I think now the economy's still too weak but recovering, and so the question is right now is, what -- building on that, as opposed to just simply trying to stem the bleeding. And I think the experience of the office, as you know -- you know, that helps a lot. And so I think he does have even more sure-footedness in terms of his approach and where he wants to take the country. It also can become a bit of a burden. You know, historians write about this second term curse. And I know you and your team have spent a lot of time studying how to avoid that. Well, I think -- listen, if you look at President Clinton's second term, he made significant progress on balanced budgets, Ronald Reagan accomplished tax reform. So second-term presidents have had success... Even if they are dealing with other problems? We want to continue that. So -- but if you -- look, it is not like we are roaming around the West Wing looking for things to do. I mean, right now, right in front of Congress and the country, you have got the need to reduce the deficit, continue to grow the economy, energy and climate change, immigration, gun safety. And so I think that that is going to provide the sort of focus and energy you need, and I think his -- his intention is to run through the tape all the way through. Gun safety has jumped to the top of the president's agenda since Newtown. And this week, the president promised to put the weight of his office behind these proposals, but we are already seeing a lot of resistance from Democrats. I want to show some of the reaction this week. Before passing new laws, we need a thoughtful debate that respects responsible, law-abiding gun owners in Montana instead of one-size-fits-all directives from Washington. It makes common sense to not have one-size-fits-all. I feel like it is going to be hard for any of these pieces of legislation to pass at this point. What kind of pressure is President Obama going to bring to bear on them? Well, this is a tough issue, as you know, like a lot of them we are dealing this. These are commonsense proposals that respect the rights of gun owners.


And I think if you look at high-capacity magazines, assault weapons, universal background checks, progress we can make on mental health and school safety, all of these things enjoy enormous support of the American people, both Democrats and Republicans. So I think that putting together the legislative coalition is going to be hard, obviously, but we are very confident. I do think things have changed since Newtown. You know, Senator Manchin, for one, other Democrats and Republicans are thinking anew about this issue. But Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, and those senators I just mentioned all signaling that the assault weapons ban is likely not going to get through, and they are likely to vote against it. Will it be a success for the president if, indeed, the assault weapons ban does not pass? The president put forward a package. He is taken some actions on his own on things like mental health and background checks, but legislative proposals that he thinks will protect our kids, help with gun safety. We do not expect it all to pass or in its current form, but we think there is elements of this that are absolutely critical. And I think there is going to be a big spotlight shone on this. I think the American people are paying a lot of attention this debate. And he is going to twist the arms of Democrats? Well, we are going to twist the arms of Democrats, Republicans, and we are going to engage the American people in this debate. And at the very least, we are going to have votes on all these things in the House and Senate. I am confident some of the measures you mentioned -- clips, universal background checks -- I think there are 60 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House that the president would sign. That could be the trade-off, Democratic senators vote against the assault weapons ban, but vote for the magazine clips and for the universal background checks? As you know, you were involved in passing this in '94, and I think that Senator Feinstein's looking at how to improve it and deal with some of the loopholes that were in that legislation. So we think all these things deserve votes. We think a lot of them can -- can pass. You have also bought a little more time perhaps now on the big fiscal issues, taxes and spending. The House Republicans signaling this week that they would approve a three-month extension of the debt limit without any spending cuts. They simply want to have a restriction on congressional pay.

'This Week' Transcript: Obama Senior Adviser David Plouffe


Now, I know the president has said that he did not want to sign any more short-term exceptions. Will he make an exception in this case? Well, we have to see what they are proposing. We have not seen what they are proposing, and they are going to have to pass it. But, no, we do not think short term is the way to go about this. But on the other hand, this is a big departure for them, you know? They were saying, the only way they were going to pay the bills they have racked up is to basically hold the... Yeah, I think they have, on this principle, and that is very important. So, listen, the question is, on the big fundamental issue of, can we come together on a fiscal package that reduces the deficit in the long term and then helps us grow the economy in the short term, I think the answer is yes. We are doing this in stages, as opposed to one big package. So the president likely to accept this, if they do, indeed, pass it. He has said he does not want to negotiate over the debt limit, but if they pass this, there is a breathing space. So will he start negotiations right now on the big budget issues after they pass this? As you know, we made public our offer to Speaker Boehner, over $1 trillion in additional spending cuts, $400 billion in entitlement savings. This is really serious stuff, on top of the over $1 trillion we have already signed into law. So the barrier to progress here is not our position of the president. We have moved more than halfway, which is a fair definition of compromise. And we are going to require some more revenues. John Boehner himself said he thought there was $800 billion in revenue from closing loopholes. We have dealt with the tax rate issue. Now it is about loopholes. And I think the country would be well served by tax and entitlement reform, because it'll help our economy. That is what I was going to ask you, because both the House speaker John Boehner and the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, have said the revenue debate is over, no more taxes. Are you saying that the president will only sign a budget deal if it includes new revenues? And, by the way, they were not saying that a matter of weeks ago.


Remember, Speaker Boehner said $800 billion in revenue from closing loopholes. What is changed in the last four weeks? So there is plenty of loopholes, whether it is people shipping jobs overseas who gets preferential tax treatment, the subsidies to the energy companies, loopholes for, you know, billionaires, there are things we can close here to make our tax system fair... So you are saying no deal if they do not give on taxes? We need balance, ENTITY. We need -- we need spending cuts, entitlement reform, and revenue. We have to have that. Let me also talk about immigration. The president has identified immigration reform as another top priority of his second term. You just mentioned it again. The Republican senator, Marco Rubio, has been taking the lead this week. And Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, had some positive words about his proposals this week. But Marco Rubio said this week -- and he was on Bill O'Reilly's show -- that the president has not reached out to him. And I think during that process, I think there will be discussions that we, the president, the administration has with members of Congress and Congress among themselves. But what is clear is, this -- the stars are aligned for immigration reform. By the way, it needs to be real immigration reform, not symbolic. But are not you going to have to team up with Marco Rubio to get it done? And I do think that there is broad Republican support around the country, not as much in Congress, but maybe we are beginning to see a change there. The stars are aligned for progress here on, you know, building on the border security progress we have made, holding businesses accountable, in terms of hiring legal immigrants, in terms of a pathway to earned citizenship. So I do think the moment is here right now to finally get this done, high-skilled workers for our businesses. There is a lot that we can do. But those are all things that he is talking about, as well. Would not it be a more powerful position if the president and a key Republican like that had a united front? Well, ENTITY, this process will begin shortly, another effort here to finally get immigration reform. And at that point, I think you are going to see us working with Democrats and Republicans, people outside of Washington, there is a huge consensus in the business community, in the faith community for immigration reform.


So, yeah, our hope is that we can do this. It should be something where there seems to be a consensus in the country. I think there is a political necessity for the Republican Party to do this. And we believe it is the right thing to do for our country and our economy. I know you want to put the weight of the president's campaign behind all these issues. The president set up a new organization, Organizing for Action, a new political action committee, unlimited donations from corporations, but the president will disclose all donors? Yes, we will voluntarily disclose all of our donors. The people who actually made the president's campaign in both '08 and '12, our great grassroots volunteers, were pretty clear after the election they wanted to stay with it and they want to be out there organizing, driving message, holding people accountable on issues like immigration, you know, the deficit and jobs, gun safety, a lot of passion out there. And so I think one of the lessons from the first term that we want to do better is, yes, there has to be an inside game. And you put those things together, because it -- as you know, times that you really get fundamental progress and change in Washington is where the American people are really focused and pushing, and we want to make sure that we are in communication with them. I know you will be advising Organizing for Action, but this is your last week at the White House. What do you miss most? Well, it is just a privilege, as you know, to work in that building. And you get a PhD in a short matter of time on every issue facing the country. And it is just an awesome honor to spend a little time there. And I think for me personally this has been a remarkable journey. Six years ago today, we were the longest of long shots running for president. Now tomorrow he will be giving a second inaugural address. And so I will miss -- you know, this is a great moment where those of us who always wanted to work in a campaign like this, with grassroots energy, for a candidate like this, with amazing colleagues.


