And was that made clear today to them, that they can do more? Well, I do not have a detailed readout of the meeting. But you can check with my NSC colleagues to see if you can get a better sense of how this issue was discussed in the meeting. And shortly after the video came out of the burning of the Jordanian pilot, it was said that this could be a way to bring in more of the Arab participation. Because really it is only been about 3 percent of the airstrikes have come from Arab partners and other countries. It just seems like it has not changed for the duration of this. Well, ENTITY, I think there are a lot of different ways to evaluate this, and certainly the easiest way to evaluate this is to take a close look at the way in which Arab countries have participated in our military operations against ISIL. And as we pointed out on a number of occasions, there are important Arab partners who are taking action alongside American military pilots to strike ISIL targets in Syria. And we certainly welcome that contribution and it is making a tangible contribution to our ongoing effort and to our broader strategy. There also was an important role for them, for our partners in the region, to play when it comes to shutting down ISIL financing; that there is a lot of money that is moving through that region -- whether it is the black market for oil to other sources of illicit financing for their operations. We are also working with the Qataris and other regional partners to combat ISIL's efforts to move foreign fighters into that region. You will recall that the President convened a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss this important issue last fall. We continue to work with our partners around the globe and in the region on those efforts. And we also work with Muslim leaders in the region to try to counter the extremist ideology that ISIL propagated on social media; that there is an important role for more moderate voices in the Muslim world to stand up and to use their influence to try to counter that messaging. And we certainly welcome the influence of political leaders in that effort as well. And really quickly, on Bob McDonald misstating his past service -- does that bother the President or the administration? Well, ENTITY, I can tell you that, obviously, as you know, Secretary McDonald went to West Point. He served in the 82nd Airborne. He is somebody who, when he was in the military, completed jungle, arctic, and desert warfare training.


So he is somebody who understands firsthand the sacrifice that our men and women in uniform make on a regular basis. He is also somebody who understands firsthand about why what he said about his service was wrong, and that certainly is why it was appropriate for him to apologize. But there is no reason to think that the mistake that he made should interfere with his ability to continue to lead the fight for our veterans and to continue to implement the kinds of reforms at the VA that are so critical to making sure that our veterans are getting the benefits that they deserve. First, yesterday I asked you about whether or not the President would be calling congressional leaders to the White House to try to work out some agreement to prevent the Homeland Security shutdown from happening. I do not know of any meeting like that that is planned at this point. But like I said, I believe that members of Congress are still returning from their week-long recess last week and once they are all back in town, if it is necessary for the President to bring some of them down to the White House and have a conversation about this, then we will do that. Do you think it would be productive given what you just said about how the President has been out of the Senate for a number of years, does not want to get engaged in these questions of procedural -- I think the point is that it is their responsibility to work this through. And again, Republicans spent a lot of time trying to persuade the American people that they should be entrusted with the reins of the United States Congress and be entrusted with the power of the purse. And we need to see if they are going to step up and assume responsibility. Again, there are probably going to be some times over the course of this year where Republicans in Congress are going to have to make some really tough decisions and take some really difficult votes. I am not really sure why funding the Department of Homeland Security and making sure that that funding does not lapse is considered a difficult task. But again, this is a challenge for Republican leaders to decide if they can demonstrate to the American public that they are going to continue to act in the country's best interests. On the Iran nuclear talks, you said that the White House is not negotiating for a 10-year sunset, basically, a 10-year -- a point where Iran would be able to become effectively a nuclear power. Is the administration, is the White House, the President opposed to a timeline that is so short?

Barack Obama Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest


You said you are not pushing for it, you are not arguing for it, you are not negotiating for it. Well, again, ENTITY, I have used this analogy on other occasions, or on other topics. It is not something that you and I can negotiate from here, that ultimately we are going to have a conversation with the Iranians about the way that they can resolve the international community's concerns with their nuclear program. At this point, there is not more detail that I can share about the negotiating position of the United States other than to say that those reports from earlier today were not accurate and did not accurately reflect our negotiating. I understand why you would not want to negotiate it here, obviously, but this seems to be a pretty fundamental question. The report that you now said was inaccurate, but I am trying to get how much of -- I do not want to use the word red line, but how much of an absolute non-starter that is. The report suggested a deal taking place with the Iranians after a period of just 10 years, where it would basically have no restrictions on their ability to enrich uranium. Well, what is unacceptable is the idea that Iran would obtain a nuclear weapon. And that has been our policy for quite some time. And the whole purpose of these negotiations is to make sure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. And the reason for that is that it would be terribly destabilizing for the region. It could precipitate, and I think we could even say is likely to precipitate a nuclear arms race in what is already a very volatile region of the world. That would not be in the best interests of American national security, and it certainly would not be in the best interest of our closest ally in the region, Israel. So that is why we are engaged in these negotiations. And once we have -- the President has indicated that the time for conducting these kinds of negotiations is running short, and so once we have sort of reached the other end of these things, we can have a more detailed conversation about what that deal is. And can you confirm --there was some confusion about the deadline. Is the deadline for these talks March 24th, as White House officials have suggested in the past, or is it March 31st? You mean March 24th or 31st? I know that it is -- I have always heard people say it is the end of the month.


So let me see if I can get back to you with a specific -- if there is a date certain. The Republican leaders have said that the President vetoing Keystone would be a political move to please environmental extremists. What is your response to that? Well, the reason the President will veto this legislation that has passed the Congress is that it circumvents a longstanding administrative process for evaluating whether or not infrastructure projects like this are in the best interest of the country. And it does not represent a specific position on the pipeline itself. It just merely says that the benefits, the consequences of building that pipeline should be thoroughly evaluated by experts and through this administrative process that has existed for decades and has been used by previous Presidents of both parties to evaluate similar infrastructure projects. And that is the proper path moving forward, but does not represent a final disposition of the Keystone project. I know the Vice President and the Secretary of State will be out of town next week during the start of -- actually during the whole AIPAC conference. Will an administration official be addressing the AIPAC conference at all? We will have more information on that soon. Obviously we have received an invitation from AIPAC and we will get back to them. So we should expect just a name -- it is not whether you are going to have an administration official attend the conference. It is just a matter of figuring out which administration official actually addresses AIPAC? Well, again, I think -- we have received the invitation from AIPAC. We are considering the invitation. And once we have made a decision we will get back to AIPAC about who the speakers will be, and then we will be in a position to talk about it. The President has expressed more optimism about bipartisan -- Who is been invited and what the President's hopes are for that legislation? ENTITY, I would anticipate that we will have a list of lawmakers who participate in that meeting. Both Democrats and Republicans were invited, and I would anticipate that there will be a bipartisan group of members at the meeting.


The President, as you point out, does view this as an opportunity for us to find some common ground to move the country forward; that there are some Republicans who have raised similar concerns that the President himself has discussed about our criminal justice system, about reforms that could make our system more consistent with our values of fairness and justice and equality that certainly the President believes are really important, and I know that many of the members -- that all the members who are participating in the meeting also believe are important. So this is an area that is worthy of careful consideration and consultation because there might be an opportunity for Congress to act in bipartisan fashion with the strong support of the President to put in place reforms to our system that would make our nation more just. So the President is looking forward to that discussion. I would anticipate that we will have, like I said, a list of the members who participate and at least a general overview of that meeting once it concludes. ENTITY, yesterday, Governor Fallin, after she met with the National Governors Association, with the President, reported that the President said he was open to crude exports from the U.S. Is that an accurate characterization of what the President told the governors? And is that sort of a shift in position from what he has previously said? I was not in the room when that exchange occurred, so it is hard for me to accurately reflect the way the question was asked and the way it was answered. What I can do, though, is assure you that the policy of the administration has not changed, that crude oil export regulations are administered by the Department of Commerce. That is where these kinds of regulations are considered. And I do not have sort of change to announce at this point. Following up on Iran, is it the administration's position that you would want a permanent agreement, one that has no timeline whatsoever, to meet the goal that you said repeatedly, which is to ensure there is never a development of a nuclear weapon? Well, I think what we want is we want an agreement that is verifiable and we certainly want one that all parties live up to. And again, in terms of what kind of time constraints are placed in the context of the negotiations and how long people would be signing up, that is not something I am going to prejudge or be in a position to talk about from here. answer suggests that the administration is open to a timeline of some kind. I recognize that.


