I am in Germany, so this is how I roll this week, I guess. I guess I have got some business back home in between doing my business out here. Yeah, I guess it is about 10 o'clock at night over there. I just figured that after all our conversation before the election, and then in the wake of the election, that you might need a very brief follow-up question. And I wanted to make sure that you had a chance because I know that you had to finish that story. Yeah, I appreciate that, and I did not think of this as a very long conversation, either. If you do not mind, I have three questions. All right, well, I will try to get through this. I will see what I can do here. The first thing I would ask is, we had this conversation very early in our session, and you talked about the belief that what the American people most want from a candidate is an optimistic vision. And I believe you were referencing Donald Trump at the time, and it was your thought that it was hard to get elected with a gloom-and-doom message. And I just wonder what you take from this election given what happened, and how your theory reconciles with that. Well, look, I think I am absolutely, you know, surprised like everybody else with the outcome. So, you know, I do not want to pretend like I was anticipating the results. I do think, though, that when you look at the specifics of this race, it is hard to, I think, draw a grand theory from it, because there were just some very unusual circumstances. We ended up having a situation in which both candidates had very high negatives. I think the caricature of Hillary Clinton that developed as a consequence of all kinds of stuff, compounded in that last week with more news about emails, meant that people never really got to hear a positive, optimistic message. Hillary Clinton had all kinds of terrific policies, but that was just not the focus of coverage. And as a consequence, you ended up having not just a polarized electorate, but a fairly dispirited electorate. It meant that a lot of the people who voted for me did not turn out to vote-that a lot of people who, if the surveys are correct, approve of my work and my presidency did not vote or decided, You know what, let us just shake it up this time .

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


And you know, it is just an indication of the structural challenges that progressive politics have always faced in this country. You know, we are a country that makes it harder to vote than most countries. We are a country in which the campaigns are so long and so expensive that by the time you get to the end of it, negative campaigning dominates as opposed to a proactive set of proposals. We have an electoral college that mirrors, you know, the states' power that was preserved in the design of the Senate, where, you know, small states, or more rural states, or states with, you know, large rural or less diverse populations have significantly more influence in some cases than massive states like California. And so, you know, you add all that up and you ended up getting the specific result that we got. But as I have said publicly in all the interviews that I have conducted since the election, to be optimistic about the long-term trends of the United States does not mean that everything is going to go in a smooth, direct, straight line. And, you know, the important thing that I am hoping everybody draws from this is anybody who thinks that opting out of the system is a smart protest move, anybody who thinks that disengaging from the political process because both parties are the same or both candidates are the same or none of them are getting at the structural issues that are ultimately going to make the biggest difference -you know, those approaches can result in Donald Trump being elected president. I am going to skip to my third question, because it is important I get to it. I would not actually-but I appreciate that you took it seriously. One of the things I wanted to ask you-and this really comes personally from my own concerns-we have this history in our country where national-security policy is directed at a certain foe-for instance, earlier in the 20th century at communism during the Cold War-and sometimes, when in the wrong hands, it expands out. And in the '60s it expanded out into the civil-rights movement. In the post-9/11 world, the office of the presidency has accumulated quite a bit of powers in terms of national security. Are you concerned at all about that stuff-now that there is somebody else-being directed at activists, at Black Lives Matter, people like that? Are you worried about that?

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


Yeah, I have to say that this is an argument that I know was made in a New York Times article and you have heard in some progressive circles, and it is just not accurate. Keep in mind that the capacity of the or other surveillance tools are specifically prohibited from being applied to U.S. citizens or U.S. persons without specific evidence of links to terrorist activity or other foreign-related activity. And those laws have been in place and have been strengthened, and the capacities that have been developed over the last eight years of my presidency mainly derive from changes in technology, not because we have somehow weakened oversight or expanded executive power. It just has to do with the fact that everybody is using a cellphone, everybody is using emails. In terms of domestic surveillance of any sort, it is probably harder to surveil or use these tools with a smartphone than it was getting a wiretap for a land phone. And both would be illegal without probable cause. So you know, I think this whole story line that somehow Big Brother has massively expanded and now that a new president is in place it is this loaded gun ready to be used on domestic dissent is just not accurate. Now, I think it is absolutely important to be concerned that our criminal-justice system, the FBI, the Justice Department, law enforcement take seriously civil liberties. Because the possibility of abuse by government officials always exists. The issue is not going to be that there are new tools available; the issue is making sure that the incoming administration, like my administration, takes the constraints on how we deal with U.S. citizens and persons seriously. And that is not a technical issue; that is the degree to which we abide by the law. In one of your speeches you made this very explicit appeal to black voters, and you mentioned if we did not come out, this would be an insult to your legacy. And at least in the early numbers, it looks like we did not-we certainly did not come out in the numbers that we came out in in 2008 or 2012. Or what are you left with? No, you know, I mean, I think that I was trying to make a very specific point, which is that you cannot rely on inspiration to take care of your business.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


If you were a strong supporter of me, and loved Michelle, and believed in everything we were doing, and stood in line for four hours to vote for us in '08, and put up with some more lines in '12, then you cannot stay at home in '16 because we are not on the ballot. That there is a direct line between the work we did and the handoff we needed to make to the next administration to ensure that that progress was sustained. That was not just among African American voters. It was among young voters, and, you know, those were costly in the places where it really mattered in some of the swing states. It just reflects the nature of our political process, where we do not think of voting and political participation as a routine responsibility and duty, but rather think of it as something we do when it is exciting. Now, look, I do not want to make generalizations across the board, because the truth is, the African American vote actually exceeded the white vote in terms of percentage-not absolute numbers, obviously, but the percentage who voted-in 2012. On the other hand, we have got more ground to make up. We have got more schools that are underfunded. We have got more youth that are unemployed. We have got more people who are struggling to pay the bills. And, you know, one of the difficult truths of democracy is that the people who would benefit most from progressive policies like raising the minimum wage, and investment in infrastructure, and strengthening unions, and affordable child care, and help on college access and affordability-those are the folks also that, for a whole variety of reasons, are less likely to vote. And it requires an enormous amount of energy to overcome that historical fact. We were able to do it in 2008 and 2012, but it is hard to sustain. How do we change those habits? How do we make our engagement and involvement and interest an everyday thing rather than an every-four-years thing or an every-eight-years thing? I appreciate you taking this time.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


Hope you had a nice weekend, hot as it was. Before I take your questions, let me tell you that on Thursday, June 6th, as part of his Middle Class Jobs and Opportunity Tour, the President will travel to Mooresville Middle School in Mooresville, North Carolina to deliver remarks and experience firsthand the school's cutting-edge curriculum through digital learning. In his State of the Union address, the President laid out his belief that the middle class is the engine of economic growth in our country. jobs, skills, and opportunity. We need to build on the progress we have made over the last four years, and that means investing in those areas that are already creating good-paying, stable jobs that can support a middle-class family. With that, I will take your questions. I wanted to get the White House's response to what is happening in Turkey right now, particularly Erdogan questioning the legitimacy of the protestors in what seems to be an increased police reaction to those protests. We continue to follow the events in Turkey closely and with concern. As we stated from the outset last week, the United States supports full freedom of expression and assembly, including the right to peaceful protest, as fundamental to any democracy. We believe that the vast majority of the protestors have been peaceful, law-abiding, ordinary citizens exercising their rights. The United States has serious concerns about the reports of excessive use of force by police and large numbers of injuries and damage to property. We call on these events to be investigated and to urge all parties to refrain from provoking violence. Has the President spoken with Erdogan since these protests started? I have no calls to report. I refer you to the State Department for any outreach that they might have had with the Turks, but no calls from here to report. And just more broadly, given Turkey is important to so many of the issues that the U.S. deals with in that part of the world, how key is stability in Turkey to the President? And look, all democracies have issues that they need to work through and we would expect the government to work through this in a way that respects the rights of their citizens. I think that we continue to work with Turkey on a range of issues -- as a NATO ally and as a key player in the region -- and we look forward to doing that. And just on a totally separate topic -- Darrell Issa over the weekend called you a paid liar for the administration.