With all the changes that are being proposed, one that is paramount in the eyes of many Iowans, particularly those on fixed incomes, is how they are going to maintain their current standard of living with the soaring natural gas prices. I went around doing a little interview with my friends here, and that seemed to be one of the prime issues. And I just wonder, what do you contemplate happening in regards to these people? Well, I think what we are talking about is the same old problem of inflation. I am not sure that that is the best idea, because we found out when we decontrolled gasoline, the oil prices, that the price went down, not up. It encouraged more exploration and more development at the source. And maybe the same thing would happen with natural gas, but no decision has been made on that. But the people on the fixed incomes are, of course, always the ones who suffer first in inflation. Our program is aimed at bringing that down. And I have to say, not enough recognition has been paid to the fact that we have brought it down. We brought it down to single digit, where it is been for the last 3 years-double digit. And I think that we are going to continue bringing it down with the program that we have in place. That has to be-I know today a great concern of the country, and it is of ours, is unemployment and this recession. But underlying that, helping cause that, everything comes back down to the fact that we have been in the longest-in fact, the world has been in the longest sustained period of runaway inflation in world history. And we are very happy about it. As a matter of fact, we have succeeded beyond our expectations, and that is what is contributed to the coming deficit. You know, government gets a profit from inflation. If it is a sales tax, and the price of a commodity goes up, and the sales tax is based on percentage, the government's percentage goes up. In the income tax for the Federal Government, that is been the big steal, where people getting cost-of-living pay raises have been moved up into upper-income tax brackets. Today, a sizeable percentage of the normal working people in this country are up to the 50 percent bracket. And so we have not been able to turn it down to where prices are going down, but we have cut that rate at which they are going up.

Interview With Skip Weber of the Iowa Daily Press Association in Des Moines


And there is fear on the part of many that these farms are going to go under. Can you provide any signs of encouragement for the Iowa farmer? We have an Illinois farmer as our Secretary of Agriculture. And we know that this is the whole basis of any economy; has to be that. One of the things where we believe government can participate and be of help-and we are trying desperately to do this-is to encourage foreign markets, export markets, because there is no question, the American farmer can and does produce more than the people in our own country can eat, so he has to have an export market. He is been caught worse than most people in the cost-price squeeze of inflation. The cost of the things he buys, even the finished products of the food that he himself grows, when he then buys that in the form of bread and so forth in the market, he finds that he is on the low end of the totem pole when he sells that raw product, but he is paying like everyone else is, the inflated price as it is gone through the industrial processes. We do not believe that government, as we have known in the past, is the answer of a--continuing to control and subsidize the farm. What we must do with government is help agriculture get back into the market in getting a fair price for what it produces. I was doing quite a bit in the promotion of gasohol. We have had plans for many more plants here in Iowa, but the plans seem to be falling by the wayside now because of a loss of Federal funds. Well, we are reducing a great deal of our subsidy now of synthetics, simply because we believe that industry has become involved enough, that the free marketplace should take hold and help with that. I can recall a visit that you made to Des Moines a number of years ago on behalf of General Electric. Hal Reed-he worked with my dad down at International News-and at that time, I think the thing we were talking about was socialized medicine. But very vivid in my mind in regards to the remarks that you made then-and then also, back in Harlan, I recall in an interview that you talked about what you had done in California as ENTITY in terms of welfare. And as I recall, you were talking about how, evidently, you were allowed to experiment with the welfare programs there.


I am just wondering, in regards to your new approach here on federalism, if your experience in California in terms of welfare played a major role in your thinking in changing this plan? Yes, that and all my years as ENTITY there when I saw how extravagant and wasteful it was to have to run a program where the Federal Government imposed every rule and restriction as to how you must use the money, establish the priorities. The priorities are not the same in community after community or State after State. They say, This problem Washington has decided is of this priority, and therefore most of the money must be spent here. But you can come to a community where that is not their major priority, but they do have another problem that they need to help on, but they do not have the flexibility to switch the funds. And this is what we are trying to do with the new federalism program. I could cite chapter and verse of horror stories about this and about these programs. My first veto of a Federal program, when I was ENTITY, was a program that on the surface sounded just fine. It was one of the poverty programs, and it was in a rural county of California, a project-they were going to put 17 able-bodied welfare recipients to work in the county parks, maintaining and helping to keep them clean, the parks. That is exactly the type of thing that we want to do. My veto was because under their rules, over half the budget would have gone for 11 administrators to handle the affairs of the 17 people that were going to work in the park. And I thought that was a little unbalanced, and I vetoed it, and the Federal Government had 60 days to override the veto. They did not override it when I made public why I was vetoing it. I have copies of some minutes of the National Conference of State Legislatures in a meeting that you participated in. One of the sections here is in regards to welfare, and they are quoting you as saying that one of the major reasons for keeping welfare at the Federal level is the likelihood that differing benefit levels among the States was based on a court ruling handed down while you were ENTITY of California. Do you recall that? And it said the courts had struck down the State residency requirements for welfare because it was a Federal program. The ENTITY implied that if the Federal Government got out of the program, residency requirements might be acceptable to the courts. Is that a problem here in regards to your welfare change?


No, and this will be one to see as we work with all these people-I gesture because I am in the statehouse-to see if this is one of the things that could also then be helpful. It is true that the welfare standards vary, based on-and this is under the Federal domination of the program-so these people who say, Well, this State might cheat and not give as much as another State, are talking through their hats, because that is the present situation. But the Federal Government insists on minimums that are based on percentages of what is a basic cost of living in the various areas. But because Federal money was involved, the States had residency requirements so that you had to legitimately be a citizen of that State in order to get welfare. When the Federal Government-the court-on the basis of the Federal funds, struck that down, you found people just going shopping. And there was a great influx, not only into California, New York City-that was when its great problem developed. People only saw the end result of the amount of money that was being paid. They did not translate it into the added cost of living, of living in those places. Theoretically, you were not supposed to be better off in one State or the other, that the lower amount was because of the lower cost of living in that area. But today, our idea is to find out if this is a part of what they want, to get the help of the State and local officials in fleshing out this concept that we have created in turning these programs back. So we are quoting here in regards to Medicare-the suggestions made here. Under consideration is a voucher system for Medicare. This-although here we are still in the early stages of trying to find a better method of providing the needed care for-Medicare is the program for the older; Medicaid is the program that we have suggested the Federal Government take over instead of giving back and to find a way of doing it that will maintain the funds that are needed for people with a true illness or injury and not the waste, the shocking waste that we have today. For example, I can give you a case-let us say this is not in Medicare or Medicaid-that has just come to us, a man who told the story himself. He fell at work and broke his finger, went to the emergency division of the hospital, and they X-rayed and then splinted the finger.


And then an attendant there told him, when he said he was going back to work, said, Well, you know that under the rules you are entitled to 2 weeks at full pay without returning to work. Well, he said, No, I want to go back to work. Believe it or not, they kept him there for half an hour trying to persuade him to take the 2 free weeks. What business was it of theirs? They were there to heal him. And then, he added to his story, he went back to work. And he told that 2 weeks later he called in a doctor that he'd been referred to to check the finger on how it was coming. And the doctor spent a total of less than 10 minutes looking at the X-ray and looking at his finger and submitted a bill to the government for $100. Now, we think there are better ways to run a railroad. Shifting gears here a little bit, a lot of people seem to be picking your budget apart in terms of the money that you want to spend on the military. Why are you so strong in your support of this additional spending? I am strong for military spending for this reason. In the last several years before this administration, the military was literally starved. Even with our military buildup, we will not even be back in the range of ability to stand in the face of our adversaries, the Soviet Union, until the mid-eighties. We will still be below them no matter how much we do now. But the truth is we are only spending about 6 percent-our military budget is only about 6 percent of the gross national product. In years past, in the fifties and the sixties, this averaged over 9 percent with the military budget. And even in the peace years, without the Vietnam war or the Korean war, it was over 8 percent, almost 9 percent. So, in point of history, we are not up to what used to be considered the normal peacetime budget. But we have to show our adversaries that we have the will to defend ourselves. They have thought for several years we do not . But coupled with that, my idea of the real way to save on defense is with them knowing that they are going to have to accept that we are going to build up to their level for our own security. I want to sit down-and we already are sitting down with them-to discuss legitimate arms reductions, and that would be the major savings in defense and for both sides.


Today they are literally starving their people of consumer products in order to maintain this great military buildup. We think they have been able to get away with this because we have been unilaterally disarming for the last several years. When they see that we mean it-I think a cartoon told it all the other day. There was a cartoon that showed Brezhnev talking to a Russian general and he was saying, I liked the arms race better when we were the only ones in it. By them, obviously you are talking about the Russians. It just dawned on me, one of my colleagues here wanted me to ask you if you have ever been in the Capitol before. I do recall sleeping out on the lawn. I am old enough to remember when air conditioning was only found in motion picture theatres, and on some of those hot Iowa nights, this Capitol lawn out here would literally be covered with whole families that would bring a blanket and come over to the lawn and sleep all night around the Capitol lawn from all the residences around here. Swinging back here, would you favor moving up the 10-percent cut in Federal taxes from July i to some time in the spring? I would be very pleased to see that, because I think it would be beneficial, except that those who are proposing it are then proposing in return that we cancel the third year's cut. Now unencumbered, just a simple move up, yes, I would favor that. I think that one of the things that could have mitigated if not prevented the present recession is if we had gotten our original request. We originally wanted a 10-percent, not a 5-percent cut, retroactive to January 1st of 1981. And I think if that had been in place, there might be a different situation with regard to the recession. As it was, to get the bill we had to cut to 5 percent on the first installment and delay to October 1st in order to get passage of the bill. Many economists are predicting that the economy is going to start turning around in the second quarter. If it does not , what will you do? Well, I think we are going to begin to see turns then. The regrettable thing is that the last to recover is unemployment when you are coming out of a recession and that is our major problem today-the people that are without jobs. So we believe that our program that is in place of cutting the cost of government and reducing the percentage that government takes in taxes is the answer.


First of all, it is progress. Great success happens when there is two states, living side by side in peace. I thought I would-since this is an historic trip, I thought I would just have you up and share thoughts and answer questions. We will go around for a while. The first signs of peace happen when people make up their mind to work toward peace. And that is what you saw. You heard some pretty firm statements yesterday. The statements yesterday by the Arab leaders were very strong in public, and they were strong in private. One of the things that we have made clear to all parties is that there are terrorists who have to blow up the process-you all know that; it is been an historic fact-and that these countries in the neighborhood have the capacity to work to cut off money to the terrorist groups and access and arms deals. And they committed themselves to do that, which was a positive sign. It was also important for Prime Minister Abbas to hear that. This is a man who is a newly elected Prime Minister, new to office. All of a sudden now he finds himself in a serious effort, the creation of a Palestinian state, which puts enormous responsibilities on him. And one of the things we are saying is, you are now responsible. But it helped a lot to have the Arab leaders support him, and not only support him but to support him through pledges of activity and action. The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia was particularly strong yesterday in private about the need to chase down terrorists. They have had some recent experience with terrorism. And I was really pleased with the strong commitment and the strong desire to not only deal with terrorists inside his country but to work to prevent arms being smuggled from-out of Iraq and into the territories. We also spent a lot of time talking about Syria and the mutual concern about Syria and the desire to convince Syria to shut down terrorist offices inside-in Damascus. I think it was very helpful for Prime Minister Abbas to hear that. Then we come to today. The way the day worked is that I met with the King of Jordan. He is obviously desirous of Palestinian statehood, which would be very helpful to him. We talked about bilateral relations, economic- matters of economic development, and it was a good conversation. And then I sat down with Prime Minister Sharon. I assured him that security was at the top of our agenda, like security is at the top of his agenda.

Interview With Members of the White House Press Pool


One, we are in a war against terror, or a war against terror on the homefront; we are chasing down these people around. But we also recognize that there are some who would like to blow up the process and that we want to work to create the conditions for a Palestinian state to emerge, which means jointly working with all parties to work on the security issue. I also told him, though, he is got responsibilities. And therefore, we have got to work together to help the Prime Minister achieve his stated objectives, which, one, he had a very clear statement on terror. The other thing that was very interesting was his statement on incitement. And it was a fact statement, for those who follow the process. He needs time to get his security forces set up. And I reminded the Prime Minister-I also reminded him that I was not caught by surprise by his statement on the outposts, the issue of the outposts. He said he would dismantle them; we expect him now to dismantle them. Well, you just heard the first step today in the speeches. And the-you also heard me say that we would help the Palestinian Authority develop a security force. Minister Dahlan will be in charge of that security force. We intend to work with them. We assured the Israelis we intend to work with them. The Prime Minister absolutely rejected terror. In order for him to be effective in rejecting terror, he is got to have an effective security force. And so that is what we discussed. And then we met, all of us together, our delegations. We had a- the discussion was very interesting is the Prime Minister asked members of his Knesset to speak, Minister of Defense, the Deputy Prime Minister, the equivalent of the Attorney General, Minister of Justice. And then I suggested that the three of us just go outside and visit, rather than having the formal settings of the old roundtable discussion. And so we went out and sat on the lawn there for about 30 minutes and discussed a lot of matters. What I wanted to do is to observe the interplay between the two; did they have the capacity to relax in each other's presence, for starters? In other words, it was-the body language was positive. There was a-it seemed like to me, from the conversation, that there was a mutual desire to work toward the vision.


And obviously I am not going to betray confidences, but it was a very interesting and positive conversation, is the best way to say it I did not need, for example, to be Mr. Chatty-you know, kind of, Hey, fellows. And then after that, we gave our speeches, and here we sit. I will tell you that I am pleased with the last 2 days. We have made a good beginning. And I emphasize beginning, because there is a lot of work to do. Let me just review some of the work that must take place. I believe the Palestinian-I know the Palestinian leadership wants that, has got that desire. And so, he must help them put the institutions in place to do that. On the Palestinian side, there needs to be an emergence of a state, the institutions of which are larger than the participants. I assured the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority-and this was when we were sitting out on the lawn-that there is plenty of help coming. At the G-8 meeting in Evian, there was a lot of discussion about how we can help, What can we do? I said, Well, when the time is right, there is going to be need for money and commercial development and enhancement of the entrepreneurial spirit. Israel has got to recognize that Prime Minister Abbas is desirous for peace and, without compromising security, must make decisions necessary to help the Palestinian people. And they are doing that. Money is-more money is now in circulation. They collect revenues, Israel does, and now they are -they have got great trust in the Finance Minister of the Palestinian Authority, a guy who went to the University of Texas, by the way, for a while. He came to Washington as an intermediary on behalf of Prime Minister Abbas, and Condi and I met with him in the Oval Office. I spent a lot of the time on Palestinian finances, cashflow matters, making sure that aid and money actually end up helping the people and not either bank accounts of individuals that-where it does not belong. I am absolutely convinced he is an honest and upright man who believes in the future of the Palestinian people, believes that a democratic Palestinian state is possible. It is important for Prime Minister Sharon to recognize that. I am confident he recognizes that.


The $100 million that had been held in arrears was released, and the process of talking about more money going through, which-25,000 workers now that were not allowed in Israel now allowed in Israel. In other words, what I am telling you is, is that it is important for the life of the Palestinians to improve in measurable ways. And as confidence is built, as institutions are in place, I assured Prime Minister Abbas-and this was important for Prime Minister Sharon to hear as well-that there is going to be a lot of help, financial help, from around the world. Let me just go around the table. I am cautious, because- and I am cautious because history tells you to be cautious. I do not know where you were in 2000. There are people who have declared their-openly declared their hostility to Israel and their desire to destroy Israeli citizens. There are people that, you know, would rather have chaos than a state. And on the other hand, we have now got a partner in peace, Prime Minister Abbas, who is-wants the tools necessary to chase them down. It is going to be one of the accountability measures, by the way. That is one of reasons why we put Wolf. The news today, of course, from our side was, besides having the meeting, was Ambassador John Wolf and his team. It is Wolf and a team of people that the Secretary will be glad to explain to you. We have a security team there to help the Dahlan. Their job is to find out what is needed and to also hold people to account, both sides to account, reminding people of promises made in meetings and insisting them that in order for progress to be made, people have got to deliver it. And so, yes, I have cautious, but optimistic. ENTITY, previous efforts at making peace in the Middle East did not succeed. You believe you now have a chance. Could you try to put this in history? What do you think has changed since you took office, and how did we get to this point? I think a couple of things have changed. One, I think there is-I think Prime Minister Abbas is willing to make the necessary decisions and take the necessary steps to fight terror and to develop institutions necessary for a state to emerge, a genuine effort.


Secondly, there is a universal recognition that the war on terror is just that, a war on terror and not empty words, that September the 11th or bombings in Riyadh or the terror that has plagued Israel, these are terrorist acts that must be defeated, and they must be defeated at its source as well. It is no longer isolated terrorism, it is terrorism that is beginning to affect a lot of people and can affect a lot of people. So in other words, the meeting yesterday, for example, with the Arab nations, it seemed like to me the new reality was reflected in their statements, which will make it easier for a Palestinian state to emerge. And so I think that is been one of the changes. I am sure this is-other Presidents have said this; other leaders have-but there is now battle fatigue. People are sick and tired of it. People are sick and tired of the death, suffering, of the humiliation. In other words, there is -hopefully history will show whether or not I am right, but hopefully we have reached the point where a lot of good people have begun to realize that the immediate past will lead to nothing but more suffering and humiliation and death. And people are beginning to change their attitudes on the ground. Do you think September 11th had an impact in the region, as well, in help-ing-did it just galvanize American views about terrorism, or did it also carry through into-- I think it-the terror attacks shocked the world. And it frightened a lot of people, because they realized that if America can be hit, they could be hit. And then terror began to-I just said, the attacks in Riyadh or the attacks in Indonesia, Bali, a nice secure resort community. The next thing is, people wake up the next day and realize-around the world realize that there is no such thing as a nice, secure resort when we have terrorists willing to kill innocent lives in the numbers they did. September the 11th made the world aware of the new war. And then the other acts of terror that have taken place since made the issue come even closer to home for many countries. And then the combination of that plus the terrorist activities in the Palestinian territories and in Israel made people realize the effects of terror. It kind of brought it all home, I think. So, yes, I think September the 11th mattered, but it was not the only event that was-helped galvanize thought.


