Well, you have spent, perhaps, more time than any previous American President with our Queen, and I was wondering what interested you most about her. Nancy had, as you know, been in her presence a great deal. She was there for the wedding. And then her gracious invitation to us at Windsor, our ride together and all there, so it was not any surprise that-it was only just reinforced and strengthened as to what a truly fine and gracious lady she is. But I think so unlike what most people would have of a concept of royalty. If I may switch to a different subject-your Orlando speech. In your Orlando speech you talked about the confrontation of the United States and the Soviet Union as a confrontation of good and evil, and darkness and light. And that gave the impression, at least, that there is really no logical conclusion except war and that reconciliation would be very difficult between the two powers. And I am just wondering how you reconcile that outlook with your aims for peace. Well, ENTITY, I do not think that those who were there and heard the entire speech would take it that way. I think it is somehow lifting that out of context-of this line and this description as the focus of evil and so forth. Certainly their entire beliefs, beginning with the disbelief in God-their entire beliefs are so contrary to what we accept as morality. But no, what I was pointing out there, and I still believe is time-tested and proven, is not the inevitability of war, but a recognition and a willingness to face up to what these differences are in our views and between us, to be realistic about it. But let me just point out a couple of things. We have seen, under the guise of diplomacy and detente and so forth in the past, efforts to kind of sweep the differences under the rug and pretend they do not exist. I have stated, very frankly, what I believe the differences are, but at the same time, I have expressed my determination and my belief that peace is achievable. I am very concerned with those people who somehow seem to think-without their realizing they are thinking them-that they are building in their mind a kind of war is inevitable . I cannot subscribe to that at all. They have already come down to a lower figure for weapons than was supposed to be the great triumph in SALT II-several hundred, they have agreed to, less than the SALT II treaty.

Interview With Henry Brandon of the London Sunday Times and News Service on Domestic and Foreign Policy Issues


In the INF, they came immediately to the table, no objecting, no protesting, to negotiate, and while their offer was not acceptable because of some other terms, from some 350-odd SS-20 missiles they made a proposal that brought them down to 162. So, I think that this just proves that maybe being willing, frankly, to recognize the differences between us and what our view is has proven that it is successful. Talking about missiles, a number of European leaders, from Mrs. Thatcher to Chancellor Kohl, have been trying to persuade you to put forward a new initiative of an interim solution-still with the zero option as the ultimate goal-but to come forward with an interim solution. I gather that you are very seriously considering such a move. And I am sure they know this also. Because we do stay in constant consultation, and we are not going to do anything without continuing consultation with them. And I must say they have all expressed great appreciation for the fact that unlike some previous times when we acted unilaterally, that we do recognize our responsibility as allies. The difficulty in answering is, when you are at a negotiating table-and off and on I spent about 25 years in labor-management relations at a negotiating table-you cannot talk openly about your strategy or what you are going to do. But I can only point to this fact, that from the very beginning when I announced the total elimination, the zero option, I said at the same time we will negotiate in good faith any legitimate or reasonable proposal, and that remains true today. But to get into a discussion of where you are going or what you are going to do, that just is bad negotiating strategy. Yeah, but have not these European leaders already, more or less, laid their cards on the table? Except that all of them are still openly supportive of our deployment of missiles, our own missiles there, as was originally decided in 1979. So, that is a little different than advocating a position and wanting an open agreement. If you ever did such a thing, that, then, becomes the beginning point for negotiation. Our beginning point for negotiation is total elimination.


Well, I understand that there are two views, more or less, two views in the administration-one that feels that you should wait until the missiles are beginning to be put in place in Europe, because then the Soviet Union will be under pressure to make concessions, or that you should come forward with your own initiatives-take the lead and come forward with something that proposes equality but is something less than zero-zero option. Well, again, as I say I mean, ENTITY, I do not think that there are any divisions in the sense that splits here, and one faction against another faction on this. There is one thing in which we are in total agreement on, and that is that the ultimate goal should continue to be the zero base, the elimination of that whole class of weapons, for the sake of the world if nothing else. We are also in agreement on the fact that there must be no change in our plan to begin deployment on schedule. But can you tell me in which direction you lean, for instance, because the Dutch Foreign Minister--the Dutch Prime Minister, who saw you the other day, and made some-after he had left you, indicated that you are going to come forward with a new initiative. Well, no, what I said then, and what I have just said here, is we have announced our ultimate goal and we will, as I said from the very first-we are ready to negotiate in good faith any reasonable proposal or suggestion on the way to the ultimate goal. I understand that you are beginning to come under pressure to-I am now talking about U.S.-Argentine relations-to give the kind of certification that would be necessary for the United States to sell arms to the Argentine again. No proposal or no discussion has been held with me at all on any such subject. We are watching, of course, very closely. From the very first, as we have always hoped, we'd hoped that there will be a peaceful resolution of that problem. What would you advise now in terms of the next step? I think this is-as a result of the action taken there, this is something to be determined between the United Kingdom and Argentina. But you are not planning to play the role of the mediator as you did during the war? Only to the extent that someone would ask our help-if we could be helpful. We'd be pleased to, anytime, if we might lend aid to bring about peace.


You have now had talks with King Hussein, with the Foreign Ministers of Israel and Lebanon. Do you foresee that negotiations of your own plan will perhaps begin soon? I think that we have made some progress toward the first step that we believe is absolutely necessary, in getting into that, and that is the withdrawal of all the foreign forces, the PLO, the Syrians, and the Israelis from Lebanon and give the new Government of Lebanon a chance to establish its own sovereignty and heal the wounds that have been open there for so long-the factionalism and so forth. I think that is absolutely vital, and we want to cooperate in any way we can to help bring that about. As I say, Foreign Minister Shamir has been here, and then the Foreign Minister of Lebanon, Salem, and the really senior statesman, elder statesman there, Salaam, the former Prime Minister. And we continue-Phil Habib 1 is going back now again-we continue to try and help them work toward an elimination of the differences. And then I believe that once that is accomplished, that Hussein will offer himself as the negotiator to then continue the peace negotiations involving all the other Middle East problems. You know there are a lot of Middle Eastern experts, or so called, who believe that unless you put certain pressures on Israel, there will be no moratorium on the building of settlements in the West Bank. How do you feel about that? Well, the West Bank-there certainly is no illegality to the building-that based on the Camp David agreement and the period of discussion that was supposed to then take place, with no one having a claim for or against doing such things. This, of course, would be where the negotiations then would begin toward the real peace negotiations with, presumably, King Hussein involved in those negotiations. And I think, as I have said before, that what really has to be resolved is the-an arrangement involving, on one side, land-territory-and on the other, the need for security. That one can find the Israel-have the security-that they do not have to remain an armed camp at the great expense that it has been to their economy. And this is going to take compromise with regard to territory-on the other side-and resolution of the Palestinian problem which-you have got a great many human beings there that you just cannot pretend they do not exist.


I mean, do you think that, in spite of what Prime Minister Begin has said in public, that, as you say, a compromise is possible without your exerting sufficient pressure? that is the reason for the negotiations. And again, just as I was talking about our own negotiations, with regard to arms, negotiations sometimes in labor-management may describe it. They have been presented as one side asks for the moon and the other side offers green cheese. And they then talk their way to a point between those two extremes and settle it. ENTITY, I know you are not talking about your future plans, but if you decided to run for another term, what would be your objectives-that you feel you have not been able to achieve in the first 4 years-for the next round? Oh, I think we have a long way to go in two major departments. One of them, the restoration of our ability to be secure nationally, field a national defense and so forth, and the other, however, is the economic situation. Now, so far, we have not begun to get all that we asked for in our plan. But I think that now, after all of the criticism and all of the sniping and all of the sneering at what they called Reaganomics, there is so much evidence that the plan, even partially employed, was successful, that I am beginning to wonder if they will not decide to look for another name, rather than Reaganomics, now that it is going to be a successful plan and not a failure-but that the economy is looking ahead for the balance of this decade to get back to a balanced budget. And I would still like to see that then affirmed in the Constitution, so that we can never again go down that road that we have in these last few decades. That we can begin paying back on the national debt, reducing that-when you stop to think that the interest alone on our national debt is greater than the total cost of the United States Government not too many years ago. To do that, and to recognize that there is a certain level as to the percentage of gross national product that government takes for itself and takes from the people in taxes, that if you go beyond that level, you then do disrupt the economy and cause the kind of problems that we have had. To eliminate totally inflation-the world has been going through the longest sustained period of inflation in the history of mankind. This country can actually affect the economy worldwide.