Barack Obama Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney


I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond to his comment. I had not heard that. I am not going to get into a back and forth with Chairman Issa. I think that what our focus is and has been is the need to find out all the inappropriate activity that occurred; make sure, as the President insists, that those who are responsible for inappropriate, outrageous activity be held accountable; that processes are put into place at the IRS so that something like this cannot happen again. The President acted, as you know, in response to the independent Inspector General's report by making clear that he was outraged by the behavior; by acting quickly to install new leadership at the IRS; by instructing that new leadership to conduct a thorough review that would examine the behavior, hold those accountable who were responsible for it, and to examine the overall culture at the IRS to make sure that these kinds of things cannot happen again. I would note that when I spoke about the situation I was referring to the findings of the independent Inspector General, who -- let us be clear -- said that he both in testimony and in his report found no evidence that outsiders -- those outside the IRS -- influenced the behavior that took place there. That is the conclusion of the independent Inspector General, and we certainly have seen no other evidence to contradict that. However, the President is interested in getting all the facts, and that is why he has instructed that the new leadership at the IRS conduct this review. We are interested in legitimate congressional oversight. That is an important component in a situation like this to finding all the facts and making sure that remedial action is taken. And, as you know, there is a criminal investigation that is being undertaken by the Department of Justice. So I think there is ample demonstration of this administration's interest in getting all the facts and holding those who are responsible accountable. To follow up on Turkey, does the unrest in Turkey make it harder to deal with the Syria situation? Well, we work very closely with Turkey on the situation in Syria, with our allies and partners in the region, and we will continue to do that. I believe, as I said, that the -- we expect and we believe that the Turkish government will appropriately work through this situation. We call on the events that occurred to be investigated and urge all parties to refrain from provoking violence. And we think that the right of free expression and assembly, those rights are fundamental to democracy.


And we have concerns about some of the response, but we certainly expect the Turkish government to work through this. It is important to note that, I believe in the article you are referring to, the Chief of Staff was quoted on the record, and in that statement he spoke for the President and he spoke for all of us. And he said that, The President and his team at the White House believe that the Attorney General has the intellect, experience, and integrity to efficiently run the Department of Justice and not get distracted by the partisans who seem more interested in launching political attacks than cooperating with him to protect the security and constitutional rights of the American people. And I think I could not say it any better, so I quoted the Chief of Staff saying it. Just to button down the Issa thing, finally -- they point specifically to two instances in the briefing where you said on May 21st, referred to apparent conduct by our IRS officials in Cincinnati; and on May 20th, line IRS employees in Cincinnati improperly scrutinized 501- organizations. Those are the findings of the audit conducted by the independent Inspector General, correct? I was citing -- and perhaps there are issues that the Chairman has with the IG. I was citing the findings of the independent Inspector General. The President responded I think with appropriate concern and took immediate action, and is continuing to direct those who are responsible for these matters to take action. Again, the Inspector General concluded in his report and testified to this before Congress that he found no evidence of outside influence on the behavior that was of such great concern to all of us at the IRS. It is also important to note the President has instructed the new acting commissioner of the IRS to conduct a review that looks at this activity; holds responsible those who were responsible for it -- holds accountable those who are responsible for it; and takes measures to ensure that it cannot happen again. Separately, we are cooperating with legitimate congressional oversight. Separately, the Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation. So I think it is important to stick to the facts, look at the work that has been done and build on it -- which is what this President wants to do, what the new acting commissioner wants to do, the Treasury Secretary wants to do. And we certainly hope that that is what the congressional oversight committees hope to do. Robert Gibbs, this morning, called on Darrell Issa to apologize to you. Do you expect or want an apology? And is this the kind of language you think is productive?


I appreciate those who have spoken in my defense, but I would simply say that I am not interested in having a back and forth with Chairman Issa. I am interested in what the President is interested in, in this matter, which is that we take action to ensure that this activity does not happen again; we take action to hold accountable those who are responsible for it; we cooperate with legitimate congressional oversight; and we obviously cooperate with any investigation that the Department of Justice is undertaking. And, again, I do not want to get into a back and forth. And just finally, this weekend, David Plouffe sent out a Tweet that is pretty inflammatory in itself, bringing up old allegations against Darrell Issa. Is that the kind of back and forth that is actually productive, moving the agenda forward? I would simply say that I am not interested in that back and forth -- or having a back and forth with the Chairman. I, again, as I think we have just discussed, spoke very carefully and specifically about the findings of the independent Inspector General in his lengthy review of the conduct at the IRS. I spoke, in fact, quite clearly that we have seen no evidence that contradicts the findings of the independent Inspector General. I would point you to the testimony of the former IRS Commissioner that makes clear the lack of involvement of people outside of the IRS, to his knowledge and in his view. And, again, we have no information that would contradict that. The President's focus is on taking action to hold accountable those who are responsible for this behavior, taking action to ensure that it never happens again, because it is very important that the American people have faith that the IRS applies our tax laws fairly across the country. And that is why he was so outraged by the actions that were reported by the Inspector General, and that is why he has acted in response in the way that he has. So, ENTITY, on a different IRS subject -- has the President seen the IG report -- it was supposed to come out tomorrow -- which talks about waste at the IRS and it talks about, in fact, the IRS employees using presidential suites at conferences. Well, in answer to your question, we have not seen the report, but, no, he does not think that conduct is appropriate. I would point you to statements released by the acting IRS Commissioner, Danny Werfel, who says, This conference is an unfortunate vestige from a prior era.


Taxpayers should take comfort that a conference like this would not take place today. Sweeping new spending restrictions have been put place at the IRS, and travel and training expenses have dropped more than 80 percent since 2010, and similar large-scale meetings did not take place in 2011, 2012, or 2013. And, second, I would point out that the President has made creating an efficient and effective government a priority, a cornerstone of his administration. He believes that everyone in this administration must take their role as stewards of the taxpayer dollar very seriously. That is why in May of 2012 the administration outlined a series of actions for reining in spending and increasing both transparency and oversight of federal conference and travel activity. The federal government spending on travel, which includes conference activity, was reduced by more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2012 as compared to fiscal year 2010. On travel spending, agencies have lowered their spending on travel -- compared to FY 2010 levels -- by roughly $2 billion. The Department of Agriculture, for example, reduced travel costs by over $125 million. The Drug Enforcement Administration implemented mandatory policy guidance requiring employees to use lowest-available fares for air travel, and due to this policy alone, DEA achieved over $6.5 million in savings in fiscal year 2012. These are examples that illustrated a commitment the President has to wringing out waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars. And it is important to note that Danny Werfel, who is now the acting commissioner over at the IRS, oversaw that process at the OMB when he was at the OMB. How important is this to the White House, a report like this, because of the confidence that is needed in the IRS in order to perform its duties? It does not have enough agents to investigate all of us. It depends upon public trust. Are you concerned that public trust is, in fact, being hurt by both of these scandals? And especially, is, in fact, the IRS a broken agency at this time that needs a thorough review? The answer is the President is very concerned by the activity that has been reported by the independent Inspector General with regards to the targeting of conservative groups applying for tax exempt status. He is concerned by -- and has been -- excessive spending by the IRS and other agencies when it comes to conferences and travel, and has taken action accordingly. It is very important, and your question implies this, that the American people have faith that the IRS in particular is applying our tax laws in a fair and responsible way.


And that is why he has ordered a review after installing new leadership at the IRS, and he expects that review to be unsparing and to hold accountable people who are responsible for inappropriate conduct. And we will also cooperate with congressional oversight, and we, of course, will cooperate with the Department of Justice's criminal investigation into this matter. But it is precisely because of the President's concern that he articulated right away after the IG report was released that these actions are being undertaken. Do you believe that Chairman Issa is contributing to trust in the IRS with his oversight by insisting he believes the orders to target conservative groups came out of Washington? Again, I do not want to get into a back and forth. We believe that there is an important role to be played by Congress through legitimate oversight. We take this matter very seriously, which is why the President has ordered the actions that he has ordered, and why the new acting commissioner of the IRS is proceeding with the review that this President and the Secretary of the Treasury committed him to perform. It is why we will cooperate with both congressional oversight and Justice Department investigations -- because this is a serious matter and it needs to be addressed. And I think that when it comes to getting the facts, we need to get them and not make judgments before we have all the facts. And I think that that is why we made the decision to wait for the publication of the independent Inspector General's report. Even though the issue itself had become public and there was a great demand for comment on it, we believed it was the right thing to do not to comment on it before it was public because it would have been inappropriate in our view to in any way intervene in a process that was not complete. And that is what we did. And when that report became public, the President acted very quickly and he spoke very clearly about his outrage over this conduct. Is the Congress exercising legitimate oversight? Do you see legitimate oversight? Again, I am not going to get into a play-by-play or a review of congressional activity day by day, but I believe that congressional oversight -- we believe that congressional oversight is important when it is legitimate, and we think that this is a matter that should be looked at by Congress through the process of legitimate congressional oversight.


But we think it is important to stay focused on what we know, what the facts are, the information we know from the report conducted by the independent Inspector General, and then to build on that through the review being overseen by the new commissioner at the IRS, through the congressional oversight role and through the investigation undertaken by the Department of Justice. On another subject -- can you comment on Ezra Klein's book indicating that the President has agreed to support his former Secretary of State in 2016? I confess that I was not aware of that report, but I will run out and buy the book or purchase it online. I can assure you the President is not thinking about the next presidential election, having just recently won the last one. If I could ask you quickly, ENTITY, about the -- considering the White House's fierce efforts to try to stop leaks in terms of national security secrets and the like, today, Bradley Manning's trial begins and I wanted to get a sense from you. His attorney said just a short time ago -- he described him as a young, nave, but well-intentioned man. What is the White House's perspective on Bradley Manning, given the fact that you guys are prosecuting this -- the administration is? Inherent in your question is the recognition that there is an ongoing trial, so I could not comment on an ongoing trial. I would refer you to the prosecutors in the Department of Justice on that matter. It is certainly our view -- broadly speaking, not referring to any specific case -- that leaks of national security -- sensitive national security information, classified information, can be very harmful to our national security interests. I want to ask you quickly about the comments we heard from the President a short time ago as part of this mental health conference taking place today. He said that the VA is partnering with 24 communities in nine states to help, among other things, reduce wait times, to provide better access to mental health care for veterans; that they have recently hired 1,600 mental health providers and there are going to be, I think, 150 summits that he referred to today. I would have to refer you to HHS and to the VA. I do not have that information for you. It is a component of our gun violence problem. That is why this conference was a piece of the executive action, a portion of the report that the Vice President put together and the President has acted on when it comes to reducing gun violence in America.