People are frightened about terror in the Middle East, not just in Israel. And they have got to get after it. And we are going to help them get after it. It is a part of this war. One of the hardest things I knew that I would have to do as ENTITY is to remind the American people, and for that matter, people around the world, the nature of the war in which we find ourselves. I mean, today, as we speak, we have got intelligence sharing going on, we have got people on the hunt trying to find them, one at a time. It is that same effort that will take place in the Palestinian territories, but it requires the desire by all leaders to want to fight it. ENTITY, you seem to value and even enjoy the spontaneity and informality that you brought in your meetings with these leaders. Could you dwell for a moment on your personal style of diplomacy and how you see it working? I try to tell the truth, put it right out there on the table for everybody to understand what is expected. I do; I like people. You know, I remember, I think it was- Ron Fournier asked me the question, Do you trust Vladimir Putin? It was one of the really interesting questions, to fire up ENTITY standing next to Vladimir Putin. Well, the answer is yes, I did not hesitate, because during my meeting with him, I had developed an interesting rapport. It does not necessarily mean he has to agree with everything that I say, but trust his word. I have spent enough time with Ariel Sharon to know he is the kind of guy when he says something, he means it. I am getting the same sense about Prime Minister Abbas. And therefore much of the conversations, particularly as I get to know somebody, is to figure out whether or not you can- whether or not, when they say something, they mean it. You can tell that, pretty much, during a conversation, which means trying to get people off their script, and as you discuss things, make it as informal as possible, because I think people in an informal setting tend to show their heart and/or their conscience in a lot better way. Condi and the Secretary of State, Colin, can give you a better sense of what my style is like. You know I do not spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things. I think one of my styles is trying to relax people.


I mean, there is no-we do not have a lot of time, and therefore I like to get to the point. I like to ask people-I can challenge people. I believe I can do so in a way that is not offensive to them. And I hope they sense my sense of optimism. I know it is going to be hard, but I think the fact that I am representing a great country and am willing to sit down with these leaders and give them a sense, We are all in this together, is helpful. The best way to do that is in a more informal type setting where there is not a lot of prepared notes. I have been in meetings where people read speeches. It is not as productive as a meeting in which people can sit down and actually-one of my jobs is to try to help relax people in a setting. I hope I am pretty good at that. Is that what happened when you were in the the anteroom with the Arab leaders, you just decided that it was a more relaxed setting and that you prefer to keep talking-- Could you tell us a little bit about that meeting and what went on in that meeting? First of all, I understand that there was a little bit of hard feelings. We had no idea. I am available for any photo op. But we'd like to know what happened in the private meeting that you had with the heads of state before you came out. Before we came out, the thing that was not supposed to be on TV, that one. It was just a roundtable discussion about-let me make sure I get it right here. I told them, I said, look-all four of those leaders, except for Prime Minister Abbas, were-Prime Minister Abbas was there. The other four leaders are leaders who I obviously talked to during the Iraq war. Before the Iraq war and after the Iraq war, I assured them that I was going to be involved in moving the Middle East peace process forward, particularly after the emergence of the Prime Minister, Abbas. This was my chance to go around the table and look him in the eye and say, I am here to make it happen, but I need your help. The first thing was to-is to let them know about the intent of this administration. I shared with them-well, you know Colin's involvement and Condi's involvement. I did not share with them the Wolf-I knew they would read about it today.


On the other hand, you occasionally try to hold back some news-you have probably learned it before I did, anyway. And then we listened to them, and Crown Prince Abdullah. And they had a lot of interesting thoughts about different issues. Oh, and by the way, it was not just- the discussion was not just on the Middle East peace process. The other thing I told them, I asked them, was to help Prime Minister Abbas. I directly said, We need your help on this fellow. If he is to succeed, if peace is to succeed, he needs your help. And they were willing; they expressed their desire to help. And I went to Iraq and talked about what was happening there. Then I encouraged them to continue on their paths to reform and about how that would make a significant difference in the lives of their citizens. So it was more than-and they commented on all that, different aspects. I am not going to tell you what they told me. If they want to tell you what-if they want to say what is theirs, they will put it in their own press. And part of it had to do because a lot of it needed to be translated. Therefore, a normal conversation-all of it had to be translated. The Crown Prince does not speak English very well, so therefore every word that was spoken had to volleyed. And so that is -we had a good conversation, again, not structured. People said what they felt like, and there was no-it was not just, Okay, you speak; you speak; you speak, and then we are through. And I met bilaterally with them as well. I met with-Colin and Condi and I went over to President Mubarak's house that night. We had a bilateral with him in the morning, and afterwards we ate. I had a bilateral with the Crown Prince at the hotel after the sauna bath. I know, I know there was one place where you were talking about it, figuratively-- Just to see if you were paying attention. And it is very useful to have those kind of conversations. ENTITY, a big part of why you were here, and you made clear, is because Mahmoud Abbas is the person who is Palestinian Prime Minister, and Yasser Arafat is not the person who you chose to negotiate.


But Palestinian leaders, some of their senior officials, made clear that they still think Yasser Arafat-they made clear that they still think Yasser Arafat is somebody who needs to be dealt with, who needs to negotiate. I am wondering what kinds of conversations you had with the Arab leaders and maybe with Mahmoud Abbas about Arafat's role? Well, it is clear that I am going to deal with Prime Minister Abbas, so there was not much conversation. The Secretary of State is-- Secretary Powell. It did not come up in any of the conversations with ENTITY that I am aware of. And they know our views on this. Do you have any concern that he might be a hindrance to the process at all? Not if he has the Palestinian people's interests at heart. In conversations with the Arab leaders, particularly the Foreign Ministers, we made it clear to them that one of the things we expected them to help with was to make sure that Mr. Arafat does not become an obstacle to the execution of the roadmap. Did they seem to say that they were willing to do that? It really did not -I mean, he is handled most of that. It did not come up during my conversations with the Arab leaders. What came up was, how do we help Prime Minister Abbas? Now, Colin may have had different-with the Foreign Ministers, since they have some frank discussions. A lot of times you will find out that the underbrush has been cleared by the- and by the time ENTITY arrives, everybody kind of understands. And one of his jobs is to clear out underbrush. In other words-I do not know what he told the Foreign Ministers, but I just heard what he told the Foreign Ministers. He is watching the calluses on his hands. Can I ask you, just a followup? What do you consider sort of the importance of the role of ENTITY in this kind of process? For example, this is the first time-it is been 2 1/2 years since you have been President. It is the first time you have had this kind of summit, where some of your predecessors had multiple summits by this time. Well, you know, first of all, we have had a lot of meetings but not summits. I have had a lot of discussions with every one of the parties that have been around the table, with the exception of Prime Minister Abbas, and he is just showed up. He just emerged as a leader.


I called him immediately upon-I think immediately or soon after he became Prime Minister. I mean, so-let me-just because we have not had the summit does not mean this administration has not been working toward achieving the conditions necessary to move forward. And that is really an important- there has to be-I can remember saying this to the press corps early on in my administration. People want to have to- peace, want peace. And the conditions are such now that there is a commitment to peace by a lot of people that are ready to see if we cannot make it happen. And therefore the timing of this summit was really based upon the attitudes of the decisionmakers. Oh, the American President or the American Secretary of State is-I wish we were the decisionmakers. If we could, we'd say, All the terrorists, put down your arms and become useful citizens, peaceful citizens. Banding together, though, we can deal with the ticket-you know, build up the will necessary to deal with the terrorists. And so what the role of the United States is, is to lay out the vision, encourage people to accept the vision, and then help implement the vision. In this case, we call it a roadmap to achieve the vision. And that is exactly what we are going to do. We can be stewards of accountability. And we can say to somebody, You said you'd do this. You have not done it. You say you want to do this, and what do you need to get it done? So today we asked Dahlan, What is it you need? How can we help you? What exactly can we do to help? ENTITY, can I give four data points to show ENTITY's involvement? Just a couple of quick data points to show you how we got here and how ENTITY caused us to be here. On the 18th of July, ENTITY had Arab Foreign Ministers in the Oval Office-Muasher of Jordan, Saud of Saudi Arabia, Maher of Egypt. And at that meeting, ENTITY said to them, we will now structure a way to go from my vision to reality. And that was the beginning of the work on the roadmap. And then on the 20th of December, the European-the Quartet came together to finalize it.


