And let me just give you one big reason why. This is the flip side of the argument you made. In 1980, the average doctor was taking home 75 percent of the money generated by a clinic. In 1990, the average doctor was taking home 52 cents on the dollar, 52 percent of the money generated by a clinic. Twenty-three cents on the dollar increase in the amount of money the doctor was having to spend on people, basically to do clerical work in the clinics. The Children's Hospital at Washington told us last week that the 200 doctors on staff there spent enough time in non-health-care-related paperwork every year because of the administrative cost of this systema dime on the dollar more than any other system in the worldto see another 500 patients each a year, 10,000 more kids a year. So, a lot of doctors are going to feel very liberated by this because they are going to be freer to practice medicine, and the incentives to churn the system just to pay for all their paperwork will be less. I guess I have the opportunity, I will make it a two-part question because it is a rare opportunity, and I appreciate it. First of all, if you receive everything that you want, that you are hoping for, and we hear about the 37 million uninsured and the many underinsured people, I am wondering if there is anybody that will be disappointed with the new system if you get everything you want, and who those people might be? And secondly, I hear very little about medical fraud and medical malpractice problems, as if it is not a major problem, and we are led to believe that it is. Maybe I should answer that question first, because it is a quicker one. Then let me try to tell you how to sort through the winners and losers. First of all, in this system if you put consumers of health care, employers and employees, particularly the small businesses, in large buying groups where they will have more market power and more oversight authority, you will inevitablywe are going to change the economic incentives as well as the private sector oversight to reduce fraud and abusewe are definitely going to see big savings there. Secondly, what was the other thing you asked me? One of the things that we do not know is how much extra excess procedures and tests are done as defensive medicine or to churn the system, to go back to your other question.

Interview With Radio Talk Show Hosts


The economic incentives to churn the system will be dramatically reduced under these kind of payment plans. It will be more like the way the Rochester, New York, system works, the way the Mayo Clinic system works. More and more people will be in a system where they pay up front, and then they take what they need. And the doctors are going to get paid out of that. We will propose some significant reforms, including limiting the percentage of income lawyers can get in contingency fees in lawsuits. But I have to tell you, what I think the most significant and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms but I think the most important one will be permitting the professional associations to draw up medical practice guidelines which, when approved, will protect the doctors to some extent, because if they follow the guidelines in any given case, it will raise a presumption that they were not negligent. And that will be a real protection against just doing an extra procedure because you are trying to hedge against a lawsuit. The State of Maine pioneered this because they wanted more general practitioners in rural Maine to do more things for people like help deliver babies because they did not have anybody else to do it. So, the idea of giving people practice guidelines I think is very good. Can we talk through that? I will tell you who will have to pay more. You know, there will be some people who will have to pay more. The news magazines this week did a pretty good job of analyzing this. If we go to community rating, so that we can allow people, for example, who have had a sick child not to be bankrupt by their insurance costs and to move from job to job, and you put everybody in a broad community, it means young, single, super healthy people will pay more in the first year of this than they would have otherwise. Now, here is why I think that is a good deal for young, single, super healthy people. So even though they might pay more this year, within 5 to 8 years, if this plan goes through, everybody will be paying less than they would have. So, they would pay more. They will have to pay something. There are others who insure but only for catastrophic. They will have to pay more, but they will get much better benefits, and their rates will go up less. So, there will be some people who will pay more now than they were paying.

Interview With Radio Talk Show Hosts


But I believe that if we cankeep in mind, if we can stop the cost of health care from going up at 2 and 3 times the rate of inflation, if we can get it down where the rate of increase is much lower, by the end of the decade everybody will be way better off than they were. ENTITY do you approve ofBoris Yeltsin's announcement that he is going to dissolve the Parliament, and does the United States support him in his power struggle with his opponents? Well, first of all, let me say I have had only a sketchy briefing about this, and I have not talked to President Yeltsin yet. I would like to reserve the right to issue a statement after I attempt to talk to President Yeltsin. In any case, I will issue a statement before the end of the day, but I think at least I should have a direct briefing. ENTITY Clinton, tomorrow you will be speaking before a joint session of Congress and there are 535 people, individuals, in Congress that will have their own specific plans of what they want If you could say that you could put your name on one or two or three specific parts of this that you want to say, This is my health care plan, that you want to see no matter what 535 other people want to see, that you feel you want to be part of your Clinton health care program, what two or three items, specifically? Number one, every American would have security in their health care system. You would be able to get health insurance, there would be adequate benefits, and you would not lose them. Number two, the system would impose a far higher level of responsibility for managing costs than it does now on all the players, including the consumers. Number three, people would keep their choice of physicians and medical providers. And number four, we would guarantee adequate access to preventive and primary care so we could stop some of the big things that are happening to us before they get going. And five, we would have market incentives to bring costs down. Those are the things that I want to be the hallmark of our program.

Interview With Radio Talk Show Hosts


I have been sports director of WHO Radio since 1944. And obviously we are honored and excited today to have the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, who sat behind this microphone on many occasions from 1933 to 1937 when he had my job. He was sports director here at WHO. Now, the memories that this microphone right here evokes in you what are they? It is like a film montage there of everything, the various events and the I remember probably one outstanding occasion the microphone of that kind out at Birdland Park, and they were having the Olympic tryouts out there, the AAU tryouts for the Olympic team. And we were feeding network going to feed the NBC network, and that was really tops. We had half an hour to fill. And some of the Olympic officials got in an argument, and I was on the air for 30 minutes, nationwide and they did not run off one single swimming event. I think I described every drop of water in the pool everyone that was warming up, and what they were doing, and talking about, what events were going to be held. Went off the air and 2 minutes after we were off the air, they had the first event. But your ad-lib ability was really put to a super test with that machine right there, the old Western Union ticker tape that used to bring in the Chicago Cubs re-creations to you. And you had a stick one time in that famous story you fouled it off 34 times, 35 times. Curly Waddel was the operator, sat on that side with the headphones, and he would type and slip it under the window to me. And they used to keep track because there'd be seven or eight stations competing and broadcasting, and most of them live, right at the park and we were within half a pitch of right up with the live ball game all the time. To do that, he had to abbreviate things down, like in would come the paper, and it would say, Out 4-3. Well, that meant out from second base to first base, that meant it had to be a grounder. So, you'd take it, and you'd say, And Dean comes out of the windup, and here comes the pitch, and it is a hard hit ground ball down toward second base. So-and-so going over after the ball, picks it up, flips it over to first, just in time for the out.

Interview With Jim Zabel of WHO Radio in Des Moines, Iowa


And by this time you are waiting for the next one. Or he would send you S-1-C. So, you'd say, He is got the sign, comes out of the windup, here is the pitch, and it is a called strike, breaking over the outside corner just above the knees. But the thing that you are talking about was the time that it was the ninth inning, the Cards and the Cubs, tied up 0-0, and he was typing, and I thought there is a play coming. And he kept shaking his head when I had and it was Dean on the mound and I had Billy Jurgess at the plate. And I had him getting a sign from the catcher, and finally here comes the slip of paper, and it said, The wires have gone dead. And I knew in that ninth inning if I suddenly said, Well, we will have a little interlude of music while we get back connected with the ballpark, we'd lose every they'd all turn on some of those other stations. foul ball. So, I had Jurgess foul one, and then I had him foul another. And then I had him foul one that missed a home run by a foot. Then I described two kids down back of third base that were in a fight over the ball that had gone into the stands there. And pretty soon I know I am beginning to set a world record for somebody standing at the plate and hitting successive fouls, if anyone ever kept those figures. And I was beginning to sweat a little, because I knew now that if I told them we'd lost the wire they'd know I had not been telling the truth. Who finally did get the hit in that game? And I had him throw another pitch, and in came the slip, and I had trouble getting it out, because the slip said Jurgess popped out on the first ball pitched. Charlie Gross, let us bring you in here. You were known as kind of a meticulous perfectionist at the time. Did he live up to your standards when you were here? You kind of made him toe the line? This was the source of all sports news around here that is, by way of radio this gentleman here, The President. Did you project in him at that time, when he was 22, 23 years old, the qualities that enabled him to become President of the United States? He belonged to the wrong party at this time, but The President.