And I think our conquering, so far-not completely conquered, let us say our winning over inflation so far-to take it down from double digits, from 12.4, sometimes reaching as high as 13-14, to where for the last 6 months it is only been running 1.4 percent. But the job is not going to be finished for awhile. As you look at the projections out through the years, there is a lot yet to be done. But we have embarked on a different course. I can remember when the people on our side, the Republicans-and you realize I am talking the party not personal-over these years what needs to be done, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, the debate they engaged in was kind of a rearguard action on the part of the Republicans against the ever-increasing desire of government to spend, to intervene in the marketplace, to become even more powerful, and thus eventually oppressive on the people-much of what you have seen happen in your own country. The debate today in government is not that debate anymore-of the trying to hold back on that increase. The debate is both sides agreeing to reduced spending and reduced government, and the argument is only about how much to reduce it. I wondered, because of the decline in the oil price that would be little will benefit to the majority of countries in the world, but it will be to the detriment of two or three countries, like Mexico, Nigeria. I wonder whether you have at all considered the possibility of taking the advantages that the majority of the countries have accrued to them-could be used to sustain and help the countries that are suffering from the decline of the oil price. Well, we have been of help, and we have been with our contributions to the international banks, those funding agencies, but also in direct help. For example, as I told our friends and allies in the summit meeting at Versailles-the discussion of the Third World and our view is that you help them develop their own economies, not constantly be mendicants with their hands out waiting for someone to give them something. We, every year, buy more of the production of those countries than all the rest of the world put together. We think, also, that if we are able to alter the economic situation, that some of those same countries have the highest rates of inflation in the world, and thus even though it is going to be-there is going to be a temporary readjustment with those reduced revenues.


But if on the other hand, for the whole world economic picture-they see their own costs going down, this will serve to make that adjustment for them, and they too will wind up better off. But, no, we are not going to retreat from the help that we have been able to give, and as we resolve some of our own problems we are able to help more. Do you think there is a need for reviewing the possibility of a new international monetary system? I cannot say that I have a hard and fast view on that. I think it is something for all of us to look at. Maybe that'll be one of the subjects of discussion in the Williamsburg summit this spring. But do you think that the world situation makes such a revival of some new system desirable? I can only say that I think we need to look at it. I do not believe that the monetary system has been the disruptive factor in bringing on this economic recession we have been in. I think inflation is what led to the high interest rates. The lender has to get back-when the loan is repaid-he has to have gotten back, in interest, all the depreciated value of the money that he loaned that is going to be repaid-paid back in inflation in money of lesser value than when he had loaned it. I think what we are seeing, because of our own rate of inflation-they should be much lower-but I think what we are seeing is timidity. They are not quite sure yet that we are going to stay the course and that this is going to continue. They have been through, well, in our own country, seven recessions-I guess this one's number eight-since World War II, and every one of them, as they came out, resulted in higher inflation and each time higher than the last, so that we have been on an ever increasing scale that way. I think that there is beginning to be this confidence that this time the recovery, that we are bringing about, is based on sound economic policies and not artificial stimulants. When they are aware of that, I think we will see further reductions in the interest rates and, as a result of that, we will see further prosperity. You, after 3.5 years in office, you look younger than perhaps when you entered. And I was wondering, what is the secret of your pacing yourself?.


Well, for one thing I recognize that it would be awfully easy-I have always been an outdoorsman, to use that expression, always, living in California, been able to get to our ranch, ride a lot, and so forth. But it would be very easy here to sit at that desk, and you go home in an elevator--at the end of the day, and come back to work in an elevator. And we have a little gymnasium upstairs there, and I have a daily routine that we work out at the end of every day. And, frankly, I have to say physically I think I feel better than I did a couple of decades ago. Do you feel, I mean as you have described it a little now, do you feel a bit insulated here in the White House? You are insulated in the sense that if you decide to leave the grounds you are a group--quite a group. You cannot just go out and walk down the street and drop in at a drugstore for a bottle of aspirin or something. But on the other hand, you have much more contact with people than anyone is inclined to believe. First of all, you are surrounded not just by senior staff but by an awful lot of people who work in here in different capacities, and you get to know about their families and their problems and so forth. But also the effort that I make to get out, when you go out on, say, a speaking engagement or something like the Orlando trip that you mentioned, you have a contact with people. I stay in touch with all the people that I knew, and having a ranch is another way, because there is a whole circle of acquaintances and people and workmen and so forth that How many telephone calls do you take a day? Maybe I make more than I take. People that I have known back over the years and former schoolmates and so forth, I stay in touch with both by correspondence and the other. And then I have done something that I did when I was Governor. I realize I cannot read all my mail-several hundred thousand letters a month. But I instructed there, and I have instructed here-a very wonderful lady there in charge of that mail department does a good job of knowing the kind of mail that I want to see-and not just the friendly letters; the ones that've got a challenge in them and so forth, letters from young people and so forth-and constantly sends me a representative sampling of the mail.


This week we have as our very special guest, our esteemed ENTITY, . In this trip last week Hazard, Kentucky; Appalachia; the Delta; East St. Louis; Pine Ridge Indian Reservation; south Phoenix; Watts; Anaheim what stuck out in your mind the most? That in all those places where our prosperity has not reached, there are good people, smart people, people with dreams, and good opportunities for American business. This is a moment when we can do what is morally right, to give everybody a chance to walk into the 21st century together, and do it in a way that will actually be good for the American economy and good for the people who invest there. They have missed this booming prosperity. Is something wrong with the people? I would not say something's wrong with the people. A lot of them do not have as much education as they need, and that is part of our strategy to do better, and they are going to have to have specific job training skills. But what happened is that all these places either never had a self-supporting economy, or the basis of economic life which once was there moved away, and nothing was ever brought in to replace it. And now, we have got a chance just to keep our own economy going, just to keep our own economy going with no inflation, we have a chance to bring investment to these areas, put these people to work, give them better lives, and in the process, help everyone else in America. They seem to have found a common accord on this idea of new markets. poverty, reaction; affirmative action, division, reaction . But new markets seem to have bound Appalachia and Delta, black, white, red. What is kind of magic about this notion of new markets initiative? Well, first of all, it is not charity; it is a hand up, not a handout. Secondly, the people who are being asked to invest in these new markets should do so with the expectation that they will actually make a profit out of it, that by helping people in areas which have not participated in this prosperity, by starting businesses, giving people jobs, having these job training programs, they will actually make money. So it is a kind of war for profits, not just a war on poverty? And therefore, you incentivize broadening the base of investment? We are not asking anybody to do anything that is not a good business decision.

Interview With Jesse Jackson of CNN's Both Sides in Torrance


It is a good business decision, and that is one of the things you know, we saw that everywhere. Every place we went do you remember that little that first place we visited in Appalachia, a guy starts out with 40 employees; a few years later, he is got 850. And yes, you know, Appalachia's fairly isolated, but he makes those parts and those various component electronic parts and he is got 850 people. He is fixing to expand again because of the incentives that he has in our empowerment zone program that the Vice President's run for us for the last 6 years. That is the kind of thing we want to go nationwide with. We believe if we give, in the new markets initiative, if we give the same tax credits and loan guarantees to Americans to invest in America's new markets we give them to invest in new markets in Africa, Latin America, Asia, or the Caribbean, that our people will do very well. You take, for example, the black and brown market alone is maybe $800 billion in consumer power. How have they missed these markets markets, money, talent right under their noses? I think, first of all, they have been doing very well by doing what they are used to doing and expanding in ways they are used to expanding, so our economy's grown quite a lot in the last 6 years. Even though they have missed markets? Yes, by taking the nearest thing at hand, the thing they are used to doing. Secondly, I think that there is something that the economists would call, in purely economic terms, imperfect knowledge. That is, I think that a lot of people really do not know how well they could do if they gave people in inner-city America, in rural America a chance. Which is one reason that it was so important that these business leaders went on the trip. You know remember, when we started out, the chief CEO of Aetna life insurance company said, You know, I may not be happy about this, because I had this deal figured out, and now all my competitors are going to know there is money to be made out here. So something about imperfect knowledge and our cultural blindness, we just do not even look toward those unexplored markets.


Well, when you see a place so depressed for so long, or you see the figures and the education levels low, or you look at the maps in and out of a place and you realize it is physically isolated, and you think, I have got all these other ways to make money that are near at hand, you do not get around to it. But now, the unemployment rate in America has been under 5 percent for 2 years. Everybody is wringing their hands, you know, from Wall Street out here to California, about how can we keep this economic growth going without inflation. The answer is invest in these places. It is interesting, in politics there is a zero-sum game. You have 435 Congress seats; you might change faces, but the seats do not change, and so it is forever tight and competitive. But in economics, inclusion leads to growth. And it seems that they have missed growth. In baseball, for example, we thought we had a great major leagues before we let Jackie Robinson and Campanella and Hank Aaron and Willie Mays in. But once they opened up the market, they now will go to Cuba; they will go to the Dominican Republic and find Sammy Sosa; they will go to Japan. The basketball team, now we will go to Yugoslavia, go to Croatia that the baseball owners seem to have gotten it; the basketball owners seem to have gotten it; now the rest of corporate America must get that inclusion leads to economic growth. And the important thing in your sports analogy is that as we have broadened the pool of talent, we have had more teams. More people get interested as you broaden the pool of talent, and you get more people in. So that if somebody invests in these new markets, they do not have to quit investing where they were. You are right; we will just widen the circle of opportunity. But why are they so much more likely, say, to invest in Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea, Eastern Europe, than in Appalachia or East L.A., in south Phoenix? I think that we look at Indonesia let us just take Indonesia. We look at Indonesia, and we say, Gosh, there is a market of 200 million people. It is the biggest Muslim country in the world, fairly moderate country historically, although they have had some problems lately, and we will invest there and we will sell to that market.