I guess what I am trying to say is I am just not going to be in a position to talk about the details of our negotiating position with the Iranians. And the reason for that is simply that we have agreed on the front end with our international partners who are joining us at the table and with the Iranians that we can have an open, candid dialogue in the context of these negotiations with the goal of trying to reach an agreement. And attempts to try to influence those negotiations by talking about them outside of the context of the negotiations are not going to be helpful to that process. But my point is, we will have an opportunity at some point, -- on or around the end of March, we will have an opportunity to discuss either the framework for an agreement that is been reached, or we will be able to discuss why we were not able to reach an agreement despite the common-sense, reasonable proposal that is been put forward by the international community. And your interest in understanding exactly what was put forward is a reasonable one, but one that I cannot discuss right now. Have you reconciled in your own mind how you could describe to the country an agreement that had a timeline that also met the standard of Iran never obtaining a nuclear weapon? whether or not Iran can obtain a nuclear weapon. and whether or not it will resolve the international community's concerns about their efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon. So that is the focal point of these negotiations. And again, once we are in a position to evaluate either an agreement that has been reached, or an offer that was made an then rejected by the Iranians, we can talk in more detail about the negotiating position that was assumed by the United States and our international partners, and how it was possible to reconcile that with the policy goals that we have stated, the most important of which you have reiterated here, which is to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. On Secretary McDonald -- a couple of veterans groups have said they accept his apology, but said it raises questions in their minds about his trustworthiness. And they do not talk just about this, but they have also made mention of misstatements that the Secretary may have intentionally or unintentionally made about how many people have been fired and held accountable in some of the implementation of reforms. Is the President satisfied that Secretary McDonald is trustworthy and is, in fact, implementing all of the reforms and legislation he recently signed?


The President believes that Secretary McDonald has a very difficult task in front of him to try to bring much-needed reforms to the VA. And this is a task that generations of VA secretaries have tried to accomplish. Many of them have made progress, and the President is pleased with the progress that Secretary McDonald has made so far. And the reason that Secretary McDonald has been successful so far is that not only does he bring with him some private sector management experience that I do think is useful when trying to get his arms around a large government agency like this and manage it efficiently, or at least as efficiently as possible, this task also reflects his own personal commitment to these issues that starts with his own military service to our country. But even after he left military service, Secretary McDonald was committed, even using his free time, to try to support military families, our veterans and their families. And that is a testament to his character. It is a testament to what drives him, and it is why he is well suited for this job. But I do not think there is anybody who sits around -- who wakes up in the morning thinking, boy, my job is really hard today, I wish I could just go walk in Bob McDonald's shoes because that sure would be a weight off my shoulders. I think everybody recognizes that he is a got a very difficult task in front of him. And that is why his skill and personal commitment to these issues are so important to his success. When the VA was in a lot of trouble, the President tasked Rob Nabors to go over and assist. Is he still working in carrying out essentially a conduit role from the White House to the VA, and serving as that sort of presidential intermediary or liaison with this new Secretary? Rob is still working at the VA and is still providing the Secretary and other members of the senior leadership at the VA the kind of advice and expertise that they continue to benefit from. So we certainly are pleased to have Rob still serving his country and our veterans over at the VA. Senator McCain raised his concerns about the Choice Card, which is part of the legislation the President signed. We had a couple of questions at the budget briefing, but it does not appear that every member of Congress is satisfied that this Choice Card is going to be implemented in the budget and the financial flexibility is going to be there for veterans to obtain care outside of the system if they meet the criteria.


Can you assure veterans, from this podium, that, in fact, financing will be there and the Choice Card will be implemented fully as written by Congress? Well, I am not intimately familiar with this issue, so let me take this question for the VA and see if we can provide you some data to help you understand our position on this. I want to take you back to Keystone for a moment. Is there any way in your mind, if the process plays out -- you have made the point that this has sort of circumvented longstanding processes -- if they were to play out, in your mind, is there any way the President signs off on the Keystone XL? This is an ongoing review that is being conducted by the State Department. They are going to evaluate the impact that this project would have on the country. They are going to have the opportunity to evaluate the impact that this project would have on contributing to climate change. And it certainly is possible; the President will keep an open mind as the State Department considers the wide range of impacts that this pipeline could have on the country, both positive and negative. And so we will see what happens once the State Department has completed their - what is called the national interest determination - what essentially is a report evaluating whether or not the completion of this infrastructure project would be in the best interest of the United States of America. You said as far as Israel was concerned there is a deep, longstanding security relationship between our country and theirs. I am curious, as it relates to the Iranian talks, is it fair to characterize a level of frustration on behalf of the administration to this notion that some people are cherry-picking bits and pieces and maybe as an outside actor attempting to influence the negotiations? Well, ENTITY, I think you asked about this last week, I believe, where I did express some frustration that we have seen some people take information that they had obtained about the U.S. negotiating position and cherry-pick information to try to distort the public impression of exactly what that negotiating position was. So that is why, at least, even in the context of the questions that I have taken today, that I have been loathe to get into the details of the U.S. negotiating position. Everybody will have an opportunity to evaluate that soon enough.


But as the details come out, albeit you are saying they are not accurate, you can understand why many perhaps in Israel might say, you see, this is exactly what we were talking about to begin with. Well, I think what people around the globe can be confident of is that the United States is negotiating with one clear goal in mind, which is to make sure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. And we are working closely with the international community to achieve that goal. That was the goal of the sanctions regime that Congress passed and this administration implemented in close coordination with our allies around the globe, to compel the Iranians to come to the negotiating table and try to resolve the international community's concerns with their nuclear program. And those talks are underway, and we certainly would not want anything that I say from here or any other efforts to try to distort our negotiating position to negatively impact our ability to try to bring those negotiations to conclusion in a way that yields a strong and verifiable agreement that is clearly in the best interest of not just the United States and not just Israel and not just our international negotiating partners, but is clearly in the best interest of the whole country -- or of the whole globe. As far as AIPAC is concerned, there is zero chance that someone will not be going to AIPAC, right? Well, again, they have extended an invitation to the administration; once we have decided how we are going to respond to the invitation, we will let them know. And then once we let them know, we will let all of you know. But you will accept it, someone is going, right? I hear you. It does seem just as a matter of common courtesy, it seems like we should respond to their invitation first and then we can talk about it publicly. I certainly did not come close to saying that. I want to ask a question a different way. Given the President is going to make obviously the final call on XL, is there no communication between the White House and State Department about when you might expect their report? Well, I do not know -- I cannot account for every single conversation that occurs between the White House and the State Department. I think it is certainly possible that somebody in the White House has gotten an update in terms of how much longer it would take the State Department to compete their review, but I am not aware of those conversations.


But even if I were, I am not sure I'd be in a position to announce for the State Department what their timeline is going to be. If they are prepared to announce a timeline then they will announce it. As you know, there are a lot of people anxious about this. They waited six years and there are others who are concerned about a political implication for 2016 depending on when the President does make his decision. Is the expectation that once the State Department report comes out, the President will make a decision fairly quickly? Does he feel like he needs to do that quickly? Well, I would not want to prejudge the outcome here, but I would anticipate that once the review has been completed that there would not be a significant delay in announcing the results of that review and ultimately making a decision on this project. But on DHS, as you know, there are critics who have suggested that the White House has overstated the potential impact if there is a delay in funding, saying that because everyone who is essential will still be working that it will not make a significant difference to national security. And we heard from some people, including the FEMA Director yesterday, about what that would be. So given that, what kind of preparations are underway for a possible shutdown? Well, Chris, I can tell you that it is not just the administration who is making the case that shutting down the Department of Homeland Security would have a bad impact on national security. I know that Congressman Peter King was on television today making exactly that case. So he does not often agree with the administration, but at least in this case he is making the same case that we are. He is not the only one who is making that case. I do know that the Department of Homeland Security has been engaged in a planning process to ensure they are prepared and can take the steps necessary to try to mitigate the impact of a shutdown of that department. But as I have mentioned before, the impact of that shutdown will include tens of thousands of Homeland Security personnel being furloughed. It will include many Homeland Security officers showing up for work to protect their country but not getting a paycheck on time. And that does not seem particularly fair, and I am not sure why anybody thinks that would be a good outcome for the country.


But DHS is doing the responsible thing, which is, even as they try to talk to members of Congress and encourage them to fulfill their responsibility and pass a budget, they are also engaged in the planning to try to mitigate the potential impact of shutting down their agency. Can you give us a sense of what is involved in that planning? A few days ago, a Mexican citizen was killed by two police officers in Pasco, Washington. Is the President aware of the incident? What is his reaction to that? Can you say it one more time? A Mexican citizen was killed in Pasco, Washington, the state of Washington. My question was, was the President aware of the incident, or the White House, and what is the reaction to that? I have certainly seen the news reports. I have not talked to the President about it. I do not know if he is aware, although knowing he is an avid consumer of news, I assume that he is. But I do not know a lot of the details of the case beyond what I have read in news reports. So for questions about sort of where that investigation stands, I'd refer you to the local authorities there. I have a question about Ukraine. You said earlier that you continue to be concerned by these violations. And the President said when Merkel was visiting that if Russia continued to do this he would seriously consider sending arms to the Ukrainian government and also possibly increasing the sanctions. So you are seeing these violations. Now what are you going to do? Well, what we are doing right now is we are continuing to support the ongoing efforts to try to implement this agreement. And I know that there was a call that was scheduled among the foreign ministerial level of the four groups that have been involved in these negotiations -- the Russians, the Ukrainians, the French and the Germans -- I believe that was yesterday -- I do not know if it was yesterday or today, but I know that those efforts are ongoing and we continue to support them. And the consequences that you cited of failing to live up to those kinds of commitments continue to be on the table. So we are going to continue to closely watch the situation with the President, the Vice President, and other senior members of the team, continue to be in close touch with our partners who are working this situation and we are going to monitor it closely. Look, right now they are violating it. How long will they go on violating it until you do something?