Yeah, but I outgrew that. Yes, but he outgrew it. No, I never thought, of course, that he would become President of the United States and that I would be here at his side tonight. ENTITY, this microphone brings back you were selected Wheaties Sportscaster of the Year one time.  the Wheaties commercial, you did the Kentucky Club commercial Yeah, they sponsored an awful lot of baseball, Wheaties did. And when you came into Des Moines today, down Fleur Drive from the airport did you notice some changes about the city of Des Moines? Well, long about the time we got here by the time that I got here, I was just prepared to turn right and go to 914 Walnut Street. And here I am in a whole new institution.  I want to hear one that you have got down here.- Well, let me just tell you, he is a pioneer, and a true pioneer. Under the Fair Trade Practices Act back in the those depression days, radio was not allowed to do news, because it would be unfair. They thought that you could just go and put it in a microphone instead of having to have it put in print and out on the streets. And B. J. Palmer, who was then the head of the central broadcasting, decided that he was going to challenge that and we were going to have news. And only one news service would provide us with a newswire. And Charlie was the whole news department, including the writing and rewriting of the stories. And we went on the air with news, and it was a first in radio. It became a daily twice-a-day feature for his news. And then, of course, he was a pioneer in another thing, as you know when he went to Congress. It was no surprise to those of us that knew him that he would be known as the conscience of the Congress, that his colleagues would go to him because they knew he had read the bills, and they'd go to him before they voted to find out. Okay, ENTITY, you told me when I did an interview with you in 1974 on the 50th anniversary of WHO Radio that the 5 years you spent here were 5 of the happiest years of your life. Do you still look back on those that fondly? They were really those were foundation years, and I think everything that happened came out of this.


Well, it is the true American hero story hitchhiking to Davenport, I believe, to get the job in the first place. Had a rather unusual audition from Pete McArthur, who was the program director then. I had been told that in looking for a job in those depression days and I'd hitchhiked all the way around the country quite a bit I'd been told that you should ask an employer not for what you wanted to be a sports announcer just tell him you'd take any job to get in the station and then take your chances on moving up from there. So, I made my usual pitch of that kind after a number of turndowns to Pete. We auditioned 90 people and hired an announcer. And on my way out the door, I said, How do you ever get to be a sports announcer if you cannot get in a station? , and went on down to the elevator, which, fortunately, was not there. And Pete, who was badly handicapped with arthritis and on two canes I did not know until I heard him thumping down the hall yelling at me and he asked me what that was I said about sports. And I told him that is what I'd like to be. And he said, You know anything about football? And I said, I played it for 8 years. He said, Do you think you could tell me about a game and, if I was sitting there listening, I could see the game? And he took me in a studio, put me in front of one of these. And he put me in front of that, and he said, When the red light goes on, you start broadcasting an imaginary football game. And I did for about 15 minutes. I knew I had to have names. So, I picked a game that I'd played in in college, the previous fall-which we'd won in the last 20 seconds by a 65-yard touchdown run I did not make the run. So, I chose that game and said, when the light came on, started that we were in the 4th quarter. You know, I had everything. The famous long, blue shadows ENTITY Yes the chill wind coming in through the end of the stadium-we did not have a stadium, we had bleachers. And I did it for about the 15 minutes and made that winning touchdown.


As a running guard, coming out and around and leading the interference on that play, that day, Eureka College, I missed my man, the first man in the secondary. And I do not know how Bud Cole got by and reversed the field, because I missed him. In the broadcast, I nailed him. It was a magnificent block key to the whole success of the play. And he came in and told me to be there on Saturday, that I was broadcasting the Iowa-Minnesota game, and he would give me $5 and bus fare. No, I am saying that facetiously. Well, ENTITY, obviously we are just thrilled and happy to have you here to reminisce about the old let me ask you one question, from sportscaster to sportscaster would you have stayed a sportscaster if the telegram had not come from Warner Brothers, do you think? Well, we have about eight to ten thousand people, I think, a full house waiting up at the auditorium. Can you tell us what you are going to tell them up there tonight? Well, I do not think anything that I say has been said by any of the eight other candidates who've been running around the State. I might have a little different twist on things than that. But I am going to talk about this recovery that we have going and what I think is needed to keep it going. How does it feel to be back in Des Moines? It is too short, as always, but give me another 7.5 minutes, and I'd be so far down nostalgia lane .- Let me ask you one question a lot of people ask of me about you. What type of sportscaster were you? I mean, how do you categorize your style? I always thought I always had in mind a listener out there, and I thought that I was painting a word picture. If I was in the stadium over at University of Iowa broadcasting an Iowa football game, I always tried to use references like saying not just that they are on the 20-yard line, 15 yards in from the side of the field; I would say, They are down here to the right on their own 20-yard line, 15 yards in from this side of the field or place them. I always figured that he that viewer out there he or she must be able to get a picture in their minds of what it looked like. Well, you gave them a lot of pictures, ENTITY.


Well, I am happy to have a chance to say welcome, and particularly when there are at least six here from California. But all of you are just as welcome. I know you have been briefed on a number of subjects, and so almost anything that I might say would be plowing ground that is already been plowed. And yet I will do that, just to put emphasis on one, and that is what I think is the overall problem here of trying to get control of Federal spending and a realistic approach to the budget. We are now into the 14th month that we have been without a budget. Our entire year of '81 went through with nothing but continuing resolutions and no budget. And we are now 2 months into this fiscal year, and still no budget. And I frankly do not know of a State that has ever run itself that way. Part of it is evident reluctance of some to see any curb put on Federal spending. So, we are still working on that. And now I am going to save all of the rest of the time here for whatever questions you may have. Let me just say that with regard to our program, which has only just now begun to be put into effect, contrary to the impression that a lot of people seem to have had that it is been tried and found wanting and is a failure, and that was decided before it started-we do not believe it is, and we think that some of the signs are very encouraging already. And that is that a year ago, or when we took office, inflation was above 12 percent, around 12 1/2 percent. For the first 10 months of this year, it is down to 9.6 and last month came in at 4.4. Interest rates, which were 21 1/2 , have of late begun to drop and are down to 15 3/4, and we think are going to continue coming down. The wholesale inflation rate has been running 7 1/2, which means that I think we can look forward to further drops in the days ahead, because the wholesale inflation rate determines, in advance, what the regular cost-of-living index is going to be just a ways down the road. But I know that you must have some questions, and I'd rather try that than continuing, as I say, plowing this already plowed ground.

Interview With Managing Editors on Domestic Issues


ENTITY, you talked about the great need to cut spending, yet on this emphasis of the need to get a budget, you have appeared before a veterans' group and you have said that you are not going to make them make any sacrifices. You appeared before a council on aging and you told them you are not going to make them make any sacrifices. What groups are you prepared to appear before and say, You have to make the sacrifices? No, I think with regard to the veterans, we were talking about medical benefits for the veterans and so forth. And I do believe that this is a contract that you have to take care of those who have served their country. Social security-what I said to them was-and this was the basis of the plan that we submitted, but which was widely distorted in the debate that followed and I think for pure political demagoguery-that all the way through the campaign I cited the immediate problem of social security, of its running out of funds, and the long-range actuarial imbalance which is in the trillions of dollars, if you look on down the road, for those people who are just beginning their working years. What I pledged to do was to have a social security-to put it on a sound fiscal basis, and yet not at the expense of those people who are presently retired; that you pull the rug out From under them and reduce their benefits. The only thing that could be called a reduction in any way in the proposal we made, of those existing benefits, was we were going to try and get social security onto the fiscal year basis with regard to the cost-of-living adjustment. That would mean that for 1 year alone, they would go 15 months instead of 12 before their cost-of-living adjustment was computed. And that would, as we figured it out, average probably a $90 reduction of increase, not a reduction of existing benefits, reduction of their increase over their lifetime. The other things that we had suggested in that program were not aimed at deserving and eligible recipients. They were aimed at the abuses in the program, people that are collecting disability benefits and are not disabled. A recent story of a family, a heartbreaking story, that made it look as if we had suddenly taken this family off disability benefits-and we looked into it to find out if this was true.


We found out they were taken off of their disability benefits under the previous administration, and they were taken off because for 3 years, the disabled household head had been working. And now the question is, working, moonlighting on the side-a cheek is being made to see whether he was paying income tax all that time. This is the type of thing that we think there is much more of it than anyone realizes, as was evidenced in Chicago a couple of years ago with the-or a few years ago-with the welfare queen who went on trial. And it was found that in addition to collecting welfare under 123 different names, she also had 55 social security cards. So, this is where we were going to try and make some of the changes. What do you see as the Federal role with regard to California in terms of the Medfly, which is a terribly expensive battle, and also the vast number of refugees from Asia that have moved into, particularly, Los Angeles? What do you see as the role there to perform? Well, we have been dealing with a reform of the immigration laws on all of this, except that with regard to the refugees-people who are fleeing persecution and who, if they were made to return to their own country, would probably face death or imprisonment-I think that our traditions-there is no way that we can abandon those traditions or the words that are on the base of the Statue of Liberty. And we have a particular problem, I know, with our neighbor to the South. But we think that this program is going to meet our needs and the needs of the refugees coming in, so that we will not be abandoning that. We are also looking at how we can handle these and probably a fairer distribution in our country. I know, in 1980-the administration then was caught by the great exodus from Cuba in addition to the Haitian overflow and so forth. No planning had been made for that. We are also looking at available sites and facilities for a detention center for those who are apprehended and are illegal aliens, who will probably be returned. ENTITY, one of the potential detention centers that you are considering is in northern New York, where I am from, where the climate is about as different as you can get from the Haitian climate and still be in the country. How humane is it to consider that, a site like that? Well, I know the climate problem, and we have thought about that and talked about it.