But, obviously, it touches on a range of issues that -- not just limited to gun violence, but a range of issues. And then on that topic, is the White House concerned that furloughs that we have now learned are taking place already at Walter Reed, I think at Fort Belvoir, that 3,500 civil employees are going to be furloughed at those places? That accounts for like 94 percent at Walter Reed. Are you concerned about the impact that will have on services for veterans, including mental health? Well, I do not know enough about the specific breakdowns of the furloughs and the effects or impacts in different areas to say with any specificity about what harm might be done. It is certainly the case that the furloughs caused by sequester are having effects across the country -- real consequences for real people. We have seen it in reports about the elimination, in some cases, of Meals on Wheels programs or the sharp reduction in the provision of Meals on Wheels programs for seniors. We have seen it in the elimination of slots for Head Start children. And certainly we are seeing it in areas affected by the Defense budget. And we knew that this would be the case, and that is why implementing bad policy was always a bad idea -- not something to be celebrated, not something to call a political victory for the tea party or any party, because there are real people who suffer the consequences of these arbitrary, across-the-board cuts -- unnecessary cuts in the sense that we can and should do better by making wise decisions about how we reduce our deficit, reducing it in a balanced way, the way that the President has been forward again and again in his budget proposals and in his offers to Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. And the President certainly hopes that we can reach a compromise on budget issues that prevents this from continuing to happen. Chuck Schumer said, I think on Meet the Press , that he basically predicted by July 4th that as many as 70 senators would pass a bipartisan immigration bill through the Senate, acknowledging there are going to be some challenges when it reaches the House. Marco Rubio, though, today said that the immigration bill needs improvements to pass. So I am curious what improvements the President thinks need to be made to help this pass. I'd say a few things. One, the President continues to be encouraged by the progress being made in the Senate on comprehensive immigration reform.


That process has now passed through committee, and we look forward to a robust debate and expect the legislation to move forward in a timely manner. As we have said, the Senate legislation may not contain every specific element we have called for, but it does represent an important step towards the broad principles the President has made clear need to be part of common-sense immigration reform. And so we look forward to continuing to work with Congress as the bill moves forward, and we will continue to advance the President's priorities as part of that process. But that process is ongoing; a lot of work remains to be done. We believe that the bill that emerged from committee reflects the President's principles, and we believe that the bill that passes through the Senate, with bipartisan support, should and needs to reflect the President's principles. And we will be engaged in that process as it moves through the Senate and beyond. But I think it is important to note that there is a lot of work to be done here, and we have seen with a variety of issues over time that victory can be declared early. And this is real work because it is something that requires bipartisan broad support. That support exists, the President believes, but it requires some elbow grease and some real grit and determination to get from here to completion. ENTITY, a minute ago you mentioned the reductions in government travel costs. Well, broadly speaking, the White House, as you know, has been affected by this sequester, and measures have been taken both to reduce costs here, as well as we have had to have furloughs in the White House Office. The President is President of the United States 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, as was the case with every one of the President's predecessors. And the nature of -- the way that he travels is very much a part of the office that he holds and is a requirement of that office, and he needs to be able to conduct his presidency in order to fulfill his obligation to the American people and the oath he took. So we are, in a variety of ways that I think OMB and others have spelled out, and I can -- and we can get you more information on that if you'd like -- taking action to reduce costs to deal with the sequester and some of that action includes furloughs. But I do not have anything more specific for you on that.


Later this week, the President meets with the President of China out in California. It is supposed to be partly a getting-acquainted session, but the President is also going to be bringing up hacking -- computer hacking and so forth. Does the President want to come away from that meeting with some deliverables? Well, I would, first of all, make the point that the President is acquainted with President Xi. They met prior to President Xi's accession to the presidency. But it is important now that he holds that office and President Obama has recently been reelected for this meeting to take place. And President Obama very much looks forward to it. There is a broad array of topics that the two leaders will discuss, and certainly, cybersecurity will be one of them. I would say that this is a discussion, and we are not trying to telegraph specific actions or so-called deliverables. The relationship that we have with China is broad and complex, and it is very important for these kinds of meetings to take place for that relationship to be developed, for us to work on greater cooperation where we have been able to cooperate, find new areas to cooperate, and also confront directly those areas where we disagree. And that has been the approach of this administration in our relations with China from the time the President took office. Did he come back saying it is going to be really tough on -- talking on this subject? National Security Advisor Tom Donilon had an excellent visit to China where he met with an array of top government officials and military officials and obviously reported back to the President on that meeting. And the President's meeting with President Xi will build upon the meetings that National Security Advisor Donilon had. Is he going to be asking Congress to do something specific? I do not want to preview the event or the President's remarks more than I just did except to say broadly that, yes, the President believes Congress should be focused on what the American people are focused on. Again, I am not going to preview specifics from the President's event or the remarks, but there are a variety of actions that we believe Congress ought to join us in moving on. You heard the President address some of those, I believe, in his weekly address. And there is ample room for bipartisan action on an agenda that would strengthen the middle class, provide it more security and help it expand.


And the middle class -- middle-class opportunity is the absolute cornerstone of our economy, and it has been the primary focus of the President's domestic policy since the day he took office. It is the primary focus of his economic and domestic agenda in his second term. And it is an important thing to remember that even as we deal with an array of issues here in Washington, that this is the thing -- this is the set of issues that the American people broadly care most deeply about because it affects their capacity to have and keep a job that can sustain a middle-class life; their capacity to send their children to college; their capacity to take care of their mothers and fathers as they grow old. And the President is deeply concerned about and focused on the need to make the middle class more secure and to create more opportunity for the middle class. So that is why this event is taking place on Thursday. It is part of a series that he will be engaged in, and he absolutely expects Congress to join him in taking action to assist and empower the middle class. To that end, could you tell us if the shrinking of the deficit is making it harder for the President to get the bipartisan deal that he wants with Republicans in order to make all the investments that he talks about on these trips? I mean, he is been searching for people to negotiate with him, but the deficit is coming down without either side doing anything. So is that having an effect? Let me take issue with that last sentence, because the deficit is coming down as sharply as it has been because the President and Congress did do something. They took direct action in 2009 that prevented a catastrophic recession from becoming a depression. They took direct action to pass the Affordable Care Act, which has, by any measure, helped bring down the growth in the cost of health care. They took direct action to write and pass a Wall Street reform law that will ensure that the kind of financial crisis that so battered our economy and the global economy cannot happen again. They took direct action to save the American automobile industry, an industry that is very much a part of American history and our sense of who we are, and also a great engine for economic growth and job creation. So let me be clear about that.


But the President thinks we need to continue to take action to invest in our economy so it grows -- to ensure that the jobs we need for the 21st century are created here; to ensure that we are taking action to enhance our energy independence; and to reduce our deficit in a responsible way -- to continue to reduce our deficit in a responsible way. And he has had a number of conversations with Republican lawmakers about the need to find common ground on achieving just that. But he has always looked at it as part of an overall approach to economic policy that is focused first and foremost on economic growth and job creation; and as part of that project, responsible deficit reduction. So he believes that we can do that. He believes that there are Republicans who want to do that, and we just have to see if there is a coalescing of will to make it happen. You have seen the President's offers. They were very explicit in his budget -- very explicit in his budget as a reflection of the offer he made at the end of last year. And the offer is on the table, and it demonstrates the President's willingness to compromise, demonstrates the seriousness with which he approaches these issues, and he hopes that he will find partners in moving it forward. Earlier this spring, a lot of attention was paid to the so-called charm offensive . The President took Republican lawmakers out to dinner and had meetings with them and called them on the phone. Well, first of all, it cannot be one time if there were a series of meetings and conversations and dinners. It was fairly recently that Senator McCain -- who is obviously a leading Republican in the Senate and a major player on a variety of key issues, both domestic and national security -- was here visiting the President. And we will continue to have those engagements both at the presidential level and at the sub-presidential level. The President is sincere in this effort. He believes that we can find common ground, both on deficit reduction and budget issues as well as on immigration reform -- because some of these conversations and meetings the President has had with Republican lawmakers have not just been on deficit reduction and budgets, they have been on immigration reform. They were and will continue to be, hopefully, on ways we can reduce gun violence. They will be on and have been on ways that we can invest in our economy and build out our infrastructure to create jobs now and help our economy grow in the future. Are there some more recent engagements you can tell us about?


