will -- when -- when we look at the deficit and the debt, I -- I think it is important to understand this does not need to be Armageddon. This -- this is not a situation where we have got to slash and burn everything. It does mean we have got to make choices. And it means that discussions have to be serious and they have got to be based on fact. We -- we are not going to be able to deal with our deficit just by eliminating foreign aid, for example, which some people suggest. That only accounts for 1 percent of our budget. It is not going to happen just because we eliminate earmarks. I happen to think that that is a bad way of doing business, but earmarks account for 1 percent or less of the federal budget. We have got to look at a whole range of things -- where the money goes. And that includes entitlements; that includes defense; that includes a whole host of discretionary spending where we can probably do more and do it smarter with less money, if we are actually making some tough choices. Because this plan projects extending the Bush tax cuts for two years, it is been widely presumed that in two years or less, you are going to have another big fight over whether to extend these tax cuts. This week, my colleague Scott Horsley asked you if there was a different possibility here. He asked if you were going to use this two-year window to push for a broader overhaul of the tax code. I want you to expand on that yes. What do you plan to do to the tax code in the next couple of years? Well, I think we are going to have to have a conversation over the next year. And if you think about the last time we reformed our tax system back in 1986 -- it did not happen right away, by the way. It required a lot of conversations among a lot of different parties. But people of good will came together and realized that if we eliminate what happens to the tax code every decade or so -- loopholes get built in, special interest provisions get built in -- the nominal rates end up high, but the actual tax rates that well- connected folks or people who have good accountants pay end up being a lot lower; ordinary people end up getting squeezed.