People will know it is being handled in that way, and then I can just go back to work, which is what I want to happen. In all candidness, a Special Counsel should have been appointed sooner, do you think? I mean, it would have certainly taken the story down. I was concerned in the beginning about agreeing to it when- for the first time ever, no one ever-people were saying, We know you did not do anything wrong, so appoint a Special Counsel. It was not , There is this evidence of wrongdoing. Were you involved in it? But it was a much bigger story here and then eventually around the country, I think, than I had anticipated. So the important thing for me, again, was for people to feel comfortable about the way it is handled so I can go back to work. And I think now people will feel comfortable about the way it is handled, and I can go to work. The one thing most people are asking is-they will learn more about this, because it is involved, obviously-is why you took a loss and did not take a deduction since everybody who has a loss takes a deduction. Well, that will come out in the-I think we took some interest deductions along, which were part of our losses, but at the end I did basically what we thought was the bend-over-backwards right thing to do and what was appropriate at the time. That'll all come out, and then if there are questions about it, when the report's made to the American people, I can answer questions about it then. The night of the NAFTA debate and the passage of NAFTA, were you at all surprised at how well Al Gore did?  people were predicting that Perot would beat him-- I thought he would be great here if he had a fair chance and an honest debate. You know, he is like all the rest of us, sometimes we pick up images that are on occasion right but not fully accurate. And this image of him as sort of wooden and stiff, anybody who really knows him will tell you he is very funny, he has a terrific sense of humor, he is got an incredibly flexible mind. And the reason I like this debate format that you provided is that no one could shout anyone else down. Everybody got to answer questions. I knew he knew a lot about it; I knew he believed very deeply in the position that we had taken.

Interview With Larry King


It was not just something he was saying- Well, I am the Vice ENTITY, and Bill Clinton is for NAFTA, and I have got to be -he believed it deep down in his bones. So I liked it. To do that was his idea, and he asked you to okay--   He said, What do you think about it? And so we were sort of like salesmen in our own house. Well, no, some of them did, not all of them but some of them. But we were beginning to make progress, you know; we were beginning to pick up votes already. But we were doing it by basically saying to Members of Congress, You know this is right, and you know it is in the national interest, and you ought to do it even if it is unpopular in the short run. We felt, he and I both did, that this debate here, this discussion on your program, would be the only chance we'd ever have to kind of break through to ordinary Americans who watch you and listen to you and just want to know. And that is really what-that is what you did. You gave us a chance to talk to everyday Americans. And he was really-and I was so proud of him. Do you think we might see someday a ENTITY debate? Certainly if I run for reelection I will expect-- No, I do not mean that. I mean major issues coming up for a vote-health care-- you and Senator Dole, or someone, someone of the leadership, where a ENTITY would sit down and say, Let us discuss it with the opposition. I do not think that is ever happened in this country. It might not-I would not be afraid of doing it. I would not want to commit in advance just because I would want to make sure it was the right thing to do at the time. But you know, I run a remarkably open Presidency. I ran for this job because I wanted to get the economy going, I wanted to get the country back together again, and I wanted people to believe that their Government belonged to them again and that we could be more open and accessible to them. And I have tried to do that. The day after I was inaugurated, we opened the White House to just folks to come in. And tonight in another way we are opening the White House again. And we are going to do that right away. Live.

Interview With Larry King


By the way, the ENTITY was fully prepared to go 90 minutes tonight, but he is very tired. As you might imagine, this has been a back-breaking schedule with the death of his mother, the funeral, overseas, back home, full physical, and we mean full physical, right?-you had what they call top-to-toe-and then out to L.A. So we understand fully, and we will get to as many calls as we can. Yes, ENTITY, what do you say to those who say that you and your administration have not done a good job about Somalia? And given the fact that the Somalis do not trust the UNISOM, Somalia is bound to go back to where it was before the U.S. intervention. Well, I think we have done a good job in Somalia. We have saved a lot of lives there. But when we went there, it was primarily for a humanitarian purpose, to try to save the lives. I was told when I became ENTITY that we might be able to withdraw the American troops as early as one month, 2 months into my term. We have now been a full year, and as you know, we have got a few more months to go before we withdraw our troops. But the thing that caused the starvation in Somalia in the beginning was that a lot of people identified with their clans more than the country as a whole, and they were fighting each other. What we have done is to set in motion a process in which the clans can agree to a peaceable way of governing the country among themselves. And if they do not do that, we'd have to stay forever. And we cannot do that. So in the end, the people of Somalia are going to have to take responsibility for themselves and their future. And in the meanwhile, we will keep working to try to keep as many of them alive as we can. How would you like to lower the country's trade deficit and balance the payments by giving all Americans and all businesses tax deductions for buying American products, by definition 90 percent made in America with 90 percent parts made in America and 90 percent profits going to American companies? It would certainly, I think, violate some of our international trade agreements, and it might cause others to retaliate against us. I would like to lower our trade deficit, at least that which is structural and permanent. Our biggest problems are with Japan and now with China. Yes, we are working on both of them.

Interview With Larry King


I understand what he is saying, and we do have certain buy America preferences in our law, but we have to be very careful how far we go without violating the treaties and agreements we made with other countries who take our products freely. By the way, something just hit me, and it occurred in the last year. Do we know a lot more than we did before? I do not think we know any more than we did in the beginning because I just really do not believe there is any more to know. You know, he left a note; he was profoundly depressed. You did not know it? And I talked to him-- No, I think 2 nights before, and told him to come see me. Or maybe it was the night before, and I told him to come see me on Wednesday, which was the day after he shot himself. It broke my heart. We'd been friends for more than 40 years. We lived next to each other when we were little bitty kids. And I miss him. This Special Counsel says he is going to look into that, too. Well, I think because he had some files that were relevant to-I think he has to look into what was there, and he will just- whatever he wants to do, you know, let him do that. I live in Detroit where we have had 629 murders in our State, and I would like to know, what can you do or help us about this issue? And I would just like to congratulate you. You have been a ENTITY that has said what you are going to do, and you have done it. And regardless of what the media bashing, I thank you for all that you have done. First of all, let me say that you call from Detroit, which has had a lot of murders. And the Children's Defense Fund said today that a child is killed with a gun every other hour in this country now. But this lady could have called from many other cities in the country and small towns, too. Let me tell you what I think we can do together. First of all, we have got to strengthen our law enforcement forces. You have got a great new mayor in Detroit in Dennis Archer. He is a longtime friend of mine. I read his inaugural address the other day. It was a brilliant way of getting Detroit together and getting started.

Interview With Larry King


But we have to put more police officers on the street, well-trained and working with people in the communities, walking the blocks, working with the kids, preventing crime as well as catching criminals. Our crime bill will put 100,000 more police officers on the street. It is the first priority for Congress when they come back. Secondly, we passed the Brady bill, but we need to do more on guns. Specifically, we need to limit these automatic, semiautomatic assault weapons that have no purpose other than to kill. And I hope we can reach an accord with the sportsmen and quit arguing about things that are false issues and get an agreement on what the problem is and how to attack it. And fourthly, you have got to give these kids something to say yes to. That is, we have got to go into these really distressed areas and rebuild the bonds of family, community, and work. We cannot have it all on the punishment. These children have to have something to say yes to. If you look at a lot of these high crime areas where the gangs and the drugs and the guns are, they fill the vacuum when family collapses, when work collapses. Most of us organize our lives around work, family, community. And a lot of these young people that are in real trouble today and really vulnerable are living in places where there is not enough community, enough family, or enough work. So I think we have to do both things. And then next year or this year now, I am going to ask the Congress to work with me and then work with the mayors, the Governors, and others to really get serious about this. We have got to do something about it, and we have got a program that will make a difference. In your Geneva meeting with ENTITY Asad of Syria, did you ask him for a withdrawal of the Syrian forces from Lebanon, or a least at time schedule, or Lebanon's going to be the price for peace with Israel? Lebanon was not the price for peace. He agreed that as part of a comprehensive peace agreement, we should implement the Taif accord which, as you know, calls for an independent Lebanon, free of all foreign forces.

Interview With Larry King


And ENTITY Asad clearly said that if he could be satisfied from his point of view in having a comprehensive peace agreement with Israel, Israel would also have to have an agreement with Lebanon, an agreement with Jordan, and obviously the agreement with the PLO, and that Lebanon in the end would be left a free and independent state, independent of all foreign forces. We talked about that quite explicitly, and he was quite clear in saying that he would support that. Was it tough to sit with Asad, who has been on a list of-as a terror leader for years? I mean, I know Presidents have to do things-was that hard? And I think the most important thing for me was to make it clear that I-my overriding agenda was to do whatever I could to make an honorable, decent, lasting peace in the Middle East. Yes, I think he really wants to make peace. I think there are a lot of reasons why it is in the interests of the Syrian people and in his own interest to do it, and I think he does. I also made it clear that we still had real differences between us in our bilateral relations, and one of them was what we feel about terrorism. And we talked about it for an hour. And he gave his side, and I gave mine. But the American people are entitled to know that. We talked about it for an hour-- We did not skirt it. He did in a way, and he defined it in a different way, and he made some arguments about what Syria has done and not done. But the point is, we got it out on the table. He said what he thought; I said what I thought. And maybe most important, we agreed that our Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, and their Foreign Minister, Mr. Shara, would meet and really try to get beyond the charges to very specific things, that we would come forward with specific instances of things that we believe have been done that are a violation of international law that cannot be tolerated, and we would try to work through them. So I think that it was an honorable meeting from my point of view and from the point of view of the United States because of that. A lot of companies are hiring people on a part-time or temporary basis because they do not want to give them benefits. Under your health care plan, how will people who work part-time or freelance have their benefits paid for? Let me answer the question and make a general point.

