Well, I would refer them to the people that were in charge of the documentation, which would be Mr. Culvahouse and company, in whom I have great confidence. But if there is anything we can do to encourage that -- absolutely. ENTITY, when you say your conscience is clear, do you mean that the interpretation that has been made of the documents in this trial, which I gather were made by Mr. North himself, are not entirely accurate? I am not discussing anything about my role in this except to say that everything I have said I will stand behind. You will not even -- since they are sequestered -- just give us a -- -- I have just told the gentleman that I am not going to go into that. So, please, do not ask me to do that which I have just said I am not going to do, because you are burning up time. Sir, can I ask you about assault weapons? Oh, no, you have already used up your time. You know, William Bennett, your drug czar, has made a proposal that you treat them like machineguns, which would mean people would register and they'd have their names on file and so forth. First off, what do you think of that idea? And secondly, when are you going to tell us your next step on that? Well, we are having a meeting this afternoon with certain Members of Congress on this. suitability for sporting purposes. And we are being very careful here, but we are going to make a determination using that as a standard. And, Lesley , I cannot say exactly when it will be, but I have expressed my concern about these weapons and their suitability. I do not know exactly when it will be, but there is a meeting here today that is just ongoing, and I have great confidence in Bill Bennett. We have talked to a wide array of people on this. We have gone to some of the think tanks -- that very intelligent, thoughtful paper from Ed Feulner's group over at Heritage, very thoughtful. And so, our package will be -- I guarantee it will include more on law enforcement. And I am sure that Bill Bennett will be totally on board. But we have not gotten the final administration position yet. ENTITY, will you apply the same standard to domestically made weapons that you apply to imported weapons?


We are in the process of discussing that now and what role the administration has -- whether it is strictly restriction of imports or something broader than that. At this point, are you convinced that any package that deals with drug violence and crime must also include some aspect that deals with assault weapons? Well, no, I cannot say that. I cannot go that far, because we really have not gotten that far in determining it. ENTITY, the CBS-New York Times poll this morning puts your approval rating at about 61 percent but suggests there is more style than substance. What do you think about that evaluation? And I think that you and Governor Sununu have been briefed by a Teeter poll that is been taken. Does that contain the same sort of information? No, the Teeter poll -- I am not sure it is just because the committee paid for it -- is much stronger. I do not want this to be considered a vicious assault on CBS. They are entitled to their polling figures. But the others were -- look, these things -- you know me on polls, John . You have heard me on this subject before, and I have not changed my view. It is not a question of polls, but a question of what is going on, achieving what you are trying to do. And we are making some progress here. I am very pleased that the Senate did what it did on the savings and loan bill, pleased that we got a budget agreement that many cynics thought we could never achieve at all, no matter of what scope, whatsoever -- that took place. And so, I have been very pleased with the recent talks on the Middle East with three leaders there. But I do not feel under any pressure to meet somebody else's standard on what is progress or not. I know what I am doing, and I think one thing is the country senses that. ENTITY, are you going to offer military aid to the non-Communist resistance in Cambodia? I will continue to give good support to the process and certainly to Sihanouk's efforts. Did you say no decision or no discussion on that? No decision and -- not with me -- cannot recall, but I am not anywhere close to making a decision of that nature.

Interview With Members of the White House Press Corps


We are coming up to the 100-day mark on your Presidency, which -- if you will look over the past 50 years, every other President, or almost every other President, has come into office at times of crisis, and crisis has been kind of a stage on which we watch Presidents perform. How would you assess your first 100 days so far? Can you elaborate on that? Martin came in; he was not radically trying to change things. But then, that is about where the parallel ends, because I do not know what he did in his first 100 days. We got an agenda, and I have clicked off things that I think demonstrate progress. And I left out the whole question of an ethics package that I think is a very good one. We have had many visitors from foreign lands. We have moved forward on -- I want to add now to what I was saying -- moved forward on Third World debt in a positive way. And I do not even think in terms of 100 days because we are not radically shifting things; this is the Martin Van Buren analogy. We did not come in here throwing the rascals out to try to do something -- correct all the ills of the world in 100 days. And I am methodically, I think, pragmatically moving forward on these. So, I really do not measure it in terms of 100 days. I guess we are the ones who measure the 100 days. You have had visitors, but do you expect the pace of your foreign policy to pick up after this? I am not sure I understand the question. The pace of it is pretty intense -- numbers of visitors, amount of time I spend on foreign policy, initiatives taken by the Secretary of State, attention given to this in the White House, every single day. So, you see, I think we have got prudent foreign policy. We have set into forward motion certain reviews that are moving towards completion. And so, I do not feel a need for some precipitous and dramatic initiative in order to salve the consciences of those who are saying you have got to do something in 100 days. These reviews will not trigger something then? But I think Gorbachev -- on the Soviet East-West relations -- understands what we are about. I, frankly, thought that what we said on Poland the other day was new and a strong initiative. But that takes time to sort out these things.


But I did not do it because I wanted to get in under the 100-day wire. We have spelled out what we want to do, and I have got to move our bureaucracy to see that we do it. And you know, it is that kind of concept on the Middle East -- spent a lot of time on the Middle East. And I think King Hussein was right when he said yesterday that the time is right for some kind of action. But now we have got to assess, after he leaves here, where we go, what next step we take. We have got something out there on elections that offers some promise. We have not backed away from historic positions on conference or whatever. I wish I could give you a more dramatic answer to the Lebanon, because this is one that really does hurt. And I am very, very concerned about it. And here all I can say to you is that we have encouraged the Secretary-General to go forward, to try this mission of peace. There is some stumbling blocks to that; I am told we will renew our call for removal of all foreign troops and for a cease-fire. But here is one where I wish that there was some dramatic plan in which the players in the area could agree to, and it is not there. And we have talked to the Middle Eastern leaders. But I cite this one because I really feel it -- about the Lebanon, of the divisions in Lebanon. We have talked to the Brits about it. We have talked to the French about it -- and President Mitterrand the other day. And the people at the U.N. are trying to figure. But there is not a dramatic plan that can bring peace to Lebanon right now. Is that a problem that defies solution? The problem -- the short-run of it -- how you stop this firing, the shelling, how you get factions to stop warring -- has certainly in recent times defied solution. But we cannot give up on it. How has the U.S. managed to provide any kind of influence in the situation? We do not have great influence in Lebanon, with the factions that are fighting. We do have good influence with many of the countries out there. In fact, I think our standing with the moderate Arab countries is as good today as any time in recent history. And I feel strongly about that.


And back to the Martin Van Buren theory -- I mean, we are building still, coming back out of a time that hit a bit of a low 3 or 4 years ago. Then we restored some prestige by the way we acted in the Gulf. Then you see a cease-fire in the Gulf. We have, I think, much better communication now with Jordan. We have kept good cooperation and coordination with the Egyptians. The Israelis themselves attest to the fact that they have great confidence in our administration. We have some differences with all three of those countries, but, no, I think it is moving. But, Norm , I wish there was a short-term answer to stop the killing in Lebanon. you missed a couple of deadlines -- -- You have missed a couple of deadlines on the MX missile, on what you are going to do to modernize the strategic arsenal -- go MX, Midgetman. And Mr. Cheney gave you some recommendations this week, and a decision is expected this week. What are you going to do on that? We will obviously be talking to Cheney when he comes back from NATO. I am listening -- because this exercise yesterday in this Cabinet Room was not just a semantic drill of some sort. When I talk about cooperation with Congress, I mean it -- consultation with Congress, I mean it.  But how do you -- you know, what do you do about SDI and levels of funding? What do you do about MX or Midgetman? And I have to make the call, the recommendation, from here; but I wanted to get their input. Now I want to get renewed talks with Dick Cheney when he comes back. The national security adviser has provided me with a lot of thinking on this, had several important briefings on it. And I will be prepared very soon to make a decision on it. But we have not -- I cannot go any further than that. ENTITY, you met now with Mubarak, Shamir, and Hussein. What is the next step in the Middle East peace process? On the table is the election process, and one other thing would be how we flesh that out, taking into consideration the concerns about it that have been expressed by Mubarak and by King Hussein and also by Mr. Shamir.


who is represented; making clear that this is not a final step, that that is not going to solve the Middle East problem; making clear that it is a step, but we want it to be a constructive step; and exploring other options as well . What is the structural procedure for doing that? On the U.S. side, we will use the National Security Council procedures to do that. And of course, I plan to be in touch with the various leaders. I have told them I want to do that as President. Is this a high priority? in addition to the ones I have already talked to. For example, I talked to King Fahd the other day, and think that that is useful, to be sure. Now, after this round of visits, what do they think? A lot of these countries can be important players here, and the more agreement we can get on the next step, the more likely it is to succeed. Is it time to say that 50-year-old battleships are, in fact, obsolete and begin taking them out of service? Or if not, what is your lesson on it? That is not -- well, my lesson is that -- to find out what happened in infinite detail, check all procedures to be sure that safety is at the highest point, and -- but not -- I would not jump to the conclusion that because that kind of powder was put into these turrets in that way that that makes a useful platform obsolete. Could you indulge me one quick question because of a conflict that the Attorney General suggested yesterday? Is this for TV or is this for the print? The Attorney General suggested yesterday that it might be appropriate to drug-test people in public housing. HUD took immediate exception to that. What do you think? I'd have to talk to him about it because I do not know, and I am not going to go off on some tangent here until I know exactly the thinking of our key Cabinet people. We have got a good Cabinet system, and I encourage people to speak out. But the decisions on something of that nature will be made right here in that room, and they are not going to be made until I have all the facts. You do not favor a drug -- -- Do you expect interest rates to come down now that you have got a budget agreement? I was very pleased at the market reaction to the budget agreement. I am not heartened by the interest rates.


