the empowerment zones; the community development banks, including the microenterprise zones and the enterprise communities; the tax credits employers get now for hiring people in those areas; and the Community Reinvestment Act, which, as you know, had been on the books for over 20 years, but over 95 percent of all the lending under the Community Reinvestment Act has been done during our administration. We really pushed it. So we will do a little of that, hear things that are working now. The second thing I want to do is to point out that one of the reasons there has not been more investment in these areas is that there is imperfect knowledge on the part of the American business and investment community. The head of Aetna insurance company, when we went to Atlanta, when we did our pre-trip-on the way back he was ragging me. He said, You know, I am the only guy here who is not happy we did this, because, he said, I'd already figured all this out by myself, and now all my competitors are going to know. I will just give you one example. In Los Angeles it is 35 percent. In East St. Louis, where we are going, it is 40 percent. That is just retail sales, no small-scale manufacturing, no professional services, none of that other stuff, all the other things you could do. So I think there is really a lot I can do just with the bully pulpit and taking these business leaders around and getting them-you know, we are going to have bipartisan political folks there; we have got Jesse Jackson and Al From; we are going to have Republican and Democratic Congressmen and Governors and all. But I think that just getting the business community to focus on the fact-because they are all interested in this question, what I want to say to them is, look, you do not just have to debate what Alan Greenspan is going to do; you can change the underlying reality on the ground if you change the economics. And the third thing that I want to do is to push the specific new markets legislation. Because all these other things we have done-even though the CRA, the Community Investment Act, is a nationwide law, it depends still in part on the vigors of the bankers in specific places, and all the other things have discreet impacts.


In other words, we do not have a community development bank everywhere; we do not have an enterprise zone or empowerment community everywhere-I mean, an empowerment zone or an enterprise community everywhere. This new markets initiative basically is designed to put in place for the whole Nation, all distressed areas the same incentives that we give America to invest in developing economies overseas. I think they ought to have those incentives, developing economies at home. So, for example, the way this would work is let us suppose someone wanted to build a $150 million shopping center in East St. Louis and open 20 stores-I am just making this up-and they started with $50 million of investments; they have got a $50 million investment fund. On that $50 million they could get tax credits of 25 percent for their investment. They would also be able to go to the bank and borrow $100 million and have that $100 million subject to the Government guarantee, which would dramatically lower the interest rate that they would be charged to borrow the money, because if they defaulted on the loan, the Government would guarantee it. And those are the kinds of mechanisms we have in place now for people who invest in developing markets overseas. The reason that is important is, number one, unlike the empowerment zones, it would be nationwide, and number two, even if you had perfect knowledge on the part of investors, that you do not have now, there would be, in many of these places, somewhat greater risk to the investment than in a traditional investment. So by providing these two big incentives you lower the relative risk of this investment compared to others and make it even more attractive to do. But if you think about it, this is sort of my classic Third Way kind of approach. In the 1980's, we found out for sure that free enterprise alone would not develop these areas into the 1990's. In the 1960's, with the whole Great Society approach, it is not true that it did not accomplish anything. It accomplished a great deal. It fed people; it educated people; it started Head Start; it provided health care in rural areas; it provided some Government-funded jobs. But there was no internal structural change that would allow a lot of these places to become more self-sufficient on a long-term basis.

Interview With Susan Page of USA Today Aboard Air Force One


If we could do this and really make a big difference over the next few years, then when the next recession comes along in America, it will not hit these areas as hard, because they will have, just like other places, some underlying economic supports, some self-sufficiency. And that means fewer people on the streets. It means you will not lose as many kids. It means a lot of things when times are tough. But it seems to me that there is an enormous interest in this now, in the business community. You can see it in the Wall Street Project that Jesse Jackson and Dick Grasso and others have done for the last few years, and you can see it in the massive commitment that-and NationsBank made to setting up community banks and microenterprise lending over the next 10 years. They made a huge commitment on their own. A lot of great things have happened in our empowerment zones. A lot of these development banks are beginning to really show some results. But there is no either nationwide awareness or nationwide framework which could be applied to every place. And that is what the new markets initiative is all about. It is about just increasing the awareness and the attractiveness of these areas to the investment community and then putting in place a framework that would make it even more attractive to invest now. And if we could get a lot of this done while the economy is growing, I think the benefits to America could be permanent. I think, in that sense, it is the perfect public/private partnership example that I have been trying to develop all along. I am really excited about it. I am just-it is a real dream of mine to prove this can be done. You will apparently be the first sitting ENTITY to ever go to an Indian reservation. I am sorry it has taken me so long, because I spent a lot of time with Native American leaders. I went to reservations back in '92, and I spent enormous time with the leaders of the tribes over the last 6 1/2 years. Some people would say you have done a lot-you have focused on empowerment zones; you have focused on some of these problems of poverty, people who have not participated in the economic good times-but that we have not heard so much about it lately, '95, '96. Why is now the time to put this kind of spotlight on the places that remind people that the economic prosperity has not been good for everybody?


One is, I think that there is a feeling that the prosperity of the country is broadly shared, and that is right. We have got the lowest minority unemployment rates we have recorded. In the last couple of years, we have finally started to close the inequality gap. We have had substantial increases in wages for people in the lower 40 percent of our earnings. And there is a level of security about the direction of our economy that I think frees people in a way to think about those things that are still not done, because I think most Americans genuinely want to see everybody who is willing to work have a chance to participate in this. Secondly, I believe that it is an essential component of my effort to keep this economy growing without inflation, as I said. In other words, I think moving people from welfare to work is a moral imperative, but I also think it is very good for the economy. I think giving disabled people a chance to take their Medicaid and get in the work force is morally right; I also think it is very good for the economy, and I think this could be even better for the economy, and it is certainly morally right. We tried to do this in the past, and we have gotten kind of sporadic publicity for it. But we worked consistently at it. It is one of the many things that I asked the Vice President to lead. But he has done a superb job of this, and he is been systematic and disciplined. And just slowly, slowly, slowly over the last 6 years, I think we have completely satisfied that a lot of these communities, if they can get enough investment, can really take off and do well. So I think that the timing is really right now for America to think about this as sort of the next economic agenda. I know we have to leave, but speaking of economic good times, George Bush has raised $36 million so far in the first half of this year. What do you think about that? Do you think this has gotten out of-spiraled out of control? Or is this not-what do you think? It just seems like a stunning number today. It is a big number, but you have got to remember, Republicans have more money than Democrats, and they always promise upper income people bigger tax cuts. And he is the Governor of Texas; his brother is the Governor of Florida; and they have been out for 8 years, and they want in. So all those reasons mean big numbers. But what did he raise in Texas?


When I ran in '92-8 years ago-in a State of 2.5 million people, with a lower per capita income and not nearly as many millionaires, we raised $4 million. That would be the equivalent of $20 million or more in Texas. So he is got a lot going for him. He is a Governor of a State; his brother is a Governor of a State; his father was President. They want to win; they have got more money than we do anyway. So I think that it is a credit to-he is got good people raising that money, obviously, but I am not at all surprised they have raised that kind of money. Which also raises the point that conventional wisdom probably told us the Democratic nomination would be sewed up at this point, but the Republican would not ; and it is actually the opposite, it appears to be actually perhaps the opposite of that. It depends; the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire will not be as influenced by the money, probably, just because there is only so many of them. There is only so much you can-but I think the real problem for all these guys, and one reason they can compellingly go out and raise this money-I mean, arguably, if you are talking about the money Bradley raised, he was a national figure for longer than any of the other people running in the Republican primary, except for Elizabeth Dole; maybe she was. But she was in the Cabinet, but Bradley was a nationally known figure for 18 years in the Senate, from the day he got there, and traveled the country extensively all that time building a network, for all 18 years. So I am not particularly surprised that he is raised a good deal of money. But I think that-to go back to the main point-one of the reasons all these people can compellingly argue that they need to get out and raise this money early is that, unfortunately, it not only gets more and more expensive to advertise with every election cycle, the States at the back end get more and more anxietyridden, so they keep moving their dates up. And one of the interesting things to me would be-I do not know the answer to this.


I will start by saying I do not known the answer to this, but when you write the history of this election in the primary process, it will be interesting to see whether or not, even though the small States have retained their early status-which I happen to think is quite a good thing, having been through it; I think it is a good thing, because I think it is terrible that when you get all these primaries-people running for President from tarmac to tarmac, they will run about the States; they do not really listen to the people's voices, their concerns, and when it is all said and done, they have not learned as much about the country as they should. If you have to run in Iowa and New Hampshire, you have got to know things. You have got to take time. So I believe in that. Keep in mind, on June 2d in 1992-June 2d-you had California, New Jersey, and Ohio. I am not particularly surprised about the amount of money anybody has raised. Are you concerned that it is bad news for Gore? I do not think that at all. I do not think that at all. I mean, I think the Republicans are going to raise more money than us. They outspent $100 million last year. They take care of their interest groups. The NRA's going to give them a ton of money. Look what they have done on the Patients' Bill of Rights. Everybody in the world with an opinion is for the Patients' Bill of Rights, except one, who is health insurance. But the health insurance might wind up giving more money in the election cycle than all the 200 groups that are for us. And so, that is the dynamic of modern politics. And their whole strategy is to rake in that dough and to dominate the communications. It does not matter in our politics if your opponent outraises you if you raise enough. The only issue in modern politics is whether you have enough. And keep in mind, in the primary process-unless Governor Bush is going to slow the campaign finance law and not take any matching funds-in the primary process, the only thing that really matters is whether you can raise all the money you need before the first primary starts so you can rationally plan how to spend it during the remainder of the primary season. Because there is a ceiling on how much you can raise in order to get the matching funds in all of the campaign finance system.