Interview With Larry King


First of all, under our health care plan, part-time workers will be covered partly by their employers if they work more than 10 hours a week. They will pay a portion of their premiums. And then the rest of the premium will be paid for out of a Government fund set up for that purpose. But part-time workers will be covered, and their employers will have to pay something for their coverage, too. Also, if we can do something to slow the dramatic increase in the cost of health care and to make sure all workers are covered, that, I think, will help to stabilize this trend, and more and more employers will be willing to hire new workers on a full-time basis. And let me say, we are beginning to see that now. Since I became ENTITY and we got serious about bringing the deficit down, bringing interest rates down, getting investment up, and employment started coming again, as confidence gets back into this economy, then employers will be able to hire more full-time workers. Then this year, what I have to be able to do is to show the business community that this health care plan of ours is going to stabilize health care costs while providing health care for all Americans through a guaranteed private insurance system, not a Government system but a private system. But we have to ask the employers to pay something for their part-time workers, too. He said he'd be with us every 6 months-holding right to it-he was with us July 20th, this is January 20th. We are back with the ENTITY. ENTITY, in regards to sympathy for your mother, I had the opportunity to see your mother catch a fish when she was over here, and she is quite a fisherwoman. I am sorry to hear about that. She loved that tournament. In regards to Korea, what is the possibility of the Koreans getting a nuclear weapon and maybe possibly striking Hawaii first since that is part of the United States now? Yes, what is the current status of North Korea? Well, first let me say, thank you to the gentleman from Hawaii for the condolences for my mother, and mine to the mother of the Governor of Hawaii who passed away today. The Korean-let me just tell you, if you follow the press you know that the intelligence reports are divided on the question of how far the North Koreans have gone in developing a nuclear weapon. Even if they develop one, then there is the question of their delivery capacity, which is in doubt.

Interview With Larry King


I would not say Hawaii is in serious danger right now. What I would say is that we need to keep working very hard and to be very firm about not wanting Korea to join the family of nuclear states. You know, I have been out here working to reduce the number of countries with nuclear weapons, with Ukraine and Kazakhstan and Belarus committing to get rid of their weapons. We are now involved in intense negotiations, and the only thing I can tell you is we are working as hard as we can to be as firm as we can and then to be as also as firm as we can about the security of our people and the South Koreans in the event all does not go well. But we are working very hard, and I certainly have not given up yet on getting the North Koreans to go back into the NPT system and agreeing to let the International Atomic Energy inspectors in there to look at what they are doing. They ought to do it. Even China used to be a big ally of theirs. China now does 8 or 10 times as much trade with South Korea as with North Korea. And I think they believe that somehow this gives them some handle on national prestige. I think their best way to be esteemed in the rest of the world is to be a good citizen and give the rest of us a chance to relate to them. ENTITY, I find your political opponents' relentless efforts to undermine the credibility of your administration absolutely appalling. How much does this cost the American citizen in terms of wasted time and money? And does it affect the U.S. in the international community? Well, first I thank you for your sentiments and your support. And the most important thing of all is that the American people be able to see through it. When they see the politics of personal destruction, when they see people who obviously do not want to talk about how we are going to get this economy going or how we are going to get health care to all Americans or how we are going to deal with the other problems, crime in the streets, that they see it for what it is. I think that abroad, frankly, our administration and me, that I personally, that we are able to do what we need to do for the United States. I was very gratified at the reception that I received in Europe and in Russia and throughout our travels. It does take time and attention and distraction when you are dealing with all that stuff, but as I said to ENTITY earlier, I can deal with it.

Interview With Larry King


The only thing that really steams me is what it does to my wife and my daughter, to my family. As a person, that bothers me. But it is not undermining our ability to go forward. Does it take time and attention, is it distracting, is it costly in that sense? It apparently is a part of the price of being in public life in the late 20th century in the United States. So we deal with it. But I just want you to know that having you call just redoubles my determination. And I thank you for that. ENTITY, I was wondering what the progress on our situation with Bosnia-Herzegovina was? And what has happened to the sense of urgency we once had with that problem? Well, the United States had a position, as you know. When I took office I offered the Europeans my position, what I thought we ought to do, how I thought we ought to do it to get a quicker peace and, if not get peace, at least to give the government of that country a chance to defend itself. I did not believe that we could unilaterally or should unilaterally send ground troops there. So let me tell you where it is now. First of all, do not forget what we have done. We have led the longest airlift in history, now longer than the Berlin airlift, to give food and medicine to the people there. Secondly, we have enforced a ferocious embargo which has cost the Serbs, in particular, dearly. It has virtually wrecked the Serbian economy. They continue to fight, but they have paid a terrible price for it economically. And thirdly, we have tried to work with our allies at NATO to say that we would use air power if Sarajevo were subject to shelling and strangulation again. And finally, we are supporting the peace process. The government had been losing on the ground. They'd been making some gains so they have not agreed to any peace-or they are going to have to give, I think, to Moslems, some access to the water in order to get a peace agreement. They are a little closer than I think it looks, but eventually they are going to have to agree to that or the fighting will go on. But the people are still killing each other because they are fighting over land. They are going to have to reach a territorial accommodation so that all three of those ethnic groups can live with a reasonable breathing room there.

Interview With Larry King


ENTITY, we cannot say thank you enough for giving NPR this time, so thank you. All right, ENTITY, the reports that 300 militants were killed, an American helicopter shot down yesterday in Najaf - that is one of the deadliest battles of the war, what can you tell us? You know, ENTITY, I have not been briefed by the Pentagon yet. One of the things I have learned is not to react to first reports off the battlefield. I will tell you, though, that this fight is an indication of what is taking place, and that is the Iraqis are beginning to take the lead, whether it be this fight that you have just reported on where the Iraqis went in with American help to do in some extremists that were trying to stop the advance of their democracy, or the report that there is militant Shia had been captured or killed. In other words, one of the things that I expect to see is the Iraqis take the lead and show the American people that they are willing to the hard work necessary to secure their democracy, and our job is to help them. So my first reaction on this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something. Well, now, one of the concerns might be that you have - the gunmen were trying to assassinate clerics and pilgrims - Shia pilgrims. So I am wondering if that is an indication of a civil war - a term that, you know, you have been reluctant to use. Well, I think it is an indication that there are murderers who will kill innocent people to stop the advance of a form of government that is the opposite of what they believe. You know, we can debate terms, but what cannot be debated is the fact that Iraq is violent, and the violence is caused by Sunni Arabs like al-Qaida, who have made it clear that they want to create chaos and drive the United States out so they can have safe haven, and then they could launch attacks against America. No question the attack on the Golden Mosque of Samarra, which is a Shia holy site, caused Shia extremists to retaliate.

Interview With Juan Williams of National Public Radio


Now, there is some criminality going on, ENTITY, when there is no push-back in society; criminals are able to - you know, to have their way, and now the question is whether or not it is worth it in our interest - whether it is in the interests of the United States to help the Iraqi government do what is necessary to deal with these extremists. And I have obviously made the decision, I think it is. I fully understand it is going to be up to the Iraqis to solve their problems. I was hoping to be in a different position. In other words, I had hoped I'd be able to interview with you and say, well, you know, we are not needed as much anymore, but I fully recognize that unless the violence in Baghdad, the capital city of Iraq, the sectarian violence and the criminality is dealt with, then the political reconciliation necessary to unite the country is not going to happen. And so I made a tough decision, and that is to reinforce our troops there and put a new commander there in the hopes of breaking the sectarian violence - or helping the Iraqis break it. Now, you have got a vote tomorrow in the Senate to consider a resolution opposing the troop buildup. Vice President Cheney said last week that vote would validate the insurgents' strategy. My attitude is - my feeling to the Senate echoes what Joe Lieberman said the other day - Senator Joe Lieberman - and that is it is ironic that the Senate would vote 81 to nothing to send a general into Iraq who believes he needs more troops to do the job and then send a contradictory message. The legislatures will - legislators will do what they feel like they have got to do, and, you know, we want to work with them as best we can to make it clear what the stakes of failure will be, and also make it clear to them that I think they have a responsibility to make sure our troops have what they need to do the missions. Well, another question about Vice President Cheney - he said last week that - here I am quoting - we have encountered enormous successes and we continue to have enormous successes in Iraq. Two weeks ago you said, quote, there had not been enough success in Iraq.