I am just wondering, how long do you give this process? I mean, they are not living up to it now. You are monitoring it. How long are you going to monitor the violations before you do something? We will we are going to continue to try to work diplomatically to resolve this situation. And that has been our approach from the beginning, which is that it is our view that the only way we are going to resolve this is not with a military solution but with a diplomatic solution. And that is why we are continuing to press that option. But, you are right, at some point you have to start considering some other alternatives, which is why the United States has already provided substantial military assistance to the Ukrainian military. It is why we have already worked with our partners in Europe to put in place a sanctions regime and isolate President Putin and -- or Russian political leadership. And that was a response to their earlier violations of generally accepted international norms. But, yes, the potential of increasing our assistance to Ukraine and increasing the costs that are sustained by Russia has the potential to be implemented. But we are going to continue to watch this and make decisions accordingly. Well, is it also possible that these violations could continue and you decide to do nothing else? Well, I think our level of pessimism is not quite that high, but we will -- You say there is the potential that you might do something else. I am just wondering, if the violations continue, might you also decide that it is not worth doing anything else on sanctions? Based on our past response to Russia's provocations and failure to live up to generally accepted international principles, I think you could rightly conclude that it is unlikely that that is the outcome. But as we see Russia continue to destabilize eastern Ukraine and continue to take steps that are clearly in violation of agreements that they have signed, that the risk of further sanctions only increases. ENTITY, I want to come back to Iran one more time. I just want to be clear about what you are denying. You are denying that the United States has proposed a 10-year agreement, is that right? My understanding of the reports -- that I will confess that I have not seen firsthand -- but my understanding of the reports indicate that -- they wrongly indicate that the agreement that is being negotiated right now will be 10 years in length, and that is not our negotiating position at all.


But you are not denying that there is some substantially longer agreement of which there is a 10-year opening phase to it, right? Well, what I am reluctant to do is to sort of wade in on a detailed assessment of where the negotiations currently stand. I am not asking for details. Just are you denying something longer? But again, we will have an opportunity in the coming weeks to consider either to evaluate an agreement that is been reached, or to evaluate an agreement that the Iranians walked away from. But suffice it to say the United States continues to negotiate from the position that there should be an opportunity for the Iranians to ease the international community's concerns about their nuclear program to, in a verifiable way, make clear to the international community that they will not acquire a nuclear weapon. The Iranians have said many times that that is consistent with their view and with their national policy. It is the view of the international community that they just need to be able to verify that for the international community. And ultimately, if we can come to an agreement around those outlines that would be a good outcome for not just the United States and Israel, but it would be good for the world. Can we follow on this? At this point, would you still call on Prime Minister Netanyahu to cancel the speech before the Congress? And if so, would the President meet with Netanyahu? Connie, we have not called on Prime Minister Netanyahu to cancel his speech. And we have indicated the reason that the President will not meet with him during this visit to the United States is that it comes just two weeks before his election. And in order to avoid even the appearance of interfering with a democratic election in another country, the President will not meet with the Prime Minister. But I would anticipate that at some point after the elections, regardless of who wins, that the President will convene a meeting with the leader of Israel and will continue the very close coordination on security issues that has characterized his relationship thus far with Prime Minister Netanyahu. As the United States and her allies try to come to an agreement with Iran about its nuclear ambitions, what is this administration doing -- how is it engaged to reduce nuclear weapons in nations that actually do have these weapons, like China and North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, et cetera? Well, ENTITY, the President -- I think each of those situations is a little bit different.


But we certainly have even worked closely with Russia to reduce our nuclear stockpile, and this is something that the President did early in his tenure. And that, he believes, is in the best interest of not just U.S. national security, but also the safety of citizens and people around the globe. But, certainly, we continue to be focused on these issues. Last Friday, a federal judge appointed by President Obama issued an injunction on a separate immigration executive action, specifically stopping the detention of migrants coming across the border in Texas. Is the Department of Justice going to seek a stay of this injunction in the same way they are seeking a stay -- I'd encourage you to check with DOJ about sort of the next step in that legal process. I do know that the issue in question in that legal proceeding was related to our efforts to address what at the time was a rather urgent situation that we saw a substantial number of unaccompanied minors at the southern border attempting to illegally enter the United States of America. And one of our efforts to try to respond to that situation was to detain recent border-crossers near the border, and to try to find an environment in which families could be detained together, and to try to make sure that we are doing that in the most humane way possible. So I know that there are some who raised concerns about that policy, but that is what the administration believed was an appropriate way to respond to that urgent situation. Since that time, we have seen the numbers of undocumented immigrants, particularly unaccompanied minors, in that sector of the border decline substantially. And that is thanks to the comprehensive strategy that this administration has put in place, working with Central American countries, working with our partners in Mexico, and stepping up some of our law enforcement capabilities on the border to try to address the situation. And that situation has -- or at least the urgency of the situation down there has subsided dramatically. your administration argued that this detention served as a deterrent to make sure that was not another ongoing flood of migrants. That is part of the comprehensive strategy you just mentioned. Is the administration at all concerned now that this deterrent is gone, that you will see another wave of migrants?


I think the most effective deterrent that we have is to have the President of the United States making very clear that people in Central America should not send their kids on this very dangerous journey; that too often, we saw reports of kids who did not complete the journey safely, that they were killed. In some cases, we saw the kids were actually funneled into human trafficking rings. So we have continued to make the case very clearly and very publicly that parents should not even contemplate to putting their kids in the hands of human traffickers in trying to move them into the United States illegally. So we have been really clear about that, and that is probably the most effective deterrent that we have. But to the extent that other things can also deter and reinforce that message, we obviously want to support them. The Congressional Budget Office sent a letter to Thad Cochran, scoring the President's executive actions for DACA and DAPA, and it found that his executive actions would actually increase budget deficits by $8.8 billion over the next 10 years. I was wondering if you could square that CBO finding with the President's budget, which claims immigration reform and executive actions would reduce the budget. We may have to follow up with you on this, because my reading of that report was actually that removing the executive actions would actually add $8 billion to the deficit. Off-budget, you are right. That is if we do not consider -- that is if the payroll taxes from the DAPA and DACA recipients did not go to the Social Security trust fund. But if the Social Security trust fund exists, if those payroll taxes are going to the Social Security trust fund, then that CBO letter found that the immigration actions do add to the deficit by $8.8 billion over the next 10 years. Well, I may have somebody who is more steeped in the budgetary details. My understanding is that this would have a positive impact on our deficit precisely because for the first time what we'd be doing is we'd be bringing people out of the shadows and actually making them pay taxes. That would be a good thing for the life of Social Security. It would be a good thing for our economy. And ultimately, it would be a good thing for the deficit. But we can have somebody follow up with you on your -- on what may be a more detailed question.


ENTITY, back on Keystone, does President Obama believe that 2,300 days is a reasonable length of time for the State Department to conduct an evaluation? Well, I think it is certainly fair to suggest that the State Department is conducting an in-depth review. The other thing that is also true is that there have been some legal proceedings that have interfered with the completion of this review. And that certainly did impact the State Department's ability to evaluate the route of the pipeline since it was not finalized and was subject to this ultimate court ruling. But within just the last few weeks the Nebraska court has issued a decision that has finalized the proposal, and now that final proposal can be evaluated by the State Department. That is what they are doing right now. Can you imagine what he would say if he gave you an assignment and you said, I will get back to you in 2,300 days? I will give you the last one, ENTITY. One, when last year Prime Minister Modi came to the United States, late last year -- and including at the United Nations and at the White House, at the U.N. he announced that India should be a member of the U.N. Security Council, and which President in India also announced and endorsed. What is happening with that membership? And also Prime Minister Modi addressed in Washington the U.S.-India Business Council and calling on the Fortune 500 companies make in India, which will create thousands of jobs in the U.S. and thousands of jobs in India. So what is happening with that issue? And the two leaders also set up a hotline. The two have spoken ever since his visit to the White House? ENTITY, I can tell you as it relates to India's membership on the Security Council, I know the President endorsed them acceding to the Security Council in the context of a variety of other important reforms to the operations of the United Nations. I do not have an update for you on the status of those ongoing reforms, or at least efforts to try to bring about some of those reforms. But I am sure my colleagues in Ambassador Power's office can give you some additional information on this. ENTITY, the President often discusses his view that we need to have more products that are stamped with Made in America and that that would be good for the U.S. economy. It would be good for job creation.