So he should not -nobody else should be worried about that. The only people who should be worried are people who are not going to have enough to get their message out, and the fact that early money normally means you have got big political support. What you are seeing in the Republicans now is a little bit what you saw in '92. And Governors can raise more money than Senators, especially Governors of big States. I am not too surprised he is got all that money. But it is not bad news for the Vice President, because he is doing very well, and he is got all he needs, and he is going to get his money by the time he needs it. I think you will-my gut feeling is that you will not see that have an appreciable impact on the outcome of the election. Before he actually grabs our arm and drags us out here, I guess we have got to go. I am glad you are covering these things, though. It gives us a chance to really do something important. I am really sorry I kept you waiting. So, can we get a firm and final no from you that you are not going to run for Senate? I have to go out and make a living for my family, and that is-and I am going to spend the first 2 years organizing my life, doing my memoirs, and finishing my library. That is what I am going to be doing. I am not running for the Senate. I do not even know where that story came from. I think the story-the guy that reported the story first said someone said they mentioned it to me, and I did not say no. I do not even remember anybody mentioning it to me. But it is not-I had a lot of people in Arkansas ask me if I'd come home and run for Governor, every time I go home. And I tell them that we have got to get a young crop up there and put them in there. I am not in- I am not going to do that.


I want to first ask you your reaction-once again, this time Memphis, a fireman is dead, a police officer, and others. What is your reaction to this shooting? Well, as we are doing this interview, of course, we do not know all the facts, but it is a tragic thing for the city and for the families, because firemen and police, they put their lives on the line a lot, but they do not expect to be shot at the scene of a burning house. And we just have to find the facts to know what happened and whether anything could have been done about it. Another tragedy was the death of the 6-year-old, Kayla, in Michigan. I did. What did you tell her? Well, first of all, I told her that as a father I could only imagine her heartbreak, that there is nothing worse in life than having your child die before you, especially in tragic circumstances. And I told her I would do what I could to reduce the chances of it happening again. And I was very impressed with her. She and her husband, Kayla's stepfather, I think they really decided they are going to commit themselves to try to do things that will make the schools safer, the streets safer, the kids less vulnerable to this sort of thing. And we talked about some of the specific things we were working on. And one of the specific things is guns. When you talk about guns-besides being the President of the United States, you are a lawyer-do you think that the responsibility when a young child uses a gun and kills another child, that some of the responsibility may be cast in the direction of a parent or another adult? I think if the custodial adult either knowingly or recklessly leaves a gun where a child can get ahold of it, then I think there should be some liability there. It is outrageous that this 6-year-old boy was able to get that gun. And of course, I think there ought to be child trigger locks on these guns. And I think that we should keep working until we develop the technology which will enable us to make handguns that can only be fired by the adults who own them, which is-it is not that far off. I mean, the accidental gun death rate in America for children under 15 is 9 times higher than the rate of the next 25 countries combined.

Interview With Greta Van Susteren of CNN's Burden of Proof


I think there ought to be some responsibility there, not if there is been a reasonable effort and the child finds a key and gets in a safe or something. But if there is-if it is just total irresponsibility or intentionally leaving a gun in a place where a child could easily get it, I think they should be held responsible. Well, you use the words knowingly and recklessly, and that standard, it seems to me, is so different. In some parts of the country where people have lots of guns, the knowingly and recklessly standard is so much different from those who might be unfamiliar. Well, I think maybe if Congress wanted to legislate in this area-this is normally a State law area. And I offered Federal legislation in the post-Columbine era to deal with this. The Congress could have legislative history in which they could actually cite some examples of what in their view falls on one side of the line and what does not . Or what the Congress could do, if they feel that the circumstances are different from State to State, is to give some incentives for the States to pass such legislation. I think there are 17 States which have passed legislation that have some form of adult responsibility if children who are below the age of responsibility get guns. There are two different ways you could do that. You have been battling the gun-trying to get gun legislation for some time, and it seems to be a little bit of a logjam on Capitol Hill. Well, I think the main source of dispute now is over closing the gun show loophole. That is, a lot of these-predominantly, the Republican Members of the House, although not all of them, are reluctant to close the gun show loophole. And a huge number of the Republicans in the Senate, although not everyone, 90 percent of them do not want to close the gun show loophole. That is, they do not want to require people at these gun shows and urban flea markets to have to do the same background checks on people who buy guns there, as gun store owners do, and people who buy guns there. When we passed the Brady bill, 7 years ago now, almost 7 years ago, the NRA and their sympathizers said, Well, the Brady bill will not do any good because criminals do not buy guns at gun stores. Well, it turns out 500,000 people could not get guns because they had a record as a felon, a fugitive, or a stalker.


So now we ought to go to the huge number of people who do buy them at these gun shows and urban flea markets, which is exactly what the NRA said they did 7 years ago. But now that we are trying to get background checks there, all of a sudden they do not want to do it. Now, there is some chance of a compromise because Representative John Conyers from Michigan and Chairman Henry Hyde from Illinois have talked back and forth about whether there was a way to close the gun show loophole that the Republicans would let get out of the conference committee, and then we could pass it. And I urged them to work on that yesterday. When I look at this loophole, it seems to me-correct me if I am wrong- is that one side wants 72 hours to do the background check, and one side says, no, 24 hours. Is that the dispute, 24 versus 72? That is only part of it, and I will explain that. But there is also the question of what records will be checked and what you do with the people who cannot be checked within 24 hours. That is, John Conyers offered a 24-hour background check to Mr. Hyde. That is, the Democrats offered to the Republicans a 24-hour background check as long as there were some provision for holding roughly 5 to 8 percent of the applications that cannot be cleared in 24 hours. That is, believe it or not, over 70 percent of these background checks are done within a matter of an hour. Over 90 percent are done within 24 hours. And in that small percentage, the people that are likely to be rejected are-20 times the rate of rejections in the last 5 percent as in the first 95 percent . So there is a reason for holding those that cannot be checked when the records are not there. So I think if we can work out something to do with the other 5 percent, we could agree to 95 percent of the people to have a 24-hour waiting period. It is going to be interesting to see whether they will engage us in good faith on that. So what can we do with that 5 percent? Well, you enable them to- you give the 72 hours for that 5 percent.


And if they are at a rural gun show and they do not know what to do because they want to buy the gun and the gun dealer has got to leave and go on to another place, they should just consummate the sale and have to deposit the gun at the local sheriff's office. And then if it clears, they get their gun. And if it does not clear, the gun dealer gets his gun back. In my prior life as a criminal defense lawyer, I had to represent a lot of people who used guns in murders, armed robberies. And I have got to tell you, I do not think any one of them bought it at a gun show or a gun shop. What can we do about them? What we know is that some of this happens there because we have got-the gun death rate is at a 30-year low. So we know we are doing some good with the Brady bill, and we know we will do some more good with this. And we also know that a lot of these guns are passed among criminals or sold out of a trunk by somebody alone that would not be covered by the gun show law. I think what you have to do there is just do a better job of checking people for guns, and if you find somebody-if we do all this and you still find people with unauthorized guns, they have to be punished for that. I think that people who buy handguns would have to pass a Brady background check and a safety check and be licensed. I think we ought to license handgun owners the way we license car drivers. I think that will make a difference over the long run. The other thing I would say is, you have got over 200 million guns in this country. Now, that is slightly overstating the case in terms of the danger, because a huge number of them are in the hands of collectors who are perfectly law-abiding, who have the guns very well secured. And a lot of them are in the hands of hunters, who are law-abiding and have their guns well secured. But one of the things that I have advocated is a big expansion of the gun buyback program, because in the places where that is occurred, it is done some good-where you must give people money to bring in their guns, and then you melt them or destroy them otherwise.