I'd like to comment on the Panamanian elections. I met with the Murtha delegation to hear their report, and I have now received the preliminary report from President Ford and President Carter. President Carter and his whole delegation will be here shortly to give me a full report. In addition, we have the report of other observer groups, including that of the Archbishop of Panama, which demonstrate clearly that despite massive irregularities at the polls the opposition has won a clear-cut, overwhelming victory. The Panamanian people have spoken, and I call on General Noriega to respect the voice of the people. And I call on all foreign leaders to urge General Noriega to honor the clear results of the election. And I might add that I applaud the statement by Peru's President Alan Garcia, who has spoken out against the fraud. I noted with interest that the Archbishop of Panama felt that 74 percent of the vote went to the opposition. And I understand that President Carlos Andres Perez of Venezuela is talking to some of the neighboring countries there to encourage a joint statement against the fraud that has taken place and calling on Noriega to honor the results of this election. What kind of military force are you considering? We were told that that is one of the options. The election results have not been handed in, formally announced, and until they are, I will not discuss the options of the United States. I will simply again call on General Noriega to honor the will of the people. ENTITY, you called on him a year ago to do precisely the same thing, as did Mr. Reagan, and nothing happened. There has been a statement for democracy so loud and so clear that perhaps even General Noriega will listen to it. And I would like to think that he will heed the call of the people and that he would listen to the international outcry that is building and that he would step down from office, in which case, the relations with the United States would improve dramatically and instantly. Have you spoken to foreign leaders? Do you plan to speak with foreign leaders? I probably will, and without going into who I have spoken to, the answer is yes. You know, we have had foreign visitors here and talked to them and -- -- Do you really think you have a military option? And on what basis could you go into someone else's country? I have not discussed that here today. I have obviously discussed options with my own top advisers.


I listened very intently to the Members of Congress that came in, and some of them had specific suggestions. But I want to see General Noriega do what I have just encouraged him to do and what other foreign leaders apparently are encouraging him to do. Did you put yourself in a box here by making such a public point of being upset about these elections, and if Noriega decides to stay anyhow, that it looks like the United States has been ineffective? I do not think the United States is ever in a box when it speaks out in favor of free, fair elections and honoring the will of the people. That is what we stand for. Some Members of Congress have called for the abrogation of the Canal treaty. Is that in any way a possibility in your mind, an option? I want to see General Noriega do what I have just encouraged him to do. I want to see the will of the people honored. But under any circumstances would you -- I am not going to go into hypothetical questions at this point. Have you talked to him? Have you given him any personal ultimatum? General Noriega knows my position. Did you call him up? in recent -- he knows about it through recent contacts. Have you issued any orders regarding the military on the bases in Panama? Are they in a state of alert? And are you anticipating increasing their numbers? I will discuss at the appropriate time what course of action I will take. But I am not going to do that now. What I want to do now is encourage this last moment for General Noriega to heed the appeal of those people who favor democracy and to heed the will of the Panamanian people. So, I do not want to go beyond that in terms of deployment of U.S. force. Are you any closer to an SNF agreement with the Germans? I have a good feeling that there is been a lot of smoke out there and that we will have a smooth summit. Have you talked with Kohl again? Oh, I never discuss all these talks I have had. It might mean people are willing to do it our way -- with the United States. Well, do not believe everything you read in the UP. Will it be settled tonight with the Dutch? We will be talking to Mr. Lubbers over here, a friend of long standing and a man with whom I can talk very, very frankly about SNF. You can talk frankly with us.


ENTITY, we have had a request in for an interview for some time, and you have chosen tonight for it. And I must say, on ENTITY behalf and mine, we are terribly pleased you picked tonight, because it was quite a news day here at the White House. Well, we were talking, ENTITY, and we had a regular schedule of things that in itself was a busy day, and then we had a few little added items that well, I would rather be busy than sitting around not preoccupied , let me put it that way. Well, you were busy enough today, and I would like to begin with that. By the stroke of a pen,ENTITY, this afternoon you issued a proclamation that is going to mean people are going to have to pay more for gas. Can we get into that? How much more are we going to pay for gas? Well, under the proclamation that I signed today, which I hope is an interim administrative action, there will be some additional payments extracted from foreign oil of $1 a barrel, and that in and of itself will probably add 2 cents to 3 cents to a gallon of gasoline. If the Congress acts on the total package, which I hope they will do in a very short period of time, then we will be able to not only collect the necessary funds but we will be able to pay it back. The total cost, when the program gets into complete operation, will probably mean gasoline prices would increase 8 to 10 cents a gallon. Well, it is a little hard to tell, but the first increment of $1 that will be imposed on February 1 it will not go on automatically and immediately, because there are stocks that are in supply, and the total impact on the first dollar will not come for about 55 days but that will mean 2 to 3 cents increase in the price of gasoline, and as it goes up to $2, it will go up correspondingly at the filling station. When ENTITY said 3 cents, he meant that when the full $3 increase in the import fees gets on, it would be 3 cents a gallon. ENTITY, I know that you want to convince the people this plan is the correct one, and yet, today on the White House lawn, a number of Governors from the Northeast were downright angry, threatening legal action. There are people on Capitol Hill on the Democratic side, especially-in the Congress, who think that your idea of a good marriage is roughly the same as Henry VIII's.

Interview With John Chancellor and Tom Brokaw of NBC News.


I wonder if you have not overplayed your hand by taking the action that you did today. A lot of people think it was an arrogant action in an attempt to force Congress to go along with your idea about how to solve the energy package. Well, ENTITY, I think you have to look at it this way and I told the Governors who were down at the West Wing this afternoon that in the last 3 years, we have heard from various Administration officials, Members of Congress, my predecessor as President, that we had a serious energy crisis, and of course, that was accentuated by the oil embargo that was imposed in October of 1973. And despite the recognized fact that we do have a problem, a short-range problem and a long-range problem, nothing has really been done to achieve conservation on the one hand or new supplies on the other. There has been a lot of talk and I am not critical of anybody but it had not materialized into any action, either in the Congress or otherwise. It seemed to me the time for conversation had ended and that we had to act. I said a week or two ago in my State of the Union Message that I was only taking this action as a way to stimulate Congressional action. Number two, I think it would have been a sign of weakness around the world that we could not make up our mind, that we could not act decisively, we could not find a remedy. So, even though I have been charged with being a little hardheaded on this, in my judgment, the time for action had come. And I think it will bring action, the right kind of action. ENTITY, your problem involves taking some money from the taxpayers and giving back money to the taxpayers, and it is kind of tricky. As I understand it, you are going to take money from the taxpayers in terms of what they have to pay for energy and some food and plastics and metals and all the things that are related to that. You are going to ask the Congress to give some of that money back through tax cuts. Well, the action that I have taken, ENTITY, is only administrative action up to and through, prospectively, April 1. If the Congress has not acted in roughly 3 months and I certainly hope they will I can, of course, remove the import duty that I have imposed. I have the flexibility it is $1 the first month, $2 the second, and $3 the third.