You mean in the last few days? You cannot declare something over after a few days, Phil. I think that we need to -- everybody needs to take a breath. And I know that the media cycle is what it is, but the President is fully engaged with members of Congress in both parties and will continue to be. And he has pressed with -- in every one of these meetings, for a willingness to find common ground. He has shown his willingness to compromise, and he has been encouraged by the sentiments expressed by some Republican lawmakers to do the same. And where there are opportunities to find that compromise and get something done on behalf of the American people, the President will seize them, and he will continue to have those conversations in search of them. I want to go back to China. It was not clear to me from your answer to Roger's question whether there will be deliverables come out of that. And just what would you expect to come out of it? Can you tell us anything about the format over Friday evening and Saturday? Well, we will have more details about the specifics of the engagements and the conversations. But the two Presidents plan to discuss the full range of diplomatic, economic and security issues on the U.S.-China agenda -- from the perspective of identifying shared interests and finding ways to work together to solve regional and global challenges, and discussing how to manage differences in a manner that ensures a stable and productive bilateral relationship. They will talk about their domestic economic situations -- these are the two largest economies in the world -- and the steps that each will take to promote sustained international -- sustained, rather, and balanced global growth because of the impact that these two economies have on global growth. I think it is important, while I wanted to assure Roger that it was not just a get-to-know-you session, that this is more -- it is deeper than that; that this is not a 1970s-style summit where there are pre-negotiated outcomes. This is very much part of an ongoing engagement that we have with the Chinese leadership at the presidential level and at all the levels in government. And it is very important, because of the size of our economies, the interdependence that we have as engines of global economic growth, the various issues where we cooperate, and the various issues where we do not see eye to eye on all things. I am not sure that we have announced anything yet.


We have been working through that, and hopefully we will have more specifics for you in the near future. How might this redefine the whole Asia pivot? Because up until now, it is been really a -- seemed to be that the United States reasserting itself in the Pacific Rim region, reassuring the other Pacific Rim nations that it stands as a bulwark against China. So how does this fit this effort to sort of reset relations with the two leaders more personal? How does that fit into the more general Asia policy? We have made clear, or tried to, that our rebalancing, our pivoting to Asia has not been against any nation, not against China, but for the important role that the United States has traditionally and needs to continue to play in that region. The President made clear as a candidate and after he took office that he felt that we had, as a nation, turned away from Asia because of our largely understandable focus on the Middle East, but that that came at a cost to long-term U.S. interests. And he was determined to rebalance our foreign policy and our international economic policy in a way that made clear the importance that Asia -- the importance of Asia and the role that Asia plays in the 21st century, both economically and on security matters. But this is not a zero-sum thing; it is not against China at all. And that is why our engagement with China is part of the overall rebalancing, part of the focus on Asia that we need as a nation because of the explosive economic growth in the region, because of the huge potential in the region, because of the need to maintain stability and foster the expansion of economic growth and human rights in the region. So we -- it does not contrast with the effort we have been making; it complements it in our view. And I would note that, throughout this period, we have -- the President has engaged frequently with his Chinese counterpart, President Xi's predecessor. And we have, as an administration, have engaged with Chinese leadership all along, even as we have engaged in Asia and deepened our presence in Asia in a variety of different ways with a variety of different nations. Does the President have a view on this issue? The Supreme Court decided today whether the police have a right to take DNA samples from people who are being booked, who have been arrested as opposed to having to wait until they have been -- I have not had that conversation with him.


The decision had come down before the meeting I had with him or that I was in with him, but it did not come up in the meeting, so I do not know. I do not know that we will have a comment on the case from here, but if we do, we will be sure to get it to you. Following up on Supreme Court issues and matters -- the Supreme Court is supposed to make a decision on voting rights, whether to uphold certain portions of voting rights. Is the White House expecting -- bracing for disappointment on that? Because as late as February, some persons within the administration were saying that they did not hold out a lot of hope. Well, I do not want to prejudge a decision that has not been produced yet by the Supreme Court, so I will not do that. But this is obviously an issue that we consider very important and we will look with interest upon the decision. But before we see it, I think I will refrain from commenting on it. This weekend was very loud with that quote, paid liar. I did not know what you meant by very loud, but okay. That quote was very loud -- I am just telling you -- and it brought you into focus, and you are the mouthpiece for the President and his White House. Did the President talk to you about that? April, I will not get into my personal conversations with the President. I can just tell you that I am not interested in a back and forth with the Chairman. I am interested in what I believe most who in Washington are looking at this issue are interested in, which is what the President's focus is on, which is that we need to get -- make sure we know everything that happened here and that those who were responsible for inappropriate conduct are held accountable, and that actions are taken so that it does not happen again. So I appreciate the effort to get me to get into a back and forth , but I am not going to do it. That is not bringing you into a back and forth. I mean, you talked about the back and forth in the front row. I am now asking you, as the person who is the speaker for the White House beyond -- I mean, you are the first line, I guess, before the President, and you have now been brought into the fray with this with your spin. Did the President discuss this with you after that quote became so loud this weekend?


Let me ask you, first of all, when you heard the story of a 6year-old boy in Michigan, a first grader bringing a gun to school and shooting to death his 6year-old classmate, what was your reaction? Well, first, I think I had a normal human reaction. I was just as a parent I was heartbroken, and then I was angry. I thought, you know, how did this child get the gun in the first place? What is a 6-year-old doing with a gun? When something like this happens, politicians often jump on it as an excuse for more gun control. But I know that, ENTITY, you are very proud of pointing out that gun deaths have dropped to their lowest levels in more than 30 years in this country. So should we view this more as a tragedy than a reason to call for more gun control? The gun death rate has dropped to its lowest point in 30 years, but it is still by far the highest of any advanced nation in the world. And if we had passed the child trigger lock provision and we applied it to all new guns, then at least those guns would not be used by 6-year-olds to kill other 6-yearolds. That is a part of this bill, which also closes the gun show loophole in the background check law, bans the import of large ammunition clips, that the Congress has had for 8 months now with no action. So I am going to call the leaders of both parties in both Houses and ask them to come down here and break the logjam. There is been a House version and a Senate version of this bill for 8 months, and they have done nothing, and meanwhile, 13 kids every day every single day there are 13 children who die from guns in this country. So I do think we need more legislation. Well, why is it locked in committee, why has it been stalemated? And when would you like them to come to the White House? Well, I think it is been locked in committee because the Senate the Vice President cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, so we got a tough bill in spite of fierce lobbying against it by the NRA. And the two Houses cannot resolve their differences. We need these child trigger locks on the new handguns. That will begin to make a big difference.

Interview With Katie Couric of NBC's Today Show


And then in this year's budget, I have asked them to fund some more research into smart gun technology, which would enable us to have guns that could only be fired by the adults who own them. One of the things that is being debated in Michigan is whether there should be parental accountability provisions. We had provisions in our law for that, so that all States would have these laws several do, but most do not and those were taken out, so maybe they will be revisited in the conference as well. But the main thing is, if we can just get the child trigger locks and fund investment in the smart gun technology, I think we will be a long way down the road. Of course, I think ultimately what we ought to do is license handgun owners the way we license people who drive cars. And I hope that we will consider that, as well. Now, this guy stole a gun, apparently that is the allegation in the house where the child took it. But it would clearly make a big difference in the future to people's lives. What about registering guns? All Americans are required to register their cars. You could do that, but the problem is there are over 200 million guns out there; some say 250 million guns out there now. And most of the experts with whom I talked before I made my proposal believe that if we required all handgun owners to be licensed, we could achieve the same results. That is, whether you have got an old gun or you are buying a new gun, if people could come in when they do get new guns and get a license, then I believe we'd have the same result. I am not sure, practically, that we could get all the guns registered in this country because there are so many out there already. So I'd like to begin with that. You know, keep in mind, we had all those kids die at Columbine, and when I fought for the Brady bill which has kept a half a million felons, fugitives, and stalkers from getting guns and the assault weapons ban, about somewhere between 8 and 12 Members of Congress were defeated in the next election by the NRA because they voted for that. And then when all those kids were killed at Columbine, I thought, surely, we can close the gun show loophole, have the child safety locks, and maybe have the parental responsibility provisions and ban ammunition clips. And those bills have been just lingering up there for 8 months.