What we miss in America is that if you put people who are unemployed to work in distressed areas, you create a new market, first. Second, as you just pointed out, even in places with very high unemployment if you go into an inner-city neighborhood with 15 percent unemployment, that is high; that is 3 times the national average plus. That still means 85 percent of the people are working there; they have got money to spend. In almost every city in America in the inner-city areas, the people have more money to spend than they can spend in their neighborhoods. That means breaking down stereotypes. For example, if you look at Hazard, Kentucky, you look at Watts, most poor people are not on welfare. So perhaps when you speak of markets, you kind of transcend the color/cultural barriers that divide and make people terribly anxious. One of the things that we have felt, I think, all of us in this week, is that like there in the Mississippi Delta, we were walking down the street in Clarksdale you have got an African-American Congressman and a white mayor, and they are working together. I met in a store with an African-American woman and a Chinese grocer who had been in that community for 40plus years. This is a way of bringing people together. It is about much more than money. It is about cementing a quality and fabric of life that is absolutely essential. What is it about this period that allowed this mission to go from Hazard, Kentucky, Appalachia, to Clarksdale, Mississippi, to the reservation, and yet there was no evidence of racial rancor or division? What was it about this period that allowed at least that body of people to look toward another agenda, another formation of problem solving? First of all, I think the American people it is a great tribute to the people in those areas that they have kind of gotten beyond that, and they understand that if they can build a common economic framework, they can build a home together in their communities. Secondly, I think the business leaders who went, the political leaders who went were genuinely intelligent, savvy, and human people who saw that they could do the right thing and do very well.


You know, when you were speaking to the Native Americans in Pine Ridge, and one of the corporate business leaders looked out, and he saw the 7,000 people, and he said, I have always just seen Indian reservations which meant something but he said, Now, I see two supermarkets. I see a car dealership. I see 7,000 people wearing clothes. I see a market. He had never seen them as a market; he'd just seen them as Indians. Yes, and a lot of these people, if we put more stores, for example, in these Native American areas and hired the people there to work in the stores, then even in and they are the poorest parts of America; they have the highest unemployment rate but if you get their unemployment rate just down to 20 percent, then you have 80 percent of the people working and you make a whole market. So by creating the jobs, you create the market to buy the products that the jobs provide.  We did that. and you, on one of your sleepless nights, decided we were going to go to the Lorraine Motel. We went through this whole museum, Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. We ended up in the spot that Martin Luther King was killed, and there you stood, and we prayed, and there was a somber spirit. But what struck me about it was that what you did this past week was to fulfill Dr. King's last great mission. He knew that slavery was the race gap; denial of public accommodations, the race gap we won that public accommodations bill the lack of the right to vote, the race gap. So his last great movement was to pull together people from Appalachia, Al Lowenstein, Jewish allies from New York, Hispanics from the farm workers, from Chavez; he pulled all these groups together, and that was his last great mission, was to tour these areas to focus on a shared resource gap. So in some sense, this week, you have fulfilled that last leg of his journey. If we can make that so, I would be very proud, because he was right about that. You know, it is funny how much time we lost as a country after he and Senator Kennedy were killed, because both of them were trying to I remember when Bobby Kennedy went to Appalachia, went to the Indian reservation in Pine Ridge in '68.


They understood that the last shreds of our racial problems would be mired forever in our economic insecurities until everybody has a chance to make it. Sow profits, not fear. Now that you have put the light on it I mean, a Presidential entourage creates that you put focus on America's underserved markets, its underutilized talent, untapped capital. Yes. Very talented people, and that was they found a niche there. But now, you put light. What must the Congress do to make this real? And then what must the business sectors we have focus; we need legislation, and we need business. Congress should do two things. First of all, they should fund the second round of these empowerment zones, because in the empowerment zones, we give special tax incentives for people to put business there and to hire people from there, and we give the communities extra money to educate and train people first thing. And the Vice President's done a great job of managing that program. In addition to that, we have some more money for these community development banks. They give capital to first-time business people who could not get it other places. The second thing that Congress should do is to pass the new markets legislation which, as I said, basically gives American businesses the same incentives to invest in poor areas, urban and rural, in America that we today give them to invest overseas. What do we give them overseas? Well, we give them tax credits; we give them loan guarantees; we give them other things to try to lower the cost of capital. American Private Investment Companies, and here is how it would work. I mean, the Republicans ought to love it because it is a tax incentive thing, you know, it is not a big Government program. Suppose you and I were trying to build a shopping center development in East St. Louis, where we visited, and suppose the costs of that were I am making this up about $300 million, and suppose we could raise $100 million in capital. Well, if we could do that, we could get a 25 percent tax credit with that $100 million investment, which takes our risk down to $75 million right off the bat. We have only got $75 million at risk, not $100 million. We could then go borrow the other $200 million from the bank with a Government guarantee on the borrowing, which would dramatically cut the interest rates and save us another several million dollars over the life of the project.


So you have got tax incentive, investment incentive, and loan guarantees and markets. So, first of all, you have got a profit opportunity. We are not asking anybody for charity here. But if there is an opportunity but you are worried a little about the risk, we will cut the relative risk of this investment, as compared with others, with the tax incentives and loan guarantees. We have found, in each of these markets, invariably two new buildings, a new ball park and a new jail. In all of these schools where we visited, the schools were unwired. Those in the jails, 90 percent are high school dropouts; 92 percent are functionally illiterate. The question of lack of education can breed the crime thing. Senator Bradley put an article in the Post this week about proposals to reduce guns. Just briefly, he says that we should ban the distribution and sale of Saturday Night Specials, registration for all 65 million handguns, a licensing and safety course for everyone who owns guns, ban gun dealers from selling guns in residential neighborhoods, insist on mandatory gun locks. Are these commonsense measures from your point of view? You know, we have got the gun locks provision in the Congress, and that still might pass. But I have said, we ought to have registration. We register our cars. If your car gets stolen while you are doing this interview with me, and somebody drives it halfway across the country and leaves it in a parking lot let us say in Lincoln, Nebraska and the police find it, as soon as you report your car stolen, it will go into an international computer system. As soon as he, the person who finds your car in Lincoln, Nebraska, says, Here, I have found this stolen car, and here is the license plate and the registration, within 30 seconds, the local police in Chicago will be able to call you and say, Reverend Jackson, we found your car. And so, of course we should do these things.  And I think it is interesting I think the NRA ought to support this. I do not think it is in their interest what they are doing, because nobody's trying to say we should not have hunting and sport shooting. And if I were, they never listen to me, obviously, but I used to work with them sometimes in Arkansas. One of the best things they ever did were their hunter education programs, and they really try to teach young people to safely use firearms.


Why should not we say, if you are going to have a gun and you are a young person, you ought to be licensed and you ought to be taught how to use it; they would teach it. But you do not hunt rabbit with AK-47's. Well, we ought to ban those. You know, I am in favor of getting rid of all that and all those big clips and all that kind of stuff. But if they have those guns, they ought to be able to use them, and NRA ought to be out there certifying teachers to teach them. If somebody steals your gun, you ought to be able to find it, just like your car. Then the other thing I disagreed with them about, we ought to close the loophole on selling these guns at gun shows and flea markets in big cities so that the same background checks are done. These background checks work; we keep those guns out of the wrong hands by doing that. In this dialog, we have talked about all of the easy stuff, I mean, how to wipe out poverty without wiping out the poor, how to begin to close the resource gap and the skills gap. Is Hillary going to run for the Senate? She is having the time of her life in New York this week, and the people have been very good to her. And if she decides to do it, I will strongly support her in every way I can. She would be a fabulous Senator if she decides to do it. I honestly do not know what she is going to do, but she is obviously interested in it. If the people of New York were to vote for her and elect her, she would be magnificent. So you do not think the Presidential issue will last in the heat of the campaign? No, I did not say that. I think that she believes that it is a legitimate issue; at least, she believes that if she presents herself as a candidate, she would have to demonstrate to the voters of New York that she understands the State, that she is capable of learning about all the local issues, that she cares about them as well as the big national things on which she and I spent our lives. And so that is why she is up there on her listening tour. How do you think she has done this week on her listening tour? Because she is had to do some talking while listening.