The President also does believe that, as Indian consumers have the opportunity to buy American goods, that it could be good for the Indian economy, as well. So the President did have the opportunity to discuss some of these economic issues and our trade relationship with India. In the context of his visit to India just last month, the President spent a lot of time with Prime Minister Modi and they spent a lot of time talking about some of these economic issues. You will recall that there was a CEO summit in the context of those meeting, and that there were American and Indian business leaders that spent some time talking through some of these issues. And the President himself had the opportunity to sit down at a roundtable with a couple dozen of them and talk about some of the challenges that they face as they try to do more business together in a way that benefits the economies and job creation in both countries. So there is an opportunity for us to try to advance the interests of both our countries by working together and by coordinating our efforts. And the President is certainly committed to that, again, in part, because the substantial economic benefits that could be enjoyed by the American people. I know that Prime Minister Modi has a similar interest. And I do not know of any recent conversations that they have had, but that continues to be a priority of both the President and his administration. Second, ENTITY, as far as the immigration is concerned, when President issued executive order millions of people were happy in that they will come out of the shadow. What message you think President has for them? They are waiting to come out of the shadow and apply for their status. Well, ENTITY, this is something that we are concerned about. The President does believe and we have said on many occasions that we believe that there is a very clear precedent for the executive actions the President announced at the end of last year; that taking executive action to try to address some elements of our broken immigration system is consistent with the way that Presidents of both parties for several decades have used their executive authority. And there is no doubt that these kinds of changes would be good for our economy, would be good for job creation, and would be good for bringing about greater accountability to our immigration system.


I am in Bangkok, and one of the reasons I have come is not only to pay my respects to the Government and the people of Thailand, but also to be in a position to speak about freedom in Burma. I just had lunch with some people that are deeply concerned about the future of Burma, people that were involved in the student marches of '88, people involved with humanitarian assistance. I was regretful that my wife could not join us, because she is an articulate spokesman for the people of Burma; but she is on the border on this mission of saying to the Burmese people, you have friends, and you are not alone, and the United States cares about you. So I want to thank you for giving me the chance to answer your questions, and I will be glad to do so now. Why do not we just go around the table? ENTITY, it is an honor to be with you, and many thanks, giving a chance to-this roundtable discussion. My name is ENTITY, from Voice of America; Toe Zaw Latt from Democratic Voice of Burma; and Soe Win Than from BBC. We have one lady here from Radio Free Asia, May Pyone Aung. I would like to start a couple questions about the relief aid policy of United States. Recent relief operation, the Burmese regime did not allow the U.S. Navy ship aid through the Pacific come, and international community, the U.S., obviously, was really frustrated. I would like to know, if Burma faced another catastrophe or disaster, are you going to try to help, or are you going to--Burmese regime again? But first of all, we care about the human condition, human suffering. I can remember the day it hit. I was told that this was going to be a major disaster for the people, and so I ordered our Navy ships in the area to be prepared to sail toward the Burmese area to provide aid and logistics and management. We are very good about dealing with major emergencies. And interestingly enough, we were involved with a military mission in the area, so we were prepared to send a robust package in. No telling how many lives could have been saved or how much human suffering could have been dealt with more effectively had there not been the slow response of the military dictator. But now our aid, along with other people-other countries' aid, is beginning to move. In answer to your question, yes, our Government will respond if there is another catastrophe.

Interview With Foreign Radio Journalists in Bangkok


that there needs to be truthfulness at the highest levels of government. People have got to understand and listen to reality and understand that nations and people want to help when there is suffering. In the meantime, we are going to keep pushing for freedom. During the time, a lot of Burmese people, they were expecting a sort of humanitarian intervention, even though the Burmese regime did not allow the aid. We chose to go through the normal routes. We wanted to basically say, here is your opportunity to receive aid. But I do not think it would have been helpful for the Burmese people had there been a conflict over the delivery of aid. What we do not want to do is compound a terrible situation. In other words, if we just sent in-sent people in, our military in without visas or permission from the Government, there is no telling what the reaction would have been. And so yes, I-no question, there was frustration on the delays, but I felt the best way to do so was the way we ended up doing it. My only point is, is that there is - if there is another catastrophe, and let us pray there is not, but if there is, the Government will now see that they have nothing to fear by welcoming in U.S. aid and other countries' aid. They ought to welcome that. And of course, we'd like to help on that too. We spent about $57 million, or over $50 million of help so far. We care about the stories we hear. And we want the farmers to get seed and fertilizer so they can grow and feed their families and feed the people in their area and, hopefully, grow enough for the country. Now, the United States has proposed civil military relief exercise with the countries in this region, and recent ASEAN meeting endorsed that relief exercise, and probably next year the Philippine will host. So they agree to cooperate relief exercise. I wonder, if the countries in this region agree to cooperate, are you going to invite this exercise to include Burmese military regime or North Korea? I have not thought that through yet, to be frank with you. I cannot answer your question, because you are the first person who is asked me that question. I will take it back to Washington and- under consideration. I have no-but I cannot say yes or no right now. How will the United States try to overcome this impasse, most recently seen at the Security Council over Burma?


Well, what we have got to do is continue to work with countries on the Security Council and explain to them that what matters most in life is the human condition and that individual rights are important. And we just have a lot of work to do to convince people that the status quo in Burma-that life can be better, let me put it that way. And it is in their interest that life is better, particularly China. China is an important country on the United Nations Security Council; they are an important country in the world, obviously, Burma's neighbor. And we-I hope that I can use my good relations with the Chinese leadership to convince them that the way forward is for there to be more civic participation, more citizen participation in the future of the country, and that the perfect way to do that is to explain to them how backward the Government was when it came to the response for the natural disaster. Hopefully, that will open up eyes. But no question, there is a lot of diplomacy that needs to be done to convince others that people like Aung Suu San Kyi deserve to be free and political prisoners ought to be free. And the reason I am talking to you today is because I want those in prison and their families to know that we care about them and think about them. I mean, it is in the common ground, for example, that the Burmese be a peaceful country. I mean, we care about that. Whether or not the Chinese will agree that somebody like Aung Suu San Kyi ought to be free and ought to be the center of foreign policy like it is for us, I do not know. We just have to work it hard.  you will be meeting the highest Chinese leadership tomorrow. And you said you would mention Burma to those leaders. You have not been able to convince them until now. How optimistic are you that you will be able to convince, and how are you going to go about doing this time, sir? Well, you know, look, it is -I have mentioned Burma a lot to the Chinese leadership, and it is -I have mentioned Darfur; I have mentioned Tibet; I have mentioned religious freedom inside China. And it is just a matter of continuing to make the case. I have-I am sure the Chinese leader's mind is going to be on the Olympics. This is a big deal for the people of China.


One of the reasons I am going is to be able to pay my respects to the people of China, and well as to be in a position where I can bring up these issues with the Chinese Government. I am just-it is -to me, this is a process of continually having a consistent message, speaking to the people of Burma, letting the prisoners know we care about them, and pressing hard at the international level. I make no promises to your listeners except that we will continue to try. One thing is the relationship with the regime. Then you have been probably the President who is more committed for the Burmese democratic movement. But the United States tough line against Burma sometimes entrenched the generals there, and some people would say that given the example of the Nargis Cyclone relief efforts, then if you have had this kind of relationship with the generals then you could be able to do more. I understand your point. We have been tough, because we believe that the general has been very stubborn in not allowing certain freedoms, and we believe that is wrong. We believe that those arrested in the marches of '88 ought to be released from prison. There is about 2,000 political prisoners who are being held simply because they had a belief that was contrary to what the general thinks. You notice I am saying general because it is generally viewed as a one-man regime. I know there is others that support him. But yes, I have been and-because I believe that-as a matter of fact, just signed a bill that is going to continue the sanction regime, particularly when it comes to jade and precious gems. That is an interesting question, had we had a different relationship, one, what would it say to the reformers, but also, would it have changed the number of days required to let relief in? What I am concerned about is the general was not being given full information, that he was not fully aware of reality. And I do not think his reaction was because of relations with the United States; I think his reaction was-is because he was in denial to a certain extent about the realities on the ground. But I am constantly-look, my mission, so long as I am the President, which is 6 more months, is to think about ways to relieve human suffering and how to help people inside Burma. And if I thought it would make-help us achieve the objective by changing the relationship with the Government, I'd give it serious consideration.