And I noted just today-I was just stunned to hear that there are a number of Republicans in the House of Representatives that want to stop us from doing the gun buyback program. I cannot imagine why they want to stop that. A lot of cities with Republican mayors have done gun buyback programs. You bring a gun in; you get a certain amount of money. You gather the guns up, and you destroy them. You are taking that many out of circulation. So those are the kinds of things I think ought to be done. Do you have a gun? Have you ever owned one or shot one? I have owned hunting weapons. I have been given-I have never bought a pistol. I have been given pistols by the State police and others, and I have never kept them. I have never kept a gun in my residence. I have always kept them under secure circumstances outside the house when Chelsea was a little girl coming up and all that. But I have owned guns. I still remember shooting cans off fenceposts in the country with a .22 when I was 12. I have bad ears, so I would be careful how many times a year I'd go hunting. But I understand this culture. I have been a part of it. And I was Governor of a State for a dozen years where half of the people had hunting licenses. But I do not think it is right for people who are law-abiding to prevent the passage of these laws that will plainly save lives. I mean, you know, it is no big deal for people who are gun owners or people who are handgun owners to have to undergo a background check. And if it is a minor inconvenience for them to wait a little bit, it is worth it to save people's lives. We now have evidence that it saves lives. Nobody complains about going through airport metal detectors anymore, even if they have to go through 2 or 3 times, because they know it saves lives. People do not say we ought to repeal every speed limit or-you could say, Well, most car drivers are law-abiding, so let us just stop licensing car drivers. Let us stop giving them driver's license tests, because most of them are law-abiding. Well, there would be an uproar if you did that. So we should do more without eroding lawabiding gun owners' rights to hunt or sport shooting.


We should do more to protect ourselves as a community, a lot more. We are the only country in the world that is not doing more, and we have got the death rates to show it. And if we want to save lives, we are going to have to continue to do more. We have got the lowest crime rate in 25 years because we have done more. We have got to do more. Taking a look at what happened last week, if you had the legislation that you want or if we had the legislation the Republicans want, Kayla would still be dead. The legislation would not have prevented that gun from getting into that young boy's hands. No, but if you had adult responsibility legislation that was clear and unambiguous, at least people would think about it; guys like that would think about it. Even if- suppose this was a drug house, like they say- also, depending on how old these guns are, they would come with child trigger locks if you required them for all gun sales, prospectively. And I am not at all sure that even a callous, irresponsible drug dealer with a 6-year-old kid in the house would not leave a child trigger lock on a gun. Which raises the other question. Trigger locks are for guns that are from this day forward. What do we do with these millions of guns that are already out there? One of the things I think we ought to look at is see how you retrofit them, where we could sell them, what we should do with them. And I am just-if I could pass this, then I'd start looking at what to do with the guns that are out there now, whether we could get trigger locks for them and how we'd do it. Then the Senate passed a bill; the House passed a much weaker bill. We have been waiting 8 months for these people to get together with the Senate and the House and come up with a bill and send it to me. And so, I have always tried to focus dealing with the Congress not just on what I thought was ideal but on what we would actually achieve. And I think every American now knows that the intense lobbying of the NRA and the other gun groups has had a profound impact on the House and on the Republican caucus in the Senate. But still, there are some people who are brave enough to stand up against it and to do reasonable things.


I spoke to a representative of the NRA today who said that last summer, they had completely agreed on the bill in Congress, but that it was the Democrats and the White House that felt that the legislation in the House should be aborted. No, they agreed on the House bill because it did not do anything to close the gun show loophole. They did not want-we have got to close the gun show loophole. I think they would come along now with child trigger locks. I think they would, and I know they support the custodial parent being held responsible when there is an egregious act there of intentional or reckless-allowing a child to have a gun. And I appreciate that. I think they support more gun prosecutors and law enforcement officials, and I appreciate that. I do not know where they are-maybe they would go along with the banning of the large ammunition clips. They have never been for that before, but they might be for that. But their new big bottom line is we must never, ever, ever do a background check on somebody at a gun show unless you can do it in 30 seconds or something. I do not mind going to 24 hours, as long as you have got an escape hatch for the people you cannot clear in 24 hours, because I will say again, they are 20 times more likely to be turned down, that small percentage of people, than the general population that we can clear in 24 hours. The Vice President wants-or has suggested that we have photo licensing. What is your reaction to that? Because I think that it will establish a nexus between-first of all, to get a license, you ought to have to pass a safety course and the Brady background check. And I think then it will be easier to track the guns. We are trying to develop technology to track all guns and all bullets used in crimes and ultimately get them back to where they started. And I think for that reason-for crime control reasons and for safety reasons, it would be a good thing to do. Just like with licensed drivers, I think it is a community safety requirement that we ought to do. I think he is absolutely right about it.


It is an honor and a privilege to welcome my first guest back to the show. It is good to have you back, ENTITY Rebel forces killed by rebel forces. Well, this is somebody who, for 40 years, has terrorized his country and supported terrorism. And he had an opportunity during the Arab spring to finally let loose of his grip on power and to peacefully transition into democracy. We gave him ample opportunity, and he would not do it.  people long to be free, and they need to respect the human rights and the universal aspirations of people. they televised the death. You know, obviously, that is not something that I think we should relish. And there was a reason after Bin Laden was killed, for example, we did not release the photograph. You know, I think that there is a certain decorum with which you treat the dead even if it is somebody who has done terrible things. Now, you took some heat for the whole leading-from-behind tactic here with Libya. Well, the truth was, we this was a phrase that the media picked up on. But it is not one that I ever used. We lead from the front. We introduced the resolution in the United Nations that allowed us to protect civilians in Libya when Gaddafi was threatening to slaughter them. It was our extraordinary men and women in uniform, our pilots who took out their air defense systems, set up a no-fly zone. It was our folks in NATO who were helping to coordinate the NATO operation there. And the difference here is we were able to organize the international community. We were able to get the U.N. mandate for the operation. And so there was never this sense that somehow we were unilaterally making a decision to take out somebody. And that is part of the reason why this whole thing only cost us a billion dollars Not a single U.S. troop was on the ground. Not a single U.S. troop was killed or injured, and that, I think, is a recipe for success in the future. Let me ask you about that because, with Osama Bin Laden, I remember the night before you were at the correspondence dinner and the whole deal. How hard was it to make that decision to send in those Navy SEALs? It could have been a disaster, but the reason I was able to do it was when you meet these SEALs and you talk to them, they are the best of the best. They understand what exactly they intend to do.

Interview With Jay Leno on NBC's The Tonight Show


They are prepared for the worst in almost every circumstance. So even though it was 50/50 that Bin Laden would be there, I was a hundred percent confident in the men, and I could not have made that decision were it not for the fact that our men and women in uniform are the best there is. Now, you just announced the troops coming out of What did we accomplish there? The Iraqis now have the opportunity to create their own democracy, their own country, determine their own destiny. And I am cautiously optimistic that they realize that the way they should resolve conflict is not through killing each other but, rather, through dialogue and discussion and debate. And so that would not have been possible had it not been for the extraordinary sacrifices not just of our Armed Forces, but also their families. and reservists and National Guardsmen and women and the strain that that placed on those families during this long period, it is remarkable. So I think Americans can rightly be proud that we have given Iraqis an opportunity to determine their own destiny, but I also think that policymakers and future Presidents need to understand what it is that we are getting ourselves into when we make some of these decisions. And there might have been other ways for us to accomplish those same goals. But the main thing right now is to celebrate the extraordinary work that our men and women did. Let me ask you now, many members of many members of the GOP opposed withdrawing from Iraq. It is shocking that they opposed something I proposed. But, I mean, was not it originally did not they want to get out of Iraq? Well, look, I do not know exactly how they are thinking about it. You know, as you said, we have been in there four years, over 4,000 young men and women killed, tens of thousands injured, some of them for life, spent close to a trillion dollars on this operation. I think the vast majority of the American people feel as if it is time to bring this war to a close particularly because we still have You know, we still have work to do in Afghanistan. We are transitioning to Afghan lead there. Our guys are still and gals are still making sacrifices there. We would not have been able to do as good of a job in decimating al Qaeda's leadership over the last two years if we had still been focused solely on Iraq.


And one of the arguments I made way back in 2007 was, if we were able to bring the war in Iraq to a close, then that would allow us to go after the folks who perpetrated 9/11, and obviously, we have been very successful in doing that. But al Qaeda is weaker than anytime in recent memory. We have taken out their top leadership position. Can I ask you about taking out their top leadership, al-Awlaki, this guy, American-born terrorist? How important was he to al Qaeda? Do you what happened was we put so much pressure on al Qaeda in the Afghan/Pakistan region that their affiliates were actually becoming more of a threat to the United States. So Awlaki was their head of external operations. This is the guy that inspired and helped to facilitate the Christmas Day bomber. This is a guy who was actively planning a whole range of operations here in the homeland and was focused on the homeland. And so this was probably the most important al Qaeda threat that was out there after Bin Laden was taken out, and it was important that working with the enemies, we were able to remove him from the field. I will tell you, we are going to take a break. When we come back, I want to ask you about Hilary Clinton and her role with the President right after this. So tell me about Hilary Clinton and the job she is doing. She has been, I think, as good of a Secretary of State as we have seen in this country. I am really proud of her. And I did a lot of jokes about you guys going after each other, but you come together for the sake of the country. Tell me about how that works. The truth is Hilary and I agree on the vast majority of issues. We did during the campaign.  we had a similar world view. She was, I think, understandably tired after the campaign and hesitant about whether or not this would be a good fit, and I told her that I had complete confidence in her, that the country needed her. She stepped up to the plate. She works as hard as anybody I have ever seen. She is tenacious, and we are really very proud of her. The entire national security team that we have had has been outstanding, and it is not just rivals within the Democratic party. My Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, is a Republican. He was a carryover from the Bush Administration. He made an outstanding contribution.