I come back at night from our tour I'd come back at night and flip on the TV and see what she had done, and I think she is done really well. I am really proud of her. If this is what she wants to do, I am 100 percent for it. I think she wants to complete this I think she at least wants to complete her summer schedule and listen to these folks and assess where she thinks it is. But I am happy for her. Let me say to you, I thank you for this interview. This trek around America was most historic this week because we measure our strength politically by following opinion polls about how well Wall Street is doing, but you made the point over and over again that in the end you measure character by how you treat the least of these. And your dissatisfaction with 15 million children in poverty and 40 million without health insurance, your discomfort level with the poverty-stricken is a great moral statement and challenge for all of us. I hope that in this season that we can, in some bipartisan basis, move from the bickering racial battleground to economic common ground, a kind of I lived in Mississippi and saw whites and blacks on a shared economic security agenda, you know, Patients' Bill of Rights and increased teacher pay and cut the infant mortality rates. I mean, it seemed that is this is a certain pregnant moment with possibility that all of us should seize. You know, the thing that was so touching to me and we got out there in the country you know, there were a lot of Republicans with us as well as Democrats, and in these areas we went, we met a lot of Republicans as well as Democrats. These issues, these sort of common ground economic issues I do not think there are partisan issues out there in America, and if we can keep them from becoming a partisan issue in Washington, then I am going to reach out to the leadership of the Republican Party in Congress next week to talk to them about this trip and ask them to help me pass something that will really make a difference out there. So beyond the historic economic petitions and political petitions and racial petitions, you see this bridge building as ultimately your legacy, building bridges to the underserved, the unutilized, and the untapped. I think that this country ought to go whole into the new century, and we cannot do it if not everybody has a chance to make a living, get an education.


So you had a friendly crowd out there but a pretty fierce Republican reaction in Washington. The Speaker this morning says you are acting like an emperor and you are damaging the presidency. Well, my response is pass a bill. You heard me out there today and you heard me yesterday. The truth is that the Senate did a good job in crafting a bipartisan bill that would have greatly improved our immigration system, and my preference is for a legislative solution to this problem. It did not happen because the Speaker would not call the bill for a vote in the House. And he still has several weeks to call that bill in the House or he can work with me and Democrats to craft a new bill. And the point is that ultimately, Congress has a responsibility to deal with these issues. And there are some things that I cannot do on my own. What I do have is the legal authority to try to make the system better, given the resource constraints that we have, we have to prioritize But you have done more than you used to think you can do. You know several times over the last couple of years you were asked can you do more and you said nope, I am out of administrative flexibility, what changed? Can you just halt deportations?' And I said, 'No I cannot do that.' No, but I have it right here- On a Google Hangout, you were asked specifically, 'What can you do to prevent families from being broken apart' and you said, 'I am not an emperor, I am out of administrative flexibility.' I-I-George, what is absolutely true is that we could not solve the entire problem and still cannot solve the entire problem. But what we can do is to prioritize felons, criminals, recent arrivals, folks who are coming right at the border, and acknowledge that if somebody's been here for over five years, they may have an American child or a legal permanent resident child, it does not make sense for us to prioritize them when we know that we need more resources- But do you have the right to make that decision on your own? If you look, every president - Democrat and Republican - over decades has done the same thing as I mentioned in my remarks today. George H. W. Bush, about 40% of the undocumented persons, at the time, were provided a similar kind of relief as a consequence of executive action-

Interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News This Week


But you know the response of both Reagan - but in that case, there were bipartisan bills passed, they were acting after the bills were passed, not because Congress did not act. Well George, I am not sure that argues in favor. If Congress acted specifically and left something out and then a President goes ahead right afterwards and does more than Congress agreed to, it is actually not different. The fact is is that we exercise prosecutorial discretion all the time. And, you know, the primary response that I have to Speaker Boehner and others is go ahead and pass legislation. In fact, I encourage them to act but in the meantime what we have got to make sure of is, number one that our borders are secure and what I am doing is going to allow us to put more resources there, number two it is going to allow us to focus on the people that we really want out. Number three, what it allows us to do is to say to folks who have been here for a while, register, we are gonna submit - you are going to submit to a criminal background check and you are going to pay taxes. Why we would prefer a system in which they are in the shadows, potentially taking advantage of living here but not contributing makes no sense. How do you respond to the argument, a future president comes in, wants lower taxes. Congress will not do it - he says I am not going to prosecute those who do not pay capital gains tax. Well, the truth of the matter is, George, that the reason that we have to do prosecutorial discretion in immigration is that we know we are not even close to being able to deal with the folks who have been here a long time. The vast majority of folks understand that they need to pay taxes, and when we conduct an audit, for example, we are selecting those folks who are most likely to be cheating. We are not going after millions and millions of people who everybody knows are here and were taking advantage of low wages as they are mowing lawns or cleaning out bedpans, and looking the other way - but then you got politicians suddenly going out there saying, suggesting somehow that we should be deporting all of them. Everybody knows, including Republicans, that we are not going to deport 11 million people. So you do not think it'd be legitimate for a future president to make that argument?


But what is true - what is true today is we do not audit every single person, but we still expect that people are going to go ahead and follow the law. And we have limited resources, we have to make sure that we prioritize those folks who are most dangerous and we should acknowledge what everybody has already acknowledged through their actions - and Congress acknowledges through their budget - which is we are not in the business of deporting millions of people or breaking up families. Ted Cruz says that now Republicans should block every nomination going forward. Your friend Senator Tom Coburn is wondering about possible violence. What do you think about those reactions? Well, you know, there is often a lot of rhetoric coming out of Congress, uh, and in Washington. What the American people expect is that if we disagree on one thing, then we disagree on that thing. And then we work on everything else. One of the habits that we have seen in Congress over the last four years since the House Republicans took over, is that everything becomes hostage to one disagreement. So a couple of years ago it was Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act. And they decided, We are gonna shut down the government because we disagree with this one law. They say they are not gonna do that this time. Well, if they are not gonna do that then we should not have a problem, because we should be able then to work on a whole host of other issues that is how our democracy has always worked. How much has your view of executive power changed over the years? I remember when you were a senator you used to warn about presidents over-reaching, yet a lot of your critics now say you are doing it more than anyone else. Has your view of executive power changed? If you look - the history is that I have issued fewer executive actions than most of my predecessors, by a longshot. The difference is the response of Congress. But if you ask historians, take a look at the track records of the modern presidency, I have actually been very restrained. And I have been very restrained with respect to immigration. I bent over backwards and will continue to do everything I can to get Congress to work. Let us talk about Ferguson. Everyone's waiting for the grand jury to hear, what the final word from the grand jury is. Your FBI has warned about possible violence in the wake of that decision. What is your message to the people of Ferguson and others who are looking to protest?


Well I think, first and foremost, keep protests peaceful. You know, this is a country that allows everybody to express their views. Allows them to peacefully assemble to protest actions that they think are unjust but using any event as an excuse for violence is contrary to rule of law and contrary to who we are. You know, part of what I have asked Eric Holder to do is to not just engage with the folks in Ferguson, but to engage nationally in a conversation between law enforcement and communities of color that often times feel as if they not being treated fairly by law enforcement officials. Law enforcement has a very tough job. But what is clear is that that lack of trust between communities and law enforcement crops up not just in Ferguson but in places all across the country- You know, we saw during the summer the possibility of even overwhelmingly peaceful crowds being overrun by a few thugs who might be looking for an excuse to loot or to commit vandalism. What I have done is called Jay Nixon, the Governor of Missouri, to make sure that he has a plan to respond in a careful and appropriate way to any potential violence. To be able to sort out the vast majority of peaceful protesters from the handful who are not. But - over the - in the end, what I have confidence in is that if we do a better job of training our law enforcement to be sensitive to the concerns of minority communities, then over time trust can be built in part because minority communities typically are subject to more crime. They need law enforcement more than anybody and there are a lot of communities in my hometown of Chicago, for example, who want to actually see more police in but they want to make sure the police are trained so they can distinguish between a gangbanger and a kid who just happens to be wearing a hoodie but just otherwise is a good kid and not doing anything wrong. One of your heroes, John Lewis, has suggested that if there is no indictment in this case, it would be a miscarriage of justice, and another turning point like Selma. Do you agree with that? You know, I love John, I did not see the quote, so I do not want to comment on what John specifically said. But I will say this - that the kinds of ongoing problems we have with police and communities of color around the country are not of the sort that we saw in Selma. We are not talking about systematic segregation or discrimination.