One of our problems is finding a facility that would have all the factors and the capacity that we need for estimated larger numbers, and also finding one that the inhabitants of the State would be willing-you'd be surprised how difficult it is to find some State that wants it. We think that the one that we have settled on not only meets the needs but also happens to be in an area that would benefit economically from having an installation of that kind there because of the abnormally high unemployment rate, economic problems. ENTITY, the State of Florida claims the Federal Government owes a lot of money to the State because of the refugee problem. Although you did not inherit it, are you considering additional funds, or- To tell you the truth, I cannot answer that right now. We have not come in with the-we have not had our meeting yet with the new presentation from OMB of suggested budget cuts for '83, so until we do, I do not know just how some of these problems have been treated. Any thought being given to changing any of the benefits that have been cut or restoring any? Well, again, this would be something that we will face when we see the '83 budget, although I do not believe that the so-called safety net has been much changed. This recession-remember that when we came here, January 20th, we had a great unemployment problem, severe in several areas far more than in others. It is easy to look at, say, an 8 percent inflation rate and think of that as the nation as a whole. We have States, and some of you are probably from those States, where inflation is approaching the 20 percent mark. That is like the Great Depression of the thirties, due to the particular industries that have been affected-in addition to construction, the steel industry, automobiles, and so forth. We think that the best thing that we can do is to go forward with this plan, which we think is going to stimulate the economy. I think we are due, for several months yet, of hard times, but I think that in '82 we are going to see-later in the year-a change in the situation. The falling interest rates indicate that-the inflation rates that I mentioned-so that I think the safety net is still there for those people of real need. Is there an unemployment level at which you rethink that? I do not think anyone is going to stand by and see people in actual distress.


Let me just say one thing about that particular problem. I was as surprised as anyone when suddenly the announcement was made that in a month we have increased the unemployed by 500,000. Now, as you know, there is no accurate way of counting the unemployed. There is an accurate way of counting the people who are in the work force. And it is difficult for me to understand this sudden surge of unemployment when, at the same time, there are 266,000 more people employed in the work force than there were on January 20th, when this administration started. I cannot believe that we have suddenly added three-quarters of a million people to our population. But let me point out one reason why there could be some fluctuations. First of all, any unemployed, other than those who are voluntarily between jobs, is too much. So, I do not want to sound callous about that. As a matter of fact, there is nothing that is harder for me to do than to think of putting somebody out of a job. I came into the work force myself in the depths of the Great Depression. I saw what took place there. But unemployment is determined by some 60-odd thousand telephone calls, like a Nielsen rating on a TV show, throughout the country-random. And the question is, Is anyone in the household looking for work? And on the basis of these calls and the percentage, the percentage of unemployed is determined. Suppose it is a housewife who says to you on the phone, Well, you know, the children are getting along now and if I could find something that did not interfere with family and was right, yes. Well, the person can put that down as she is looking for work, or the person from this end of the phone can put that down as no. Nor are we dividing between all those teenagers, that on the other end of the phone someone might answer and say, Well, my son would love to have an after-school job if he could find one, and so you can put him down unemployed. The millions of unemployed are not, all of them, heads of household, leading a family without earnings. Maybe I am overly suspicious, but I keep remembering that when I was Governor of California, they decided to do some changing in counting the unemployed, here in Washington. I protested as loud as I could, but did not get anyplace with it.


Our unemployment rate in California at the time was 5.2 , and in 24 hours, our unemployment rate went to 7.2, just based on a little change in the procedures here in Washington. So, I have been a little worried here that sometimes we-and I do not mean to do any less about trying to get them the work, we are going to-but I think that our program is aimed at that. I am aware that-I know somebody is waiting to tell me I have to leave- -but I am also aware that when Kennedy had his across-the-board tax cuts, aimed at the same thing, to stimulate the economy, and the same economists and many of the same voices were raised, advising against it and saying that was absolutely the wrong thing to do, he persisted. And immediately thereafter the rate of savings, personal savings in the country-the percentage went up from 2.9 percent of the earnings in the country to 8 percent. The rate of increase in employment-not unemployment, in employment-doubled. The percentage of the gross national product or, I mean, the gross national product increased sizably, and the government's revenues increased at the lower rate of taxation. Now, one of the economists who has previously, and all these past months, been opposed to our proposal, Walter Heller, a very distinguished economist, when the recession was announced a short time ago, Walter Heller said how lucky we were that our tax reduction was just going into effect and that that just turned out to be exactly the right medicine for a recession. Well, if it is the right medicine to maybe help cure the recession, why would not it have been good medicine to have prevented the recession? If we, taking those personal savings-if we could increase by 2 percentage points the rate of savings in this country, through these tax cuts, that adds $40 billion to the capital pool that is available for investment and for people for mortgages and so forth. And incidentally, since the construction industry is one of the hard hit things right now in this recession, we have taken action-and I maybe sticking- ENTITY. I do not want to be one of the White House leaks. This morning we had a group from the construction industry in, and we have-over in the Labor Department-made some definite changes in regulations. Those changes are going to free up the billions and billions of dollars in pension funds for-that they can now be invested in home mortgages.


Previous to this, they have not been able to. The total pension money available for investment in this country is over a trillion dollars-will be 3 trillion by 1984-and for the first time, this money will be made available for that kind of investment, which we think should go a long way toward beginning the revival of the housing industry. You know, part of the lull in housing construction right now is the lowering of interest rates. The slump was caused by the high interest rates, but when the high interest rates start down, there is a lull while everybody says, Well, let us wait till they get lower. Maybe we can, with this new decision, maybe we can increase the speed with which those rates come down. What would be your advice, ENTITY, to Americans who want to know how to volunteer their time and their effort in a program that you have talked about-voluntarism? Listen- we just had a meeting yesterday of our national task force. That is exactly what they are set up to do-is to not only spread the word of where volunteer efforts have been tried someplace and are working successfully, and then spread that so that other people can do it, but also to answer that question of the many people who are trying to volunteer. There is an estimated $100 billion worth of time and effort right now being contributed in this country in work in voluntary causes, in addition to $47 billion in actual cash contributed in volunteer efforts. And some of the things we are finding-and the mail that I am getting is the most inspiring thing in the world-of communities that have just moved and said, Why have we been sitting here, letting government do this? We should have been doing it long ago. I believe this is beginning to sweep the country. So, people like that, I think will find that they are being sought out by the task force. If they do not get their volunteering in beforehand, somebody will be around to see if they want to volunteer.


You are here at this historic place, trying to speak with a sense of history. And I was thinking of past presidents that I know you have studied and commented on. And a couple came to mind who were able to express what they were trying to do in the world in about a sentence. Reagan wanted to roll back communism by whatever means. Lincoln has a famous letter in which he says, I would save the union by the shortest means under the Constitution. As you look at the moment of history that you occupy, do you think you can put into a sentence what you are trying to accomplish in the world? I am not sure I can do it in a sentence because we are fortunate in many ways. We do not face an existential crisis. We do not face a civil war. We do not face a Soviet Union that is trying to rally a bloc of countries and that could threaten our way of life. Instead, what we have is, as I say in the speech, this moment in which we are incredibly fortunate to have a strong economy that is getting stronger, no military peer that threatens us, no nation-state that anytime soon intends to go to war with us. But we have a world order that is changing very rapidly and that can generate diffuse threats, all of which we have to deal with. And I think that the most important point of the speech today for me is how we define American leadership in part is through our military might, but only in part, that American leadership in the 21st century is going to involve our capacity to build international institutions, coalitions that can act effectively, and the promotion of norms, rules, laws, ideals and values that create greater prosperity and peace, not just in our own borders, but outside as well. Is your sentence then pursuing U.S. interests abroad without going to war? Well, there are going to be times where we might have to go to war. And that is why I think it is very important for us not to get into these simplistic ways of thinking about it, either we pull back entirely and we are isolationist, or alternatively, every problem around the world is ours to manage. Rather, you know, what we have to do is clearly define where is it in our national interests to use military force, sometimes unilaterally.