So I think one of the things that we have done is been able to restore a sense that whatever our politics, when it comes to our national security, when it comes to the national defense, everybody has to be on the same page. And so the question now is, as we end the war in Iraq, it is time for us to rebuild this country, and can we get that same kind of cooperation when it comes to fixing what is wrong here? Now, let me ask you something. This is stuff I love, this rumor that Joe Biden and Hilary might swap, and she might run for Vice President and he might is there You know, Joe Biden is not only a great Vice President, but he has been a great advisor and a great friend to me So I think that they are doing great where they are, and both of them are racking up a lot of miles. Joe tends to go more to Pittsburgh. Hilary is going to Karachi. But they have both got important work to do. But you do not want to say big f'ing deal in Karachi. That could have some problems. The good news is you are still three times better than Congress. They are at 13 percent. I mean so if you are grading on a curve if you are grading on a curve, you are killing. You know, look, we have gone through the worst financial crisis, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. People are hurting out there, and they have been hurting out there for a while. And people were having a tough time even before the crisis. Costs of everything from college to health care to gas to food, all of it was going up, and so people were feeling a lot of pressure even before this crisis. And so I every day I wake up saying to myself, Look, you cannot expect folks to feel satisfied right now. I am very proud of the work that we have done over the last two or three years, but they are exactly right. We have got more work to do, and that is why, right now, for example, our biggest challenge is to make sure that we are putting people back to work. We stabilize the economy, but there are not enough people working. And so we put forward this jobs bill that has proposals that traditionally have been supported by Democrats and Republicans. I mean, we have got we are putting construction workers back to work rebuilding our roads and our bridges.


And the thing that angers me and I think a lot of Americans is I did not like what they did to President Bush. I do not like when they do it to you. I mean, why does that anger you?  Look, I think the things that folks across the country are most fed up with, whether you are a Democrat, Republican, Independent, is putting party ahead of country or putting the next election ahead of the next generation. And so what we need there are some real differences between the party in terms of where we want to take the country. I believe we have got to invest in education and research and infrastructure in order for us to succeed in the long-term, and I think that there is nothing wrong with us closing the deficit and making our investments by making sure that folks like you and me who have been incredibly blessed by this country are doing a little more of a fair share. They have a different philosophy. We can argue about that, but on things that, traditionally, we have agreed to like infrastructure, like tax cuts for small businesses to give them incentives to hire veterans, on things that traditionally have not been partisan, we should be able to get together. We have got a lot of time, and the last thing we need to be doing is saying to the American people that there is nothing we can do until the next election. We have got to do some work right, putting people back to work. Well, you are by passing congress now and giving these executive orders. Well, look, if Congress is gridlocked, if the Republicans in Congress refuse to act, then there is going to be a limit to some of the things we'd like to do, but there is still some actions that we can take without waiting for Congress. So yesterday, for example, we announced working with some of the federal housing agencies. A lot of these folks, because their homes are underwater now, their mortgages are higher than what their homes are worth, a lot of them are having trouble getting refinanced by their banks. And so they are locked in at high rates when rates should be a lot lower for them. We have said, Let us figure out a way to waive some of the fees, waive some of the provisions that are preventing them from being able to refinance. And that could mean an extra couple thousand bucks in people's pockets right now.


They then have that money to buy a computer for their kid for school or what have you, and that will get the economy going again. So we are going to look for opportunities to do things without Congress. We cannot afford to keep waiting for them if they are not going to do anything. On the other hand, my hope is that, at some point, they start listening to the American people, and we can work with Congress as well. Well, you are talking about listening to the American people. As President, you look out your window. Do you see this occupy Wall Street movement? Look, people are frustrated, and that frustration has expressed itself in a lot of different ways. It expressed itself in the Tea Party. It is expressing itself in occupy Wall Street. I do think that what this what this signals is that people in leadership, whether it is corporate leadership, leaders in the banks, leaders in Washington, everybody needs to understand that the American people feel like nobody is looking out for them right now. And, traditionally, what held this country together was this notion that if you work hard, if you are playing by the rules, if you are responsible, if you are looking out for your family, you are showing up to work every day and doing a good job, you have got a chance to get ahead. You have got a chance to succeed. And, right now, it feels to people like the deck is stacked against them, and the folks in power do not seem to be paying attention to that. So if everybody is tuned in to that message and we are working every single day to figure out how do we give people a fair shake and how do we make sure that everybody is doing their fair share, then people will not be occupying the streets because they will have a job and they will feel like they are able to get ahead. And part of my job over the next year is to make sure that if they are not seeing it out of Congress at a minimum, they are seeing it out of their President, somebody who is going to be fighting for them. We will take a break. When we come back, we will talk more with the President, ask him some personal issues. We will get to an issue, of course, that is very big here in Hollywood, this issue on the Kardashians. We will find out more about that. We are going to talk about some lighter stuff, about dealing with the pressure of being President. Now, I know you quit smoking.


Remember you are under oath. So tell me how you cope with the daily pressures. We have got a little gym in the White House. She is in better shape than me, though. She will get up there a half an hour earlier than me. She will have already run 10 miles or something. Speaking of that staggering up to the gym. As ENTITY , everything is public. And I turned on the news last night, and I see my President at a very famous restaurant here in Los Angeles called Roscoes Chicken and Waffles. Now, I think you ordered the Country Boy Special. Now, is Michelle I mean, she is sitting back, watching the news. Here you are scarfing down the waffles.  once we got in the car, it smelled pretty good. So, I mean, I am eating the wings. You have got the hot sauce on there. And we were actually going to a fund-raiser So, suddenly, we pull up, and my sleeves were rolled up, and I got a spot on my tie. And my fingers are I am looking for one of those Wet Ones, you know, to see if I have chicken on my teeth. Right. and let us move and get exercise. But ENTITY, as quiet as this is kept, she loves french fries. She loves pizza. She loves chicken. Her point is just in moderation. She does not mind the girls having a having a smack, although Halloween is coming up. And she is been giving, for the last few years, kids fruit and raisins in a bag. You need to throw some candy in there. That is what she tells me. And part of this, I think, is a testimony to Michelle, also having my mother-in-law in the house because she does not take any mess. Do they have cell phones? We have Malia got a cell phone, but their not allowed to use it during the week just like they are not allowed to watch TV during the week. Oh. now, you recently said that you did not like the girls watching the Kardashians. Have you seen the show? No, I have not seen the show. So you are making a judgment without ever seeing the show. I am probably a little biased against reality TV partly because, you know, there is this program on C-SPAN called Congress that is that I that I that No, I have not seen the show. And do you recommend it, Jay?


Since you announced the agreement with Iran, it appears, if you look at several recent polls, that a majority of the American public oppose it and a majority of the United States Congress oppose it. Because people have not been getting all the information. It is a complicated piece of business and we are negotiating with a regime that chants Death to America! and does not have a high approval rating here in the United States. But the people who know most about the central challenge that we are trying to deal with, which is making sure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, they are overwhelmingly in favor of it - experts in nuclear proliferation, nuclear scientists, former ambassadors, Democrat and Republican. And as a consequence, one of my main tasks over the last several weeks - and this will continue into September - is to make sure that people know and understand that this is a diplomatic breakthrough that ensures we are cutting off all the pathways by which Iran might get a nuclear weapon. In your speech at American University, you made a comparison. You said that Iran's hardliners were making common cause with Republicans. It is come under a lot of criticism. Mitch McConnell says even Democrats who oppose the deal should be insulted. The Wall Street Journal says that this rhetoric shows that you have abandoned the hope of getting any Republicans, or even moderate Democrats, and you are targeting this message to the hard core of House Democrats who are going to sustain your veto. Fareed, your question is about politics. Let me talk about substance. What I said is absolutely true factually. The truth of the matter is, inside of Iran, the people most opposed to the deal are the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force, hardliners who are implacably opposed to any cooperation with the international community. And there is a reason for that, because they recognize that if, in fact, this deal gets done, that rather than them being in the driver's seat with respect to the Iranian economy, they are in a weaker position. And the point I was simply making is that if you look at the facts, the merits of this deal, then you will conclude that not only does it cut off a pathway for Iran getting a nuclear weapon, but it also establishes the most effective verification and inspection regime that is ever been put in place. It also ensures that we are able to monitor what they do with respect to stockpiles, plutonium, their underground facility.

