I think that over the years, probably coming out of the Great Depression and the traumatic experience of that, the Federal Government has gradually involved itself in areas that were never before thought of as the Federal Government's province. I am not sure that I agree with some of the suggestions they have made because let us take one, such as welfare, for example. The problems of a welfare client in New York City are far different than those from out in some small town in the rural areas in the Middle West, or something in more rural States. I believe that there is much more chance of waste and of fraud in trying to run it from the national level than there is in running it at the local level. Now, when we reformed welfare in California-and it was the most successful reform that is ever been attempted while I was Governor there we found that our biggest difficulty was getting waivers from the Federal Government in order to do some of the things that we felt had to be done. And when we finished, we not only over a 3-year period had saved the taxpayers of California $2 billion, we were able to give the welfare recipients the first cost-of-living increase they'd had since 1958 and average increase of 43 percent in their grants. And it was simply just the application of common sense and the fact that these are your neighbors there that you are trying to help, and you are better able to know what to do for them than Washington is 3,000 miles away. ENTITY, in your dream of the future of American federalism, what domestic functions do you believe should be Federal, as opposed to State and local responsibilities? Well, the first one, of course, is national security. That is the prime responsibility of the National Government. You would have me doing the sorting out that we have got a commission trying to do. But I would think that first of all, education-we built the greatest school system the world has ever seen and built it at the local level and the local school district level. And then the Federal Government got into the school business only by having preempted so much of the tax resources, and those tax resources that grew with the economy faster than something like the property tax, which is the principal basis for educational funding. Then they got into it through that money thing, having preempted the money, created the problem, and then they said, Well, now we want to help you.

Interview With Reporters on Federalism


But in return for the help, they wanted to also regulate, and have interfered to a large extent. Welfare welfare is presently administered at the local level. It is, in most States, done at the county level. They have a county welfare department, but they do it under regulations imposed from Washington. And I can tell you, those regulations would line the walls of this room, and they are constantly changing. They have got employees at the county level that do nothing but try to keep up and inform the workers of what the new regulations are. Incidentally, we have already been pretty successful here with something of that kind. The regulations that govern HHS grants out there used to fill 318 pages of the Federal Register; they now only fill 6. Do you continue to oppose such things as increasing the gasoline tax and perhaps then giving the States a part of that increase? Again, you are getting to the area that we have not thought of nothing should be ruled out until you see if it'll work. I have spoken of such things as, What if the Federal income tax had a provision that x percent of that tax would not even come to Washington, would be retained in the States where it is collected for the States to use as they see fit? Excise taxes of the kind you have mentioned might be a way, as the example I gave of Norris Cotton when he suggested one. I think it would depend a lot on what is the revenue that is going to be gained, compared to the responsibility that you want it to cover. Or is it going to be a static kind of tax that might meet the situation now, but will not meet it down the road a ways? So, as of now, you would not rule out possibly increasing the Federal gas tax and giving some of that increase to the States? Oh, I will not rule anything out. Right now there is a sizable Federal gas tax, and most States like our own has a gas tax also. The Federal gas tax came into being for the Federal interstate highway system and I am wondering if that is ever going to be completed and it was supposed to be a temporary thing.

Interview With Reporters on Federalism


ENTITY, towards the sorting out, there seems to be a new mood of great impatience among the Governors, combined with this year's budget situation, the growth of the entitlements, the defense budget, the tax cut, which the Governors perceive as being negative to the interest of the State and local government, which took a large portion of the cuts in the first round and then will be hit again by the 12 percent that you proposed in September. And as a matter of fact, they are so angry, the Western Governors' meeting in Scottsdale 12 days ago passed a resolution saying they would flatly oppose further cuts in the domestic discretionary budget proposed by your administration unless negotiation begins for a significant sorting out of functions between the Federal Government and the States. Could you give us your reaction to their position? I think most of those Western Governors are Democrats now- it might have had something to do with it. No, we recognize that we have to straighten out this financial situation on the Federal level. They will benefit, also, to a great extent by the fact that inflation will come down. Now that is got to be reflected somewhat in their costs. And as I say, we did not get all that we wanted with regard to the switch to block grants, and I am still going to continue striving for that because, again, the savings to them we can reduce the amount of money in a block grant to less than a categorical grant because of the savings in administrative overhead. Along the same line of sorting out, would you like to see a continuing role or a continuing relationship between the cities and counties and the Federal Government? You know, if we remember back some years toni think it was around 1914 or something, that was recognized in the fact that Senators were not popularly elected. They were chosen by State legislatures to represent the State. The House of Representatives represented the people. And then they made the change in the Constitution and changed it to make them all popularly elected. That was why in the whole bill of impeachment, the Senate had been picked to be the trial court and the judge, because they would not be bound by political considerations. And I hope that not just on these things of budget and so forth, that bring in the people that we have met with the 1,200 or so that we would have ongoing meetings. And I should, while I am here, have a department for that purpose.

Interview With Reporters on Federalism


Do you think it is at all the responsibility of the National Government to redistribute resources between the States that are relatively well off and the States that are not? No, I think that is up to the States. My first reaction to that is that this is one of the the built-in guarantee of freedom is our federalism that makes us so unique, and that is the right of the citizen to vote with his feet. They will either use their power at the polls to redress that, or they will go someplace else. And we have seen industries driven out of some States by adverse tax policies and so forth. But ENTITY, on that very point, Senator Durenberger has made quite an issue in the last few months that some States are energy rich and some energy poor; that there is a transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars within this decade going from the energy poor to the energy rich States. So he asks whether it is in any way fair to expect the States and localities that suffer from a declining economy to provide the same level of public services, including new services devolved from the Federal Government, as to expect from those States that are flush with energy generated revenues. Well now, if you take it that way, just in energy, then could not you make the same argument with regard to the great agricultural States that provide the food for the people of this country? California, for example I hope it still prevails in spite of the fruit fly but California, over the years, puts about 40 percent of all the fruits and nuts and vegetables that are on the tables of America, puts them on those tables. I just think the marketplace regulates that. How do you feel about States putting fairly steep taxes on the resources that they extract from the ground whether it is food or minerals or oil and ship to other States and thereby in effect pass on that additional tax burden to the consumers in those other States. Well, you are speaking of severance taxes that come on. Well again, does not that balance out with everything else? I once asked an automobile manufacturer several years ago that what if they put out a price tag that incorporated all the taxes that were paid in the manufacture of an automobile, and put the price tag out there like the gasoline pump does x amount for tax, price of the automobile here and I said, Have you ever figured out what would it look like? And he said, Yes, we could tell you what it would look like.

Interview With Reporters on Federalism


And he told me then of some model of car that they had that was about $3,800. And he said it would be $800 for the automobile and $3,000 tax. By the time you go to the market and buy an egg, there is 100 taxes in that egg; none of them put there by the chicken. In the Senate hearings that were held on the 5th of November, Governors Snelling and Busbee and Matheson made a point that the State budgets were in a condition of disarray and chaos because of the deep and the continuing Federal budget cuts. They pointed again to the inflation driven entitlements, defense spending, the extent of the tax cut, feeling that more should be seen in that area in terms of the next economies. And Governor Snelling, for the Governors, proposed a 2-year moratorium on further cuts and discretionary grants to the States and localities so they would have a chance to catch their breath, institute some rational budgeting and planning, perhaps start some discussions with you about more block grants and a sorting out of responsibilities. Could you give your reaction to the proposal of the moratorium for 2 years? I think it would be great if we could afford it. And I know that part of their problem which you did not mention there it was not just the change, it is the fact that the States all have varying budget or fiscal years and in many States were caught with their budget already determined. And then we, by doing something at the Federal level, changed their or ordered their estimates of revenues and so forth. And I just think our emergency is so great, I do not know how we could hold back and wait for all of this. What we have tried to do and now with these meetings, and with Rich 1 in continued contact with them, is try to not throw any surprises at them, but to keep them informed so that, for example, in planning the next budget, they will know what we are considering and they can make allowance that in case we get what we ask for, why, they will know what it is going to be like. ENTITY, the idea that Americans can, as you say, vote with their feet, if necessary, we have heard this from some of your other spokesmen in the government. If someone, say, in New York City were caught I am talking about in a pocket of poverty. I mean, what can you say to them? They have no money to move, really.