I think that the vice president is a person reflecting a half-glass-full mentality, and that is he is been able to look at - as have I, and I hope other Americans have - the fact that the tyrant was removed, 12 million people voted, there is an Iraqi constitution in place that is a model for - and unique for the Middle East. I will tell you, 2005 was a great year for freedom, and then the enemy took a good look and said, what do we need to do to stop the advance of freedom, and 2006 was a tough year. In other words, people have asked me about whether or not I approve of the situation in Iraq and my answer is no. We can do better, but it is going to require an Iraqi government that does several things. One is provide security for its people, and therefore it is in our interest to train with them, to embed with them, and to fight alongside them for a period of time until Baghdad is secure. In other words, they have got to make it clear to the 12 million people that made a conscious decision to vote and say, we want a unity government, to reach out to disparate elements. They have got to make sure that oil revenue, for example, is available to all of the people and not just a faction that may happen to be in power. They have got to make sure that those who were involved with the Saddam government in the past, so long as they were not killers or terrorists, have a chance, for example, to be reinstated as school teachers. In other words, there is a lot of things politically that can happen, ENTITY, and - you know, I made a decision that - and, listen, I listen to a lot of folks here in Washington. I listen to the military people, I listen to people who are critical of the policy, I listen to Republicans, I listen to Democrats, and I listen carefully for which strategy would yield - would most likely yield success, and the one I picked is the one I believe will. I also want your listeners to know that a lot of people here in Washington also understand that failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the Iraqi people and for the American people. But there is no distance between you and Vice President Cheney in terms of the strength of his resolve that things are going, as he put it, you know, successfully.


In other words, when I made the decision to change the strategy in Iraq with a focus on Baghdad - in other words, reinforcing our troops, he fully understands that needed to happen and supported it. You know, people are praying for you; people - the American people want to be with you, ENTITY, but you just spoke about the polls and they indicate the public - and you know about what is going up on Capitol Hill with the Congress, some in the military. Even many Iraqis, according to the polls, do not like the idea of sending more troops into Iraq. So I wonder if you could give us something to go on, give us something - say, you know, this is a reason to get behind the ENTITY right now. Well, one way to - and one of the things I have found here in Washington amongst those who were skeptical about whether the Iraqis will do what it takes to secure their own freedom, is to remind them of what would happen if there is failure. If we did not work to secure Baghdad and help the Iraqis to secure Baghdad, the country could evolve into a chaotic situation, and out of that chaos would emerge an emboldened enemy. See, the difference, ENTITY, between other conflicts in the past and this one is that failure would endanger the homeland. In other words, the enemy is not going to be just contained in the Middle East if they succeed in driving us out or succeed in wrecking the Iraqi democracy. The enemy would be likely to follow us here. And that is why I tried in my State of the Union speech, why I reminded people that September the - the lessons of September the 11th need to be remembered. It is a - and look, September the 11th changed my attitude about a lot of things. And I recognize that the world we live in is one where America cannot be isolated from the ills in other parts of the world. As a matter of fact, those ills can come home to haunt us. And so, as I said in my speech, we will do everything we can to protect the American people, and continue to stay on the offense, but we have also got to defeat the ideology of hate with an ideology of liberty, because in the long run it is going to secure peace for your children and grandchildren. How long can you sustain the policy, though, with people so vehement in their doubt, the Congress voting as the Congress is voting, the polls showing what they are showing?


Well, I am - you know, I am hopeful that the decision I have made is going to yield enough results so that the Iraqi government is able to take more of the responsibility. Listen, they want the responsibility. And in my judgment, and more importantly, the judgment of the military folks, they are not quite ready to go. And therefore, it is in our interest to help them with an additional 21,000 troops, particularly in Baghdad, to help bring this violence down and to deal with these radicals, whether they be Sunni radicals or Shia radicals. And, you know, I am reluctant to put timetables on the situation because there are people who listen to what I say and others in America say, and are willing to adjust their timetables to our timetable. It is a - I am optimistic, I am realistic, I understand how tough the fight is, but I also understand the stakes, and it is very important for our citizens to understand that a Middle East could evolve in which rival forms of extremists compete with each other, you know, nuclear weapons become developed, safe havens are in place, oil would be used as an economic weapon against the West. And I am confident that if this were to happen, people would look back at this year and say, what happened to those people in 2006? How come they could not see the impending threat? You know, you mentioned timetables. NPR has a reporter embedded with the Minnesota National Guard in Iraq, and one of the soldiers there asked the question - says, my name is Specialist Ryan Schmidt from Forest Lake, Minnesota, and my question for you, ENTITY, is what if your plan for a troop surge to Baghdad does not work? What do you think? Well, I would say to Ryan, I put it in place on the advice of a lot of smart people, particularly the military people who think it will work, and let us go into this aspect of the Iraqi strategy feeling it will work. But I will also assure Ryan that we are constantly adjusting to conditions on the ground. Let us talk about Iran for a second, ENTITY. And let me also say to Ryan, thanks for serving. I mean, one of the amazing things about our country is that we have people who volunteer to go. And one of the things I look for is whether or not we are able to recruit and retain, and we are.


And I appreciate that soldier, and I hope this message gets to him that not only do I appreciate him, but a lot of Americans appreciate him. We will get it to him, ENTITY. Iran's ambassador to Iraq says Iran is planning to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iran - with Iraq. You said you have proof of Iran's role in attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. I know you want to take care of this diplomatically - I have heard you say that - but if Iran escalates its military action in Iraq, how will the U.S. respond? If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly. We - it makes common sense for the commander-in-chief to say to our troops and the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government that we will help you defend yourself from people that want to sow discord and harm. And so we will do what it takes to protect our troops. One of the things that is very important in discussing Iran is not to mix issues. Our relationship with Iran is based upon a lot of different issues. One is what is happening in Iraq. Another is their ambitions to have a nuclear weapon. And we are dealing with this issue diplomatically, and I think this can be solved diplomatically. And the message that we are working to send to the Iranian regime and the Iranian people is that you will become increasingly isolated if you continue to pursue a nuclear weapon. The message to the Iranian people is that your government is going to cause you deprivation. In other words, you have got a chance to really flourish again as a great tradition. However, if your government continues to insist upon a nuclear weapon, there will be lost opportunity for the Iranian people. They will not be able to realize their full potential. The Iranian people have got to know that this government and the United States bears no hostility to them. We are just deeply concerned about a government that is insisting upon having a nuclear weapon, and at the same time, rewriting history - the history of the past, and regards, for example, the Holocaust. It troubles a lot of people in this world, and I will continue to work with, you know, friends and allies to send a clear message.


By the way, just quickly, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader says that if you have an incursion into Iran, he expects that you would come to the Senate for approval. I have no intent upon incur-going into Iran. I mean, this is the kind of thing that happens in Washington. People ascribe, you know, motives to me beyond a simple statement - of course we will protect our troops. I do not know how anybody can then say, well, protecting the troops means that we are going to invade Iran. If that is what he is talking about, there is - I mean, we will protect our interests in Iraq. That is what the American people expect us to do. That is definitely what our troops want to do, and that is what the families of our troops want us to do. And if we find the Iranians are moving weapons that will end up harming American troops, we will deal with it. Let us talk for a second about the State of the Union speech. You did not mention Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, or the Gulf Coast. A lot of people from Louisiana, including David Vitter, the Republican senator, say they regret that. Well, I gave a speech that I thought was necessary to give. On the other hand, I had been talking a lot about Katrina and about the fact that I worked with the Congress to get about $110 billion sent down to both Mississippi and Louisiana to help them on their reconstruction efforts. But to take the housing issue, for example, we have sent money down to the Louisiana folks, Louisiana Recovery Authority, to fund their plan. And now it is up to the folks down there to get this plan implemented so people can start rebuilding their houses. If there is bureaucratic slowdowns in Washington, we have got a man named Don Powell who is working to address them. But no, our response to the Katrina recovery has been very robust. And I appreciate the taxpayers of the United States helping the folks down there in Mississippi and Louisiana. Now, also in the State of the Union, you talked about the - quote here - the serious challenge of global climate change. Were you talking about global warming there? And one of the things that I am proud of is this administration has done a lot on advancing new technologies that will enable us to do two things - strengthen our economy, and at the same time, be better stewards of the environment.