ENTITY met with the Quartet, finalized it, and then we waited for the Israeli elections to be over, which were just about finished at that time, and then we said, with the appointment of new leadership in the Palestinian Authority, ENTITY is ready to act, and he did. ENTITY, in the events of the last 2 days, have they exceeded what you expected coming over here? You are supposed to say what you think. I am the master of low expectations. I think they-we did what we wanted to-I think we-we accomplished what I hoped we would accomplish, but I do not think we necessarily exceeded expectations. I think met expectations is a better way to put it. I was hoping to have honest dialogs. The statements that came out-I think when you analyze the statements, you will find them to be historic, I guess is the right word to use. The Palestinian-the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority talked about the suffering of Jewish people. The Prime Minister of Israel talked about a Palestinian state which was free. I had a little bit of an understanding of what might take place, because we worked hard. The statement just does not show up out of the blue. And so they met expectations. However, the cordial atmosphere- I will tell you what else was interesting, that I would say met expectations or was pleasing to see, was the interface between the Palestinian Cabinet and the Israeli Cabinet. When we went out to sit on the grounds- and I witnessed some of it but not all of it since I was actually on the grounds- Colin and Condi told me that there was very interesting discussions and dialog going on. There was-people were frank with each other. They were able to joke with each other. They were able to kind of bring up a little history with each other. But the main thing that came out of it, at least to our delegation, appeared to be the desire to work together. If I could follow up, ENTITY, were there any time going into this that you were hearing things, that you were thinking to yourself, uh-oh-- Look, I was not going if we were not going to make progress. I mean, there is no need to go and stand up there by myself and say, Let us work for peace, and look around, and nobody would be there with you.


So I was-I think there were some times where-we have had some-in the runup to the process, there was some-there was a lot of work, let me put it to you that way, and a lot of frank discussion and a lot of convincing of parties that we need to get on this path, and we need to work hard, and we need to make commitments. The speeches that- there were some commitments made in those speeches which now put people on the record, not only on the record, all across the world. I mean, a lot of people were watching this today. And I guess it was live in America. So you had these leaders stand up and say, I commit -not just commit to-I mean, the Prime Minister of Israel saying, I commit to knock down or get rid of illegal outposts. So the process was really to work hard to get people to make commitments toward peace. And Colin went out to the region, as you may remember. Part of what you saw today was his hard work. They always look at ENTITY, but the truth of the matter is that there have been a lot of people working hard to work with all parties to get to where we got today. I just happen to attract more cameras than most of them. Bill, of course, is an Under Secretary. And then of course we-we had to make the decision on the man who is going to run the deal on the ground and how his team was going to be formed. Again, the Secretary had to move him in his Department and had to come up with the right structure and the right people so that when the Palestinians and Israelis see who was sitting out there and what they represent, they realize that it is serious business. All that took a while to get to where we are. To answer your question, I am pleased with the start, is the best way to put it. I mean, this-we are going to go through a tough process, because we are dealing with a lot of history. And you are right, a lot of Presidents have tried. We ought to use the prestige of America to try for peace. I fault no President of the United States for trying to achieve peace. Maybe history is such that now we can achieve it. You were pretty blunt yesterday that Israel must deal with the settlements. Sharon made-I do not think we were supposed to hear that. Sharon made his pledge today.


If there is a suicide bombing, does he reserve the right to move back into those settlements? Look, I think the operative statement from the Israeli Prime Minister, not necessarily in this speech but recently, was he wants to see a complete effort to fight off terror. In other words, he wants an equal partner. He wants a partner in the battle on terror, not somebody who will say they are going to fight terror and then turn a blind eye to terror, somebody who wants to join him. And that is one of the things that came clear. It should have been clear in my speech, too, that we will fight terror. And security is-we will never compromise on Israel's security. That is one of the reasons why I believe the Israeli Knesset members over there, the Prime Minister, wants to follow us, work with us, because they know I will never compromise Israel's security. As Condi said, one of the things about our discussions, they are frank. There is no question in the Palestinian Authority's mind, either, I can assure you. Now having-so therefore-what the Prime Minister of Israel has said is, he expects to see a complete effort by the Palestinian Authority to fight off terror. Prime Minister Abbas said today in his statement, there is no place for terror. And he is going to put together a security forces necessary fight off the terrorists, because he knows that there will be no state if terror prevails. The terrorists think they are hurting Israel, and they are when they kill Israelis. But they are also hurting their own people, and Prime Minister Abbas understands that. Plus the people in the region know what terror now means. They have lived with terror in the region, but they have now begun to put it in context. And that is -I am trying to put it as clearly as I can. The context of terror now has changed. The death has not changed, but it is now-it is easier for everybody to see how it fits into a larger scheme of things. And the larger scheme of things is the war on terror, because it is beginning to strike in lethal ways in unexpected places, which therefore means that your place could be next, I guess is one way to put it. What do you do? You talked about giving the Secretary and Dr. Rice specific obligations. I show up when they need me to call people to account, to praise, or to say, Wait a minute.


So you have set out your goals for the country, 100 million vaccine doses by next week, $100 million dollars out the door, every American eligible for the vaccine by, adult American, by May 1st, something close to normal on July 4th. But tell everyone, when is everything going to be normal for Americans? Well, first of all, I will not even be able to meet the July 4th deadline unless people listen, wear masks, wash their hands, and socially distance, because not everyone by July 4th will have been vaccinated. How do you get the politics out of this vaccine talk? I honest to God thought we had it out. I honest to God thought that once we guarantee we had enough vaccine for everybody, things would start to calm down. Well, they have calmed down a great deal, but I just do not understand this sort of macho thing about, I am not going to get the vaccine. I have a right as an American, my freedom to not do it. Well, why do not you be a patriot, protect other people? How has life changed for you since you got the vaccine? I can hug my grandkids now. They come over to the house. I can see them. I am able to be with them. I have had the vaccine. Secondly, it has changed my life in the sense that I have been able to demonstrate to other people that, I doubt whether people expected me to take it if I did not think it was safe, to make the case that it is safe to take the vaccine. It is important to take the vaccine. Let us talk about the crisis at the border. A lot of the migrants coming in saying they are coming in because you promised to make things better. It seems to be getting worse by the day. Was it a mistake not to anticipate this surge? First of all, the idea that ENTITY said come because I heard the other day that they are they are coming because they know I am a nice guy and I will not do what Trump did. They are saying this. Number two, what do you do with an unaccompanied child that comes to the border? Do you repeat what Trump did? We are not doing that.

Joe Biden ABC Interview Transcript March 16


What we are doing is we have brought in HHS and also brought in FEMA to provide for enough safe facilities for them to get out of the control of the border patrol, which are not designed to hold people for long periods of time, particularly children, get them out of those facilities. Most of them come with a phone number. What we are doing is we are putting together an entire organizational structure so that within seven days they are able to get on the phone, contact that number, find out whether there is a mother or a father, whether it is safe, whether it is a secure circumstance to get the child to that adult. It is going to take some time though to get those policies in place again. What we are in the process of getting set up, and it is not going to take a whole long time, is to be able to apply for asylum in place. We are going to make sure we have facilities in those cities and towns run by DHS and also access with HHS, the Health and Human Services, to say you can apply for asylum from where you are right now. We will have people there to determine whether or not you are able to meet the requirement you qualify for asylum. That is the best way to do this. In addition to that, while we also change the circumstances on the ground in those communities, you are going to diminish the reason why people want to leave in the first place. You are out here selling your ENTITY relief package. You are executing the ENTITY relief package now as well. What is next on your legislative agenda? If you notice the criticism of the ENTITY relief package, my Republican friends, is they say it spends too much money and it gives too many tax breaks. All these tax breaks go to the bottom 60% of the population. They need it, the $1,400 check, childcare tax credit. They do not like it because in fact their idea of a tax cut is to give the Trump tax cut where 83% went to the top 1% of the people in America. You are going to be raising those taxes. Anybody making more than $400,000 will see a small to a significant tax increase. If you make less than $400,000, you will not see one single penny in additional federal tax. But, let us talk raw politics here. You did not get a single Republican vote for tax cuts. How are you going to get a Republican vote for a tax increase?


Oh, I may not get it, but I will get the Democratic votes for a tax increase. If we just took the tax rate back to what it was when Bush was president, the top rate paid 39.6% in federal taxes, that would raise $230 billion. Yet, they are complaining because I am providing a tax credit for childcare, for the poor, for the middle class, keeping people, and by the way, my proposal in the relief plan I put forward, it creates seven million jobs according to a whole range of people, including Moody's on Wall Street, number one. I mean, what are these guys talking about? By your own admission, just so you are not likely to get Republican votes for the tax increase, you are not likely to get Republican for H.R.1, expanding voting rights or the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. I know you have been reluctant to do away with the filibuster. Are not you going to have to choose between preserving the filibuster and advancing your agenda? I do not think you have to eliminate the filibuster. You have to do it what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days when you used to be around there. That is that a filibuster, you had to stand up and command the floor. No one could say quorum call. Once you stopped talking, you lost that and someone could move in and say, I move the question of,. You got to work for the filibuster. You are for that reform. You are for bringing back the talking filibuster. Look, do not hold me to the numbers, George, but I think between 1960 and 2000, there were like, I am making this number up, I do not know. Just put a hold on it, that is it. I mean, the idea, it almost is getting to the point where democracy is having a hard time functioning, a hard time functioning. Look, I am not saying this is going to be easy, George, but I do believe there is enough Republicans over time who are going to have, look you are - They have not had that epiphany you said you were going to see in the campaign. I think the epiphany is going to come between now and 2022. There is 78% of the people say they support this program, 52% of Republicans.