They are solvable problems if in fact law enforcement officials are open to the kind of training and best practices that we have seen instituted in lot of parts of the country. One of the things I was proudest of when I was in the state legislature, way back when I was in Illinois, in Springfield, was to pass both a racial profiling law and a law governing police interrogations. And in each case I worked with the police, and - both state police and local police organizations, and what they found was that they actually ended up doing better police work, had more trust, you started seeing a reduction in complaints about the behavior of the law enforcement. So we know how to do this, but there is got to be a commitment on the part of law enforcement to do it. And the community has to then give law enforcement that is operating in good faith a chance to improve its practices. Do you think it would make sense for you to go to Ferguson after this decision? But what does makes sense is for not just me but my entire administration to work with willing partners at the state and local level to see how we can address some of these systematic issues. I was struck by a poll I saw recently that said since 2009 the number of African Americans who think that race relations are getting better has actually gone down. Well, you know, we go in sort of ebbs and flows. I think that my own experience tells me that race relations continue to improve. If you think about just in our lifetimes - we are about the same age - where we have traveled, there is no way to say that somehow race relations are worse now than they were 10 years ago, 20 years ago, or 50 years ago. Part of what happens is that they get a lot more attention today - occasionally problems that used to be pretty common 20, 30 years ago were not videotaped everybody knows it instantly Now, you know, somebody's got a camera and people see it and, you know I mean, a good thing in the sense that it lays bare - and I have said this before as an African American male, there have been times where I have experienced discrimination as a young man - it is been a while since it happened - and, you know, I think that folks on the other side of it might not understand why there are concerns or mistrust. Not because they are in denial, just they have not experienced it.


And so when people start seeing these instances, then they start saying okay, maybe we understand what we are talking about. Or to suggest somehow that we have not made progress. One of the things that I think the presidency drives home is - in a democracy, progress is incremental. You know, and it goes in stutter-steps and sometimes there is some backsliding. Big deadline coming up on the Iranian nuclear negotiations - on Monday. I know that Secretary Kerry and the Foreign Minister Zarif of Iran are in some pretty intensive discussions right now. The good news is that the interim deal that we entered into has definitely stopped Iran's nuclear program from advancing, and in some cases has actually rolled back some of the things that they were doing - their stockpiles, for example, how they enriched uranium. So it is been successful, and Iran has followed the terms of the deal. The deal would require rollback, would not it? Well, so, now the question is, can we get to a more permanent deal. I think that our goal has consistently been to shut off a whole bunch of different avenues whereby Iran might get a nuclear weapon, and at the same time make sure that the structure of sanctions are rolled back step for step as Iran is doing what it is supposed to do. I think Iran would love to see the sanctions end immediately, and then to still have some avenues that might not be completely closed, and we cannot do that. Russia and China, you know where we often have tensions - you know, with Russia big tensions lately - nevertheless they have acknowledged that our position is a fair one, and the question now just becomes, Can Iran say yes, and they have got their own hardliners. Well, the difference is I have got the entire international community on my side, and they are sort of on their own. Are you willing to extend if there is no deal by Monday? You know, I think that what we are going to do is take a look at what emerges over the course of the weekend. You know both you and President Rouhani have some constraints. you have Congress. Are you confident that if you reach a deal, Congress will back it? I am confident that if we reach a deal that is verifiable and ensures that Iran does not have breakout capacity, that not only can I persuade Congress, but I can persuade the American people that it is the right thing to do.


our goal is to solve a particular problem here, which is making sure Iran does not trigger a nuclear arms race, cannot threaten the United States, cannot threaten allies like Israel. If we are able to accomplish that goal, if I am confident of it, and my experts and the technical people can say here is the science behind why they cannot break out and we have verifiable mechanisms in place, then I am confident I can sell the deal to the country. And then Iran joins the fight against ISIS? Well, you know, Iran is already fighting ISIS through its various surrogates. We are not going to be I think anytime soon, you know, coordinating military activities with Iran, because keep in mind even if we solve the nuclear problem, we still have the problem of Iran sponsoring terrorist activities in the region, we still have problems in terms of their attitude towards friends like Israel. What a deal would do is take a big piece of business off the table and perhaps begin a long process in which the relationship not just between Iran and us but the relationship between Iran and the world, and the region begins to change. I think ultimately that would be good for the people of Iran. You know it is a big country with a lot of talent, a lot of sophistication. You know, Iran's not like North Korea, a country that is just completely isolated and completely dysfunctional. So they have the opportunity, I think, to really thrive. I suspect President Rouhani would like to seize that opportunity, but in the end he is going to have to deal with his politics at home, and he is not the ultimate decider inside of Iran; the Supreme Leader is. Secretary Clinton tweeted out for support for your executive action last night and it just made me think of it. How- how is this gonna work over the next- couple years, your relationship with the secretary, as it certainly appears she is planning on running for president. Does she have your blessing to kind of separate when she needs to? It- well, she has not announced so I do not wanna jump the gun. I can tell you a couple things. Number one, she was an outstanding secretary of State. Number three- I think- she- and- and a number of other- possible Democratic candidates, would be terrific presidents- And I am very interested in making sure that- I have got a Democratic successor.


So I am gonna do everything I can, obviously, to make sure that- whoever the nominee is is successful. And she is not gonna agree with me on- on everything And, you know, one of the benefits of- running for president is you can stake out your own positions. You are - and- and have- a clean slate. You know, when you have been president for six years you- you know, you have got some dings and- you know and- and- No. You know, I think- I think the American people, you know, they are gonna want- you know, that new car smell. You know, their own- they- they wanna drive somethin' off the lot that- that does not have as- as much mileage as me. You think you will be itchin' to get back out there or glad to let someone else? I- I tell you- when I think about the next two years, I just wanna every single day be making- this government work a little bit better for ordinary folks. And, you know, I told- my- cabinet this- and my White House staff the day. You know, it was- it was- it was a tough- election for us on the midterms and people were understandably down . And I said, Folks, all of you collectively are in charge of the single most powerful institution in the world. And it is responsible for delivering on behalf of millions of Americans and billions of people around the world when you start looking at some of the- security and- and development assistance we provide. I said, Even if Congress does not do another thing, even if- you do not get a dime's more money or no new program is set up, you can figure out over these next two years how to make this thing work just a little bit better so that some kid out there who right now is not - able to afford a college can get college. So that somebody who does not have a job out there- has a better chance of getting a job or job training to prepare them for a job. So that somebody, you know- who- you know, is- is- is worried about- losing their home- has a chance to keep it. And if- if I am able to do that over the next two years- then not only will I be serving the American people well, I think I will be serving a potential successor well.


I am sure Prime Minister Koizumi is looking forward to have you over there. Actually, he is preparing a package for Iraqi reconstruction which includes $5 billion aid for the next 4 years and sending a couple of hundred Japanese self-defense forces over there for the humanitarian operation. Do you think Japan fulfilled her responsibility with this package? I admire him a lot, and I spoke to him about Japan helping in Iraq, just like Japan helped in Afghanistan. And he assured me he would work hard to develop a good package. We have got great relations between America and Japan. We will keep them that way. And part of good relations is we see problems, and we work together, and see opportunities. And a free Iraq is a-a peaceful Iraq is a wonderful opportunity for Japan and the United States to work together to achieve because a free and peaceful Iraq will change the world in a positive way. Another subject, ENTITY, that the Prime Minister will bring up is the North Korean problem. And he is working very hard to resolve the issue of abductees, Japanese. What could your administration do to help him realizing the reunification of the abductees' status? The primary objective of the five countries who are now engaged with North Korea is to get rid of nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula. A major issue with the Prime Minister, of course, is the abductees. I have always said that the fact that North Korea kidnaped or abducted these people talks to the nature of the administration in North Korea. And of course, we will send strong signals that we object to that kind of behavior, that that is not a civil behavior. But the first objective is for all of us to work together for the sake of peace and security, particularly in your part of the world, to get rid of any nuclear weapons and/or ambitions for nuclear weapons. For example, do you think it is possible that your administration demand North Korea to include this abduction program in whatever the comprehensive package-- I will talk to the Prime Minister about this, of course. I know this is a very sensitive subject, and I have spoken out about this terrible practice, a terrible part of history, that the North Koreans abducted. But the first thing we got to do is focus on our overall objective, and that is to make sure that the peninsula is nuclear weapons-free. And that is in Japan's interest, of course. I understand-or I read Bob Woodward's book.

Interview With Taro Kimura of Japan's FUJI TV


And you have said you loathe Kim Chong-il. When I know a leader starves his people, allows his people to starve, and know there is detention camps and it is not a free society-it is a very, closed totalitarian society-he and I do not agree, obviously, on freedom and peace. And I hope that Kim Chong-il realizes that when five nations speak, we are very serious, and that it is in his country's interest to get rid of nuclear weapons and/or programs to develop nuclear weapons. Because the five countries that are now speaking in one voice are saying as clearly as possible to Mr. Kim Chong-il, You need to change for your good and for the good of the country. There is speculation in Tokyo that you will speak to Mr. Koizumi to let dollar-yen rate float and not let the Japanese financial institute to intervene in the market. Well, I will talk to him about, one, our Government's strong dollar policy. And I will remind him that our position when it comes to currency exchanges is that the market ought to decide the relative values of currencies based upon the fiscal policy of each government, the monetary policy of each government, the future economic picture of each country. And that is what I will remind him. This will not be the first time that we have discussed dollar policy and/or trade matters. Lastly, I remember you have enjoyed yakitori when you were in Tokyo, the barbecued chicken. And I wonder whether you will bear tasting sushi this time. I know you are not really particularly in favor of the raw fish. You know I like good beef. Japan's got some of the greatest beef in the world. And- but I am also, hopefully, a good enough guest not to demand a particular menu from my host. The Prime Minister and I have eaten a lot of meals together. And I am confident that he will put together a good meal for both the First Lady, Laura, and me. And I really am looking forward to seeing him. I really enjoyed being around him. You know, one of the- he came to my ranch. And he and I sat down apart from the house in a beautiful part of the ranch and had a very long discussion just on a personal basis. And it meant a lot to me. He is a leader of a great country and a great friend of the United States. And I am grateful for our relationship.