In 2002, I talked about an energy efficiency standard, which says new technologies will enable us to grow our economy, and at the same time, improve the environment, and we are meeting certain standards that I set for the country. Well, if you are really interested in global warming and climate change, then it seems like to me that we ought to promote technologies to advance the development of safe nuclear power. It is a renewable source of energy, and at the same time has no emissions to it. But also, we are advancing clean-coal technologies. The goal is to have a zero-emission coal-fired plant. And then, in the State of the Union, I talked about another aspect of economic security and environmental quality, and that is changing the habits - or changing how we power our cars. And I want more people driving automobiles with, you know, ethanol, for example, or biodiesel. And I believe the goal I set, which is a very bold goal, of reducing gasoline usage by 20 percent in 10 years is an attainable goal, but it is going to require the Congress funding the research and development initiatives that I have put in my budgets. By the way, in the speech, you spoke about the Democrats. You said, you congratulated the Democrat majority. And I notice your prepared text said Democratic majority. I surely think that you know that for the Democrats, they think when you say Democrat, it is like fingernails on the blackboard. They do not like it. Look, I went into the hall saying we can work together and I was very sincere about it. I did not even know I did it. And that I did, I did not mean to be putting fingernails on the board, I meant to be saying why do not we show the American people we can actually work together? And it is almost like, if ENTITY is for it, we are against it, and I - and if he is against it, we are for it. And the American people do not like that. And I am going to tell you some big issues we need to work on. Your grandchildren are going to grow up with a Social Security system that is broke unless we do something about it. But it requires a lot of political, you know, capital to be spent. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I am sorry it is the case, and I will work hard to try to elevate it.


So the idea that somehow I was trying to needle the Democrats, it is just - gosh, it is probably Texas. But I am not that good at pronouncing words anyway, ENTITY. ENTITY, you are bringing out a new budget next week, and I presume you are going to have healthcare, health insurance plan in it. To pay for some of the plan, some people who do not pay taxes on their health insurance plan now will have to pay taxes. Is not that a tax increase for them? No, really what it is, it is a rewriting of the tax code. We have got a tax code today that says if you get your insurance from a large employer, for example, it is part of your - it is a non-taxable event. And yet if you are an individual, like ENTITY out there as an independent contractor, and you buy your own health insurance, you are at a tax disadvantage. And so I am asking the Congress to reform the tax code to treat everybody fairly. And in my judgment, such a plan will encourage and enable more individuals to be able to buy health insurance, which will help us deal with the uninsured. Will the budget be balanced through spending restraint or taxes? The budget is going to be balanced by keeping taxes low. In other words, we are not going to raise taxes. And as a result of keeping taxes low, the economy is doing just fine, and when the economy is doing well, it yields a certain level of tax revenues that we can live with. And then making sure that we constrain federal spending, and you do that by setting priorities. And our priority has got to be this global war on terror and supporting our troops, and protecting the homeland, and that is what our budget will say, and we can balance the budget within five years. And that is going to be - that is good for the country. And in so doing, we are dealing with the short-term deficits, but we have also got to deal with the long-term deficits inherent in, for example, programs like Social Security and Medicare. So, some people would say, well, if you believe in spending restraint, why have not you vetoed one bill, you know, one appropriations bill? Because the United States Congress that was controlled by Republicans exercised spending restraint. Now, I did not particularly like - the size of the pie was what I requested.


It is some of the pieces of the pie that I did not particularly care for, but that is why the ENTITY needs a line-item veto, and that is why Congress has got to reform the earmark process. What the American people need to understand is that sometimes special projects get put into bills without ever having seen the light of the day. In other words, they do not get voted on; they just show up, and we need transparency in the earmark process, and expose the process to hearings and votes so that the American people will know that any project was fully heard on the floor of the House and the Senate. ENTITY, you have talked about Harry Truman and the challenges that President Truman faced during his time here. He was not popular toward the end of his presidency, but history ended up judging him very well. Well, you know, ENTITY, my hope is that we see improvement in Baghdad. My vision is dealing with the problems at hand. I have got a lot on my agenda and believe we are going to get a lot done. At home, we want the economy to remain strong, and we want our children educated. That is why I am pushing for a reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. And abroad, I am not only working with a great team to deal with Iraq, but we are dealing with Iran, Middle Eastern peace, North Korea. I mean, there is a lot of issues we are dealing with. My own view is that history will take care of itself. History has a long reach to it. I told people that last year I read three analyses of Washington's administration, and my attitude is if they are still writing about the first ENTITY, the 43rd does not need to worry about it. And so, the other thing is, is that, I think it is very important for people - for a ENTITY to make decisions based upon principles. And I would rather, when it is all said and done, get back home and look in the mirror and say, I did not compromise the principles that are etched into my soul in order to be a popular guy. What I want to do is solve problems for the American people and yield the peace that we all want. When you look at the quality of intelligence that you are getting about the nuclear program in Iran right now, do you think it is better than the quality of intelligence you were getting about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?


We all thought that that - that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we all being not only the administration, but members from both political parties in the Congress. The previous administration felt that the intelligence indicated there was weapons of mass destruction. The international community - in other words, I just want you to know that there was a universal belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction including critics of Iraq, like the French, who voted for 1441 in the Security Council. And therefore when it turned out not to be true, there is a certain skepticism about intel. And however, the skepticism about intel, while it needs to be tempered by, you know, the - by an analysis of statements or other fragments of intelligence - what I am trying to say that I take the Iranian nuclear threat very seriously even though the intel on Iraq was not what it was thought to be, and we have to. Now - so how do you solve the problem on intel? Well, you get more human intelligence. You constantly reevaluate the system itself and make sure that these really fine souls that work for the different intelligence agencies are given the tools they need. And so - look, I am like a lot of Americans that say, well, if it was not right in Iraq, how do you know it is right in Iran? And so we are constantly evaluating, and answering this legitimate question by always working to get as good intelligence as we can. And Negroponte's departure, did it concern you - do you feel like the CIA, all of these intelligence agencies are doing a better job now? Well, I think they understand the lessons of Iraq. And you know, we put the Silverman Robb Commission together, and wanted to make - look, the ENTITY needs the best intelligence. This is a war against a group of killers that still want to come and kill us, that is going to require accurate intelligence to give us the data necessary to act to protect Americans before the attack. And therefore we are all pulling for good intelligence. And Negroponte is much needed at the State Department. He is one of these public servants who brings a lot of skills, and a lot of really - and a lot of good judgment. And I asked him to go to the State Department to help Condi, and found a very suitable replacement, a guy named Mike McConnell.


And the change of personnel really is not a reflection upon whether or not the intel is getting better or worse; the change of personnel is putting our best players in the best positions as we head into the final two years of the administration. You asked the Democrats on a bipartisan basis to form an advisory council and monitor the war, work with you. What do you take from that? Well, I am going to have to keep working with them and explain that my notion is to - is to put in place a consulting-type group that will be able to talk about the war on terror in general. In other words, I do not want - I think that a lot of these folks are not happy we are in Iraq to begin with, and I understand that, and then they are - they do not believe we are going to succeed in Iraq, and I understand that too. I think what some may be afraid of is I am trying to get them into an Iraq-type situation where they are forced to say something they do not want to say. Oh, that they would be co-opted by cooperating or working with you? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, and that may be part of the issue. My purpose really is to - listen, we want to consult in Iraq, and we will continue to do so, and we will be very much involved with members of Congress, do not get me wrong. But the greater purpose is to help this country succeed in the ideological struggle that we are going to be in today and tomorrow and the next day. This is - what I am describing to the American people is this war on terror is going to take a while, and Iraq is just a part of it. And I guess - you know, I am going to work - I think it is important for me to continue to reach out to the Democrats, and will - and Republicans, for that matter - and explain the strategies and the way forward, but also to explain to them that presidents and Congresses will be dealing with this ideological struggle for quite a while, and therefore it makes sense to work together now to help not only us succeed, but help them succeed. ENTITY, I want say thank you from National Public Radio. I appreciate it, sir.


Well, ENTITY, it is good to see you again, my friend. We have met several times over the last year. And each time, we have deepened our nations' partnership and for the benefit, I think, of both our peoples. The alliance formed in war and has flourished in peace. Seemingly every day, we have launched new areas of cooperation on cyber, strategic technologies, in space, democracy, and all the areas that matter most to our future. Because of its core, our alliance is about building a better future for all of our people. And there is no better example than our economic relationship and partnership, which has is delivering incredible benefits to both our nations. Through the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, we are advancing economic growth grounded in high standards for our workers, for the environment, and for communities throughout the region. We are standing together against economic influence being leveraged in coercive ways. And since I took office, Korean companies have invested more than $100 billion in the United States, driving innovation and spurring good new jobs for Americans and Korean workers. Our mutual defense treaty is ironclad, and that includes our commitment to extended deterrence, and that includes the nuclear threat and the nuclear deterrent. They are particularly important in the face of the D.P.R.K.'s increased threats and the blatant violation of U.S. sanctions. At the same time, we continue to seek serious and substantial diplomatic breakthroughs with the D.P.R.K. to bolster stability on the Peninsula, reduce the threat of proliferation, and address our humanitarian and human rights concerns for the people of the D.P.R.K. The Republic of Korea and the United States are working together, including through our trilateral cooperation with Japan, to ensure the future of the Indo-Pacific is free, is open, prosperous, and secure. I want to thank you again, ENTITY, for your political courage and personal commitment to diplomacy with Japan. I have worked on these issues for a long time, and I can tell you it makes an enormous difference when we all pull together. I also welcome and support your administration's new Indo-Pacific strategy. It is a strategy that affirms how aligned our two nations are and our visions of the region, and how similar they are. Today we discussed our work together on promoting peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits, ensuring freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and beyond.