Let us assume it is off by 15%. Republican voters want that $1,500 because they are in trouble. Republican voters want to be able to choose between being able to go to work and send their kid to a daycare that they can afford. Republican voters want to be able to take care of a childcare tax credit. By the way, I am not saying I will do it again, but I want those Republican voters in suburbia. Director of National Intelligence came out with a report today saying that Vladimir Putin authorized operations during the election to denigrate you, support President Trump, undermine our elections, divide our society. What price must he pay? He will pay a price. We had a long talk he and I. I know him relatively well. The conversation started off I said, I know you and you know me. You said you know he does not have a soul. I did say that to him, yes. His response was, We understand one another. I was alone with him in his office. It was when President Bush had said, I have looked in his eyes and saw his soul. I said, I looked in your eyes and I do not think you have a soul. He looked back at me and he said, We understand each other. Look, the most important thing in dealing with foreign leaders in my experience, and I have dealt with an awful lot of them over my career, is just know the other guy. You know Vladimir Putin. So what price must he pay? By the way, we ought to be able that old, that trite expression and walk and chew gum at the same time, there are places where it is in our mutual interest to work together. That is why I renewed the START agreement with him. That occurred while he is doing this, but that is overwhelmingly in the interest of humanity that we diminish the prospect of a nuclear exchange. President Trump reached a deal with the Taliban to have all American troops leave by May 1st. I am in the process of making that decision now as to when they will leave. The fact is that that was not a very solidly-negotiated deal that the former President worked out. We are in consultation with our allies, as well as the government. That decision's going to be, it is in process now.


Because, look, one of the drawbacks, George, and this going to be like Sanskrit to people listening here, but it is the failure to have an orderly transition from the Trump presidency to my presidency, which usually takes place from election day to the time you are sworn in, has cost me time and consequences. For example, we did not realize how bad things were in terms of lack of vaccines. We were not able to get access to this information. That is one of the issues we are talking about now in terms of Afghanistan. Let me ask you about Governor Cuomo of New York. If the investigation confirms the claims of the women, should he resign? You saw Chuck Schumer, Senator Schumer, Senator Gillibrand, a majority of the congressional delegation do not think he can be an effective governor right now. Well, that is a judgment for them to make about their state where they can be effective. It is been my position since I wrote the Violence Against Women Act. A woman should be presumed to telling the truth and should not be scapegoated and become victimized by her coming forward, number one. But there should be an investigation to determine whether what she says is true. If the investigation confirms the claims, he is gone. By the way, it may very well be that there could be a criminal prosecution that is attached to it. I do not know what it is, but I started from the presumption it takes a lot of courage for a woman to come forward. You probably walked into the oval office as president with about as much experience, if not more experience, than any other president who has ever served, more than three decades in the Senate, eight years as vice president. What is it about the job that surprised you that even you did not know? What has surprised me is that I am not as surprised as I thought I might be. I do not know if that makes any sense. It is like sitting when I was vice-president, the big, big difference is that famous expression of Harry Truman, The buck stops here. For eight years, I had a great relationship, and still do with Barack. I'd always be the last person in the room. I'd say, Throw the pass, or, Run the ball. I'd give my opinion. I was the last guy and I get to leave, but he is all by himself to have to make that decision.


The first question, obviously, is about Italy. You were in Italy a few weeks ago. I saw you on the Campidoglio with your wife, a beautiful evening. And you spoke with the new Prime Minister, Mr. Berlusconi. So my question is, how is your sense about Mr. Berlusconi and his policy and the implementation of his policy-the first new government in Italy? Well, my sense was that he had given a lot of thought to what he wished to do and that he was bringing a great deal of energy to the task and that he was determined to pursue a course of economic revival for Italy and to maintain a strong democratic tradition and that, in terms of our relationships, that the traditional strong relationship between the United States and Italy would be maintained vigorously. May I follow up with a question that connects to Italy very quickly? We are in the front line. And one of the first requests of the government of Italy, Mr. Berlusconi's government, was to let Italy get in the contact group that is working in Geneva. Do you think this request will be evaluated, accepted, on what? Let me say first, I think that Italy should be very closely consulted about all developments in Bosnia and in the former Yugoslavia. In other words, if the membership were expanded, would every country that has troops there-Canada has troops there, would they have to go into the contact group? Would other countries that border the former Yugoslavia and have intense interests there-Turkey is sending troops there-have to be put into the contact group? Excuse a parochial question, but as you know, we have had two trade agreements in the last couple of years between Canada and the United States. And yet, our trade problems seem to be deteriorating, if anything, over softwood lumber and wheat and now Pacific salmon, so much so, that our Trade Minister, Roy MacLaren, has warned of a trade show between our two countries. And even your Ambassador to Ottawa has criticized U.S. actions on wheat. Do you think the time has come for you to become personally involved on this issue before it deteriorates much further? First of all, keep in mind, this is the biggest bilateral trading relationship in the world, as far as I know. And in one that big, it should not be surprising that there would be some frictions from time to time.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


In all three areas that you mentioned, you have people engaged in the same economic activity, living very close to each other under different government policies and frameworks. That is true with lumber, that is true with wheat, and it is true with salmon. Now, our problem with the whole salmon issue, of course, is complicated by the whole question of the size of the population and what the future of it is. And I think there are- I really believe there are ways for us to work that out. And I have talked to our people about it; I think we are all working very hard on that. The timber disputes are of longstanding and recur from time to time, as you know. And I think-I think we have to let that one play out through the regular course of events. With regard to the wheat issue, I think the question there-it is been referred for dispute resolution, and the ordinary process may resolve it. The real problem there is that the U.S. and Canada need to agree somehow on what does or does not constitute a subsidy. I think we need some general agreements that might solve the wheat problem and some other problems as well. But I think it is important that we not overreact to this. I mean, our wheat farmers in North Dakota are on the verge of hysteria all the time. And in Congress, there are Representatives from certain States for whom this is the only issue because they think they have been treated unfairly. So I am trying to work it out. We do not have any bilateral relationship where we have more in common and where we tend to work more together. I mean, Prime Minister Chretien has worked with me very closely, and the Canadian Government has always worked with the American Government on everything from issues in the U.N., with problems in Haiti, our policy toward NATO, the whole range of issues. And as far as I know, these are the only three disputes we have, and we are trying to work through them as best we can. ENTITY, the dollar has known quite a rough ride on the currency markets these recent weeks, giving the impression that your Government did not want to do anything about it. Do you think a weak dollar is good for the American economy, maybe for trade purposes? And if not, do you intend to do or say anything about it? And do you expect the G-7 meeting to take some resolution about that? But let me answer the question.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


or let me put it in a more affirmative way. The United States is not trying to grow its economy on a weak dollar. We do not believe a country can devaluate itself into prosperity. On the other hand, these currency markets are subject to significant fluctuations. And great care should be taken before unusual actions are taken, it seems to me. And it is, I think, in the end, over the longrun, the markets tend to align with market realities. When I became , we had been exploding our Government deficits for 12 years. And we decided to change our policy so that the American economy would be stronger in the global economy and so that ordinary Americans would be better off. We have cut hundreds of billions of dollars in Government spending. We have slashed our-we are slashing our work force in the Government by about 12.5 percent, to make it the smallest it has been in three decades. We are targeting investments to areas of economic growth, like education and training and technology. And we have given certain tax incentives to small businesses, new businesses, lower wage workers. The impact of all this has been that, as I leave for the G-7, in the last year and a half, the U.S. has 40 percent of the GDP of the G-7. But we have had 75 percent of the growth and almost 100 percent of the new jobs. Our exports and our rate of investment are growing higher-more than the average in the G-7. Our rate of productivity is growing more than the average of the G-7 countries. So I believe the best answer to this over the longrun is a strong American economy. Transitory political developments in various countries may explain what is going on. But the main thing is, I do not wish-I do not take the weakness of the dollar lightly against any currency. I am not trying to expand the American economy through a low dollar. No country has ever devaluated itself into prosperity. The United States wants to grow into prosperity, to trade into prosperity, not to devaluate itself into prosperity. ENTITY, you are also going to Germany after the G-7 summit. And Germany is more or less emerging as perhaps the European leader. And on the other hand, a lot of Germans are very reluctant to claim this role for their country. What is your wish and your perception of Germany in the future? And would you be prepared to offer a partnership in leadership as your predecessor, President Bush, did?

Interview With Foreign Journalists


Well, I think we do have a very good partnership with Germany. Bitterlich was quoted in the Wall Street Journal today about the strong support our administration had given, stronger than previous ones, to European unity and to the European defense capacity and to greater strength and unity within Europe. Germany has strongly supported that. Of course, it is up to the German people and to the leaders of Germany to determine what role will be played and then up to the partners that you have within Europe. But I think that Germany has a major role to play in the future in world affairs, has a strong role to play in Europe. I support what I take to be the policy of Germany, which is support for increasing European integration and increasing efforts to reach out to the East. And I feel very comfortable with that. But you are not really into endorsing partnership in leadership, do you? As I already told you, Mr. Bitterlich said that we had a better partnership than you had before. So, you have to define what your role is going to be. It is not up to the United States. I do not see how Germany can walk away from a leadership role. You have the third biggest economy in the world. You have a huge population. You have absorbed the East, and you have managed to keep your economy strong, with all the incredible demands. You have played a very constructive role in a lot of United Nations activities. So, I think you have no choice but to play a leadership role. You have been by far more generous than any other country in investing to your east. I think that it is not even an option to talk about a world in which Germany does not play a leadership role. You cannot withdraw from your responsibilities. Even if you sought to, the vacuum that would be created would require you to move ahead again. But the point I want to make is exactly how these relationships will be-will work themselves out in Europe, for example, is a matter for the Europeans to determine. France has, for example, recently has played a very strong role along with Britain in Bosnia, providing the bulk of the UNPROFOR troops. Canadians have made a major contribution. France recently took the initiative to go to Rwanda, and the United States supported the United Nations giving an approval for France to send troops there to do that until we could put together an African force, that is, a U.N. force. I think that there will be many variations of leadership in the years ahead.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


But one thing that I am sure of is that the size of the German economy and the values that have been demonstrated by the German leadership guarantee that there will be a leadership role for Germany and that it will be a positive thing for the rest of Europe and for the world. The relationship between the United States and Japan is facing a little bit of difficulty. Trade conflict has caused turmoil of the currency market, and so-called framework talks have restarted but have not reached any agreement yet. Under those circumstances, Mr. Murayama, Socialist leader, was elected Japan's next Prime Minister, and you are going to meet him for the first time in Naples. ENTITY, how are you going to manage with Japan's new government and reestablish a good relationship of both countries? I had a good talk with him last night. I called him last night. And we had a very good visit. We reaffirmed our commitment to our relationship, our security partnership, our political partnership, and our economic partnership. And Mr. Murayama said that he hoped we could continue to make progress in the frameworks. If we'd both make our best efforts, he thought we could. It is difficult, I think, to expect to have too high expectations for what has happened in the last several months because of all the political changes which have occurred within Japan. I think the important thing I would say-it is sort of like the argument I made to the gentleman from Canada. If you look at the relationship the United States and Japan-our troops are still there. We worked as one to try to defuse the crisis in North Korea with regard to the North Korean nuclear program. I did everything I could to make sure that every step along the way, everything I did was coordinated closely with not just South Korea but also with Japan. We had good relationships with Russia during this period. We were able to reach out to the Chinese. But it worked because of the historic ties we have had. So again, I would say that it is very important not to let trade disputes or any other disputes that are inevitable in a world where the economy has been growing slowly and where competition is stiff and where we have not yet solved the problem of how wealthy countries promote growth and new jobs in a highly competitive global economy, these things are going to happen from time to time.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


The important thing is to be able to absorb them and just deal with them in a disciplined and regular way and not let the other aspects of the relationship get out of hand. I mean, the United States and Japan have had some serious differences over trade. But they have not interrupted rather an enormous bilateral investment and trade relationship and a deep political partnership. I think the Emperor and Empress, on their recent trip here, were deeply moved by the friendship and the intensity of the friendship for them and for the Japanese people that were demonstrated by the Americans. So I think the feeling in this country about Japan is as strong and as positive as it has ever been. And you know, you are going through a period of political change. You have to work that out. That is what democracies do from time to time. And so, as that-the whole yen-dollar relationship may be in part a product of the perception that maybe things will not change quickly enough because of political conditions. But I think what we have to do is to reassure people that you have got two strong economies here, that these things will work themselves out if we just have the discipline to do it. ENTITY, your first stop will be in Riga, and it is going to be a real and joyful celebration of independence. Many Latvians, as well as many Russians, were humiliated by the-. The real, very hard question among the former Soviet people-recent developments show and especially the Presidential races in Ukraine and Belarus show-a lot of people stand for much closer cooperation with Russia. So can you, sir, envision any kind of democratic and legal reunification of some of the former Soviet republics- newly independent states-without causing a threat to Central European countries, to Baltic countries, to Europe, to national interests of the United States and all of the world? I think that that depends upon whether such decisions would be made really voluntarily and by will of a majority of the people. That is, I sense, particularly-and I have been to Belarus, so I have a feeling for that. I have also been to Ukraine, but I have not spent as much time. But I think that it depends upon whether such movements would develop out of a genuine democratic movement and a free will of the people involved. I have to say that, from my point of view, the policies that President Yeltsin has pursued in the Baltics are very reassuring.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


As you know, the Russian troops have withdrawn from Lithuania, that we are very close to resolving the final matters in Latvia. The United States strongly supports the protection of Russians who remain in the Baltics and the whole issue of minority rights. It is a very big issue for us and our country and throughout the world. But I think the feeling in Central and Eastern Europe about the intentions of Russia is probably more positive now than it was even 6 months ago. And the steadfastness of Russia in continuing to move its troops out of the Baltics is a major part of that. So that if there is a truly independent political development in Belarus, for example, that says, you know, we think we'd be better off if we had some sort of different relationship with Russia, that, I think, will depend on what actually happens. I mean, the people of Central and Eastern Europe will know if some new development occurs. I think they will know in their hearts and minds whether it was a grassroots, honest, democratic impulse. ENTITY, the British Government finds itself once again in a familiar position in Europe, i.e. in a minority of one, on the issue of vetoing the new candidate to head the European Commission. When you talked earlier about your desire for European integration, is that the same thing as supporting a federal Europe along the lines proposed by the Germans and the Belgians and the French? And do you think the British are being unnecessarily skeptical about the creation of a federal European state? I do not know that I have an informed opinion about that. I mean, I think that, again, I think that each of you are sovereign nations, and you will have to make up your mind about what you think is in your national interest. It is my-the only thing I can tell you is that the United States has viewed as in its national interest an economically integrated but open Europe. That is, the fact that Europe would become stronger and more economically integrated, not only through the European Union but also reaching out to the East, we have not viewed as threatening. We have viewed that as positive, because I think that we have to find ways to add wealth to the world's economies every year, to add to the growth rate. We also have not viewed with alarm, at least in my administration, the prospect that there could be greater European security cooperation between the French and the Germans and between others as well. But we are willing to continue to be partners through NATO.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


Now, how far you should go with your political integration is just a decision you will have to make. And we do not have views about that one way or the other except to say we are not threatened that you wish to be closer together in economic or military or political ways. That does not threaten the United States. We feel a stronger Europe makes for a more democratic and a stronger world. But you will have to make up your mind about the politics of it. ENTITY, you are going to start highlevel talks with North Korea. Which do you prefer, the normalization of the relationship of both countries or the solution of nuclear suspicion, I mean especially-to which do you put--weight, the so-called past suspicion or the current and future suspicion of North Korea? You mean with regard to the nuclear issue? Well, it is not so easy to divide them, because of the obligations North Korea undertook in becoming a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime, because that means that North Korea has to be open to inspection by the IAEA for all its facilities from the day that it became a member, forward. I mean, if you asked me, am I more concerned about whether North Korea has one or two nuclear weapons or the capacity to make them now or whether they might make two dozen in the future, that is an easy question to answer. I am more concerned about two dozen than I am one or two. But in the-when you become a member of one of these international organizations and you assume the responsibilities of membership, then you have to honor those responsibilities. In terms of reunification and normalization of relations, all those things, those things will have to be worked out partly between the north and the south, and I am elated that they are going to meet. I think that is a good thing, the leaders of the two countries. But we will begin our discussions first on July 8th. And what we hope to do is to find ways to broaden this debate because really what this is about is, even more than the nuclear weapons, is what role will North Korea assume in the future? What is the vision of the leaders of North Korea for that nation at the turn of the century or 20 years from now? Should it be an isolated country that makes money from selling No Dong missiles and low-level nuclear materials?

Interview With Foreign Journalists


On the attendance records of the National Guard, it said he had 56 out of a required 50 points. Or do you know what the maximum number of points you can get -- First of all, we were pleased to be able to provide you all with these additional records that just recently came to our attention. These documents clearly show that the President fulfilled his duties. And we had previously released some of the point summaries that you are referencing. There is more complete information relating to those point summaries that document the fact that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties when he was serving in the National Guard back in the early '70s. ENTITY, a couple of questions I have -- the records that you handed out today, and other records that exist, indicate that the President did not perform any Guard duty during the months of December 1972, February or March of 1973. I am wondering if you can tell us where he was during that period. And also, how is it that he managed to not make the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status? ENTITY, the records that you are pointing to, these records are the payroll records; they are the point summaries. These records verify that he met the requirements necessary to fulfill his duties. Where was he in December of '72, February and March of '73? And why did he not fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status? These records -- these records I am holding here clearly document the President fulfilling his duties in the National Guard. The President was proud of his service. I asked a simple question; how about a simple answer? ENTITY, if you will let me address the question, I am coming to your answer, and I'd like -- Well, if you would address it -- maybe you could. But this is an important issue that some chose to raise in the context of an election year, and the facts are important for people to know. And if you do not want to know the facts, that is fine. But I want to share the facts with you. I do want to know the facts, which is why I keep asking the question. And I will ask it one more time. Where was he in December of '72, February and March of '73? Why did not he fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status in 1972? The President recalls serving both when he was in Texas and when he was in Alabama. And that is what I can tell you.

George W. Bush Press Briefing by Scott McClellan


And we have provided you these documents that show clearly that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties. And that is the reason that he was honorably discharged from the National Guard. The President was proud of his service. The President spent some of that time in Texas. He was a member of the Texas Air National Guard, and he was given permission, on a temporary basis, to perform equivalent duty while he was in Alabama. And he performed that duty. ENTITY, when Senator Kerry goes around campaigning, there is frequently what they call a band of brothers, a bunch of soldiers who served with him, who come forward and give testimonials for him. I see, in looking at our files in the campaign of 2000, it said that you were looking for people who served with him to verify his account of service in the National Guard. Has the White House been able to find, like Senator Kerry, a band of brothers or others who can testify about the President's service? All the information that we have we shared with you in 2000, that was relevant to this issue. And all the additional information that has come to our attention we have shared with you. The President was asked about this in his interview over the weekend, and the President made it clear, yes, I want all records to be made available that are relevant to this issue; that there are some out there that were making outrageous, baseless accusations. It was a shame that they brought it up four years ago. It was a shame that they brought it up again this year. And I think that the facts are very clear from these documents. These documents -- the payroll records and the point summaries verify that he was paid for serving and that he met his requirements. Actually, I was not talking about documents, I was talking about people -- you know, comrades-in-arms -- That is why I said everything that came to our attention that was available, we made available at that time, during the 2000 campaign. But you said you were looking for people -- and I take it you did not find any people? And we -- Mr. Lloyd, who has provided a statement to put some of this into context for everybody, made some public statements during that time period to verify the records that the President had fulfilled his duties. And he put out an additional statement now to put this into context.


He is someone with some technical expertise and someone that understands these matters, because he was in the National Guard at the time. ENTITY, can I follow on this, because I do think this is important. You know, it might strike some as odd that there is not anyone who can stand up and say, I served with George W. Bush in Alabama, or in Houston in the Guard unit. Particularly because there are people, his superiors who have stepped forward -- in Alabama and in Houston -- who have said in the past several years that they have no recollection of him being there and serving. So is not that odd that nobody -- you cannot produce anyone to corroborate what these records purport to show? You are perfectly welcome to go back and talk to individuals from that time period. But I would have thought you guys would have had a real good handle on -- these documents make it very clear that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties -- Well, that is subject to interpretation. When you serve, you are paid for that service. And these documents outline the days on which he was paid. And these documents also show that he met his requirements. And it is just really a shame that people are continuing to bring this issue up. People asked for records to be released that would demonstrate he met his requirements. the facts are clear -- -- you cannot read them. Have you looked at these? You cannot -- how are we supposed to read these? Well, I think you can talk -- one, we put it out on email. It is a lot easier to read, I think, on the email version because that was the -- Oh, you did put it on our email? But it was sent to us in email form from the Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado. To corroborate these records, will the President do two things -- one, will he authorize the relevant defense agency in Colorado to release actual pay stubs for the President? And if those do not exist, will the President file a form, as he can do at the IRS, to at least look for a '72 or '73 tax return that would corroborate what you claim are payroll summaries that he actually got paid for this duty? It is my understanding this is the information that is available from his payroll records. And it shows the days on which he was paid.


In terms of tax returns, the President, like most Americans, does not have his tax returns from some 30 years ago. But it is possible that he could file a form requesting the IRS to search if they have a return for '72 or '73. Is he willing to do that? Obviously, if there is any additional information that came to our attention that was relevant, we would make that information available. Well, it could be relevant if he would file a form -- I think that these documents clearly show that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties. I mean, these were the documents that people questioned and said should be made available. We thought we had all the information that existed previously, but we went back to double-check after the comments that were made over the weekend, to see if there was any additional information available. And when we contacted the Personnel Center in Colorado, it was our understanding that the Personnel Center in St. Louis and Colorado were already working to pull this information together, and that this is the information that they have that is relevant to this topic. So it is your position and it is the President's position that these documents put this issue to rest, period? Oh, I think these documents show that he fulfilled his duties. These documents show that he met his requirements. There seems to be a discrepancy now in the President's record that I wondered if you could help me with. These documents that you are holding up show that the President showed up for duty in October and November of '72, January, April and May of '73. But the President's officer effectiveness report, filed by his commanders, Lieutenants Colonel Killean and Harris, both now deceased, for the period 01 May '72 to 30 April, '73, says he has not been observed at this unit, where he was supposed to show up and earning these points on these days. And certainly by -- the President said he returned to Texas in November of '72. So some of these dates of service, which are in these records, ought to have been noted by his commanding officers, who, nevertheless, said, twice, he has not been observed here. Can you explain that? I am not sure about these specific documents. I will be glad to take a look at them. But these documents show the days on which he was paid for his service.


And the President -- as I have said, and we previously said during the 2000 campaign -- recalls serving both in Texas and in Alabama during the time period you are bringing up. So he served, but his commanding officers did not know it? Again, I do not know the specific documents you are referring to. If you want to bring those to me, I will be glad to take a look at them and get you the answers to your questions. Then on the general issue, Senator Kerry has said that the National Guard was one way for people to avoid service in Vietnam. The President and the White House have taken umbrage at that, saying that is denigrating the National Guard. In 1994, the President told the Houston Chronicle, in relation to his joining the National Guard, I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment, nor was I willing to go to Canada, so I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes. It sounds like the President, himself, acknowledged that he went into the National Guard because he did not want to go to Vietnam. Now we are trying to change into different issues here. The President was proud of his service in the National Guard. He fulfilled his duties; he was honorably discharged. I think there are some that we are now seeing are not interested in the facts. What they are interested in is trying to twist the facts for partisan political advantage in an election year. I am not doubting that, I am trying to explore it. One of the reasons the Democrats are raising it is because they have got a guy who was in Vietnam. Now it is -- he did not serve, now it is a different issue -- when the facts clearly show that he did serve, he did fulfill his duties, he did meet his requirements, he was honorably discharged. But he did not want to go to Vietnam. It is clear that some are not interested in the facts. It is clear that some may be more interested in using this for partisan political advantage. Are you saying that every date listed on document five is a day that the President was actually -- showed up, he was suited up, he was flying planes -- that is what that means? Because there are, you know, points for active duty, points for inactive duty. Well, and that is why we put out the statement from Mr. Lloyd, so you could put that in context.


He is someone with the technical expertise that understands those matters and can explain what those points mean. And I think that his statement does that. In terms of the payments, you are paid for the days on which you serve. The days on which you serve, meaning he was actually there on these dates listed, he was actually there -- You are paid for the days you serve. Again, there was a time period when he was in Alabama, and he recalls serving in Alabama. He was still a member of the Texas Air National Guard at that time. What he was doing was performing equivalent duty, because he was working in Alabama at the time. And he also remembers serving in Texas, as well. ENTITY, so, for example, in January '73, the President served, according to this, on January 4th, January 5th, January 6th in either Texas or Alabama -- according to document five. You are paid for the days you serve. You have the documents right in front of you. Is that yes ? I said you are paid for the days in which you serve. The President recalls serving in Alabama. He also recalls serving in Texas. That is what he recalls. But, again, -- I know you are going to bat this down, but there are people who -- You know, there were a lot of people calling for these records to be released. We finally came across these records. They have been released, and these documents reflect the fact that the President met his requirements and fulfilled his duties. And the fact that some of his officers do not recall ever seeing him, are you suggesting that they just do not remember after 30 years? Well, I think I will let them speak for themselves. I am not sure that they exactly said it in that way. Some different ones said different things. They have spoken for themselves. What is your answer to them about why they do not remember seeing the President? I just said that. But why are they saying this? And if you look at the records, if you look at these records, these records document that the President fulfilled his duties. These records reflect that he met his requirements, both in point summaries and that he was paid for the days in which he served. ENTITY, can you just clarify, back to Elisabeth's question here on document five? For example, in February and March of '73, there are no dates that appear, meaning he did not show up then, or what --