When we talked when you were campaigning for the presidency, I asked you which Administration's foreign policy you admired. And you said that you looked at George H.W. Bush's diplomacy, and I took that to mean the pragmatism, the sense of limits, good diplomacy, as you looked upon it favorably. It is true that I have been complimentary of George H.W. Bush's foreign policy, and I continue to believe that he managed a very difficult period very effectively. Now that I have been in office for three years, I think that I am always cautious about comparing what we have done to what others have done, just because each period is unique. Each set of challenges is unique. But what I can say is that I made a commitment to change the trajectory of American foreign policy in a way that would end the war in Iraq, refocus on defeating our primary enemy, al-Qaeda, strengthen our alliances and our leadership in multilateral fora and restore American leadership in the world. And I think we have accomplished those principal goals. We still have a lot of work to do, but if you look at the pivot from where we were in 2008 to where we are today, the Iraq war is over, we refocused attention on al-Qaeda, and they are badly wounded. They are not eliminated, but the defeat not just of bin Laden, but most of the top leadership, the tightening noose around their safe havens, the incapacity for them to finance themselves, they are much less capable than they were back in 2008. Our alliances with NATO, Japan, South Korea, our close military cooperation with countries like Israel have never been stronger. Our participation in multilateral organizations has been extremely effective. In the United Nations, not only do we have a voice, but we have been able to shape an agenda. And in the fastest-growing regions of the world in emerging markets in the Asia Pacific region, just to take one prominent example, countries are once again looking to the United States for leadership. That is not the exact same moment as existed post-World War II. It is an American leadership that recognizes the rise of countries like China and India and Brazil. It is a U.S. leadership that recognizes our limits in terms of resources, capacity. And yet what I think we have been able to establish is a clear belief among other nations that the United States continues to be the one indispensable nation in tackling major international problems.

Interview with Fareed Zakaria of Time Magazine


And I think that there is a strong belief that we continue to be a superpower, unique perhaps in the annals of history, that is not only self-interested but is also thinking about how to create a set of international rules and norms that everyone can follow and that everyone can benefit from. So you combine all those changes, the United States is in a much stronger position now to assert leadership over the next century than it was only three years ago. We still have huge challenges ahead. And one thing I have learned over the last three years is that as much as you'd like to guide events, stuff happens and you have to respond. And those responses, no matter how effective your diplomacy or your foreign policy, are sometimes going to produce less-than-optimal results. I particularly like the third one. What do you say? I think Mr. Romney and the rest of the Republican field are going to be playing to their base until the primary season is over. Once it is, we will have a serious debate about foreign policy. I will feel very confident about being able to put my record before the American people and saying that America is safer, stronger and better positioned to win the future than it was when I came into office. And there are going to be some issues where people may have some legitimate differences, and there are going to be some serious debates, just because they are hard issues. But overall, I think it is going to be pretty hard to argue that we have not executed a strategy over the last three years that has put America in a stronger position than it was when I came into office. Romney says if you are re-elected, Iran will get a nuclear weapon, and if he is elected, it will not . If you are re-elected, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon? I have made myself clear since I began running for the presidency that we will take every step available to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. What I have also said is that our efforts are going to be Excuse me. When I came into office, what we had was a situation in which the world was divided, Iran was unified, it was on the move in the region. And because of effective diplomacy, unprecedented pressure with respect to sanctions, our ability to get countries like Russia and China - that had previously balked at any serious pressure on Iran - to work with us, Iran now faces a unified world community, Iran is isolated, its standing in the region is diminished. It is feeling enormous economic pressure.


And we are in a position where, even as we apply that pressure, we are also saying to them, There is an avenue to resolve this, which is a diplomatic path where they forego nuclear weapons, abide by international rules and can have peaceful nuclear power as other countries do, subject to the restrictions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But the way, the Iranians might see it as that they have made proposals - the Brazilian-Turkish proposal - and that they never go anywhere. They are not the basis of negotiations. Yes, I think if you take a look at the track record, the Iranians have simply not engaged in serious negotiations on these issues. We actually put forward a very serious proposal that would have allowed them to display good faith. They need medical isotopes; there was a way to take out some of their low-enriched uranium so that they could not - so that there was clarity that they were not stockpiling that to try to upgrade to weapons-grade uranium. In exchange, the international community would provide the medical isotopes that they needed for their research facility. And they delayed and they delayed, and they hemmed and they hawed, and then when finally the Brazilian-Indian proposal was put forward, it was at a point where they were now declaring that they were about to move forward on 20% enriched uranium, which would defeat the whole purpose of showing good faith that they were not stockpiling uranium that could be transformed into weapons-grade. So, not to get too bogged down in the details, the point is that the Iranians have a very clear path where they say, We are not going to produce weapons, we will not stockpile material that can be used for weapons. The international community then says, We will work with you to develop your peaceful nuclear energy capacity, subject to the kinds of inspections that other countries have agreed to in the past. What makes it difficult is Iran's insistence that it is not subject to the same rules that everybody else is subject to. Suppose that with all this pressure you have been able to put on Iran, and the economic pressure, suppose the consequence is that the price of oil keeps rising, but Iran does not make any significant concession. It is fair to say that this is not an easy problem, and anybody who claims otherwise does not know what they are talking about.


Obviously, Iran sits in a volatile region during a volatile period of time, and their own internal conflicts makes it that much more difficult, I think, for them to make big strategic decisions. Having said that, our goal consistently has been to combine pressure with an opportunity for them to make good decisions and to mobilize the international community to maximize that pressure. Can we guarantee that Iran takes the smarter path? Which is why I have repeatedly said we do not take any options off the table in preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon. But what I can confidently say, based on discussions that I have had across this government and with governments around the world, is that of all the various difficult options available to us, we have taken the one that is most likely to accomplish our goal and one that is most consistent with America's security interest. When you look at Afghanistan over the past three years - the policies you have adopted - would it be fair to say that the counterterrorism part of the policy, the killing bad guys, has been a lot more successful than the counterinsurgency, the stabilizing of vast aspects of the country, and that going forward, you should really focus in on that first set of policies? Well, what is fair to say is that the counterterrorism strategy as applied to al-Qaeda has been extremely successful. The job is not finished, but there is no doubt that we have severely degraded al-Qaeda's capacity. When it comes to stabilizing Afghanistan, that was always going to be a more difficult and messy task, because it is not just military - it is economic, it is political, it is dealing with the capacity of an Afghan government that does not have a history of projecting itself into all parts of the country, tribal and ethnic conflicts that date back centuries. Now, we have made significant progress in places like Helmand province and in the southern portions of the country. And because of the cohesion and effectiveness of coalition forces, there are big chunks of Afghanistan where the Taliban do not rule, there is increasingly effective local governance, the Afghan security forces are beginning to take the lead. But what is absolutely true is that there are portions of the country where that is not the case, where local governance is weak, where local populations still have deep mistrust of the central government.


And part of our challenge over the next two years as we transition to Afghan forces is to continue to work with the Afghan government so that it recognizes its responsibilities not only to provide security for those local populations but also to give them some credible sense that the local government - or the national government is looking out for them, and that they are going to be able to make a living and they are not going to be shaken down by corrupt police officials and that they can get products to market. I never believed that America could essentially deliver peace and prosperity to all of Afghanistan in a three-, four-, five-year time frame. And I think anybody who believed that did not know the history and the challenges facing Afghanistan. I mean, this is the third poorest country in the world, with one of the lowest literacy rates and no significant history of a strong civil service or an economy that was deeply integrated with the world economy. It is going to take decades for Afghanistan to fully achieve its potential. What we can do, and what we are doing, is providing the Afghan government the time and space it needs to become more effective, to serve its people better, to provide better security, to avoid a repetition of all-out civil war that we saw back in the '90s. And what we have also been able to do, I think, is to maintain a international coalition to invest in Afghanistan long beyond the point when it was politically popular to do so. But ultimately, the Afghans are going to have to take on these responsibilities and these challenges, and there will be, no doubt, bumps in the road along the way. From the perspective of our security interests, I think we can accomplish our goal, which is to make sure that Afghanistan is not a safe haven from which to launch attacks against the United States or its allies. But the international community - not just us; the Russians and the Chinese and the Indians and the Pakistanis and the Iranians and others - I think all have an interest in making sure that Afghanistan is not engulfed in constant strife, and I think that is an achievable goal. As the Chinese watched your most recent diplomacy in Asia, is it fair for them to have looked at the flurry of diplomatic activity - political, military, economic - and concluded, as many Chinese scholars have, that the United States is building a containment policy against China? No, that would not be accurate, and I have specifically rejected that formulation.