Interview with Fareed Zakaria of CNN's GPS


And that it does not ask us to relinquish any of the options that we might need to exercise if, in fact, Iran cheated or if at some point they decided to try to break out. And so the reason that Mitch McConnell and the rest of the folks in his caucus who oppose this jumped out and opposed it before they even read it, before it was even posted, is reflective of a ideological commitment not to get a deal done. And in that sense, they do have a lot in common with hardliners who are much more satisfied with the status quo. You do not think you are going to get any Republican... Well, I did not say that. What I said was that there are those who, if they did not read the bill before they announced their opposition, if they are not able to offer plausible reasons why they would not support the bill or plausible alternatives in preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, other than potential military strikes, then that would indicate that they are not interested in the substance of the issue, they are interested in the politics of the issue. You talked about Iran's hardliners, the old guard. But one member of Iran's old guard certainly seems to be Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader. His Twitter feed has posted a likeness of you with a gun pointed to your head. Is this a guy you can really make a deal with? Well, as I said, Fareed, you do not negotiate deals with your friends. You negotiate them with your enemies. And superpowers do not respond to taunts. Superpowers focus on what is it that we need to do in order to preserve our national security and the national security of our allies and our friends. And I think that he tweeted that in response to me stating a fact, which is, is that if we were confronted with a situation in which we could not resolve this issue diplomatically, that we could militarily take out much of Iran's military infrastructure. I do not think there is a military expert out there that would contest that. The Supreme Leader, obviously, does not want to hear that, and I understand. But I am not interested in a Twitter back and forth with the Supreme Leader. What I am interested in is the deal itself and can we enforce it.


Keep in mind, Fareed, when we got the interim deal - as you are aware, the way this thing evolved was, first, we essentially froze their program - they had to roll back their very highly enriched uranium stockpiles. And for that, we turned on the spigot a little bit so that they could access more of their money. All the same critics of this deal suggested that this is terrible, this is a historic mistake. And for the last two years, as we have been negotiating the more comprehensive deal, not only have they continued to suggest that it was a mistake, until very recently, but the Supreme Leader was saying all kinds of anti-American stuff. They did exactly what they were supposed to do. The few times that they did not , we identified it and told them they had to correct it and they did. And, you know, the Supreme Leader is a politician, apparently, just like everybody else. What I am focused on is can we make sure that they are doing what they have to do and that we have sufficient safeguards and verification mechanisms to ensure that they do not have a nuclear weapon. And, again, Fareed, it is very important, I think, over the next several weeks, to not get distracted by tone, vote counts, is Mitch McConnell's feelings hurt. But let us address the argument. And it - the central point I was making yesterday - fairly exhaustively, it was a long speech - was that nobody has presented a plausible alternative, other than military strikes, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Nobody has presented a more effective way to ensure they do not have a nuclear weapon, including military strikes, because we know, actually, if this deal is executed, it will provide more limitations on the Iranian nuclear program for a longer period of time in a more verifiable way. Nobody has had a good answer for that. So I think the answer that some might provide is that the alternative is not war, but more pressure and a better deal and, specifically, that Iran should not have the right to enrich. There are a lot of nuclear countries with nu - peaceful nuclear programs that do not have the right to enrich. Was it impossible to stick hard on that? First of all, there is no support for that position in Iran, including opposition members who were subsequently jailed back in 2009. So you have a consensus inside of Iran that they should have a right to enrich.


The Non-Proliferation Treaty is very clear about guarding against the weaponization of nuclear power, but it does not speak to prohibitions on peaceful nuclear power. And we did not have the support of that position among our global allies who have been so critical in maintaining sanctions and applying the pressure that was necessary to get Iran to the table. And so in the real world, the alternatives you just described were not available. And, you know, I think that the notion that the United States Congress rejecting a deal that has been negotiated by the U.S. secretary of State, our top nuclear experts, with unanimous support around the world, other than the state of Israel and perhaps behind the scenes some of our allies who are also suspicious of Iran, that somehow in the face of that, countries like Russia or China would continue to voluntarily abide by sanctions in a way that would continue to put pressure on Iran is a fantasy. When we come back, much more of my exclusive interview with ENTITY from the White House. I will ask him about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Is it appropriate for a foreign head of government to inject himself into a debate this is taking place in Washington? More than four months before the Iran deal was even inked, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared before a joint meeting of the United States Congress to argue against it. Now that there is a deal between the world and Iran, Netanyahu has publicly and vocally condemned it. The Prime Minister has found many sympathetic ears for certain, but there are others - including some in Israel - who have called his rhetoric and actions into question. Prime Minister Netanyahu has injected himself forcefully into this debate on American foreign policy... Can you recall a time when a foreign head of government has done that? Is it appropriate for a foreign head of government to inject himself into an American debate? You know, I will let you ask Prime Minister Netanyahu that question if he gives you an interview. I do not recall a similar example. Obviously, the relationship between the United States and Israel is deep. It is reflected in my policies, because I have said repeatedly and, more importantly, acted on the basic notion that our commitment to Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is something that I take very seriously, which is why we provided more assistance, more military cooperation, more intelligence cooperation to Israel than any previous administration. But as I said in the speech yesterday, on the substance, the Prime Minister is wrong on this.


And I think that I can show that the basic assumptions that he is made are incorrect. If, in fact, my argument is right - that this is the best way for Iran not to get a nuclear weapon - then that is not just good for the United States, that is very good for Israel. In fact, historically, this has been the argument that has driven Prime Minister Netanyahu and achieved consensus throughout Israel. So the question has to be is there, in fact, a better path to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon than this one? And I have repeatedly asked both Prime Minister Netanyahu and others to present me a reasonable, realistic plan that would achieve exactly what this deal achieves, and I have yet to get a response. So, as I said yesterday, I completely understand why both he and the broad Israeli public would be suspicious, cautious about entering into any deal with Iran. But what I also try to remind everyone yesterday is, is that when we entered into arms treaties with the Soviet Union, they had missiles pointed at every single major American city. We actually had to constrain ourselves and reduce our firepower. Here, we are preserving all our options so that if Iran does cheat, we can still exercise the same set of options that we have in place today. And I have been very clear about the fact that if Israel were attacked by Iran, for example, there is no doubt that not just me, but any U.S. administration would do everything that we needed to do to make sure that Israel was protected. So there are all kinds of hedges if, in fact, Iran were not to abide by the deal. But if, in fact, Iran does abide by the deal, as it has the interim deal over the last two years, then we have purchased, at a very small price, one of the single most important national security objectives that both the United States and Israel has. There is been some debate about the amount of money that Iran will get as a result of sanctions relief. Whatever the amount is, it is clear, they are going to get some resources... and some part of it, and they being out of the sanctions regime, will be... will be - will be applied to their economy, but some of it...


So I want to be clear, are you saying to the region, to the Gulf States, to other Arab - to Arab countries, look, this is inevitable, Iran is going to play an increased role in the region, get used to it? I think the message is that the nefarious activities that Iran engages in, whether it is providing arms to Hezbollah or stirring up destabilizing activities among some of their Gulf neighbors, is something that they have been able to do consistently at very low cost - that I have no doubt that as Iran's economy improved or they got some financial inflows that relieves some fiscal pressure on their military, they may be able to fund some additional activities. And the reason that Iran has been effective has less to do with the amount of money they have spent. It has more to do with the fact that although Gulf countries, for example, spend eight times more, at least combined, on defense than Iran's entire defense budget, they have not deployed it in ways that have been as strategically effective. And part of the function of our meeting up at Camp David with Gulf leaders was to describe how we can work with them to create a more effective counter to these kinds of activities. And, you know, whether it is countering cyber-attacks or a possible ballistic missile threat, but more typically, the kinds of asymmetric proxy activities that Iran has developed over the last several decades, you know, those are things that we know how to do if all those countries are cooperating and we are doing it systematically. That will have a greater impact than simply preventing this deal from taking place. The flip side of it is if Iran is able to get a nuclear weapon, if its breakout time remains as short it is - as it is right now and they are installing advanced centrifuges and so on, then they will be emboldened to engage in more of the activities that have been discussed, which are not constrained or bound by the amount of money Iran has, but rather have to do with the very strategic decisions that Iran is making at any given time. We will be back with the ENTITY in just a moment. We are in the Map Room of the White House. The Map House was essentially an early version of the Situation Room during World War II. It was where Franklin Delano Roosevelt came to ponder next moves in the war. I will ask ENTITY if he will need to seriously think about a war with Iran if this deal falls through.