Interview With Reporters on Federalism


I mean, in the best of all possible worlds, perhaps they could move. What do you say to them? How do they get out of this? Well, I never said that anyone tells them to move out. No, I know that. I think that as the people we have been and still are a very migrant people. I think Americans move more than anyone else. And in many instances, it is the job holder; something happens and he starts exploring for work some place else and maybe goes and then sends for the family. But whatever means they have to use they do it. I cannot see any way that the Federal Government could set up a program for moving people, because then you get into the element of would there be something compulsory about it, would the government decide that somebody had to move. And many people during the campaign I talked to people out in Ohio and Michigan there, and the great unemployment in the automobile industry, and you talk to someone who'd say, I am third generation in my family living here. So he is going to sweat it out until jobs open up and he can get a job there.  ENTITY, I know that there are not many final decisions on the budget, but I assume that you are probably far enough into that process that you have some general idea where you stand. Is it going to be possible, for example, to hold general revenue sharing at its present level? Is it going to be possible to hold the new block grants at their present funding level, or are all of those programs at this point still subject to further reductions in fiscal 1983? The suggested 12-percent cut we did not see how and I think all of us recognize that this was going to be a blow to many communities, particularly the local level, not the State level, and again I'd seen it in our own State work. But we felt we had to go across the board, and we were asking other equally important programs to take that cut. You could not cut that. But it extended to every place, including the White House, and so we felt that we had to do it. Now realistically, the question is are you doing to get 12 percent and I doubt it-from the Congress?

Interview With Reporters on Federalism


But again, as I say, we had to hope that if we get control of this economy at this end, that this might be a temporary setback to some communities a painful one, but the off-setting thing of reducing inflation and interest rates and, hopefully, having a surge in the economy would also begin to offset that. I think one of their concerns when they came here I have just met with a large group of both city and county and State officials, Governors, on this. And a lot of them, it was a fear they'd been led to believe that maybe we were phasing it out entirely. And I could assure them that there was no such thing in our minds, that the only way it would ever be phased out is if we had an alternate source, a tax that we were going to give to them for their own use. ENTITY, could the economic recession delay your plans for implementing some of the. I am not sure that it could, because I believe that in the federalism thing that we are approaching or approving, I believe that there is, in the long run, the reduction of government cost, as I say, the administrative overhead that is involved in the Federal Government doing so many of these things. This little case you know an example of what we are trying to cure is this one that, God bless him, Dick Schweiker grabbed a hold of after I made it public the other day of the little girl out in Iowa, and how quickly we made this change. To think that our government and I was wrong; I had old-fashioned figures when I said $6,000. It was costing between $10,000 and $12,000 a month for Medicaid, and even the doctors said she should be home, that she'd be better off at home, and it would only cost $1,000 a month at home. But that was more than her family could afford, so they could not take her home because they could not take over the cost. But here was the government shelling out $10,000 or $12,000 every month, when a silly regulation stood in the way of them getting it for $1,000 a month. Dick found a way to ignore that, make an exception to that regulation, but you wonder how many more eases are out there in the country like that.

Interview With Reporters on Federalism


If the people in that community had been in charge of that program, you know darn well they would not have stood still for a moment for that cost differential. The opinion of the Governors and the local officials seems to be that deregulation is not going to get them where they need to be quickly enough to run their own operations properly. In the same Senate hearings I was referring to on November 5th, Governor Busbee, for example, expressed such distress about the current national and State and local fiscal dilemma and the lack of legitimate Federal reform, as the Governors see it, that he said it is time that we had a domestic economic summit involving the ENTITY, the bipartisan leadership of the Congress, and our, that is the Governor's leadership, so that we might gain general agreement on ultimate prime responsibilities for government programs, the budget targets we should all plan for, and the time frame in which we are going to reach these goals. It seems to be the Governors would like a much larger role not to be informed, but to be in at an early point of taking part in the decisions. Listen, I will buy that, because those Governors, and led by Busbee, were the greatest help in the world in our getting the economic package that was passed. But where we all were helpless was, we could not convince the majority leadership in the House, particularly, to give up Federal strings on so many particularly the block grants. So here was Busbee and the Governors who had helped us get this, and they were helping because they want the block grants. They know how it would benefit them. And we just had to stand here, and we were helpless to get them. Washington does not give up authority very easily. All I could say to them is, Look, I am going to continue to fight for them and please help. In a thing of this' kind, maybe they could, because there is a feeling among a great many people in the Congress well, let us say less a feeling than a lack of understanding-of the State problem. In fact, some of the Governors told me that at the Inaugural, when I made a statement to this effect, and they were the Governors were seated right behind many of the House of Representatives-they said that many of them, when I made that statement about the States' powers and so forth, turned around to them and mouthed, Over our dead bodies.

Interview With Reporters on Federalism


And with that, I will be glad to go to your questions. Does the President know about, and approve of, this probe that is being announced by the House and Senate of the leak of the story about the CIA secret prisons -- I just saw the announcement on that. That was a decision made by the Speaker and the Majority Leader. I want to know what the President thinks about it. Well, we just found out about it not long ago. Well, I think that you have heard him express his views. The leaking of classified information is a serious matter and ought to be taken seriously. But this is a congressional prerogative, and it was a decision that was made by those leaders, and that is the way I would describe it. I just wondered whether the White House basically endorses this under the circumstances. It was their decision, ENTITY, is the way I would describe it. You might want to ask them questions about their decisions. Can you describe in some fashion what the presentation is that White House staffers are hearing for an hour, and what you are trying to accomplish? First let me step back and just talk about these so everybody in the room is familiar with what we are doing. The President takes the issue of the handling of classified information very seriously. And about a week ago, or just over a week ago, at Camp David, he visited with his Chief of Staff, Andy Card, and his Counsel, Harriet Miers, about some steps that we should take here at the White House. And the President directed that action be taken to provide refresher briefings for all White House staff -- that includes staff within the White House, as well as staff within the Executive Office of the President; that would include agencies that operate within the White House, such as the Office of Management and Budget and the Counsel on Environmental Quality and a number of others. The White House staff knows very well what is expected of them. They are expected to focus on the people's business and they are expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards. The President has made that clear for quite some time. And he directed Andy Card and Harriet Miers to do these refresher briefings for all White House staff. And they focus on general ethics rules, including rules governing the handling of classified information.

George W. Bush Press Briefing by Scott McClellan


So this week there will be eight hour-long sessions that will be conducted for all White House staff that has security clearances of any level, whether that -- well, all staff that has any sort of security clearance. And so there will be -- in these briefings, which started this morning, they are organized in an alphabetical way -- there will be a general overview of ethics issues, such as the standards of ethical conduct that are expected. There will be a discussion about classified information and the proper handling of classified national security information, how that material is classified, by whom, for how long, who has access to it, how the material is declassified, the badges that people wear to show their security clearances and so forth. The briefings discuss the security precautions that are in place for handling classified information such as the use of safes, or the use of specific locations to view classified information like the Situation Room here at the White House. It will talk about the proper disposal of classified information. It will talk about the handling of classified information when you are transporting that classified information. And the briefings will include the rules and laws relating to classified information and what is expected of people. So that is kind of a general overview of these briefings. Is there underlying concern that the highest ethical standards have not been observed by everyone? Well, this was -- the President made this decision in light of recent circumstances, that we should take this action. And that is why he directed the Counsel's Office to proceed with these refresher briefings. Every White House staffer has to go through ethics briefings when they come on to the staff. You also have to go through detailed briefings when you are provided security clearances -- before you are provided those security clearances you go through very detailed briefings. And next week there will be briefings conducted for remaining employees that do not have security clearances. So we thought that -- the President thought that this was an appropriate time to move ahead with these refresher briefings, and that is why he directed this course of action be taken. They are held over in the New Executive Office Building, or the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Is this all we should expect from the President, the ethics refresher courses, the extent of his reaction to the indictment? Well, as you are aware, if you are asking a question about an ongoing investigation, we are not going to have further say at this point while it continues.


That is what the President directed us to do and that is what we are doing. I asked you a different question. Is this the full extent of what the President deems necessary, in light of circumstances? The President is always free to take the action that he feels is appropriate. Does the President think that Karl Rove lived up to the highest ethical standards -- Again, that is a question relating to an ongoing investigation. The President was asked about it last week; he reiterated what we have previously said. This is a serious matter, it continues, and what we are going to do is continue to cooperate with that investigation. And that is why I made the point, too, that all of us here at the White House understand what the expectations are. We understand that we are expected to adhere to the highest standards. We understand that we are expected to focus on the work of the American people, and that is what we do. Do you think that while Karl Rove is under investigation that he should retain his security clearance? I am just not going to talk about an ongoing investigation. You are asking that question in the light of an ongoing investigation; it is something that continues at this point. It just -- it strikes me as odd that, given the fact that Karl Rove has not been charged with any crime, he is merely under investigation, so far as we know, that the President's language about him and his confidence in him has been so distant, that he simply refuses to comment on his standing within the White House because of a pending matter. No, I do not agree with that. I mean, Karl Rove is continuing to perform his duties as Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor. We appreciate all that he is doing. So the President stands by Rove a hundred percent? Well, I have made it clear to you that everybody who works here at the White House has the confidence of the President. Does he stand by Karl Rove a hundred percent? the investigation relating to him is something that is ongoing, and the President has addressed that. forward-leaning as that, to say the President stands behind Karl Rove a hundred percent? I'd like you to clear up, once and for all, the ambiguity about torture. Can we get a straight answer? The President says we do not do torture, but Cheney -- Yes, but Cheney has gone to the Senate and asked for an exemption on -- Are you claiming he is asked for an exemption on torture?