I do not think most Americans have any idea what a stranglehold the NRA has had on this Congress. And the people in our party have taken the lead, with a few brave Republicans, in trying to fight for sensible legislation. But we need the public aroused on this. I would not be opposed to registering guns, as well, but I just want you to understand there are practical problems with that, and you get most of the benefit if you license the gun owners. So I would like to see us start with that. When it comes to licensing, ENTITY, Wayne LaPierre, who you know is the executive vice president of the NRA, said, quote, Criminals are not going to stand in line to get their photos taken. They are not going to stand in line stand, rather, for licenses. You are walking way out on a limb. Well, you could say that about people with automobile licenses, too. But when people do not have gun licenses and they are found with guns and they are in violation of the law for that, very often you can get them before they commit a crime. If the facts, as they have been reported, are true about the tragic circumstances in which this 6-year-old boy lived and have the even more tragic consequence of killing that totally innocent young girl this man apparently stole that gun. But the point is, he could never get a license to carry a handgun. But meanwhile, is it practically possible to check every gun owner in America to see if he or she is carrying a license? Well, none of these things will happen instantaneously, overnight. But yet, they will begin to make a difference. Look, when we passed the Brady bill, ENTITY, let me remind you, people said, Well, this will not make any difference, because criminals do not get their guns at gun stores. It turned out, a lot of them did. It turned out we were able to deny 500,000 people who were trying to buy handguns the right to do so because they were felons, fugitives, and stalkers. Now, there are a lot of kids alive and there are a lot of adults alive in America because we did that. Now a lot of them are using the gun shows or these urban flea markets.


If we close that loophole, do the background check there, license new handgun owners license excuse me handgun owners, and put safety locks, these trigger locks on the guns to protect the kids and then the next big step is to technologically develop guns that can only be fired by their lawful owners we can turn this situation around. But like I said, we have got over 200 million guns out there. We are losing 13 kids a day. The accidental rate of children that is another thing I'd like the American people to think about. The rate of kids being killed by accident with guns is 9 times higher in America than that of the next 24 biggest countries combined combined. So we have not done nearly enough, and we need to identify these things and just systematically go do them. None of them interfere with the right of any lawful citizen to hunt or to engage in sport shooting. And it is an unbelievable thing, after what we saw clearly at Columbine and all the problems that were there, that 8 months have gone by, and the Congress cannot act. And the reason they cannot act is because of the heat the NRA has put on them. ENTITY, why have not you publicly asked gun manufacturers to produce these so-called smart guns voluntarily? Let me say, we are getting some support from responsible gun manufacturers. Many of them have already said they want to put the child safety locks on their new guns. Many of them are engaged in this technology. But what I want to do is to have the Government also fund some of the research, just as we funded the initial research that led to the Internet, just as we fund the initial research that is leading to the sequencing of the human genome. A lot of this basic research to solve big national problems often starts with Government funding. So I'd like to see the Government do its part. But I have asked the gun manufacturers to do so. And some of the responsible manufacturers have already said, Yes, we are going to go with the child safety locks, and we want the smart gun technology. All the Presidential candidates seem to agree on this point, so you would think it could be accomplished. What is the NRA's biggest beef, in your estimation, about the technology that would enable only the person who owns a gun to actually fire it? Well, first of all, I do not think that is accurate, that all the Presidential candidates do. Well, George W. Bush favors trigger locks, I understand.


Senator McCain voted against the Brady bill. But he says he favors technology that would enable the gun user to wear a special bracelet. He said that last night. They were against the Brady bill. They are against extending closing the gun show loophole. They are against the licensing of handgun owners. But nobody could be against technology. So I hope that we can get 100 percent of the Congress to at least vote for the research and the new technology. What is the NRA's biggest beef about smart guns? I do not know that they will be against smart guns, but they are basically against anything that requires anybody to do anything as a member of society that helps to make it safer. That is, if they were making this argument on car licensing or licensing of car drivers, they would say that everybody has an individual right to drive a car, and therefore, no lawful car owner should be required to undergo the terrible burden of getting a car license because there are some people who are irresponsible and should not be driving cars. They are saying guns are special, guns are different than cars, and the rights of individual citizens are far, far more important than the safety of society as a whole. That is their argument, and I just disagree with them. An NRA spokesman actually told us last night that this is not about making guns safer, it is about prosecuting criminals, and that your Justice Department has not done enough in that area. Well, we have increased gun prosecution since I have been here, and we have a lot of people in jail for it. All I can tell you is, we have a higher percentage of people in jail than all the other advanced countries, and they have a lower gun death rate. That is because they do not have an NRA in their country, and they take sensible steps to protect children and society as a whole from people having guns who should not have them, doing things they should not do with them. You have got to keep guns away from criminals and children if you want a safe society. Look, if the NRA were arguing years ago in this vein, they'd be against airport metal detectors because, after all, everybody most people that go through airport metal detectors are innocent. Why should we burden them with having to go through and empty their pockets and take out their money clips and all that because there is just a few criminals around? And you know, you are interfering with their individual rights to walk on an airplane.


You should not burden an individual law-abiding handgun owner, because most of them are lawful, just because there are a few criminals. But the point is that society takes steps with speed limits, with licensing laws, with airport metal detectors, and any number of other ways, where we all make a little bit of sacrifice in time and effort to comply with a system that makes us all freer. And we still get to do our lawful activity. So I just think they are wrong about that. They are saying that guns are different guns are different than cars, guns are different than any other area of our national life where we seek for common safety, we protect ourselves from the people who would abuse our liberty, abuse our freedom, and abuse our safety. And I just think they are wrong about this, and I hope that a majority of the Congress will agree. And I hope that more and more members of the Republican Party will agree. As I say, we have had some few brave members of the Republican Party that have joined the vast majority of Democrats in trying to responsibly deal with this without in any way undermining the right of people to do legitimate hunting or sport shooting activities. And we can do this. ENTITY, before we go, in closing, when do you plan to invite congressional leaders to the White House to discuss the juvenile justice bill? Well, I'd like them to come down next week, as soon as we can set it up, because we are running out of time, and we need to get out of this terrible logjam. And I hope that these tragedies will give a little impulse, a profound sense of obligation to do that. As again I say, nobody is trying to interfere with individual rights here. What we are trying to do is to promote the common safety of the American people, and we are not nearly safe enough. All you have got to do is look at these incidents. Can we eliminate every problem? Is there a silver bullet that will solve it overnight? Can we save a lot of lives, including a lot of children, 13 every day 13 funerals a day? We really appreciate it.


Talking about your trip specifically to Singapore, how happy are you with the measures that Singapore has taken, specifically regarding terrorism? And what are your concerns about the residual threat in the region? First, I am very happy with the Government of Singapore's response to terrorism. They understand the task at hand, and they understand the dangers. Prime Minister Goh and I have had some great conversations about the region. He keeps me abreast of his views of different players in the region and what is going on. Of course we are concerned about terrorism in the region, because, after all, there is been attacks in the region. I remind our own citizens here that we are still focused on September the 11th as kind of the defining terrorist moment, but there have been a lot of attacks. And the Bali bombing is a classic example of the terrorist activities, and that happens to come in Southeast Asia. The Prime Minister and the Government are concerned, obviously, about those kind of attacks. We will have a good discussion about it. He is got a lot to offer, a lot of advice to offer, a lot of wisdom, and I listen to it. ENTITY, have your APEC partners done enough to help the United States in Iraq? Well, we can always use more. And as a matter of fact, the Japanese are going to make an announcement. We are out there working hard to convince others to participate in the reconstruction effort in Iraq. It is in their interests that Iraq be free and peaceful. And the reason it is, is because the region needs democracy. The region needs an example of what can happen in a peaceful society. The region needs something alternative to a type of society which breeds terrorism. Clearly, the region is also concerned about North Korea. You have described Saddam Hussein as a madman and a danger, and he was deposed by force. You have also said that you loathe Kim Chong-il, and he has a known nuclear program. Because, first of all, remember in Iraq, we spent 11 years' or so worth of resolutions and discussions and diplomacy trying to convince Saddam Hussein to disarm. I believe we can solve the issue on the North Korean-with the North Korean issue on the Korean Peninsula peacefully. As a matter of fact, we are making great strides toward that. You might remember, up until recent history, the whole issue is the United States and North Korea. And the Government signed an agreement with North Korea, and they did not tell the truth.

Interview With Malcolm Brown of Singapore's Channel NewsAsia


So I have decided to come with a new strategy, and that is, rather than just the United States being the interlocutor with North Korea, we convince others in the neighborhood, like the Chinese and the Russians and the Japanese and the South Koreans. This will be a major part of our discussions in APEC, to keep this group together, to speak with one voice, and that is, to Kim Chong-il, Get rid of your nuclear ambitions. It is in all our interests we do so. And we are making progress. Now he is hearing at least five voices, not just one. Force is the last resort for the United States, not the first resort. It is the last option, and I am very hopeful that we can make good progress on this issue. On China, how do you see their space program? Is it a threat to the U.S.? I do not necessarily see it as a threat. I think it is a country that is now beginning to emerge as a sophisticated country, and it is got great potential. I hope that they are able to make discoveries in space, like we did, that will-the technology that will come out of that will help mankind. No, I do not view it as a threat. Finally, on a regional trade issue, with New Zealand, you will meet Prime Minister Helen Clark on the sidelines, I understand, at APEC. Why does Australia have negotiations on a FTA , and New Zealand does not ? Is it to do with their nuclear policy? I mean, we have not gotten started with New Zealand. The nuclear policy, obviously, makes it difficult for us to have a military alliance, but we are friends with the New Zealands. We respect the New Zealand people. But Australia is farther along the road when it comes to trade discussions. Prime Minister Howard and I discussed trade at my ranch in Crawford. We hope to get it done by the end of this year. The people of New Zealand should not read anything into it other than, we just have not gotten started. And I respect the people of New Zealand. I respect that great country. I am going to have to call it a day. I think you did a fine job.


I appreciate it. I have known you a long time. You have known me a long time. And we have done many of these, but a little bit different position. So, the America First president comes to Davos. globalists, elitists. What will you say when you address not just the globalists and the elitists, but everyone? When you address them, what will be your message? So when I decided to come to Davos I did not think in terms of elitists or globalists. I think I thought in terms of lots of people that want to invest lots of money, and they are all coming back to the United States, they are coming back to America. And I thought of it much more in those terms. After I said that I was going there were massive stories about the elite, and the globalists, and the planes flying in, and everything else. It is not about that. It is about coming to America, investing your money, creating jobs, companies coming in. We are setting records every week, every day we are setting records. Apple now with $350 billion. Most people thought they meant $350 million, which would build a nice plant. But I spoke with Tim Cook and I was very honored. But you remember my campaign, I used to say, I will not consider this great unless Apple starts coming in and really investing big money doing the plants. They are gonna do a lot. You have moved a little towards the center. But so Macron's saying that globalism does not solve problems. Suddenly other countries are saying, you know, We need to take care of, you know, our own country to some extent. So it is almost like the differences between America First and Davos. I think there is plenty of room for you And we love global, but we love home. We have to take care of our home. Now, we have the disadvantage of having spent, as of about a month ago, $7 trillion in the Middle East. And we are still there, and I have beaten ISIS, I have done we have done a good job. Let me tell you about the difference of Davos this year. We have done three three-hour shows, we have about eight guests per hour, so that is , like, 50 or 60 guests.

Interview with Joe Kernen of CNBC at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland


But the one thing most are bringing up and then I want to tell you about if you did not see the Jamie Dimon and the Lloyd Blankfein interview, I want to just tell you what they said about the potential for GDP growth Because those guys might know what they are talking about. But the tax plan has been brought up almost without exception in a positive way by not just the CEOs, but by leaders from other countries even. They maybe they need to look at maybe they need to invest in the United States now because it is a better environment for business. To a large extent, that is why I am here. What did happen that nobody considered is that AT&T started, but they immediately followed Hundreds of companies are giving thousands and thousands of dollars to their workers. And now you have almost 3 million workers that are receiving thousands of dollars. Nobody ever thought that was not, like, in the plan    By the way, the ones that are not doing it, those employees are going like, How about us? They are gonna be doing it, too. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, I know you know him. Not only did he say he thought 3 percent was possible, he said we could get to 4 percent in 2018. Lloyd Blankfein, and I pressed him a little because I said, That was not the outcome the election that you were, I think, hoping for. Now that you have seen what is happened to the stock market, up 40 percent since Election Day, how businesses are growing confidence, are you happy with the outcome?  I do not think they cannot do that. He cannot do it   Maybe the polarization would be less, but he had to concede that the benefits probably outweighed any of the downside of ENTITY Jamie and Lloyd also said 3 percent is possible long term, which we have not heard from all the economists that supposedly I think it'll be much higher than that. So I said and let us see what happens, because as you know, we are getting a report very soon, so we are going to see what that is. But I just happened to ask what we were doing. Because you know, if you look at the real numbers, had I not won, had the Democrat won I am going to be nice the Democrat, I say, won I would consider their last quarter my first quarter. So let us say the first quarter of '17 you had a 1.2 GDP.


In the fourth quarter, which is the Obama quarter, you had a 1.8. Before that, you had a 2.8, a 2.2. And it was the worst recovery I guess do they say ever, or since the Great Depression? Now, in my first quarter, which I consider to be the second quarter because I was there now long enough to have made an impact and do not kid yourself, regulations are just as big as the tax cuts. I have cut more regulations than any president in history and I have been here for one year. You can take their term whether it is eight years or 16 years in one instance but you can take anybody you want, in one year, we have cut more regulations. And by the way, there is going to be regulation but they are good, solid, sane regulations. But in quarter two, we had 3.1, and in quarter three, as you know, we had 3.2. But in quarter one, which is the Obama quarter really the last, I would say, Obama quarter, you had 1.2. We were going in the wrong direction. Had the Democrat won the stock market is up almost 50 percent since my election had the Democrat won, I believe you would have been down 50. And you know, a lot of that, regulation. You could not do anything. You could not build I approved immediately the two pipelines, 48,000 jobs Can we talk about the year? So the year, all these things that you have pointed out. But you have been dealing, negotiating now in government instead of in the private sector. And it is been I think lovingly referred to as the swamp by certain And have you learned are you approaching it differently now? Would you give your what would you give yourself in terms of dealing, negotiating with the government versus business? Well, a lot of people have given me an A. Somebody gave me an A-plus. So look, I got the biggest tax plan in our history approved. Have you learned anything? I got rid of the Would you do anything different now? I got rid of the individual mandate, the most the biggest part and the most unpopular thing in Obamacare, which really repeals Obamacare, because it cannot live without the mandate, because that is where a lot of the money came. It was very unfair to people. And we did ANWR . ANWR, Ronald Reagan tried to do it 40 years ago.


I mean, everybody's been trying to do ANWR, and I got ANWR done as part of that same bill. So on top of the biggest tax cuts, great reform and the money is coming in. We probably take in $4 trillion from overseas that would never have been able to be here because of regulation. Well, can we talk trade real quickly while we are doing it. So we had solar panels, washing machines. You will they are grown-ups and I think they understand that maybe we had some We have some legitimate right. Would you you going to stick with bilateral or would you ever go back in the multi would TPP, would that ever be possible to look at that again? I like bilateral because if you have a problem, you terminate. When you are in with many countries, like with TPP so you have 12 if we were in you do not have that same, you know, you do not have that same option. But somebody asked me other day would I do TPP. I will give you a big story. I would do TPP if we made a much better deal than we had. We had a horrible deal. NAFTA's a horrible deal, we are renegotiating it. I may terminate NAFTA, I may not. But NAFTA was and I went around and I'd tell stadiums full of people, I will terminate it or renegotiate it. So you might re-enter are you opening up the door to reopening TPP? I would do TPP if we were able to make a substantially better deal. If we did a substantially better deal I would be open to TPP. Are you surprised to hear me say that? But we have to make a better deal Can you give me any indication which way you are leaning? Because there is a lot of people, lot of the CEOs that have been on here, they all seem to acknowledge that it is 30 years later and there is a lot of changes that make a lot of sense, but to not abandon the deal. Hey ENTITY, we have a trade deficit with Mexico. We have a trade deficit with Canada of a substantial amount of money. I have a number but they keep arguing, they keep saying no so I will not say it. I will not tell you it is $17 million, OK? We have a trade deficit with Canada. We have a massive trade deficit with Mexico.


Are you leaning towards staying in or would you really go out of the   I have always said during the campaign and as you noticed and as you have actually said a couple of times, which I have always appreciated, I have fulfilled a lot of what I have said. You know, I think I have four years and maybe another four years, OK, if we keep going We will see what happens. But ENTITY, we have a $71 billion a year trade deficit with Mexico. We got to do something. We cannot have that. We are trying right now with Bob Lighthizer and the whole group. I think we have a good chance but we will see what happens. I get the feeling that Senator Schumer is taking a lot of flak from his flank, from the far-left flank. He made a mistake in shutting down. People of this country want security, they want safety, they want their military to be taken care of. What is going to happen on Monday with DACA?  Well, we have already started the process   I think Cotton, and Perdue and Goodlatte, and the people that I have been dealing with Cornyn, so many of the people these are great people. You said 10n to 12 years for citizenship, right, for the Dreamers. Will Cotton go along with that? If we make the right deal. These are people that have very strong opinions on DACA and on immigration generally. Look, we are going to try and make a deal on DACA. We have a good chance of making it. What we need is we need the wall, we need security, we need security at the border. We have to stop the drugs from coming in. We need safety and we need a strong military.   We need almost more than ever before I mean, we have been in wars so we needed it then but we need to be sure that our military is properly funded, and it would be really great to get rid of the, you know, we'd like to have a regular budget. Will you ask for $25 billion, ENTITY? and did Chuck Schumer offer $1.6 billion? We agreed to $25 billion Did he take it back? Did he how much did he agree to? But he did not really take it back. If you see numerous senators on the other side they said, We'd give the wall in two minutes if we could do something with DACA. Everybody wants to solve the DACA problem.


They have been wanting to solve it for a long time. It should've been solved by President Obama. It would've been easier to solve it, especially when he had the House and the Senate. They could've solved it in a day. But they did not solve it, he did not solve things. And he did something that he did not have the right to do. You understand, he did an executive order and that was no good. And by the way, the court it was not me. The courts were not upholding that executive order. You have to do it through Congress. I want to solve the DACA problem. I will consider that a great achievement to solve the DACA problem. It is been out there for a long time. These are good people, these are people that should be able to stay in this country. We are going to solve the DACA problem. But we also want to solve a tremendous problem on the southern border, which is crime. We need a wall, we need the drugs to stop flowing in. They are coming in like well, they are coming in less now than they were because we have a very strong we have great Border Patrol agents, great ICE we have great people and they are really doing a good job. And you see what is happening at the border, it is much better. But we need a strong border. And to do that you need a wall. And they did agree to a $25 billion wall, of which I will have a lot of money left over. Because I do not need $25 billion to build a wall. We will build a great that is what I do. We will build a great wall and we will have a lot of money left over, and we will spend it on other things. But we need great security. And yes, Senator Perdue, Senator Cotton, Cornyn, this one, that one, we have tremendous support to get something done. I want to ask you a Davos question, just because we are here and I do not know, I even get taken over by this. But whenever we are here, we talk about wealth disparity and income inequality, not just globally but everywhere. A resurgent United States, a strongly growing United States makes a world of difference not just for the United States but for the world in general.


But I am just wondering if you did if you were able to keep GDP or if the United States grows at 3 percent or 4 percent and we have the coffers, that we can do a lot with 3 percent or 4 percent. It is totally different than when we do not have money. Do you have a way of addressing the skills gap and education? As a businessperson, you solve problems. Now you are in government We need vocational schools. We need the community colleges in many cases Oh, I think it is a big factor for us. But I also want these great companies that are coming in Toyota's now coming in. We talked already about Apple. Apple's coming in with a very big presence. We had many companies Chrysler's coming in, leaving Mexico and coming back to Michigan. When was the last time you heard that? And without me being here and without what we have been doing including regulation, by the way, because I happen to think that regulation is as big as the tax cuts, OK? But I think the regulations, the cutting of regulations because the businesses could not even they could not do anything. You'd have to get 16 different approvals from 15 different agencies. Hey ENTITY, it was impossible to do business. And I think you know that maybe better than anybody. The cutting of the regulations was every bit as important as what we did with the tax cuts. But you put them both together and we have a dynamic country again. I just came out and some really wonderful people said, Davos has never been like this. This is like walking into the Academy Awards, except we have more photographers. The Journal this morning, lead editorial was that and they gave a lot of credit to the Trump administration for where economic growth is right now. But then they said, Why would a Cabinet member bring up the idea of a weaker dollar when things are going so well? And I am wondering whether you saw Secretary Mnuchin's comments yesterday. Do you agree with those? Were they taken out of context? So let me tell you, I think they were taken out of context because I read his exact statement. I will tell you where I stand, which ultimately is very important. 1, I do not like talking about it because, frankly, nobody should be talking about it. It should also be based on the strength of the country.


We are doing so well, our country is becoming so economically strong again and strong in other ways too, by the way that the dollar is going to get stronger and stronger. And ultimately, I want to see a strong dollar. But ultimately the dollar, because our country is going to get so much stronger economically, if you look at what is happened to our country over the look, I have been talking about this with you for 25 years. It started with Japan, morphed into China, now it is China, Japan, it is everybody. And everybody has taken advantage of our country. They have ripped our country off. You look at what they do. I saw something on motorcycles today with a certain country. But they sell motorcycles into our country, no tax. We sell motorcycles into their country Harley-Davidsons, the greatest, right? We sell them into their country, 100 percent tax. The word reciprocal is the most important word with Donald Trump when it comes to what the subject that we talk about and the subject that CNBC covers so well especially you, by the way, because I do not agree with all of you people, but that is OK. I want reciprocal. If they are going to charge us 100 percent for a motorcycle, it should be 100 percent the other way, too. And you know, when you mention a tax at the border, a 10 percent tax on the border for everything coming in, I am a free trader. I am all kinds of trader, but I want reciprocal. Because when China's charging us a fortune to send products in and making it impossible for the product to get there and many other countries, by the way, not just China. And then we charge them nothing to sell their stuff here. When you use the word reciprocal everybody understands that. If they do it to you, you do it to them and everybody understands it, ENTITY. And you are going to see a lot of that in my administration. And you are already seeing it. Well, we are going to have to end it there. Will we have another shutdown? Will you move more to the center on immigration I do not think the Democrats would shut it down again. You do not think they will do it Because you look at every poll, it said they made a mistake. Why should I do that? I am negotiating with someone I am not going to say he got badly beaten. The people want security and they want DACA taken care of.


I know it. They told me that one of the girl on my right that pretty looking she claims to be the 250th in the world in tennis. And she is struggling and trying to it is so wonderful practices 8 hours every day. on red clay? And then the kids they train for what they call their national games or something there. The one that spoke the English, her dad was a coach in Kuwait. And she learned her English over there, and she is a high-jumper. This visit to Hungary well, Poland also but both of them were very, very moving. And I just come away with this real acute sense now of the change that is taking place in Eastern Europe and a determination to play a constructive role in that change. The meetings with these Hungarian leaders the most recent visit were very good, very frank. I have been to, what, 77, 79 countries, or something, as Vice President; and these talks were more than just diplomatic. I mean, you did not rely on the printed card, and they did not . I mean, they spoke right from the heart. They said what they thought; they made clear the difficulties that they were facing. And I tried to do the same thing. Do you think you made a difference? I realize it would not have been diplomatic for any of those leaders to say so, but did you hear any complaints in either place about the sufficiency of the packages you brought? But I heard none at all, not one. And in fact, Walesa , who had been reported to be asking for $10 billion, moved off of that and said that what they wanted were more banks to come in that would loan those kinds of money. There was a paper written by a Solidarnosc economist that had the figure of $10 billion and had broken it down into x-number of dollars from the World Bank, x from the IMF, x -- and it added up to $10 billion. But there was no pressure of that nature, and then I see that subseQuently Walesa was in the paper today or yesterday saying that there had not been a disappointment. But I think they understand that we are restricted in what we can do in terms of aid, or dollars of support, for some very worthy project. The thing that is impressive is the determination on the part of all these leaders to move towards economic freedom and political freedom. It was so clear in Poland.

Interview With Members of the White House Press Corps


General Jaruzelski -- who has had an image in the States earlier on that was not a very favorable one -- is really out front in the reforms. And conversations were very warm and very frank with him. We'd talk about differences, but we'd also talk about common objectives. And he went out of his way to be hospitable. And then the same thing on the -- what you'd call the private sector side -- Lech Welesa down there. And the same was true here; we met with the leaders and then, again, the opposition. And then they were all together at a reception. It is -- change is absolutely amazing that is taking place in Eastern Europe. Do you think that you have made a difference? Well, I think the very fact that they can sit and talk to an American President in a reasonable way and I could tell them what I thought we would be able to do, how much we shared their desire for change -- I think was fruitful to them. And I think they saw the friendship and respect for the United States from their people -- the crowds on the street and the -- any time there was interaction with the people it was dramatic. And I am sure that makes a difference to the leaders. I think it shores up their desire for change because I think it shows all of us the genuine affection for the United States that exists in these countries and, I would say, in the rest of Eastern Europe, too, although I cannot speak as authoritatively. Is Poland going to get a government soon? We discussed that very openly, but it is just something I cannot predict the outcome. Well, I think it takes some time after their elections for the Parliament, and I think that they are now trying to sort out, in an arrangement, who to support for President. And you have got several different options. But that is their business; that is the internal affair of Poland, and I ought not to try to get involved in that. Did Walesa express any concerns about calling upon workers to make the kind of sacrifices required? He did not express concern about that, but I had an opportunity to make clear in private that and publicly that reforms were essential. There is no point going there under false colors and to try to have everything sweetness and light as a message that but it is not going to be easy. But that is part of the message.


The rest of it is that change is in the winds, and I sense it so much more clearly from having been there. Do you feel the general I mean, you could see a man almost totally resigned Do not you feel that the general sees something besides the inevitable? I do not think it is a question of resignation. You see, as you see change take place in the Soviet Union, this opens the way for change vital change, vibrant change in the rest of Eastern Europe. And so, I did not sense a dejection on his part; I sensed somewhat of an upbeat feeling that, yes, that these changes were possible now. And I certainly sense that in Hungary.  Well, you want to be careful not to conduct yourself in such a way as to encourage a backlash. But I would think that this visit in the neighborhood would be watched by countries where economic and political change are lagging behind Poland and lagging behind Hungary. That is not true of the Soviet Union, and it is not true of Yugoslavia. I am firmly convinced that this wave of freedom, if you will, is the wave of the future. And I would expect that this visit has been watched by the people of other Eastern European countries and, hopefully, giving encouragement to those who want to go the path of reform political change, economic change -- that these other countries are now following. Do you think they will feel that talk is cheap from the United States, and what about a little more aid to encourage their reform movement? I did not sense that. That was their early question, and I did not sense it. I expect everybody would like to have as much aid as everybody possibly can attract. But when you are tying your position into economic reform and incentive and ownership and private sector and entrepreneurship, it seems to have at least negated the public cry or diminished the public cry for more funds. I just did not encounter that. We did not expect you to come here with a bag full of money was the way they put it. Are you going to tell the summit leaders that communism is dead? I am going to tell them that there is dynamic change taking place in Eastern Europe, and I expect each one of them will want to tell me about their experiences with that. But I want to be sure that they know of our commitment to foster this change in a prudent way. I have not set up any yardsticks for that, Brit . I do not think that there is a way to measure success at an economic summit.