Interview with Steve Inskeep of NPR News


And typically when we have direct interests, core interests, our safety, our security, our livelihoods, the protection of our allies, you know, international opinion matters, but we may have to act on our own. When it comes to the kinds of issues, though, that dominate the headlines - a conflict in Syria, a Russian incursion into Ukraine, the kidnapping of 200 young girls in Nigeria - in those circumstances, we are going to be most effective when we use a wide range of tools - diplomacy, sanctions, appeals to international law. In some cases, a judicious use of military force may make sense. But in those circumstances, it has to be in a multilateral system where other countries are participating, we are not going alone, because when we make sure that other countries are participating, that means that we have done our homework, we have thought through the consequences, we have built legitimacy, and we are not carrying the burden entirely on our own. What should leaders like Syria's Bashar Assad or Russia's Vladimir Putin take away from this speech, in which you did speak passionately about not going to war unnecessarily and said you were haunted by the deaths of American soldiers? Well, I think they can take away from it that they have to be on guard when they act outside of international norms, that we are going to push aggressively against them. We are not always going to push using military actions initially. There may be circumstances in which we mobilize in the international community to take international action. But as I spoke about, when you look at events in Ukraine over the last two months, there is no doubt that our ability to mobilize international opinion rapidly has changed the balance and the equation in Ukraine. I just spoke yesterday to the newly elected president of Ukraine. Putin has just announced that he is moving his troops back from the borders of Ukraine. And that is an application of American leadership that is sustainable, consistent and is most likely to produce the kinds of results we want. It is interesting about Ukraine, though, ENTITY, because a lot of analysts have looked at that situation and said this is an area where Putin may have had a weak hand, but he gained. He gained Crimea. He asserted his influence over Ukraine. You speak of Ukraine, though, as a success. Do you feel that you have been successful in achieving your aims? You know, I think it is a mistake to think that somehow Mr. Putin reflected strength in this situation.


Ukraine is not just next door to Russia. Ukraine, in the minds of most Russians, has been a central part of Russia for decades, for centuries. And from Mr. Putin's perspective, he was operating from a position of weakness. He felt as if he was being further and further surrounded by NATO members, folks who are looking west economically, from a security perspective. And even in Ukraine, the crown jewel of the former Soviet system, outside of Russia, a oligarchy that was corrupt was rejected by people on the streets. And so what you saw was a scrambling, a reaction to people in the Ukraine saying, we want a different way of life. The fact that Crimea, which historically is dominated by native Russians and Russian speakers, was annexed illegally does not in any way negate the fact that the way of life, the systems of economic organization, the notions of rule of law, those values that we hold dear, are ascendant, and you know, the other side is going to be on the defense. That does not mean that we think that Ukraine should not have a good relationship with Russia. And I have said directly to Mr. Putin we want, ultimately, Ukrainians to make a decision about their own futures, and that, I assume, will include strong relations with Russia as well as with Europe. You are going to make Russia give Crimea back. Do you have the ability or the leverage to do that? Well, you know, I think we are going to have to see how it plays itself out. I am going to see Mr. Poroshenko, the newly elected president of Crimea - or newly elected president of Ukraine, next week, and I am sure that'll be a topic of discussion. Let me ask about Syria, ENTITY. White House officials have said that you are reviewing the possibility of military training for Syrian rebels. There has been, it is said, limited training by intelligence agencies up to now. This seems to fit with something you described in your speech when you talked about a $5 billion counterterrorism fund, which would affect places including Syria. I'd like to understand what you think has changed in Syria; what, if anything, is different about the situation in Syria, as opposed to a couple of years ago, when some of your advisers wanted larger-scale training of the rebels, and I believe you declined. Well, I think that is not an accurate portrayal of either what we have done or what the debate's been about.


The issue has always been in Syria how do we most effectively support a moderate opposition, recognizing that there are going to be limits to how rapidly we can ramp up the capacity of that opposition. And what we do not want to do is set folks up for failure. What we do not want to do is make promises that we cannot keep. I cannot speak to all the work that has been done with respect to both the political opposition as well as the armed opposition that are fighting against Mr. Assad, but I think it is been stated publicly we have been supporting them. Ultimately, I did not think then and I still do not believe that American military actions can resolve what is increasingly a sectarian civil war, and I also believe that, ultimately, the only way you are going to get a resolution that works for the Syrian people and the region is going to - is going to require some sort of political accommodation between the various groups there. But what we can do is to work with the neighbors in the region - Jordan, Turkey, the Gulf states, Lebanon - to deal with the refugee flows that are coming out of Syria, to deal with the humanitarian crisis that exists there and to build on the framework, the progress that we have made over the last couple of years. We have seen some success in the Syrian opposition gaining more capacity, gaining more training, gaining more effectiveness; and building on some of that success, it is conceivable that in combination with the other work that is done on the diplomatic front, that we are able to tip what happens in Syria so that it is more likely that we can arrive at a political resolution. Are conditions better now, then, for a more robust aiding of the rebels and training of the rebels than in the past? I think, in many ways, the conditions are worse. But the capacity of some of the opposition is better than it was before, which is understandable. The moderate opposition, as opposed to the jihadists that have seen the chaos there as an opportunity to gain a foothold, those are hardened fighters. When you talk about the moderate opposition, many of these people were farmers or dentists or maybe some radio reporters who did not have a lot of experience fighting. What they understood was, is, that they had a government that was killing its own people and violating human rights in, in the most profound way, and they wanted to do something about it.


But creating a capacity for them to hold ground, to be able to rebuff vicious attacks, for them to be able to also organize themselves in ways that are cohesive - all that takes, unfortunately, more time than I think many people would like. I want to ask about China, ENTITY; East Asia more broadly. You worked to reassure U.S. allies in the region. It is understood, of course, the U.S. has specific commitments; for example, to defend Japan - I'd like to know if you have a larger objective in East Asia. Does the United States have an interest beyond its specific alliances in preventing China from dominating East Asia and the waters around East Asia, where China's been making some aggressive moves? Well, we do not have an interest in stopping China from becoming successful. China is the most populous country on Earth, at some - But I am asking their power, not their success. But at some level, they are going to be a big dog in that neighborhood, and we welcome China's peaceful rise. In many ways, it would be a bigger national security problem for us if China started falling apart at the seams. So we - we want the Chinese people to steadily have a higher standard of living; we want China to have increased capacity to participate in international efforts around issues like climate change. We have a very specific concern when China is not following basic international norms, basic rules of the road, where it does not feel bound by the kind of international practices that have helped to underwrite China's rise. I mean, part of the reason China's been successful is there is been relative peace in Asia, there has been freedom of commerce in Asia, freedom of navigation in Asia. All that facilitates the trade that is creating great wealth inside of China. Well, if in fact that international order has benefited China, then we expect China to help uphold the very rules that have made them successful, not take advantage of them. And so there are basic principles that big countries do not just push little countries around by virtue of size. There are mechanisms whereby, through international law, maritime disputes can be resolved. And what we have done then is worked with the countries of the region to say let us create a code of conduct that - in which, without taking any position on whether this particular rock in the middle of the water belongs to this party or that party, let us find a systematic, legal way for us to resolve these disputes without resolving to conflict.


And so to - just the bottom line here is China is going to be a dominant power in Asia, not the only one, but by virtue of its size and its wealth, it is going to be a great power in Asia. We respect that. And we are not interested in containing it because we are in any way intimidated by China; we are concerned about it because we do not want to see constant conflicts developing in a vital region of the world that also, you know, we depend on in terms of our economy being successful. You know, those are a lot of markets out there, we sell a lot of goods out there, and, you know, we do not want to see these conflagrations that can end up impeding, you know, our own interests. Sounds like you want to avoid tripwire over any particular rock in the ocean, as you said. Well, you know, I think, more than that, what we also want is to be able to strengthen and constantly reinforce international norms because we believe, I believe, that America benefits when those norms are not only being upheld by us individually but where all countries buy in, where there is a sense that all of us benefit from some basic rules of the road. And China now as a rising power needs to be part of that responsibility of maintaining rules that maintain peace and security for a lot of countries. You have made some statements recently, ENTITY, that it seems you have been trying to put yourself in a historical context, if you can. You have talked about hitting singles and doubles on foreign policy. You talked about handing a baton from one ENTITY or one person in history to another. I wonder if you are at a point in your second term where even though there is well over two years to go, that you have to think about narrowing possibilities and a more limited list of things that you can realistically accomplish in the time you have left. That was the case the first day in the Oval Office. You know, you do not walk into the presidency and completely remake the world and ignore history and ignore the problems that are already sitting there in the inbox. So you have to make choices about what is important and what is not. It is interesting, though, you know, the comment I made about singles and doubles I think is - is only a partial quote.


What I said was that when it comes to foreign policy, that oftentimes the United States has made mistakes not by showing too much restraint but by underestimating how challenging the environment is out there, not thinking through consequences, that there is a lot of blocking and tackling to foreign policy, to change sports metaphors, or, if you want to stick to baseball, that a lot of what you want to do is to advance the ball on human rights, advance the ball on national security, advance the ball on energy independence, to put the ball in play. And every once in a while, a pitch is going to come right over home plate that you can knock out for a home run. But you do not swing at every pitch. And we have opportunities right now, for example, and I talked about today, to advance an Iranian agreement on their nuclear program that could be historic. We may not get it, but there is a chance that it could still happen. I have not yet given up on the possibility that both Israelis and Palestinians can see their self-interest in a peace deal that would provide Israel security that is recognized by its neighbors and make sure that Palestinians have a state of their own. And what we want to do is make sure we are in a position to seize those opportunities when they arise. But in the meantime, the work that we do to help countries in North Africa secure their borders and root out terrorism, the work that we do to, you know, make sure that we have higher standards for labor protection and environmental protection when it comes to trade in Asia, the work that we do in making sure that young people in Latin America are coming to the United States to study through exchange programs so that - and that U.S. students are able to go to those countries to develop the commercial ties and cultural ties in the Western Hemisphere, you know, that stuff's not sexy. It is not going to be on the front page of the newspapers. But in many ways, that is what is going to ultimately be most effective; that is going to be what is going to most determine whether or not the United States retains its primacy and its leadership on the world stage in the 21st century. Let me ask about one ball you have tried to advance your entire term. You wanted to close Guantanamo in your first year. About a year ago you gave a speech in which you said you wanted to close Guantanamo. You referred to it again in this speech here at West Point.