The President's News Conference With President Yoon Suk Yeol of South Korea


I also affirmed our shared commitment we, together, shared our affirmed shared commitment to stand with the people of Ukraine against Russia's brutal assault on their freedom, their territorial integrity, and democracy. And the Republic of Korea's strong support for Ukraine is important, because Russians' flagrant Russia's flagrant violation of international law matters to nations everywhere in the world, not just in Europe. When I when it comes right down to it, it is about what you believe, what you stand for, what kind of future you want for your children and grandchildren. And right now I believe the world is at an inflection point. The choices we make today, I believe, are going to determine the direction of our world and the future of our kids for decades to come. That is why this partnership is so important, ENTITY, because we share the same values, the same vision. And I greatly appreciate, ENTITY, that the Republic of Korea cochaired the second Summit on Democracies last month and that you will host the third Summit on for Democracies. We both understand that our democracies and our people are our greatest sources of strength. From tracking the climate crisis and strengthening our effort to fight it, and strengthening global health, no two countries are better suited to meet the challenges ahead than the Republic of Korea and the United States. I want to thank you again, ENTITY, for your friendship, your partnership, and all you have done to help build a future of shared strength and success. I am very pleased to be making a state visit to the United States during this meaningful year that marks the 70th anniversary of the R.O.K.-U.S. alliance. Our two countries have overcome challenges and crises during the past 70 years based on the deep roots of freedom and democracy, building a value alliance that is strong, resilient, and sustainable. We are now being threatened by an unprecedented polycrisis. The R.O.K.-U.S. alliance is jointly overcoming this crisis also coming from North Korea as a righteous alliance that contributes to world peace and prosperity. We will further expand the depth and denotation of the R.O.K.-U.S. global comprehensive strategic partnership and march forward to the future. Today ENTITY and myself engaged in constructive dialogue to discuss ways to materialize this shared vision. The outcome of our dialogue is well outlined in the joint statement adopted today. Sustainable peace on the Korean Peninsula does not happen automatically.


Our two leaders have decided to significantly strengthen extended deterrence of our two countries against North Korea's nuclear and missile threats so that we can achieve peace through the superiority of overwhelming forces and not a false peace based on the good will of the other side. Such a will and commitment is captured in the Washington Declaration. has reaffirmed his ironclad commitment to extended deterrence towards the Republic of Korea. Our two countries have agreed to immediate bilateral Presidential consultations in the event of North Korea's nuclear attack and promised to respond swiftly, overwhelmingly, and decisively using the full force of the alliance, including the United States nuclear weapons. Our two countries have agreed to establish a Nuclear Consultative Group to map out a specific plan to operate the new extended deterrence system. Now our two countries will share information on nuclear and strategic weapon operations plans in response to North Korea's provocations and have regular consultations on ways to plan and execute joint operations that combine Korea's state-of-the-art conventional forces with the U.S.'s nuclear capabilities, the results of which will be reported to the leaders of our two countries on a regular basis. In addition, our two countries have agreed to further advance tabletop exercises against a potential nuclear crisis. In addition, deployment of the United States strategic assets to the Korean Peninsula will be made constantly and routinely. and I will continue to cooperate to strengthen extended deterrence between our two countries based on our historical and concrete agreement reached during our summit. Second, our two leaders have agreed to further strengthen the strategic partnership in economic security, which is directly related to the national economies of our two countries. ENTITY and I welcomed the expansion of our firms' bilateral mutual investment in advanced technology, including semiconductors, electric vehicles, and batteries. has said that no special support and considerations will be spared for Korean companies' investment and business activities in particular. We have agreed to consult and coordinate closely so that the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act can further strengthen supply chain cooperations between the two countries in advanced technology. Furthermore, we plan on ramping up partnerships in cutting-edge technology. We have agreed to establish a dialogue for next-generation emerging and core technology between the U.S. National Security Council and the Korea Office of National Security, pertaining to chips, batteries, biotechnology, quantum science, and other cutting-edge technologies, with the aim of promoting joint R&D and experts exchange.


We have also adopted a separate joint statement for strengthening cooperation in the rapidly emerging quantum science and technology domain. and I have also agreed to get the ball rolling on discussions about expanding our alliance into cyber and space by applying the mutual defense treaty in cyberspace and space as well. We have also agreed that the Strategic Cybersecurity Cooperation Framework adopted this time around will serve as the foundation on which we address cyber threats together and boost cooperation and information sharing, collection, and analysis. Space is another area that shows great promise for cooperation between our two countries. During my time here, I was able to visit the NASA Goddard Space Center. ENTITY welcomed the establishment of KASA, and we have agreed to promote cooperation between KASA and NASA. We have also agreed to accelerate discussions on reaching a reciprocal defense procurement agreement, which is equivalent to an FTA in terms of national defense. Meanwhile, ENTITY and I have agreed to promote exchange between the future generations of our two countries. To this end, we have launched the U.S.-R.O.K. special exchange initiative for youths. In celebration of the 70th anniversary of the R.O.K.-U.S. alliance this year, our two countries plan to invest a total of $60 million to support exchanges between 2,023 youths majoring in STEM, humanities, and social sciences. And this also includes the largest Fulbright program to date, which will provide scholarships for 200 students. Last but not least, ENTITY and I have agreed that South Korea and the United States, as key partners in achieving stability and building peace in the Indo-Pacific region, will put our heads together as we implement our Indo-Pacific strategies to strengthen our cooperation in addressing regional and global challenges. In particular, ENTITY expressed strong support for efforts made by the Korean Government to normalize Korea-Japan relations, and we have agreed to continue our efforts in strengthening Korea-U.S.-Japan trilateral cooperation. Furthermore, we reaffirmed that the use of force to take the lives of innocent people an example of which would be Russia's invasion of Ukraine can in no circumstances whatsoever be justified. In that sense, we agreed to continue our cooperation and efforts alongside the international community to support Ukraine. During this meeting, we also discussed plans through which our two countries can take a leadership role in addressing global challenges, such as climate change, international development, and energy and food security.


I am delighted that through today's meeting, we have opened up a new chapter for the next 70 years of the R.O.K.-U.S. alliance. I hope ENTITY and I, with the support of people in our two countries, can fully deliver on the blueprint that we have mapped out today with the aim of our founded in the reaffirmation of the value of freedom and our universal values. Your top economic priority has been to build up U.S. domestic manufacturing in competition with China. But your rules against expanding chip manufacturing in China is hurting South Korean companies that rely heavily on Beijing. Are you damaging a key ally in the competition with China to help your domestic politics ahead of the election? There have been concerns since last year that North Korea will soon be conducting its seventh nuclear test amid growing domestic support in your country for your own nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Russia has suggested it could send its latest weapons to North Korea if South Korea sends lethal aid to Ukraine. How do you seek to manage the North Korea risk amid obligations to Ukraine and NATO? Let me respond to your question first. My desire to increase U.S. manufacturing and jobs in America is not about China. I am not concerned about China. Remember, America invented the semiconductor. We invented it. We used to have 40 percent of the market. And we decided that what we are going to do over the past I do not know how many decades we decided that it was going to be cheaper to export jobs and import product. And the pandemic taught us that we used to have, as I said, 40 percent of the market just some years ago. Now it is down to 10 percent. And again, we invented the super we got so I decided to go out and see what we could do to increase our hold on the market once again. And so what I did was I went around the country. As well as in addition to passing the CHIPS and Science Act, I, in fact, visited countries around the world. And two significant South Korean companies decided they were going to invest billions of dollars in chip manufacturing in the United States. It was not designed to hurt China. It was designed to so we did not have to worry about whether or not we had access to semiconductors. For example, during the pandemic, what happened was all of a sudden everybody started to learn the phrase supply chain. A year ago, no one knew what the hell anybody was talking about when you said supply chain.


And we lost access to these semiconductors of which new automobiles in the United States need 30,000 of them just to build a new automobile. And we did not have them. And what happened was, when we encouraged the investment through the CHIPS and Science Act and now we have enormous investment in the United States well over $200 billion in long-term investment in semiconductors. And we are rebuilding the economy of the United States with those semiconductors. It is not designed to hurt China. There are certain extremely sophisticated semiconductors that we have built that are useful for nuclear and/or other weapons systems. Those we are not selling. We are not exporting them to China or anyone else. And so that is the context in which this has all occurred. In the meantime, we are creating thousands of jobs and bringing back a sense of pride and dignity to so many towns in the country where, all of a sudden, over the last three decades, we found out that factory that hired had 600 people shut down. The soul of that community was lost. And so I made sure, when the semiconductors were coming back, that they were not just going to go to the coast, they'd be all over the country. And so we have a significant field of dreams in outside of in Ohio, outside of Columbus. We are in Texas. We are in Arizona. Anyway they are all over the country. So it is not viewed to hurt anyone else. We are providing access to those semiconductors. But we are not we are not going to sit back and be in a position where we do not have access to those semiconductors. We are not going to be a place where we are the end of that line. We are the beginning of it. And it is generating significant economic growth in America and not hurting anybody. And by the way, it is creating jobs in South Korea. It is creating jobs in South Korea, and not just with SK, but anyway with Samsung and other industries. With regard to your question, let me provide my answer. Korea and the U.S., based on its Washington Declaration, our two countries have agreed to strengthen extended deterrence, and the implementation level is different from the past. First of all, we have an NCG Nuclear Consultative Group that has been launched that will implement discussions and actions. And we will hold regular meetings and consultations under NCG.