But I do not necessarily agree with that premise. On the other hand, the people that are listening to your radio broadcast has got to know that the President of the United States and a lot of other people in America are concerned and care about how they live and want them to be free and want them to realize the beauties of a Burmese-style democracy. Nevertheless, what is important, though, if for there to be a strong voice in laying out that vision. And that is what I will continue to do. you just met a group of Burmese activists and then you share views with them on Burma's struggle. What do you see and what do you get from having lunch with them? First of all, there is a lot of courageous people that have made a decision to work hard on behalf of the rest of their citizens to achieve a free society. Secondly, that they have great hopes that the United States will continue to speak out, that the United States will not abandon our belief in the universality of freedom. Thirdly, they were-I asked-I said, if you were me, what would you do? And I got a variety of opinions. And it was fascinating to hear voices of people who have actually been on the frontlines of change. I came away with the impression that they are very grateful to the American people for the generous support. Sometimes our generosity is not-actually ends up in the hands of the people as quickly as it should, but nevertheless, that they are- there seems to be a general awareness that the American people care. There are people who may even be wearing the military uniform who understand that the status quo is not acceptable, and there needs to be a better way forward. But a lot of the frustration was focused on a single person, the general in charge of the country, and that-there was a belief that he did not seem to care that much about the plight of the average citizen. And so hopefully, U.S. pressure and U.S. focus will get him to think more about the average person and care about the way the average person lives. Many critics said that our opposition itself is also very much divided and they are not united enough against the military regime and that-do you think that the United States can help prepare them for their future democratic Burma? Well, first of all-that was an interesting question-I did not think they were very divided, at least the crowd I was with.


But I thought they were pretty united in their dream for a better Burma. You know, one of the things that, obviously, the people involved in the democracy movement have got to think through is how do you get from here to there. In other words, it is not easy to go from a very fierce military one-man rule to democracy. And you have a very good point, and that is, is that there is a-is there a focused roadmap to get to a better tomorrow? It is hard for me to tell just in that conversation. Obviously, that is going to be a concern for-it must be a concern for people. The rewrite of the Constitution is just a-it is not a good document; it is not a fair document. So therefore, there needs to be a constitution at some point in time that will enable Burma to be a Federal state that-based upon the will of the people. The military regime will hold a election in 2010, and they began preparing this month for election. And then what is U.S. stand on this election? I think the Constitution is a sham constitution, and therefore-but, you know, I-this is a society that is not interested in democracy. They have proved they are not interested in democracy. If they are interested in democracy, they'd let the prisoners out of prison, for starters. The political prisoners would be a-given to chance to leave and live in a free life. That is the first test, not election under a sham constitution. And so, you know, they will play like the election was fair and all this-to justify their behavior. And I think people like yourself ought to be speaking out that the elections, unless certain conditions are met, cannot possibly be fair. We understand and the Burmese listeners also understand how you and the First Lady are compassionate for Burmese people, how much you strongly support to the freedom for Burma.  I know both candidates and the-freedom for Burma is a bipartisan issue. And the Burmese people-it is not just the President that thinks about the citizens of Burma. There is a lot of people in our Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, that feel the same way. And so I think the Burmese people are going to have a consistent friend in the United States. You are talking to the China authorities. Do you think China can play a role to make situation better in Burma? I think-oh, yes, I think China could play a different role.


And so I will -I will bring up the Burma-Burmese issue again to President Hu Jintao, who I like. And they just got different interests, at times, from the United States. And so I have got to work hard to see if I cannot convince him that we share the same goals. Wonder will Thailand and ASEAN in Southeast Asia-- They need to send a signal. Obviously, Thailand was very helpful when it came to helping with the cyclone- aftermath of the cyclone. After all, this is a staging center for a lot of our materials and other peoples'-countries' materials that came through. Yes, and they can continue to work the issue. We just got to make sure that ASEAN delivers a message that is inspiring to the people of Burma. President, besides sanction and travel restrictions on the generals in Burma, do you-have you ever thought of alternative strategies work on Burma-under U.S. and then with the international community? And if your question is, do I-am I trying to convince others to join us on the strategy? In other words, it would be better if we could all speak with one voice. And I have been in-you know, it had not been that hard with some countries, like the European countries, for example. But it is been difficult with some of the countries in the neighborhood here because we do not share the same goals. Their goal is stability and-at times. And that is not necessarily the-I am for stability too. But I'd like to see the system move toward a free society. I have got a friend who helps deal with the rape victims along the border. These women are being raped- she says, systemically raped by the military as part of their campaign of fear. That stuff has got to end in order for me to feel comfortable with any other policy toward Burma. In other words, there is -and others have different priorities. And so therefore, it is hard to find common ground, but we will continue to try to do so. Then I got to go to the games. I am cheering the American Olympic team. You have the conviction and idea to bring freedom and democracy to Burma, but some people would say that the United States does not have much strategic interest in Burma, unlike Afghanistan. I think so long as there is human suffering like there is here in Burma, then this will be of strategic importance to the United States.


Here is the pitch to Bobby Bonilla, and Bonilla takes ball one outside. So I guess that ends some of the conversations about how Cone's arm is. ENTITY is here with us. I am the good luck charm when I am on this radio In fact, when you were with us last year, Bobby Bonilla came up and promptly hit one over the center field wall. And he drives this one deep into right center field This one is bouncing over the wall. And right after Bonilla hit that home run, then Ripken came up, and he did the same thing. In fact, ENTITY, you broadcast that Ripken home run which was an historic night. You were part of it. So let us go back now and take a listen here. We have played that 500 times since then, and everybody loves that. Here is Cal the following season as we pick up again, and ENTITY is here with us. What do you think now? Cal taking ball one from Appier. Well, he is got the only two RBI's, does not he? Two-run single in the first inning for Cal, and now we are a 2-2 ball game. Did you get a chance to see Cal before the game? He baited me about going out on the pitcher's mound because last year I stood in front of the mound and started so he said, you know, That is what that mound is there for. You are supposed to step up on top of it. And he fouls it off back out of play. So I asked him if he were baiting me. He said, If you do not want to go out there and do what you are supposed to do, it is all right with me. You got the Ripken treatment. So I had to go up there and stand on the mound. You are like part of the family now if he was talking to you like that. Well, you stood up there, and you threw a strike in there. It was a slow strike, but I got it over. He hit a hard ball there. Here comes Bonilla, and Ripken has done it again. We may have to have you on every time he bats. Well, it looked like he got a little slider that kind of hung up there above the knees, and he blooped it into shallow center.

Interview With Jon Miller and Fred Manfra of WBAL Radio in Baltimore, Maryland


I have a feeling that Alomar, Palmeiro, Bonilla, Ripken, they are going to combine for a few runs this year. He hit .320 last year with Milwaukee. Not a power-type hitter, but he gets the ball to all fields. And he takes ball one, down and in, on a breaking ball.  She is a little jealous that I am here today, but she had to go to school today. You know, she and her mother just took a wonderful trip. They went to see our forces in Bosnia, and then they went to Turkey and Greece. So I told her she got to go to Turkey, Greece, and Bosnia, and I got to go to Baltimore. Here is a foul ball back into the upper deck. Well, we thought maybe she'd get spring break or something. They missed so many days this winter; they need to go more, not less. It is good to see springtime out here, is not it? We had a tough winter. Baseball has brought the sunshine back. You will see how hard the wind is, though, and you do not feel it in here, which is good. Yeah, I have been downtown on top of one of the buildings. The flag is standing straight out at attention out there, but inside here, very comfortable. I mean, you walked out on the mound, and we have seen guys bounce them in there. But you put it right in. Did you warm up ahead of time? And not getting it was Lockhart. Who warmed you up? You played catch with somebody? Well, Mr. Angelos threw me a few balls. We threw about 20 balls together, and then I threw about 20, 30 more balls down there, just fooling around. Well, we put out tapes and CD's of the whole Ripken thing last September and raised money for charity. And everywhere we went after they completed that, people commenting about how much fun it was that you were on the air. And when Cal hit that home run, it wasthere you were, the First Fan. That is what B.J. Surhoff is saying as they call him out on strikes. And that is what B.J.'s arguing, too. But he is called out on strikes.


I toldI went down to see the umpires before the game, and I said that I really wanted to see them because they were the only people in the country that got secondguessed more than I did. So I like those guys. I am for them, you know. Well, that is it for the Orioles in the third inning. The ENTITY is here with us, ENTITY. And at the end of three, it is the Orioles, 3; Kansas City, 2. ENTITY, ENTITY, along with the ENTITY, ENTITY, as the Royals come to bat. The Orioles are back in front, 3 to 2. ENTITY was just commenting to us between innings about what a beautiful scene it is here at Camden Yards. I wish everybody could see it. And he makes the catch. I think everybody here is having a good time. You know, it is been said thatI mean, opening day in baseball really, actually for a baseball fan, carries all of the same sentiment that we ascribe to New Year's Eve, you know, a clean slate, a fresh start, high hopes. But it is even more tangible in baseball because we really know that they have got a shot. Now, you were telling us between innings that you had a chance to go down to Atlanta and see the layout there. I looked at the Olympic Stadium, which is magnificent. The American people will love it. And then after the Olympics, a section in the back is going to be taken down like what we now see from here over center field, and it is going to be converted into the Braves' new stadium. But the unique thing about it is, it is going to bethe base line is going to be even closer I mean, the foul line is going to be even closer tothe base lineto the stands than here. And home plate's going to be even tucked in tighter than here, so that the average distance from base line to the stands will be about 45 feet. And the major league ballparks average something like 70 feet. So even though the Braves have this magnificent pitching staff, they are going to be tested because they will not get as many easy foul-outs. In comes Hammonds, and he makes the catch for out number two. Well, that is a good point because, I mean, the current stadium in Atlanta probably has more foul territory than any other ballpark. But it just interested me that they are going to have a little extra handicap there.


I asked the ENTITY how he plans to get the country and the Congress to focus on Working Families The country's already focused on family issues. Every single day, there are conversations around the kitchen table where people are trying to figure out, you know what, this childcare is costing so much. I am not sure that we are going to be able to make our mortgage at the end of the month. There are folks who are saying, you know, little Johnny is sick but if I do not show up at my job, because I do not have paid family leave, we are not going to be able to pay the electricity bill. And so the goal for our Working Families Summit on Monday is to lift up a conversation that everybody's already having individually and letting people know you are not alone out here. And so what we want to do is to lift up best practices, show that for companies who are offering paid family leave, who are offering flexibility, their workers are more productive, more loyal, there is lower turnover and, ultimately, they are going to be more profitable. I am going to be taking some action, a presidential memorandum, directing every federal agency to be very clear to their employees that it is my view that offering flexibility where possible is the right thing to do. We do not want people having to choose between family and work when you have got an emergency situation. You know this, but you talk to 10 different people, you are going to get 10 different challenges that they face in trying to succeed at the work and life balance, to succeed at both. What are the three things that you would like to see companies, employers, businesses do to make it work, because you know those priorities do not always align? There are some things that we know will make a difference in people's lives. Paid family leave; we are the only advanced country on earth that does not have it. It does not make any sense. One of the most precious memories that I will ever have is when my first daughter, Malia, was born, I was lucky enough that my schedule allowed me to take that first month off. 00 in the morning and feeding her and burping her and, you know, creates a bond that is irreplaceable. And a lot of companies are already doing it and it is working. And Michelle and I have talked about this.

Interview with Kate Bolduan of CNN's New Day


You know, when we knew that employers had our backs and were willing to give us flexibility to look after family, that made us want to work harder for that employer, even if it meant taking work home with us. So we have unpaid family leave right now but for a whole lot of families it means they cannot use it because they just cannot afford it. If I have got a parent teacher conference you know, we always say that we want parents involved in our kids' education. There are millions of families out there who cannot even imagine taking time off to go to a parent teacher's conference. And then the third thing is the issue of childcare. You know, we do not do a very good job providing high-quality, affordable childcare and there are a lot of countries, a lot of our competitors do it. That means that it is a lot easier for women to be in the workforce and not have to make choices that ultimately mean that they are , in some cases, getting paid less or having less opportunities. I should add on that list equal pay for equal work. We have done some things administratively on that front. I always say that should not be a women's issue because I always wanted Michelle to make sure that she was getting paid fairly because when she brought her paycheck home that went into the overall pot to help us pay our bills. You know, Republicans, they will be critical of some of the initiatives you try to It is no secret that Democrats' midterm election strategy is to pitch to women, to get the women to come out to vote. They have said that. I was raised by a single mom who had to work, go to school, raise two kids. I did not come from a wealthy family. We were helped by my grandparents and the primary breadwinner there was my grandma, who never got a college education but worked her way up from a secretary to being a vice president at a bank, but also hit a glass ceiling. I have got a strong, successful wife, who I remember being reduced to tears sometimes because she could not figure out how to juggle everything that she was doing. And I have got two daughters that I care about more than anything in the world. And so this is personal for me and I think it is personal for a lot of people.


ENTITY, you are paying a visit to Pakistan at a very crucial juncture, at a time when changes are being experienced in the region. And people of Pakistan are pinning a lot of hope on your visit because they think many problems are there and your visit will play a very vital role in it. The first thing that is really important for people to understand is that relations between our countries oftentimes depend on the relations between the leaders. In other words, ENTITY Musharraf and I can set a tone for the relationship because of our capacity to talk to each other. And it is important to be with each other and to share concerns and to talk about ideas. And so one object of the trip is to continue what is a good relationship. A good relationship between me and ENTITY tends to permeate throughout our Government. Secondly, I and one reason we have got a good relationship is we speak frankly with each other. Listen, I understand he has got a difficult job made really difficult by the fact that people have tried to kill him, as you know. Extremists have decided that he is a obstacle to their vision and, therefore, have tried to kill him. And so he is not only a man who is shown great courage in the face of adversity, but he does have a vision of how to work together to achieve common objectives. Secondly, I want the people of Pakistan to know that the American people care about them, that ours is a relationship that is much bigger than just the war on terror; that when our Chinooks flew supplies into the rural part of Pakistan, it was not out of a sense of just, kind of, pure diplomacy, it was out of a sense of care and concern about the individuals. And I understand sometimes people may have wonder about our motives, wonder about America's true concerns. And this will give me a chance to speak to the people of Pakistan and say, Look, we care for you, and remind people that in our country, there is great Pakistani Americans. We are a rich society because we have got people from around the world, including people who were born and raised in Pakistan and have now chosen America as a home. And so it is a trip that is of good will and importance. ENTITY, there is a common perception that the relations between the United States and Pakistan have fluctuated in the past. So what measures would you suggest to make it more durable and sustainable for the days to come and the long-time perspective?

Interview With Pakistan Television


Yes, that is a really good question, because, again, we want people to understand this relationship is a vital relationship that will exist throughout the years. One way we can do that is increase trade opportunities before our countries between our countries. And we will be talking about a bilateral investment treaty. Secondly, student exchanges and I understand there is been some issues with visas, and we have got to work through those, because I believe the more Pakistani youngsters who come to America to study will get to really see what America is all about. And as more Americans that go there to study will see what Pakistan is all about. And so there is ways for us, beyond the war on terror and by the way, the war on terror is a critical aspect of our relationship; do not get me wrong. But the other thing that is interesting and I think important for the people of Pakistan to know is that ENTITY Musharraf, in his democracy initiative, can show the whole Muslim world, and the world itself, that it is possible to have a religious that is not extreme and a state that listens to people and responds to the needs of people. And that is a really important message that Pakistan can show the world. And I will, of course, continue to talk to my buddy and my friend about his goals for a democratic Pakistan. ENTITY, an early solution to the whole issue of Kashmir, about which you have also mentioned in your speech at the Asia Society that is vital for the region. So, in your view, being a close friend of both Pakistan and India, what role the United States can play in resolving this issue? Well, I started to play a role in my speech, and I spoke out on the issue and encouraged ENTITY and the Prime Minister of India to continue down the road of solving the issue with a solution that is acceptable to all sides. There is a temptation sometimes for countries to try to jump in the middle of dialog. I have seen the progress that is been made in the relationship from when I first became ENTITY You might remember an early time in my Presidency, there was real tension. And part of it has to do with trust, but there is got to be tangible progress; I recognize that. And so I will use my trip to urge the leadership to continue solving this issue, with the idea that it can be solved. ENTITY, what economic incentive would you offer to Pakistan during the forthcoming visit?

Interview With Pakistan Television


And one of the steps on a robust trading relationship is what is called the Bilateral Investment Treaty, and that is an important part of the process. And believe me, every time ENTITY talks to me, he is talking about markets, and I understand that. But he also understands that there is some steps needed before this robust trade. I must applaud ENTITY's vision for the Pakistan economy. But the truth of the matter is, what matters is results. That is really good news for the people of Pakistan. First and foremost, because, obviously, if people can make a living and do well, they can see the benefits of democracy tangible benefits of living in a system where people are free to express themselves, but where the marketplace is the economic determinant. Coming to another subject, what strategy the United States has adopted for conquering terrorism in Pakistan, in a very holistic manner? First of all, freedom defeats an ideology of hatred. And the enemy I say the enemy because they will kill they innocent Pakistanis; they kill innocent Americans We need more Muslims have died at the hands of Al Qaida and these extremists than anybody else. These I do not view these people as religious people. I view them as people who have taken a great religion and kind of twisted it to meet their means. And so they have a vision. And it is not a vision it is a vision that does not recognize the freedom of people to worship. It is a vision that does not understand the that recognize the importance of women in society or free speech. And so the way to defeat that vision is with a better vision, more hopeful, and democracy provides that vision. We are in close coordination, of course, with the Government of Pakistan. We share a mutual interest. Nobody should want foreign fighters in their soil wreaking havoc. And it is hard for a part of a country to develop if there are people in that part of the country that are willing to kill innocent life to achieve an objective. And so we share short-term objectives with the Pakistani Government. We also share the long-term objective, and that is that is freedom. I am looking forward to the trip.

Interview With Pakistan Television


ENTITY, you know that the problem in Colombia is the fighting of this drug problem. And the newspapers in Colombia are very much in front of this thing. I personally had an experience just 2 weeks ago. I was in New York. I was invited to the Waldorf Astoria for dinner. And the person who invited me came to the Grand Central and walked from the Grand Central to the Waldorf Astoria, and in that short walk, four people offered him drugs. Is it in the United States that there is not enough control and enough punishment, enough action in that way? So, what can you tell our readers about that? Cano first, I strongly supported what President Barco said when he called attention of the world and certainly the United States to the consumption problem. We have no argument with that he is right. And what I am trying to do in our new antidrug strategy is to go after not only the criminals that sell drugs to your friend in those two blocks but the people that use it. We are coupling with that an all-out education program that is not just government but private sector as well. What concerns me and other leaders is that it is going not only into some countries in our own hemisphere, South America, but all through Europe. And I asked the Soviets if they had a problem with it, and it is everywhere. But I think when President Barco, my respected friend, pointed out, look, you have got to do something about consumption, he was right. And I have used that in speaking to leadership groups in this room and in others to try to encourage support for our antinarcotics program, which still does have strong support in our country, and for the legislation we need, getting tougher on the people that sell it, and for the education, of educating against being a user. ENTITY, Argentina is trying to restructure its highly inefficient economy. And that implies some degree of social tensions. And President Menem was here recently to explain some of these goals. What was your perception of these goals and these problems? And what do you think the U.S. can do to assist or help a country like Argentina dealing with these economic and social problems? In the first place, I was most impressed with President Menem not just here when he came to visit but at the United Nations when we sat together and had a chance to have a quick meeting. I think there is been a universal respect for what he is tried to do.

Interview With Latin American Journalists


He came out of one political background, and he has broadened the appeal not just to have support in the Argentine but in the United States as well. I told him we want to work with him on the debt problem. I realize it is not easy because Argentina does have a very large debt. But the elements of the Brady plan are there, and they can be very helpful to him. We want to encourage and be helpful in privatization, and I think there is ways that we can encourage investment in Argentina, given these political reforms. So, it is across the board; it is not just one program. But the thing that is impressed me is the toughness of the man and his willingness to make the tough decisions on getting his economic house in order and, indeed, what he is doing on the political front. So, I think you will see a whole new relationship between Argentina and the United States. This is on my mind because the Argentinian Ambassador presented his credentials yesterday, and well, he really said just about what I am saying here in terms of the feeling in Argentina about the United States. And I want to encourage as many of our top people to go there as possible; work closely with the finance people, the environment people, the military, whatever it is. So, we have a new era bilaterally; and I think, universally, there is a respect for what he is trying to do. first is subversion; second, the tensions in the military suspected of violation of human rights; and third, the economy and the foreign debt? Subversion: nobody is interested in doing anything other than to help stop possible subversion. Because as Chile moves towards its elections within the next few weeks, this is a very significant development; and it is one that, in my view, can result speaking as ENTITY in better relations with our country. On the military violations, this obviously is a matter where the people of Chile and the Government and everybody else has to respond. There is not much we can do about it. But I do not want to see in any country a military subvert the will of the people when democracy is on the move in this hemisphere a general answer to a specific question. Well, of course, Chile has been out in front of other countries in managing its economy, in spite of its difficulties in some areas. We talked about the politics, the political problem. But Chile, because of its I would not say economic miracle, but they have done far better.


And the elements of support from the international institutions and again, on the Third World debt or their debt problems are in place pretty much in Chile. So, I am somewhat optimistic about their being about to cope financially, at least as we see it from the United States. ENTITY, in spite of superpower negotiations on regional issues, Soviet-bloc arms continue to pour into Nicaragua. What does your government plan to do about this? And do you plan to bring this up at the coming summit in San Jose? I will bring it up every chance I get And what we are trying to do is educate our friends in Europe and people who strongly support democracy all over the world that this is happening. I think people do not believe it. Secondly, we will continue to work with the Soviet Union. We had a little argument not argument, but they felt we had challenged their word on this whole question, as you remember, not so many weeks ago. And we were not doing that. We were pointing out the totality of the shipments, which are in the range that you have just outlined here. So, we will make clear every chance we get to the Soviets that that is not in their interests, and certainly we view it against the security interests of the United States, and we view it against the tide in terms of democracy. Why should that military clique, who at one point were espousing their own Marxist beliefs, deny, through having a military force far bigger than is required and bigger than any of its neighbors, the will of the people? So, it is a combination of these things. And I will be pleased to discuss it in Costa Rica; in Washington, DC; or anyplace else. And I think there is a little more understanding now in our country about it, but not as much as there should be, see, because the regime keeps denying this, you see. ENTITY, according to the Tela accords, which were signed recently by the five Central American Presidents, the Nicaraguan resistance must be demobilized and voluntarily repatriated by December 8th. With the economy of my country in terrible shape, Honduras is insisting that the resistance leave its territory by this date, December 8th. If the resistance does not want to return voluntarily to Nicaragua, for whatever reason, will the United States take them? And will you take this up with President Azcona when you meet with him in San Jose on Friday?


one was voluntary repatriation, and I think the other was to democratic conditions, or something of that nature. And so, those two are the sine qua nons of demobilization, it seems to me. And so, I can sympathize; and, yes, I will be glad to discuss it further with President Azcona. I understand it does cause some differences, but I do not want to push for anything other than voluntary and then demobilization into democratic conditions. So, I think the major objective here should be to see that these elections are free and fair and that opposition and, yes, we will help with repatriation on those conditions, absolutely; we will help. But I must insist that all of us in this hemisphere and I will try to insist on this do what we can to be sure that these elections coming up in Nicaragua are free and fair and that the opposition has a chance to take its case to the people. And I am not just talking about 3 minutes on television at midnight. I think there is got to be a very fair presentation of the opposition case. So, I do not want to sound insensitive to what is happened, to the burden on Honduras. I am sensitive to it and am perfectly prepared to discuss it further with President Azcona. We discussed it when he was up here. But we are getting close now in terms of time, and these elections are the key to a lot of things. There have been reports of the United States concentrating troops along the Mexican border for drug interdiction matters. A, can you confirm that for us? And, B, given the nature of our border and the fact that Mexico uses a substantial part of its own army for the same purposes, would you like to see an operation on the border constrained to the border of Mexico and the United States designed to break up drug traffic and arms traffic coming from the United States into Mexico? I'd like to see the utmost cooperation between the military. I am not sure that I am prepared to endorse a joint force, and I am not sure Mexico President Salinas would want that. But I should tell you, we have reached a new level of cooperation because of the courage of the new President of Mexico. And in terms of our interdiction, what you may be thinking of is not a deployment of U.S. troops but using the National Guard in some areas on exercises to try to stop drugs from coming in.


The more cooperation we have with Mexico along the lines you are talking about to interdict whether it is illegal arms going one way or illegal drugs coming another to have that border policed and peaceful, the better it is. But I am very encouraged by the cooperation we are getting all up and down the line from the Salinas administration, and I hope they are encouraged, because this is indeed a two-way street. And as one who feels very close to Mexico as you know, my grandchildren are half-Mexican, and this one is one that is real close to my heart. And I do not want to propose anything nor will I support anything that looks like an abuse of U.S. power. The way to do it is to work cooperatively with the Salinas regime and the officials in the military, policia, whatever it is, to accomplish the ends that both countries want. And I am not suggesting we do not have border problems. We do; Mexico does with us. But the level of cooperation has really stepped up. And our visit with the President here I think the more my high officials my Cabinet people that saw him, the more impressed they were. the economic crisis and the terrorist subversion. They limit and complicate any effective action which may be taken with regard to the drug traffic. Well, we have made some proposals on antinarcotics that affect Peru and affect Bolivia. But I think the way to answer that question is to say I enthusiastically look forward to participation in this so-called Andean drug summit, and we are going to be trying to set the along with as invitees and invitors. Now we have had official invitation from Bolivia and Colombia and Peru. And I think to really definitively answer your question we have got to have that meeting, because I do not want them to be making proposals that just go counter to the culture in Peru. And I want them to understand, though, how strongly we feel about it and how prepared we are to help them. So, we have made some proposals, and as you know, we have helped in the past, principally in Bolivia on helicopters and spraying. But I do not want to go further than that now until we have this summit. There is no point in having it if we have our minds already made up. I have got to hear from them. We have got to have a hemispheric answer, not just a U.S. proposal on it.