In the year since your last speech in which you said you wanted to close Guantanamo, it is our understanding that only 12 - about 12 prisoners have been sent back to their home countries, repatriated. Has that problem proved to be so difficult there is a good chance you may hand Guantanamo over your successor? Not if I can help it. I think it is very important for us to close Guantanamo. I think it is very important as we end the war that originally gave - gave life to Guantanamo that we now wind it down. Could you not send more prisoners back now? Well, the - you know, Congress has placed some restraints on us. But they have loosened those restraints. And I promise you that we are using every possible available avenue. In some cases, it is hard to return prisoners because the countries where they come from do not want them or cannot provide us assurances that they can control them. But what I know is that we cannot in good conscience maintain a system of indefinite detention in which individuals who have not been tried and convicted are held permanently in this legal limbo outside of this country. That is contrary to U.S. traditions. It feeds terrorist propaganda. It is not ultimately going to be effective when it comes to dealing with the long-term terrorist threat. It makes it harder for us to get cooperation from our partners. I mean, we spend 10, 15 times more, in many cases, for these prisoners than we would do in a normal supermax syst - prison in our federal system. So for all kinds of reasons, it does not make sense. And I am going to keep on pushing because I want to make sure that when I turn the keys over to the next president, that they have the ability, that he or she has the capacity to - to make some decisions with a relatively clean slate. Making sure that we have the right legal architecture for how we conduct counterterrorism and that there is greater transparency, as I discussed today, that is another. Making sure that people have a sense that when we use drones, we do so lawfully in a way that avoids civilian casualties and in ways that are appropriate. Making sure that our national security apparatus is - has, you know, enough legal checks and balances that ordinary folks, not just here in the United States but around the world, can feel assured that their privacy is being respected.


You know, it is exactly 3 years since the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. And Mrs. Rabin said she was rather disappointed that you failed to mention her husband during the East Room ceremony last Friday. How do you respond to that? Well, you know, the agreement is actually supposed to enter into force on the third anniversary of his passing, of his killing. And I think that if, in fact, it does do so, it is a fitting thing, because none of us would be here if it had not been for him. He really started all this in a profound way. I know that the Madrid conference started before his election, but it was his conviction and his strength and security that he conveyed to the people of Israel, I think, that made this whole peace process possible. And I never do anything in the process that I do not think about him. ENTITY, from the tragic assassination to the current situation, Prime Minister Netanyahu might put himself at the same risk as Mr. Rabin. So perhaps it is unjustified to put pressure on him to follow the Oslo accord or the Oslo track. Well, I do not think there is any question that the Prime Minister has put himself at some physical risk in pursuing the peace process. But I believe that it is important that the people of Israel know that, at least in my opinion, it is a good agreement; that it strengthens Israel's security needs; that the agreements made with the Palestinians are fully consistent with Oslo. And the Prime Minister worked very, very hard to advance Israel's security interests. Just for example, there was the whole issue of what should be done with the people whom Israel believes have committed acts of violence and terrorism against Israelis. And I am convinced that the Palestinians will now act against these people in a way that is consistent with the agreement and that will meet the Prime Minister's and Israel's needs. So that is an example of a whole array of security advances that were embedded in this agreement. And I think all Israelis who support the peace process should support the agreement because I think it furthers the cause of peace. ENTITY, is it really the PNC, the Palestinian National Council, that is going to convene to revise the Palestinian covenant with your presence? Well, it is the PNC plus a number of other groups.

William J. Clinton Interview With Shlomo Raz and Jacob Eilon of Israeli Television Channel 2


And some of these groups are embedded within the PNC; that is, they are dual membership for some of the people-in the Government, in the executive council, in the other councils involved. And some are outside the PNC. But among other things at that meeting, we will seek a clear renunciation of the offending parts of the charter and a general endorsement of the agreement, this whole agreement, so that the process can be seen to be going forward with the support of those who represent grassroots Palestinian opinion. The Prime Minister wanted me to support this provision, this effort, and he fought very, very hard for this, as did a number of members of his Cabinet who were there, because they thought that there needed to be a debate in a Palestinian forum, even if it was controversial and heated, which would give to the Palestinian people some evidence not only of a commitment to follow an agreement but of a changing of the heart, an opening of the heart of the Palestinians toward the Israelis. And I thought that argument had a lot of appeal, even though it was not without its hazards for Mr. Arafat. Because it is been 18 months since anything big has happened, and because there is a lot of-he has his problems, too, among them the fact that the standard of living for most Palestinians is lower today than it was when the peace process began, because the enemies of peace keep interrupting the flow of normal life. So I agreed that if it was that important to Israel and Chairman Arafat were willing to try to accommodate that condition by the Israelis, that I would go to Gaza and address this group and ask them to support the peace and to renounce forever the idea of animosity toward and opposition to the existence of the state of Israel, and instead embrace the path not only of peace but of cooperation. I want to ask you about your visit to Gaza. Do not you think, ENTITY, that this trip may be seen as a first step in recognizing an independent Palestinian state? Well, if so it would be, I think, wrong, because I have tried strictly to adhere to the position of the United States that we would not take a position on any final status issue.


One of the reasons that I worked so hard at Wye to try to bring the parties together is, I thought it imperative to take this next big step along the peace process so that we could launch the final status talks and get them underway in good faith, so that neither side would seek to prejudge a final status issue. That is not what I am doing in going there. The Prime Minister wanted me to go there and wanted us all to make this pitch. I asked them if they would make some joint appearances and if they would both make the same speech to Palestinian and to Israeli audiences. And they said they would do that. It would help the Palestinians to see Yasser Arafat saying the same thing to the Israelis he says to the Palestinians. It would help the Israelis, I think, also. And it would be a good thing for the Prime Minister to be able to give the same speech-whatever they decide to say, just say the same thing to both communities so that no one thinks that there is any evasion or shading or anything. I think, just little things like this to open up a little awareness of the other's position and build a little confidence, I think would be quite good. ENTITY, why will not you release Jonathan Pollard? Well, I agreed to review his case and to take the initiative to review it. I have not released him in the past because since I have been ENTITY in the two previous normal reviews-that is, the ones that were initiated by his request for clemency-the recommendation of all my law enforcement and security agencies was unanimously opposed to it. But the Prime Minister felt so strongly about it-and I might say, every Israeli Prime Minister I have dealt with on every occasion has asked me about Pollard. But you argued pretty-you had pretty harsh exchanges with Netanyahu, reportedly, about that? I thought then, I believe now, and I think the public opinion in Israel bears this out, that it was in Israel's interest to do this agreement on its own merits because it would advance the cause of Israeli security and keep the peace process going. I think there is been a lot of reporting about this with which I do not necessarily agree. That is no criticism; I just want to tell you my perception. Bibi Netanyahu argued strongly for Pollard's release. He made the arguments that anyone who knows a lot about the case and thinks he should be released would make. But I took no offense at that.


He was representing what he believes to be the interest of the State of Israel. And he did it in-you know, he does not make arguments halfway. You observe the Prime Minister, he is an aggressive person; he fights hard for what he believes. I took no offense at it at all. And I would ask you all to remember, when evaluating reports that tempers were frayed or strong language was used-now, remember, the three of us, Mr. Arafat and Mr. Netanyahu and I, we were there for over 8 days. Most nights I was there, I went home at 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning. The last time we were there on this last day, I was up for 39 hours and so were they. Now, I am amazed that we did not have more disruptive conduct and more harsh words, given how exhausted and frayed we were. But it shows you how hard the parties were trying, on the one hand, to make peace, but on the other hand, to protect their security interests. He was desperately trying to find a way to make peace or to advance the peace process that would enable him to go home and sell it to his Cabinet and his constituency. And this Pollard issue was very important to him. But I took no offense at that. But still, ENTITY, there were many reports that you were very upset with Mr. Netanyahu and were quoted saying that his behavior was despicable. And this is the first opportunity I have had to say that. There was a moment in the negotiations when the two guys split apart, and there was an issue raised that I thought was wrong. And I said so in very graphic terms. But I never used the word despicable to describe the Prime Minister. I did not do that. There was a moment where I thought-there were various moments in these negotiations when I thought-at least from my perspective, trying to be an honest broker-they were both wrong. You would expect this over 8 days. But at that moment, the issue at stake had nothing to do with Pollard. It was an issue, a dispute between the Palestinians and the Israelis; it had nothing to do with Pollard. And it is true that there was a moment in which there was a heated exchange in which I said something rather graphic, but I did not adversely characterize the Prime Minister in the way that is reported. I'd like to talk about the late Yitzhak Rabin.