We will share information on mutual nuclear assets and intelligence, and we will jointly plan responses and also jointly plan exercises and drills and implementation plans. So all of these will be strengthened and specified under the Nuclear Consultative Group. We want to customize our response against North Korea's nuclear threat based on extended deterrence. And in the process of achieving this goal, any concerns that Koreans may have against North Korean nuclear weapons will be relieved, I believe. If nuclear weapons are used, our two countries will strengthen our response in a swift manner. I have two questions for you. With regard to extended deterrence, the NCG that has been formed, how will Korea function under NCG? Any kind of nuclear-equipped nuclear assets will be in function? Korea is to maintain the NPT and it is to strengthen extended deterrence, correct? So, based on your view, do you think this is enough to guard Korea against the North Korean nuclear threat? Well, let me address your question about the activities of the NCG. We are going to be sharing information, and we are going to be acting jointly. I cannot talk to the specifics right now about what type of information and what type of specific activities we will be conducting. But, however, under the nuclear umbrella, our extended deterrence was a lot lower. So, right now it is an unprecedented expansion and strengthening of the extended deterrence strategy under the Washington Declaration, which will create the NCG. The implementation and the response at this level has never thus far been this strong. So this is a new level of extended deterrence much stronger; that, I can say with confidence. The response that I would give you is that the extended deterrence means that we are having more consultation with whatever action is to be contemplated or taken. Any the R.O.K. has repeatedly formed its confirmed its commitment to the nonproliferation treaty. And the Washington Declaration is a prudent step to reinforce extended deterrence and respond to advancing D.P.R.K. nuclear threat. Look, a nuclear attack by North Korea against the United States or its allies or partisans partners is unacceptable and will result in the end of whatever regime, were it to take such an action. And it is about strengthening deterrence in response to the D.P.R.K.'s escalatory behavior and to deal in complete consultation.


And you know, the idea that I have absolute authority as Commander in Chief and the sole authority to use a nuclear weapon. But, you know, what the declaration means is that we are going make every effort to consult with our allies when it is appropriate if any actions are so called for. Certainly, we have talked about this and some other things today. And we are not going to be stationing nuclear weapons on the Peninsula, but we will have visits to port visits of nuclear submarines and things like that. We are not walking away from that. You recently launched your reelection campaign. You have said questions about your age are legitimate. And your response is always, Just watch me. But the country is watching, and recent polling shows that 70 percent of Americans, including a majority of Democrats, believe you should not run again. What do you say to them? What do you say to those Americans who are watching and are not convinced? You have said you can beat Trump again. I may not be the only one, but I know him well. And I know the danger he presents to our democracy. And we have been down this road before. And with regard to age, you know, and polling data, I noticed the polling data I keep hearing about is that I am between 42 and 46 percent favorable rating, et cetera. And but everybody running for reelection in this time has been in the same position. Number two, when the same polling data asks whether they think what kind of job I have done, it gets overwhelmingly positive results, from 58 percent thinking everything from the CHIPS Act and the all the things we have done. You know, we have created like I said, we have created 12 million new jobs. We have created 800,000 manufacturing jobs. We are in a situation where the climate we have invested more money and more help in dealing with the climate crisis than any nation in the world. The other thing is that look, you know, think about what I inherited when I got elected. I inherited a nation in overwhelming debt at the time, number one in the hole for the 4 years that he was President. I inherited a nation that had a serious loss of credibility around the world as America First and You know, the first meeting I attended the G-7 I said, American is back. For how long? There was a great concern about the United States being able to lead the free world. And we are doing that again.


And those same polls you look at you take a look at the polls that are saying whether I pulled together NATO and the European Union, as well as the Asian partners. And with regard to age, I cannot even say if I guess how old I am, I cannot even say the number. It does not it does not register with me. And but the only thing I can say is that one of the things that people are going to find out they are going to see a race, and they are going to judge whether or not I have it or do not have it. I respect them taking a hard look at it. I'd take a hard look at it as well. I took a hard look at it before I decided to run. I feel excited about the prospects. And I think we are on the verge of really turning the corner in a way we have not in a long time. I know you are tired of hearing me say we are at an inflection point, but we really are. What happens in the next 2, 3, 4 years is going to determine what the next three or four decades look like. And I have never been more optimistic in my life about the possibilities of the United States. To be clear, though, you just said, I know him well. Did Donald Trump's decision to run affect yours? I do know him well. You know him well, too. And the question is whether or not look, there is just there is more to finish the job. We have an opportunity to put ourselves in a position where we are economically and politically secure for a long time. Look, there we continue to have and I know you do not like me hearing me saying it. There is still a contest between autocracies and democracies, and we are the leading democracy in the world. And it is something I know a fair amount about. It is something I care about and something that I have found a willingness of an awful lot of our allies and friends to follow. So I think that, you know, we have to finish the job and nail it down. They need to repeat the question. You need the microphone. That guy on the right's stealing the microphone. Did the recent leaks revealing that the U.S. was spying on South Korea come up at all in your discussions? And did ENTITY provide you any assurances? With regard to that, we are communicating between our two countries, and we are sharing necessary information.


I believe that investigation is underway in the United States, so various and complex variables are always in play. We need time to wait for the investigation results by the United States. And we plan to continue to communicate on the matter. I am from Financial News. My question goes to both of you. My first one goes to ENTITY first. During the state visit, you have said that the alliance has strengthened to cutting-edge industries, to cutting-edge science. And also investments in businesses have been some of the outcomes. However, to each individual of the public, how will this have a long-term impact? In celebration of the 70th anniversary of the R.O.K.-U.S. alliance, I know that the atmosphere is really positive. However, Korean businesses, especially because of the CHIPS Act and the IRA, are on edge. What message can you send to the Korean companies to really make sure and tell them that this is not something to worry about? The technology cooperation between the R.O.K. and the U.S., and also in partnerships in cutting-edge industries, in science and technology, was your first question. So that is about really strengthening the competitiveness of our two countries. And it will enhance the productivity and create added value high added value. These are the types of products that are going to be produced. In that process, they will reap the benefits wide and comprehensive that will stem from these industries and investments in these industries for example, from job creation, as well. And above all, the future generations will be given the determination and will to take on new challenges and embrace opportunities in our industry so that they can continue to prosper and grow and become more abundant in the future. The reassurance is that it is overwhelmingly in our interests for Korea to do well. It is very much in America's interest that Korea do well in the Pacific very well because they are one of our most valued partners. And so I think the combination of growing democracies and the democratic institutions, as well as their economies, is overwhelmingly in the benefit of the United States, whether it is in South Korea or it is in Australia, in the deep South Pacific. Plus, in addition to that, we are increasing the number of student exchanges, access to more information between our folks, educating our people, as well as we are going to be cooperating on everything from space to technology to medicine.


It is very good of you to call, so I will get right to it. I am in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. I am following around one of your newest-well, not your newest rivals but one of the newest candidates for President on the Republican side, Pete Wilson. So let me begin by asking you about your speech on Monday concerning the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. How do you plan to outline ways for the U.N. to reconstitute itself for the next 50 years? Well, I think we have to, first of all, recognize that-I think there are two fundamental realities we have to recognize. Number one is that the end of the cold war gives the U.N. the possibility of living up to the dreams of its founders in ways that were simply impossible when the world was divided into two large blocs. And so I think there should be a lot of hope about the U.N. The second thing I think we have to recognize is that in order for that hope to be realized, the U.N. has got to be properly run and, in particular, the peacekeeping operations have to be properly run. And the United States has spent a lot of time, because we pay a lot of the costs of the U.N., analyzing how the overall operations can be more efficient and cost-effective and inspire more confidence in the countries that are paying the bills and, in particular, looking at the peacekeeping operations and setting up systems to make sure that we use peacekeeping when it will work, that we restrain it when the situation is not right, and that the command-and-control operations are absolutely clear, that we do not have any kind of mixed signals and crossed lines that have sometimes happened in the past. And then when you look ahead into the future, I think it is clear that the new problems of the 21st century are likely to be rooted in ethnic, religious, and other internal problems within countries and across borders; dealing with or helping to avoid natural disasters that are brought on by a combination of population explosion and natural problems like the inability to produce food; and the rise of terrorism and the danger of proliferation of biological, chemical, and small-scale nuclear weapons. I think-and so I want to talk about kind of the threats to the future security of the members of the United Nations and how we have a new set of threats, an unprecedented opportunity, and we have to clean up our-operate- clean up implies- that has the wrong implication.