ENTITY, the German Presidency of the G-8 has put the focus for the next meeting on climate change and what to do about it. Europeans want fixed caps. You have been opposed to that all the time. Now you announced a new proposal. Have you changed your position? First, let me, if I might- I think that my friend Angela Merkel, for whom I have great respect, wants to discuss a lot of matters, whether it be ENTITY/ENTITY or malaria or hunger, depravation, as well as climate change. And I am looking forward to it, I really am. I have been to this beautiful part of Germany before. It is a beautiful part of your country. No, I have always taken the issue seriously. I have told the American people and those who are willing to listen that I take climate change seriously. And today I talked about a post-Kyoto framework in which the world can discuss this issue in a serious fashion. Angela was concerned at one time whether or not I'd be willing to accept a post-Kyoto framework, and today I expressed my keen desire to work with her and other leaders on such a framework. And I also suggested that a good first step toward achieving serious accomplishments would be to have the major emitters gather and set a goal, an international goal by the end of 2008. And I am very serious about that. I am looking forward to working with G-8 partners and others. I think one of the breakthroughs that I hope we can achieve in Germany at this G-8 is to get India and China as participants in setting an international goal. And what that goal is, that will be determined as a result of these meetings. But Angela should be proud of leading the international community toward these kind of breakthroughs. Though this is the beginning of a process, at the end of which there could be fixed goals? And that would be determined by the major emitters, the major greenhouse gas emitters. Generally, sometimes people-some sit around the table and come up with what they think is the best solution. My view is, is that they need to get the United States, China, India, the EU, Russia, other countries as well around the table and say, okay, we agree on a goal. And each nation needs to come up with a way to achieve that goal.

Interview With Eberhard Piltz of Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen, Germany


And listen, the truth of the matter is, the best way to achieve, in our case, a couple of national objectives-energy security and economic security, as well as being good stewards of the environment-is a strong push for technologies. And I will bring a very good record to the G-8. We have spent a lot of money here in the United States on developing clean technologies. We are driving a lot of our automobiles now with corn-based ethanol. That gets us off of oil, which is good for economic and national security, and it helps with the environment. Missile defense, sir-the harsh Russian reaction on U.S. plans on missile defense signals some sort of deterioration in relations. Are we headed back to colder times? Our message to-and my personal message to Vladimir Putin is, there is no need to try to relive the cold war. And we do not view Russia as an enemy, we view Russia as an opportunity to work together. We do not agree with every decision Russia has made. She does not agree with every decision I have made. But I have worked hard to make sure that we can find common ground on issues like proliferation and dealing with Islamic radicals and Iran or North Korea. You know, Vladimir Putin has spoken out very strongly on missile defense. And so frankly, it-I visit with Angela quite often, and one of the things she talked to me about, is there not a way to open a dialog with President Putin on missile defense? So I sent Bob Gates, our Secretary of Defense, there, and my message to Vladimir Putin-and it will be when I see him at the G-8 in Germany as well as here in the States-is, you do not have anything to fear. As a matter of fact, this system is aimed at protecting NATO allies, and if you want to participate, we would like you to participate with us. We will be totally transparent in the technologies that we are deploying. We want you to come and inspect our sites. We want you to talk to our military. We want to be wide open because this system is not geared toward Russia; it is geared toward a rogue state that may be able to acquire a nuclear weapon. You mentioned Angela Merkel's role. Well, it sounds like to me, Angela has had some pretty difficult dialogs herself as the leader of the EU.


And I think the key thing is for Angela and me to work closely together to have a-when we can in dealing with Russia. But each nation has to deal with Russia in her own terms. I do not need any help dealing with Vladimir Putin, and he does not need any help dealing with me. We are sovereign nations; we have our positions. One of the things that I have worked hard to do is to-and received some criticism here in the States-is, I have worked hard to have a personal relationship with Vladimir Putin so that when I discuss things with him, I can find areas of agreement, but I have also got a relationship such that I can bring up areas of concern without rupturing relations. And it is -you know, some have suggested, well, there is no need to have relations with Russia. Well, I strongly disagree with that. I think it is important for the U.S. and Russia to have relations. Sir, how satisfied are you with international burden-sharing in the war on terror? As a matter of fact, the coalitions are much bigger than anybody could have envisioned. You know, one of my concerns, however, is that, just in general, people do not take the threat seriously. Well, there have not been many attacks; there is been a few attacks; but we should not be that worried about it. I am deeply worried about it, and I really strongly believe the free world ought to be worried about radicals and extremists who will kill in the name of an ideology. See, I view this as an ideological conflict between people who are willing to murder and want to spread their vision, and those of us who believe in liberty and the universality of liberty. And so my main worry is complacency over the long run. I am pleased with the cooperation at this point in time. We have got great relations with Germany. Obviously, if we know of a plot that may be taking place in Germany, we will share information on an instant basis, and vice versa. And that ought to be comforting to the German citizens. That was my next question, the state of the relationship between America and Germany. Are we back to, as your father put it, partners in leadership ? First of all, I had a decent relationship with Gerhard Schroeder. I never bore any- look, there was a difference on Iraq, obviously; it was a clear difference on Iraq.


You face many tough issues as Commander in Chief, for instance, drawing down forces in Iraq and ramping up in Afghanistan. What goes through your mind when you are in front of these marines here at Camp Lejeune and you have to tell them that they are going into harm's way? in your role as Commander in Chief. And my main goal is to make sure that any time we are deploying our men and women in uniform, that the civilian leadership has done everything that it needs to do to make the best decision possible. And that means consulting with our commanders on the ground; it means talking to every level of Pentagon leadership, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to my Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates; it means also consulting with a wide range of people outside, so that you are not just listening to one voice, you are listening to a whole bunch of them and then arriving at some sort of consensus. And I am confident that with respect to our drawdown in Iraq, it is done in a way that General Odierno is comfortable with, General Petraeus is comfortable with, that our diplomatic efforts can be ramped up to accompany that drawdown. With respect to Afghanistan, I think that all of us believe that the situation has deteriorated somewhat there, and that is why I immediately made a decision for us to send additional troops, including marines from Camp Lejeune. But I also think that we have got to refine our goals and our strategy more effectively. I think in Afghanistan we have seen that strategy drift a little bit. And, you know, my most important job as Commander in Chief is to make sure that if we are sending folks there, we have a well-thought-out strategy, clear goals, and that they are achievable and that I can marshal and maintain the strongest support possible from folks back home. And to sort of continue with that topic, you said that the U.S. will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat Al Qaida and to combat extremism in the region. What will this mean for our men and women in Afghanistan now and in the future, sir? Well, first of all, by sending an additional 17,000 troops, we are obviously going to be bolstering our forces in Afghanistan, and that will obviously be important to the folks that are already there.

Interview With Master Sergeant Rusty Barfield of the Pentagon Channel


If you talk to General McKiernan, our commander in Afghanistan, he will tell you that especially in the southern regions of the country you have seen brazen attacks from Taliban forces, extremist forces, and we want to make sure that we have the force necessary to meet that. I also think that because you are going to see that additional engagement, there is the risk of greater additional casualties, at least in the short term, just as there was in Iraq. And, you know, that is something that, you know, we will have to monitor very carefully. The key, though, is to understand that we are not going to win in Afghanistan or get an acceptable outcome in Afghanistan if we are only dependent on our military. Our military does everything that is asked of them, but anybody who knows the region knows that if we do not have a Afghan Government that can deliver for its people, if we do not have an economic development strategy where farmers do not have to grown heroin poppy but instead can grow other crops so that they are not feeding narcoterrorism if we do not have Pakistan providing us support on the other side of the border that cleans out some of these areas where Al Qaida and the Taliban are using as safe havens, then this is not going to work. And my goal is to have a comprehensive strategy of not just force, but also diplomacy and development that is all moving in concert to get the kind of outcome we want. You just talked about your plan for drawing down combatant forces in Iraq by the end of August 2010. Why is this timeline so important to you, sir? Well, because I think it is important, first of all, to send a very strong, clear signal to the Iraqis that they are going to need to be taking these responsibilities, that we mean it when we say that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force in Iraq. And we already have an agreement, a security agreement that was signed by the previous administration and by the Maliki Government that says we have got to be out of there by the end of 2011. We do not want to have 140,000 troops there the day before we have to be out of there; we have got to have a glide path that is responsible in pulling our troops out. And so what we have done is we have set a point of August 31, 2010, as a transition point, after the Iraqi elections have taken place, where there is , obviously, potential vulnerability.


After that point, you are looking at maybe six brigades, 35,000 to 50,000 troops overall, who are providing logistical support, training, are providing protection for U.S. civilian as well as military personnel, and some counterterrorist counterterrorism striking capability. That then gets phased down over the next year and a half or so, until finally at the end of 2011, we should have no troops there. I think it is a responsible plan that meets our objectives, and it is one that was created in close consultation with our military commanders on the ground. And in continuing on with that topic, what will be the major measuring stick, if you will, when we talk about the 35,000 to 50,000 troops? What is it that is going to really sway you in terms of, is it 35,000, is it 40,000, or is it 50,000? Well, you know, I think that all these decisions have to be made based on what the situation is at the time, and it is very hard to anticipate exactly what things are going to be like in 18 months. If we continue to make strong progress in training the Iraqi security forces, if the elections are peaceful, if we have seen resolution of some of the issues that are creating sectarian tension in Iraq, like the oil laws and how much power the national Government has versus the Provincial governments, if those issues are getting resolved peacefully through a regular political process, then that probably means that we are going to be able to have less troops support there, as of August 31st of next year. If some of those things have not happened, then that will put more of a burden on us, as well as the Iraqis. So our hope is, is that we are doing everything right leading up to that point so that by the time we get to that transition period, we are well prepared to start phasing our entire operation out of Iraq. ENTITY, how does your plan for Iraq and Afghanistan deal with the issue of relieving the pressure on the fighting force and their families? Well, this is one of the most important issues that we face. so many people I meet on repeated tours three, four tours of duty; the stop-loss policy that is hit a number of our fighting men and women; the burden on military families, something that my wife, the First Lady, Michelle, has taken very seriously and talked to a lot of families about.


So first of all, obviously, as we start drawing down, that puts less pressure on military families. That means that we can start ending we can end stop-loss policy. We can start getting back to the kinds of rotations where, you know, after a year of service, then people have a lot more time back home than they have had over the last several years, which is good for everybody. In addition, my budget has also called for an increase in the force structure, the size of the Marines and of the ENTITY. So that will also relieve some of the pressure, and it will allow us to meet some of the strategic needs not just in Afghanistan and Iraq, but around the world. I mean, there is a big world out there, and right now we do not have the kind of strategic capability that we should to meet other emergency situations that might arise. Along those same lines, one big piece of relief, I think you heard during the speech today, is that we are going to have a pay increase for our troops. But beyond that, in the recovery plan that I got passed through Congress we have a whole slew of steps that we are taking that are going to provide some immediate help to the military families. In my budget, we have got additional money for daycare, additional money for training, making sure that the GI bill that was signed last year by Congress, that that is adequately funded and implemented. So one of the things that is very important to me is improved quality of life, making sure that our troops and their families are supported, honored, and that our veterans, when they come home, are treated with the respect and the care that they need. I have a final question for you, sir; I know you have a full plate today. If you could sit down and speak to each military member and their family, as Commander in Chief, what would you tell them, and how would you convey your commitment to them, sir? Well, first of all, what I'd tell them is thank you. And you know, just yesterday, I had the mother and father of a fallen marine, who actually was stationed here at Camp Lejeune I had written them a letter of gratitude and condolence. They actually got a ride on Air Force One down here because their grandchildren, their son's children, are still down here. And what I told them was, first of all, thank you; that all of America is grateful.


My pleasure, I read the ENTITY before other people read the ENTITY. Now it is trendy and everybody carries around a ENTITY. Let us talk about the G-20. What will be your benchmarks for success? The most important task for all of us is to deliver a strong message of unity in the face of crisis. Number one, all the participating countries recognize that in the face a severe global contraction we have to each take steps to promote economic growth and trade; that means a robust approach to stimulus, fighting off protectionism. Next, we have to make sure that we are all taking serious steps to deal with the problems in the banking sector and the financial markets and that means having a series of steps to deal with toxic assets and to ensure adequate capital in the banking sector. Third, a regulatory reform agenda that prevents these kinds of systemic risks from occurring again and that requires each country to take initiative, but it also requires coordination across borders because we have a global, we have global capital markets, and that will include a wide range of steps, additional monitoring authority coordination of supervisors and various countries dealing with offshore tax havens. I know that in my discussion I think there is a concern that we do not want people to be able to game the system or circumvent regulated capital markets and making sure our regulations are targeting not just banks but any institution that could pose a potential systemic risk to the system. A final area of concerted action involves international financial institutions and their capacity to assist emerging markets in developing countries at a time when those markets could be under even more severe strain then some of the more wealthy nations and I think making sure that institutions like the IMF have the resources to provide such assistance that world food supplies are not imperiled as a consequence of the break down in global trade, those are all issues that I think have to be addressed. Now, I am confident based on conversations that I have this week with Angela Merkel, Sarkozy, as well as with Kevin Rudd as well as conversations that I have had previously with Gordon Brown and others, that there is already a rough consensus there that by the time we arrive in London we will have taken, we will have made significant progress in moving in the right direction. Let us just talk about the stimulus for a moment. There are concerns among economists that you need a sustainable stimulus and therefore 2010 is key. Will you get secure commitments from say, the Europeans, for action if necessary in 2010?

Interview with Lionel Barber, Chrystia Freeland, and Edward Luce of the Financial Times


The press has tended to frame this as an either or approach . There are some G20 participants that are arguing fiercely for stimulus, others for regulation. What I have consistently argued is that what is needed is a both and approach . We need stimulus and we need regulation. We need to deal with the problems right in front of us and we also need to make sure we are taking steps to prevent these types of breakdowns from happening again. With respect to the stimulus, there is going to be an accord that G20 countries will do what is necessary to promote growth and trade. I think there is a legitimate concern that, would most countries already having initiated significant stimulus packages that we need to see how they work. Obviously, I admire economists. I have a bunch of them on my staff. But to start making a whole host of plans about next year, without having better information on how the current stimulus efforts are working, is something that I think is of concern. So, what we are going to see is what the United States has led on this. We have been very aggressive in terms of our recovery package. The way our recovery package is structured, money is going out both in 2009 and 2010. But each country has its own constraints, its own political rhythms and what we want to just make sure is that everybody is doing something, everybody recognizes the need to make progress on this front and that we are prepared to step into the breech should current efforts prove to be inadequate. I mean that is really the great challenge, in managing this crisis - bridging the gap between what is economically absolutely necessary and what is politically possible. How do you bridge that? Then there is a gap in ideas about how to approach a crisis like this, especially among economists - although on the issue of the stimulus there seems to be much broader consensus among both conservative and liberal economists that stimulus is appropriate. You know, the financial crisis hit the United States first; it is now being experienced around the world. Not surprisingly we took some very aggressive action earlier than some other countries because its impact had been felt most immediately on Wall Street. As other countries start experiencing these drastic declines in GDP and in their exports, I think that the sense of urgency has grown, and you are going to start seeing a convergence.


In all countries there is an understandable tension between the steps that are needed to kick start the economy and the fact that many of these steps are very expensive and tax payers have a healthy skepticism about spending too much of their money, particularly when it is perceived that some of the money is being spent not on them but on others who they perceive may have helped precipitate the crisis. So that is always going to be a challenge and what is also difficult is the fact that the policies we initiate all take time to take effect and by its very nature politics looks for more instantaneous gratification. But I am confident that the American people, and I think people around the world, are looking to its leaders to lead and that some of the steps we have already taken are starting to bear fruit. We are seeing glimmers of stabilization in the economies and we have not yet seen... Here in the United States for example, you are starting to see pockets of stabilization in the housing market. Our housing plan has led to the lowest interest rates, mortgage rates in a very long time and you are starting to see a huge number of refinancing in the banking sector. In certain select markets, like the market for auto loans or the market for student loans, Secretary Tim Geithner's efforts to provide a market for asset-backed securities has helped and so we still have a long way to go, but I am confident that if we are persistent and we do not approach this with a thought that there is a silver bullet out there but instead are willing to try a range of methods to deliver on the economic growth in jobs that we will get out of this current crisis. You mentioned the risks and dangers of protectionism. 73 separate measures have been identified by the World Bank since the last G20 summit so what again in practical terms can your administration do at the G20 to stop this - and I am thinking to whether there are real risks that people worry in Europe a lot about what is going on, on Capitol Hill, with Buy American provisions. Well first of all, I think it is important to note that here in the United States, despite some protectionist rhetoric and very real economic frustration growing out of the collapse of the financial markets and the huge rise in unemployment that the Buy American provision that was in the stimulus package was specifically written that had to be consistent with WTO. That the Mexican trucking provision is now subject to negotiations to ensure that we do not see an escalating trade war.