Back now with ENTITY on Iran, ISIS, the Taliban, and what happens if the nuclear deal falls through. Right now, Iran is probably one of the strongest fighting forces against ISIS. In Afghanistan, it has historically been opposed to the Taliban, just as the United States has. Do you think that this - these overlapping interests might allow for a more productive and constructive relation between the United States and Iran? I think it is conceivable but the premise of this deal is not that Iran warms toward the United States or that we are engaging in any kind of strategic reassessment of the relationship. Within the four corners of the agreement, we deal with the nuclear problem. I think we are doing that better than any other alternative. Is there the possibility that having begun conversations around this narrow issue that you start getting some broader discussions about Syria, for example, and the ability of all the parties involved to try to arrive at a political transition that keeps the country intact and does not further fuel the growth of ISIL and other terrorist organizations - I think that is possible. Well, I... you know, what I have been encouraged by is that the Russians are now more interested in discussions around what a political transition - or at least framework for talks - would look like inside of Syria. And presumably, Iran is seeing some of the same trends that are not good for them. And I do think that it is even conceivable that Saudi Arabia and Iran, at some point, would begin to recognize that their enemy is chaos as much as anything else. And what ISIL represents and what the collapse of Syria or Yemen or others represent is far more dangerous than whatever rivalries that may exist between those two nation states. If this deal falls through somehow and what you predict does happen - Iran does go back to trying to produce centrifuges on an industrial scale; it perhaps restarts some of the weaponization programs - are you worried that you would confront, within your remaining term, the strong possibility that you might have to use nuclear - that you might have to use military force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? I have a general policy on big issues like this not to anticipate failure. And I am not going to anticipate failure now because I think we have the better argument. And I just go back again and again, Fareed, to those who are opposed to the deal cannot just say we want a better deal.


The Challenge of Cooperation in the Americas . In your second term, you have focused on policies to try to reduce the inequity and the gap between rich and poor people. What kind of concrete commitments are you expecting from the Summit and how US can help the region to fight inequity As ENTITY, I have pledged to our brothers and sisters in Latin America that the United States will work with the countries and people of the region as equal partners, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. That is because I believe the opportunities and challenges we face as a hemisphere can only be solved by all of us working together, in a spirit of shared responsibility-and that includes addressing the injustice of economic inequality. I think this summit can build on the incredible progress the region has made in recent decades. Economic growth, trade and a shared commitment to expanding opportunity has lifted countless millions of people from poverty. Since 2002 the middle class has nearly doubled, and countries like Brazil and Mexico have middle class majorities for the first time in history. That said, alongside the region's new wealth, about a third of people across the region still endure grinding poverty, and it is still too hard for them to access the education, health care and basic service their families need. This is not just a drag on economic growth, it is a moral challenge to us all. I believe that the most effective way to close this gap is to unleash broad-based economic growth that creates new opportunities and to expand access to the tools people need to lift themselves out of poverty-including education, skills and job training. That is why we have boosted the trade and investment that creates jobs. Across the region, we are expanding access to electricity and connecting families and communities to the global economy. Our Small Business Network of the Americas is helping grow 250,000 small businesses throughout the region, and our WEAmericas initiative is helping to empower women entrepreneurs. And through our 100,000 Strong in the Americas Initiative and other educational exchange programs, we are connecting our students, young people, and entrepreneurs with each other and with the skills and networks they need to collaborate and succeed in the 21st century. My trip this week will build on this work. In Jamaica, I will be announcing a new initiative to empower young entrepreneurs and civil society leaders across the Americas, and I will be working with Caribbean leaders to promote cleaner and more sustainable energy.

Interview with EFE Newswire


The Summit of the Americas in Panama is an opportunity to keep improving the competitiveness of the region, which is why the United States will be encouraging all the countries in the Americas to ratify the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. I also look forward to meeting again with leaders from across Central America as part of our continuing effort to partner with their countries to strengthen governance and improve economic and security conditions so more people in these countries have the opportunity to live in safety and prosperity. At the same time, every government has a responsibility to do its part by ensuring the good governance and transparency that attracts trade, investment and the economic partnerships that lead to greater prosperity for all, as well as promoting the social inclusion that gives people of all backgrounds the opportunity to succeed. Cuba will be making its first-ever appearance at the Summit, which will bring all the countries of the region together for the first time. Are you ready, along with the Cuban, to announce in this Summit the reopening of the embassies in Washington and Havana? Do you think that the Cuban regime is doing enough to improve the situation of human rights in the country and make progress in that field? The historic policy changes that I announced in December represented a break with an approach that for more than 50 years had failed to promote improved political or economic conditions for the Cuban people. As part of that announcement, both the Cuban and U.S. governments committed to negotiate the re-establishment of diplomatic relations, broken since 1961, and the United States intends to carry through with this commitment. Secretary of State Kerry and his team have already engaged in our highest-level and most intense set of bilateral discussions with Cuba in decades. Our diplomats are making significant progress and I am confident that we will be able to move forward with the re-opening of embassies. That said, re-opening embassies is only one part of the broader process of normalizing relations between our two countries. In the meantime, our governments have already begun talks on issues such as civil aviation, human rights, and telecommunications and other issues affecting the citizens of both our countries. I strongly believe that this engagement will be good for the United States and Cuba; improve the lives of the Cuban people; and promote more effective cooperation across the hemisphere. Our new approach toward Cuba will also facilitate increased engagement with the Cuban people, including an increased flow of resources and information to the Cuban people-and it is already showing results.

Interview with EFE Newswire


We are seeing increased contacts between the people of Cuba and the United States, and the enthusiasm of the Cuba people for these changes proves that we are on the right path. As I said in December, we will continue to have significant differences with the Cuban government, including on issues related to human rights. The United States will always support universal values such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. During the Summit of the Americas, I will be meeting with civil society leaders from across the region, including Cuba, as I regularly do in different countries around the world, because we believe that civil society has a critical role to play in supporting progress in all of our societies. The request of 1 billion dollars to help Central America countries to improve their security in order to contain illegal immigration to US still need the approval by Congress. Besides, your executive orders on immigration are stuck in courts. So, what are you going to do to try to move forward in both issues? The $1 billion that I have requested for our strategy in Central America is not simply for security alone or focused exclusively on the spike in migration that we saw. Rather, it is part of our comprehensive approach to partner with Central American countries as they address the underlying factors that have led many in the past to take the dangerous journey north, including violence and poverty. It builds my Administration's ongoing efforts to promote security and prosperity in the region, including successful, community-level violence prevention programs. Throughout my trip this week, I will continue to make the case for our $1 billion request to Congress, which aims to help Central America's leaders make the difficult reforms and investments required to address the region's interlocking security, governance and economic challenges. The people of the region are seeking the same things as people everywhere-institutions that are democratic, effective, accountable and transparent, communities that are safe for their families, and economies that are integrated so the region can compete in the global economy. The United States is determined to be their partner in building that future. At the same time, I remain deeply committed to fixing our broken immigration system. The executive actions that I announced last year are designed to fix some of our current problems, and while some of these actions are temporarily on hold by our courts, I am confident that the law is on our side and that we will ultimately prevail.

Interview with EFE Newswire


Still, the actions I took are not a substitute for the comprehensive, bipartisan reform that we need to improve our broader immigration system, where millions of people continue to live in the shadows. And so I remain committed to working with Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. ENTITY, there is a global perception about US losing influence and presence in the Americas. Regional organizations like Unasur or Celac are seen more effective and powerful than OAS and, for example, Brazil has joined the China-led bank known as AIIB. Do you think US is still the main and most important ally for the region? Yes, because the relationship between the United States and the Americas is like no other in the world. We are inextricably linked by ties of family, commerce, culture, shared values and our aspirations for the future. We are bound by tens of millions of Hispanic Americans, the fastest-growing group in America that will only become more influential in the decades ahead. And since I took office, we have deepened our partnerships with Latin America, including economic ties-boosting U.S. exports to the region by nearly 70 percent. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that our relationship with the Americas is the best it is been in many decades. The new chapter of engagement that we have begun with Cuba has been welcomed across the region and is an historic opportunity to also advance regional cooperation and progress. The United States is leading the international effort to support Caribbean nations as they secure their energy future. We are the partner of choice for the countries of the Northern Triangle as they tackle the region's security and developmental challenges. We are working in partnership with Canada, Chile, Mexico, and Peru to conclude a 21st century trade agreement in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. When it comes to standing up for the security, prosperity and human rights of the people of the Americas, no one does as much, in more places, as the United States. While it is true that the region has changed dramatically over the last two decades, it has done so in a way that largely aligns with our values and advances our national interests. We can take pride in the fact that the inter-American community today is a region free of inter-state conflicts and broadly dedicated to democratic principles, social progress, and sustainable growth. We very much want countries in the Americas reaching out and cementing commercial relationships with Europe, Africa, India, and Asia-it can mean more prosperity and opportunity for us all.