I have the flexibility to retain it at $1 or to leave it at $2. I just hope the Congress understands the need and necessity for new legislative action. I think my proposal of taking money from the economy and giving it back will mean equity in the first place; it will help us conserve energy in the second; and it will provide the wherewithal for us to develop and explore for new sources of energy. If the Congress can improve on it, I am more than glad to cooperate with them. But the time for action had come, and that is why I took the rather stern action today. ENTITY, you have been quite adamant in your resistance to some of the proposals that have come from Congress. For instance, a number of the leaders, including Mike Mansfield, have talked seriously about gas rationing, and the White House opposition and criticism of gas rationing has been, I think, clear to everyone. You just would not sign it under any conditions. So, where is the give-and-take in the program? Well, ENTITY, I think you bring up the very fundamental question that I had to decide as we worked for about 2 months on what was the best approach, as we saw it. What are we trying to do? We are trying to conserve energy in the first instance, and we are trying to provide funds for exploration and development of new sources of energy. And we are seeking, basically, to remove our country's vulnerability from foreign oil and energy sources. I was presented with two volumes of options, or alternatives, covering the whole spectrum of conservation and new sources of energy. We took a look at gas rationing. We took a look at the allocation of crude oil and the derivative products. In the case of gas rationing, here is what I found, and I think it is accurate. I found, for example, that it would not be gas rationing for 6 months or a year. This is a 10-year program of conservation. So when we put gas rationing on, it would have to be for a minimum of 5 years and probably 10 years. Well, in World War II, we had gas rationing for 4 or 5 years during a serious crisis, and even then we had black marketeering, we had cheating. And in peacetime, gas rationing for 4 or 5 or 10 years I just do not think would work.


that everybody thinks that if you have gas rationing they are going to get their full share, and somebody else, or everybody else, is going to cut back. Let me give you this statistic, if I might. There are about 140 million licensed automobile drivers in this country and there is approximately 270 million gallons of gasoline a day, which means that if you divide the number of drivers into the availability of gasoline, it means about a gallon and a half per person per day, or about 9 gallons per week, or 36 gallons per month. And that is a cutback from the average of 50 gallons at the present time, because we have to save that much. Now, how many people can get along on a gallon and a half of gasoline, or 9 gallons a week? So, when you look at the impracticabilities the inequities, in my judgment-gas rationing would not work. ENTITY, you have obviously done your homework on the gas rationing question, but I do not think that anyone in Congress is proposing only gas rationing, but perhaps the combination of gas rationing and other factors. The question still is, if you are willing to change your program and to let Congress go into it, where are you willing to let Congress change it? Well, I think you can find some options, for example, in the most dire necessity of having to put a lid on the actual imports. In other words, if we take in from foreign sources as we are today about 7 million barrels a day of foreign oil, if a conservation program like I have proposed does not work, then I think we might have to move to arbitrary allocations. ENTITY, do you blame people for being skeptical about your plan, given the record of your advisers in the economy and other areas? It was not very long ago that people around here were wearing WIN buttons and talking about 5-percent tax surcharges, for instance. So, can you blame the American public and Congress for being more than a little skeptical that this one will work out just as you say it will? I think there is always room for some difference of opinion, and I must say that I do not contend that my proposal is 100 percent right, because the options that I had to look at there were some honest differences of opinion. But you did indicate that the proposal for the economy that I submitted last October might not have been the right answer. I happen to think in October it was the right answer.


But in the interval, between October and January, there were some very, very precipitous actions in the economy that nobody foresaw. We had the economic summit, as you know, ENTITY, and nobody at that summit told us that automobile sales were going to drop off as suddenly as they did in November and December and in January. What we have done in the proposals that I submitted on January 15 was to take into consideration the drop-off in automobile sales, the tremendous increase in unemployment, and to tailor our plan or program to meet unemployment, to provide jobs; because in the meantime, inflation had moderated, or the rate of inflation had moderated, so there was a change of economic circumstances, and in reality, I had to be flexible enough to change the emphasis. ENTITY, it seems to me I heard you say a few minutes ago that if the program you started today does not work, that you would go to allocations. Could you expand on that a little bit, how that would work? Would not that require a sizable bureaucracy in itself? No, I think it would be much less bureaucratically a burden than gas rationing. I did not mention in the conversation with ENTITY the number of bureaucrats that I am told it would take for gas 15 to 20 thousand for gas rationing. But you see, when the foreign crude oil or the products of crude oil come in from overseas, it is much easier to handle that than to handle the allocation through rationing at the gas station or through the 30 or 40 thousand post offices. Now you told, I think it was Time magazine, that we might have gas rationing if we get another oil embargo. Another oil embargo which would deprive us of anywhere from 6 to 7 million barrels of oil a day would create a very serious crisis. As I understand it, of those 7 million barrels a day, only about 8 percent come from the Arab countries, or 10, or something like that. I cannot give you that particular statistic. It would depend, of course, on whether the Shah of Iran or Venezuela or some of the other oilproducing countries cooperated. At the time of the October 1973 oil embargo, we did get some black market oil; we got it from some of the noncooperating countries. But in the interval, the OPEC nations have solidified their organization a great deal more than they did before.


So, we might have a solid front this time rather than one that was more flexible. In other words, you are worried not about an Arab oil boycott but a boycott by all the oil-producing countries that belong to OPEC? Do you regard that as a political - And in that case, that would produce the necessity for a gas rationing system? It would produce the necessity for more drastic action. I think gas rationing in and of itself would probably be the last resort, just as it was following the 1973 embargo. At that time, as you remember, ENTITY, in order to be prepared, Bill Simon, who was then the energy boss, had printed I do not know how many gas rationing coupons. We have those available now; they are in storage. I think they cost about $10 million to print. But they are available in case we have the kind of a crisis that would be infinitely more serious than even the one of 1973. ENTITY, you have talked also about energy independence, and it is a key to your whole program. As I recall, of the 17 million barrels of oil a day we use in this country, about 7, as you say, come from other countries. Let me just put it to you in a tendentious way. An awful lot of experts are saying that it will be impossible for us by 1985 to be totally free of foreign supplies of energy. Do you really think we can make it? The plan that I have submitted does not contemplate that we will be totally free of foreign oil, but the percentage of reliance we have, or will have, on foreign oil will be far less. At the present time, for example, ENTITY, 37 percent of our crude oil use comes from foreign sources. In contrast to 1960 we were exporting oil. But in the interval between 1960 and the present time, we are now using 37 to 38 percent of foreign oil for our energy uses. Now, if my plan goes through, if the Congress accepts it and we implement it and everything goes well, by 1985, if I recall, instead of 37- or 38-percent dependence on foreign oil, we will be down to about 10 percent. Well, a 10-percent cutoff with all the contingency plans we might have, we can handle without any crisis. ENTITY, may I just follow up on that? The other day at your press conference, you were asked about Dr. Kissinger's quote on the possibility of military intervention.


And something surprised me, ENTITY. You have been in politics for a long time, and you are as expert a question-ducker as anybody in that trade. Why did not you duck that question? You did go into some detail on it. I, in part, reiterated what I had said, I think, at a previous news conference. I wanted it made as clear as I possibly could that this country, in case of economic strangulation and the key word is strangulation we had to be prepared, without specifying what we might do, to take the necessary action for our self-preservation. And when you use the word strangulation in relationship to the existence of the United States or its non-existence, I think the public has to have a reassurance, our people, that we are not going to permit America to be strangled to death. And so I, in my willingness to be as frank but with moderation I thought I ought to say what I said then. And I have amplified it, I hope, clarified it here. The New Republic this week has a story saying that there are three American divisions being sent to the Middle East, or being prepared for the Middle East. We called the Pentagon and we got a confirmation on that; that one is airmobile, one is airborne, and one is armored. And it is a little unclear as to whether this is a contingency plan, because we do not know where we would put the divisions in the Middle East. Could you shed any light on that? I do not think I ought to talk about any particular military contingency plans, ENTITY. I think what I said concerning strangulation and Dr. Kissinger's comment is about as far as I ought to go. Then we have reached a point where another question would be unproductive on that? ENTITY, you said the other day that speaking of that general area you think there is a serious danger of war in the Middle East; earlier this year, you were quoted as saying something over 70 percent. I do not think I ought to talk in terms of percentage, ENTITY. I have had conferences with representatives of all the nations, practically, in the Middle East. I have talked to people in Europe. I have talked to other experts, and everybody says it is a very, potentially volatile situation. It is my judgment that we might have a very good opportunity to be successful in what we call our step-by-step process.


Is it tied to Secretary Kissinger's next trip to that part of the world? Well, he is going because we think it might be fruitful, but we do not want to raise expectations. We have to be realistic, but if we do not try to move in this direction at this time, I think we might lose a unique opportunity. Should we not succeed this time, ENTITY, do you think it is probably time that we have to abandon this step-by-step process and go on to Geneva as the Soviets would like to have us do? We prefer the process that has been been successful so far, but if there is no progress, then I think we undoubtedly would be forced to go to Geneva. I would not be any more optimistic; in fact, I would be less optimistic if the matter was thrown on the doorstep of Geneva. ENTITY, really, the Russians have been shut out of Middle Eastern diplomacy since Dr. Kissinger began step-by-step diplomacy. Could not the Russians play more of a positive role than they are doing? They are arming the Arabs to the teeth, and that is really about all we have been able to see or all they have been allowed to do under the way that we have set our policies. I am not as authoritative on what was done during the October war of 1973 in the Middle East as I am now, of course. I can assure you that we do keep contact with the Soviet Union at the present time. We are not trying to shut them out of the process of trying to find an answer in the Middle East. They can play and they have played a constructive role, even under the current circumstances. So, I think it is unfair and not accurate to say that they are not playing a part. We are taking a course of action where it is more visible perhaps that we are doing something. But I say sincerely that the Soviet Union is playing a part, even at the present time. Would you tell us what you think about the idea that is going around a little bit and perhaps you have heard it as well, perhaps you know a great deal about it, I do not know that if the Israelis made a significant pullback on various fronts in the Middle East, that that could be followed by some sort of American guarantee for their security? ENTITY, I really do not think I ought to get into the details of what might or might not be the grounds for a negotiated settlement.