I have sent a very clear signal that now is not that time to offer hints of protectionism and I will continue to discourage efforts to close off the US market. I think that in a democracy, there are always going to be some loose ends out there. That is true here, that is true around the world but overall I do not think that we have seen a huge rush to protectionism that that is not the rhetoric that is emanating from the leaders that will be gathering in London. And to the extent that the American people or Europeans or Asians, Africans, Latin Americans all feel confident that their leaders are doing everything that they can to encourage and promote economic and that they have their populations interests at heart, I think we are going to be able to hold the line on any significant slippage. I wondered ENTITY whether you are concerned that, particularly following the AIG bonus controversy, there is some danger that confidence that business has in the rule of law in the United States has been shaken and that could hinder some of these recovery measures? I think it is a source of concern in some quarters. To the extent that the captains of industry recognize very legitimate frustrations that the American people feel when they read about huge bonuses going to members of firms that are receiving large tax payer bailouts. I think they can take steps to lessen that danger and I met with some bankers today and it was a constructive conversation but one of the points that I made is that a time when everybody is needing to sacrifice there has to be a similar sense of sacrifice on the part of those various sectors of the economy that helped to precipitate this crisis and to the extent that they are showing restraint that compensation packages are structured so that there is some deferral until money is returned to tax payers and the economy recovers that will be good for everybody. That will put in a stronger position to help them. But you know, keep in mind that although there are going to be, I think, emotional reactions to and legitimate grievances around some of these issues, the United States has been the world's most successful economy precisely because of a long-standing respect for legal contracts and orderly transparent and open market operations and that is not going to change. ENTITY, given the rising tendency to populism on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, do you feel confident that at a time like this you can go to Congress and ask for the kind of backing of capitalization that most economists say will be required in the near future?


Yes, I'd just say two quick things before we go to questions. One is just to piggyback on something ENTITY said. Both candidates, as you know, have made public their commitment to signing the BSA, and reiterated that commitment today. And they continue to pursue a conclusion to their election process based on the audit that was agreed to and the commitment to form a government that can bring together Afghanistan's different political factions. And so that is ongoing, and we have urged them to conclude that as soon as position so that we can conclude the agreements that ENTITY referenced. Just two quick scheduling things that I left out from today. This was also in that window between the Ukraine meeting and the ISAF meeting. In addition, to seeing King Abdullah, the President was able to check in with the NATO Aspirant countries, and that includes Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, Montenegro. And then he was able to have a check-in with NATO's Enhanced Partners. This is something that we focused on in terms of making NATO a hub of a truly global security architecture. And those are just brief check-ins, but they are a key priority to the United States that we reiterate NATO's open door and to build these Enhanced Partnerships. I just want to quickly clarify the President did, in fact, go to that meeting on Ukraine, correct? He was just late for it? Yes, he went to the meeting. And can you talk a little bit more about these sanctions that you are looking at, kind of what sectors are they going at and really where are they going to target? I do not want to get ahead of the process of developing these sanctions -- or sorry, in the process of finalizing these sanctions. They have obviously been worked on steadily for some time now. Clearly, the last round of sanctions that we did focused on sectors of the Russian economy that would have maximum impact. And so we did sanctions on the arms and financial and energy sectors. We have broad authorities to look at a range of different sectors. So the United States is preparing our own additional sanctions. We have very active discussions with the Europeans that have been ongoing for months now so that we can share our thinking and have an understanding of their thinking. They are working at the European Council on their own measures. I think the key point is that Russia must continue to face costs for its own escalation. If Russia escalates, we stand prepared to escalate our pressure.

Barack Obama On-the-Record Conference Call by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, and U.S. Ambassador to NATO Doug Lute on the President's Meetings at the NATO Summit


And that is I think what the leaders are committed to in the face of Russia's continued support for their proxies and to separatists in Ukraine, as well as their personnel moving overtly into Ukraine. So, again, we are working this in coordination with the Europeans. At the same time, if there can be a peaceful de-escalation, that is preferable. And that is something we would support, provided that President Poroshenko and the Ukrainian government is committed to an agreement. And we'd of course have to see follow-through from all sides, including Russia and this effort that it is been backing. Prime Minister Cameron earlier today mentioned that he would be willing to consider paying a ransom, given the imminent execution of a British citizen. Obviously, President Obama has been very clear in saying that he is not willing to pay ransoms. How will he respond to the Prime Minister this evening? Prime Minister Cameron has been very firm in sharing our view that it is the wrong thing to do to pay ransom to an organization like ISIL for a number of reasons. One, that it incentivizes additional kidnappings; two, that it provides them with a key funding source. And, frankly, part of what has allowed ISIL to grow in the last several months is access to funding in part through very large ransoms that have been paid. And, three, we just as a general matter do not provide funding to terrorist organizations. So we believe we are in agreement with Prime Minister Cameron on that issue. And at the same time, we have urged other governments to adopt a similar approach -- because, tragically, we fear that ransoms incentivize further kidnappings. And so while we certainly understand the sentiments of families and loved ones who want to do whatever is possible to gain the freedom of those who are held hostage, we do that through every resource we have -- military intelligence, law enforcement, diplomacy -- but we do rule out the payment of ransom. And that is a position we have shared with the United Kingdom. I wanted to go back to the ISIL response that you talked about. You said Prime Minister Cameron and the President had a chance to talk about a range of ways in which countries could contribute. Did they talk specifically about military action and whether the British would support the United States if President Obama decided to expand airstrikes into Syria or elsewhere? And what was the response to that?


And then also, on Ukraine, could you talk about whether, specifically, direct assistance in the form of weapons for the Ukrainians was discussed and what the response was of the Allies for that? On the discussion with Prime Minister Cameron, I do not want to get into specific operational details that may have been discussed, and I certainly do not want to speak for the United Kingdom. However, I think it is fair to say that the President discussed the range of different tools that it is going to take to confront ISIL. And we are already doing that through our military action in Iraq, through the strikes that we are taking, but also through intelligence, through the provision of humanitarian assistance, through efforts to crack down on the transitive foreign fighters, through political support for the Iraqi government, and through arming and equipping and training and advising security forces on the ground -- the Iraqi security forces and the Kurdish forces in Iraq. And, of course, we have been engaged in support for the moderate Syrian opposition. Thus far, the United Kingdom has been with us in a range of ways in Iraq. They have done humanitarian airdrops with us on Sinjar Mountain, for instance; and most recently, in Amerli. They have provided important intelligence support. And so we are discussing the full range of options. Prime Minister Cameron spoke to this himself today, and he was looking at the full range of options. So I will let them speak for their own decision-making process. But as you saw in their joint op-ed this morning, and as was reflected in their conversation, he is very seized with the threat and committed to working as a part of a broad coalition that works in many different ways to confront the threat from ISIL. On Ukraine, the capabilities discussion has focused on, well, both short-term assistance to Ukraine that can fill immediate needs. And we have been focused on non-lethal in our efforts to do so, although things like body armor, night-vision goggles are filling direct requirements that help the Ukrainian security services. The NATO discussions have also been very focused on supporting the professionalization and modernization and greater capacity of the Ukrainian security forces in both the short and long term, and what can we do in training and exercises and equipping to meet that goal. And that is the focus of the discussion today. ENTITY, I do not know if you want to add anything about NATO's partnership with Ukraine on the security side.


Yes, so let me just add that after hearing from Poroshenko today and going around the table among 28 Allies, I think we will be prepared tomorrow to make some announcements about steps that NATO is actually prepared to take with regard to supporting Ukraine. But there is a range of things NATO can do. Most security assistance, weaponry, body armor and so forth comes from nations, not the Alliance as a whole. But the Alliance can perform a very useful and efficient clearinghouse role, both for humanitarian assistance and for security assistance. And I would expect that we may have more to say about that tomorrow. But more broadly, NATO has had a something like 17-year partnership with Ukraine, as it has with about 40 other countries. And Ukrainian forces have served with NATO in Afghanistan, in Kosovo and so forth. So one thing we can do going forward is, based on that partnership, continue to build the capacity of Ukrainian forces not for the purposes of working together in Afghanistan and Kosovo now, but actually for the purpose -- the fundamental purpose of defending their own country. So NATO's existing relationship by way of this partnership really gives us the platform with which to continue our support to Ukraine. And I expect there will be news on that tomorrow. And again, I should just note that, given the summit is ongoing, tomorrow we would expect a range of announcements on issues related to NATO capabilities, support to Ukraine, and other issues on the agenda. So we are checking in midway here, so that is the important context that ENTITY gave. To go back to the Islamic State, in the Obama-Cameron op-ed this morning, it seemed like they were speaking directly to NATO members. And I am wondering if you are seeking any kind of concrete deliverables or statements from NATO on the Islamic State threat. And then also, if you could talk about anything that they are asking of individual countries on the sidelines of the summit. I'd say a couple of things, and ENTITY may want to add. With respect to individual countries, we will be able to have conversations on the margins of this summit as the President did with Prime Minister Cameron about contributions that they can make on an ongoing basis to an effort to confront ISIL. A number of NATO members have already stepped up -- countries like France and Italy, as well as the United Kingdom, Germany -- in things like supporting the Kurds and the ISF with arms and equipment.