I think you know, ENTITY, that when you said the phrase, shalom chaver, goodbye friend, I think you touched many many Israelis in a very, very special way. And we have been curious, how did you come up with this? I even noticed you have a pin that says shalom chaver on your desk right here in the Oval Office. I have many Jewish Americans working for me here, and they all knew how close I felt to Prime Minister Rabin. And we were-everybody was sort of coming up with ideas. And Shimon Peres later told me that he had not seen those two words used together before because chaver, it is sort of a special word; it goes beyond normal friendship. And one of my-I wish I could say that I knew enough Hebrew that I came up with it, but one of my staff members suggested that I say it. And they explained it to me, what it meant, and it seemed to be perfect for what I was trying to say. I must say, for me, that was more than a political loss. I felt very close to the Prime Minister, to Mrs. Rabin. I got to know their children, grandchildren. And I think always when I am pushing the peace process forward that I am doing it not just for myself but maybe also a little for him. And I must say, in these last negotiations I was very pleased to see that Prime Minister Netanyahu-I saw in his eyes, I could almost see in his eyes the moment when he really made the decision that, well, maybe the Palestinians were going to make sufficiently specific security commitments that would be on a sufficiently clear timetable that he could sell not just to the Israeli public at large but to a decisive portion of his own constituency, which is a very different thing, as all of you know better than I do. And he could see that, that he could personally believe that it would advance Israel's security. And I saw that look in his eyes. I felt from that point on that eventually we would get an agreement. And that is the look that you want to see in a leader's eyes in a situation like that, because I still believe that the right formula is peace and security, and that you really cannot have one without the other.


As you know, in the Tampa/ St. Pete area, we are around 11 percent unemployment, among the highest in the country really, that number actually went up in 2009 after your first stimu-lus. So what would you tell Floridians wondering if you deserve another chance? Well, I think what I would say is that we are nowhere near where we need to be, but keep in mind that when I took office, we had already lost one million jobs in the previous quarter. We had lost more than four million in the previous quarter and we lost another four million in the three months when I came into office, so our economic plan had not even had the chance to take effect. We know the economy was contracting by nine percent when I came in. It was growing by four percent by the time the end of the year came around, so obviously the Recovery Act had an impact. We have got to do more, and that is why we have put together this jobs plan that incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans, rebuilds our roads, our bridges, our infrastructure, puts teachers back in the classroom. It would have a direct impact on what is going on in Florida, and what we need right now is Congress to go ahead and act, and they have been not acting in the inter-est of Floridians or the American people. You won over a lot of the independent Florida voters, much of them, a couple of years ago base on your theme of Hope and Change. The last couple of days we have had a lot of people tell us they have not seen much change and given our economic outlook, they do not see much hope. Do you feel you have let them down? No, and look, Florida's had a tough time partly because it was ground zero in terms of the housing bubble bursting and real estate has a huge impact on every state. But when you look at Florida, Arizona, Nevada, those places that had the biggest housing bubbles, they have been impacted the most. That is part of the reason why we are not just waiting for Congress to act. This past week, we went ahead and said we are going to help families refinance their homes that could save thousands of dollars for homeowners, keep people in their homes that might be worried about making mortgage payments. We are, for example, working with NASA and the private sector to bring additional jobs to central Florida. Boeing just made an announcement that we are very happy about.

Interview with Mark Wilson of FOX 13 - Tampa Bay


You are proposing registering guns like cars. But if you are going to do that, then why not take the next step and regulate guns, as we do cars? After all, if there is something seriously wrong about cars, the Government can regulate automobiles. Are you willing to do that? Well, first of all, I do not think we should minimize the impact that licensing handgun owners themselves would have. That is what I want to do. Now, it is tough to pass in this Congress because most of the Republicans agree with the NRA that guns are different, and even though it might save lives, we should not do it. But I think if we would begin the process of making handgun owners get a license before they can buy a gun, pass a Brady background check, and then have a gun safety course, I think it would make a difference. I think if we did that, plus had child safety locks, closed the big loophole in the background registration law by covering the gun shows and the urban flea markets, and then continue this technology into safe guns so that as soon as possible we can sell guns and adjust them so that, by fingerprints, they can only be fired by the adults who own them, all these things together would make our country a much safer place. And I am going to continue to fight for it. We need to start by passing this legislation that the Congress has had for 8 months now. The Senate passed a pretty strong law, with the Vice President casting the tie-breaking vote. The House passed a much weaker law. And they have just been sitting on this for 8 months. I hope that these last 2 tragic days will finally move the Congress to act. And I am going to meet with the leading conferees on the two bills in the next few days to try to do that. But you are not prepared to take the step to try to regulate guns? I think that the most important thing we can do now is to pass the legislation before the Congress, and then try to pass legislation that would require the owners themselves, people who want to buy handguns, to be licenses, just as car drivers are. I think that is the next big step, and I think it will make a big difference. Just with the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban and the more police on the street, we have got the murder rate down to a 30-year low. And the accidental death rate from children is astronomical. It is 9 times higher than the next 24 industrial nations combined.

Interview With Dan Rather of the CBS Evening News


So we have got to do more with this. And I want to focus on this agenda. I think it will drive the death rate down from guns both for murders and from accidental death rates. ENTITY, how, if in any way, would your new proposals have prevented or even helped to prevent the shooting of this 6-year-old girl in Michigan? One is something that is still in the bill. If this gun had a child trigger lock on it, then the child, in all probability, could not have figured out how to undo the child trigger lock and fire the gun. Then I had a provision which neither the Senate nor the House passed, to make national a law that today I think fewer than 20 States have, which would hold adults responsible for the kinds of activities that this young boy tragically engaged in when he killed that little girl. I think that it ought to be national, not just in a few States. And so I hope the Congress, and maybe the conference, will reconsider that, even though even the Senate would not pass that. They ought to take a look at this now, because clearly the adults bear the primary responsibility here. And people would think twice before just leaving a gun hanging around the house that a kid could walk off with if that were the case. ENTITY, there are so many questions about this issue that run so deep in the American character, as well as our history. With, as you have mentioned, at least 200 million guns out there, what about the argument that says, listen, there is really no chance that we are going to have meaningful gun control in this country unless you go out and get those guns back, and that is simply not practical? Well, I think, first of all, you never want to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Look how much good the Brady bill has done. It is kept a half million felons, fugitives, and stalkers from getting handguns. And that is one of the reasons that the murder rate is at a 30-year low. So it will not solve all the problems, but it will solve some. Secondly, especially if we could license people when they come in to buy handguns, we could then couple that with a very aggressive gun buyback program. Keep in mind, yes, there are more than 200 million guns out there, but a lot of them are in the hands of collectors and not regularly in use.


What we need to do is to get these cheap guns off the streets, and with an aggressive gun buyback program we could do that. Just with the few million dollars we spend on it every year, we get a huge number of guns, offering about $50 a gun. If you could get a lot of the older guns that are just out there floating loose off the street, if you could license the handgun owners, if you could have child safety locks, and then if we could proceed with this safe-gun technology so that in the future all the guns that were sold could only be fired by the adults who are their rightful owner, I think you'd go a long, long way toward making this a much, much safer country. And it would not in any way infringe on the rights of hunters and sport shooters, except to ask them to do what the rest of us do when we go through airport metal detectors or get driver's licenses. We undergo a little bit of inconvenience so that society as a whole would be a lot safer. And I think we have neglected this far too long. As I said, there is not enough urgency in the Congress. You have got a dozen kids a day still getting shot to death out there, and this bill has been up there for 8 months. So this is one place where I think the United States Congress is completely out of touch with the American people, largely because of the genuine fear people have of the organized NRA interest back in their district. And they just no longer reflect the views of the majority of the people. I had a woman tell me yesterday, when I was touring a high-tech facility in northern Virginia, that her husband was a Republican and an avid hunter who strongly supported these initiatives. It is time for Congress to get in step with the American people and take these actions that will make our children safer. Now, we have some Democrats who live in rural districts where there are a lot of hunters and where they are afraid of this, because when I passed the assault weapons ban and the Brady bill back in '93 and '94, there is no question that the NRA beat about a dozen of our Members. These people who voted with us to make our streets safer and save lives gave up their seats in Congress. And this is primarily a problem of the leadership in the Republican Congress being unwilling to part from the NRA.


And I hope that they will do it now, because I think a lot of their Members want to. And almost all these Members of Congress could vote for this legislation and not be threatened at all, and they need to do that. When I talk to the Republican leadership in Congress, they-and I will say, somewhat gleefully-say, Look, there are at least 60 Democrats in the House who no way, no how are going to vote for any additional gun control legislation. Well, that leaves us with about 140 on our side, which means they only have to produce 80 for us to have a majority. So they ought to do that. There is 80 Republicans who come from suburban districts where their constituents strongly support this and where they would not be defeated by the NRA if they went with us. You have mentioned the NRA several times. Everybody knows the National Rifle Association pours a lot of money into a lot of campaigns to beat just this kind of legislation that you have proposed. But is it or is it not reality that what you have are tens of millions of Americans who own guns and, whatever their party affiliation, however they feel about you, are just adamant about not controlling guns any further, and that is the real problem? Well, it is, but most of them- a lot of gun owners-keep in mind, I am convinced a majority of hunters and sport shooters, once they understand that these regulations do not in any way, shape, or form, impact their ability to conduct their lawful affairs, will support what amounts to a minor inconvenience- doing a background check at a gun show, for example, having a child safety lock on a handgun-to save lives. In New Hampshire, we lost a Democratic Congressman who voted for the assault weapons ban and the Brady bill. He lost his job in '94. And I went up there in '96 and met with a bunch of people who were hunters and sportsmen, and I said, Now, the NRA told you we were going to take your guns away and inconvenience you. And I said, If you missed a day in a deer season, I want you to vote against me, too. But if you did not , they did not tell you the truth, and you need to stick with us. And as a society, we all undergo minor inconveniences so that our children can grow up safe.


And it is ridiculous-the United States is the only country in the world that would allow this kind of, I believe, recklessness with the public interest. Nobody else does it, and that is why we have the highest murder rate and the highest accidental gun death rate of children, because we do not take these commonsense measures. And we can do it, I will say again, without interfering with people's right to hunting and sport shooting. ENTITY, I know you have a meeting to go to. You have been very generous with your time. So many people, when I talk to them, they say, Look, it is fine for the ENTITY to talk this way, but he is going to see rocks grow and water run uphill before he sees any real gun control legislation. Now, you have made it clear you do not believe that. What can you do to move this along? Can you call the Members of Congress to the White House for a special meeting to compromise? What can you do? Well, I am going to bring down the leaders of the House and the Senate, the Republicans and Democrats, who are in charge of this bill in the conference. The House and the Senate version are in a conference. They are supposed to come up with a unified bill and let the House and Senate vote on it. And I do not have any doubt if they report out a good bill, it will pass. And I am going to do everything I can to pass it. I do not believe that. They said-once they said we'd see water run uphill before we had Brady background checks, and then before we banned assault weapons, and then before we banned these large capacity ammunition clips. We did all that, but we left some loopholes in the law that we ought to close. We ought to require child safety locks. We ought to invest in safe-gun technology. And we ought to license handgun owners. You know, every significant reform in a controversial area is considered to be impossible when you start. I'd love to come by sometime and talk to you about Colombia and China and Taiwan. But I appreciate you taking time today to do this. ENTITY, I really appreciate you taking time to do this. I will do it.


We are very pleased to be joined by the ENTITY . This is an interview about the Super Bowl and issues important to sports fans. We will get to the news of the day shortly. I am very good, thank you, ENTITY. ENTITY, you sit with Bob Kraft, you communicate with Bill Belichick, Tom Brady is a friend. Can we take that, from your personal relationships, that you are rooting for the Patriots today? Well, I guess you have to say that. They have been great friends of mine for a long period of time, and they are terrific people. And I have to tell you, the Falcons have terrific people also. But I have known them a long time, so I guess we are allowed to do that every once in a while. Have you communicated with Tom Brady or Bill Belichick this week? And if so, what advice have you given them? Well, I do not have to give them advice. And I speak to them on occasion, but I do not have to really speak very much about winning. They know how to do it. And it is a lot of pressure on them, but probably less so because they have been there and they have done it before. So more pressure always on the ones that have not done it. ENTITY, how do you feel about the abuse that is being directed to Tom Brady because he is a friend of yours? Well, I have not seen it. I mean, honestly, I have been so busy doing other things I have not seen that. I have not noticed it. But I can tell you that, generally speaking, that is a two-way street. There may be some people that are not liking the fact that he may feel good about me, but there are a lot of other people that like him a lot better because of it. There have been many instances of that, where people have sort of said a little bit negative about whatever it may be, even a store or a chain, and the chain's business goes through the roof. I mean, we have had cases like that too. ENTITY, what are your thoughts on Deflategate and the way that Tom Brady was treated? And it is over with, and we do not have to discuss it, but it was a rough period of time, and it was very sad. And look at the season he is had missing four games, and look at the great season he is had.

Interview With Jim Gray of Westwood One Sports Radio Network


So I just think it was an unfortunate experience, and I think it was bad for probably everybody involved. And that is all behind us, so that is a good thing. You have had some very strong negative opinions about Roger Goodell in the aftermath of his decisions on domestic violence and Deflategate. You are now President; he is obviously the commissioner of the NFL. If you were to see him and your paths were to cross, what would you say to him? Well, I'd just say good luck, just do a good job with the NFL. I mean, he handled the various situations this was prior to me running for office and he handled the various situations in his way, and I hope he is happy with it. But people can disagree on everything. I may not have disagreed I may really have looked upon the way he handled it a little bit differently than others, but you know what, it is the NFL. You plan to pardon Tom Brady? Well, Tom is always pardoned, you know that. Tom does not need a pardon. Tom his game pardons him, and his talent. So I think his game really pardons him. With all the head injuries and concussions, a big concern now with football, would you allow your grandchildren and Barron to play if they wanted? If they wanted, I would allow them to play, but I will say that they have to be very careful, because that would be the big risk to the NFL if it gets to a point where people are afraid to let their children play. That would not be a good thing for the NFL, certainly. But it depends on the level. I mean, I know I played football at a certain level, and I will tell you, it is a rough game, it is a tough game. But it is a rough game, and a lot of people are deciding the other way. But regardless, I would also leave it up to the young person in the family. I think I would have to do that. ENTITY, the NFL Players Association is fighting to legalize the use of medicinal marijuana for its players. These guys take a physical beating. Would you support them in this fight? Well, I have no opinion on it. They are going to have to take a look at that. They are going to talk with the league; they are going to be talking to, obviously, government officials wherever it may be. And when it comes up to the level of the Presidency, I will have an opinion.


Today an estimated $5 billion will be wagered, 4.8 billion, unregulated and untaxed illegally. Well, what I'd do is I'd sit down with the commissioners. I would be talking to them, and we will see how they feel about it. Some would not want it, and probably others and I have read where others maybe do. But I would certainly want to get their input and get the input from the various leagues, and we will see how they feel about it. I'd also get the input from lots of law enforcement officials, because obviously, that is a big step. So we would not do it lightly, I can tell you. But I would want to have a lot of input from a lot of different people. ENTITY, Los Angeles will bid for the 2024 Olympics in the fall. Do you support that bid, and would it be a good thing for Los Angeles and our country? Well, I have been asked to support it, and I have actually spoken to the Olympic Committee in Europe. And they are I think, were very happy when they spoke to me. They wanted to have an endorsement from me, and I gave it to them very loud and clear. I would love to see the Olympics go to Los Angeles. The United States Committee's members have asked me to speak up about it, and I have. And I think I have helped them. But I'd be very happy and honored if they would choose Los Angeles, and we'd stand behind it. Do you feel your immigration policy and the recent Executive order might hurt the bid and cost L.A. some IOC votes? Well, I do not know, but we have to have regardless, we have to have security in our country. We have to know who is coming into our country. We have to have people that are coming in with good intentions, ENTITY. If people are coming in with bad intentions, I want to be able to find out before they get here. You see what is happened in other countries, you see what is happened in our country. So if people want to come into our country, they have to come in with good intentions. And we want to have strong borders. And we want to have extreme vetting, and we want to know what we are doing, frankly. And right now it is tied up in the courts. And I think it is a bad situation for the country.


We have to know exactly who is coming into our country. And I think most people agree with me on that. And they may not express it, but you are seeing it more and more, people are agreeing with me. I want security for the United States. Now, ENTITY, many Russian athletes were banned from competing in the Rio Olympics last summer due to the Russian state-sponsored doping program. Should that ban continue in 2018 in Korea and 2020 in Tokyo until the Russians can prove that they are clean, and are you willing to express that to President Putin? Well, I think that is going to be really up to the various Olympic committees. They have taken a very strong stand, and that is going to be up to them, much more so than me. So we will see what they have to say, ENTITY. ENTITY, leaving aside your desire to have a productive relationship with President Putin, your comments earlier today to Bill O'Reilly on Fox before the Super Bowl seemed to indicate an equivalency between the actions of our Government and the actions of the Russian Government. Can you kind of clarify that statement? Well, I do not have to clarify it. The question was, do you respect him? He is the head of a major country. He is actually very popular in his country if you listen to various reports that are actually put out by polling agencies and various groups within our country, whether they like it or not. But they asked me whether or not I respect him. He is the leader of a major country, and you know what my answer was. And frankly, there are a lot of bad things going on in a lot of places in this world, and if we got along with Russia I do not know that we will. I do not know the gentleman, but I have had two conversations or three conversations with him. He called to congratulate me on the Inauguration recently and called to congratulate me previously on the election. And it was very nice, and I appreciated the call. But I have been called by virtually every leader of the world. And we have been called by just about everybody, so I do not put a lot of credence to that. I will say this. If we got along with Russia and other countries I mean, I want to get along with all countries but if we got along with Russia, if we got along with China, if we got along with Japan and the Prime Minister is coming next weekend.