This is a very difficult area because of the long history of jealousies, antagonisms, and it is so delicate I really do not think I ought to get into the details of what might or might not be the grounds for a settlement. Would you entertain a question based on the reported Israeli desire for a threefold increase in our aid to them? The United States, over the years, has been very generous in economic and military aid for Israel. On the other hand, we have been quite generous to a number of Arab nations. The State of Israel does need adequate military capability to protect its boundaries or its territorial integrity. I think because of the commonality of interest that we have with Israel in the Middle East that it is in our interest as well as theirs to be helpful to them, both militarily and economically. ENTITY, I wonder if we can come back at you again about Israel's security in another way. As you know, reporters do not give up easily on some of these questions. I found that out, ENTITY. On a long-range basis, do you think that it is possible for Israel to be truly secure in the Middle East without a United States guarantee of some kind? Well, of course, Israel, to my knowledge, ENTITY, has never asked for any U.S. manpower or any guarantee from us for their security or their territorial integrity. I think the Israelis, if they are given adequate arms and sufficient economic help, can handle the situation in the Middle East. Now, the last war, unfortunately, was much more severe from their point of view than the three previous ones. And I suspect that with the Arabs having more sophisticated weapons and probably a better military capability, another war might even be worse. That is one reason why we wish to accelerate the efforts to find some answers over there. But I think the Israelis, with adequate equipment and their determination and sufficient economic aid, will not have to have U.S. guarantees of any kind. I wonder if we can move to another area in the world, or would you like to go back to the Middle East? I have one question I would like to put to ENTITY. ENTITY, when we talk about strangulation and I hope we do not talk about it any more tonight after this, because I do think it is the hypothetical, I agree with you on that what about the moral implications?


If a country is being strangled by another country or set of countries that own a natural resource, is it moral to go and take that? It may not be right, ENTITY, but I think if you go back over the history of mankind, wars have been fought over natural resources from time immemorial. I would hope that in this decade or in this century and beyond, we would not have to have wars for those purposes, and we certainly are not contemplating any such action. But history, in the years before us, indicates quite clearly that that was one of the reasons why nations fought one another. ENTITY, what are our objectives now in Southeast Asia, in Vietnam, particularly? Vietnam, after all the lives that were lost there, Americans, over 50,000, and after the tremendous expenditures that we made in American dollars several years, more than $30 billion a year it seems to me that we ought to try and give the South Vietnamese the opportunity, through military assistance, to protect their way of life. This is what we have done traditionally as Americans. Certainly since the end of World War II, we have helped innumerable nations in military arms and economic assistance to help themselves to maintain their own freedom. The American people believe, I think, historically, that if a country and a people want to protect their way of life against aggression, we will help them in a humanitarian way and in a military way with arms and funds if they are willing to fight for themselves. This is within our tradition as Americans. And the South Vietnamese apparently do wish to maintain their national integrity and their independence. I think it is in our best tradition as Americans to help them at the present time. How much longer and how deep does our commitment go to the South Vietnamese? As a matter of fact, the American Ambassador there, Graham Martin, has told me as well as Dr. Kissinger that he thinks if adequate dollars, which are translated into arms and economic aid, if that was made available, that within 2 or 3 years the South Vietnamese would be over the hump militarily as well as economically. Now, I am sure we have been told that before, but they had made substantial progress until they began to run a little short of ammunition, until inflation started in the last few months to accelerate. And I hope the Congress will go along with this extra supplemental that I am asking for to help the South Vietnamese protect themselves. ENTITY, that is $300 million you have asked for the South Vietnamese.


And given what you have just said well, I am just going to phrase it this way will we see the light at the end of the tunnel if we give them $300 million? The best estimates of the experts that are out there, both military and civilian, tell me that $300 million in this fiscal year is the minimum. A year ago when the budget was submitted for military assistance for South Vietnam, it was $1,400 million. Congress cut it in half, which meant that South Vietnamese rangers going out on patrol, instead of having an adequate supply of hand grenades and weapons, were cut in half, which, of course, has undercut their military capability and has made them conserve and not be as strong. Now, $300 million does not take them back up to where they were or where it was proposed they should be. But the experts say, who are on the scene, who have seen the fighting and have looked at the stocks and the reserves, tell me that that would be adequate for the current circumstances. ENTITY, does it make you uneasy to sit on that couch in this room and have experts in Vietnam saying, only a little bit more and it will be all right? We did hear that for so many years. I think you have to think pretty hard about it. But a lot of skeptics, ENTITY, said that the money we were going to make available for the rehabilitation of Europe after World War II would not do any good, and of course, the investment we made did pay off. A lot of people have said the money that we made available to Israel would not be helpful in bringing about the peace that has been achieved there for the last year and a half or so, but it did. I think an investment of $300 million at this time in South Vietnam could very likely be a key for the preservation of their freedom and might conceivably force the North Vietnamese to stop violating the Paris accords of January 1973. When you look at the agreement that was signed and I happened to be there at the time of the signing in January of 1973 the North Vietnamese agreed not to infiltrate. The facts are they have infiltrated with countless thousands-I think close to 100,000 from North Vietnam down to South Vietnam. They are attacking cities, metropolitan areas. They have refused to permit us to do anything about our U.S. missing in action in North Vietnam. They have refused to negotiate any political settlement between North Vietnam and South Vietnam.


They have called off the meetings either in Paris or in Saigon. So, here is a country South Vietnam that is faced with an attitude on the part of the North Vietnamese of total disregard of the agreement that was signed about 2 years ago. I think the South Vietnamese deserve some help in this crisis. ENTITY, underlying all of this in much of this interview is a kind of supposition on your part, I guess, that the American public is willing to carry the burdens that it has carried in the past. Do you believe that? Is that your view of the world, kind of, and the view of this country? Yes, and I am proud of that, ENTITY. We have a substantial economy. We have good people who by tradition certainly since the end of World War II have assumed a great responsibility. We rehabilitated Europe. We helped Japan both in the case of Germany and Japan, enemies that we defeated. We have helped underdeveloped countries in Latin America, in Africa, in Southeast Asia. I think we should be proud of the fact that we are willing to share our great wealth with others less fortunate than we. And it gives us an opportunity to be a leader setting an example for others. And when you look at it from our own selfish point of view, what we have done has basically helped America, but in addition, it has helped millions and millions of other people. We should be proud of it. We should not be critical of our efforts. ENTITY, I would like to move on, if I could, and ask you, as a reporter, if you would care to share a little information with me on a paper you read recently on the CIA. You read a paper given to you by the CIA. Officials of the CIA have admitted some of the charges that have been made against them. How far did they get off the reservation, ENTITY? I did read the report that was submitted to me by Bill Colby, the head of CIA.


And after reading it, I determined that rather than myself making a judgment as to whether they were violating their legislative charter or whether there was any guilt on the part of any individual, the present Director or any of his predecessors, that the proper thing for me to do was to turn the investigation over to a very reputable group of gentlemen who would look into the facts, take testimony, and make a report, number one, as to the charges; number two, make recommendations to me as to any disciplinary action or changes within the present personnel; and to make recommendations as to whether the charter of CIA ought to be revised. I asked the Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, to head up this group of seven people, three Democrats, three Republicans, men of outstanding experience and, I think, excellent judgment, and they are in the process now. It would be premature for me, ENTITY, to pass judgment on the degree of violation of the charter. But for me to say on this program that Mr. A did something that was illegal or the group did something totally wrong, I think it is better for me to wait and see what this Commission reports to me. ENTITY, another agency, the FBI, has recently been involved in a controversy about keeping track of Americans as well, keeping files on Members of Congress, among others. Clearing away everything else, do you think that there is any reason for those files to be retained? ENTITY, I think you have to look at what the responsibility is of the FBI. Number one, the FBI under no circumstances should do anything they should not spy on Members of Congress. I do not think they ought to spy on law-abiding American citizens. But there are certain areas where the FBI has a legal responsibility. The FBI has the responsibility to check on individuals who are charged with a crime any American citizen, including a Member of Congress. The FBI, if they are seeking to employ somebody or if somebody applies for a job, the FBI has an obligation to check on that person's record. Congress at the present time served in the FBI at various times prior to being elected to the House or to the Senate. So, the FBI ought to have files on those people. Now, in addition, as I understand it, the FBI in the course of investigating a person gets information concerning somebody else, and that may be information concerning a Member of Congress. I am told that that information that is gotten in a peripheral way does go into a file.


That kind of information, in my judgment, ought to be reported to the Member of the House or to the Member of the Senate. If there is no criminality or evidence of it or they are not interviewing them for a job, why should they even retain it in any fashion? I would have no objection to having that kind of information disposed of. As I understand it, ENTITY, the way it works now is that the FBI tells a Member of Congress if they have heard some scurrilous charge against him, he denies it, and they keep both the charge and the denial in his file. I had not heard that, ENTITY, but I think that is kind of silly. You mentioned the charter of the CIA and you mentioned the responsibility of the United States Government to engage in a certain amount of looking at and investigating citizens who are not necessarily charged with a crime, as in job applications and in other things. Do you suppose that we could work out a better way of sharing this responsibility in the American Government? Could that come out of these FBI and CIA investigations? I think you have to differentiate, ENTITY, between the charter of the FBI and the responsibilities of the CIA. and for various reasons, that line was overstepped, and of course, the investigations, I think, will expose what caused it and how we can remedy it. But the FBI has domestic responsibilities, responsibilities within the continental limits of the United States. The CIA is supposed to be an intelligence gathering bureau aimed at overseas operations on this country's behalf. I think the CIA is vitally important to our total national security, both diplomatically as well as militarily. I can assure you that they do, in the areas that I am intimately familiar with, an excellent job of providing the Department of Defense and providing me with information that is important for decisionmaking process on what I think we should do militarily or diplomatically, and they do a fine job on behalf of the Department of Defense. Now, I do not think they ought to get into any domestic surveillance, and mistakes apparently were made going back as early as 1964 or 19,55. And I have given instructions that under no circumstances shall it be started again, and I think the CIA has probably learned. But I do not think we should destroy the CIA in trying to straighten out the indiscretions or the mistakes that were made.


ENTITY, on an unrelated subject I have always wanted to ask you this question about the credibility of American justice as, let us say, young Americans see it. We have just gone through the worst scandals in the history of the Presidency. Agnew, we are told, is going to become a millionaire at least his business partner says that. Nixon is in California. Some of these other people who were involved are getting huge book advances. How do you suppose that squares with the idea of justice as young people ought to see it in this country? I am sure it disturbs a lot of Americans young as well as old Americans who have worked hard all their lives, have made middle-income wages or salaries, lived an honest, decent life, raised a family, and find that for various economic reasons they are in trouble, and they see these stories about some of these people who have pled guilty or been convicted and gone to jail and - And some of the big ones not touched at all. And yet, they come out with guarantees or prepayments of substantial amounts. I think it will bother a good many Americans, young as well as old. And I do not have any answer. I would not buy the books, let me add. That is the first non-Presidential plug for a book, I think, that I have ever heard. I have a question, ENTITY, that it just is not easy to phrase, so I will just have to bear straight ahead with it. As you know, I am certain, because I have been told that you have commented on this before, but it has been speculated on in print not only in Washington but elsewhere, and it crops up in conversation from time to time in this town the question of whether or not you are intellectually up to the job of being the President of the United States. When you hear that kind of talk or read that in print, does it bother you? And I suppose people wonder why it does not bother me. My answer is as hard as the question that you asked. If grades one gets in school are a criteria and we have been doing it for years and are still doing it whether I was in high school or at the University of Michigan or at Yale Law School, I was always in the upper third or the upper 10 percent of my class.


Now, if I do not have the academic capability being in either the upper third at Yale Law School or in the upper 20-some percent at the University of Michigan-there must be an awful lot of people much dumber than I. Now, I do not think that is the only way by which you judge people. I think grades are important, judgment is a pretty important factor, and a capability on the part of a person to work, to analyze problems is equally important. And I think the fact that I have done reasonably well, both in Congress, in first getting there, and number two, in getting to be a leader and retaining that post for five elections among my peers as a Member on our side of the aisle I think that does show some feeling on the part of responsible people that I have the capability of doing the job. ENTITY, I want to just ask you about a personal moment that I witnessed in Vladivostok. After you signed the agreement with General Secretary Brezhnev and there was a shaking of hands, and the champagne, I caught you looking out kind of into the distance for a moment there, and I thought I saw, at least in your eyes, a question of What in the world am I doing here a year after being in the House of Representatives? Do you sometimes find yourself, given the way you came to this office, stopping for a moment and thinking that and wondering as these events brush by you? I cannot recall that particular incident, ENTITY, but to be honest and frank with you, yes, I have thought I never anticipated that I would be in the White House, in this building where this program is originating. I had other political ambitions, and I prepared myself primarily for those objectives. But nevertheless, even though I have wondered how it all happened, I feel very secure in the capability that I have to do the job.. And I can assure you that my feeling of security, my feeling of certainty that I can handle it grows every day. Could I phrase it this way, because I think that the growth on your part, as we in the press have perceived it, has been considerable. For a long while you represented Grand Rapids, Michigan, as you should have, but suddenly, you have been put into another arena, and your Government is about to borrow $28 billion in 6 months


Well, we are dealing with these enormous figures now that do not seem to me to square at all with the ideological and political outlook that you have had for much of your life. Could you talk about that? I think all of us, ENTITY, who work at a job and seek to broaden one's self in the process of step-by-step movement in a career, have to understand the much more complex problems that we face. As I moved from a freshman Congressman in 1949 to a Republican leader in January of 1965, and as I moved from being a new Republican leader in January of '65 to a Republican leader, 8, 9 years later if you have the capability and work at it, you inevitably get a broader look at life. And that gives you, I think, a better understanding, not only of the complexities at home but the enormous difficulties and complexities on a worldwide basis. I would be ashamed of myself if I did not think, from January of 1949, when I first took the oath of office in the House of Representatives, till now, I had not learned a lot, profited by mistakes, analyzed what I had done, right or wrong, and expanded my knowledge and understanding. It has been a great deal of satisfaction to me that I have been able to meet those challenges. And now you are here in the cockpit. I mean, you are really on the spot as President now. Have you learned in your months in this office and in this house do we tend to put Presidents too much on pedestals? Do we expect too much from the human beings who occupy this office? But I think a person who is President of the United States should expect that kind of responsibility, and he should act accordingly. I think a person who is President, either elected or, as I was, under the unusual circumstances, has to feel that there is an enormous responsibility and that the American people expect him to perform 150 percent of his capability, both as to mental and time and judgment and everything else. ENTITY, you said in an interview 2 recently that you thought you would have a better grasp of what the Presidency is and what your role is in it in about 6 months. If things do not work out quite the way that you want them to, will it change your mind at all about your own future in this office? ENTITY, I think I said that the public could judge my performance better at the end of 6 months than they could at the present time.


Is that here in D.C.? That is here in Washington, D.C. So with that, we will wade in to taking a few questions. Feller, would you like to take us off? be paying attention to the whole briefing today. We are not expecting the President out here? That would be a way to really kick off the first one, though, would not it? On Afghanistan, the President's apology of the burning of the Korans has not seemed to quell the violence, the protests at all. I am wondering if the White House is worried that there is no clear end in sight to this. Well, as you pointed out, Ben, General Allen, Secretary Panetta, and President Obama have all, in different forms, expressed their apology on behalf of the American people and the American military to the Afghan people to articulate that the United States military and, indeed, the American people have enduring respect for the religious views and religious practices of the Afghan people. We were pleased today to see that President Karzai himself has also called -- or appealed for calm in Afghanistan. And while this is a difficult circumstance that we are working through, we are confident that our goals in Afghanistan -- which I will remind you is to defeat, disrupt and dismantle al Qaeda and to ensure that al Qaeda cannot be used as a safe haven for al Qaeda or other religious extremists -- violent extremists -- so it is our view that we will work through these difficult circumstances and remain on track to making progress on our goals there. Is there anything else -- as this incident continues, is there anything else the President can do or plans to do that you know of? Nothing that I have to announce at this time. Speaking of no end in sight, on a much broader scale, of course, as you know, the slaughter in Syria continues. Secretary Clinton, at the conference in Tunisia, said that the regime will have more blood on its hands if it does not comply with the cease-fire. Is there any thought being given right now that you can help us understand about what happens next? Well, as you point out, Ben, Secretary Clinton is in Tunisia right now meeting with the Friends of Syria group in Tunis to talk about a number of things, including a political transition in Syria.

Barack Obama Press Briefing by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest


They are also talking about the need to find a way to deliver humanitarian aid and medical supplies to areas like Homs and other areas of Syria where Syrian citizens -- innocent Syrian citizens -- have been heinously attacked by the Assad regime. So the question you are raising is a question that is being actively discussed by the United States, our allies, partners, and even other countries in the region, about the way forward in that country, about what we can do to facilitate a political transition there. It is the collective view of all of the nations who are participating in that conference that there are two important things that we need to do. The first is, it is important for us to continue to increase the international pressure on the Assad regime, to isolate further the Assad regime, to ensure that we are working in an integrated, coordinated fashion to apply the sanctions for maximum effect. It is also the collective belief of the people who are participating in that conference that a political transition will take place that ends with the Assad regime no longer being in power in Syria. That is a foregone conclusion, and it is one that the international community is working together to achieve. But you say it is a foregone conclusion, and I know that the White House has said that for some time now, but in the meantime, people are dying by the day including children. Is there a point at which the President's patience simply runs out? Certainly the images that we are seeing on television are appalling. The violence that is being perpetrated by the Assad regime, as you point out, against innocent civilians -- men, women and children -- is outrageous. It is something for which we have zero patience. That is why you are seeing a coordinated international effort to get it to stop, to bring some humanitarian relief, and to ensure a prompt political transition in Syria. Is there any update you can give us about the deliberations on arming the rebels? I do not have an update to our position on this. As you have heard Jay and others say, it is our view that further militarization in Syria at this point in time is not a wise -- is not the policy that we believe is the wise one to pursue at this point. ENTITY, I'd like to ask you about the SPR. This morning, Treasury Secretary Geithner said that the United States will continue to evaluate use of the SPR.


But what are the criteria that you are using to evaluate tapping the SPR, and how are you making that decision? And the follow-up would be, if you could describe the process that you will use to make the decision -- who is involved, how that will take place. I appreciate the question. I did see Secretary Geithner's interview on CNBC this morning. Like Secretary Geithner, I am not going to speculate about any policy outcomes that may or may not be contemplated by this administration at this point. So I do not have anything on that for you. What I can tell you is that the President will continue to pursue, as he talked about at some length yesterday, an all-of-the-above approach to our energy challenges. So that includes a wide range of options. We are not taking anything off the table. But I am not going to speculate about what kinds of things may or may not be on the table, or how we are going to make decisions about what is on the table. You cannot say anything about what criteria will be used to make the decision? ENTITY, I am going to ask you a couple questions on the President's conversations of late. Has the President -- one, has the President been consulting with the Muslim leadership in this country about what is been going on with Afghanistan and the disposal of the Korans? I do not have any meetings to read out to you on that front, April. There are officials at the White House who work in the Office of Public Engagement, who are responsible for reaching out to people all across the country -- and certainly faith leaders fall in that category. But I do not have any specific meetings on this specific topic to read out to you. Is the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives possibly reaching out as well? You'd have to ask them to check, and I can check on that for you if you'd like. But I do not -- to be honest with you, I do not know. And also, on the gas price issue, what is the President saying to OPEC? And what are the conversations around here like as gas prices are rising? For instance, yesterday I was in California -- in one day gas prices at a regular station went from $4.17 to $4.29 -- and that is in a day. They are likely to see $5.00 quicker than many other parts of the country.


What is this President doing and what is the conversations like? Well, the President, as he described yesterday, is certainly concerned about the impact that rising gas prices is having on family budgets all across the country, where family -- as we have discussed, practically every day throughout the President's three years in office -- this is a difficult time for middle-class families in this country, and the rising gas prices only adds to that burden. That is certainly one reason why it is so important that Congress passed a payroll tax cut extension that will put an average of $40 per paycheck back in the pockets of the average American family's budget. That certainly is an important step to offering a little bit of a financial cushion to those families. But what the President is doing, broadly, is pursuing an all-of-the-above approach when it comes to energy in this country; that we have taken a number of steps related to oil and gas production in this country. The President has recently announced an agreement with the nation of Mexico to explore and develop oil and gas reserves along the boundary in the Gulf of Mexico between our two countries. The President -- or the Department of Interior recently announced steps toward additional drilling -- or further drilling in the Arctic Ocean around Alaska. The President has recently also asked his -- or directed his Department of Interior to ensure that 75 percent of the recoverable oil reserves are being developed. And those steps have actually yielded a benefit, which is that every single year that this President has been in office we have seen an increase in oil and gas production. But what that also illustrates is that if your answer to this challenge of rising gas prices is just drilling for oil, you are not going to find a very good answer, because an all-above -- all-of-the-above approach is required. So that also is why the President is pursuing a range of other things -- investments in biofuels and renewable energy, wind and solar. The administration is backing the first -- the construction of the first nuclear power plant in this country in 30 years. So there are a range of things that the President is doing, and he is doing that because he is concerned about the energy challenges facing this country and our economy. Visions of the future, long-term approach -- people are saying, great. But when it comes down to the possibility of putting $5 a gallon, that is in need of a short-term approach.


Is the President looking at the possibility of tapping into the oil -- the strategic oil reserves. Well, your colleague at Reuters asked me the same question. I am not going to speculate about any sorts of discussions that may or may not be taking place related to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I am just not going to do that. But what I can tell you is that there are plenty of people involved in the political process who are willing to make phony promises about what they can do to address rising gas prices -- that if -- and I can tell you that they are empty promises. That if there were a magic wand that you could wave, one of the previous Presidents would have waved it. This is something that this country has been dealing with for decades. We have never seen $5. We have seen $4. Now we are going into the possibility of $5. Sure, but we have seen gas price spikes that have had a significant impact on our economy and have significantly stretched the budgets of middle-class families all across the country. And if somebody is going to promise that they can wave a magic wand or sprinkle the pixie dust or plant the beans in the right place so that we can get out of this problem, they are just not being straight with you and they are not being straight with the American people. So it is the view of this administration, and it is the view of this President, that we need to constructively pursue an all-of-the-above approach when it comes to energy. So that means taking advantage of domestic oil and gas production in this country. It means important investments in renewable energy, like wind and solar and biofuels. It means the President's success in negotiating a historic fuel-efficiency standards rule that would raise fuel-efficiency standards in this country -- that would ensure that we are essentially doubling fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. And what that means, when you double the fuel efficiency, it means that you have to go to the gas station half as often, half as frequently. This will have a significant impact on our reliance on foreign oil, but also it will have a significant impact on the budgets of families all across the country. So this is -- these are difficult policy challenges, and anybody who says that there is an easy answer to doing something about it right away is just not telling the truth.


All that sounds great, but if the President was willing to tap the SPR a year ago, at the beginning of summer driving season, why would not he be willing to do so this year in what happens to be an election year? Well, principally because the President is not making these decisions based on the fact that we are in the middle of a political season. The President is making these decisions based on the best interests of the country and the best interests of our economy, and the best interests of middle-class families that are weathering the storm of a spike in oil and gas prices. A lot of middle-class families might feel it was in their best interest to have cheaper gas. Well, that is the point of this discussion, right? That we need an all-of-the-above approach to energy in this country. And that is the only way we are going to be able to do something real about securing energy independence for this country. The price of gas, the spike in the price of gas is related to the spike in the global oil market. The impact of the global oil market is significantly outside the ability of anybody inside the United States to influence prices at that level. So the global oil market is influenced by the fact that in China, 10 million new cars were added to the roads in China in 2010. That has added to the demand in the global oil market. We are seeing a booming economy in India, where there is an increasing demand for oil in India -- that is affecting the price of oil in the global oil market. We are seeing a stronger economy in Brazil, where the demand for oil and gas in Brazil has significantly increased -- that is affecting the global oil market. The key here to solving this problem over the long term and making sure that we do not have to deal with these challenges moving forward, that we are not susceptible to the spikes and declines in the global oil market, is to make the United States of America finally independent of foreign energy. And that is the course that the President's pursuing. Well, as I pointed out, in the short term, what the President has pursued was a payroll tax cut that would put $40 in the pocket of every working -- of the average American family every two weeks. That is the kind of thing that is going to help American families deal with the spike in gas prices.


But anybody who says that they can wave a wand or plant the magic beans to lead to a reduction in oil prices is just not telling the truth. Well, he can wave a wand and release some from the SPR. The President ran a lot of commercials in 2008 about gas prices. It was a big part of his reelection campaign. So I do not understand -- there seems to be a tone of indignance from the White House about the fact that people are talking about gas prices. This is one of the reasons why you guys have your jobs. If I am showing a sign of indignance, it may be because I am a little nervous in my first time. I actually meant the President. I appreciate that. It is very generous of you. Certainly the future of energy production in this country, certainly the challenges that is posed by a volatile oil -- global oil market, those are legitimate -- how to confront those challenges is worthy of a policy debate. There is a legitimate debate we can have about how to address those challenges. It is not legitimate to suggest that you can wave a magic wand and solve those problems right away. What is legitimate is for us to have a debate about what kind of policy we should pursue. There are some who say we should have -- as the President alluded to yesterday -- a three-step approach to dealing with oil prices in this country, which is -- step one is we should drill, the second step is that we should drill some more, and the third step is that we should keep drilling. It is the President's view that we cannot drill our way out of this problem, that we need to avail ourselves of a wide range of options, all of which the President is pursuing. And that is something that the President campaigned on extensively as a candidate for President in 2008, and is an example of the President making good on those promises. Well, because the promise that he was talking about was making America independent of foreign oil And certainly the historic agreement on fuel efficiency standards that the President reached with a range of stakeholders and the auto industry will do more to accomplish that goal than any other recent policy announcement. And in some ways, by many other measures, it is one of the most important accomplishments of this administration, which is that we can significantly reduce our reliance on foreign oil because of those increased standards.