Interview With Susan Yoachum of the San Francisco Chronicle in Pine Bluff, Arkansas


I do not want to imply that there is anything unsavory about it, but it is just that the operation, I think, really needs to be streamlined and reformed in order to inspire confidence in all the member nations. As you know, both our-the last two Congresses, one was a Democratic Congress and this Republican Congress, expressed varying levels of opposition to some of the U.N. operations. But the last Congress was far more focused on getting the U.N. to work right, not having America walk away from its responsibilities and became more isolationist. But I will also say back to my fellow Americans and to the Congress that we should continue to support the United Nations, that they do a lot of work in the world that the United States might have to do alone or might eventually be pulled into doing, because they keep problems from becoming as bad as they would otherwise be. ENTITY, given the difficulties, the highly publicized difficulties, of course, with the U.N. peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and other U.N. difficulties, does not it make it more difficult for you to try to sell this to Americans, and do not you run some political risk in trying to do so? Well, I suppose there is -in a time like this, when a lot of people are bewildered almost by all the things that are going on in the world and the apparent conflicts of all the good forces and the troubling forces rising up at once, there is some political risk in everything. I think the-I think it is important not to define the-first of all, I think it is important not to define the U.N. solely in terms of Bosnia. I mean, there was also-I'd ask the United States to remember that we went into Haiti with a multinational force that restored the Aristide government and democracy, but we were able to hand it off to a U.N. force with even more nations involved, where there were more countries paying for it. I think most Americans know that there are going to be problems all around the world that affect United States interests and that can affect United States citizens, and it is better to have a larger number of nations working on those problems and a larger number of nations paying for the solutions to those problems. Bosnia is a unique circumstance because it is in the heart of Europe, but there is a war that is been going on there for 4 years.


But if you look at it, the people in Northern Ireland fought for 25 years, the people in the Middle East fought for more than four decades before there was any peace progress there. And for all the frustration people in our country have with the problems in Bosnia, the casualty rates have gone way, way down since the U.N. forces went on the ground there and since the United States began to support them with massive humanitarian airlifts and with our operation to keep the war from going into the air. That is what Captain O'Grady was doing when he was shot down; he was enforcing the no-fly zone. And I think it is important never to forget that. Before the United Nations became involved and before we became as aggressive as we were in trying to provide air help, in 1992, there were about 130,000 people killed in that civil war. In 1994, the death rate was down to under-about 3,500. So I think that it is important, even in Bosnia, to keep this in perspective. The United Nations did not succeed in ending the war in Bosnia. The United Nations did not go in there to militarily defeat the Bosnian Serbs, and they are not capable of doing that, and that was never what they were established- that is not what they were sent there to do. But the war has become less violent and has been at least contained to Bosnia and has not spread beyond its borders. So with all of our frustrations, I think it is important to remember that. You will be doing a number of things in your speech on Monday, which has been, I think, widely anticipated around the world. And certainly, the patron saint of the U.N. 50 celebration, Walter Shorenstein, says that it is a real opportunity for you to give a world-class speech. Having said that, and you having said that you are going to outline your hope for the U.N. given the changing circumstances of the world, what part of your speech-what will you say in your speech to address some of the criticisms, particularly by key Republicans, of the United States' involvement in 1995 in the U.N.? Well, I will-consider the alternatives.


I mean, here the United States is, the world's only superpower militarily, with other countries becoming increasingly wealthy, where there are other countries willing to put their troops on the ground in their own trouble spots and not asking us to do it, like Bosnia, and willing to pay an increasingly large share of running the United Nations. And now we have people in our country and, most importantly, people in our Congress, who want to walk away from our global responsibilities and walk away from the opportunity to cooperate with people in ways that permit others to carry some share of the load. You know, sometimes I get the feeling that some of the critics of our cooperation with other countries want it both ways. They want to be able to run the world and tell everybody exactly how to behave, and then not have to cooperate with anybody when they have a slight difference of opinion from us or even if they are willing to put their troops on the ground and put their money up. That is the case in Bosnia, where the Europeans said, We will take the lead. We will put our troops on the ground. This will be paid for through the United Nations, so you will not have to pay for any more than your regular assessment. We ask you for your air power and the support of the NATO, but we are going to follow the prescribed United Nations policy. We are not going to let the U.S. dictate policy, especially when it is our troops and our lives that are at risk. And I think we cannot have it both ways. We cannot become an isolationist country, and we cannot dictate every other country's course. And it is better for us to be a leader within the framework of the United Nations, which means that from time to time we will have to cooperate with people and agree on a policy that may reflect more of a consensus than our absolute best desires. But that is what the United Nations was set up to do. The U.S. is still clearly the dominant country in the United Nations. We still are able to do the things we need to do to be-for example, to keep a firm hand with Serbia; we have been able to keep other countries from lifting the sanctions off Iraq; we have been able to get a tougher line-in many ways, we were able to have our policy in Haiti prevail.


But the United Nations is about working with other countries and shared sacrifice, shared contribution, shared decisionmaking, where the U.S. leads but cannot control everything. And so in your speech on Monday, despite the criticism of the U.S. involvement in the U.N., you will not be backing away from the U.N., but at the same time, you will also be offering suggestions for reforming it? But I do intend to say that this is going to be a 21st century organization, that it is more than a debating forum and-that involves a collective decision by the community of free nations to deploy people all across the world, not just in military situations, like peacekeeping, but in other ways, where it is going to have to be run very well and it is going to have to be able to inspire the confidence of taxpaying citizens not only in the United States but throughout the world. But I think-I still think the fundamental fact is that the end of the cold war permits the U.N. to live up to its full potential; that we ought to become-we ought to stay involved, we ought to pay our fair share, and we ought to be very grateful that there are other countries that are willing to spend their money and actually put their people at risk in places where either we would not do it or we do not now have to do it all, we do not have to carry the whole load; and that we ought to be willing to lead in an atmosphere in which we also have to cooperate from time to time, especially when others are making a greater sacrifice and when the problem's in their backyard. And that is- that is the sort of future we ought to want. And we also ought to be mature enough to recognize that as long as human beings are alive on the Earth, bad things will happen, problems will exist, and that there will never be a complete and easy solution to all the problems in the world. But far better this course into the future than either having the nuclear cloud hang over the world, as it did in the cold war, or having the U.S. become an isolationist power, as we did between the wars, and run the risk of other terrible things happening all around the world which would drag us back into another war in the future.


In other words, the course that I advocate is not problem-free because as long as there are people and as long as bad people can get political power in various places, there will always be problems in the world. But it is far better than the alternative, better than what we went through in the cold war and better than having an American isolationism. Sir, one question away from the U.N., and that is the subject of military bases. One of your political allies, Senator Boxer, has asked you to consider sparing some of the bases in California slated to be closed. At the same time, one of your political opponents, Pete Wilson, plans to attack the administration in a speech this evening in New Hampshire for what he says are artificially low target levels that OMB has given the Department of Defense, which has resulted in a need to close more military bases than necessary to meet the budget targets. I am wondering first, on the political ally side, if there is any chance that you would spare any of the bases in California, and on the political opponent side, what you would say to that criticism by Governor Wilson? Well, first of all, let us deal with the base issue. The way the base closings works is-the way the base closing process works is that the commission votes on which bases to close. Then they send it to me in a package, which they will do on July 1st. I can accept it, in which case it goes to Congress, and unless Congress rejects it, it goes into law; the second option is I can reject it out of hand, in which case there are no base closings; the third option is that I can send it back to the commission with recommended changes. And I have to tell you that with regard to California, as you know, the McClellan Air Base was not on our list. And it was not on our list, basically-it was not on the Pentagon list for two reasons, both of which I thought were good reasons. One was that California had about 20 percent of the defense investment for the country, but it sustained 40 percent of the base cuts in the first two rounds. The other is that the Pentagon thought that a better way to deal with the problem of over-capacity in what is done at McClellan and down at Kelly Air Force Base in Texas was to shave some of the capacity off all five of the sites around the country and presented a plan to do that.