He did not ask for that? Are you denying everything that came from the Hill, in terms of torture? No, you are mischaracterizing things. And I am not going to get into discussions we have -- Can you give me a straight answer for once? Let me give it to you, just like the President has. He does not condone torture and he would never -- I am asking about exemptions. And he would never authorize the use of torture. We have an obligation to do all that we can to protect the American people. It is an answer -- because the American people want to know that we are doing all within our power to prevent terrorist attacks from happening. There are people in this world who want to spread a hateful ideology that is based on killing innocent men, women and children. We saw what they can do on September 11th -- and we are going to -- -- answer that one question. I am asking, is the administration asking for an exemption? I am answering your question. No, you do not want the American people to hear what the facts are, ENTITY, and I am going to tell them the facts. I am asking you, yes or no, did we ask for an exemption? You have had your opportunity to ask the question. Now I am going to respond to it. If you could answer in a straight way. And I am going to answer it, just like the President -- I just did, and the President has answered it numerous times. Our most important responsibility is to protect the American people. We are engaged in a global war against Islamic radicals who are intent on spreading a hateful ideology, and intent on killing innocent men, women and children. Did we ask for an exemption? We are going to do what is necessary to protect the American people. We are also going to do so in a way that adheres to our laws and to our values. The President directed everybody within this government that we do not engage in torture. Are you denying we asked for an exemption? ENTITY, we will continue to work with the Congress on the issue that you brought up. The way you characterize it, that we are asking for exemption from torture, is just flat-out false, because there are laws that are on the books that prohibit the use of torture. And we adhere to those laws. We did ask for an exemption; is that right? I just answered your question. The President answered it last week.


What are we asking for? Would you characterize what we are asking for? We are asking to do what is necessary to protect the American people in a way that is consistent with our laws and our treaty obligations. Why does the CIA need an exemption from the military? David, let us talk about people that you are talking about who have been brought to justice and captured. You are talking about people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad; people like Abu Zubaydah. I am asking you -- No, this is facts about what you are talking about. Why does the CIA need an exemption from rules that would govern the conduct of our military in interrogation practices? There are already laws and rules that are on the books, and we follow those laws and rules. What we need to make sure is that we are able to carry out the war on terrorism as effectively as possible, not only -- What does that mean -- What I am telling you right now -- not only to protect Americans from an attack, but to prevent an attack from happening in the first place And, you bet, when we capture terrorist leaders, we are going to seek to find out information that will protect -- that prevent attacks from happening in the first place. But we have an obligation to do so. Our military knows this; all people within the United States government know this. We have an obligation to do so in a way that is consistent with our laws and values. Now, the people that you are bringing up -- you are talking about in the context, and I think it is important for the American people to know, are people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh -- these are -- these are dangerous killers. Did you ask for an exemption on torture? That is what I told you at the beginning. You want to reserve the ability to use tougher tactics with those individuals who you mentioned. Well, obviously, you have a different view from the American people. I think the American people understand the importance of doing everything within our power and within our laws to protect the American people. What is it that you want the -- what is it that you want the CIA to be able to do that the U.S. Armed Forces are not allowed to do? I am not going to get into talking about national security matters, ENTITY. I do not do that, because this involves -- This would be the exemption, in other words.


This involves information that relates to doing all we can to protect the American people. And if you have a different view -- obviously, some of you on this room -- in this room have a different view, some of you on the front row have a different view. We simply are asking a question. What is the Vice President -- what is the Vice President asking for? It is spelled out in our statement of administration policy in terms of what our views are. no, it is not -- In terms of our members -- like I said, there are already laws on the books that we have to adhere to and abide by, and we do. And we believe that those laws and those obligations address these issues. So then why is the Vice President continuing to lobby on this issue? If you are very happy with the laws on the books, what needs change? Again, you asked me -- you want to ask questions of the Vice President's office, feel free to do that. We have made our position very clear, and it is spelled out on our website for everybody to see. We do not need a website, we need you from the podium. And what I just told you is what our view is. But ENTITY, do you see the contradiction -- Will the President pledge not to pardon Lewis Libby? I am not going to discuss an ongoing legal proceeding, and I am not going to -- No, I am not going to speculate about any matters relating to it. I was asked this question last week, and that is -- I am just not going to speculate about things at this point. So if he is interested in seeing the legal process continue, that means he will not pardon him, is that correct? That would interrupt the legal proceeding. that is going on relating to that individual. And we are not going to comment on it while it is continuing. And I am not going to -- certainly not going to speculate about it, as well. Should we take that to mean it remains a possibility? It should mean exactly what I said. ENTITY, before my question, I would like to thank the President and Mr. Andy Card for -- at the White House -- --. My question is that we do not know when the immigration law pending in the Congress will be through, but at this time, trafficking problem is a big one, especially the -- That is a high priority for this President to stop the trafficking in persons.


especially from South Asia, and now India Globe is working a story on a woman from Bangladesh. They bring them here, and then they will not give them a green card and citizenship and work. And then they exploit them and rape them and use them. And then these women have nowhere to go, and they seek help from -- what they should do because there is no one to help them out. And then Immigration have them deported -- they said you have no legal citizen here. What the President is going to do -- Well, the President has made preventing the trafficking in persons a high priority, particularly trafficking that is involving sex crimes. That is something that he has talked about at the United Nations. It is an issue -- the trafficking in persons is an issue that he talked about just the other day when we were in Brazil, and the President was participating in a roundtable with some young professionals. And one of those persons was someone who worked for an organization that was committed to doing what they can to stop the trafficking in persons. It is not only the sex trafficking, it is also the trafficking in persons that are seeking to come to our country illegally, simply to provide a better way of life for their families back home, their children, because they know that they might be able to provide a better opportunity for their families back home by coming here to the United States. And you have these coyotes, as the President has talked about, who illegally smuggle people into this country. That is something that we are focused on when it comes to enforcing our borders. That is why one of the President's top priorities on his agenda is taking steps to strengthen our border enforcement and to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform, because people have lost their lives needlessly and we have got to do more to enforce our borders, as well as to move forward on other initiatives to improve our immigration system. We need a more practical and realistic immigration system to address these problems. At that meeting at Camp David, the President, Harriet Miers and Andrew Card talked about steps that would be taken -- does that mean there is going to be something in addition to the ethics -- No, he was -- thank you for the opportunity to talk further about that. What the President directed them to do at Camp David was to move forward on the action that is taking place this week and next week, as well.


If you are asking me to limit the President's ability to make decisions that he deems are appropriate, I am not going to do that. But this is the action that directed to be taken last week at Camp David. ENTITY, is anyone in the White House exempt from participating in these and -- It is mandatory for all White House staff. That is who it is for. All White House staff is required to participate in these sessions. ENTITY, if that is a refresher course, the initial time that they took this class, was there any kind of statement that people had to sign saying they understood what they had been trained or taught -- Well, when you go through the clearance process to receive classified clearances, or security clearances, you have to sign information and you go through detailed briefings. And is there a portion in this training that says there are consequences if you do not follow the rules, if you do not follow these procedures -- As I indicated at the beginning, everybody at the White House understands what is expected of them. And they acknowledge that in a statement? No, I am not going to get into talking about everything that has to be signed when you go through a classified briefing on security clearances. But you do have to sign forms when you attend those briefings. Saying that you understand the rules and the regulations, and that type of thing, and the training -- that you have taken this training and you understand the consequences? Well, this is relating to classified security clearances, and that is all I will say on it, and it is what I just said. First of all, on the Australian arrests, has the U.S. coordinated with them, and is this as a result of Australia's cooperation with the United States? That is something that you ought to direct to Australian authorities. They have talked about it and you can check with our law enforcement authorities to see if there is any additional information. I will be glad to check on that, as well. Are you pleased with Australia's actions? Do you have any comment? Well, they are a good partner in the global war on terrorism, and they have been pursuing individuals who seek to do harm to their citizens. And they have announced some of the steps that they have taken and some of the results of those steps. I do not have any additional information on it at this point, other than what they have said publicly, Connie.