There are problems on the agenda, but I expect at the conclusion of the meeting you will see seven countries in harmony, pulling together on matters like the environment and, you know, the economies of the various countries, and trade. All these are contentious matters bilaterally, but I think we can reach common understanding. Gorbachev to what is going on in Eastern Europe approach seems to be development in Eastern Europe and that you are a partner, but a limited partner. Is not it Gorbachev's revolutionary approach to the East-West relationship that has given these people license to move forward? I would think so, and maybe you missed what I said about Poland and giving them the flexibility to move forward. So, no, I would certainly say, and I mentioned four countries one of them was the Soviet Union. I do not think you were here when I started talking about that. So, we are very pleased to see the perestroika. I want to see it succeed. When are you going to tell him that personally? I do not think there is any misunderstanding on his part about the position of the United States in terms of his reforms. I think maybe if there is ever any doubt about it those doubts have been dispelled; and if there was any recent doubts about it, those doubts will be dispelled by his friends in Poland and in Hungary because I made very clear to them that, you know, we are not there to poke a stick in the eye of Mr. Gorbachev. Just the opposite to encourage the very kind of reforms that he is championing and more reforms. convinced that he understands what you are doing? Because there are so many contacts with him and because some of these leaders told me that. And they told me that in terms of our approach to arms also. There has been some suggestion we were dragging our feet on arms control, which is pure nonsense. And I am convinced from talking to these people that Gorbachev knows that we are serious. Indeed, we have an opportunity now to encourage him to move along faster on conventional force reductions. The idea that some Soviet spokesman yesterday says they cannot meet these timetables I do not want to believe that that is Mr. Gorbachev speaking. And I am not going to believe it until I hear from him or until I hear authoritatively that that is who it is. Should we not believe Marlin? You can believe Marlin, yes, because he speaks with great authority.


He is a couple of beats behind the pace here, because I do not think Gorbachev wants to slow down an agreement on conventional arms. If he does, he is wrong on that. I think he wants to move forward there and on the strategic arms talks, and so do we. From your conversation, did you get any sense of what the bottom line is in Eastern Europe as far as political change? I mean, what are the two or three points that you cannot cross? No, there does not seem to be a bottom line, because when you go to open, free, fair elections, who knows what is going to happen? Take a look at Hungary I mean at Poland. So, the change is so rapid and so devastating to old ways that I do not think you can put a bottom line on the thing. Perhaps Gorbachev is also looking at the elections? Probably looking at the elections at home, and that is a good thing. I tell you, the excitement of all this, you just feel it in talking to the leaders and feel it from the people. specific with both leaders that further economic reform for example, did you discuss with them the sale of state-owned business or getting private enterprise to the people in both Poland and Hungary? And the talks with Mr. Jaruzelski we got into that. Mainly we were talking about joint ventures and partnerships, but also I had the opportunity to emphasize our conviction that state ownership is less productive than private ownership. And similarly, in a couple of the meetings maybe we did in all but in a couple of the meetings yesterday there was discussion of privatization. No resistance, incidentally, it seemed like, in Hungary. But we had a very frank discussion about what percentage of their gross national product was in government and what in private sector, and Hungary still has a long way to go until it achieves privatization. I met people that are caught up in this wave of historic change. Are they changing their whole philosophy? You asked whether one of the leaders made a big distinction between a Communist and a Socialist. And one of them pointed out that European socialism could well be the model of the future as opposed to the socialism that we equate with communism. Did you get into 2 years ago, the Poles would not get the votes they needed, and then you talk about belt-tightening. But did they talk to you about what they would do?


And do you have any qualms that this might backfire that if these supports are removed, the Poles may not get the candy they need to keep supporting the system? I had some feeling after some of the talks that the reforms that would be required would be very difficult for them. Would you have any plans to contact him Well, we have regularized contacts with the Soviet Union now, and we will continue on those. Did Lech Walesa tell you about the powder-keg situation in Poland, as he told TV interviewers? Well, as I said, some of the interlocutors made clear that the kinds of reforms that are going to have to be taken will not be easy. It was not put in the context of powder keg. privatization, openness, free elections. And to the degree those things take place, why, we will be able to do more. I'd met him before, and it is funny how you just meet one time and it establishes a certain personal warmth there. ENTITY, you talked about the changes, and you used the word amazing. Were you surprised by the things you saw? Not textbook surprised, but surprised at the feeling: the feeling and the emotion of it all and the frankness with which the leaders -- in Hungary particularly; well, and also Jaruzelski and Walesa -- talked about the change. I mean it was with emotion, and it was not your traditional I will read my cards, and you read your cards kind of diplomacy. It was very special in that regard. There is an intensity to it, a fervor to it that moved me very much. You mean like in Eastern Europe? Well, I think without the change in the Soviet Union it would have been highly unlikely that Eastern Europe would be achieving the kinds of changes or aspiring to the kinds of changes that it is aspiring to. I do not ever look for disputes, I look for calming the troubled waters. You know that. I do not know that either. Well, I want to go to Africa, but there is no doubt -- I would not say that would be the next, would you? I do not think it is the U.S. role to keep the change alive. I mean, I think this is something that is the business of the Poles and of the Hungarians. I think it would be rather arrogant to suggest that it is the United States that has the sole responsibility.


But it, to the degree we can encourage change without intervention in the internal affairs -- why, I am all for that. The people's aspiration for liberty and for free choice is too fundamental. And they can look to our system, look to our country, as a beacon for all these good values. But it is not our role to go in and dictate to any of these countries how they are going to run their business. I know that struck you the most about it, because you did not have to stand out in the rain. He said they liked that. Well, I mean, I had plenty of opportunity to pay my formal respects, which, in essence, was what that was about. I told them the next day one of the leaders was very complimentary of that. And I said it reminds me of an old adage that the United States the speech that you do not that was the one in the rain. Who are you going to send to Israel as an emissary? Have you had any contact at all with the Soviets on that question? Well, we chose to stop there because Wallenberg is a great international symbol of human rights. And I do not know -- what do you mean about contact about -- -- I mean, it is a constant issue that U.S. officials are regularly asking of the Soviets I have not personally asked of the Soviets that. Are you saying that the Secretary of State might send an emissary? Well, I am saying that we have people go to Israel all the time and to other countries in the area. But when you say, Who am I sending as an emissary? -- I was putting that in the context of past high-level shuttle diplomats or something of that nature, and there are no plans for that. I reserve the right to send people anytime I think it is in the interest of the United States, but there are no plans for that kind of level -- diplomacy. But if somebody felt it was worthwhile, somebody over there would welcome a special emissary from ENTITY, I'd be very openminded about that. You asked me whether there are plans. find out what is going in terms of  We have got a very able Ambassador over there who knows a great deal about what is going on and has excellent contacts with the Government. Why is the U.S. so shook up over this?


I do not know that the U.S. is so shook up, but they know the United States policy. And the United States policy on settlements, for example, has not changed, and it is not going to change. And so, we might as well be frank with our friends, because that is what friendship is about. And so, I want to see things go forward in terms of the peace process over there, and we want to see the election process go forward. And if anybody can make a case for me that the recent deliberations in that party will enhance the election process, then I'd say, Great! But I am afraid other people are looking at it, saying, What is happened does not enhance the possibilities of election. And I am President of the United States, and Israel is a friend and will remain a friend, but I have to say what our policy is -- and so, I do not think there is great heartburn here, but I want to just continue to articulate what we believe. Shamir said -- what should be important from the very start -- so I am trying to figure out why the United States is so distressed. Well, you go ahead and talk to the State Department about that. You are talking to the President. I set the policy, after a lot of input from the State Department, and I want the U.S. policy to succeed. We have thought out very carefully what we think is best, and our support is for our principles. And they have got great difficulties inside of Israel. I understand that. I understand the political pressures. But I cannot be varying U.S. policy every day to accommodate political change. I am not going to do that. Keep encouraging them to do what they ought to do: to participate in this election process -- absolutely -- and deplore the kind of violence that we see when a bus is carried over a cliff and carrying a lot of innocent people to their death, or innocent people getting killed in other ways -- on both sides. I mean we have to stand for something. And I am going to continue to try to do that. When did it hit you? Experience never hurt anybody, did it?