Interview with EFE Newswire


We welcome the contributions of any country and regional organization that is actively working toward our shared objective of achieving a hemisphere that is democratic, more prosperous and secure from Canada to Chile. As the countries of the Americas expand their international relationships and take on a more active global role - a role that largely advances our shared values and interests - it is natural that other international actors and new sub-regional organizations will play a greater role in the region. If those countries and organizations work to uphold regional security, prosperity and human rights, then it is a good thing. In March, you issued an executive order to impose sanctions to Venezuela and declaring Venezuela a national security threat . That executive order has been rejected by some countries in the region. Why do you think this order was the right choice to confront the situation in Venezuela? Are you open to have a direct dialogue with Venezuelan? I want to be clear-our deep and abiding interest is in a Venezuela that is prosperous, stable, democratic, and secure. The United States is Venezuela's largest trading partner, with over $40 billion in bilateral trade a year. We have deep and long-standing connections between families and our citizens. I am a firm believer in diplomatic engagement, and the United States remains open to direct dialogue with the Venezuelan government to discuss any matter of mutual concern. Venezuela is confronting enormous challenges right now. For many months Venezuela's neighbors sought to promote an internal dialogue and a political solution to the divisions tearing at Venezuelan society, hoping to prevent the situation in Venezuela from negatively impacting others in the region. We have consistently supported that kind of dialogue, and we continue to see it as the best way for Venezuela to move forward. This does not mean that we, or any other member of the inter-American community, should remain silent about our concerns regarding the situation in Venezuela. We do not believe that Venezuela poses a threat to the United States, nor does the United States threaten the Venezuelan government. But we do remain very troubled by the Venezuelan government's efforts to escalate intimidation of its political opponents, including the arrest and prosecution of elected officials on political charges, and the continued erosion of human rights, as we would be troubled by such developments in any other country in the world. That is why the sanctions that we imposed were focused on discouraging human rights violations and corruption. These sanctions are focused specifically on individuals responsible for the persecution of political opponents, curtailment of press freedoms, use of violence and arbitrary arrest and detention.

Interview with EFE Newswire


I am going to put out a perception I have always had of you, and if I am wrong you can riff off it. You being born in Hawaii, and the ancestry that you have had, and beyond that you having a cosmopolitan experience very early on living elsewhere-this is a blunt way to say it, but it occurs to me you had an opportunity to just check out. I never perceived myself as having much choice about being black, and I have always wondered why you have made the choice. And I do not know if you perceived it as a choice-maybe you felt the same way, like you did not have one. You could have been one of these rootless cosmopolitans working on some other issues. I wonder how you came to think of yourself as black and why. Well, part of my understanding of race is that it is more of a social construct than a biological reality. And in that sense, if you are perceived as African American, then you are African American. Now, you can-that can mean a whole lot of things. And one of the things I cured myself of fairly early on, and I think the African American community has moved away from, is this notion that there is one way to be black. And so you are right that I could have been an African American who worked for an international organization and was not engaged in the day-to-day struggles, politically or culturally, that the African American community faces. There are a lot of African Americans who may make those decisions, and they are still African American, but they are just living their lives in a different way. I think for me, first and foremost, I always felt as if being black was cool. Part of it is, I think, that my mother thought black folks were cool, and if your mother loves you and is praising you-and says you look good, are smart-as you are, then you do not kind of think in terms of How can I avoid this? You feel pretty good about it. By the time I was cognizant of race, American culture had gone through enough changes that as a child, I was not just receiving constant negative messages about being black.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


It is true that I did not have the role models that Malia and Sasha have, but I could look at a Dr. J, or a Marvin Gaye, or a Thurgood Marshall and feel as if the embrace of African American culture was not going to hold me back but rather propel me forward, that it was exciting to be part of a group that had struggles but also had a huge potential. I think it was not until I was in high school that I started seeing complications around it, and I started to think about it explicitly. I wrote about this in my first book, but even when I started perceiving discrimination, or racism, or just the disadvantages of being a minority, that felt more like a challenge than something to fear. I think probably the final element of this is, when I moved to the mainland, that was the first time where I confronted what at that time, and to some degree to this day, was the segregation of communities. And I did have to make, I think, a conscious choice to root myself physically and professionally in the African American community. I never wanted to be somebody who looked like I was avoiding who I saw in the mirror. And disconnected from race, and more connected to the nature of me growing up, I did not like the idea of being rootless. You did not like the idea of being rootless. Michelle and I always joke-but it is not really a joke, I think it is an insight-that, in some ways, we saw in each other elements that we had not had growing up. In Michelle I saw roots. I saw a nuclear family, neighborhood, community, continuity. In me she saw adventure, cosmopolitanism. And so the fact that I had not grown up with a stable family, that I had not grown up with a father in the house or a community of which I was a part on a continuing basis-I had great friends, I had loving family members, but I did not have a place-that, I think, warned me off of the kind of life you described of just floating around and enjoying life but never being fully invested in it. You can imagine me as an Irishman deciding to want to live in a neighborhood with some Irish folks and embracing that side of myself. As somebody who began to travel relatively later, I had this moment when I was at this town in Switzerland and had to switch trains to get to a larger town.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


And I had started my life and thought in that moment I could get on a train and go anywhere. Nobody would know me. In some ways I saw that in my mother, as somebody who had lived an expatriate life. She loved Indonesia-really found meaningful work there, made great friends-but at the end of the day did not have a place that was solidly hers. And I think there were elements of that I saw as a kid as being lonely or a loss. You know, certainly not the majority of the African American community, but certainly a privileged few of us are now raising children who are growing up-I am thinking of my own son-with all these different experiences- Is that need for home still there? Is that still important in the same way? It is interesting watching Malia and Sasha, who have obviously lived in as strange and unreal an environment as any kids do. They feel very strongly about their African American roots. And that, I think, is a great gift to bequeath them, where they know they have got a home, they know they have got a base, they know who they are. But they do not think that in any way constrains them. And certainly they are not burdened by the sorts of doubts that previous generations-and even our generation-might have felt in what it means to be black. It is interesting, when we went to visit the museum, Smithsonian , just watching them soak it in. And they are well-informed young people, so they knew most of the history, and I forget which one of them just said, I cannot wait to bring my friends here. And I think she was not just referring to African American friends but her white friends. She said, Because face it, our stuff's cool. We have got Michael Jordan, Beyonc?, Dr. King. What you got? So there is a confidence that they project, which does not mean they are not mindful that there're still struggles. You hear them talking about what black women have to go through with hair and they will go on a long rant-just the inconvenience and expense that they still feel is forced upon them, not just by the white community but the black community. They will still notice a certain obliviousness of even their best friends on certain issues. But they do not feel trapped by that. They do not feel as if that is determinative of their possibilities.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


And I think they would say that the upsides really outweigh the downsides. They like the community. Do you recall the first time you were aware of folks saying, ENTITY, you are not really black ? When I look back-and I kept journals during this time, I was really in my own head-but from the age of, say, 18 to 25, when I first moved from Hawaii and I am living in L.A. and New York and ultimately Chicago, what strikes me is less the lack of acceptance and more just my own self-consciousness. That one of the wonderful things, I believe, about the African American community is the degree to which we embrace whoever it is that we are with. The friends I made in my first year in college who were African American, there was never that You are not black enough. You are from Hawaii. There were times where you'd feel it in terms of friendships and groups, right? Because you went to Howard, you are in an all-black environment, that does not come up. You have got your white friends, or you have got black friends, and they do not necessarily hang together in the same ways. So you are kind of doing shuttle diplomacy sometimes. Which is why I think some of my closest friends during those early years in college were Pakistani, or French, or people who themselves did not neatly fit in categories. But by the time I get to Chicago-and I am still a young man at that point, I am 25 years old-and I am in the middle of the South Side of Chicago, there was a degree of familiarity, and love, and comfort that I guess in retrospect you might be puzzled by it. Now, there were times as an organizer, and certainly when I ran for office, where that stuff got brought in tactically or strategically by folks who I was dealing with. So you got some pastor, some alderman, who did not like what we were trying to do, who says, You know what? That guy, he is got Jewish backing, or He is working with this Catholic church, or He is from Hawaii. He is got that Harvard degree, and he is from Hyde Park. But I always experienced those as just tactics being deployed by somebody who was pushing back on something I was trying to do. Did it bother you on any level? Again, it did not . Because of the experiences I had had in the neighborhoods, and communities, and with regular folks.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


They are not sort of measuring on a day-to-day basis, Okay, is what you are doing a white thing, or is it a black thing? Folks were not doing stuff like that. And in fact, among working-class black folks, you doing things that were not typical oftentimes was a source of pride. So I remember my first job out of college was working for this business magazine-subscription magazine-and I was the only African American there who was not a delivery man or some tech-support guy. Most of the African Americans in the office were secretaries and, you know, they were proud that I was walking in there and working. So I think that gave me a base and a sense of confidence. So if somebody was playing a game later on, I know that Well, they are not speaking for, quote-unquote, 'the authentic black experiences,' because I live with folks who are at least as authentic as you . Sometimes it is like these rappers who grew up in the suburbs and suddenly they are all- It is like, Come on, man, I know you. I talked to quite a few people who knew you after that Bobby Rush race, and there were people who-Valerie told me this-did not want you to run for the Senate. How personally-maybe you were not , I do not know, maybe this does not get to you-were you personally injured after that? I was upset about losing as bad as I did in that congressional race, and there is no doubt it shook my confidence. But it was not because of race. I remember campaigning in the congressional race, and it was a shoestring operation. I'd go meet people and I'd knock on doors and stuff, and some of the grandmothers who were the folks I'd been organizing and working with doing community stuff, they were not parroting back some notion of You are too Harvard, or You are too Hyde Park, or what have you. They'd say, You are a wonderful young man, you are going to do great things. So I did not feel the loss as a rejection by black people. I felt the loss as politics anywhere is tough. Politics in Chicago is especially tough. And being able to break through in the African American community is difficult because of the enormous loyalty that people feel towards anybody who has been around a while. Look at Marion Barry in D.C.-or you can come up with all kinds of stories.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