On the French riots, do you have any message for the French, and for Europe, in general, in light of these riots? And should Americans be encouraged to go to France and other countries which might -- Well, Americans should always look to the guidance put out by our State Department in terms of travel, wherever they are traveling. It provides information regarding any security precautions or warnings that they should heed. And beyond that, you ought to talk to France about the steps they are taking to address that. ENTITY, the President was asked about an apology to the Wilson family, and he did not answer it. And if -- I am wondering if that non-answer goes to the fact that an apology would be under review right now from the administration. It goes to the fact that there is an ongoing investigation and legal proceeding, and we are not going to have any further discussion of it while it is ongoing. So are you saying an apology would compromise the investigation? I do not know how I could make it more clear, in terms of our response to questions relating to an ongoing investigation. You said that Chief of Staff and the White House Counsel were involved in planning the ethics classes. Karl is a pretty hands-on guy; how involved was he in the planning -- The Counsel's Office is the one that is responsible for conducting these ethics briefings. Richard Painter is our ethics counsel, and he is the one that conducts these briefings. So he was not involved at all in setting it up, as Andy Card was? No, this was the President talking with Andy Card and Harriet Miers at Camp David, not this last weekend, but the weekend before. So then you talk about having them in light of circumstances, is that a tacit acknowledgment that classified information has, in fact, been leaked? It was the way I described it. You said that we can direct questions to the Vice President's Office and, presumably, the Vice President is operating with the full knowledge of the President, in terms of lobbying to get an exemption for the CIA. What ENTITY was asking earlier was the exemption for torture, and that is just a flat-out false characterization. the question was -- -- the President has already made it clear that we do not torture and we do not tolerate torture.


In fact, if you look at -- let us go back and just step back from this and let us look at some of what has happened that has put a stain on the image of the United States abroad. And that was what happened at Abu Ghraib. Well, what our military has done is acted to hold people accountable for their conduct, and to take steps to prevent something like that from happening again. They went through some 12 major investigations or reviews and looked at these issues. And now they have been implementing steps to prevent something like that from ever happening again. Now, I welcome an opportunity to talk about this -- uninterrupted, I might add -- to talk about the importance of what we are working to do in the global war on terrorism. And the American people I think ought to hear what we are working to do, because the President takes very seriously his responsibility to do all that he can to protect them. Hang on, I am coming to your question. We saw what happened on September 11th, when some 3,000 innocent men, women and children were killed in New York, in Washington and in the fields of Pennsylvania. The President made a decision on that day that we were going to go on the offensive, that we were going to use all available tools to bring to justice those who seek to do us harm before they could carry out their attacks. And he also made a commitment to work to change the status quo in the Middle East by spreading freedom. For too long we thought we had stability and peace in the Middle East, and we got neither. It became a breeding ground for terrorism. And that is why it is so important what we are working to achieve in the broader Middle East. That is why it is so important that we succeed in Iraq, because Iraq will be an example to the rest of the Middle East, just like Afghanistan is, in terms of that. And in terms of what Congress is considering -- or, at least the Senate, in terms of this amendment -- the President answered this question just the other day. He talked about how we would continue to work with members of Congress to address this issue. What is the White House -- -- there are already laws on the books, but not only laws, they are also values that we very much adhere to. But we have an obligation to the American people -- How do values blend with what you said earlier, which is what is necessary ?


If what is necessary needs to be done, does that -- does what is necessary necessarily fit in with our values? What is necessary within our laws and within our values. So that means not torture -- You bet, the President is going to act to do what he can to prevent an attack from happening on the American people. That is what the American people expect. But we are going to do so consistent with our laws and values, and we have made that repeatedly clear. So what is the Vice President lobbying for? And is he doing it on behalf of the White House, or is he operating independently? Again, I just said we are going to continue to work with Congress. Why do not you answer the one question on exemption? Does the Vice President's Office have -- I mean, you blanket -- covered the White House. The Vice President's Office is under the Office of the White House. I am not going to get into all the discussions we have with members of Congress. If they want to add additional information, you are welcome to contact their office, as well. You are at that podium. We need to hear from you. are the Press Secretary for all -- There is a statement of administration policy that has been put out. And -- but let us talk about what this issue is relating to. This issue is relating to the protection of the American people and making sure that the President of the United States has the tools he needs to be able to prevent attacks from happening, and to be able to stop those terrorists who still seek to do us harm from carrying out their attacks in the first place. the Vice President wants torture? What is the Vice President doing? I just told you. I am not going to let you -- you are mischaracterizing what this is about. It is clearly in the statement of administration policy. April, look, you can keep showboating for the cameras, but we have made clear what our views are. Thank you -- I showboat well, thank you -- Let us be honest about it. I want an honest answer from you. And you got it in the statement of administration policy. You got it in the statement of administration policy. There are already laws on the books that cover these issues. I will be glad to provide it to you. And I just told you what it is. I just told you what it is.


ENTITY, the Department of Defense is revising -- ENTITY, the Department of Defense is revising its policy guidelines for the treatment of detainees for the war on terror -- Vice President Cheney's office, his senior staff, had advised the uniform military lawyers working on this document that the White House is opposed to including any reference to Geneva Convention terms for humane treatment of detainees. Vice President Cheney's spokeswoman told us last week that that -- that the Vice President is pursuing the President's policy in holding that -- I do not think -- who told you the first part of this? Let us talk about where that came from, first of all. Well, the -- what are you talking about? The Vice President's office I do not think told you that first part of that, and you made it sound like the first part of that was from the Vice President's office. I do not think they told you that. Well, you are declaring that as fact. published reports in The New York Times and The Washington Post -- we are reporting, as well. So the question is, what is the President's view with respect to this Department of Defense policy guideline on the treatment of -- We have great confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld and the Department of Defense to move forward on steps to prevent something like what happened at Abu Ghraib from happening again. And that is what this comes out of, because, as I pointed out earlier, the Department of Defense undertook some 12 major investigations and reviews -- and/or reviews. They also pursued a number of cases against individuals who were responsible for these abuses, and they pursued people and held them to account. That is what the United States does. And that is the way we show the world what we are all about. We are about values and laws, and about adhering to those values and laws. And that is what we will continue to do. So they have taken steps, and are continuing to take steps, to put in place some policy directives that will build upon what they already had in place. Is the President opposed to any reference to Geneva Convention or adherence to the Geneva Convention, directly, in this Department of Defense policy guideline? Well, in terms of the guidelines, those are guidelines that the Department of Defense will issue. And so I'd encourage you to talk further with them about that.


Anytime there is something like this, there is an interagency process that goes on, and a number of people are involved in providing input into that process. That is part of the interagency process; that is a healthy part of being able to come to these decisions. And so that is what you are talking about. The President has no view? We support the action that the Department of Defense has taken, and have great confidence in the steps that they are taking to address these matters. In terms of views that we express, we do that through the interagency process. Reuters, AP, and The Los Angeles Times all reported yesterday that the IRS has threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California, because its retired rector, George Regas, implied to parishioners before the 2004 election that Jesus would not have voted for George W. Bush. Is it possible that the President supports any such attempt to muzzle the pulpit? I do not think the President gets involved in decisions that are made by churches. Since President Bush supports the creation of a separate Palestinian state to halt Muslim violence in Israel, will he now back the creation of an autonomous Paris-stinian state to quell violence in France? The President has made very clear what his view is when it comes to the Middle East peace process. And he was the first President to articulate a policy of two states living side-by-side in peace and security. We are making great progress there. In terms of what is going on in France, you need to talk to the French government on how they are working to address those matters. That is a matter -- internal matter to France. Senator Grassley has come up with the idea that even though the administration is opposed to windfall profit tax, that major oil corporations voluntarily hand over 10 percent of their vast oil profits to help pay for -- to help direct this money toward low-income housing, or home fuel heating expenses. there are some congressional leaders who have talked about the importance of investing in our energy infrastructure. That is a goal that the President shares. We all have a responsibility to do our part. That means the federal government, it means businesses, and it means consumers. We need to do more to invest in our energy infrastructure and address the root causes of high energy prices. Now, energy prices have come down some in recent weeks, but there is action that we need to continue to take.


That is why we acted with Congress to pass a comprehensive national energy strategy. That is why we are working with Congress to look at ways we might be able to expand refining capacity. And the private sector has a role to play in all this, too. And all of us need to do our part. Would that include the private sector having some responsibility in helping to alleviate the cost of home heating? What you are talking about -- in terms of the goal that members of Congress are talking about, which is that we need to do more to invest in our energy infrastructure, that is a goal we share. And we are going to continue to work with them, and we are going to continue to urge all people, in the private sector and in government, to do their part to help address this issue. And Secretary Bodman spoke some about this last week. With respect to the ethics classes that are being conducted, do they address the grounds for dismissal? And the reason I ask that is because, as you know, the President changed the ground rules on the grounds of dismissal by saying initially that those involved will be dismissed, and then later saying, only those that are convicted will be dismissed. Does that mean that -- Everybody at the White House serves at the pleasure of the President. And I have made that very clear to you. So I would not agree with your characterization. Do you ever say to yourself, I have had enough of this, Austin is really nice this time of year? I am glad to help the President implement his optimistic agenda for the American people. And I enjoy working with the people in this room most of the time. How about today? Sure, I enjoy it because -- an important topic was raised at the beginning of this briefing, and I am glad to talk about it. And I understand that. They are just trying to do their job. But there are important -- there are important points that need to be made to the American people. There is a reminder that we will continue to make to the American people. We remain a country that is engaged in a global war on terrorism. And it is important that we do everything within our power to go after those who seek to do us harm and to prevent attacks from happening in the first place. And this President will do that. But he will do so in a way that is consistent with our laws and our values.


But when we are talking about this issue, let us have an open discussion about it, and let us talk about the type of people that we are talking about who have been brought to justice, people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, people like Binalshibh. These are people that were operational planners involved in carrying out attacks that led to the death of some 3,000 Americans. And the President is determined to prevent something like that from ever happening again. And he is going to do his part to make sure he fulfills the obligation he has to the American people, which is to do everything he can to protect them. So I welcome the discussion. ENTITY, who would be the highest ranking staffer whose attendance is required at these briefings? Yes. He is an assistant to the President. He participated in the meeting this morning, absolutely. In fact, I think a number of assistants to the President participated in the first meeting, even though it was for A through B. And I think C through D was later, and E and F later, and then more over the next couple of days. So they cut one? But all the assistants to the President were ones -- Would you make Richard Painter available to us? Would you make Richard Painter available to us? Well, he is conducting these briefings for staff. This is relating to classified information, so you can understand the nature of the briefings, and I do not think you have security clearance. But he could tell us what the guidelines are for what people are -- He is not talking about classified information in the briefing. Well, we will be glad to provide you public information that is on general information guidelines. But information related to classified security briefings, some of that information, by nature, is involved just for people with security clearances. And I am not aware that you have one at this point. He is not talking about classified information in the briefing. He is talking about the guidelines. He is talking about guidelines. No, it involves talking about classified matters -- You may have noticed that The Washington Post, The Financial Times have had reports about a human rights lawyer in Beijing whose office was forced to close down because he wrote an open letter to the Chinese leader asking them to stop the persecution of Falun Gong spiritual movement in China. Since President Bush is going to Asia next week, do you think this is some issue he will address? Well, the President had some interviews earlier today.


I would encourage you to look at those interviews because one of the topics he talked about was human rights. That is something we talk about publicly and privately as a high priority for this President. We have always made the promotion of human rights and human dignity at the top -- always put it at the top of our agenda. And that is what we will continue to do. And, yes, the President will continue to talk openly and candidly with leaders he meets with, including when he goes to China, about the importance of freedom of religion for instance. Tomorrow the President and Mrs. Bush look forward to welcoming His Holiness the Dalai Lama to the White House. He is met with him on a number of occasions before, and they will talk about issues relating to Tibet. And you bet when the President goes to Asia next week, he will continue to talk about the importance of promoting human rights and human dignity for all. We have an obligation -- all of us in the world have an obligation to speak out about human rights. And where those human rights are being undermined, we have a right to speak out about them in places that the -- in countries that the President has talked about before. One question he got earlier today was relating to North Korea and the treatment of people in North Korea. And he talked about that at length. There are negotiations underway today to further liberalize the Open Skies agreement between Canada and the United States, essentially the fifth freedom which would allow, in this case, Canadian airlines to compete for the lucrative domestic international market. Considering the state of the American airlines, five now seeking bankruptcy protection, does the President believe that this is the right time to open up this market to -- That is something we continue to discuss with Canada. I do not have the latest update on any of those discussions. We have been in South America for the last few days focused on some other matters. But I am sure that if you direct those questions to the appropriate agency, they can provide you an update, in terms of that. But in general terms, considering the state of the American airline industry right now, does the President believe that it is a good time to start changing -- Well, the American airline industry is going through a transition. They have been going through that transition for some time because of the changing economy that we live in, and the changing nature of their business.


It is ENTITY with ENTITY. I have been dancing a little bit, ad-libbing for an hour and a half, but I know you are a busy man. I owe you one. You know what I could use, a hug right now is what I could use. If I could give you one of those, I'd do that, too. I asked the callers to give me some suggestions for you. And do I have to call you ENTITY? In all respect, it is a very personable show. Can I call you something that-- Call me whatever you want. No, you tell me what to call you. I want it to be comfortable here, because, ENTITY, that puts me at a disadvantage, asking you sports questions. You do not have to call me anything. Could I call you ENTITY? You can call me whatever you want. It is fine with me. What are you doing with all those jerseys that you get when teams come to the White House? Believe it or not, I save them all because I am such a big sports fan. And when I get out of here, I am going to put them all together and decide whether to either display them or take turns wearing them. But I actually save them all. Have you put one on in the White House and maybe, you know, tossed a football or played basketball in them? Yes, I played-I shot a few baskets with a Kentucky jersey they gave me the other day, not very long ago. Now, what is the one event you would want to go to that you have not been to, sporting-wise? That I have never been to? I'd like to go to a Super Bowl, and I'd like to go to a college championship, now that the new football system is in. You have not been to the Super Bowl? I have watched a lot of them, but I have never been to one. You can come with ESPN this year; it is in Atlanta. You know, I have seen some great events. I went to the NCAA championship game in Arkansas, one in '94, and that is the only time I have ever been to that. And then I went to-I saw the women's World Cup finals this year when we beat China with the overtime, with the kickoff at the end, which was stunning. It was one of the most exciting athletic events I have ever seen in my life.

Interview With Dan Patrick of ESPN Radio


Set the scene in the White House when you are watching SportsCenter. When I am watching it? Well, I watch it all the time, you know. I am either in the kitchen, where Hillary and I and Chelsea, when she is home, we have our meals in a very informal atmosphere in the kitchen when there is no one else there, or I am upstairs in what is called the Solarium; it is up on the third floor, and it is a big kind of sunny room. And I watch TV there at night, especially when my brotherin-law or someone else is staying with us. Normally, I am watching SportsCenter either around dinnertime when I come in or late at night when I come in from an event and I am sitting, visiting with other people. Have I said anything stupid on SportsCenter that maybe you wanted to criticize or critique me? Feel free; you can take a shot at me. I think as long as I am in office, I should be criticized but not return the favor. Everybody in America gets to criticize ENTITY. That is part of the privilege of being a citizen. The President of the United States, joining us on the ENTITY Show here on ESPN Radio. You are a part of this new markets incentives. I know you are in New Jersey. The Nets are donating to the city of Newark, which I think is great. Do you see teams that do not give back to the community enough? The taxpayers build these stadiums, and maybe they do not get something in return for promoting and supporting their teams. Well, let me put it in more positive terms with regard to the Nets. I think that taxpayers finance these things because they enjoy having professional teams in their communities, because they believe it brings their communities some prestige, and because they think it generates a lot of other economic activity. But I think that the opportunity for a professional sports team to give something back to the community on a scale far greater than anything that is happened so far is embodied by what the Nets are doing. I mean, this is a stunning thing that Lew Katz and Ray Chambers are doing with the Nets. And now, you know, they are partners with the Yankees, and so they have got a smaller percentage of the overall joint operations are going into community operations not only in Newark, New Jersey, but also in the Bronx, where the Yankees are.


Here are these two guys that have made a lot of money, and they are going to dedicate almost 40 percent of the profits of this sports franchise to redeveloping the economy and developing the lives of the children of Newark. We finance these stadiums. Should taxpayers finance the stadiums if we do not have any say on when those teams can leave? The practical answer to that is that stadiums cannot be financed unless the political leaders support it. And so the political leaders should decide on the front end, I guess, what they expect out of the teams in return for financing the stadium. You know, it was interesting when Bob Lanier was mayor of Houston-one of the most popular mayors Houston ever had and a very able man- he let the football team go to Tennessee because he did not want to finance a new stadium. So it is not like-nobody makes these communities do these things. They make their decisions. And I think if they think there ought to be some conditions or some requirements, that ought to be discussed with the owners in advance. We are going to have Casey Martin on in a little bit. But you being the avid golfer that you are, do you think that having a golf cart is that much of an advantage in-I mean, the outcry over Casey Martin using a golf cart, did it surprise you? And where do you stand on that issue? I am for him. I am solidly behind him. The only way it would be an advantage to him, in my view, is if he really did not have the debilitating condition in his legs that he has. So I think that to me, this is like the golf version of the Americans with Disabilities Act, you know, where we try to make the workplace accessible with people with disabilities who are otherwise just as good at work as all the rest of us. Well, Casey is just as good at golf and better than most of the rest of us, and he is got this condition, which will probably shorten his career, anyway. And so I think that the proper course is to say, Look, we cannot let everybody start running around the golf course. We do not want to change the nature of the game, but this man has a unique disability which prohibits his walking around but does not prevent him from being a terrific golfer, and for however many years he can be competitive, we think we ought to give him a chance.


I agree with you, and I just thought that it was interesting, the outcry from everybody. What they are worried about, I think, is all the people who have to be the keepers of the tradition of any game or any club or anything else, they are always afraid that when they change any rules, it is a slippery slope, and pretty soon the whole character of a contest will be altered in ways that are not good. But I just do not think that that objection holds water here. I do not know Casey Martin. I have had some limited contact with him, but he seems like a terrific young man. He could have folded his tent in the face of his physical disability. He could have sat around feeling sorry for himself. And instead, he shows up every day, and he is obviously got a lot of courage. And I think that we ought to support that. I think that is in the finest tradition of the sport. So to me, it is not a difficult question. But I sympathize with the people who have the responsibility of preserving the traditions and the heritage of the game. I sympathize with them, but I just think all this resistance has been wrong. Can I ask you one final question, aside from the question I just asked you? Who is the number one athlete of all time, in your mind? The Sports Century countdown of the top 50 athletes-who would you vote for number one? Now, I know you released kind of a top 10; maybe it was a top 5. But if you were going to single out one athlete, who would it be? I believe the athlete in the 20th century that made the most important contribution was Jesse Owens, because he won the multiple Olympic gold medals in the face of Nazi Germany and against Hitler's racial theories. So I think he was both a great athlete who had to show an extraordinary amount of personal courage, and he did something that was of profound significance at the time. I think the most talented-physically talented athlete that I ever saw play, I think it would be a toss-up for me between Michael Jordan and Willie Mays. Once you get up to that stratosphere, then if you pick out somebody and-I always thought Jackie Robinson, to me, signified greatness as an athlete and what he overcame.


So there is no secret that you were a jet pilot, so how would you describe, in a couple of sentences, where is Latvia on your radar? Latvia is a country that has made a big difference in important alliances to the United States, like NATO. I remember when the moment came when the countries-the new countries admitted to NATO came into the room that I was sitting in, and I turned to the person I was sitting next to and said, It is going to be so important for NATO to have these fresh-these new countries, because they bring a fresh outlook to freedom. These are people that have recently lived under, in this case, communism and realized what it means to be free, and it is going to be very important. And so Latvia is very high on my radar screen. Well, first of all, she is a straightforward person. I like straightforward people. You know, sometimes in politics you get people who say one thing and do not mean it. When she tells me something, she means it. She is very engaging and-very intelligent woman, and I admire her courage. And so I am fond of her. You are good friends with President Putin of Russia. Do you think you could encourage him to admit historical justice and admit the fact that Baltic States were occupied in 1940? Well, yes, I have talked to him about this issue when I was in Slovakia. I said, Do you understand, friend, that you have got problems in the Baltics? You have got problems with Latvia because people do not like-the remembrances of the time of communism are unpleasant remembrances, and you need to work with these young democracies. I explained to him that it is best that there be democracies on his border, free countries, because free countries do not attack people; free countries listen to the hopes and aspirations of people. I do not know if I have made any progress with him or not, but I have made my position clear. I understand there is a lot of people in the Baltics who are-you know, do not view the celebration in Russia as a day of liberation. Frankly, it is the beginning of a difficult period, and I can understand why some leaders of countries are not going and some others are. That is a decision each leader must make, and I respect the decision of each leader. But I am going to continue to speak very forcefully on freedom and liberty, and the Baltics are a great example of free countries.

George W. Bush Interview With Latvian Television


But you are pretty certain that Russia is at least on the right path of development, and it does not pose any threat to its smaller neighbors? And one of the reasons a relationship with the United States and Latvia is important is, is that we will stand with Latvia if a larger country tries to intimidate the people. That is the great thing about Latvia joining NATO, is that the security is now guaranteed by not only the United States but all members of NATO. Listen, the President and I speak about relations between Russia and Latvia quite frequently. And my job at times is to send a message that says, Look, treat your neighbors with respect. Free nations, democracies on your border are good for you, whether that be, by the way, in the Baltics or in Ukraine. I have sent that same message-or Georgia. In other words, countries that are free countries are countries that will be good neighbors. What can we do about Belarus, because a couple of hundred miles from where you are going to be visiting there sits the last dictator of Europe. What can we do about it? The last dictator of Europe is right, and we will continue to pressure Belarus and call upon the world, the rest of the world, the free world-not the whole world but the free world-to work to give the people of Belarus a chance to live in a free society. When I was in Slovakia I met with people of the freedom movement. I know when Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, was in your part of the world, she met with leaders of the freedom movement too. President Putin must understand that a free Belarus is in his country's interest. The sentiment of anti-Americanism, as I am sure you know, is quite widespread in Europe and in my country as well. Do you think there is any degree of your own fault in the fact that this sentiment is on the rise or-- I made some hard decisions. You know, going into Iraq was a hard decision. I can understand people not liking that. But I would hope people in Europe would understand that freedom is not owned only by Europeans, that people around the world deserve to be free. And as we act in our self-interest to fight terrorists, as we work to make sure terrorists cannot get weapons of mass destruction to cause great harm, that we will also work to free people.


ENTITY, your meeting with Mr. Gorbachev is only 3 weeks away now; everyone regards it as crucial. What do you hope, personally, to get out of the summit with Mr. Gorbachev? Well, I think that the most that we could get out is if we could eliminate some of the paranoia, if we could reduce the hostility, the suspicion that keeps our two countries particularly but basically, should we say, the Warsaw bloc and the West at odds with each other. And while I know everyone is looking toward and emphasizing a reduction in arms this is vital and important, but I see reduction in arms as a result, not a cause. If we can reduce those suspicions between our two countries, the reduction of arms will easily follow because we will reduce the feeling that we need them. Shultz is off to Moscow on Saturday to do the groundwork for this summit fully aware, as he himself admits, that there are major differences between the United States and Russia. Apart from the paranoia which you talked about, what are those differences as you see them? Here are two systems so diametrically opposed that-I am no linguist, but I have been told that in the Russian language there is not even a word for freedom. And two nations everyone's referring to as the superpowers obviously are competitive and our philosophies and our ideas on the world and that probably cannot be corrected, but we can have a peaceful competition. We have to live in the world together. There is no sense in believing that we must go on with the threat of a nuclear war hanging over the world because of our disagreements. We do not like their system; they do not like ours, but we are not out to change theirs. I do feel sometimes they are out to change ours but if we could get along. They have a system of totalitarian government and rule of their people; we have one in which we believe the people rule the government. And there is not any reason why we cannot coexist in the world. Where there are legitimate areas of competition, compete; but do it in a manner that recognizes that neither one of us should be a threat to the other. When Mr. Shultz talks to Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Shevardnadze, what will be the topics of discussion? Will it be trying to find some groundwork, for example, on arms control and reduction?

Interview With Brian Widlake of the British Broadcasting Corporation


No, I would think that probably the main point in their meeting ahead of the major meeting is to establish an agenda. In other words, Secretary Shultz would tell them the things that we feel are important to be discussed. Minister Shevardnadze will probably have a list of things that are on their agenda, so that we can plan and neither one of us be caught by surprise at the summit with having a subject come up that had not even been considered. So, I think that this is probably the main, useful purpose that will be served by their getting together. Is there any chance at all that the discussions Mr. Shultz has in Moscow might enable you to produce an initiative before you go to Geneva? Right now we are in the position of studying what we call a counterproposal. In Geneva, where our arms control delegations are meeting and have been meeting for a long time, we have had a proposal for a reduction of nuclear weapons. Now, for the first time, the Soviet Union has made a counterproposal. We have put that in the hands of our people in Geneva now for them to look at; we ourselves are studying it. There are some elements in there that are well, we have called them seeds to nurture, things that we look at and say, Yes, these could very easily be acceptable. At the same time, in their proposal there are some things that we believe are so disadvantageous to us that they should be negotiated and some changes made. And with all of this going on, I am not in a position to say now at what point will we make our reply to their counteroffer and state where we are or where we differ and so forth, and then, that should be the area in which negotiations would take place. Now, whether that does not happen prior to the summit meeting or whether our team in Geneva tables it before they adjourn for their recess that is coming up, that I cannot answer; that still remains to be seen. But I must tell you, ENTITY, that Mrs. Thatcher has already told the leader of the opposition and she said this today in the House of Commons-that you were going to come up with an initiative before Geneva. Well, I am personally hopeful of that, also. So, she is right that that is what we are striving to do.


Now, can we look at some of the things which obviously are going to affect Geneva, but particularly I'd like to talk to you about the Strategic Defense Initiative and how important that is going to be. Can anything be achieved in Geneva without some understanding from both sides in this area? Probably not, but I think there can be an understanding when they hear what we have in mind. I believe that this is something that is probably one of the most momentous things in a century. We have a team that, within the terms of the ABM treaty, is researching to see if there is a defensive weapon, the possibility of a defensive weapon that could intercept missiles before they reach their target, instead of having a deterrent to war, as we have now, which is both sides with massive weapons of destruction nuclear missiles and the only thing deterring war is the threat we represent to each other of killing millions and millions of citizens on both sides. Now, if we can come up with a defensive weapon, then, we reach and we know that we have it, that it is there, that it is practical, that it will work then, my idea is that we go to the world, we go to our allies, we go to the Soviet Union, and we say, Look, we are not going to just start deploying this at the same time we maintain a nuclear arsenal. We think this weapon, this defensive weapon we would like to make available, and let us have the world have this for their own protection so that we can all eliminate our nuclear arsenals. And the only reason, then, for having the defensive weapon would be, because since everyone in the world knows how to make one, a nuclear weapon we would all be protected in case some madman, some day down along the line, secretly sets out to produce some with the idea of blackmailing the world, and the world would not be blackmailed because we would all be sitting here with that defense. I have likened it to what happened in 1925, after World War I all the nations got together and outlawed poison gas, but everybody kept their gas masks. So, we would have a world with some nuclear gas masks, and we could sleep at night without thinking that someone could bring this great menace of the nuclear threat against us. When you say, ENTITY, you'd go to the world once you had proved satisfactory to yourself that here was a weapon which would actually work. If you go to the world, would you include Russia in that?


I think that what could be safer than today everything is offensive weapons. It is the only weapon I know of that is ever been developed in history that has not brought about a defense against it. But what would be safer than if the two great superpowers, the two that have the great arsenals both of us sat there with defensive weapons that ensured our safety against the nuclear weapons and both of us eliminated our nuclear missiles. But the Russians, presumably, would have to make their own SDI. You would not offer it to them, would you, off the shelf? And I think this is something to be discussed at the summit as to what kind of an agreement we could make in the event. I would like to say to the Soviet Union, we know you have been researching for this same thing longer than we have. We wish you well. There could not be anything better than if both of us came up with it. But if only one of us does, then, why do not we, instead of using it as an offensive means of having a first strike against anyone else in the world, why do not we use it to ensure that there will not be any nuclear strikes? Are you saying then, ENTITY, that the United States, if it were well down the road towards a proper SDI program, would be prepared to share its technology with Soviet Russia, provided, of course, there were arms reductions and so on on both sides? In other words, we would switch to defense instead of offense. That, of course, is quite a long way away this idealistic world of yours, if I may say so. We have had some good breakthroughs in our research so far. And is the research going so well as to suggest to you that a defensive weapon of this kind is really practical now? As a matter of fact, very leading scientists who are involved in this have said that, that they can foresee us achieving this weapon. Oh, I think we are talking a matter of years. Let us say, though, this is not going to come about, as you say, for a matter of years. And Mr. Gorbachev, as we all know, is very worried about SDI. Would you be prepared to negotiate on SDI at Geneva? Well, negotiate in the sense of coming to an agreement, which we are bound by in the future for whenever that weapon happens bound to this matter of worldwide sharing.


Gorbachev, I think, accepts the idea that you could do nothing about research because it is not really verifiable; testing, on the other hand, worries him. Now, does testing, in your view, come within the ARM treaty? I think that we are well within it and within a strict adherence to the treaty, although you could have a more liberal interpretation of the treaty that I believe is justified. But rather than have any debate or argument about that, we are staying within the strict limits of the treaty. Do you think the SDI is likely to be a stumbling block at Geneva, bearing in mind what Mr. Gorbachev thinks about it, these reservations? I think it should be one of the most helpful things in erasing some of that paranoia I mentioned or that hostility or suspicions between us. You have a horror of nuclear weapons and that is why you say that SDI is a good thing. If we had SDI worldwide, would there still be nuclear weapons available? I would not see any need for them at all. I would not know why a nation would strap itself to invest in them. But, as I say, there is always the possibility of a madman coming along, and, as I say, you cannot eliminate the knowledge about building those weapons who might seize upon them. We have had an experience in our lifetime of a madman in the world who caused great tragedy worldwide. ENTITY, can we turn now to some of the things you said in your U.N. speech? One of the central themes you brought up there concerned those areas of regional conflict, such as Afghanistan, in which the Soviets have a hand. Are you going to bring these up with Mr. Gorbachev? Well, I would think that this is very much a part of trying to rid the world of the suspicions. They claim that they fear that we of the Western World threaten them, that somehow we are lying here in wait for a day when we can eliminate their method of government and so forth. If you look back to the end of World War II, our country, for example, absolutely undamaged we had not had our industries destroyed through bombings and so forth-and we were the only nation with the bomb, the nuclear weapon. We could have dictated to the world; we did not . And today those erstwhile enemies are our staunchest allies in the NATO alliance.


They, on the other hand, have created-well, they have gone through the biggest military buildup in the history of man, and it is basically offensive. Now, we, therefore, claim we have got some right to believe that we are threatened; not the other way around. Now, to eliminate that suspicion or that fear, if they really want to live in a peaceful world and be friends and associate with the rest of the world, then, we need more than words. And the deeds could be the stopping of their attempt to either themselves or through proxies and through subversion to force their system on other countries throughout the world.  Do you think you were being a bit optimistic in your U.N. speech? You proposed the idea that these areas of regional conflict should be discussed. But, of course, you took them much further than that. What you actually said they should be discussed up to the point when they are just eliminated. Now, do you think you are being optimistic when you recognize the fact that the fellow sitting opposite you is Mr. Gorbachev, and he is tied up in these things. But on the other hand, he has some practical problems in his own country, some problems of how long can they sustain an economy that provides for their people under the terrific cost of building up and pursuing this expansionist policy and this great military buildup. And if we can show him that he can resolve those economic problems with no danger to themselves, convince him that we represent no threat, then I could see us as I have said before, we do not like each other's systems, maybe we do not like each other; but we are the only two nations that can probably cause a world war. We are also the only two nations that can prevent one. Will you want to talk to him about human rights? You have probably heard that Mrs. Yelena Bonner has just been granted a visa to come to the West so she can get medical treatment, but she will have to go back to Russia, of course. Do you see that as a propaganda move by the Russians? Or is it a step along the road? I would like to feel it is a step along the road, and there needs to be more. I do not think, however, that the human rights thing should be a kind of a public discussion and accusing fingers being pointed at each other and their claim that this is an internal matter with them.


But I think it should be explained that some of these violations well, first of all is the violation of the Helsinki pact. This was one of the main reasons why we are signatories to that pact is this agreement about not separating families and so forth, allowing people freedom to choose. What they have to understand is that in some of the major areas where we could seek agreement, we have a better chance in our type of society of getting the approval that we need from our Congress, from our people of some of these agreements if these issues, these human rights problems are not standing in the way. And maybe I can point that out. ENTITY, there have been fears expressed in Europe that arms control will be pushed right down the agenda at Geneva in favor of issues like regional conflict and human rights, which we have been discussing. Can you give an assurance that that is not the case? But, as I have said, that follows another thing. The effort is to arrive at an understanding about our ability to live in the world together and at peace and the other that can follow. Nations are not suspicious of each other because of their arms. There is a feeling, ENTITY, that Mr. Gorbachev has seized the initiative in Europe. European leaders have undoubtedly been impressed by his performance. Thatcher, as you know, said that he is someone she can do business with. What do you think about it? Well, I do not know him as yet, but he seems to have shown more of an interest in the people, the man in the street, than other Soviet leaders have. He has expressed great concern about the economic problems and the improvements that he feels that should be made there. And he is younger and more energetic than some of the more recent leaders have been. And I am optimistic by nature, but I have to be optimistic that he is looking at the entire picture. On the other hand, I do not think we should believe that he is not dedicated to the principles of their system, to communism and so forth. Do you think he is , in terms of youth, energy, if you like, intelligence, and obviously a powerful grasp of public relations do you think he is a pretty formidable Russian leader to deal with compared with his predecessors? On the public relations thing, he did far better with some of our own press than he did with the French press on his recent visit when he was there. I cannot judge him on that. Sometimes public relations are made by those reporting, not by those doing.


Can I take one or two other areas with you, ENTITY? We know how you handled the Achille Lauro affair, but does that carry the risk of alienating friendly governments? Well, I know, and yet we felt that we had no choice in the matter if we were going to prevent those terrorists from suddenly, as so many in past have, disappearing into the rabbit warrens that abound the Middle East, Lebanon and so forth; and therefore they would escape being brought to justice. They had murdered a man, a helpless individual. We felt we had to do it. But I am pleased to say, now, that I think the flurry is over and that both Egypt and Italy want to continue the warm relationship that we have had. ENTITY, would you do it again, even if it meant, say, violating international law? Well, it actually did not violate international law. But terrorism is always with us. And I think that you'd have to judge each case on its own as to the need to bring terrorists to justice; the need to convince them that terrorism is not going to be successful, it is not going to make governments, like your own or our own, change their policies out of fear of terrorism. If that ever happens, then, the world has gone back to anarchy. So, you would have to judge that against how much you would be violating international law to achieve your goal. But if it was necessary, I take it you would. And you would pursue terrorism as hard as you can, as often as you can? It is been very frustrating for a number of the things that have happened, and I have been taken to task by members of the press that I talked, but I did not take action. The terrorist blows himself up with all the innocent people that he also kills at the same time. So, there is no way you are going to punish him. You now seek to find well, who does he belong to? What group brought this about? But also, even if you do get some intelligence that indicates it is a certain group, they are in some foreign city and you say, Well, how do we punish them without blowing up a neighborhood and killing as many innocent people as they did? And this has been our problem up until this last time when we had a very clear-cut case. ENTITY, this may be a difficult question for you to answer, but what would you most like to be remembered for by history?


The United States economy I remember attending my first economic summit in Ottawa, Canada and that was just in the spring of the year, my first year here and I remember our friends and allies, the heads of state of the other summit nations there, beseeching me to stop exporting our inflation and our recession to their countries in this world of international trade and all that we were exporting bad economic situations to the rest of the world. The Soviet Union again, as I say, through surrogates or on their own-there was Afghanistan, there was Ethiopia, South Yemen, Angola, Nicaragua, and they had forced governments of their choosing into all of those countries. We have the greatest recovery, economic recovery that we have ever had in our history. It is not we who are exporting inflation anymore. Inflation is down from those double-digit figures well, for the last 5 months it is only been 2 1/2 percent, and none of our trading partners can match that . We have created almost 9 million new jobs over these 5 years with our economic recovery. And in the world abroad, the Soviet Union has not stepped in or created a government of its kind in any new country in these 5 years. It is not moved under one additional inch of territory, and I just like to feel that maybe some of the things we did here the American people, their spirit was down, they had heard talks, prior to our arrival, that maybe we should give up our high expectations, that never again could we look toward the future as we had in the past, lower our expectations, and so forth. Today we have a volunteer military, we exceed our enlistment quota every year. We have the highest level of education in the military, in this volunteer military, that we have ever had in our history, even in wartime drafts. The American people have rallied, and with a spirit of voluntarism, voluntarily stepping into problems that once they just let go by and thought somebody in the Government would take care of them. And as I say, the economy last year some 600,000 new businesses were incorporated in our country. I would like to be remembered not for doing all those things I did not do them; the American people did them. All I did was help get government out of their way and restore our belief in the power of the people and that government must be limit ed in its powers and limited in its actions. And that part I helped in I'd like to be remembered for that.


ENTITY, I'd like to start by asking you, you frequently have referred to the tremendous impact that Franklin D. Roosevelt had in reshaping the country, and in your first year, you have made a tremendous impact in starting to reshape the country. And I wondered how you judge your impact in the first year and also what sort of legacy you hope to leave. Well, I believe that we have started government on a different course, different than anything we have done in the last half century since Roosevelt began with the New Deal. And that is the recognition that there must be a limit to government size and power and that there has been a distortion of the relationship between the various echelons of government Federal, State, and local. And I think that we have the most to do with yet, because the higher levels of government are reluctant to give up authority once they have it. History shows that no government has ever voluntarily reduced itself in size. So, in effect, you know, we are part of government. We are trying to bring about that change. Now, this does not mean that we do not recognize government's basic responsibilities, the things it is required to do. And with all of the criticism of national defense, one of the top priorities that is listed constitutionally for the Federal Government is the defense of the Nation, the national security. That prime function has been one that has been sadly neglected in recent years. But I think the very fact that we were successful in getting the biggest single package of budget reductions ever adopted, the single biggest package of tax reductions and ongoing that have ever been adopted, has set us on a course of trying to bring back the idea heralded by all our Founding Fathers, and reiterated so often by leaders in government. It is that government must stay within its means. And we have not achieved that yet. But by cutting the rate of growth in government more than in half or about in half, we are trying to bring those two lines closer together the line of the normal increase in revenues that comes from the tax structure, and the growth of the country and the economy and the normal increase in government spending, which would reflect the growth in the country. Today, you have to add to that inflation has been responsible, because government's expenses go up, too, with inflation, just as the individual's do. Now, I know I am getting very lengthy with this answer, but let me just add one thing. And you were a Democrat once.

Ronald Reagan Interview With Reporters From the Los Angeles Times


The ENTITY, Yes had adopted deliberately a policy of planned inflation. And they heralded it as the New Economics, that was their term. And they said that a little inflation was necessary to create prosperity. And they claimed that it could be controlled, that you could have a small percentage that we could easily absorb, and growth would take care of it and people's earnings would stay ahead of it. And I used to proclaim in my mashed potato appearances that it was like radioactivity, that it was cumulative. And you could not continue it without it one day getting out of control. And one day, it got out of control. So, could you just sum up very quickly, though, what do you hope your legacy will be as ENTITY? I hope my legacy will mean that we restore the balance between the levels of government, meaning that we restore to local and State government functions that are properly theirs and belong there, and restore to them the tax sources necessary to support them, which have been also usurped by the Federal Government; that we set a policy that I would hope could be legally imposed, barring an emergency such as war, that the Federal Government, like the various States, must live within its means. And a policy, before I leave, that we could begin, no matter how small, paying installments on the national debt as a signal to those who will follow, that the national debt is not something that we will either default on, as all other governments in the past have done when it got unmanageable and too big that we'd not default on and that it will not hang over, forever, succeeding generations. Let me just interject there before I ask a question. Would you favor a constitutional convention to propose a balanced budget? Well, constitutional conventions are kind of prescribed as a last resort, because then once it is open, they could take up any number of things. I have always thought that the regular procedure that is prescribed first, of a constitutional amendment Would you like to see Congress pass a constitutional amendment? There must also then be some limitation on the percentage of the people's earnings or the gross national product that the government can take in taxes, because you can always balance your budget just by taking more money away from people. So, that would not help any. I remember once that Milton Friedman said that the problem is the cost of government, not just necessarily the deficit.


And he said he would prefer this was a time when the budgets were approaching $400 billion and so forth he said he would prefer an unbalanced budget of $200 billion to a balanced budget of $400 billion, because 400 would be taking more money from the people than it should. I was going to ask you a question about the balanced budget. We took a poll, and it showed that three times as many people would rather have a balanced budget as increase defense spending or even income tax cuts. And you seem to be moving in a direction where your top priorities are a defense buildup and also tax cuts, and the balanced budget is not quite so high anymore on your priority list. Well, George and without appearing to be personally critical or anything of your profession is not this perhaps a reflection of what is constantly thrown at the public, publicly, that and all of us are responsible. We all talk about the evils of deficit spending, and just as I have finished talking here we want to get back to where we stay within our means. But I also promised all during the campaign and I do not know who took that poll, who they talked to but I remember if you remember, I used to do Q and A an awful lot, and I remember when repeatedly the question would be asked, if the choice came down to restoring our military security or balancing the budget, which side would I come down on? And I said I would come down on the side of restoring our defenses, our national security. And inevitably, I never in fact, I never gave that answer to an audience that I did not get enthusiastic applause. So you feel you have a mandate to do that. But what I do think lately is when you start talking about all the cuts and everything, and then usually the military budget is treated as a swollen thing and out of proportion and so forth actually, it is not . We are spending a smaller percentage of the gross national product on national defense than we used to do years ago in what were considered normal times. But we are playing catch up. We are restoring something that was allowed to diminish and deteriorate. I think that the people hear that, and the people have heard so much about that their troubles are due to the deficit in part they are. It is harder to explain that reducing the tax rates can result in even the government getting more money, that the tax cuts are not just simply to relieve an individual of tax burden.