In fact, he is coming to the White House, and then he'd like to play golf, and we are going to come down to Florida, Palm Beach, and we are going to play golf. We are going to have a round of golf, which is a great thing. You get to know somebody better on a golf course than you will over lunch. So if we are able to get along with other countries, that is a good thing, not a bad thing. Will you have a bet? I think I know he loves the game, and we are going to have a lot of fun. ENTITY, people feel that divides are getting deeper in our country. The first couple of weeks in office, you see what is happening across the country. Today, in sports, right here on the field and in the military, we see people with different backgrounds come together for the common good. What concrete plans do you have to unite our country and bring our Nation together? And one of the reasons I won the election is because of the fact that we were such a divided country. And we had a tremendous group of people that you look at issues and you look at what is going on, and there was such division in our country. And I think a lot of people think that I am going to be able to bring it together, and I think I will be able to do that. But we have been a very, very divided country for a very long period of time. And you know, I guess they consider me to be very much of an outsider, but it is an outsider that can bring us together. And I think I will be able to do that. Well, boxing is an interesting I have had many, many fights, as you know. I have been involved with just about everybody in that business, and I really enjoy the boxing, and I enjoy what they have done with the UFC, Dana White and all of the folks, the families that have done such a great job with that. And I enjoy sports at any kind. I enjoy virtually every sport. And but I have great respect for what they are doing and what they are doing with the I think today's game is terrific, and I think it is going to be terrific. You have now been in office a couple of weeks. It is been tough on a lot of people because we are breaking the glass a little bit. We are being strong on vetting; we are being strong on coming into the country.


It has been a great day so far, not only yesterday but so far this morning, and I am looking forward to a real fine time on this trip to Florida. When you said anything to the right of your philosophy cannot win in Florida, are you speaking specifically of the philosophy of Ronald Reagan and Ronald Reagan in particular? I have said that anyone further to the right than my philosophy, on a nationwide basis, cannot win the general election. I think it is important for that philosophy, which is a middle-of-the-road philosophy, is the right philosophy for the United States. And anyone on the right or on the left of my philosophy just cannot win because most Americans believe in a moderate, middle-of-the-road philosophy. Would you put Ronald Reagan in that category? I will let the American people make that decision. Also, how do you plan to alter your campaign strategy to have at least a confident victory or feeling of victory in Florida? I have been tremendously encouraged by the fine turnouts that I have received in Orlando, in Ft. Lauderdale, and elsewhere. So, I think we have got the initiative, we have the right programs, we have some great leadership in Lou Frey and Bill Young and Skip Bafalis1 and all of the others. But have you got the votes for it? I think the votes will turn up on March 9. Are you planning to step up your Florida campaigning, sir? Well, I think we had a pretty busy day yesterday, as well as today, and as I said, we are most likely to come back again. And I have to emphasize--because it is very important--that my principal responsibility is to be ENTITY, and that takes a good bit of time. We will find a way to come down and see our friends and encourage our workers and to give recognition to our leaders. I think my principal job is to work at the responsibilities of being ENTITY. On the other hand, I think it is equally important, with the time that is available, to come out and see the people and let the people know from me personally what my philosophy is and what my programs are. So we will try to mesh the two. ENTITY, the last time you were in this county was 2 years ago, when you were Vice President. You defended President Nixon then, and it was only a few months before he resigned. Is not that association with President Nixon going to hurt you in this campaign, and is not it hurting you already?

Exchange With Reporters on Arrival at St. Petersburg, Florida.


It is another groundbreaking for one of these battery plants. It is an attempt to show some positive results from a stimulus program that is being received a little more skeptically by the public now, even as opposed to where things were 15 months ago. The first thing to know is specifically what is happening here in Holland, Michigan, but also all across the country. When we came into office, America accounted for about 2 percent of the advanced-battery markets for electric and hybrid cars. And what we did was we said, Look, let us put up $2.4 billion that has to be matched by private dollars. And now you have got nine advanced-battery manufacturing facilities already up on line. And we expect that by 2015 we are going to have about 40 percent of the market in advanced-battery technology. And that is going into, by the way, a couple of the cars that we saw today, the Chevy Volt as well as the Ford Focus. So this is an example, I think, of what our economic strategy has been from the start. We had a disaster on our hands. We have been able to stabilize the economy and prevent the free fall. Instead of 750,000 jobs a month being lost, we have now gained jobs in the private sector for five consecutive months. But we have still got a long way to go. And so, not surprisingly, the American people, who are out of work, who are still struggling to pay the bills, they still want to see more action when it comes to jobs. And I do not blame them. But what I do want to point out is the very specific things that are being done as a consequence of some tough votes that were taken by Democrats last year. Were there more things in the stimulus -- you talked about the public-private partnership. We are seeing a ton of private capital not in the game right now. Well, it turns out that we are actually getting three dollars in private investment for every dollar that went into the recovery act. So that leveraging is taking place. You have got to remember also that about a third of the recovery act last year was tax cuts. And nobody talks about it, but those were not just tax cuts to individuals. They were also tax cuts to small businesses. And so that is why, for example, next week I hope the Senate takes up the proposal to get small businesses loans, because although big companies are now getting loans, you are still seeing problems with respect to small companies getting credit.

Interview With Chuck Todd on MSNBC's The Daily Rundown


You had this meeting yesterday with Warren Buffett, President Clinton, some other CEOs. And I understand the issue of private capital getting into the market, I assume, came up. What are they telling you -- what are these CEOs telling you of why this money is not being spent right now to create jobs? You know, you hear that it is We do not know what the government's going to do. Is that what you are hearing? Yeah, I will tell you exactly what Warren Buffett said. He said we went through a wrenching recession, and so we have not fully recovered. But we have still got a long way to go. And the reason people have not fully invested yet and started creating as many jobs as we would like is because it takes some time to come back. He used a good example in the housing market, where about 1.2 million households are formed that buy a house each year. But we went through a span of time, four or five years, because of the bubble and subprime lending and all the shenanigans that were going on with the mortgage market, where we were building 2 million homes a year. Now we are building 500,000. And what Warren pointed out was, Look, we are going to get back to 1.2 , but right now we are soaking up a whole bunch of inventory. So a lot of the challenge is to work our way through this recession, try to accelerate not only profits, because companies now are making money primarily because they cut costs, but also to see the opportunities out there. And that is what we were trying to show with this plant. We just have to seize them. I understand Warren Buffett told some business leaders last week at a conference that he no longer fears a double-dip recession. I am confident that we are moving in the right direction. The economy is definitely growing and we are definitely seeing additional hiring. Should we fear a double dip? Well, here is what we should fear, that if we do not keep track, keep on track with the policies that we put in place -- if we started seeing, for example, a wrenching reversal in investment, the kinds of plants that we saw today, we could end up having problems. We could further slow growth. The other thing that -- the main thing that keeps me up at night right now is we lost 8 million jobs. The month I was sworn in, we lost 750,000 jobs.


We have regained about 600,000 this year so far. And if we stay on pace, hopefully we will gain several hundred thousand more. And that is going to require us tapping into the new sectors like the clean-energy economy, where there is growth to be had. It also means that we have got to start selling more than we are buying, which is why I am emphasizing export growth so much. But, look, nobody in the White House is satisfied with where we are right now. What we absolutely are convinced of, though, is that we are on the right track. And I think that the statistics bear that out. You know, in your remarks in Holland, you seemed to also make a political argument about the other side, saying that they, you know, were not for these plans. What do you tell the person who may have voted for you, cannot find a job or got laid off since you took office, why they should still keep the Democrats in charge? Because they are not feeling any of the positive yet. Look, if somebody's out of work right now, the only answer that I am going to have for them is when they get a job. Up until that point, from their perspective, the economic policies are not working well enough. And you are okay if they hold you accountable for that, if they cannot find a job. That is my job as ENTITY is to take responsibility for moving us in the right direction. But what I am absolutely convinced of is that we are going to have a choice, not just in November but for years to come. We can go back to all the same policies that got us into this mess, where we basically provide special-interest loopholes; we do not regulate Wall Street; we have a health-care system that is out of control; we provide tax cuts who do not need them and were not asking for them. Or we can take the approach that I have taken since I came in and that I campaigned on, which is to make sure that we start investing in our education system, to make sure that we are investing in clean energy, to get control of health-care costs, to deal with our structural deficit, the fact that we are spending more money through entitlements and through a whole range of other things than we are taking in. And it is hard, because you do not see immediate gratification.