And so I think that the loss made me question my career choice not because of racial issues, but rather because it made me question whether, in fact, there was a path for me to be able to break through and have a platform to get the kind of things done that I wanted to get done. Or was I destined to just slog away in the state legislature until I am 55, and then some congressional race comes up, and now I am a backbencher in Congress-and is that how I wanted to spend the next 20 years? So those were the kinds of questions that I was asking myself. I am an African American and my grandfather was this and my mother was this, and you'd be very clear about it. Is that a story you always told yourself?   By the time I was running for office, I think, I was sort of formed. That stretch that I described-maybe you want to stretch it out from the age of 18 to 27, when I go to law school-I was wrestling with myself and trying to game this out, and to figure this out, and it was not a smooth passage. When I look back at journal entries, when I read biographies of me that talk about that stretch, I am full of confusion and turmoil and doubts. The degree to which my organizing work in Chicago, I think, solved a puzzle for me, I cannot overstate. I did not set the world on fire when I was doing that work. We had some small victories, and a whole lot of failures. The people I worked with and the communities I was serving gave so much more to me than I think I gave to them. It is hard to think how I could repay them. I still think about them in the Oval Office. It was a great gift they gave me, understanding who I was, or at least who I aspired to be. So that by the time I am off to law school, I am pretty formed at that point. What was it that it gave you? What is the relationship between that and sorting out who you were? For me, and this may be different for other people, part of becoming an adult is linking your personal ambitions and striving to something bigger. And when I started doing that work, my story merges with a larger story. That happens naturally for a John Lewis. That happens more naturally for you. It was less obvious to me.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


Kenya and Hawaii and Kansas, and white and black and Asian-how does that fit? And through action, through work, I suddenly see myself as part of the bigger process for, yes, delivering justice for the , and specifically the South Side community, and low-income people-justice on behalf of the African American community. But also thereby promoting my ideas of justice and equality and empathy that my mother taught me were universal. So I am in a position to understand those essential parts of me not as separate and apart from any particular community but connected to every community. And I can fit the African American struggle for freedom and justice in the context of the universal aspiration for freedom and justice. Which is why I have always said, and I continue to believe that, the struggle for racial equality in America has been the essential catalyst for America's growth and development. As painful as it is, as ugly as that history has often been, as hard as it is been on black folks themselves, it is the driver of the expanded moral commitment. And because of it, we better understand other struggles. It helps stretch our moral imaginations to embrace the Latino farmworker, or the LGBT kid who is feeling ostracized, or the woman who is hitting the glass ceiling. So the work helped me form an integrated vision of the world and my place in it in a way that would not have happened if I had been a professor reading about it or writing about it, but they would just be intellectual exercises. Did your mother ever get to see you working in Chicago? She never went along with me. She was doing her own thing. When we visited it was typically in Hawaii. That stretch of time when I was organizing was a particularly busy time for her. So she always expressed pride about the work, and interestingly, it was not all that different from some of the work she was doing. She was out in poor villages trying to help people leverage microloans into a better life. Probably the moment where things most intersected in a way that she sees it is at our wedding, which is why I end the book at the wedding. Because I have got some South Side folks there, I have got my boys from Hawaii there, I have got Pakistani friends there, I have got my Kenyan family there.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


And to see my mom talking to my mother-in-law, or my Kenyan sister; to have some folks from Altgeld come up to my mother and say, You should be so proud of your son ; to see my grandmother, a little old Kansas white lady, interacting with some of Michelle's older relatives, little old black ladies, and they basically had the same tastes and attitudes-it was, I think, a moment where, in a very personal way, everything I talked about was made manifest. We still have the old video from our wedding, and when I watch it, it reminds me of how lucky I have been. How difficult was it, thinking about that, when you had to sever your relationship with Reverend Wright during the campaign? strong, somebody who embraced learning, somebody who was socially conscious and taught black folks to respect themselves and the culture. And he was a friend, somebody who I was very fond of. In a way that is true, I think, for all subcultures that are not part of the majority culture. There are things that are said in the barber shop, the beauty salon, or folks are just talking stuff, and there is a certain tolerance for exaggerations, for saying things for effect, for smack talking, that are complicated. They are not always meant literally as much as they are expressing emotions or making a point. As I said in my speech in Philadelphia, the blind spots that he possessed are the blind spots that that generation of African American men at some moments all have possessed, it would be impossible not to possess. He grew up-he was 15 years older than me-if you are coming of age in the late '40s, early '50s, early '60s, or the '70s in Philadelphia, or Alabama, or Oakland, or Baltimore, it would be superhuman not to have some vestiges of anger, not to have internalized some conspiracy theorizing, to not have blind spots. I may have said this to you in the interview that we had, but I was rewatching Spike Lee's Malcolm X. Did I say that to you? It just happened to be on a few weeks ago, and I was watching it. As crazy as Elijah Muhammad's philosophies were, if you went through what Malcolm Little goes through- It all makes sense. There is a plausibility to those theories as a way of you just explaining what is happening to you.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


And so Reverend Wright is part of that transition from a black community, in which its men and its women are trapped in a vicious social construction, to an environment that you and I grew up in, in which suddenly there is openings and spaces are cleared, in part because of the work that they did, in part because of the struggles, and fights, and the sharp edges, and the elbows, and mistakes-but ultimately victories and triumphs-of our parents and our grandparents. To expect the broader American society to absorb that in the course of a political campaign was not possible. I did my best in my speech in Philadelphia. But recall that I am not severing the relationship until the Press Club interview in which Reverend Wright, I think feeling hurt, feeling misunderstood, showing his age, doubled down in ways that actually I had not seen out of him in church or in my previous interactions. From the outside, it looked like you did not want to sever the relationship. My hope was, after the Philadelphia speech, which was not clear to me was going to work and involved some risk, my hope was that that would contextualize what had happened. And look, the fact was that some of the quotes that he had that I had not heard-frankly, I was not in church every Sunday-were things I would have to reject, they were just wrong. The same way that, even after his trip to Mecca, Malcolm would still be saying some stuff that I said, Well, that is just not right. So that saddened me. And anybody who has sat in Trinity, as I wrote about-his father is the amazing pastor who actually gave me the idea for the Joshua speech that I made the first time I went to Selma-anybody who has gone to Trinity and sat there would say it is a magnificent community that Reverend Wright built, and it is doing a lot of good. It can never capture all the complexity and contradictions in life. So you end up having to try to be true in a way that can be consumed for a mass audience, but you are always missing some elements of it. You are always leaving some things out. And that is part of the reason why race is such a difficult thing to deal with in politics, because the evolution of racial identity, racial relationships, institutional racism, is never similar. But anything you say on the topic of race, there is a counterargument, there is an exception, there is a nuance.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


And that is part of the reason why, I think, it creates frustration. It is also why situations that look ambiguous can lead to people dividing into camps very quickly. We think of the two episodes of me running for ENTITY, or being ENTITY, that on their face, should not have been as charged as they were. The first is when I say at the end of a long day, towards the end of a long campaign, that part of the reason that you had a lot of working-class whites supporting a Republican agenda that on its face does not seem to be serving their interest is because they have given up hope that the system is going to look out for them. So their attitude is that, If you are not going to help me get a job, if you are not going do anything concrete for me, then at least I am going to cling onto my religion and my Second Amendment rights . And I said that not from an unsympathetic perspective. that these communities feel ignored, and so it is much easier for them to think in terms of those constants in their identity. But just by saying, They cling to their guns and Bibles made it, as David Axelrod said right after I said it, anthropological, made it sound patronizing, and to this day is the primary proof point that is used to argue that I am not sympathetic towards those communities, that I am sort of this elitist, coastal liberal, and in part responsible for the backlash to my presidency. And if I had been a white person saying the exact same thing, it would not have played the same way. If I had said it the way I meant it or felt it, it would have been absorbed differently. But because there was a racial component to it, immediately it becomes a permanent talking point. And then you have got Skip Gates being arrested, which, to me, I was saying something pretty obvious. They ended up handcuffing this middle-aged, elderly man on his own porch. No matter how much he cursed you out, you overreacted, and it probably would not have happened had there not been some assumptions about who he was based on his race. Again, immediately folks ignored the discussion.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates