So the goal here is essentially to have a pincer, where we are squeezing them on both sides. We are eliminating their allies. It is making it more difficult for them to communicate, making it more difficult for them to operate safe havens, and over time, what we hope to do is to flush them out. We are going to keep on putting pressure on them, and I know that it is at great cost. I mean, I have to sign letters to family members who have fallen, and a lot more are falling in Afghanistan than in Iraq. And as a consequence, we have got to make sure that we are really focused on finishing the job in Afghanistan, but it is going to take some time. ENTITY, Susan listens to WOR News Radio 710 in New York City. We all want reform. And a lot of us feel that the Federal Government is just not equipped or it is their role to be getting involved in delivering health care services. And we are very concerned that most of the money will actually go-instead of taking care of people, it will go to, you know, the cost of administering a huge Government bureaucracy. Like here in New York, we already have free health care for people who cannot afford it. And you know, it should only be for people who cannot afford it, not for the 20- and 30-somethings that choose to spend their money on SUVs and the latest electronic gadgets. And it is not free, because we all know that we are going to be paying for it, and it should be only for the people who cannot really afford it. And we want to have our own health care decisions locally, and we do not want the Federal Government making those decisions for us. Well, look, first of all, Susan, I think that it is important to understand that part of the health reform proposal that we have put forward would involve the States. The States, in some cases, would be empowered to expand Medicaid to cover more people the same way that they have been able to cover more children under the Children's Health Insurance Program. So a sizable portion of the people who are currently uninsured would in fact be getting their insurance through the States. That is how the current Medicaid program is able to allow States to cover more people. Keep in mind that nobody is talking about the Government administering all of health care.


What we are talking about here is a public option that people could sign up for, but in that situation, they'd have to operate like any private insurer. They'd have to be collecting premiums and so forth. The track record for Government administering health care actually is surprisingly good. Medicare, for example, a Government program, has much lower administrative costs than private insurers do. Now, part of it is, is because they do not have-either somebody is qualified or they are not, and so signing them up is a lot more automatic. But that points to one of the big problems that we have. In private insurance, huge amounts of insurance companies are spending a lot of money and a lot of effort and a lot of staff just trying to cherry-pick people who are healthy and sign them up and then eliminate people who are sick. And part of what we want to do here is just reform the system so that insurance companies are operating more fairly to all people. If you are young, actually, it is easier to get health insurance these days. The really tough population are folks who are from 50 to 64. They have a whale of a time trying to buy health insurance, and we want to make sure that there is a market for them. Last point that I would make is that, you mention the fact that a lot of young people opt out. One of the things that we would do under reform is to say, if you want, you can stay on your health insurance-or your parents' health insurance up to the age of 26. That would cover a lot of young people who they-fall in that gap. Their first job does not necessarily offer them insurance. It gives them a way of having coverage until they get that job that has a little bit more security. You are needed across town. I appreciate very much the privilege of coming to the White House. And I want to thank all your listeners, terrific questions. There is a great dialogue that takes place on this show, and I just hope that we can continue that dialogue in the same spirit to solve some of America's big problems. I will be back in just a moment from the White House.

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


ENTITY, let me thank you first on behalf of the Voice of America, on behalf of the Persian News Network for giving us your time. We really appreciate that, sir. As you know, ENTITY, this is the eve of Nowruz, the Iranian New Year. What is your message to the Iranian people as they face tough economic circumstances and infringement on their freedoms? Secondly, that the people of the United States respects the people of Iran, that we respect the traditions of Iran, the great history of Iran. We have differences with the Government, but we honor the people. And we want the people to live in a free society. We believe freedom is a right for all people and that the freer the world is, the more peaceful the world is. Please do not be discouraged by, you know, the slogans that say America does not like you, because we do, and we respect you. What do you say to the regime, sir? What would you say to the regime? I'd say to the regime that they have made decisions that have made it very difficult for the people of Iran. In other words, the Iranian leaders, in their desire to, you know, enrich uranium, in spite of the fact that the international community has asked them not to, has isolated a great country. And that is, verifiably suspend your enrichment, and you can have new relationships with people in the U.N. Security Council, for example. And it is just sad that the leadership is in many ways very stubborn because the Iraqi-the Iranian people are not realizing their true rights. And they are confusing people in Iraq, as well, about their desires. And you know, it is a tough period if-in history for the Iranian people, but it does not have to be that way. On the nuclear issue, sir, is there a solution to the problem that would both satisfy the United States concern and, at the same time, allow Iran to proceed with nonmilitary nuclear energy research? Well, part of the problem is that it is very hard for people to trust the Iranian Government because they have not told the full truth, and that is why the people of Iran have got to understand there is great suspicions right now, not only in the United States but around the world.

Interview With Setareh Derakhshesh of VOA Persian News Network


And I thought, for example, the Russians proposed an interesting way, that says-and I have said publicly, and the Iranian people need to know that I believe Iran has the right to have civilian nuclear power. I believe in civilian nuclear power. Iran is a sovereign country, and they should have it. The problem is, we just do not trust the Government because they have not been forthcoming about their enrichment of fuels to go into the reactor. And therefore, Russia's offer to provide fuel on a contractual basis and provide fuel on a consistent basis would help solve the problem. And that is, the Iranians would not need to enrich; they would have fuel for their reactor; and the people would have cheaper electricity. And I support that idea. Sir, would you allow enrichment inside Iran if there are guarantees and international supervision? In other words, I- you know, once you-once a nation has not told the truth, it requires a lot of work to convince people that they will be telling the truth in the future. And my problem is, is that the Iranian Government has not been forthcoming, has not fully disclosed their programs like the IAEA asked them to. And the better way forward is for there to be a contractual, solid obligation to provide fuel for a nuclear reactor, and then the Iranians can have their civilian nuclear power. At a time when Iranians are going through very difficult economic circumstances-there is high employment, high unemployment; there are high prices; there are unfilled promises-the United Nations Security Council just passed a new set of sanctions against the regime. Is the United States concerned, sir, that the regime might exploit these circumstances to whip up anti-American sentiments, and also to use those and misuse them? No, I appreciate that. We are always concerned about the individual. You know, I am concerned about the mom trying to raise her child in a hopeful environment. And I am concerned about a child wanting to gain the knowledge so that he or she can realize her God-given talents. And of course, we are worried about the human condition. And any time a government is failing to meet the needs of the people-or a lot of times, not any time-but a lot of times governments have failed to meet the needs of their people, particularly in relatively nontransparent, nonfree societies, they always look for somebody to blame.


And I am not surprised that, you know, the leaders would blame the United States for the problems they, themselves, have created. And so yes, I mean, it enters my mind. On the other hand, the people of Iran must understand that the conditions exist in large part because of either mismanagement by the Government or isolation because of the Government's decisions on foreign policy matters, such as announcing they want to destroy countries with a nuclear weapon. I mean, it is irresponsible remarks like that which cause great credibility loss with the Iranian Government and the actions of which will-are affecting the country. ENTITY, if I may, I want to ask you about Iraq also. Today is the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, and you had a speech on the war on terror. Are you satisfied with the political situation in Iraq in view of the improving security situation? And also, has Iran played a role in this? I am pleased because there is a modern Constitution in Iraq. I am pleased because people have voted in Iraq. I am pleased because there is , you know-they are heading toward Provincial elections in Iraq. One of the problems we do have in Iraq is the-there is been some negative Iranian influence, such as the exportation from Iran of certain weapons that have been used by extremists to murder and to kill people. Now, look, I understand Iraq and Iran are going to have relations. After all, they have got a long border. But from my perspective, Iran has not been helpful in terms of helping this young democracy survive. I would think it would be in Iran's interests to have a peaceful neighbor. They had been at war at one time with Iraq. I would believe that a peaceful Iraq would be in the long-term interests of the Iranian people. And yet it is hard to have a peaceful Iraq if there are elements inside the country that are trying to use violence and murder to continue to stir up sectarian doubts and raise concerns which will cause more violence. Yes. and they feel that this will undercut their position and that would strengthen the regime's hand. What are your thoughts on that, sir? My thought is, is that the reformers inside Iran are brave people. They have got no better friend than ENTITY and I ask for God's blessings on them, on their very important work. And secondly, that I would do nothing to undermine their efforts.


Can we assume, sir, that tomorrow night in the State of the Union, you are going to declare the state of the Union to be in pretty good shape? It is in good shape. But I am also going to challenge the Congress and the country to make it better. The things that are good about this country right now, how much of that do you believe you deserve credit for? Well, I think most of the credit, as always, goes to the American people. This is a country where citizenship is the most important job anybody can have, and I think we should start with that. I think the Members of Congress who have worked with us deserve a lot of credit. But if you look at where we are now, compared to where we were 7 years ago, I think the fact that we got rid of the deficit and are running surpluses; the fact that we changed the philosophy of the National Government on welfare, on crime; the fact that we have formed unprecedented partnerships with people in the private sector to deal with all kinds of social problems teen pregnancy, which is down, adoptions, which are up; the fact that we have protected more land than any administrations in the country's history, except those of the two Roosevelts I think that those things are things that our Government did. I also believe that people have a lot more confidence now, that we can actually do things as a nation. In '92 we did not just have economic distress and social decline. We had this political gridlock and discredited Government. The national Republicans had badmouthed the Government for 12 years, and they'd done a pretty good job of convincing America that it could not do anything. Now we have cut the size of Government by over 350,000. It is the smallest it is been since John Kennedy was here, and it really works to empower people and to create these partnerships. So I think that we have played a role in the recovery of the economy and in the improvement of the situation with crime, with welfare, with education. We have opened the doors of college to virtually all Americans. And I think all these things count for something. And of course, our country has been a great force for peace and freedom around the world. And I am very grateful for the chance we have had to all of us to serve here. Do you believe that history is going to give you credit for all those things you have just enumerated? Well, I think that is up to the historians.

Interview With Jim Lehrer of PBS' NewsHour


I think that history will be very much more that people who do serious histories of this administration will be amazed at the amount of energy and effort that went into the wide variety of areas that we worked in. And I think that it will show that in virtually every area we had progress, from helping to reduce poverty to improving the plight of our children, to creating an environment with the reform of telecommunications, the reform of banking, and getting rid of the deficit and major investments in science and technology, to this exploding new economy. I think it will show that we helped America to make this major transition into a new economy and an era of globalization. Are you worried about what the historians are going to write about you? No, I cannot control that. But I think time will tend to accelerate the positive and put what negative there is into proper perspective. And I feel quite comfortable about that. But the main thing is, I do not think too much about it because I know that the only thing I can do to impact on it is to do the right thing today by the American people. I mean, my philosophy has been, ever since I got here, is that in the modern political world, the most important thing you can do is get up and go to work and concentrate on your job and always keep thinking about tomorrow. And all the pressures that operate on you are designed to prevent you from doing that, to hobble you, to distract you, to divide you, to get you to obsess about what somebody said or wrote or is doing. And so my whole theory has been from the beginning that if we could start and give first 4 years and then 8 years of unbridled, concentrated effort, no matter what else happened, the American people would be all right. Let me read what the New York Times said in its lead editorial on Monday. They are talking about you, your legacy, and your Presidency as you go into this last year. It said, historians are beginning to categorize Mr. Clinton as a politician of splendid natural talent and some significant accomplishments who, nonetheless, missed the greatness that once seemed within his grasp. What is your reaction to that what might have been kind of thing? I think that well, first of all, I think it is not productive to talk about what might have been. But I think if you the question is how you keep score, what is this time like, how will you measure it?


The time that this is most like is the turn of the last century. Did we manage the transition of America in the new economy and an era of globalization well, or not? Did we make social progress? Did we actually change the way we approach social issues? Were we good stewards of the environment? And then, what were the forces you stood against, and what did you stop? And if you look at the forces we stood against from 1994 forward and what we stopped, I think the answer is, what we did was, A, successful, and B, good for America. And then, did we work with contending forces when we could to reach common agreement? So I believe that, first of all, there is no such thing as history, because this is still going on. We should not worry about that. You know, in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years I got a book the other day on President Nixon's Presidency, and then I got one a week afterward on President Kennedy's Presidency that are still being written. I just read a new book, a great book, on Theodore Roosevelt's Presidency. And I think the further away you get from it, the more perspective you get and the more you are able to look at all the evidence. So all of us frankly, my view is not much better than the New York Times' on this. Neither one of us really can properly evaluate how this will be viewed in the light of history. I think that we have, given what we could have accomplished within the framework of possibility that was there and the job that was there before us, I think we have done pretty well. But all I can tell you is, I have worked every day, and I did the best I could, and I am going to let the historians make their judgment after I give it one more hard year. All right, let us talk about the one more hard year. Is there one particular thing that you really want to do before you leave this office? Well, there are many things that I really want to do before I leave this office. Obviously, I am still heavily engaged in the search for peace in the Middle East. But whether we can do that or not depends ENTITY I think the main problem is they have not talked in a long time. And the decisions which have to be made will require of both parties actions which will cause difficulty for them with some constituencies in their country.


But let me say, I am convinced that both the leaders of Syria and Israel want peace, and I am convinced that substantively they are not that far apart. So we have a chance to do that. But you asked me what I wanted to do. That is something I would like to be involved in if they want to do it. I want to continue to do everything I can to protect the natural treasures of this country. I want to lay the foundation for America dealing with climate change. And I want to lay the foundation for America dealing with what I think will be the biggest security challenges of the 21st century. I believe you know, all the attention today is on whether we can develop a missile defense and, if so, whether we can deploy it without falling out with the Russians and our friends and other countries who question this. But the likeliest threat, in my view, is brought on by the intersection of technology and the likelihood that you will have terrorists and narcotraffickers and organized criminals cooperating with each other, with smaller and smaller and more difficult to detect weapons of mass destruction and powerful traditional weapons. So we have tried to lay in a framework for dealing with cyberterrorism, bioterrorism, chemical terrorism. Now, this is not in the headlines, but I think it is very, very important for the next 10 or 20 years. I think the enemies of the nation-state in this interconnected world are likely to be the biggest security threat. I am going to try to get a lot done in education, in health care, in bringing opportunity to poor people and reducing poverty in this country. What is it that you would like your legacy to be on health care? Well, I wish I could have given health insurance to all Americans, because I still think it is inexcusable that we are the only advanced country in the world that does not do that. But I feel good about many of the things we have done, in medical research, in letting people keep their health insurance when they change jobs, in providing much more preventive screening for older people with illnesses or potential illnesses, and of course, in the Children's Health Insurance Program. So I am going to focus now on what I think I can get done this year. I want to try to increase the number of people with health insurance dramatically by letting the parents of children in the Children's Health Insurance Program buy into it, by letting people between the ages of 55 and 65 buy into Medicare.


And I want to have another big investment in biomedical research. What mark can you leave in this next year on education? Well, let us first of all, if you look at what we have done we have already helped almost all the States to develop higher standards. And we have got test scores in reading, math, and college entrance exams are up. And you feel you have done that? You feel the administration has done that? No, I I think our administration has contributed to it. No, the people that did it were the kids and the parents and the teachers. But I think, consistent with our philosophy, which is to be a catalyst for new ideas and to be a partner to help people achieve it, there is no question we have had an impact. Now, one thing we have had a really direct impact on is we have done more than any administration ever has to open the doors of college to everyone we with big increases in Pell grants; the direct student loan program, which lets people borrow money at less cost and pay it off at a percentage of their income. We have got a million work-study grants. We have got AmeriCorps, 150,000 young people there. And the HOPE scholarship tax credit and the lifetime tax credit really means people have no excuse for not going to school. Now, I have also proposed this time, for the first time in history, that we make college tuition tax deductible, up to $10,000 a year, which will mean that we have guaranteed access to 4 years of college for all Americans. Since I became President, the number of the percentage of high school graduates going to college has gone up to 67 percent. That is an increase of 10 percent. Now let us go back to the beginning. The next big challenge, besides making this is the last piece, making college universally available. The next big challenge is to make sure that everybody's diploma means something. And we have been working on this all along, starting in early childhood, the increases we made in Head Start. We now have 1,000 colleges sending mentors into grade schools to make sure kids learn to read by the third grade. And I think we have increased the emphasis on that you probably noticed that Jim Barksdale gave $100 million to the University of Mississippi, to do nothing but focus on how we can teach grade school kids to read. So what else do we need to do?


I think we need a national strategy to turn around failing schools or shut them down. I think we need to institutionalize reform with more charter schools. And I think we ought to make preschool available to everybody. And everybody that needs it ought to have access to after-school. I think if you get those things done, and we continue to train the teachers, especially in how to use the computers as you hook up all the schools to the Internet, I think you are going to see really big, continuing improvements in education. But you cannot do all that this next year, can you? We can no, but we can take big steps toward it. If you look at the whole history of our country I read something President Johnson said the other day, and he got through Medicare and the Medicaid and the first steps of major Federal aid to education. He talked about how most of our big progress comes in deliberate, discrete steps. And if you take enough steps in the right direction, you turn back around, you see you have come quite a long way. So what I am going to try to do in my speech tomorrow night is to outline what I think the long-term goals for the Nation in the 21st century should be and then what steps I think we can realistically hope to achieve in this year and urge the Congress to join me in it. Now, you are doing this, of course, in a Presidential election year. In whose interest is it to help you do this, in terms of simple politics of getting it done, to help you improve your legacy or get things done before you leave office? Well, first of all, it is in none of their interest to help me improve my legacy. That is not why they should do it. It is in their interest to do the job they were hired to do, which is to help the people they represent. And I think the people that they represent, whether Republicans or Democrats, would find it amazing that someone could suggest they ought to take a year off. I mean, anybody who wants to take a year off ought to give up their paycheck and say, I am sorry. I am not going to work this year, but I am not going to take your money. Secondly, in a more mundane way, it is clearly in the interests of all the people in Congress to do things that are good for America, because the American people will appreciate it.


I think it helps the Democrats, but I do not think it hurts the Republicans I mean, a bunch of them have to run next time, too. And people are going to know want to know, what did you do last year? We had a very good year in '96, where I had to veto the welfare reform bill twice because the Republicans would not agree with me to guarantee child care and health care and more nutrition and medical care and transportation for the welfare families. And then they did it at the end, and we got this big welfare reform. And now we have got 7 million fewer people on welfare. In '98 we passed a lot of very important legislation at the end, because it was election year. So what you might see in terms of Congress now is not an enormous amount of activity at the beginning, although I do believe there is a good chance we can fairly early pass my proposal to help Colombia fight off narcotrafficking and preserve its democracy and work with its neighbors along the border. And I think there is a good chance they will pass the China trade normal trade relations bill; I hope that is true. But I think at the end of the year, when people will be held accountable by the voters, I think there is a chance we will get quite a lot done. We did in '96. We did in '98. ENTITY, what do you make of Governor Bush's comment the other night after he had won the caucuses in Iowa? He said, this is the beginning of the end of the Clinton era, and everybody in the room cheered. I think if he were I think if he said that he would reverse what we were doing, I think he would. And I think that is the choice before the American people. I mean, he is offered a $1.4 billion tax cut. And the only thing I'd ask the American people is to remember, you know, we have now had 20 years of experience. We tried it their way for 12 years, and they quadrupled the national debt. And when I took office, we had high unemployment, a massive deficit, a huge debt, and totally neglected our domestic affairs. We had rising crime, rising welfare rolls, all the social indicators going the wrong way. Now, we have tried it our way for 7 years. We have got the biggest surpluses in history, the first back-to-back surpluses in 42 years.


We can get this country out of debt now in 13 years out of debt for the first time since Andy Jackson was President in 1835. And all the social indicators are going in the right direction. So it seems to me that he was being honest with the people, that he said that he will reverse this course. And I do think the American people ought to vote for change in this election, because things are changing so fast around us in this globalized world, we have to keep changing. You have given kind of your definition of the Clinton era, and he has his. Now, what he is the interpretation of what he is talking about is that it is just a continuation of what all the Presidential candidates have mentioned to some degree, that Republicans like Governor Bush, more than the Democrats, but even Vice President Gore and Senator Bradley have said about returning the Presidency back to a nobler office, to words like promising to restore dignity and respectability, decency and trust to the Presidency. They are talking about you, are not they, ENTITY? Well, first of all, I made one mistake. I apologized for it. I paid a high price for it, and I have done my best to atone for it by being a good President. But I believe we also endured what history will clearly record was a bogus investigation, where there was nothing to Whitewater and nothing to these other charges, and they were propagated, and tens of millions of dollars were spent, and we got a clean bill of health on that. And in terms of trust, let me just tell you a story. I went back to New Hampshire for the seventh anniversary of the New Hampshire primary in 1991 or the eighth anniversary, excuse me, last year in 1992 so it was the seventh anniversary. And it was raining, and there were children standing in the rain and people standing in the rain. And the thing that meant the most to me not the Democratic Party event, just going around, because they heard the campaign in the most detail was people saying, you know, We are so much better off now, but the thing that really matters is, you did exactly what you said you would do. And it seems to me that all of us in life, we can spend all of our time pointing our finger at other people and saying we are better than they are, or we can work as hard as we can on our own character, on our own lives.


And if we are in public life, we need to tell people what we are going to do and then we need to do it. And if we do not do it, it ought to be because we tried and could not . I think that is what people know about me and this administration. We laid out the most detailed set of commitments anybody ever had in '92. We have accomplished virtually everything we set out to do. What we have not accomplished, we tried and failed to accomplish. And even there, in the health care area, we made a lot of progress. And people know that. So I am satisfied that the American people will make a judgment in this election based on what is best for them and their families, on whatever factors they choose. They are in control again. We are back into the biggest job interview in the whole world. And whatever they decide and however they decide it, I think they will get it right. Do you get angry, though, when somebody like Alan Keyes said recently, We are coming to the end of the most disgraceful, the most immoral Presidency in the history of this country ? No, because he is a far rightwinger who probably thought Iran-contra was a good thing for America. And you know, there is just no evidence to support it. How could you take that seriously? This is about one of the things that I had to learn when I moved to Washington is, before I ever got angry at anybody anything anybody said, was to ask myself whether it was about the subject they were discussing or whether it was really about power. And I remember once, I had a conversation with a Republican Senator in the middle of the D'Amato hearings when he was trying to convince people, or at least the Republican Senators were, that my wife had done something wrong in this Whitewater thing, which was totally absurd. And so I asked this Senator, I said, Do you think either one of us did anything wrong? He said, Of course you did not do anything wrong. That is not the purpose of this. The purpose of this is to convince the American people you did. It is all about power. Now, I made a mistake. I acknowledged it. I have done my best to atone for it. But all this broad-brush stuff, you know, people see that for what it is.


And when I am criticized now, I try to remember Benjamin Franklin's admonition that our critics are our friends, for they show us our faults. I do not know what else to do. And I am trying not to let this stuff get in the way. Again let me say, the job of a President is to have a vision and a strategy and pursue it; to show up every day and, insofar as possible, to think about the American people and their welfare, and to not think about himself. The environment in which a President operates is designed to prevent him from doing that as much as possible, to make him torn up and upset, full of recriminations and anger, and have his attention divided. So what I have tried to do is to create a frame of mind and a climate around here with our people, so we could do our job. I think the results speak for themselves. Difficult question on a matter of history that I feel compelled to ask you, ENTITY. We sat, you and I, 2 years ago almost to the day, and I it was the day that the Monica Lewinsky story broke in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. And I and you denied that you had had an improper sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. In retrospect, if you had answered that differently right at the beginning, not only just my question but all those questions at the beginning, do you think there would have been a different result and that, in fact, you might not have even been impeached? I wish I knew the answer to that, but I do not . But the thing I regret most, except for doing the wrong thing, is misleading the American people about it. I do not regret the fact that I fought the Independent Counsel. And what they did was, in that case and generally, was completely overboard. And now rational retrospectives are beginning to come out, where people have no connection to me, talking about what an abuse of power it was and what a threat to the American system it was. And I am glad that our people stuck with me, and that the American people stuck with me, and I was able to resist what it was they attempted to do. But I do regret the fact that I was not straight with the American people about it. It was something I was ashamed of and pained about, and I regret that.


There was another interview that we did before that, in which I asked you if you agreed with Susan McDougal that Kenneth Starr was out to get you. And your answer was interpreted by Mr. Starr and others that, well, the facts speak for themselves, is what you said. Do you think the facts have spoken on that? And more and more, there will be people who did not have a vested interest in trying to promote some view they had previously taken who will evaluate this and come to the same conclusion. And as I said, even though I am sorry about what I did and sorry about the developments there, I really felt, once the last chapter of this played out, that I was defending the Constitution and the Presidency. And I feel that more strongly today. I think they knew for a long time there was nothing to Whitewater. They knew it was a bunch of bull. They had no evidence. In fact, if even the law we had, or the one we had before the independent counsel law had been in place, there never would have been a special counsel because it did not meet the standard. The only reason I agreed to ask Janet Reno to appoint one in the first place was I really believed that the people that were talking about it wanted to know the truth, and I knew that they'd just look into Whitewater and find out it was a big bunch of bull and go on. And what I found out was that a lot of the people who wanted it did not want to know the truth. And they wanted somebody that could hang on until they could find something that they could find about me or Hillary. But they knew for a long time. You know, they knew before 1996 that there was nothing to it, which is why they had to get rid of Mr. Fiske and get Mr. Starr in there, so it would drag past the '96 election. And I think history will show that, too. So I am relaxed about that, and I do not spend much time thinking about it. Again, to me, I had to make amends to the American people, and to my family and to my friends and my administration. I have done my best to do that. Now, the only way I can do that is just keep looking toward the future, to stay excited, to stay upbeat, and to stay focused. And that is what I am trying to do.


Do you have moments, private moments, of pleasure and satisfaction knowing that if, in fact, there was a conspiracy to run you out of office, it did not work, you are still sitting in the Oval Office? I do not spend much time thinking about it like that. I am grateful that for whatever reason, my friends and my family stayed with me; the American people stayed with me. I believe I defended the Constitution against a serious threat. I am sorry I did something wrong, which gave them an excuse to really go overboard. I am very sorry about that. But mostly what I try to do is to focus on trying to be a better President, trying to be a better person, trying to be a better husband and father, just trying to do the things that I can do. You know, you cannot none of us ever gets ahead in life, I do not think, by taking big satisfaction in victories or looking down on other people or keeping our anger pent up. One of the things I learned in this whole deal is you have got to let all that go. Life will always humble you if you give in to your anger or take some satisfaction that you defeated somebody or some satisfaction that, well, no matter how bad I am, at least I did not do this, that, or the other thing. Life will always humble you. And I have just tried to be grateful and to keep serving and to just worry about myself and not think about other people I mean in terms of whether you are doing right or wrong. But I am actually what I feel every day is just, I am just happy. My family was all here at Christmas. We had this fabulous Christmas. My administration, I have been fortunate by having all these people stay with me. The ones that leave are going off to do exciting things. And we have got I feel that when I took office, the country had so many problems in it. It is like we have turned it around now, and we are going in the right direction. And now we have got a chance to really dream big dreams for our children. And that is a great thing to be doing in your last year in office it is great and not only to dream those dreams but actually take some big steps toward achieving them. I just you know, I cannot be mad or it is hard for me to think about all that stuff. I have come to terms with it, and I am just trying to go on.


When this next year is over, you will leave office, and you will be the youngest former President since Teddy Roosevelt. You will be in your fifties. You will still have a lot of time and energy. Are you worried about that at all, about staying connected? No, I am excited about it. No, no, I am so excited about it. I have I mean, I am worried I will have to go back to learning basic things. You know, I will but I am excited about that, too, driving a car, shopping for food, paying the bills when the house the pipes freeze, you know, all that kind of stuff. You have got to go back to living your life like an ordinary person. But Theodore Roosevelt had an interesting life when he left office. And I of course, I have said this many times; I think President Carter has basically set the standard for what Presidents should do in terms of his public service at home and around the world. And that shows you that there is just worlds of possibilities out there. I am very excited about it. There are all kinds of things that I will have to do. Of course, I will have to make a living, and I hope I will have to make a living to support a wife who is continuing our family's tradition of public service. You know, you get all these elections, where you have got to bad-mouth one candidate to like another, and you'd think I'd certainly be there in the race involving my wife. They have impressive achievements in their lives that relate to public service. But I think that she is much better suited for the work of a Senator and this whole legislative process. And I think that the passions of her life, 30 years of work and achievement in education and health care and the challenges that children and families face, and the whole philosophy she has about community are more consistent with where New York is today and what they need in the future. But I think that New York will believe that, in the end, that what she represents and where she wants to go and what her skills are and what she knows and cares most about is a little closer to where they are than what he his whole approach. So I will have to worry about that.


Ten days ago in this very room, Judy Woodruff and I spoke with you about Syria. And you said you were hoping to make a shot across the bow. John Kerry talked today about a limited, targeted, unbelievably small effort. Right. Is that something that you have had any conversations at all with President Putin about when you were in St. Petersburg last week? I did have those conversations. And this is a continuation of conversations I have had with President Putin for quite some time. As I said to you the last time we spoke, this chemical weapons ban matters to us, to the United States. It is a ban on the worst kinds of weapons, that are indiscriminate, that do not distinguish between somebody in uniform and an infant child. And for that reason, the overwhelming majority of the world has said you cannot use these. And my intentions throughout this process has been to ensure that the blatant use of chemical weapons that we saw does not happen again. If, in fact, there is a way to accomplish that diplomatically, that is overwhelmingly my preference. And, you know, I have instructed John Kerry to talk directly to the Russians and run this to ground. And if we can exhaust these diplomatic efforts and come up with a formula that gives the international community a verifiable, enforceable mechanism to deal with these chemical weapons in Syria, then I am all for it. But we are going to have to see specifics. And I think it is reasonable to assume that we would not be at this point if there were not a credible military threat standing behind the norm against the use of chemical weapons. Charlie Rose had a conversation in Damascus today, as I am sure you are aware, with Bashar al-Assad. And one of the things he said is that there might be repercussions if there were a U.S. attack. Well, I -- I think you always have to take all precautions and recognize that any military action, even a limited one, is a significant piece of business. And you know, we have looked very carefully at all the possibilities. I think it is important to recognize that Assad does not have significant military capabilities relative to us. He has significant capabilities relative to, you know, nonprofessionals, soldiers in the opposition. He has obviously significant capabilities relative to those women and children who were gassed, but not with respect to us.

Interview with Gwen Ifill of PBS NewsHour


They could carry out asymmetrical attacks against our embassies, for example, in the region. But we do not actually think that they want to do something like that. Keep in mind that Iran was the country probably last subjected to large-scale chemical weapons use, by Saddam Hussein. I do not think either Iran or Hezbollah thought that what Assad did was a good idea. And, you know, for us to take a limited, proportional, although significant strike on Assad's capabilities to degrade them, I do not think would prompt them to get involved. Having said that, you know, we take all precautions and, you know, we do not go into anything without having thought through the various measures that are required. Assad says the U.S. is lying about his possession -- or if not his possession, his use of chemical weapons. Well, you know, I think that Mr. Assad has been making claims that proved to be untrue for quite some time. There is nobody in the international community who credibly thinks that chemical weapons were not used on August 21st. And there is very -- there are very few folks out there who seriously think that the opposition had the capabilities to kill over a thousand people using rockets that came from regime-controlled areas into areas that were opposition- controlled. So, you know, we have made a very compelling case about Assad's use. I do not think people consider Assad to be a real credible person on the international stage. But, you know, as I have said before, if there are ways for us to resolve the situation so that nobody's using chemical weapons on the ground in Syria, that is the goal that we want to accomplish. And what is true is that the longer this conflict goes on with chemical weapons on the ground, after having seen the barbaric attacks that took place, you could end up with a situation where some of the more dangerous and unsavory members of the opposition, you know, got their hands eventually on these chemical weapons. Now, I am pleased to say that the opposition that we work with, that we have been in conversations with, the international community supported, they have been very clear, in statements, they do not want chemical weapons. They do not believe in them. They think it is a terrible crime to have used them.


And -- and so I think that if we can come up with a mechanism to get these under control, verify and enforce that they are not being used, then we should do everything we can to pursue that. But we are -- that is not going to happen if Assad thinks that he can lie his way through this and eventually the world forgets the images of those children who were gassed. How do you persuade members of Congress -- and the American people, who are overwhelmingly, in new polls out today, not in favor of this idea? Yeah. said that she does not see the end of this. She does not know what the purpose of it is. And Democrats like Jim McGovern say you should withdraw your request for an authorization. How -- I know there is a full-court press under way. How do you change their minds? Well, you know, I am not sure that we are ever going to get a majority of the American people, after over a decade of war, after what happened in Iraq, to say that any military action, particularly in the Middle East, makes sense in the absence of some direct threat or attack against us. You know, if you -- if you talk to my own family members, or Michelle's, you know, they are very wary and suspicious of any action. So tomorrow I will speak to the American people. We are not talking about -- not boots on the ground. We are not talking about sustained air strikes. We are talking about a very specific set of strikes to degrade his chemical weapons capabilities in terms of delivery. And you know, I will continue to brief Congress on this. But I knew, when I said I was going to present this to Congress, that this would be challenging. I also want to make the case, though, that it is in our long-term national security interest to make sure that this chemical weapons ban is enforced. Absolutely I do not, because I -- you know, I believe that every president has the authority to act on behalf of the national security interests of the country and that, under the War Powers Act, we have to consult with Congress and inform them after actions are taken.


Yesterday somebody very familiar to the administration, Lewis Scooter Libby, was found guilty of the charges of perjury, lying, obstruction of justice. What is the impact of your administration of this verdict, or your personal feelings? A jury of his peers analyzed the data very seriously and rendered a verdict that must be respected. I am sad for Mr. Libby and his family. There was a sense of sadness to hear the verdict read for me. And finally, this is an ongoing legal matter, there is more to be done in the courts, and therefore, at this time, it is inappropriate for the administration to be commenting beyond just what you asked me. Some Senators, one in particular, Mr. Kennedy, is suggesting that you would pardon him. There is a lot of-if you listen carefully, the lawyers are talking about different avenues to approach this particular case. And so I am pretty much going to stay out of it until the course-the case has finally run its final-the course it is going to take. Some critics think that the administration, your administration has neglected-or prior administrations have neglected our Latin American neighbors. This is your fourth trip to Latin America. What do you plan to accomplish? Well, first of all, I think I plan to accomplish, one-the main thing is to kind of disabuse people of the notion that America does not care about the neighborhood. And it troubles me to think that some people in our neighborhood believe we do not care. We do-I care deeply, personally, about Latin America, and our country does. And what I am going to do is remind people, when I go down, that the American people have been very generous on bilateral aid. We have increased the aid since I have been ENTITY from $800 million a year to $1.6 billion. And the important thing for people to understand is that the aid primarily goes for social justice programs-for education programs or health programs. And the second thing I want to talk to people about the importance of trade. The United States is a big market, and if you are a poor farmer in parts of Central or South America, it seems like it makes sense to be able to sell your product into this market. Because you may get a better price, and it means you can make a better living. And so trade, in my judgment, is positive, and it is a way to help people be lifted out of poverty.

Interview With Enrique Gratas of Univision


To summarize, a prosperous and peaceful Latin America is in the interest of the United States. I am sure you are aware of some protests in the countries that you will visit, mainly because of the war in Iraq. Are you concerned about those demonstrations? I am proud to be going to a part of the world where people can demonstrate, where people can express their minds. It happens quite frequently when I travel around the world. I understand people's concern about war. Nobody likes war. But I have had to make the decisions I made in order to not only secure our people but to deal with threats and to help people be free. It is a part of life when you are ENTITY. ENTITY, in the last 15 months, leftist governments have been elected in many countries-I will mention three, for example-last ones, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua. Are you worried about this tendency in Latin America? You know, the thing-first of all, I like the fact that the countries in our neighborhood are free and people get to decide who the governments-who is in the government. I like that. I would be worried if there are policies which ruin economies. That would worry me-in other words, if these governments make decisions that end up making it very difficult for people to make a living and/or for there to be more wealth throughout the society. I would be worried if there is no free press-in other words, if institutions that are necessary for a free society were undermined. I would be worried, of course, if just the basic needs of the people were not met. And so I applaud elections. I look forward to these governments responding to the real needs of the people. on many occasions, has called you names; for example, liar, devil, terrorist-things like that. What is your opinion about him? And how do you respond to those insults? Well, I think it is really important for the people who are observing U.S.reactions and U.S. policy to understand that our policies are not aimed at creating tensions, but our policies are aimed at improving people's lives. There is a lot of anticipation about what my trip means, and it is nothing more than to say, we want to be your friends, and we have got a very strong policy of improving the lives of others. I have been in politics a long time; there is a lot of name calling in politics.


I have always found the best thing to do is to do what you think is right and move beyond the name calling. ENTITY, the United States-and this concerns Latin America in general, because most immigrants come from that continent-never before in this country have so many raids against immigrants. Are you planning before you leave office support a plan to legalize so many millions of undocumented workers? A better way to describe this is-in the Oval Office, I gave a speech about comprehensive immigration reform. And comprehensive immigration reform says that we ought to have a temporary-worker program that recognizes the fact that people are coming to do jobs that Americans are not doing so they can do so on a legal basis, but not forever. Secondly, we got an issue with 12 million people that are here illegally. Now, we are a country of law, and we should expect people to recognize our laws. But I also recognize, we cannot kick people out of the country. And so I am going to work with Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, and devise a way that is rational and fair. It needs to be changed for the good of our country, and it needs to be changed for the good of the people that are in our country. ENTITY, I have to ask this question. How are you going to resolve the difference between the construction of the wall on the border? I will explain to him that our Congress was very worried that not enough was being done on both sides of the border about preventing people from sneaking in. I will explain to him that the border is going to be secured two ways- one, by modernization-but it is more than fence. We are going to have Border Patrol agents, but instead of having a system that encourages people to sneak in, we ought to have a system that says, you are welcome to come in on a legal basis to do work America is not doing. I mean, it makes no sense to have a system that does not recognize reality. Now, that does not mean automatic citizenship. But it does say, there are people who are hungry in our neighborhood who want to do work that Americans are not doing, and there ought to be a legal process to do it so they do not have to sneak across the border. So the best way to secure the border is to have a comprehensive immigration plan. And it is controversial here in America.


I am glad you could take some time to talk to us today. Let me start by asking you whether or not-let me rephrase that. I know I am preaching to the choir when I tell you that African-Americans still lag far behind white Americans in every single leading economic indicator category. As you well know, some of your African-American critics have accused you, so to speak, of talking the talk but not walking the walk when it comes to your budget priorities. I am wondering specifically what is in this budget that you are set to sign tomorrow, I suspect, specifically for African-American families that will help them shrink that economic gap. Let us look at a few of them. First of all, this budget has $24 billion in it for health insurance for families, for children, for families of modest means-disproportionately minority families. We are talking about people here who are working for a living but do not make much money, do not get health insurance for their children at work, but are not poor enough to be on Medicaid. And it is the biggest expansion of health care for needy people since Medicaid passed in 1965-the single biggest one. Second, the bill has a $500-per-child tax credit that goes even to working families that get the earned-income tax credit, that is, that make modest incomes, that make under $30,000 a year, which are the vast majority of African-American families-have children in the home- police officers, nurses, firefighters, folks like that, they will get $500 a year per child. Third, this bill has the biggest increase in spending for education from Head Start through college since 1965, in over 30 years, and the biggest increase in help for people to go to college since the GI bill passed 50 years ago, the biggest increase in Pell grants in over 20 years-and that is going to really help-college tax credits, all kinds of other financial provisions to help people to go to college. Fourth, the bill remedies everything I promised to fix in the welfare bill. It restores benefits to legal immigrants who are hurt through no fault of their own. It keeps children who are no longer classified as disabled eligible for Medicaid. It expands food stamp benefits to single men who are looking for work. It provides $3 billion to the cities, to help the cities put people who are on welfare to work.

Interview With Tavis Smiley of Black Entertainment Television


And finally, the bill has a huge, broad array of economic incentives for people who invest in the inner cities. It triples the number of empowerment zones. It more than doubles the funds for community development banks to loan money to people who start businesses in the inner cities. It provides tax incentives and other investments to clean up 14,000 so-called brownfield sites in urban areas that are otherwise attractive for development but have environmental problems. It is been at least 30 years since a budget this good for working Americans, lower income Americans, and minority Americans has passed. My time with you is limited, and there is so much I want to talk to you about, but let me follow up very quickly if I can. Since you mentioned welfare, I suspect tomorrow around here at the White House there will be handshakes and smiles tomorrow as the Republicans and Democrats come together to watch you sign this bill. But I am wondering what specifically you are going to do to follow up on what the Republicans have already threatened to do; that is to say, they want to, on Wednesday, I suspect, come after you in terms of gutting the welfare provisions that you insisted be a part of this bill. They specifically do not want to pay minimum wage to welfare workers who you want to move from welfare to work. How are you going to deal with what their next strike is going to be? Well, I think some of them are upset because of the stories which indicate that we got about a 100 percent of what we were looking for out of this budget. But they got what they wanted. They got a capital gains and the changes in the estate tax and things of that kind. I believe that everybody who works ought to get the minimum wage. And I am going to hang tough, and unless they can get enough votes to override a veto, then the people that go to work are going to get the minimum wage. I do not think there is a problem with that. Now, to be fair, they say that the Governors are saying that some employers, even community nonprofits, which you might consider liberal employers, are reluctant to hire people off welfare who may be hard to place and may have- take time to train, if they also have to pay all the accompanying costs of employment like the unemployment tax and the Social Security tax and all of these other taxes. And they say they are looking for help on that.


Well, I expect we will have some dialog about that, but I simply do not think that they ought to be able to take the minimum wage away from working people. You have said, and you have of course undertaken-put together a commission to undertake getting this country to have a conversation about race, the issue that you have called America's constant curse. In the first public meeting of your race commission, a small dispute erupted in that the commission Chairman, Dr. John Hope Franklin, and commissioner Angela Oh, a Korean-American commissioner from Los Angeles, had a dispute about what the focus, what the mission, the work of the commission ought to be. Franklin believes that the focus and the mission ought to be around the black-white conflict, which he sees as the nucleus for every other race problem this country has endured and continues to endure. Angela Oh, commissioner Oh suggests that the work of the commission really ought to be about multiracialism and multiculturalism. As the leader, ENTITY who put this commission together, what kind of leadership are you going to provide? How are you going to get them on the right track? If the commission cannot have a clear-stated mandate, how do we talk about it as a country? First, I agree with John Hope Franklin that if you do not understand the black-white issue, you can never understand how race works in America. If you do not understand the history and if you do not know what the facts are now, you can never understand the rest. I think we have to deal with our unfinished business, if you will. If you do not understand that Mexican-Americans first came to this country, if you will, by annexation because of the war we had with Mexico, it is hard to understand the unique history of the United States with its Mexican-American population. But there is something special about the whole legacy of slavery and all of that, and we have to understand that. So I agree with that.


On the other hand, I also believe that one of the most important things this commission can do when there is no riot in the cities, when there is no real social dislocation, when unemployment is coming down and incomes are finally going up again, and we seem to be making some progress on crime and other issues, I think that it is time that we say, Gosh, we are going to be in this new century in only 3 years; within 5 years, California will have no majority race; within 30 to 40 years, the United States will have no majority race. What does that mean? What do we want America to look like in 35 years? How are we going to avoid these problems that have so bedeviled other countries when they did not have a majority race, these tribal fights in Africa or the religious-based conflicts of the ethnic groups in Bosnia? Or what is going on in the Middle East; how are we going to get around that? I think that if we think about it now and we sort of make it a part of our project as we start the new century and we kind of empower our young people especially to talk about it and work through it, my guess is that when we do become the first truly multiethnic, multiracial democracy in the world, it will turn out to be a huge advantage for us, a huge advantage, because of the global society we are living in, as long as we say we respect, we even celebrate our differences, but we are still one America. And I think that ought to be the future focus of this. You mentioned California. As you well know, you gave a race relations speech at UC-San Diego. And as you probably know, 200 African-Americans have applied to med school in San Diego; none were accepted. In Texas, at the University of Texas, admissions of African-American students are down 26 percent. It is an ugly picture, and I can make it uglier if I had more time, but I will not do that. They should not have passed that 209. I totally agree with you on that. The question I want to ask is, there is a bill that is pending in the Texas Legislature that suggests that if scores-test scores are going to be the sole criteria for all students being admitted to college, why not include athletes in that regard? I am wondering how you feel about that.


I actually think it may help the Razorbacks, because the kids that cannot go to school in Texas may go up to Arkansas. Well, no, I just-it may help the program. But what do you think about including athletes, though, seriously? I think if you did it, people would bring back affirmative action. I mean, that would make the point. I could not help thinking, when they explicitly excluded athletes, that you could have, let us say, an Hispanic young athlete who was a C student out of high school get in the best university in the State, and another young Hispanic who was an A-minus student in high school that wore Coke-bottle glasses and was an academic, who could not get in. You think it ought to include athletes? Well, I think universities ought to have a right to develop their athletic programs, but I think that it is ridiculous to say that a great university needs to have different academic standards for athletics so you can have diversified athletics but does not need a diversified student body when it comes to race and ethnicity. So I would say you have got to-you can pick one. You can have it one way or the other, but you cannot have it both ways. That is kind of what I-it is like these people who put this together saying, Well, if these folks can entertain us, we will let them come to school. But if they are not entertaining to us, never mind that they are going to be a big part of our future; they cannot come to school. Of course, I believe-I do not think there was ever a constitutional problem with affirmative action in college admissions and professional school admissions, as long as no one who was unqualified-that is, someone that clearly could not meet high standards and could not do the work-was admitted, because there are measures other than test scores and grades which are pretty valid indicators of whether people can do good work in high-quality institutions. And you want the students themselves to have valid experiences when they are going through school. And I personally believe, since we are going to live in a multiracial, multiethnic, multireligious society, if I were running a private university, I'd certainly want one to be like that. And I think it is a cruel irony that in some of these States they seem to be moving toward putting it all on the private universities to have a diverse student body, at least in the graduate level.


Now, Texas is trying to overcome this now with their so-called 10 percent solution-you may know about that-saying that anybody who graduates in the top 10 percent of any high school can go to any State university. The problem with that is it does not deal with the professional schools, number one, and number two, it might work for Texas because of the racial distribution of people throughout the State in high schools. It would not necessarily work in other States. I think-you know, my own view is we need an effective, constitutional affirmative action program. Let me get to a couple of other quick areas before my time runs out here. You recently recommended-your administration recommended that the disparity between the crack and cocaine-powder cocaine sentencing be reduced from 100 to 1 to 10 to 1. I am wondering, why not 1 to 1? On the second issue, I do not know about that, and I was surprised because I had just had a very long meeting with the Black Caucus in which we'd gone over a huge number of issues. And we had given them good followup on everything, and I was personally stunned to understand that they had not been consulted on this. What I think happened was someone involved in this in one of those departments leaked the decision before it was ripe to be made and kind of cut off all the consultations before it got in the newspaper. Now, on the merits, let me say, we came to 10 to 1 for two reasons. One is all the senior people at the Justice Department and in the office of drug control believed that there had to be some difference because of the difference in violent crime associated with powder and crack. None of them believe that the 100 to 1 was justifiable. So they recommended 10 to 1. And it was-the conclusion was reached that if they recommended anything lower, what Congress would do in reaction would be to try to raise the minimums for everybody and leave everyone worse off. And so I think we need to take a hard look at that Federal prison population anyway to see whether there are too many nonviolent offenders in there. And I think this should be viewed for just what it is, a major step forward. Hopefully, we will be permitted to implement it, and if we are, we will see if it works. Your challenge to America to have a conversation about race has certainly spun off a number of conversations, including conversations about slavery and reparations.


And I am wondering whether or not, since you have had more time to reflect, you think an apology to African-Americans is warranted. And more specifically, what do you think of at least having a commission to study the feasibility of reparations, regardless of what your opinion is? Well, I do not believe that- what I think I should do now is let this advisory board do its work and see what they have to say about the apology issue and all the related issues. The one thing I did not want to do is to define the work of this commission, which I hope will be quite broad, as I explained, in terms of any particular issue early on. I just do not think I should do that. So I am going to let them have their hearings. I am going to go to some of the hearings with them. We are going to go around the country. I am going to keep announcing special initiatives like our big scholarship fund to move teachers into the inner cities and pay for their college if they go back to inner cities and teach. I am going to keep doing those things and just see how it comes out. And if the board wants to recommend that-and Dr. Franklin, I think, is in about as good a position to judge that as anybody in America-I will wait and see what they say. I am wondering whether or not you think that an apology to African-Americans might reenergize this debate. I am talking to some African-Americans over the last few days who think that since your speech in San Diego, the conversation has kind of gotten quiet. You do not really hear a lot about this race discussion. Do not you think that apology might reenergize this debate? I keep trying to do something about every 2 weeks to juice it up. Today I talked to-I gave a speech to the Urban League, in terms of what was in the budget for African-Americans and minorities, just like I did with you a few moments ago. And I previously gave a speech saying that we were going to offer scholarships to people and pay their way through college if they'd go teach in distressed areas. I will keep trying to do that. But I think there will be a lot of interest in it. It is hard to keep the media's interest all the time unless there is conflict. You know that. But I will keep trying to find innovative ways to do it.


You were talking about your all of the above energy strategy But I wonder whether Americans are not more interested in a one of the above energy strategy and that is gas not at $4 a gallon. Well, look ultimately what Americans care about is the huge burden that it is placing on families right now. If you have to drive 50 miles to work, and I hear from a lot of folks who do, then this is a real strain on budget. So their most immediate concern is gas prices, but it is interesting when you talk to Americans across the country, what they also realize is that there is no silver bullet. They want to make sure we have got strong oil and gas production, and they are glad to hear that we are starting to make progress on natural gas on additional oil production here in the United States. They also understand that if we only have two percent of the world's oil reserves but using 20% of the world's oil, then the math is not going to add up unless we also develop the kinds of new technologies that are represented by this solar panel field out here. Acknowledging there is no silver bullet, you get criticized by republicans on their campaign trail, your response has been We are drilling as much as we can, more oil than any time in the past 8 years. Is there more you can do so that it does not cost $55 to fill up your tank? Well the main reason that you are seeing the kind of gas spike that we are seeing right now has to do with the uncertainty in the Middle East. So a lot of this has to do with the risk premium that is being tacked on, people are not certain about what gonna happen with Iran. There is also been some tightening in the market because some unlikely places like Sudan and Yemen, they may only produce a 100,000 barrels or 200,000 barrels, but when you add it all up, you have see about a million barrels taken off the market. And what that means is is that even if we produce as fast as we can, we are still not going to see gas prices where we'd like them to be, unless we are also focused on being more efficient with the oil and gas that we have. So as you said, we are producing more than any time in the last eight years, we have actually reduced oil imports to under 50%, and they are as low as they have been in a long time over the last couple of years.

Interview with Kai Ryssdal of The Marketplace at the Copper Mountain Solar Plant in Boulder City, Nevada


What we now need to do now is open up additional sites for drilling, and we are doing that. We are actually even on public lands, we have increased permitting by about 13%. But what we have also got to do is double fuel efficiency standards on cars, we have we are slighted right now by the next decade to see fuel efficiency standards to go up to 55 miles per gallon, that can save families about $8,000 during the life time of a car. We are going to have to make sure that we are using oil in our businesses a lot more efficiently. So if we add improved production with increased efficiency, then over time we can regain control over our our energy supplies. With all respect, it was kind of a gutsy move, I think, to come to a solar facility. Your administration has staked a lot on clean technology The biggest item most people know about that strategy is of course a company named Solyndra, which your administration gave loan guarantees to, that then went bankrupt, that has been the subject of many investigations. Are you doing your all of the above strategy right if that is what we have to show for it, Solyndra? We are doing the all of the above strategy right, obviously we wish Solyndra had not gone bankrupt, part of the reason they did was because the Chinese were subsidizing their solar industry and flooding the market in a ways Solyndra could not compete. But understand this was not our program per see, Congress, Democrats and Republicans, put together a loan guarantee program because they understood historically that when you get new industries, it is easy to raise money for start ups, but if you want to take them to scale, often times there is a lot of risk involved. And what the loan guarantee program was designed to do was to help start up companies get to scale. And the understanding is is some companies are not going to succeed, some companies will do very well, but the portfolio as a whole ends up supporting the kind of innovation that helps make America successful in this innovative, 21st century economy. Absolutely not, and obviously it is heartbreaking to happen for the workers who were there. When you look at the overall portfolio, is it right for us to make sure that we are not just cashing in our chips and letting the Chinese or the Germans develop the technologies that we know are going to be critical in the future?


You said when you were campaigning in 2008 that you were going to 150 billion dollars on green tech and clean energy and create 5 million clean energy jobs. We had the worst financial crisis And the housing market, obviously, the bottom fell out of it. And so we have spent a lot of time digging our way out of that hole, part of it has been a clean energy strategy and investments that we made because of the Recovery Act. The investments that are being made as we speak help to account for the kind of solar facility that we are seeing right here that is creating jobs right here in Boulder City. Let me ask you about the labor market. Unemployment is down from it is high during this administration, it is now at 8.3%. Long term unemployment is becoming a structural problem in this economy as people lose the skills. What more can you do and what more should the government do to create jobs in this economy? Well there are a bunch of things we should be doing. You are right, we have made progress. The fact is is that over the last 24 months we have created almost about four million jobs. We have seen more growth in the manufacturing sector than any time since the 1990s, about 400,000 jobs created over the last couple of years. And so the trend lines are good, and one of the most important things that we needed to do was to make sure the economy was growing. But you are right, we still have way too many people unemployed, there are still some head winds that we have got to deal with. I will give you a couple of examples. Number one the housing market is still probably the biggest drag on the economy, now what we have done administratively is allow people to start refinancing their homes to take advantage of historically low rates if their mortgages is held by one of the FHA programs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. The problem is is that that only captures a portion of people that could be refinancing, saving 3,000 bucks, putting more money into the economy and creating more jobs and getting the construction industry back up and running. So we have called on Congress to make a change that would allow everybody to refinance right now. That is something that would create jobs. We have got couple of trillion dollar of improvements that need to be made right now all across the country. Interest rates have never been lower, contractors have never been more desperate for work, construction workers are idle at home when they want to be working.


For us to engage and embark on a major infrastructure development program right now not only would put people to work as we speak, but it would also pay huge dividends in terms of economic growth over the long term. So the issue here is not that there are not things we can do to put people back to work, retrain them for jobs that currently exist. The challenge is that Congress is going to have to think a little more boldly than they have been and get past some of the partisan name calling that has become a habit in Washington. If we do, then there are a bunch of things we can do to put people back to work. Let me use that as a pivot then and ask you about the Republicans who are currently campaigning for your job. I do not know if you watched the TV last night after the Illinois primary, I am sure you got a briefing this morning. Both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum made the case that their platforms of economic freedom are the way to go. They say you are not doing enough, they say you have not been doing enough, you shrug but that I mean you you know what they are saying. So the question is make the close the sale, right? Because you keeping the job in November is gonna be depending on how people feel about whether you did it or you did not do it as you promised three and a half years ago. Look, you know, I think at a time when people are still out there struggling around the country, where unemployment is still to high, and a lot of folks are still worried about their mortgage, their home being underwater, nobody I think can claim that we are where we want. But I think when the American people think back to the last three years and where we have been and where we are moving towards now, when you ask them, what has more likelihood of succeeding, a policy in which we are providing additional tax cuts to the very wealthiest of Americans who are the only folks who have benefited from any significant income growth over the past decade, stripping away regulations that help keep our air and water clean, defunding things like education that we know are going to help us to be competitive, when you ask them is that a recipe for long term economic growth their answer is going to be no.


It is great to see you. One of the centerpieces of your foreign policy has been the so-called pivot to Asia... the idea of moving toward that part of the world where all the dynamism, economically certainly, exists. One of the architects of the pivot says that the sine qua non of the pivot is TPP, and it looks as though that pact is in trouble. Hillary Clinton is now against it. Donald Trump is against it. Paul Ryan is even against it. But the, look, the politics of trade have always been complicated. Let me back up and say that the idea of the rebalance was not to neglect other parts of the globe in favor of Asia, it was rather to recognize that, for a decade, we have not been paying attention to Asia at a time when it was undergoing this enormous transformation, that it was going to be the world's most populous region, the most dynamic market. And that we had to make sure that we reminded ourselves as well as the region that we are an Asia-Pacific power. And the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a historic agreement cobbled together among a very diverse set of countries. And if we are not setting the rules out there, somebody else is. And what we have been able to do is not just establish a trade agreement among these countries, because many of them we already have trading agreements with. What this does is it raises the standards for trade so that there is greater protection for labor rights, a greater protection for environmental rights, greater transparency, greater protection for intellectual property, which is so important to a knowledge-based economy like ours. It removes 18,000 taxes, effectively, tariffs. Because we are a relatively open market and many of our trading partners the have been closed, it gives us a huge lever to open up markets for American goods and services. And so there is no serious economist who has not looked at this and said this is actually not only a smart trade deal, but it actually, makes up for some of the failures of previous deals to have fully enforceable labor or environmental components. But what is true is that there have been, in the past, always, a vocal, you know, set of interests that are opposed to trade inside my party, the Democratic Party. And what is been new is some populist anti-trade sentiment inside the Republican Party.

Interview with Fareed Zakaria of CNN


Having said all that, it was said that we could not get the authority to even get a trade deal done and we got it done. There is a similar pact for Europe that is being negotiated. And the vice chancellor of Germany just said that is dead, implying that trade is just not a -- are we at a turning point where trade is -- free trade is no longer popular in Western societies? But what is absolutely too true, Fareed, is that the combination of globalization and automation have integrated the world economies like never before. And what I think has been the fault of those in charge of that integration process has been to not pay attention to the winners and the losers. Overall, it has created enormous growth, prosperity and wealth for all the countries involved. And, you know, part of the reason that we have seen billions of people rise out of extreme poverty during our lifetimes has been because of that integration. But what is also true is, is that there has increasingly been, because of this integration, a tendency toward those of us who are highly skilled, highly resourced, have access to capital, to be able to get a bigger and bigger share of that growth. People who are low skill, low wage, not mobile, have had trouble getting leverage in this system. And so that divergence has created more and more inequality within advanced economies, whether it is the United States, countries like Europe. And so part of the argument that I have been making consistently, part of the argument that I will be making when I go to my last G-20 meeting is that if advanced countries do not pay attention to inequality, if we do not pay attention to not just growth in the aggregate, but how is that growth distributed? And do people have ladders of opportunity in this new global economy? Then yes, there is going to be a reaction against globalization and against trade, even though -- whether that resistance is coming from the left or the right, the prescriptions that they are describing, somehow cutting off global trade, are not really viable. And so, you know, the argument I make to my progressive friends is you are absolutely right to worry about inequality, but the answer is not to pull up the drawbridge. The answer, rather, is to make sure that everybody has high labor standards, that all countries are accountable to their citizens in terms of things like minimum wages, workers' standards, making sure that there is an education system that people can access.

Interview with Fareed Zakaria of CNN


And unfortunately, we have not done enough of that. When you are in China, are you going to be having a different series of conversations with the Chinese leaders? By which I mean a lot of China experts look at what is happening in China and say you are seeing a new form of nationalism, you are seeing a new specifically anti-Western and anti-American nationalism, whether it is in regard to cyber theft and cyber crime, cyber attacks, the way Western companies are treated, the business in the South China Sea where China is doing what apparently violates international law and is worrying its neighbors. Is it time to get tougher on China? Well, first of all, I do not think any of that is new. Remember, China has been run during our lifetimes by a communist party that has been much more anti-Western in the past. We went through a period over the course of 20 years, in the '90s and on through maybe the onset of my presidency, where, because state-sponsored capitalism and an export-driven model was very successful, China was less interested in making waves. But, you know, you have got over a billion people, one of the largest economies now in the world. And so it is to be expected that they will want a bigger seat at the table when it comes to international affairs. And what we have said consistently is we welcome the peaceful rise of Chin, consistent with international norms. That is good for everybody. An impoverished and collapsing China would be dangerous for everybody. And, you know, we should want China to take on more responsibilities, not only for its own people, but also for a wide range of international problems and conflicts, whether it is climate change or disaster relief or dealing with things like Ebola. But what we have said to the Chinese -- and we have been firm consistently about this -- is you have to recognize that with increasing power comes increasing responsibilities. You cannot pursue mercantilist policies that just advantage you now that you are a middle income country, in many ways, even though you still have a lot of poor people. You know, you cannot just export problems. You have got to have fair trade and not just free trade. You have to open up your markets if you expect other people to open up their markets.

Interview with Fareed Zakaria of CNN


When it comes to issues related to security, if you sign a treaty that calls for international arbitration around maritime issues the fact that you are bigger than the Philippines or Vietnam or other countries, in and of itself, is not a reason for you to go around and flex your muscles. You have got to abide by international law. And part of what I have talked to communicate to President Xi is that the United States arrives at its power, in part, by restraining itself. You know, when we bind ourselves to a bunch of international norms and rules, it is not because we have to, it is because we recognize that, over the long-term, building a strong international order is in our interests. And I think over the long-term, it will be in China's interests, as well. So where we see them violating international rules and norms, as we have seen in some cases in the South China Sea or in some of their behavior when it comes to economic policy, we have been very firm. And we have indicated to them that there will be consequences. But what we have tried to emphasize to them is, if you are working within international rules and international norms, then we should be partners. There is no reason that we cannot be friendly competitors on the commercial side and important partners when it comes to dealing with the many international problems that threaten both of us. I got to ask you one question about the campaign. As you watch the support that Donald Trump has... and you watch where it comes from, I am wondering what you make of it, because, you know, you have written in the past that you are -- the Kansas side of your family is white working class, Scotch-Irish. These are the people who support Trump. These are the people who seem to have the most suspicion about you. What do you make of that? Well, look, there is a long tradition in the United States of inclusion, immigration diversity, but also people, once they are included in what they consider to be the real America, worrying about outsiders contaminating, polluting, messing up a good thing. That dates back to you know, the beginning of this country.

Interview with Fareed Zakaria of CNN


And what I am always reminding people is that, although you will see bumps, whether it is the Know-Nothings or, you know, other of anti-immigrant sentiment directed at the Irish or Southern Europeans as opposed to Northern Europeans, or the Chinese, or today, Latinos or Muslims -- the long-term trend is people get absorbed, people get assimilated, and we benefit from this incredible country in which the measure of your patriotism and how American you are is not the color of your skin, your last name, your faith, but rather your adherence to a creed. And I do not expect that that is going to change simply because Mr. Trump has gotten a little more attention than usual. And I think if you look at the current polls, they are -- you know, he is been able to appeal to a certain group of folks who feel left out or are worried about the rapidity of demographic change, social change who, in some cases, have very legitimate concerns around the economy and feeling left behind. But that is not the majority of America. And if you talk to younger people, the next generation of Americans, they utter -- completely reject the kinds of positions that he is taking. So, you know, we have to take it seriously. I think that any time we hear intolerance, any time that we hear policy measures that are contrary to our values, banning certain classes of people because of who they are or what they look like, what faith they practice, then we have to be pretty hard about saying no to that. And I think that America will do that this time, as well. But, you know, I think we have to pay close attention to what is going on. When you look at the news that has come out of Turkey over the last few weeks and months, the coup attempt, but then the purges afterwards... very -- the issues around Turkish foreign policy, are you confident that Turkey is a liberal democracy, a staunch NATO ally, where we have nuclear weapons, and is a force for stability in the region? Well, they have gone through a tumultuous event. You had members of the military engaging in treasonous acts against a democratically elected government. And what was encouraging was the degree to which the Turkish people, including those who are opposed to President Erdogan, stepping up and saying this is unacceptable.

Interview with Fareed Zakaria of CNN


And that was, I think, the -- the ray of hope that came out of what was a really challenging event. You now have a reaction by the Turkish government that understandably is scared and concerned. Imagine if something had -- like that happened here in the United States, the challenges that we would have in figuring out how to re-stabilize our country. I have long said to President Erdogan directly, even prior to this coup, that he began his career as a democrat and a reformist, and the danger, I think, of any leader is the longer you are in here, you have to constantly remind yourself of the values that you came in with. And that if Turkey cracks down on journalists in ways that are inconsistent with democratic practices, if dissidents' voices and civil societies lose more and more space. That, you know, the mere act of voting is not the only part of democracy. Rule of law, free press, freedom of assembly, those are all part of it as well. I think the Turkish people are going to be debating this and working through this over the next several months. We have not seen a diminishing effect on our security relations. They are working with us to defeat ISIL and are an important partner on a whole range of security issues in the region. But, you know, no doubt what is true is that they have gone through a political and civil earthquake in their country. And how they rebuild is going to be important and what we want to do is indicate to them the degree to which we support the Turkish people. But like any good friend, we want to give them honest feedback if we think that the steps they are taking are going to be contrary to their long-term interests and our partnership. ENTITY, it is become a GPS tradition that when we have you, we have the honor of having you on the program, rather than me making a book recommendation, you do. You have just come back from a vacation. You must have taken a pile of books. Which among them would you recommend? Discussing some of the issues that we discussed here today around race and American history. The other book that I really enjoyed a book by an Israeli author, Yuval Harari, called Sapiens. And it -- it is a sweeping history of the human race from 40,000 feet.

Interview with Fareed Zakaria of CNN


I am looking forward to going to Pakistan. I appreciate the courage of your ENTITY I am looking forward to my visit with ENTITY Musharraf. I am trying to think of the number of times I have met with ENTITY Musharraf since I have been ENTITY. I would say five or six, seven times. I remember our visit to Camp David. I appreciate his courage. I appreciate the difficult job he has. I appreciate his commitment to joining the world in dealing with Islamic radicals who will murder innocent people to achieve an objective. I appreciate the fact that he has stood strong in the face of several attempts on his life. I also appreciate our relationship with Pakistan and his vision for a democracy in Pakistan. And so I am looking forward to the trip. We had a very good talk. And he was laying the groundwork for what I think will be a constructive visit. ENTITY, I will start with the cartoon controversy. You and your allies work very hard on bridging the gap between the Islamic and the Western world, but the publication of a few cartoons in a remote newspaper seems to have undone everything. First of all, I think it is very important for people around the world to know that a free press is important for a democratic state; a free press for peaceful states as well. Free press holds people to account. Free press makes sure that there is a check and a balance on people in power. Secondly, I fully understand people taking not liking the cartoons. On the other hand, I do not believe that people should use that as a pretext for violence, nor do I appreciate the fact that some are using manipulating the anger over the cartoons to achieve political ends. And therefore, it is very important for governments to not allow policy to be set by those who are cynically manipulating the anger that some have felt over these cartoons. ENTITY, you have announced this global nuclear energy initiative, and this is the one that you have offered to India also. And you have spoken about the countries countries like India can also get a benefit of this initiative. Do you have Pakistan in mind Pakistan already saying that this offer to India is India-specific? Is it India-specific, or Pakistan can also be included in this initiative? Well, we are starting with India, and one of the primary reasons why is that India is in need of a diversification away from fossil fuels. India is consuming a lot of fossil fuel. That is driving up the price of a part of the reasons why the price is rising.

Interview With Pakistani Journalists


America uses a lot of fossil fuels. China is using more fossil fuels. India is using more fossil fuels, and it is affecting the price of energy in the United States and in India and in Pakistan. And so therefore, to the extent to which we can get these fast-growing, developing nations to use something other than fossil fuels, it is in the world's interest, and it is in Pakistan's interest as well. Now and so I would not view some say, Well, this is a zero-sum attitude by the United States, quite the contrary. It is the beginning of a policy that says, there will be a suppliers group of people who are capable of providing fuel stocks for a civilian nuclear power industry, countries that will then collect the spent fuel, reprocess it to be able to burn it in new types of reactors. The purpose of this whole initiative, and beginning with countries like India, is to recognize that alternative sources of energy are going to be important for the development of a clean world and a world that becomes substantially less reliant on nonrenewable sources of energy. But Pakistan cannot be included in that? Well, as I said, this is just the beginning of a very long process. ENTITY, in your speech, you talked about Kashmir dispute, and you said that you would like India and Pakistan to take bilateral steps to resolve the dispute. Pakistan has made certain proposals, but they are not reciprocated by India. And it seems that this bilateral is not going anywhere; there is need for a third-party mediation or some sort of help. Do you have any specific proposals for that? First, I'd like to make sure I clarify my statement for all to read. America supports a solution that is acceptable to all sides since you are probably the only person in the room that paid attention to my speech the speech, as you know, I said, to both sides. The language should be all sides, because it recognizes that a solution must be acceptable to India, Pakistan, and those living within Kashmir. Our position is one that says a dispute that has been so long in a nation's history can best be resolved when two nations make the determination to sit down and come up with a solution that is acceptable to all sides. Of course, during my discussions, I will encourage that dialog to go forward.

Interview With Pakistani Journalists