It will also -- it will reduce our reliance on foreign oil by 12 billion barrels of oil, and it will actually lower fuel costs for families and businesses in this country by $1.7 trillion -- trillion with a t . So that is one example of a substantive difference that the President's policies have made and will make into the future. Many of the benefits of that policy are yet to be enjoyed, but we are on track to get that done. Also I'd like to follow up on a question from Ben about the apology that President Obama -- the apology letter to President Karzai. That is also emerged as an issue that Republicans have criticized the President on. Without getting into their charges, can you walk us through the process and decision-making when it comes to issuing an apology? What concerns are taken into account? When is it thought that something rises to the level of needing an apology? When is there a concern that that is probably too much, or the United States does not need to be too apologetic about such-and-such? I mean, how is a decision made to do such a thing? Is it only the lives of people protesting in the street, or the U.S. service members that are taken into account? This is a difficult thing to discuss in a hypothetical context, but I can talk about this specific context. And it was the President's view that an apology was appropriate because he is putting the best interest and safety and welfare of our service members and our civilians who are currently serving in Afghanistan right now -- that we have seen a spike in violence around this mistake. And the President believed that it was in the best interests of their safety to make it clear that an apology was appropriate, and that the American people and the American military in particular does have respect for the religious views and the religious practices of the Afghan people. So in this case, the President believed it was in the best interests and in -- of safety for American servicemen and women in Afghanistan, and for the civilians that are serving in Afghanistan. There have been other incidents in recent months involving U.S. service members doing things that the U.S. military, the Pentagon expressed regret over. When does it -- who advises the President that something rises to the level of needing an apology from him, as opposed to General Allen or Leon Panetta or whomever? Well, it is hard for me to speak to those range of issues.


I can tell you that the President obviously consults with his national security team and with the military; certainly General Allen is prominent in those kinds of discussions. But I would tell you that I cannot imagine -- I obviously was not here in 2008, when President Bush issued a similar apology after there was an American serviceman who had damaged a religious document of some kind. So my guess is that those kinds of discussions are not altogether different, that I think President Bush was making -- reaching the same calculation, which is that it would be in the best interests of the safety and welfare of our American servicemen and women to issue an apology and make it clear that those actions were unintentional. And that is clear in this case, too. My understanding is that there is now some training of the service members in terms of how to deal with this kind of situation -- disposal of the Koran, respect for holy books, things like that -- for service members serving in Afghanistan. We have been there for 10 years now, and we have had this sort of situation previously with burning of Korans. It is my understanding that there are some new training methods that are being put in place. I do not have any details about what those training methods are, though, so I'd refer you to ISAF for that. But why has it not been in place before? And are you also confident that the kind of cultural training that is in place for service members is sufficient? Well, again, I cannot speak to the training standards that were in place before and in place now. For those kinds of details you are just going to have to check with my colleagues over at ISAF. The classified report that came out from NATO about a month or two months ago that talked about the uptick in attacks by Afghan soldiers on NATO soldiers talked about how most of those attacks were as a result of personal issues, feeling that the NATO soldiers -- in particular the U.S. soldiers -- were disrespecting their culture. Do we have a cultural disconnect here? Well, I have not seen the report that you are referencing, Victoria. But the issue that you are raising is precisely the reason that the President himself -- and General Allen, and Secretary Panetta -- have made clear to President Karzai and to the Afghan people that the actions that took place at Bagram Air Force Base do not reflect the official United States policy and flagged that they were a mistake.


And it was important in the view of General Allen, Secretary Panetta and President Obama to make sure that that was clear to the Afghan people. President Obama yesterday claimed credit for domestic oil production being at an eight-year high. But many independent energy analysts say that because of the lag time between lease and production, he cannot accurately claim credit, and a lot of the credit should go to the Bush administration. Does the President think that his energy policies are responsible for that high? The President believes that it was important for this country to put in place an all-of-the-above approach when it comes to energy. That all-of-the-above approach includes many things that the President talked about on the campaign trail extensively -- investments in renewable energy, investments in biofuels, investments in nuclear technology including the construction of the first nuclear power plant in the United States in 30 years, and including expanded domestic oil and gas production. It is simply a fact that every single year that President Obama has been in office, that oil and gas production has increased every year. And our imports of oil and gas have declined every year. I will let all of you in this room assess who deserves the credit and who deserves the blame, but at the end of the day, the facts are the facts. And there have been some who have suggested that that -- who have contested those facts, who have suggest somehow that this President has curtailed production. That is not what the numbers bear out. And so the President was merely underscoring the fact that production has increased while he is been in office, and it has done so because it is part of the all-of-the-above approach to energy that the President is pursuing. So he is not claiming credit? Is that just -- he is saying that under -- he said under my administration -- I think what the President was doing was he was being very specific about the circumstances that we find ourselves in, which is that oil and -- He is not claiming credit? I think you are the one that is sort of injecting semantics here. What I am suggesting, and what the President is suggesting -- are you not? You are the one that raised the issue of credit or blame. I am not suggesting that.


He said yesterday under my administration, and he talked about the high in domestic oil production, which would be an indication that he is sort of -- I mean, I think it is pretty logical -- it is not a huge cognitive leap, right, to say that he is sort of saying that under -- It is also not a huge cognitive leap to suggest that the President was merely using the opportunity of his speech at the University of Miami to talk about what kind of policy he is pursuing and what impact that has had on this country, and our progress toward becoming independent of foreign oil. But he was talking specifically about domestic oil production. He was talking about domestic oil production. So then, dissecting what he said aside, does he think that his policies on domestic oil are responsible for that eight-year high or for the fact that there is this trajectory in domestic oil production? Well, I have not really contemplated sort of the -- as I pointed out when I sort of first attempted to answer your question, I have not really contemplated the credit or blame thing. There are certainly plenty of people on the outside who are attempting to assign credit or blame in different areas -- assigning that credit or blame without proper recognition of the facts. The facts are what they are, which is that oil and gas production under this President has increased every single year that he is been in office. I will leave it to you to decide whether or not the President deserves credit or blame for that. Well, I am asking if the President thinks he deserves credit. I think what the President believes is that he deserves credit for pursuing an all-of-the-above approach to dealing with our energy challenges. So that certainly means -- includes increasing production every single year that he is been in office. It includes the important investments that we have made in renewable energy and biofuels. It certainly includes the historic agreement with the automakers to make fuel-efficiency standards much stronger -- to double fuel-efficiency standards so that we can save consumers and businesses $1.7 trillion at the pump. It certainly includes the construction of a new nuclear power plant in the United States for the first time in 30 years. It includes all of those things. On the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, I know you are not going to say -- -- not making an announcement today -- Am I not being subtle about it? Yes, but does the administration think that releasing oil from the SPR could help affect gas prices?


That is a hypothetical related to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and I am just not in a position to get into that right now. I am just not in a position to -- I am not in a position to address that question. I need a magic bean, maybe. Since you laid out the criteria where the President decides when he thinks the U.S. government should apologize, is the President seeking an apology from President Karzai for the fact that U.S. service personnel were killed because of this? The President is certainly gratified that President Karzai has appealed for calm in Afghanistan, as we work through what is a very challenging situation. At the end of the day, what the President and his national security team and our generals in Afghanistan are focused on is making sure that we accomplish our goals in Afghanistan. There is no doubt that we are working through a difficult situation there. But we are going to stay on track of accomplishing our goal and continuing to make the significant progress that we have made in ensuring that Afghanistan cannot be a safe haven for al Qaeda or other violent extremists. In the Univision interview, the President said, when asked about immigration reform, My presidency is not over. Specifically said, I have got another five years, like it is a done deal. Do you run the risk there of looking like you are taking the election for granted, that the President is assuming he is going to win? The President is confident that when we get to a vigorous debate with his Republican opponent about whose vision is best for the future of this country, about which person will be a President over the course of the four years between 2013 and 2017 to put in place the kinds of economic policies that will ensure middle-class families get a fair shot and a fair shake and that everybody is playing by the same rules, that when we compare the President's vision for achieving an economy in a country that fulfills those values, that he is going to win. Now, the President, none of my colleagues in Chicago, nobody that works in this building, is under the illusion that it is going to be an easy election; that there will be a time and a place for a vigorous debate, and a competitive election that is good for the democratic process. It is one that the President and his campaign team will be engaged in, but at the end of the day, the President is confident that he will be successful.


How is he so confident, given the fact that your friend Jay Carney keeps saying here at the podium that the President not watching the debates, he is not focused on the campaign, he spends about 10 percent of his time on that? How has he made that judgment? Well, I think something that Jay has said many times and something that I will tell you now is that even if the President is not watching the debates live, he certainly is following the race. And at the end of the day, the reason that the President is confident is not because of anything that the Republicans candidates are saying. It is because of the vision for the country that he wants to put forward to the American people. He feels that his approach for the economy in terms of standing up for the middle class and giving -- ensuring that middle-class families all across the country get a fair shot and a fair shake, and that everybody in this country is playing by the same rules, that that is a vision that the American people have responded to, and will respond to when we get into the context of a political debate. At the end of the day, though, we are not there yet. I know that there is a big election on Tuesday. Again, this is all good for the democratic process. The President himself will turn more attention to his own candidacy once there is a Republican candidate in place, and once there is more of an opportunity to compare the President's vision for the future of this country with a Republican opponent. After the President blessed the kind of Democratic super PAC out there and said that his supporters could give money to that despite him not believing the Supreme Court decision on it, Bill Maher just gave a million dollar check last night, as opposed -- we have seen Republicans get way more, $10 million or so, from Shelly Adelson. My question is, the President has said he is not going to raise money for the super PAC but his Cabinet may. What is the White House going to do to disclose which Cabinet secretaries are raising money, which events they are appearing at, since this is kind of unchartered territory? I may have to get back to you on that. Certainly there are rules that we will follow related to the political activities of members of the President's Cabinet and senior members of the President's staff here at the White House. I do not have all the background on what those rules are. All I can do is assure you that the lawyers are familiar with those rules.