I think what would be fair to conclude is that, as I said we would do, the United States has pivoted to focus on the fastest-growing region of the world, where we have an enormous stake in peace, security, the free flow of commerce and, frankly, an area of the world that we had neglected over the last decade because of our intense focus on Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East. So if you look at what we have done, we have strengthened our alliances with Japan and South Korea - I think they are in as good of shape as they have ever been. We have involved ourselves in the regional architecture of - including organizations like ASEAN and APEC. We have sent a clear signal that we are a Pacific power and we will continue to be a Pacific power, but we have done this all in the context of a belief that a peacefully rising China is good for everybody. One of the things we have accomplished over the last three years is to establish a strong dialogue and working relationship with China across a whole range of issues. And where we have serious differences, we have been able to express those differences without it spiraling into a bad place. I think the Chinese government respects us, respects what we are trying to do, recognizes that we are going to be players in the Asia Pacific region for the long term, but I think also recognize that we have in no way inhibited them from continuing their extraordinary growth. The only thing we have insisted on, as a principle in that region is, everybody's got to play by the same set of rules, everybody's got to abide by a set of international norms. And that is not unique to China. That is true for all of us. Well, I think that when we have had some friction in the relationship, it is because China, I think, still sees itself as a developing or even poor country that should be able to pursue mercantilist policies that are for their benefit and where the rules applying to them should not be the same rules that apply to the United States or Europe or other major powers. And what we have tried to say to them very clearly is, Look, you guys have grown up. You are already the most populous country on earth, depending on how you measure it, the largest or next-largest economy in the world and will soon be the largest economy, almost inevitably. You are rapidly consuming more resources than anybody else.


And in that context, whether it is maritime issues or trade issues, you cannot do whatever you think is best for you. You have got to play by the same rules as everybody else. I think that message is one that resonates with other Asia Pacific countries, all of whom want a good relationship with China, all of whom are desperately seeking access to China's markets and have forged enormous commercial ties, but who also recognize that unless there are some international norms there, they are going to get pushed around and taken advantage of. You think it is inevitable that China will be the largest economy in the world? It is now the second largest, even on PPP. Well, they are - assuming that they maintain stability and current growth patterns, then, yes, it is inevitable. Even if they slow down somewhat, they are so large that they'd probably end up being, just in terms of the overall size of the economy, the largest. But it is doubtful that any time in the near future they achieve the kind of per capita income that the United States or some of the other highly developed countries have achieved. They have just got a lot of people, and they are moving hundreds of millions of people out of poverty at the same time. You have developed a reputation for managing your foreign policy team very effectively, without dissention. So how come you can manage this fairly complex process so well, and relations with Congress are not so good? Well, in foreign policy, the traditional saying is, Partisan differences end at the water's edge, that there is a history of bipartisanship in foreign policy. But I do think there is still a tradition among those who work in foreign policy, whether it is our diplomatic corps or our military or intelligence services, that says our focus is on the mission, our focus is on advancing American interests, and we are going to make decisions based on facts and analysis and a clear-eyed view of the world, as opposed to based on ideology or what is politically expedient. And so when I am working with my foreign policy team, there is just not a lot of extraneous noise. There is not a lot of posturing and positioning and How is this going to play on cable news? and Can we score some points here?


That whole political circus that has come to dominate so much of Washington applies less to the foreign policy arena, which is why I could forge such an effective working relationship and friendship with Bob Gates, who comes out of that tradition, even though I am sure he would've considered himself a pretty conservative, hawkish Republican. At least that was where he was coming out of. I never asked him what his current party affiliation was, because it did not matter. I just knew he was going to give me good advice. But have you been able to forge similar relationships with foreign leaders? Because one of the criticisms people make about your style of diplomacy is that it is very cool, it is aloof, that you do not pal around with these guys. I was not in other Administrations, so I did not see the interactions between U.S. Presidents and various world leaders. But the friendships and the bonds of trust that I have been able to forge with a whole range of leaders is precisely, or is a big part of, what has allowed us to execute effective diplomacy. I think that if you ask them, Angela Merkel or Prime Minister Singh or President Lee or Prime Minister Erdogan or David Cameron would say, We have a lot of trust and confidence in the ENTITY. We believe what he says. We believe that he will follow through on his commitments. We think he is paying attention to our concerns and our interests. And that is part of the reason we have been able to forge these close working relationships and gotten a whole bunch of stuff done. You just cannot do it with John Boehner. You know, the truth is, actually, when it comes to Congress, the issue is not personal relationships. My suspicion is that this whole critique has to do with the fact that I do not go to a lot of Washington parties. And as a consequence, the Washington press corps maybe just does not feel like I am in the mix enough with them, and they figure, well, if I am not spending time with them, I must be cold and aloof. The fact is, I have got a 13-year-old and 10-year-old daughter, and so, no, Michelle and I do not do the social scene, because as busy as we are, we have a limited amount of time, and we want to be good parents at a time that is vitally important for our kids.


In terms of Congress, the reason we are not getting enough done right now is you have got a Congress that is deeply ideological and sees a political advantage in not getting stuff done. We had a great time playing golf together. The problem was that no matter how much golf we played or no matter how much we yukked it up, he had trouble getting his caucus to go along with doing the responsible thing on a whole bunch of issues over the past year. You talked a lot about how foreign policy ultimately has to derive from American strength, and so when I talk to businessmen, a lot of them are dismayed that you have not signaled to the world and to markets that the U.S. will get its fiscal house in order by embracing your deficit commission, the Simpson-Bowles. And that walking away from that,which is a phrase I have heard a lot, has been a very bad signal to the world. Why will not you embrace Simpson-Bowles? I have got to say, most of the people who say that, if you asked them what is in Simpson-Bowles, they could not tell you. So first of all, I did embrace Simpson-Bowles. I am the one who created the commission. If I had not pushed it, it would not have happened, because congressional sponsors, including a whole bunch of Republicans, walked away from it. The basic premise of Simpson-Bowles was, we have to take a balanced approach in which we have spending cuts and we have revenues, increased revenues, in order to close our deficits and deal with our debt. And although I did not agree with every particular that was proposed in Simpson-Bowles - which, by the way, if you asked most of the folks who were on Simpson-Bowles, did they agree with every provision in there?, they'd say no as well. What I did do is to take that framework and present a balanced plan of entitlement changes, discretionary cuts, defense cuts, health care cuts as well as revenues and said, We are ready to make a deal. And I presented that three times to Congress. So the core of Simpson-Bowles, the idea of a balanced deficit-reduction plan, I have consistently argued for, presented to the American people, presented to Congress. They did not have some special sauce or formula that avoided us making these tough choices. They are the same choices that I have said I am prepared to make.


And the only reason it has not happened is the Republicans were unwilling to do anything on revenue. The revenues that we were seeking were far less than what was in Simpson-Bowles. We have done more discretionary cuts than was called for in Simpson-Bowles. The whole half of Simpson-Bowles that was hard ideologically for the Republicans to embrace they have said they are not going to do any of them. So this notion that the reason that it has not happened is we did not embrace Simpson-Bowles is just nonsense. which is what Simpson-Bowles - - which is what Simpson-Bowles called for, they would gag. There is not one of those business leaders who would accept a bet. They'd say, Well, we embrace Simpson-Bowles except for that part that would cause us to pay a lot more. And in terms of the defense cuts that were called for in Simpson-Bowles, they were far deeper than even what would have been required if the sequester goes through, and so would have not been a responsible pathway for us to reduce our deficit spending. Now, that is not the fault of Simpson-Bowles. What they were trying to do was provide us a basic framework, and we took that framework, and we have pushed it forward. There is no equivalence between Democratic and Republican positions when it comes to deficit reduction. We have shown ourselves to be serious. We have made a trillion dollars worth of cuts already. We have got another $1.5 trillion worth of cuts on the chopping blocks. But what we have also said is, in order for us to seriously reduce the deficit, there is got to be increased revenue. And if we can get any Republicans to show any serious commitment - not vague commitments, not We will get revenues because of tax reform somewhere in the future, but we do not know exactly what that looks like and we cannot identify a single tax that we would allow to go up - but if we can get any of them who are still in office, as opposed to retired, to commit to that, we will be able to reduce our deficit. Now, to your larger point, you are absolutely right. Our whole foreign policy has to be anchored in economic strength here at home.


And if we are not strong, stable, growing, making stuff, training our workforce so that it is the most skilled in the world, maintaining our lead in innovation, in basic research, in basic science, in the quality of our universities, in the transparency of our financial sector, if we do not maintain the upward mobility and equality of opportunity that underwrites our political stability and makes us a beacon for the world, then our foreign policy leadership will diminish as well. Can we do that in a world with so much competition from so many countries? One of the things you do hear people say is, You know, we have all this regulation. You are trying to make America more competitive, but you have got Dodd-Frank, you have got health care. And in that context, are we going to be able to be competitive, to attract investment, to create jobs? Look, first of all, with respect to regulation, this whole notion that somehow there is been this huge tidal wave of regulation is not true, and we can provide you the facts. Our regulations have a lower cost than the comparable regulations under the Bush Administration; they have far higher benefits. We have engaged in a unprecedented regulatory look-back, where we are weeding out and clearing up a whole bunch of regulations that were outdated and outmoded, and we are saving businesses billions of dollars and tons of paperwork and man-hours that they are required to fill out a bunch of forms that are not needed. I just had a conference last week where we had a group of manufacturing companies - some service companies as well - that are engaging in insourcing. They are bringing work back to the United States and plants back to the United States, because as the wages in China and other countries begin to increase, and U.S. worker productivity has gone way up, the cost differential for labor has significantly closed. And what these companies say is, as long as the United States is still investing in the best infrastructure in the world, the best education system in the world, is training enough skilled workers and engineers and is creating a stable platform for businesses to succeed and providing us with certainty, there is no reason why America cannot be the most competitive advanced economy in the world. But that requires us to continue to up our game and do things better and do things smart. We have started that process over the last three years.


I have no announcements to make, gentlemen, except that I want to clear up just one thing, and that is in regard to the procedure of the Ways and Means Committee. The Ways and Means Committee have been proceeding exactly as I have requested them to proceed. I asked them, in the first place, to consider social security ahead of taxes, and that is the reason they are doing it. ENTITY, Governor Dever was in here a couple of weeks ago and indicated that you favored a special inquiry by the Ways and Means Committee in the domestic watch situation. The matter was placed before me by the Waltham Watch Company and two or three other American watch companies. I made no comment on the situation, except to take the papers which they gave me and told them I would look into it. ENTITY, there is a report that the administration is going to propose home relief funds in the social security program. What kind of funds, sir, did he ask? I do not know what that means, but go ahead and explain it to him, Tony.1 Story out of New York, that is the reason. ENTITY, your military aide, Gen. Harry Vaughan, has been the recipient of a considerable amount of criticism in connection with the decoration offered to him by the Government of Argentina.2 He has been singled out for criticism, although a medal that medal and other medals under similar circumstances have been offered to other officials and other officers. Have you any comment on why he should be criticized? No reason in the world why he should be criticized. Stanley Woodward informed me the other day just accidentally happened to inform me that he has more than a hundred two or three over there in his drawer that have been presented to nearly every every general and admiral that we have got here in Washington, and more than twenty of these this same medal that General Vaughan received, in that drawer, and various other generals and admirals in the service of the United States Government. It was handled strictly according to law. And the only reason for the squawk is because General Vaughan happens to be my military aide. They are gunning for you over his shoulder? You mean, ENTITY, these generals do not pick up these decorations after they receive them? It is the specific the law is specific on it, that those decorations are to be not to be received individually until they receive permission from Congress to get them. That is the in the criminal code in the United States Code, not the criminal code United States Code.

The President's News Conference


During wartime it was allowed by the Congress by specific law that the military services could receive and civilians, too could receive decorations from our Allies or associated powers in the World War. That period expired on the 30th day of last June, and the civil code went into effect at that time. I wonder if you will give us some of your ideas about it? My ideas were very clearly and specifically expressed by the Secretary of State yesterday after an interview with me.3 Resolution 239 was passed by the Senate and unanimously passed by the House. And I announced clearly in my message on the in the inaugural message, and in various messages on it previous to that, our stand in connection with the Atlantic Pact. ENTITY, what you said in your message still stands? What is your reaction, ENTITY, to the story that Secretary Royall asked to have troops withdrawn from Japan If I remember correctly, Secretary Royall categorically denied the statement. ENTITY, in his letter of February 14 to Secretary Krug, Mr. Pace said the Central Arizona project does not meet with your program. The Central Arizona project is under consideration by the Congress, and it has not been considered as whether it is a part of the program or not. The water situation in Arizona and in California is in a serious situation. I myself have been making some personal investigations on the situation, with the idea to try to find more water for both of those States. ENTITY, a subsequent letter to-Mr. Pace sent to Senator O'Mahoney has been interpreted by Arizona as a reversal of your position. If you will question Senator Hayden and the Senators from California, you will find that there is no confusion, and never has been. ENTITY, have you received a new report from your Economic Advisers? I receive a regular monthly report. Can you give us your estimate on what the business outlook is today? There is considerable apprehension, you know, about falling prices and unemployment. I think it is the leveling off that everybody has been wishing for. And I hope that is the case, and that we do not have another spiral in prices. ENTITY, do you think-are you in favor of modifying consumer credit controls, under Regulation W?4  I am not considering it at the present time. ENTITY, have you reached a decision on whether Dr. Bruce is going back to Argentina? I will tell you all about it later, after an interview with him.

The President's News Conference


The McGraw-Hill Publishing Company sent out a lot of releases and stuff today, and one of them indicated that Ralph Bunche would be the next American Ambassador to Russia. Is that news to you? Yes, that is news to me. That is news to me. ENTITY, while we are talking about Russia, have you made a decision yet about Bedell Smith? That decision will have to be made by General Smith himself. He is under treatment now, on account of his health, and I have not had a conference with him lately. That is up to General Smith. He is still at Walter Reed? ENTITY, would you care to say anything further on the subject of taxes? There is some speculation that since you have put social security ahead of taxes, taxes will have to be abandoned. It is a matter of procedure-does not make any difference. ENTITY, would you care to comment on why you asked them to follow that procedure, of social security first? Because they are not we were not ready on the tax proposition as yet. ENTITY, are you would you be considering a compromise on taxes below $4 billion? I made my statement to the Congress in my message. Have you any ideas on the secrecy of those trials? I do not know anything about it, Pete5 The Constitution should follow the flag wherever it goes, and trials should be conducted as we usually conduct them in this country. That is my theory, and I am trying to enforce it. I do not know anything about this one to which you refer. ENTITY, in the Senate today, Mr. Langer said that you have dropped all pretense of continuing bipartisan foreign policy. ENTITY, would you care to comment on the Loyalty Board's clearance of William Remington? I think the Loyalty Board undoubtedly heard all the evidence and made the proper decision. That is what I set them up for. Will you clear up the Constitution following the flag? Those spies were tried in this city, those Germans that landed on Long Island, under the greatest of secrecy. That was during wartime. That was during wartime. ENTITY, I have been asked to ask you if you are opposed to building this Glacier View Dam in the Glacier National Park, which has caused a controversy between the Park Service and the ENTITY Engineers? I cannot remember enough about the case, Tony.7 That is the first I had heard of that controversy. Is that on the-that Hungry Horse Dam? First I heard about it was 10 minutes ago.

The President's News Conference


Then I happen to know a little bit more about it than you do, Tony. ENTITY, getting back to that other thing on the Constitution, is there not a comparable situation in Europe, where you have an occupied area where you have saboteurs landing in Long Island in wartime? It is comparable to that, but I am very anxious that American citizens I do not want to treat I am very anxious that American citizens I am speaking strictly of Americans under no matter where they are, you ought to have the same privilege that you have at home, if you work for the Government. I do not care where you are, in the occupied areas, or the trial of these foreigners, it is comparable to that. ENTITY, on the other hand, do not you think American justice should be full and open? Well, that is a matter for argument, I think, if it comes to spies in enemy countries. ENTITY, what do you think of this controversy between certain reporters working in Japan and Secretary Royall, as to what he said, that we might have to pull out of Japan in case of war with Russia? I would talk to the Secretary for ENTITY. I could not understand what you said? I have no comment to make on that. The policy on Japan is set and fixed, and it has not changed. Philadelphia is having a transit strike that has everything tied up. Is there any law or provision under which you can intervene? I beg your pardon? They are in the course of preparation, and as soon as possible we will have them ready. Will it follow the plan of last May 24, in which you submitted a message to Congress outlining That is right I believe I referred specifically to it in the message in the Message on the State of the Union, I think. ENTITY, Senator Taft has said that the anti-inflation bill that went up the other day proposes a controlled economy. I was wondering if you have anything to say on that? I have no argument with Senator Taft. My views on the subject have been expressed in message after message to Congress. If the Senators want to have an argument about it, that is their privilege.

The President's News Conference


And it is my great honor to welcome to the White House the 2019 NCAA Women's Basketball National Champions, the Baylor Lady Bears. And I watched that last game, and that was a tough, rough game with Notre Dame. To ENTITY, I want to just congratulate you and the entire team. And you know, interestingly, I got a little bit of a rsum about you, Coach. Should I-can I read a couple of lines from this? Do you mind if I do that? No matter what ENTITY has attempted in basketball, whether it be the court or along the sidelines, has found tremendous success. In 18 seasons as the head coach, she has attained a 576 career victories and ranks number two among the winningest Division I head coaches in the winning percentage of .853. And she does not like number three, but she is going to catch it. She is number three alltime, by percentage, between two mentors, second ranked, Leon Barmore -that is at .869. So you are pretty close to Pat Summitt. If you have a couple of more seasons, good, you can maybe even take that percentage. And you started off, and you inherited a team that was 7 and 20 and was going nowhere. And look what you have right there. Here we are in the Oval Office, right? I just read that through. I heard great things, and I read it, and I felt we should let people know, because that is an incredible-7 and 20 to the national championship. Would you like to work at the White House, by any chance? We will take you. We need that. We met him. So, again, to your team, you deserved it. I also want to recognize Baylor President, Linda Livingstone. I am very proud of this team. We need to remember that. These are friends of mine. Congressman Bill Flores. Do you go to a lot of the games? He is been with me for a long time-Louie, right? We fight that fight. You'd better believe it. And a friend of ours also-a great attorney and a great talent-is Attorney General Ken Paxton. How you doing with all those cases? We do not let him lose any cases. The championship game will go down as one of the greatest in the history of women's college basketball. You would say that, I think, Coach, right?

Remarks Honoring the NCAA Women's Basketball Champion Baylor University Lady Bears and an Exchange With Reporters


You dominated for most of the game and led Notre Dame by 12 points going into the final minutes of the third quarter. You'd better turn on this game. Then, one of your true star players-a great player-team captain Lauren Cox suffered a painful MCL sprain and had to be taken off the court in a wheelchair. After seeing such a vital member of the team go down, Notre Dame surged in the final quarter, tying the game with 16 seconds left. And you had an angry coach. As the clock ticked toward zero, Chloe Jackson hung back at half court, drove toward the key, and made a game-winning layup with less than 4 seconds remaining It was a play for the ages. And I have heard that from a lot of people. Then, the game almost went into overtime when Notre Dame was given two free throws with 1.9 seconds left on the board. Well, they do not have that. So tell me, how many of the-one was made? She missed the first one. She missed the first one. And I am sure you were very-you felt badly about her missing the first one. So she-she went one for two, and that was that, huh? But in the end, you won the game 82 to 81. And it was a thrilling victory that people will be talking about for many, many years to come. God is good. He has blessed these kids. That victory was the culmination of an incredible year. The Lady Bears had a stunning 37-and-1 season. What happened after Christmas? Stanford has a very good team as well. You beat your chief rivals, the Texas Longhorns, not once, but twice. And you scored nearly 1,000 more points than any of your opponents and blocked more than three times as many shots. You have left an enduring mark on college basketball history. And you will all be incredibly proud of what you have achieved in many years to come. You are going to be looking back, and you are going to be thinking about that incredible season, and you are going to be thinking about being in this incredible office, right? I have had the biggest people in the world come into this office, and they stop, and they look. Can you believe it? I have seen them, where they cry. I sort of say-you know what I say?


With the Coca-Cola 600 coming up this weekend, how confident are you that the four days of racing in the Charlotte Motor Speedway can be done safely? Did North Carolina health officials learn anything or see any concerns when they attended the health screen process at Darlington? Our health officials have worked closely with NASCAR and the Charlotte Motor Speedway to ensure a safe Coca-Cola 600 this weekend. I know a lot of people are looking forward to this live sporting event on TV. We are glad that since NASCAR, North Carolina is the home of NASCAR, that we are going to be having this event here. NASCAR was very thoughtful in their plan for protecting employees and drivers and pit crews and people working on the cars from ENTITY. They submitted a plan to our Department of Health and Human Services. Also, local health officials work with them. Our local health officials gave them feedback on the plan. I think that they are ready to put on a very safe race. Obviously no spectators will be there, and that is because we know that gatherings together, when people gather together, that the risk of infection is so much higher. This is why we continue to have in our executive order the mass gathering ban. I do not know about the situation regarding Darlington. Do you know anything about it, ENTITY? About any feedback we got? From everything I have heard, things went fine there, but we will get any reports back to see if any changes are going to be made at the Coca Cola 600 from things learned at Darlington, but I do not have the answer to that right now. My question for you is about youth sports. The only part of the executive order that explicitly mentioned sports dealt with, we presume, NASCAR, because it mentioned for broadcast on television. We have been getting a lot of questions from little league administrators and other youth sports coordinators, swim team, travel, basketball, you name it. Is that in your opinion right now, a Phase Two thing, or is that a Phase Three thing or is it somewhere in between? Sports are so important to the formation of character, for fitness. I love sports. I grew up participating on sport teams all the way through high school, and I know how important they can be for the education of children. Start out knowing that this is something that we want to have happen as much as we can as we approach the school year. At the same time, we have to understand the presence of ENTITY. I do not think that we have all of the answers to those questions yet.

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper Press Conference Transcript May 22


I know that our staff is working closely with the North Carolina High School Athletic, and I think I will let ENTITY come up and make a few comments about that and what she has been doing on that front. As far as high school and other youth sports, we will be putting out guidance today on that. The reason you did not see it in the executive orders is there are no requirement, but we do have public health recommendations for folks, particularly that run the leagues and the facilities that host these sporting events. Our recommendations generally fall in one big bucket here is around contact sports. We know that contact sports like basketball or football, where you are in each other's personal spaces and you are breathing out respiratory droplets on other, we know that that is a higher way of spreading the virus as opposed to non-contact sports like tennis or baseball or individual sports like swimming or golf. Those non-contact sports, we said that that is fine to proceed from a recommendation perspective, but then we do have some guidance on how to do each of those activities safely. We are not recommending contact sports go forward, but for non-contact sports to go forward, but with a set of guidelines. Again, all of these are recommendations and we have worked, as ENTITY mentioned, with athletic associations across North Carolina. We hope to have that guidance posted today for folks to take more of a look at. This is ENTITY from Channel Nine. My question for you is, are you personally comfortable with eating inside of a restaurant this weekend? I have been the executive residence and I have been here at the emergency operation center. Yes, I would feel comfortable going to a restaurant, not saying that I am necessarily going, because I hope I can spend some time with my family this weekend. We are continuing to work on issues here and we will be working through the weekend. I would certainly want that restaurant to be following all of the personal safety rules and doing everything they can to prevent the transfer of ENTITY. We hope that that people will feel safe enough to go to our restaurants throughout the state. We hope that all of the restaurants continue to obey the rules. I think they will find that that is good business for them to do that. Wanted to ask you please, what conversations are you having with large entertainment or convention venues? Should they expect to be closed for months to come? And ENTITY, ..., is the state tracking the number of positives that are from asymptomatic versus symptomatic people?


And I will let ENTITY address both of those, but our office is having conversations with these large event venues who obviously want to begin the process of having people back in them. These are the kinds of places that are much higher risk for ENTITY and transferring it from one person to another. So, obviously right now where we are in phase two of the executive order, we would not have any of these large gatherings, but we are certainly planning ahead for the potential of them being open at some capacity and are trying to figure out exactly what that would look like safety. And I will let ENTITY answer both of those questions if she would. So, let me do that symptomatic and asymptomatic. We do not track that for all of our cases, but what I would draw your attention to on our website and on our dashboard, we post surveillance data and I would direct you to that surveillance data, which does show some information that we are starting to collect about symptomatic and asymptomatic spread. As we have been talking about related to ENTITY, is that we are seeing a fair amount of spread of this virus by folks who do not have any symptoms, who are asymptomatic. That is one of the primary reasons why the three W's is so important. So, we are not tracking that for all of our cases. When we get information back from the lab, it is very minimal data. There are certain places where our public health team does more in depth study, particularly the surveillance work and prevalence studies. Those are the things where we are going to be able to get more symptom-based information and link it with some of this data. So, I direct you to our surveillance data to start. And I will just echo what the ENTITY mentioned about large venues. We know mass gatherings are places when folks, particularly when they are indoors, close together for longer periods of time and sitting, those are the places where they are higher risk. We actually know that North Carolina's first cases here in the state were seeded from a mass gathering up in new England. So, we know that those kinds of events have huge implications, not just for here in North Carolina, but can cross state. We definitely want to take precautions as we go here, and I think that we are trying to step through that.


We want to look at our numbers and understand how are we doing with the easing of restrictions that we are putting in place that only just start this evening. Let us look at our numbers and we will see as we go here. But again, mass gatherings is one of the hardest because it does bring so many people together and has such a high risk of spreading the virus to so many people at the same time. What is the responsibility of restaurants, businesses, churches, anything not open from the public to report to the public and state about new cases or outbreaks tied to their establishments? I will let you handle that, ENTITY. There are certain industries that are regulated in terms of required to report to us. As was mentioned, the restaurant industry is highly regulated and we continue to do inspections, but in terms of reporting outbreaks, that would be two or more cases or reporting clusters, that would be five or more cases. Restaurants are not one of the industries that are required to report back to us. Now, we often do want those restaurants to get in touch with our public health departments if there is an issue, because we want to work in close collaboration with them to make sure that they are doing all of the right things to prevent further spread of the infection. But there are just a few industries that are required by law to report to us. Those are settings like nursing homes and again, that is why you see those reported on our website. I wanted to ask you about lawsuits. First, there was the suit on behalf of churches and then one that was going to be filed on behalf of salon owners. Now, our state representative for Beaufort County is organizing a suit that, if successful, would allow all businesses to reopen in phase two. What is your reaction to these legal challenges and they are affecting how your team's making policy? It would be irresponsible to remove restrictions all at once. Clearly, that is a situation that could result in a massive spike in ENTITY. And our entire effort here has been to slow the spread and to keep our hospital system and medical providers from being overwhelmed, and we have been successful with that. We are beginning to turn the dimmer light up to move into phase We moved into phase one first. Now, we are moving into phase two and we are slowly easing restrictions here while remembering that the vast majority of businesses in North Carolina can be open.


Some of them are not because of the consequences of this pandemic, whether it be supply chain, whether it be employees that have to stay home. There are businesses that are not operating at full capacity for a lot of reasons. We did have the one lawsuit regarding houses of worship, where we have made accommodations for that in this order. And we believe that this is a smart way to move forward, to protect the health of North Carolinians while also trying to boost our economy. And that goes hand in hand, and we have got to make sure that people have confidence to be able to go out into the economy. And we are doing that and giving them that confidence by talking about things like Count On Me today, but also using the data to make decisions about when it is safe to do more easing of the restrictions. And when people know that that is what we are using to make decisions, not emotions, not politics, but science and data, people will have more confidence and not only will people be healthier but our economy will improve faster. This is ENTITY from WRAL. Today, Senator Berger sent DPS a letter demanding answers to questions and documents that reporters have been asking for for weeks. Do you intend to ensure DPS will provide those answers and documents, both to Senator Berger and the media? Well, first we want to make sure that all our employees at prisons and inmates are safe and we want to make sure that we abide with all of the public records laws. I have not seen this letter you are talking about, but I do have ENTITY here, our director of prisons, who can provide a response. This morning, I did receive a communication from Senator Berger's office and we will be sending a response back very timely. We look forward to the opportunity to answer all of the senator's questions. And quite frankly, we look forward to the opportunity to set the record straight. We look forward to the opportunity to set the record straight. Thanks ENTITY, can you provide more clarity on how craft breweries in the state are classified under the Phase 2 guidelines? The NC Craft Brewers Guild and others have said they do not believe brewery ... or brew pubs meet the order's definition of a bar, but there seems to be a lot of confusion around this as far as reopening, Our legal team and our departments will be issuing guidance on that this afternoon, regarding what establishments fall under what category, there will be a legal distinction there.


It is important to know that we have worked very closely with the Restaurant Association, making sure that we put in place protections with this count on, on ... program that is going on right now. And we feel really good about where we are with our restaurants, but that clarification will be coming this afternoon. This is ENTITY from the Asheville Citizen-Times Newspaper. Since about April 10th, I have been reaching out consistently to Department of Employment Services, or security rather, asking them for this one metric, number of individual applications they either accept or reject every day. Through several exchanges of emails they have promised to give me these numbers, and then either those have never materialized, or they have cited vague concerns with timing that it was not right time to answer this. has tried to help me get those numbers, and we have not been successful so far. Is there a reason that you know that would not provide those numbers to the public? It is an important metric to show how quickly they will be able to dig themselves out of the backlog and one that they should have readily assessable if they are monitoring their progress. Thanks for that question, and I am not familiar with that number that you are talking about. They do post numbers of claims that were rejected and claims that have been paid. And right now about 585,000 people are receiving benefits of almost $2.4 billion. But this division knows, and I know that there are thousands of people who have yet to be paid. And every single family that has applied for unemployment benefits deserves a fair adjudication, and deserves to get paid if they qualify. I know that additional federal money has been activated today, so there will be more opportunities for people to provide unemployment insurance. But I will take those concerns that you have today and make sure that our communications people get up with you to provide that information to you, if that is something that can be provided under the Public Records Law, and it is supposed to be given out. But thank you for that question, and we will try to get that information to you. Thank you for taking my question, this is Derek with Fox 46. We have heard from gyms who have said that they have spent literally thousands of dollars to be ready on everything from air purifiers, hand sanitizers, body wipes, different protocols.


Well, I guess you know everybody's anxious to talk about the economy. And I might preface this, Mr. President, saying some of the questions I am asking reflect some feedback that we get from our audience. Unemployment about 6.8 percent and not really changing very much; 25,000 manufacturing lost in the last year alone; people out of work who have never been out of work before and not the chronically unemployed. And I am getting a sense of maybe frustration, maybe even anger on the part of these people. And I wonder, what can you tell them? What can you tell them about the future? I can tell them we have been through a tough time. We have been through a recession. And I say through because technically I do not believe this country is in a recession. In this area, we have had some economic dislocations because of our success, the success in beating down a military threat that still exists, incidentally, but has enabled us to make some substantial cutbacks on defense. And so, what we have got to do is to incent this economy in the ways I have been proposing to the Congress for 2 years. And I am talking about capital gains, R&D, IRA's, enterprise zones; a transportation bill would kick the economy right now. So, we have got some answers. I have got a big problem with the Congress. And apparently the people blame the Congress. I will take my share of the blame. But we are going through a transitional period here, and we have got to help these people.  who says you have no sense of leadership. You are frozen by insensitivity to what people are thinking. I am disinclined to respond to those kinds of personal attacks. I do not agree with that, and the American people, fortunately, do not agree with that. I think the American people see Congress as a major stumbling block, and he happens to be the leader of the House over there. And if they would go forward and do some of the things I have asked, I think we'd be far further along in the economy. But today, for example, we get a breakthrough on unemployment compensation, helping people whose benefits ran out. But we did it by beating back a lot of bad ideas that would bust the budget agreement and tax all the people that are working, the 94 percent of the people that are working. And I do not want to do that.

Interview With Richard Ford of KSDK - TV in St. Louis, Missouri


And I have a big difference with the liberal ideology of the leadership in the Congress. Some cynics might say that you agreed to that unemployment benefit extension because the polls show you losing in popularity or losing in this rate of approval. Some cynics might say that, but they do not know the facts. The facts are, if the Democrats had done what they are willing to do now, we could have had a bill 2 months ago and should have. But they asked me to bust the budget agreement and further tax the 94 percent of the people that are working. And by standing up and saying, No, we are not going to do it that way. We are going to beat back the liberal idea that you can just keep on spending forever, that got us partially in the mix we are in now. And so, I had to stand up against it. But now, apparently, we have got a deal. But I do not think somebody will charge that because they can see the evidence of the legislation. You are familiar with this Times-Mirror poll that was taken that showed this drop in popularity. There was another statistic in that poll that is disturbing to some, that 39 percent of those polled are afraid that some member of their family is going to lose their job. And is not it very difficult for people to spend money to stimulate the economy when they live with this fear What do we do about that? What we do about it is passing the incentive programs that I have got up before the Congress. It is long overdue that they go out in my opinion. And then I will make some proposals at the State of the Union message and take my case directly to the American people. And I think they will support me. But even if they are not, I am going to have a program that I will say look the American people in the eye and say, Look, they have tried it their way. I have had to block some of the lousy ideas that the Democratic leadership has come up with. Now, you back me, and let us try to get it done. Interest rates are down, and today yet there is another very important credit card company came down on their rates. At some point when those rates are, people see the rates are where they are, I believe you are going to see confidence start back in housing or in consumer buying. And that is what the economy needs. But people do not have jobs, sir. They do not have any income. They cannot spend any money.


They cannot borrow any money. There is 94 percent of the people that can stimulate the economy and help create jobs, however. Two Governors were in town here yesterday, both Republicans, Ashcroft and Edgar from Illinois. And they say we need a new bridge across the river, a very expensive bridge that has to be built. The rest of the infrastructure here could be helped. I was just wondering if you would approve or consider some sort of WPA kind of thing. If you will, that would stimulate the economy and also rebuild the infrastructure. Before we need a whole new WPA program, what we need is you are right, we need to do something about the infrastructure. And they ought to pass our transportation bill. You remember last March when I challenged the Congress to pass it in 100 days? Cannot you at least pass something that will help the infrastructure, help the highway system in 100 days? We might still get it before the end of this session. But that is the kind of thing we ought to do rather than go out and try to think of some big new way to spend money. We have got a good transportation bill that would do exactly what you are talking about. Now, whether it takes care of that bridge or not, I do not know. Not far from here, we have a McDonnell-Douglas plant, where you have already alluded there is a lot of unemployment because of defense cutbacks. Will you support the sale of F - 15's to Saudi Arabia that would keep employment there at a good level through the next several years? We have no requests, and I will consider all these requests when they come to me. We have no requests yet. There is an economist and this will be my last chat here who says that it is not high taxes and it is not high interest rates that are the problem, it is low wages, that people are not making enough money in this country because all of our manufacturing jobs have gone someplace else. Do you think there is any truth in that? No, I do not think there is any truth in that.


ENTITY we are here with our eyes open, wide open, we understand that ENTITY use the media to build consensus and shape public opinion, why are you turning to KVIA and El Paso? Well, El Paso has a huge stack in the debate around trade. You know you have got 14 billion dollars worth of computer and IT services and products. It is a major hub of the El Paso economy, partly because of an outstanding University there. Texas and the United States benefit from exports. About a third of our economic growth during this recovery have been export driven. Folks are already selling stuff here, we want to make sure that there is a level playing field for US businesses and US workers. And we know that workers who are employed by exporting companies typically make about 18% more in wages than folks who are just focusing on the domestic market. So this gives me the authority to create higher standards in countries that are a part of the Asia Pacific Rim, that includes by the way Mexico. And a lot of people have concerns about NAFTA, well what this does is it actually raises standards and obligates Mexico in a way that it has not before to raise labor standards and working conditions for folks on the other side of the border that creates more of a level playing field for folks-folks here in the United States. I saw that beautiful brochure, and you have campaigns, even mentioned El Paso, but what do you tell El Pasoens who have a direct effect of NAFTA since 1994? What do you tell them to reassure them that this is a good thing for not only the border land but for Texas? Well I think it is important to recognize that there were real problems with some past trade agreements because they did not have strong enforceable labor and environmental provisions. Globalization and technology has sometimes made it harder for workers to have leverage in terms of getting raises and incomes. But the truth is that if a company is looking for low wage labor, they have already left, they are not here anymore. And if it has not been because they have moved overseas, its because technology replaced those jobs. The key now for us is to make sure that the jobs we are creating, the place were we have the advantage, in high skill, high value jobs, that we are able to compete on a world stage and we are able to sell our products made in America anywhere in the world. And that is what this trade authorization does.

Interview with Estela Casas of ABC-7 KVIA


So it has a lot of safe guards that were not there before, but more importantly we cannot just shut ourselves off. If you are not happy with the fact that it is real easy to sell Japanese cars here,but a lot hard to sell them-to sell US cars over in Japan, then I do not know why you'd just settle for the status quo, let us get a better deal. And that is what we are trying to do. Through fast track, I think there is been a lot of concern. What we are voting on now is the authority, that every ENTITY previous to me has had, to negotiate. Now, lets say we get an agreement with all these specific countries that we are negotiating with, then for 60 days before I even sign the agreement, we will have to post every term of the agreement on a website. Everybody will be able to see it. Then I sign it. So they have already had 60 days to review it, and then there will be an entire debate afterwords before Congress has to vote on it. So by the time we are actually completed and members of Congress are taking a final vote on any particular agreement, probably four, five, six months of review will have been taken place. All we are taking about right now is the authority for me to negotiate these agreements. Well it is hard to negotiated, if you think about it, you are negotiating with ten other countries. If I do not have the authority to be able to just present an agreement that has been negotiated before congress, if it is subject to all kinds of amendments and each member of congress says Well I want a little more of this or I want a little more of that, you can imagine that you'd never actually get it done. So at some point you have got to be able to say Alright here is what we have been able to negotiate, you get an up or down vote, if you do not like it, if you think its the wrong deal for the american worker, you can still vote against it. But I am confident that it will be a good deal, because the truth is is that a third of our economic growth since the recovery has been driven by exports. The future for us is in this part of the world where, you know you have got the biggest population, a fast growing market, they are becoming wealthier, they are buying more stuff, they are eating better food, and they are a right market for us.


ENTITY, you came to town, like Jimmy Carter, as an outsider, but the results have been vastly different. How do you explain your mastery of the legislative branch? Well, I do not know whether I'd have the nerve to use that word mastery as you did. But I had 8 years experience as Governor of California in which for about 7 of those 8 years both houses of the legislature were of the opposing party, and we managed to get a great many reforms in the welfare reforms that were so tremendously successful, things of that kind. But I came here with the same idea, that we are coequal branches of the government. They have got their problems, and it is a ease of common sense and consultation. And I have had 11 formal meetings with the leadership of the House and the Senate here. I have gone to the Hill 9 times myself, and I understand that for 18 months that is kind of a record. Senator Baker, the Republican leader, said that you have an instinctive feel for how the legislative branch works, and others who've come down to the White House say that you have also capitalized on your charm and your personality and your persistence. And I am wondering, did acting give you the training and the skills to sell your program to Congress? Well, I suppose we are all the sum total of everything that is happened to us and all the experiences we have had in our lives. So, whether that contributed something or not, I do not know. I must say this about getting along with the Legislature. I am deeply indebted to Senator Howard Baker and to Representative Bob Michel, the Minority Leader in the House, for the great cooperation and the help that I have had from them, the masterful job they have done in those two positions that they hold as leader of the Senate and Minority Leader of the House. Also, when I say consultation, I find that the job of keeping track of what is up there, of not pulling surprises, of letting them know we have a group in the administration here that is appointed expressly for the purpose of legislative strategy, to keep track of our own proposals and I try to remember that the ENTITY proposes and the Congress disposes to keep track of these things. If there is something that we feel we'd have trouble with and, perhaps, have to find ourselves in a veto position, we see that they are aware of that and what it is that puts us in that position in advance, and then keep in constant touch.

Interview With Paul Duke of WETA-TV on the President's Relations With Congress


And it does not hurt, every once in a while in keeping in touch, to say some thank you's. Well, you go beyond that, though, ENTITY, because, when you talk to people on the Hill, there is a common refrain that comes through. They all say, we go down to the White House, and Ronald Reagan is a terribly charming man. Is there a politics of affability which has served you well? Well, I do not know whether it is a skill or not, but I like people. And I certainly do not meet them with a chip on my shoulder. I think of it as the ENTITY is the only one in town who is elected to represent all the people. Their problems are that, as Senators, they are elected, yes, to represent the people of this country, but, also, to have in mind the particular interests of their State and the problems of their State. A Representative, again, represents all the people, but also has specific things that he is responsible for with regard to his congressional district. So, I know that. And I know that they, too, have problems. And sometimes it is going to weigh on them that something that they might be able to feel might have some benefit nationwide, but would be at a cost to their district or their State, that they cannot support, and so you try to reconcile all of those viewpoints. And that is difficult, because we know that there is a great deal of hypocrisy which goes on at all times. I mean, we know that Members will get up on the floor, and they will do a great deal of grandstanding, and they will talk about cutting Federal spending. And then they will be running down to the White House or running to some of the agencies, demanding that no cuts be made in my tobacco subsidies or my sugar subsidies, or the dam project that you want for back home, additionally. How do you deal with all that? Well, again, as I say, it is one in which you I can understand their responsibilities for those particular areas or projects of their district or State. And then I have to weigh that against the advantage or disadvantage for the whole country. And if it is one in which they must lose, that the national benefit outweighs the local benefit, then it is just a case of presenting that to them.


So you see it, though, primarily as a matter of give and take on both sides, your side as well as their side. ENTITY, I think one of the things which surprised us a great deal in Washington was that you turned out to be a far better politician than a lot of us thought you would be. And people will tell me that you have a gritty, competitive side to your personality. Do you enjoy the attack and counterattack that characterizes so much of the warfare between Capitol Hill and the White House? Well, I have not thought of it as warfare. But in the last analysis, you have to come down on the side of what you feel inside is right, and then you do your utmost to convince someone who is in an adversary position at the time why you feel you are right and why you feel you must take the position that you do and have what you have asked for. But that is the motivating force as you see it. When you get into battles with Congress, obviously there is a matter of timing when do you call Senator X who is been wavering; when do you make the practical compromise; how do you decide that? How involved do you yourself get in the legislative strategy of the White House? Well, I must be honest and confess that it would be impossible with all that is on my plate to know the timing of things of that kind. And so, there I depend on, again, this group in the White House to tell me, because in other words, is something coming up in committee; is it coming to the floor; is this the time now; and that it is the best time to make the call before something comes to a vote. So, I depend on them for that. But do you feel that the experience you have gained as Governor of California, in dealing with the California Legislature, has enabled you to have this sense of timing, to know when to move, when to maneuver? Well, I think from experience, yes, you have some of that. You could do it too soon and memories are short-and it is worn off by the time the vote comes. But you also have to be constantly vigilant, always protecting your flanks, do not you? It is not totally, 100-percent favorable from the Hill standpoint,


While everybody does talk about your affability and the fact that they come down they love to come down to see you, and they love the stories which you spin-you also get another side from some Members who say that you are not always strong on substance, that sometimes you are out of touch, and that sometimes you have too simplistic a view of things. How do you see yourself? Well, I know there are criticisms of that kind. I think now and then to use an anecdote saves a lot of words sometimes to be able to tell something that illustrates what it is we are trying to do. If you have some example, for example, of bureaucratic dillydallying or repetitive things that are not needed and you can tell that example, it saves several paragraphs of just trying to reason with someone in explaining what it is that you are trying to correct. And I find, though, it is not only that you come down at the moment of consultation-for example, something to do with foreign policy right now and the act that requires consultation with the Congress with regard to well, my announcement recently of saying that in principle, if it was essential to bring peace to the Middle East and to Lebanon, the use of American troops in a multinational force. But the other day, I did not wait they had not been invited, so there is nothing to go to the Congress about but since the word was out and was in the press and had been leaked that this had happened, I had a very fine meeting with the leadership of the Congress on this in explaining exactly where we were and so forth, in advance, a totally informal meeting that would precede, if the need arises, when I must go to them formally. And I understand that some of them from both parties went out and said it was one of the best meetings of that kind they'd ever had. But would you concede, ENTITY, by nature that you are the kind of political leader who sees the broad, general picture and is not that interested in the specifics or the detail of a lot of legislative matters? No, I think I brought that from the experience in California, that I know the importance of the detail. My job, of course, is to sell if there is a dispute there is to sell the overall goal that we are trying to achieve. And so I center on that. In talking with many Republicans at the Capitol in recent days, I find a common thread running through what they say.


Most of them say we do not have that much quarrel with the ENTITY himself, but they do say that your agents and the administration's representatives on the Hill frequently are too arrogant, that they do not return phone calls, that they do not pay attention to the advice given from Capitol Hill, that they are insensitive to the political needs of Members of Congress. Are you aware of that? I think anyone can find some incident or some oversight or something and complain about it. But I have to again say that I became accustomed in the 8 years in California, and already here, that there is a tendency to invent a palace guard and pretend that the ENTITY is being protected from the palace guard, and therefore is not aware of these things. I know that in the hectic pace that now and then something can slip by. I have not heard anyone if there is anyone on our side that is being arrogant, I certainly want to know about it. But I do not know of anyone that is, and I have not had that complaint come to me. Now, I get the summary of all of the mail also, and it is a considerable reading problem, the congressional mail. And I see all those letters that are written and some with an individual or particular problem or some with a group of Representatives or Senators that is all put on my desk. So, you do not feel that the ship may be run a little too loosely, that perhaps you have delegated too much authority? And some of the Republicans at the Hill say there is a problem in that they will negotiate deals with the Democrats, and then White House officials and others will come along and undermine those deals. And this makes it much more difficult, that it affects their credibility at the Capitol. That, I think, is a part of the whole process that goes on. Let us take the economic program a year ago in the combination of the tax program and the budget reductions. We did not get all we wanted, and we had to in addition to not getting everything we asked for, we also had to take some things that we had not asked for. Now, that is a case of in the give and take in the legislature, of what they can get. Well, then, still I am a party to that also, and I have to speak up, or my representatives, if there is a price that we feel is too high. I cannot accept something that is totally contrary to the principle that we are trying to obtain in that program.


And the same was true of this most recent budget bill. That was not the bill that I would have submitted and there were seven versions on the floor at one time, most of which were unacceptable, because they would not do the job, and they would not come close to the goal we are trying to achieve. But they did evolve one that I could call back and say, yes, this one I support. Now, I am sure that someone, say, on our side who has negotiated something and been willing to give to get something in there, can be a little irked if I do not agree that he was paying the right price. ENTITY, you have started to veto some of these bills now. Can we expect a lot more vetos in coming weeks and months? I said that. They have passed a resolution, a budget resolution. I realize that that must be followed by appropriation bills. If they ignore the ceilings that have been put in the budget resolution, which they can do, send an appropriation that would, if passed, have the budget go way beyond the bounds that were set, then I have to veto it. We are also into an election campaign, and it may be a tough year for the Republicans. Some of the polls indicate that. If the Democrats, for example, pick up 10, 20, or 30 seats in the House of Representatives, what happens to your conservative majority? How will that affect your program? Well in the House, you say? Well, if they only pick up 10, then we have won a great victory, because if you look back in history, the first off-year election the party that is out of power in the White House normally picks up about 40 seats. And so you start from behind with this bielection that is coming up. And I am just I'd like to pick up some more. I'd like to have more Representatives in there than we have. But I understand I would be bucking tradition and history. So, when you use that figure 10, that would be only about a fourth as many as traditionally you are supposed to lose. Tip O'Neill you and Tip O'Neill have mixed it up a bit. He says he likes the Irish side of you, that he wishes you were a little more Irish and a little less Republican. I will tell you, Tip and I, we get along fine.


ENTITY, Colonel warned that as a consequence of American hostility towards Libya, his country could come even closer to the Soviet Union than it already is and that he may transform it into another Cuba. First of all, do you think he could achieve this goal? Secondly, would you prepare to tolerate it, and would this develop into something to be stopped? Well, I do not think there is any question but that the relationship between the Soviet Union and 's Libya has been very close. Soviet arms and weapons have been coming in there and stockpiled in there for a number of years. We are well aware of all of that. So, I do not see that there could be very much more than is already going on, and I do not think that the fear of something else or the concern about that should in any way make us unwilling to isolate Libya, as long as insists on backing terrorism the way he is. We cannot allow that to go unanswered in the world. I would not hazard a guess on that. It does not seem to me that it is in exactly the same kind of satellite position that Cuba is in. ENTITY, the Italian Government has decided to stop sales of arms to Libya and will not allow Italian workers to replace American workers. But it is also said that further sanctions should be decided jointly by Europe and not independently by-. Are you satisfied with this measure? Do you feel that Europeans would be able to do something together? I appreciate very much the fact that Prime Minister has made that statement about not replacing Americans; other states are following suit and saying the same thing But with regard to it being a joint decision, yes, we would be very much supportive of that. Those who have made statements that sanctions do not appear to work-well, one of the reasons is because for an individual nation to put forth such sanctions, when their trade or the things that they are trading is available from any number of other suppliers, indicates that maybe sanctions have not worked because we have not jointly gone together. And we'd be most pleased if we could sit down with the European community and together say to , We are going to isolate you in this way unless you will change your ways and give up this backing and promoting of terrorism. But do you feel that the measures that the Italian Government took are enough, or did you expect more?

Interview With European Journalists on Libya


Well, except that his suggesting that on sanctions that there should be a joint discussion of whether this should take place-but, yes, I appreciate very much, as I say, what he has said so far. ENTITY, you said in your news conference that you had irrefutable evidence about 's involvement in the Vienna and Rome attacks. Now Mr. Andreotti said that he would want to see more proof. Next week you are sending Mr. Whitehead to Europe. Will he disclose to the European governments some of the evidence that you have? Yes, as a matter of fact, the State Department has released quite a document now. Perhaps some of you have seen it; I know it is available to everyone. Now, that document is based on unclassified information. To go further with classified information would run the risk of revealing some of our sources and so forth-the type of thing you do not want to do. But I am sure that Mr. Whitehead will be discussing with them this and whatever else can be released at that level to them about the information that we have. And there is not any question-a matter of fact, the unclassified document that you have makes it pretty evident that he is widely connected. We know for a fact that he is met a few times in just recent months with Nidal. Are you disappointed by the Europeans' attitude so far, and what kind of minimum cooperation do you expect from them? I recognize the problems they have in many of them with trade on a far larger scale than we have, but I have to say that I think there is a moral issue involved here with regard to a sovereign state that is so obviously resorting to terrorism literally against the world. And I am hopeful that, as they continue to consider this and learn more facts-and that is why Mr. Whitehead's mission-that we may find that we can come together on isolating this outlaw among the world's nations. ENTITY, could I ask what your reaction would be to the suggestion by Senator Howard Metzenbaum that perhaps the time had come to consider assassination. No, I was quite surprised at that. You do not join them at their level; terrorism in response to terrorism is not the answer. This is what I am hoping that our friends and allies will consider.


Can we place trade, everyday relationships, ahead in value of the immorality that is inherent in people who will come in, as they did, into an airport and just simply shoot human beings that were there-men, women, children-with no regard to what participation those people have in anything that is going on? So, you may have anticipated that reaction and also the reaction of the Arab States. In that case, why did you feel that you needed to go on with sanctions? Well, for one thing, we were a little defenseless with regard to taking actions in response to this terrorism while so many of our citizens were there and potential hostages. So, we felt that we should untie our hands with regard to whatever action might be necessary in the future. And, as I say, I am hopeful that our allies might see that sanctions can be successful if enough of us do it. Sir, could I ask if the Europeans still show reluctance after Mr. Whitehead's visit and after your evidence that you have shown them and they take a position that you feel is not fully supportive, are you afraid that this might develop into a kind of split with the European allies such as developed over the Soviet gas pipeline? I think our relationship is too strong for this. It certainly would not make us turn on them, and I am quite sure that they desire to keep the relationship the way it is. I do not believe that there has ever been a time when the outright friendship between governments, or allies, has been as strong as it is now. ENTITY, the Austrian Government has, as recently as yesterday, made a point again that she has no information of Libyan involvement in the airport attacks. Since Austria, as a matter of principle, does not impose sanctions on any country except if it is in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolution, what would you expect the Austrian Government to do? Well, they have taken some positions, as you say, on a matter of principle, not just aimed at this particular incident. On the other hand, perhaps if we make available to them the information that does indicate the guilt of Libya, they might reconsider and realize that this was an assault, literally an act of war, against Austria. You have not yet made available all the information, I understand from your answer now, ENTITY.


Well, as I say, Mr. Whitehead is going; and to some of our immediate allies, such as in the economic group, I have asked our people to send on my behalf, personally, to the heads of state this document that I was describing a little while ago. ENTITY, has threatened to hit American bases in Europe and the people around them. And Italy is particularly exposed in this case. Do you take the threat seriously? Have you done anything about it? Oh, I think we have to take the threat seriously. As I said in the press conference the other day, through our intelligence and our cooperation with other countries in their intelligence gathering, we have been able to abort 126 terrorist missions in the last year alone. So, yes, we take those threats seriously. But do you know anything about this particular threat? A matter of fact, he has not weighed his words carefully at all with regard to his feelings about us. Sir, in Geneva you spoke with Mr. about terrorism after the Soviet Union, itself, and its diplomats became a victim of terrorism in Lebanon. Did you feel after the summit that there was a certain common understanding between the superpowers concerning terrorism? And what do you make out of the recent Soviet reactions as, for example, today Foreign Minister Shevardnadze, who said that the American actions threaten Libyan sovereignty? Well, I have recognized that there are certain elements of propaganda that go on in this relationship. But at the same time, in my talks with Mr. , he expressed his repugnance, the feeling that he had of repugnance for terrorist acts. ENTITY, do not you think that the sanctions will have an impact, whether they are positive or negative, on the peace process now going on? I do not think that there would be a setback with regard to that peace formula. We are having some problems with it, with moving forward on the peace process. I have to tip my hat to King Hussein, who has been most courageous in trying to carry this forward. And I believe that we have established some basis of trust with many of the Arab States, and I do not think that that will be actually affected by this. But the reaction of the Arab States were not exactly positive at this time. Well, I think there was maybe some feeling that publicly they had to stand together in the world today as it is. But I have not seen any real evidence of a falling away of relationships with us.


ENTITY, may I just ask you one more Austria-related question. What is your evaluation of the fact that Austria-which has very close connections with the Arab countries, which has tried to at least have some moderating effect on Yasser Arafat, has welcomed in Vienna a couple of years ago-that Austria was chosen by the terrorists as one of their sites for their attacks? What does this prove, or does it prove anything? The only thing I know is that I have had a report that Austria is holding in jail at least three members of the Abu Nidal group. And this, in itself, could be a reason for them taking an action in an effort to blackmail Austria into releasing its members. Sir, said at his press conference yesterday that you had concentrated on the activities of Palestinian terrorism-I think he used that word-and ignored the root causes for it. What would your reaction be to that? Well, again, Mr. 's speaking quite loosely and without any regard to the truth and the facts. We have said from the very beginning in the peace process that the problem of the Palestinian refugees had to be a part of the peace process and there had to be a resolution of that problem, and we still feel that way. ENTITY, economic sanctions against Libya would evidently hurt the German economy. The sanctions you have ordered do not necessarily hurt the American economy. If Chancellor , for example, would sit here with us, how would you try to explain to him that it might be worthwhile in the long term to pay a price? Well, as I say, I understood the problems of some of our allies and friends. Their trade is on a greater basis than ours. And a matter of fact, we are probably the lowest on the ladder of trade with Libya, and this due in part to the fact that we already had partial sanctions that were put in effect a few years ago. So, I am aware of that, and I know that problem. Is it a permanent trade that they can go on then-and we have seen the newsreels on television-the armed guards, the military forces, policemen carrying submachine guns and so forth at the airports and the various public buildings of countries such as West Germany and the others, the United Kingdom, all these other allies-can they see this as a fair trade? That in return for maintaining economic relations, that their countries must continue in this armed state with this sense of insecurity? What is going to happen to international travel?


I have had any number of people that, just coming in casual contact with, have gone out of their way to tell me that they'd canceled any plans for travel, whether it is business or pleasure. Now, is this a fair exchange for retaining the trade? And remember, I do not think you should think of the sanctions as something that is forever. You think of it as something that says straighten up and fly right to Mr. , and then things will change. ENTITY, you said before that having taken the Americans away, you feel more secure about acting towards Libya. Are you assuming that your next step should be the use of force? No, as a matter of fact, you have me here; I cannot discuss things of that kind. I think Mr. would be pleased to hear my answer, but, no, I cannot answer that. I just say that I think that we should be ready for any contingency. So, when would you be satisfied that had ended his links with terrorism to the point where you could form a new, useful relationship and remove the sanctions? Oh, I think it would have to be more than words; I think by deeds alone. For example, in reading this material there, you will find he does engage in training and in financing-through accounts in many of the banks, including banks in Europe as well as the United States-terrorist movements. He would have to reveal by action that he has severed those connections and is no longer backing these terrorist groups. So, you would have to be satisfied there was no financial link, no training camps left in Libya- ENTITY, did you not have about I year ago, when you were in Los Angeles for the Olympic games, an approach by the Italian Foreign Minister about starting discussion with ? Did you not have any attempt either from Middle Eastern diplomats or European diplomats so that you can open a dialog? I am trying to recall, but I do know that there have been proposals of that kind. And before anything could be done, why, he would do something else that made it rather impossible. Do you think the Austrian Government could be helpful in trying to exert any moderating influence on? But as I say, I would think that if basically the Western World said, The line is drawn; we are no longer going to tolerate this activity So, again, you do not expect any problems with the allies in the next few weeks regarding the mission and so on?


ENTITY, a lot of the local government officials who have been listening to you talk about your dream of returning responsibilities and resources are saying that they have received the responsibilities, and now they are wondering when the next shoe is going to fall. Will your 1983 budget have a definite source of revenue for the local government? Well, we have been meeting with them, and they have been here in meetings with our people at OMB and with Don Regan of Treasury about these. I know that there has to be some pain for them also. But during these 10 months, I have met with over 1,200 State and local officials, going from Governors on down through counties and mayors and so forth, legislators, on all of these. And we have a commission, as you know, appointed to see how we can turn back tax sources to the local government. This is what it comes down to. We wanted and asked the Congress for far more block grants than we got, a block grant where they can set the priorities within that and the method of using it. I'd learned as Governor that the categorical grants where the government ties the red strings to it and tape to it and says this is exactly the way you have to spend it and so forth results in a large administrative overhead cost. And we did not get all that we wanted. We did get a certain number of categoricals into block grants, but there still remains too many categoricals. And, then maybe this is more than you bargained for in this answer, but let me get it all in my dream is that the block grants are only a means to an end. And the end is that the government, which has preempted over the years so much of the tax revenue potential in this country, that we could turn back not only the responsibility to governments of tasks that I think they can perform better than the Federal Government can perform, but turn back tax sources so that the tax source itself goes to them. And they, therefore, then have the responsibility for collecting the money which they are going to spend for this by way of the tax. And this is not original with me. This was first suggested when the first proposal for Federal aid to education was made.

Interview With Reporters on Federalism


Norris Cotton, then Senator from New Hampshire, looking at the amount of money that was suggested and the Federal Government was protesting that it meant no interference; just wanted to help by giving money and he said, Well, if that is really true, he said, why do not we turn the tobacco tax over to the States and the only restriction is that it be used for education? And you know how they defeated him? They said, Well, it would not be right to educate our children with a sin tax. So the Federal Government got its foot in the door and went on from there. Realistically, is it possible that there will be room in the fiscal 1983 budget for some turn back of a tax source to the States and local governments? We have a task force, as I say, working on that under Ed Gray, that is to work and see how this could be done, what the mechanics of it would entail, and whether we could do this at the same time we give the responsibility that goes with it. But it just seems to me that there is an awful lot of money lost, simply in the process of bringing it to Washington and then sending it back out there minus a carrying charge that comes off the top here in Washington. It would make a lot more sense if it was there in the first place. ENTITY, the Governors have suggested a sorting-out process of what the Federal Government should have and what the States and locals should have. One of the things they suggested is, as you know, that the Federal Government pick up most of the welfare costs and that they would then pick up more schooling costs and more transportation costs. Would you go along with that? And if not, what sort of sorting out would you like to see? What functions do you think the Federal Government should have on the domestic side, and what would you pass on to them? Well, we have, again, a Presidential commission that is made up of representatives of State and local government, only their own people on this, to sort this out. But I would think that we might start with the tenth article of the Bill of Rights, the 10th amendment, which says that the Federal Government those powers which are granted to the Federal Government are in the Constitution, and all others shall remain with the States or with the people.

Interview With Reporters on Federalism