ENTITY, ex-Secretary Schlesinger, writing in the Washington Post this morning, pointed to the increasing consumption of oil by the U.S. and the increasing dependency, as a result, on the Gulf region. Now, I know that, as a former oilman, you must be aware of the very large reserves in the hemisphere of heavy oil. I would be very wary of interjecting myself, our government, into the market. I'd be concerned about that. I can see the security argument that some might make, and it is valid. You have Mexico; you have the enormous resources in Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela; Colombia has some production. And you can make a case that there is more for the security interest of the United States in giving preference. My problem with it is it distorts the market, and it artificially could raise the price to the American consumer, or you could start regional conflict not military but economic conflict between the producing countries. And Saudi Arabia and, to some degree, Kuwait and Iran dominate the international oil market. And if we move to preferences, if we move to regional compacts of this nature, I think you could set off a price war that would damage the economy not just of the of every producing country. And that would work opposite of increasing prices here, but it would not be good for the economies that need to optimize their revenue from oil and gas. And I am talking about Mexico, and I am certainly talking about Venezuela. But I share Jim's I did not see this article, but I share his concern about my country becoming ever increasing on foreign sources. And that is why I have tasked Jim Watkins, our able Secretary of Energy, to come up with a national energy policy. It will be more use of domestic of gas, I am sure. It will be a vital industry in oil, but it will be alternate sources as well. We are not going to back away from nuclear power in this country. ENTITY, in Peru and my country, Bolivia, there are thousands of people working in the coca leaf fields because they do not have any other source of income. Unless there is a serious commitment from rich countries to help to create jobs through investments, for instance the narco traffic problem probably will not change.  Julio , we certainly consider that. Again, that is a subject that I want to discuss with your new and, I'd say, very impressive President. Again, I had a good meeting with him.


And I do not want to prejudge this so-called Andean drug summit, but we recognize that many of these small peasant farmers are dependent on coca crops. I also recognize that the business has gotten pretty good for them better than it used to be because more people, especially in my country, are using the damn stuff. But we have got to be openminded about alternative cropping. We have certainly got to be openminded about trying to get business opportunities that would take some of these farmers and get them involved in something other than producing coca. So, I am openminded, but again, I do not want to prejudge the summit. ENTITY, as you know, we will have Presidential elections in Brazil in 3 weeks. And the U.S.-Brazil relations have become a major issue in the political campaign. What I would like to know is your expectations regarding this election and what the new President, that will be elected by the people for the first time in almost 30 years, could expect from the U.S.? Let me answer your question, but let me ask for clarification. How has the U.S. become an issue in the election? And the heartbeat is democracy, I am convinced of that; that has not always been the history. I think that is the heartbeat in Brazil. So, the United States should stand ready, as we have with Argentina, to see what comes out of the election clearly, not be involved in the election and then stand ready with a friendly country and I think we do have friendly relations with Brazil to iron out what has cropped up as difficulties, be it in trade or something else. Look, you have got a new regime. What do you stand for? What kind of relations do you want with the United States? And we are ready we are ready to deal with you. And Brazil faces horrendous debt problems, too. One area that is been a little contentious has to do with the forests and with the environmental implications of that on global warming. And at first, I think there was a disconnect between Brazil and the United States, but now I do not think we are very far apart. We had a good talk with President Sarney in New York about this. And I think when we were talking about environmental set-asides he thought I was talking about intervention into the sovereignty or diminishing the sovereignty of Brazil. And heaven's sakes, we are not interested in that.


We are interested in this concept of global warming and in working with Brazil in a constructive way. Without knowing who wins the election and what that person stands for, I'd have to wait and see. I would simply go back to Argentina, when some were predicting, I think we would all recognize, great difficulties if President Menem won the election. We had a lot of sophisticated guys telling me, hey, this would be not good for me, for the United States, for our country. We have all been through campaigns; we have listened to campaign rhetoric espoused a little myself from time to time. But look at the facts; look at where we are going. And we want to do that with Brazil, and we will. ENTITY, the drug fighting it is a matter of survival in Colombia and a way to defend our democracy. The Colombian Government established a reward of 100 million pesos to the person that provides any information in order to catch the big drug traffickers. However, they move to other countries, and the action has not been effective yet. Has the United States Government, through any international organization, considered the possibility of setting up a better and more attractive reward? I had not thought about the reward possibility. Maybe our Department of Justice has. So, I should hedge a little bit on that. What we have done is set up or are in the process of setting up much more cooperation with others in terms of the problem itself. In the first place, we have, I want to repeat, a great respect for what President Barco is doing against a lot of tough forces and against good God, here you guys are in the newspaper business, and just for printing the truth and standing up against this, you have been firebombed and had great difficulty. So, we can identify with that. So, I think it is going to be everyone knows our stance on extradition, and I understand it is not a particularly popular stance in some areas in Colombia. But the administration, President Barco, has been very good about that. Whether the reward I know we have some rewards, but whether it applies to this or not, I'd have to get you an answer. Marlin, if you would I am embarrassed to say I do not know the specific figures.


If there was some feeling on the part of President Barco, on other leaders in the hemisphere, that this would be useful, I can guarantee you I would give it fast consideration, because we have got to show that we are doing what we can against consumption your point and that we want to cooperate in every way possible to bring these people to justice. ENTITY, the drug cartel has sent various messages to the Colombian Government and to the Colombian Congress seeking some sort of dialog to end the war. In their last message 2 days ago, they even proposed that this subject should be put to a referendum. They have specifically offered to dismantle all their operations, to retire completely from the business, and to eliminate drug trafficking from Colombia. What would be your reaction if the Colombian Government would eventually agree to this dialog? I would let the Colombians make their determination on how they want to treat problems in their own country. But I would be very wary of taking the word of an indicted drug dealer. I would be extraordinarily worried about that because I do not think they keep their word. I think these are people that the background on some of them, you know well, were common criminals until they got into the lucrative business of poisoning the kids not just in the United States but in Colombia as well and every other country as well. So, I am not sure the Colombian officials need free advice from me, but I would be very wary about that negotiation. And I think that the Government of Colombia has been very wary about that kind of negotiation because they know the kind of people they are dealing with. ENTITY, Colombia's war on drugs can only be sustained if the country's economy is strengthened. Eighty-seven million dollars, which was given to our country basically in military equipment, is a welcome aid. We were very grateful for your help. But we feel that in order to maintain the proper political attitude of the Colombian people towards drugs much more for the country's economy is needed. Could you consider and perhaps the meeting at the Andean summit might be the place to give, eventually, discussion to this would you be able to consider a type of Marshall plan for countries such as Colombia that are decidedly and deeply involved in the war on drugs? Well, again, I would be willing to consider anything. And I hate to cry poor mouth we are living under constraints on the economic side that I wish we were not living under.


But we did discuss with the President of Colombia the egregious effect that the coffee agreement has had on the overall economy and, thus, the resources available to help fight narcotics. So, we told him, look, we are going to try to help reinstate this agreement. It is not a popular thing in this country because people think, hey, I am going to have to pay more for a cup of coffee; but we ought to go the extra mile here in trying to help Colombia. And so, it is with that in mind on that one facet of the problem I think we can try to help. But, look, if there is some bold plan that can come out of this summit that will help in the areas that produce it and then Colombia, which has both production and has become this factory, really, for these people we should be openminded about it and go the extra mile to try to help on the economic because I do see the connection. We do not just say, look, you do something about these drugs crime, criminals, explosions, arms and then forget the economy. We are not going to do that. But I have got to stop a little short until I know what the view of these leaders will be when we get there. The celebration of the 100 years of Costa Rican democracy will make you coincide in our country with Nicaragua's President Daniel Ortega. I have thought about that. Is there a possibility that you will be meeting or would you be willing to meet President Ortega in Costa Rica, and what topics would you be willing to discuss with him? We are there as guests of President Arias. This is a multilateral approach, coming there to salute democracy. I find it somewhat ironic that Mr. Ortega is there to salute democracy, but nevertheless, so be it; that is good. We want to have a tribute to 100 years of Costa Rican democracy, and what we do not want to do is inject a lot of regional tensions into their meeting. But I am going to be polite, charming and if I had an encounter, it would be very firm because I do not see why that one Sandinista regime is swimming against the tide, as Chairman Mao used to say. The aspirations in our hemisphere, in all these countries, is for democracy; and you see it happening all the time just heard about it around this table by your very questions.