About 10 months ago, the then leader of Syria, Muammar Qaddafi, gave a speech. Of Libya. Said he was sending his troops to Benghazi; they were on their way. The rebels could hide in their bedrooms but they are going to be taken from their closets and killed. He never followed through on that threat, but the President repeatedly used that as a justification for military action, allied military action -- the no-fly and other action over the skies of Libya. Bashar Assad has actually gone to people's homes and killed them. There are a couple of important differences, but I will start by restating something that I said a couple of times from this podium, but it would -- I would be remiss if I did not restate it -- which is that the violence that is being perpetrated by the Assad regime against innocent civilians in Syria is appalling and should stop. That is not just the view of the President, but it is a view of a large number of countries around the world. As I mentioned earlier, those countries are currently meeting in Tunisia -- Secretary Clinton is representing the United States at that meeting -- to have conversations about what we can do try to bring some humanitarian aid and relief, to get some more medical supplies into communities like Homs and other areas of the country that have been under siege by the Assad regime. At that meeting they are also discussing what they can do to ratchet up the pressure on Assad. There are already pretty severe sanctions that are in place. But part of the discussions at that meeting will be integrating those sanctions to make sure that we are closely cooperating to maximize the impact of those sanctions. And we will also be talking about what is necessary to achieve a political transition in that country. So a wide range of these topics are being discussed at that meeting. In terms of what makes this different than Libya, certainly the violence that is being perpetrated by the leaders of those two countries is similar. But the other important difference, however, is that there was unanimity of opinion of the United Nations Security Council about military action in Libya. And that unanimity of opinion does not exist in relation to this situation. As you know, Ambassador Rice and other Obama administration officials were actively engaged in an effort to try to build international consensus.


And that is something that we have had a large degree of success in doing -- that there are a number of -- I think there is something like 70 countries that are represented at this meeting in Tunisia. So there is a broad international agreement about the way forward in Syria, about the fact that Assad should cease and desist his violence against innocent civilians; that the aspirations of the Syrian people should be realized; that humanitarian aid should be brought there and that Assad should leave power in Syria. I have a follow-up on a completely different and more parochial issue. Does the President agree on a general -- in a general sense with the notion that the Postal Service has to get leaner? And, specifically, does he agree -- or does he agree with the approach taken that some people in rural areas object to, and that is they -- that they are being inordinately asked to bear a greater burden by having their local post offices closed under the plan that was put forward today? The President has indeed put forward a plan -- and I believe it was contained in the budget -- about what we can do to stem some of the red ink that is flowing from the United States Postal Service, that there are some measures that can be taken to improve the financial condition of the Postal Service. I will confess, however, I am not briefed up on the details of that proposal. So there are -- so the President has put forward a plan. In terms of the specifics of the way in which that plan will be implemented, I will have to get back to you on that. Is the timing of the event on Tuesday with the UAW and talking about saving the auto industry related to the fact that that is the day of the Republican Michigan primary? I actually think that it is related to the fact that that is when the conference is being held in Washington. It appears to me to -- I guess you'd have to talk to the schedule that is dictated by the organizers of the convention. Well, the White House makes decision about where it is going to speak and when, and -- Well, we did not make the decision on which day the UAW would hold their conference. You did make a decision to accept this invitation. I am wondering if that decision to accept this invitation was related to the timing.


No, the decision to speak to the UAW is related to, as I mentioned at the very top of the briefing, related to the President's interest in talking to the United Auto Workers about the success of the President's policies, and the hard work of the men and women of the American auto industry have made in turning around that industry -- that for the first time in many, many years, we are seeing increasing profit share -- I am sorry -- increasing profits, increasing market share, and even jobs being created in the auto sector -- 200,000 jobs created in the auto sector in just the last couple of years. So that is what the President is going to talk about, and that is why he is there to talk about it. In response to the last question on Syria, you said that the main difference between Libya and Syria was the lack of international consensus on the U.N. Security Council that we have this time. Does that mean that if that changed, and if Russia and China came around on this, that, therefore, military action would be a real possibility? So those of you who disagree about whether that was -- Brianna's question was hypothetical, I think will agree with me that that one is a hypothetical. So I do not think I will weigh in on that one. Well, that is the implication of what you said, though, was that that was the difference and that is -- The implication is that it is a significant difference from the situation the Security Council -- when they confronted the challenges in Libya and when they are confronting the challenges in Syria. But in terms of what would be the policy process if that difference did not exist, I am not going to speculate at this point. The implication is waiting for unanimity before military action can be -- can go forward. Well, again, I do not want to engage in a hypothetical discussion about what we would or would not do if Russia and China were to change their votes on the Security Council. I am just not in a position to -- maybe I am not enough of a big thinker to go there. But I am not in a position to speculate about what would change if they were to change their votes. Certainly, if they are willing to change their votes, we would be pleased to see that. We believe that the votes that they cast to veto that resolution were the wrong votes.


So we certainly -- if they want to revisit those votes, we are more than open to that. I have seen the reports of those meetings, but I do not have any readout or update on those meetings to give you at this point. What do you hope -- what does the White House hope it will lead to? Well, we certainly -- what we hope they will lead to eventually is for the North Koreans to abandon their nuclear weapons program and abide by the international standards that so much of the rest of the world community follows. That certainly is the goal of our diplomatic efforts. It is the goal of the diplomatic efforts of the six-party talks. But I do not have anything new to update you on in terms of the progress toward that goal. ENTITY, just to I hope clarify this Syria issue one more time. I think maybe the way to clarify this is to ask you sort of directly, does the administration now believe that military action might be warranted in the case of Syria? I do not want to speculate about what might be warranted in the future. What we have said on this issue is that further militarizing the situation in Syria at this point in time is not a wise course -- that is not the wise policy course to pursue at this point. What we are engaged in now with our partners and other countries in the region is an effort to see if there is things that we can do to bring humanitarian relief and aid to those who are affected by the violence, including medical supplies, to see if there are things that we can do to offer support to the Syrian National Council, to speed a democratic transition, a political solution in Syria; and to increase the pressure through sanctions on the Assad regime. That is our posture at this point. And that is irrespective of the position of Russia and China and the Security Council? Yes, but again, you are sort of alluding to this idea that what -- would things be different if they had cast a different vote on this issue, and I just am not in a position to speculate on that. On this issue of humanitarian aid, there is a proposal that was made by the former policy planning director at the State Department in our paper today that one thing that you could do to help in that regard is create zones that she calls no-kill zones that border Turkey and other neighboring countries of Syria, and have humanitarian corridors run into those zones.


In order to do that, she says that you would have to arm the Free Syrian ENTITY enough to allow them to secure these zones. Given what you have said about not wanting to arm the opposition at this point, is that not a proposal that you guys would consider? In terms of specific proposals, I do not want to get ahead of the conversations that are currently ongoing in Tunisia, so I would not want to weigh in on a specific proposal or not. It is proposals like these that would allow for the delivery of humanitarian aid and medical supplies that involve the support of the Syrian opposition -- these are the kinds of policy choices that are being evaluated at these meetings, and at this point I do not want to get ahead of those talks. ENTITY, there is a new -- Iran -- there is a new IAEA report that has some new concerns about the military dimension, as it calls it, of Iran's nuclear program and also very specifically talks about a missing quantity of uranium that the Iranians have yet to account for. Have you seen the report? Do you have any reaction to what is in it? About 10 minutes before I walked out here somebody told me about the report, so we are aware of the report and we are reviewing it, but I do not have any immediate reaction for you on it right now. You may check with our national security staff later on today and if they have a specific readout or reaction, they can give it to you. In '09, the President said that U.S. donations to the International Monetary Fund were woefully inadequate and he supported a measure of Congress -- went along with appropriating $100 billion more for the IMF from the U.S. Recently Congressman Cathy McMorris Rodgers has introduced legislation to rescind that vote and get the money that remains in the line of credit at the IMF back to the United States and apply it to the deficit. Does the administration have an opinion on that and does the administration consider -- will it consider any future request from the IMF for further funding? I am not able to comment on the legislation that you have cited that is been offered by Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers. I am not familiar with it so I am not able to comment on that. In terms of further contributions to the IMF, that question has previously been asked in the context of offering some financial stability and support to the eurozone region.