So I am concerned specifically-I am concerned about the decision made by the Base Closing Commission there, but I have to be careful about further comment until they send them all to me. Now secondly, Governor Wilson is just wrong about what he said about defense. Basically, my defense numbers have been about the same as the Republicans of Congress have recommended and what the Pentagon has asked for. And the truth is that the ENTITY people-all the military people but particularly the ENTITY-will tell you that we have brought the force structure down, we have reduced defense in real dollar terms about 40 percent since 1987 and we have reduced the size of the military by about 40 percent, and we have reduced our base structure, oh, about less than half that, considerably less than half that. So most of the military experts will tell you that the reduction of base structure in the United States and throughout the world has lagged far behind the reduction in numbers of people in the military. And I have tried to be very sensitive since I have been in office to the economic impact of this, to trying to give these bases a chance to do alternative things like help to develop a civilian mission as well as a military mission, and a lot of that work is being done at McClellan and in some other places as well in California and throughout the country. But it is just not true to say that inadequate budgets have led to the closing of more bases than were necessary. We have, in fact, tried to keep more open than the strict, harsh numbers would dictate, given how much the size of our forces have been reduced. I am sure it is good politics for him to say that in New Hampshire or wherever else, but it is simply not true. I was just going to ask the ENTITY if Governor Wilson really is the candidate he fears most and if there is any chance that McClellan will or may not open? Well, first of all, let me just say those two questions are totally independent of one another. From the day I became ENTITY I worked hard to help California, and I think the people of California know that. We have given aid because of the earthquakes and the fires on more generous terms than had previously been the case. Thirty-three percent of our defense conversion money to develop new technologies from old defense technologies in the commercial sector have gone into California, a disproportionate amount.


ENTITY, you are coming to Egypt next week, and you are meeting with ENTITY Mubarak and a number of other Arab leaders. What are you going to tell them? What role do you see the Arab countries playing in the coming stage? First, I want to thank ENTITY Mubarak for his hospitality. He has been telling me about the beauty of Sharm el-Sheikh for a long time, and now I am going to get to see it firsthand. You will love it. I am looking forward to it. The first thing I want to do is to make it very clear to the leaders in the neighborhood that I am intent upon working toward a two-state solution in the Middle East two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace. In other words, I want them to look me in the eye so they can see that I am determined to work to make this happen. I am also going to remind them the United States cannot do this alone. We obviously need Israeli support. We obviously need the new Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority's work and help. And we need countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Jordan and others to work together to cut off funding for terrorist groups, to prevent the killers from moving around, to help provide security, and as a Palestinian state emerges, to support Prime Minister Abbas' regime with not only advice but, when necessary, development aid so an economy can start to grow in a Palestinian state. ENTITY, let me follow up on that. You said you are determined to bring peace, you are committed, personally committed to the roadmap, and you are personally involved in the roadmap. That has sort of a different approach from the approach that the administration had adopted at the beginning, which was a hands-off approach, the peace process. Well, first of all, I think it is not a fair characterization to say we were hands-offquite the contrary. I took an assessment of what was possible and realized that it was impossible to achieve peace with Chairman Arafat. He is failed the Palestinian people in the past. My predecessor tried hard, and I watched very carefully what was tried at Camp David. Now, having said that, I also was working with the parties to try to set the conditions necessary for the emergence of a Palestinian government with whom we could work, so we would not waste time, so that actually some progress could be made. So the people have got to know when I say something, I mean it.

Interview With Nile TV of Egypt


Hopefully by now people have learned that, that when George W. commits America to a project, we mean that, we do not have idle chit-chat, that we are serious about our intentions. So the Arabs, or the people in the region should not really be worrying about voices within your administration who are opposed to serious efforts by the United States Yes, they do not have to worry about that, because I am going to put the effort forward. So you do not listen to them? Well, it sounds like they do not listen to me, because when I say something, I mean it. And I think ENTITY Mubarak knows that. And I am going to refresh their memories about the kind of administration I try to run. When I say something, we actually go do it. And when I say that I am going to be involved in the peace process, I mean I am going to be involved in the peace process. And I want to work toward achieving two states, so that the Palestinian suffering and humiliation ends. And ENTITY, how do you see the future of the Egyptian-American relations, the strategical relations that binded those two countries over the past two decades? Listen, we have counted on Egypt, and Egypt counts on America. Throughout my Government, people deal with the Egyptian authorities, and I think it is in our interests, our national interest to keep a strong relationship with Egypt, and I intend to do so. We are looking forward to seeing you, ENTITY, in Sharm el-Sheikh. It is going to be an exciting trip, and I look forward to the hospitality of the Egyptian people. And I want to assure the people of Egypt that the relationship is an important relationship between Egypt and the United States. And I want to assure your listeners that when I come to the region, I come with peace in mind and the possibilities of peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis is real in my mind, and I am going to work toward that objective.

Interview With Nile TV of Egypt


So we are here with you, already four years since the recession officially ended. And as your speech sort of laid out, you still have a situation where growth remains slow, income's is unequal, and a lot of American -- unemployment high -- and a lot of Americans start to worry that this is the new normal. Your intentions aside like you stated them out there in the speech, why should not we expect that you are going to leave behind an economy that is fragile, continued income inequality, and a weakened middle class? Well, obviously, what Congress does matters. As I said in the speech, the economy is far stronger now than it was four and a half years ago. Most economists believe that growth will actually pick up next quarter and the second half of the year. And the one thing that could really screw things up would be if you have a manufactured crisis and Republicans choose to play brinksmanship all over again. And I am glad to see that there are folks in the Senate who I think have already indicated that that is not good policy. We can have debates about fiscal issues without precipitating a crisis. Certainly the idea that we would not pay our bills and plunge not just the United States but potentially the world into another financial crisis makes absolutely no sense. But what I also said out there is true that if we stand pat, if we do not do anything, then growth will be slower than it should be. Wages, incomes, savings rates for middle-class families will continue to be relatively flat. And that is not a future that we should accept. So the entire intention of the speech is to make sure that we are focused on the right thing. It does not mean that I expect Republicans to agree with all my prescriptions, but it is to say that the central problem we face and the one that we faced now that the immediate crisis is over is how do we build a broad-based prosperity. And I want to make sure that all of us in Washington are investing as much time, as much energy, as much debate on how we grow the economy and grow the middle class as we have spent over the last two to three years arguing about how we reduce the deficits.

Barack Obama Interview with Jackie Calmes and Michael D. Shear of the New York Times


But do you worry, ENTITY, that that description of that sort of standing pat, what happens if you stand pat and the sort of slower than expected -- do you worry that that could end up being your legacy simply because of the obstruction that -- and the gridlock that does not seem to end? Well, let us separate it from me for a second, because I think if I am arguing for entirely different policies and Congress ends up pursuing policies that I think do not make sense and we get a bad result, it is hard to argue that'd be my legacy. And so I will worry about my legacy later or I will let historians worry about my legacy. I do worry about what is happening to ordinary families here is Galesburg and all across the country. When we know that rebuilding our infrastructure right now would put people back to work and it is never been cheaper for us to do so, and this is all deferred maintenance that we are going to have to do at some point anyway, I worry that we are not moving faster to seize the moment. When we know that families are getting killed by college costs, for us not to take bold action -- which means that young people are graduating with massive debt, they cannot buy a home as soon as they want, they cannot start that business that they have got a great idea for -- that worries me. So as I suggested in the speech, what I want to make sure everybody in Washington is obsessed with is how are we growing the economy, how are we increasing middle-class incomes and middle-class wages, and increasing middle-class security. And if we are not talking about that, then we are talking about the wrong thing. And if our debates around the budget do not have that in mind, then we have got the wrong focus. Well, you said it yourself in the speech that Washington has taken its eye off the ball. Do you have any -- are you culpable at all in that? Do you wish you were giving a speech like this earlier and done it more often? If you look over the last six months, we right away delivered on the promise to make sure that our tax code was more reflective of our values; that middle-class families locked in relief that they needed; folks like me, at the very top, paid a little bit more. That, by the way, was a fundamental shift that was a decade in the making.


Immediately after that, obviously, we had the tragedy in Newtown and the need for a response. And my wish and hope had been that that was a quicker piece of business and that we had gone ahead and moved forward on that. Immigration reform actually squarely fits into what I am discussing right now. And the Senate's done the right thing by passing a strong bipartisan bill. So what I will absolutely admit to is that I have been here - I have been in Washington long enough now to know that if once a week I am not talking about jobs, the economy, and the middle class, then all manner of distraction fills the void. Is there any part of your agenda moving forward that you think you are willing to move to the backburner so that you can spend more time on the economy? Well, immigration reform we have got to get done, and that right now is just a matter of the House Republicans recognizing that both the American people, businesses, labor, evangelicals -- there is a broad consensus to go ahead and pass that bill, and if that bill was on the floor tomorrow it would pass. Beyond that, though, we are working on a range of other issues -- from climate change to reforming government to reducing the backlog in the VA. So there is a bunch of stuff we are going to be doing. I will be spending my time over the next several weeks talking about the issues in more detail that I discussed today so that by the time Congress gets back in the fall, I want to make sure that the American people are paying attention and asking themselves, are we doing everything we can to boost middle-class incomes, ladders of opportunity, and middle-class security. And if we are doing that, then ultimately I think that we will not get everything done that I want to see done, but we will have shifted away from what I think has been a bad - a damaging framework in Washington, which is to constantly think about is there more we can do to cut the deficit without asking are we making the right cuts, the smart cuts that actually help people in their own lives and help us grow over the long term. Well, in contrast with the jobs plan that is now what you are reflecting today, it is almost two years old now, and which would measurably add to employment the studies show. Right, because of the sequester.