Do you resign yourself to what amounts to a permanent occupation of the West Bank? Is that the character of Israel as a state for a long period of time? Do you perpetuate, over the course of a decade or two decades, more and more restrictive policies in terms of Palestinian movement? Do you place restrictions on Arab-Israelis in ways that run counter to Israel's traditions? Well, I am being honest that nobody has provided me with a clear picture of how this works in the absence of a peace deal. If that is the case one of the things my mom always used to tell me and I did not always observe, but as I get older I agree with is if there is something you know you have to do, even if it is difficult or unpleasant, you might as well just go ahead and do it, because waiting is not going to help. If not now, when? This is not an issue in which we are naive about the challenges. I deal every day with very difficult choices about U.S. security. As restrained, and I think thoughtful, as our foreign policy has been, I am still subject to constant criticism about our counterterrorism policies, and our actions in Libya, and our lack of military action in Syria. And so if I am thinking about the prime minister of Israel, I am not somebody who believes that it is just a matter of changing your mind and suddenly everything goes smoothly. But I believe that Bibi is strong enough that if he decided this was the right thing to do for Israel, that he could do it. If he does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach. And as I said before, it is hard to come up with one that is plausible. You told me in an interview six years ago, when you were running for president, you said, My job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we are going to be stuck in the same status quo that we have been stuck in for decades now. It is been the official position of the United States for decades that settlements are illegitimate. If this process fails, do you see this becoming more than the rhetorical position of the United States?


Whether that has impact on the way you deal with the United Nations questions, an impact on the aid that the U.S. provides Israel? The U.S. commitment to Israel's security is not subject to periodic policy differences. That is a rock-solid commitment, and it is one that I have upheld proudly throughout my tenure. I think the affection that Americans feel for Israel, the bond that our people feel and the bipartisan support that people have for Israel is not going to be affected. So it is not realistic nor is it my desire or expectation that the core commitments we have with Israel change during the remainder of my administration or the next administration. But what I do believe is that if you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we have seen in a very long time if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited. And that has consequences. Look, sometimes people are dismissive of multilateral institutions and the United Nations and the EU and the high commissioner of such and such. There is a lot of hot air and rhetoric and posturing that may not always mean much. But in today's world, where power is much more diffuse, where the threats that any state or peoples face can come from non-state actors and asymmetrical threats, and where international cooperation is needed in order to deal with those threats, the absence of international goodwill makes you less safe. The condemnation of the international community can translate into a lack of cooperation when it comes to key security interests. It means reduced influence for us, the United States, in issues that are of interest to Israel. Let us go to Iran. Two years ago, you told me in an interview that, I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say. You know, I do not have to tell you, that many of your Arab and Israeli friends are worried, post-Syria the incident in which you drew a red line and there was no military enforcement of it they are worried about your willingness to use force under any circumstance. How do you think the Iranian regime saw your reluctance to use force against Assad? And does this have any impact on the way they are dealing with the current nuclear negotiations?

Interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of Bloomberg's View


I threatened kinetic strikes on Syria unless they got rid of their chemical weapons. When I made that threat, Syria denied even having chemical weapons. In the span of 10 days to two weeks, you had their patrons, the Iranians and the Russians, force or persuade Assad to come clean on his chemical weapons, inventory them for the international community, and commit to a timeline to get rid of them. And the process has moved more slowly than we would like, but it has actually moved, and we have now seen 15 to 20 percent of those chemical weapons on their way out of Syria with a very concrete schedule to get rid of the rest. That would not have happened had the Iranians said, Obama's bluffing, he is not actually really willing to take a strike. If the Russians had said, Ehh, do not worry about it, all those submarines that are floating around your coastline, that is all just for show. Of course they took it seriously! That is why they engaged in the policy they did. Now, the truth is, some of our commentators or friends in the region, their complaint is not that somehow we indicated an unwillingness to use military force in the region their complaint is that I did not choose to go ahead, even if we could get a deal on chemical weapons, to hit them anyway as a means of getting rid of Assad, in what has increasingly become a proxy war inside of Syria. You do not believe the Iranian leadership now thinks that your all options are on the table threat as it relates to their nuclear program you do not think that they have stopped taking that seriously? I know they take it seriously. How do you know they take it seriously? We have a high degree of confidence that when they look at 35,000 U.S. military personnel in the region that are engaged in constant training exercises under the direction of a president who already has shown himself willing to take military action in the past, that they should take my statements seriously. Now, that does not mean that that is my preferred course of action. There are always consequences to military action that are unpredictable and can spin out of control, and even if perfectly executed carry great costs. So if we can resolve this issue diplomatically, we absolutely should.


And the fact that in painstaking fashion, over the course of several years, we were able to enforce an unprecedented sanctions regime that so crippled the Iranian economy that they were willing to come to the table and, in fact, helped to shape the Iranian election, and that they are now in a joint plan of action that for the first time in a decade halts their nuclear program no centrifuges being installed; the 20 percent enriched uranium being drawn down to zero; Arak on hold; international inspectors buzzing around in ways that are unimaginable even a year ago what that all indicates is that there is the opportunity, there is the chance for us to resolve this without resorting to military force. And if we have any chance to make sure that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, if we have any chance to render their breakout capacity nonexistent, or so minimal that we can handle it, then we have got to pursue that path. And that has been my argument with Prime Minister Netanyahu; that has been my argument with members of Congress who have been interested in imposing new sanctions. My simple point has been, we lose nothing by testing this out. If we were able to get Iran to operate in a responsible fashion not funding terrorist organizations, not trying to stir up sectarian discontent in other countries, and not developing a nuclear weapon you could see an equilibrium developing between Sunni, or predominantly Sunni, Gulf states and Iran in which there is competition, perhaps suspicion, but not an active or proxy warfare. I think I understand what you mean, but in the Gulf and this goes to the question of why our allies are uneasy in the Gulf you have a king of Saudi Arabia who has been asking for years for you to cut the head off the snake, referring to Iran. They are hearing this they are reading this and hearing you say, live with the snake. Do you understand why they are uneasy about your approach, or your broader philosophical approach, or are they overinterpreting this opening to Iran? Here is what I understand. For years now, Iran has been an irresponsible international actor. They have sponsored terrorism. They have threatened their neighbors. They have financed actions that have killed people in neighboring states. And Iran has also exploited or fanned sectarian divisions in other countries. In light of that record, it is completely understandable for other countries to be not only hostile towards Iran but also doubtful about the possibilities of Iran changing. I get that.


But societies do change I think there is a difference between an active hostility and sponsoring of terrorism and mischief, and a country that you are in competition with and you do not like but it is not blowing up homes in your country or trying to overthrow your government. And you feel there is a real opportunity to achieve a genuine breakthrough? And the new leaders are just for show. Let us assume all that. If we can ensure that they do not have nuclear weapons, then we have at least prevented them from bullying their neighbors, or heaven forbid, using those weapons, and the other misbehavior they are engaging in is manageable. If, on the other hand, they are capable of changing; if, in fact, as a consequence of a deal on their nuclear program those voices and trends inside of Iran are strengthened, and their economy becomes more integrated into the international community, and there is more travel and greater openness, even if that takes a decade or 15 years or 20 years, then that is very much an outcome we should desire. So again, there is a parallel to the Middle East discussion we were having earlier. The only reason you would not want us to test whether or not we can resolve this nuclear program issue diplomatically would be if you thought that by a quick military exercise you could remove the threat entirely. And since I am the commander in chief of the most powerful military on earth, I think I have pretty good judgment as to whether or not this problem can be best solved militarily. And what I am saying is it is a lot better if we solve it diplomatically. So why are the Sunnis so nervous about you? I think that there are shifts that are taking place in the region that have caught a lot of them off guard. I think there was a comfort with a United States that was comfortable with an existing order and the existing alignments, and was an implacable foe of Iran, even if most of that was rhetorical and did not actually translate into stopping the nuclear program. What I have been saying to our partners in the region is, We have got to respond and adapt to change. What is the best way for us actually to make sure Iran does not have a nuclear weapon? I am not big on extremism generally. I do not think you will get me to choose on those two issues. What I will say is that if you look at Iranian behavior, they are strategic, and they are not impulsive.


They have a worldview, and they see their interests, and they respond to costs and benefits. And that is not to say that they are not a theocracy that embraces all kinds of ideas that I find abhorrent, but they are not North Korea. They are a large, powerful country that sees itself as an important player on the world stage, and I do not think has a suicide wish, and can respond to incentives. And that is the reason why they came to the table on sanctions. So just to finish up, the most important thing that I have said to Bibi and members of Congress on this whole issue is that it is profoundly in all of our interests to let this process play itself out. Let us test whether or not Iran can move far enough to give us assurances that their program is peaceful and that they do not have breakout capacity. If, in fact, they cannot get there, the worst that will have happened is that we will have frozen their program for a six-month period. We will have much greater insight into their program. All the architecture of our sanctions will have still been enforced, in place. Their economy might have modestly improved during this six-month to one-year period. But I promise you that all we have to do is turn the dial back on and suddenly Well, partly because 95 percent of it never got turned off. And we will be in a stronger position to say to our partners, including the Russians, the Chinese and others, who have thus far stuck with us on sanctions, that it is Iran that walked away; it was not the U.S., it was not Congress, it was not our new sanctions that jettisoned the deal. And we will then have the diplomatic high ground to tighten the screws even further. If, on the other hand, it is perceived that we were not serious about negotiations, then that ironically is the quickest path to sanctions unraveling, if in fact Iran is insincere. If sanctions got them to the table, why would not more sanctions keep them at the table? The logic of sanctions was to get them to negotiate. The logic of the joint action plan is to freeze the situation for a certain period of time to allow the negotiators to work.


The notion that in the midst of negotiations we would then improve our position by saying, We are going to squeeze you even harder, ignores the fact that Rouhani and the negotiators in Iran have their own politics. They have got to respond to their own hardliners. And there are a whole bunch of folks inside of Iran who are just as suspicious of our motives and willingness to ultimately lift sanctions as we are suspicious of their unwillingness to get rid of their nuclear program. Even in the old Westerns or gangster movies, right, everyone puts their gun down just for a second. You sit down, you have a conversation; if the conversation does not go well, you leave the room and everybody knows what is going to happen and everybody gets ready. But you do not start shooting in the middle of the room during the course of negotiations. So the logic of new sanctions right now would only make sense if, in fact, we had a schedule of dismantling the existing sanctions. And we have kept 95 percent of them in place. Iran is going to be, net, losing more money with the continuing enforcement of oil sanctions during the course of this joint plan of action than they are getting from the modest amount of money we gave them access to. And, by the way, even though they are talking to European businesses, oil companies have been contacting Iran and going into Iran, nobody has been making any deals because they know that our sanctions are still in place. They may want to reserve their first place in line if, in fact, a deal is struck and sanctions are removed. But we have sent a very clear message to them and, by the way, to all of our partners and the P5 + 1, that they better tell their companies that their sanctions are still in force, including U.S. unilateral sanctions. And we are going to enforce them, and we have been enforcing them during the course of these discussions so far. I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. I was really struck by that last sentence. I am wondering at what point in Syria does it become too much to bear? I am not talking about the bifurcated argument, boots on the ground or nothing, but what does Assad have to do to provoke an American-led military response?


If you could roll back the clock three years, could you have done more to build up the more-moderate opposition groups? I think those who believe that two years ago, or three years ago, there was some swift resolution to this thing had we acted more forcefully, fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the conflict in Syria and the conditions on the ground there. When you have a professional army that is well-armed and sponsored by two large states who have huge stakes in this, and they are fighting against a farmer, a carpenter, an engineer who started out as protesters and suddenly now see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict the notion that we could have, in a clean way that did not commit U.S. military forces, changed the equation on the ground there was never true. We have supported military assistance to a moderate opposition in Syria, and we have done so at a pace that stretches the limits of what they can absorb. But the fact of the matter is if you are looking at changing the military facts on the ground, the kind of involvement, the kind of involvement on the part of U.S. military forces that would have been required would have been significant enough that there would have been severe questions about our international authority to do so. You do not have a UN mandate; congressional authority we saw how that played out even on the narrow issue of chemical weapons. And there was the possibility that we would have made the situation worse rather than better on the ground, precisely because of U.S. involvement, which would have meant that we would have had the third, or, if you count Libya, the fourth war in a Muslim country in the span of a decade. Having said all that the situation in Syria is not just heartbreaking, but dangerous. Over the last two years I have pushed our teams to find out what are the best options in a bad situation. And we will continue to do everything we can to bring about a political resolution, to pressure the Russians and the Iranians, indicating to them that it is not in their interests to be involved in a perpetual war. I am always darkly amused by this notion that somehow Iran has won in Syria. I mean, you hear sometimes people saying, They are winning in Syria. And you say, This was their one friend in the Arab world, a member of the Arab League, and it is now in rubble. It is bleeding them because they are having to send in billions of dollars.


Were you surprised by the intensity of the reaction, and the hostility from the AIG bonus debacle? I was not surprised by it. Our team was not surprised by it. The one thing that I have tried to emphasize, though, throughout this week, and will continue to try to emphasize during the course of the next several months as we dig ourselves out of the economic hole that we are in, is we cannot govern out of anger. We have got to try to make good decisions based on the facts, in order to put people back to work, to get credit flowing again. And I am not going to be distracted by what is happening day to day. Well, I think that as a general proposition, you do not want to be passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals. You want to pass laws that have some broad applicability. And as a general proposition, I think you certainly do not want to use the tax code to punish people. I think that you have got a pretty egregious situation here that people are understandably upset about. And so let us see if there are ways of doing this that are both legal, that are constitutional that uphold our basic principles of fairness, but do not hamper us from getting the banking system back on track. You have got a piece of legislation that could affect tens of thousands of people. Some of these people probably had nothing to do with the financial crisis. And some of them probably deserve the bonuses that they got. Well, that is why we are going to have to take a look at this legislation carefully. Clearly the AIG folks getting those bonuses did not make sense. And one of the things that I have to do is to communicate to Wall Street that, given the current crisis that we are in, they cannot expect help from taxpayers but they enjoy all the benefits that they enjoyed before the crisis happened. You get a sense that, in some institutions that has not sunk in. That you cannot go back to the old way of doing business, certainly not on the taxpayers' dime. And we do not want to cut off our nose to spite our face. Your Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has been under a lot of pressure this week. Has he volunteered to, or come to you and said, Do you think I should step down? And if he were to come to me, I'd say, Sorry, Buddy. You you have still got the job. He is got a lot of stuff on his plate.

Interview with Steve Kroft on CBS News' 60 Minutes


And he is doing a terrific job. And I take responsibility for not, I think, having given him as much help as he needs. It is gotten tougher in the age of 24-7 news cycles. And a lot of people who we think are about to serve in the administration and Treasury suddenly say, Well, you know what? I do not want to go through some of the scrutiny, embarrassment, in addition to taking huge cuts in pay. Have you offered some of these high level positions the Treasury to people who would have turned them down? Your Treasury Secretary's plan... Geithner's plan, and -- your plan really -- for solving the banking crisis -- was met with very, very, very tepid response. And you had a lot of people criticize... a lot of people said they did not understand it. A lot of people said it did not have any -- enough details to solve the problem. I know you are coming out with something next week on this. But these criticisms were coming from people like Warren Buffett, people who had supported you, and you had counted as being your... And nd Warren still does support me. But I think that understand Warren's also a big player in the financial markets who is a major owner of Wells Fargo. And so he is got a perspective from the perspective of somebody who is part owner of a bank. You have got members of Congress who've got a different perspective. Which is, We do not want to spend any more taxpayer money. You have got a whole host of players, all of whom may have a completely different solution. And you know, one of the challenges that Tim Geithner has had is the same challenge that anybody would have in this situation. People want a lot of contradictory things. You know, the banks would love a lot of taxpayer money with no strings attached. Folks in Congress, as well as the American people, would love to fix the banks without spending any money. And so at a certain point, you know, you have got just a very difficult line to walk. You need the financial community... Do you think that the people on Wall Street and the people in the financial community that you need trust you, believe in you? Part of my job is to communicate to them, Look, I believe in the market. I believe in financial innovation. And I believe in success.


But what I also know is that the financial sector was out of balance. People, if you went into investment banking, you were making 20 times what a teacher made. You were not making 200 times what a teacher made. There is a perception right now, at least in New York, which is where I live and work. And now I think there are a lot of people say, Look, we are not going to be able to keep our best people. They are not going to stay and work here for $250,000 a year when they can go work for a hedge fund, if they can find one that is still working-- I have told them directly. Cause I have heard some of this. they need to spend a little time outside of New York. Because you know, if you go to North Dakota, or you go to Iowa, or you go to Arkansas, where folks would be thrilled to be making $75,000 a year -- without a bonus -- then I think they'd get a sense of why people are frustrated. I think we have to understand the severity of the crisis that we are in right now. The fact is that, because of bad bets made on Wall Street, there have been enormous losses. I mean there were a whole bunch of folks who, on paper, if you looked at quarterly reports, were wildly successful, selling derivatives that turned out to be... Now you know, gosh, I do not think it is me being anti-Wall Street just to point out that the best and the brightest did not do too well on that front, and that you know, maybe the incentive structures that have been set up have not produced the kinds of long term growth that I think everybody's looking for. Were you surprised at the depth of this recession when you got here? I do not think that we anticipated how steep the decline would be, particularly in employment. I mean if you look at just, you know, hundreds of thousands, now millions of jobs being shed over the course of two months -- or three months, that slope is a lot steeper than anything that we have said -- we have seen before. Now, there is a potential silver lining, which may be that things are so accelerated now, the modern economy is so intertwined and wired, that things happen really fast for ill, but things may recover faster than they have in the past.


That the financial system could still implode if you had a big failure at AIG or at Citicorp? And if we did nothing you could still have some big problems. There are certain institutions that are so big that if they fail, they bring a lot of other financial institutions down with them. And if all those financial institutions fail all at the same time, then you could see an even more destructive recession and potentially depression. Because I think we did learn lessons from the Great Depression. Is there some limit to the amount of money we can spend? And are we getting close to it? The limit is our ability to finance these expenditures through borrowing. And, you know, the United States is fortunate that it has the largest, most stable economic and political system around. And so the dollar is still strong because people are still buying Treasury Bills. If we do not get a handle on this, and also start looking at our long-term deficit projections, at a certain point people will stop buying those Treasury Bills. Do you have any idea when this might end? Well, we are already starting to see flickers of hope out there. That promises the possibility at least of the housing market bottoming out and stabilizing. It is not going to happen equally in every part of the country. I just want to say that the only thing less popular than putting money into banks is putting money into the auto industry. 18 percent are in favor. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, I mean, he is sitting there just making jokes about money-- How do you deal with -- I mean, wh -- explain - You know, sometimes my team talks about the fact that if you had said to us a year ago that the least of my problems would be Iraq, which is still a pretty serious problem, I do not think anybody would have believed it. But we have got a lot on our plate. And a lot of difficult decisions that we are going to have to make. Making sure that al Qaeda cannot attack the U.S. homeland and U.S. interests and our allies. And in service of that priority there may be a whole host of things that we need to do. We may need to build up economic capacity in Afghanistan. We may need to improve our diplomatic efforts in Pakistan. We may need to bring a more regional, diplomatic approach to bear. We may need to coordinate more effectively with our allies.


But we cannot lose sight of what our central mission is. The same mission that we had when we went in after 9-11. And that is these folks can project violence against the United States' citizens. And that is something that we cannot tolerate. But what we cannot do is think that just a military approach in Afghanistan is going to be able to solve our problems. So what we are looking for is a comprehensive strategy. This should not come as news to anybody given its history. We need to be careful what we are getting ourselves into in Afghanistan. Because we have come to be looked upon there by people in Afghanistan, and even people now in Pakistan. As another foreign power coming in, trying to take over the region. I am very mindful of that. Afghanistan is not going to be easy in many ways. This is the assessment of commanders on the ground. Is Iraq was actually easier than Afghanistan. You have got a much better educated population, infrastructure to build off of. You do not have some of the same destabilizing border issues that you have between Afghanistan and Pakistan. But it is not acceptable for us to simply sit back and let safe havens of terrorists plan and plot I am sure you want to answer this. A week ago Vice President Cheney-- said essentially that your willingness to shut down Guantanamo and to change the way prisoners are treated and interrogator -- interrogated -- was making America weaker and more vulnerable to another attack. And that the interrogation techniques that were used at Guantanamo were essential in preventing another attack against the United States. I fundamentally disagree with Dick Cheney. You know, I think that Vice President Cheney has been at the head of a movement whose notion is somehow that we cannot reconcile our core values, our Constitution, our belief that we do not torture, with our national security interests. I think he is drawing the wrong lesson from history. The facts do not bear him out. I think he is -- that attitude, that philosophy has done incredible damage to our image and position in the world. I mean, the fact of the matter is after all these years how many convictions actually came out of Guantanamo? How many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney? What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment. Which means that there is constant effective recruitment of Arab fighters and Muslim fighters against U.S. interests all around the world.


Some of it being organized by a few people who were released from Guantanamo. Well there is no doubt that we have not done a particularly effective job in sorting through who are truly dangerous individuals that we have got to make sure are not a threat to us, who are folks that we just swept up. The whole premise of Guantanamo promoted by Vice President Cheney was that somehow the American system of justice was not up to the task of dealing with these terrorists. I fundamentally disagree with that. Now do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? What do you do with those people? Well, I think we are going to have to figure out a mechanism to make sure that they not released and do us harm. But do so in a way that is consistent with both our traditions, sense of due process, international law. And, you know, I am surprised that the Vice President is eager to defend a legacy that was unsustainable. Let us assume that we did not change these practices. Are we going to just keep on going until -- you know, the entire Muslim world and Arab world despises us? I do not know a lot of thoughtful thinkers, liberal or conservative, who think that that was the right approach. So have you gotten into a routine? You know, I typically work out in the morning. Michelle's often there with me. And then I come down here and talk to our National Security team. Then we talk to the economic team. After that, who knows? 00 I sort of know what I am doing. This is the living quarters, up on the second floor. We got a gym right over there up on the third floor. And the second floor is our bedroom's on this side, and we got a dining room on that side. How are you finding the job? It is challenging you know, I find that the governance part of it, the decision making part of it actually comes -- comes pretty naturally. I think I have got a great team. I think we are making good decisions. The hardest thing about the job is staying focused. Because there is so many demands and decisions that are pressed upon you. What is the hardest decision you have had to make in the last 60 days? Well, I would say that the decision to send more troops-- into Afghanistan. But it is a weighty decision because we actually had to make the decision prior to the completion of strategic review that we were conducting.


When I make a decision to send 17 thousand young Americans to Afghanistan, you can understand that intellectually - but understanding what that means for those families, for those young people when you end up sitting at your desk, signing a condolence letter to one of the family members of a fallen hero, you are reminded each and every day at every moment that the decisions you make count. What is the most frustrating part of the job? The fact that you are often confronted with bad choices that flow from less than optimal decisions made a year ago, two years ago, five years ago, when you were not here. A lot of times, when things land at my desk, it is a choice between bad and worse. And as somebody pointed out to me the only things that land on my desk are tough decisions. Because, if they were easy decisions, somebody down the food chain's already made them. How many decisions do you have to make a day? Every time somebody walks in your office. Otherwise, they do not get a meeting. And you are briefed for all that before it happens. I spend a lot of time reading. People keep on asking me, Well, what are you reading these days? You know, you get a little time to read history or you know, policy books that are of interest. But there is a huge amount of information that has to be digested, especially right now. Because the complexities of Afghanistan are matched, maybe even dwarfed, by the complexities of the economic situation. Do you take a day off? I will wander down to the oval office I will do some work, but I will still have time for the kids. I have to say that I was not the purchaser of this. The admiral, our chief usher, Admiral Steve Rochon, took great interest when we said that we should get a swing set, and found what I assume must be the -- Rolls Royce of swing sets. You did not have one of these when you were a kid? I thought we were going to get like two swings. Have the girls had kids over after school? And they have tested this out. And it got a thumbs up. Are they liking it here? You know, they are adapting remarkably-- in ways-- that I just would not have expected. Well it is cool, but what is interesting is actually how unimpressed they are with it. I mean they -- they are going to school. And they are having fun.


ENTITY, the major focus of your Presidency has been the reactivation of the economy, and many would, of course, arguably say that you have been very successful at that. Why now with the project of tax reform? Well, what we have started with the economy and the growth that we have had-the increase in prosperity here-I think is only a beginning. I think there is further to go, and so the tax reform, I think, could contribute to economic growth. But the main thing is, even without that, our present tax system is unfair. It is so complicated that a great many people cannot determine how much they owe the Government without getting expensive legal help. And we believe it is long overdue that we have a tax system that is more fair; that is simpler, more easily understood by the people; and that, at the same time, can lower the tax rates in the simplification, removing some of the loopholes that have led to unfair deductions by some, the use of tax shelters to avoid, legally, a fair share of tax. If through simplification and through the new tax system the average amount of money that the individual is going to contribute to the IRS is going to diminish, how, then, is the Government going to compensate for the diminishing tax returns that it will take? Well, we are not going to diminish the total tax revenues the Government gets. It is true we will lower the rates; it is true that individuals will pay less tax than they are presently paying. The difference will be made up in part by what we think will be more growth in the economy, and the more the economy grows, the more tax revenues there'll be. But mainly it is because right now there are a great many people who have taken advantage of some well-intentioned tax loopholes, as we call them, to reduce their personal tax burden, and this has resulted in a great unfairness. For example, we have people today who are paying a higher income tax as individuals than the great corporations they work for are paying as their total tax. So, once we change that, the difference will mainly be made up by those tax revenues that are being avoided by some, and that is where the fairness comes in. Everybody will be paying their fair share. And we are also banking on the growth of the economy.

Interview With Guillermo Descalzi of the Spanish International Network


Talking about the primary focus of this reform, many see the family as the main concern of yours, and I would like to ask you about which is the main focus of this project of yours. Well, we think it is aimed at the family, and we think that the family is the most important unit in our whole social structure. But what we are going to do in addition to lowering the rates, we are going to make the personal deduction for a wage earner $4,000. We are going to almost double the increase exemption-or deduction for dependents to $2,000 because it has not nearly kept up with inflation over the years-that deduction that used to be $600 and then came to $1,040. Well, now it is going to be $2,000 under our plan, and thus we feel particularly the families at the lower end of the earning scale-we could see an average family of four that would not have to pay a penny on the first $12,000 of earnings. Also we are going to see people that are near the poverty line that are going to be dropped from the tax rolls entirely. Now, ENTITY, tax reform is a very serious and complex issue, and there have been many attempts in the past. There is opposition in Congress, and I would like to ask you, in here, which are the political angles of tax reform, or are there any political angles to it? I think the main political angles have to do with specific changes we want to make-some of those deductions I am talking about removing-that there are special interest groups that will try to preserve those, and they will get here and there some congressional support in behalf of one or the others of those features. But I believe that overall this may be one of those times when we see there are no Democrats or Republicans, just Americans, because overall there is a bipartisan feeling that tax reform is necessary. Well, among the Americans, we have Hispanic Americans, and, of course, as you know, most of Hispanic America-not most, a large proportion of Hispanic America is in the modest-income category. You already talked a little bit about how people with a modest income would benefit, but talking specifically about Hispanic Americans, most of them in a modest-income category, how would modest-income and middle-income Americans benefit from this proposal? They would benefit most of all, particularly at the lower end of the earnings.


Right now, you know, there are 14 tax brackets that people, based on their earnings, fall into. We are reducing that to 3-a 15-percent bracket, a 25-percent bracket, and a 35-percent bracket. The people at the very lowest end and there around the poverty line will find they no longer have any taxes at all to pay. And elderly people that are in that particular bracket, some of the handicapped people, and then those that are just earning but around that location-they will not have any tax to pay at all. ENTITY, let me go to another major concern of your Presidency. I remember interviewing you in Los Angeles in 1980, and you mentioned as one of your big concerns the spread of communism in this hemisphere, in the Caribbean and Central America. Well, one of your most notable successes in foreign policy has been Grenada; however, we still have Nicaragua, and it continues unabated. What can you tell us that will give us confidence that the problems presented now by the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua will be solved in the future? Right now we have a totalitarian government-the Sandinista government-in Nicaragua. This came out of the revolution to overthrow the dictator, Somoza. But the people who are fighting as the contras against the Sandinista government now are mainly the people who were part of the revolution also against Somoza. They came together to overthrow that particular regime. In 1979 those revolutionaries, including the Sandinistas, went to the Organization of American States and asked that organization to appeal to Somoza to step down so the killing could stop. Well, what were the goals of their revolution? The promise was given that it was to have democracy, to have free labor unions, a free press, free speech-all the things that we associate with democracy and government by and of and for the people. They had been a pro-Communist organization for years back. They ousted from the revolution those who had fought with them. Some of the leaders had to flee into exile; some of them were imprisoned; some of them, I am afraid, were executed. And we have this totalitarian government. It is literally a satellite of Cuba, the Communist regime in Cuba, and that means it is indirectly a satellite of the Soviet Union. It has made it plain that its revolution knows no borders, that it is going to be the centerpiece here in the Western Hemisphere for spreading that kind of Communist regime throughout the hemisphere.


Their military has been furnished, and their weapons-well, they are furnishing weapons to the guerrillas in their neighboring country, El Salvador, where there is a democratic government. So, we think that in helping, as we have been trying to help, the contras-and we have seen them grow as the dissatisfaction in Nicaragua with the Sandinistas spread among the people; the forces of the contras have grown to around 20,000 in number. Deserters from the Nicaraguan ENTITY, the Sandinista army, are turning up and volunteering as contras. So, we think that those people who were simply striving for the original promises of the revolution to be kept should have our help. That does not mean, however, military forces from the United States. All of our friends in Latin America have made it plain to us-maybe with some memories of a far distant past-that, no, they have the manpower; they do not need American manpower. They do need our help in supplies and weapons and training and so forth, and that we are giving them. And, so, I know that the contras have progressed to the point that they have several times offered to lay down their arms and negotiate a settlement with the Sandinistas, their former allies in the revolution, and the Sandinistas have repeatedly refused. But we think they deserve our help. Well, you say that we are giving them help, and, yes, we are; however, Congress has wavered constantly on this issue. It is teeter-tottered between the Boland amendment and no aid to the contra& Has Congress been playing politics with the security of this hemisphere? Well, I hesitate to say that. I think maybe the rest were well intentioned, and they are suffering from something I call the Vietnam syndrome. I think too many of them, still remembering our entanglement there 10,000 miles away from our own land, in that that this might lead to our military involvement. And, so, they have been cautious about what we can do. As I have already explained, we have no intention of military involvement nor do I think it is needed. And I think as more of them come to see that, and also as more of them have come to realize the real nature of the Sandinista government-that it is a totalitarian, Communist government-that that opposition is lessening. ENTITY, another very important issue for Hispanic Americans is that of immigration.


As you know, there have been attempts in the past at immigration reform. This is the third time that Senator Simpson is pushing his own version of immigration reform through Congress-and Congressmen Rodino and Mazzoli in the House-do you support this? Are you behind this attempt? Would you sign into law a Simpson-Rodino-Mazzoli bill if it comes to be? I have to say that, beginning back in 1981, I supported the principle of reform in our immigration laws because we, in a way, have lost control of our borders. Right now, I have to say with regard to the Simpson bill that-and we have informed of this-that we support generally his bill, but there are some amendments that we think are necessary. For one, we very much need in any immigration bill-we need protection for people who are in this country and who have not become citizens, for example, that they are protected and legitimized and given permanent residency here. And we want to see some things of that kind added to the immigration bill. ENTITY, this is my last question, really, and I want to ask you simply if you have any messages for the Hispanic community in America that is listening to you. Our whole country is made up of people who came here from someplace else, either the individuals themselves or, like myself-in my case it was grandparents, others it is their parents-but we represent the cultures and the diversity of the whole world. And we have come together in what some people called a melting pot and created a whole new breed of human being called an American. And I have to say, I think America's great success in the world has been the result of this diversity and this understanding and coming together of such diverse peoples. And I just have to say that our Hispanic Americans-their contribution to America is not surpassed by that of any other people. They have brought a great warmth, and they have brought great traditions of family. In our wars, they have brought great service and great heroism and loyalty to this country. And all I would like to say to them is, God bless them all, and vaya con Dios.


When it comes to pacific trade this seems like this is fourth quarter, full court press, from you and your administration. It is the right thing to do for the American economy and the American people, and certainly the right thing to do for Seattle and the state of Washington. You know, since I have came into office, we have had very significant recovery and about a third of that has been driven by exports. We know that not only does it create billions of dollars in business and you know, millions of jobs depend on it, but what also is true is that typically wages for folks who work for exporting companies are about 18 percent higher than companies just focusing on the domestic market. So what we are arguing here is that globalization is here to stay, we have got to do everything we can to make sure that we are accessing other markets the same way that they are accessing ours, and that there is a level playing field on issues like labor standards and environmental standards. And that is what is reflected in this trade deal. Let me address that last issue. When Secretary Kerry was in Seattle area a couple weeks ago, some of the Boeing workers protested and some said they are worried about a trade deal that would adversely affect them, fearing that Boeing would build more plane parts outside of the United States, thus costing American jobs. What assurances can you give that worker from Boeing and any other big manufacturing plant that their job will be assured and stay put? Well let me just say this, other than maybe the CEO of Boeing, I do not know anyone who is done more to sell Boeing planes around the world than me and this administration. We have been very active in promoting some of our outstanding manufacturers and Boeing obviously is an iconic company. And what we know is is that when we have access to these markets then we are going to be able to compete and we also know that the U.S. has the best workers in the world, the best innovation in the world. And if Boeing was looking to relocate facilities than they would have already done so because under existing rules there is not much preventing them from doing so. Nothing in this agreement is going to induce other companies to move jobs, in fact it what it may do is bring some jobs back. I was at Nike, which like a lot of footwear companies, manufactures overseas.

Interview With Dennis Bounds of KING 5


And what they said is look if this passes, we may bring ten thousand jobs back here to the United States because a lot of the production's moving into the high end production as opposed to low end, and we have more skilled workers here in the United States than we do in some of these other places. So you see no dislocation other than that would benefit the United States and American workers? You know, in an economy of this size, there is always going to be some dislocations. Companies that are reliant on a model of just low wage workers, they have already left. And what we are seeing, cause manufacturing has actually grown faster under my administration than any time since the 1990s. And it is grown faster than any other sector of the economy. What we are finding is is that companies want to move here because of low energy cost, high worker skills, access to the biggest market in the world. What they worry about is are they also going to be able to sell from the United States to other countries and if we can pry those markets open, we are going to be that much better off. Well it is not NAFTA partly because we have-one of the big problems with NAFTA is we did not have strong labor and environmental standards that were enforceable in the agreement. And we have corrected that. And in fact, the two countries that were involved in NAFTA, Canada and Mexico, has signatories that if they end up agreeing to this Trans-pacific Partnership, they'd actually now be subject to higher labor and environmental standards than they currently are. So it is more likely that a U.S. worker is going to be competing on a level playing field with a worker in Mexico than he is under current law. If the voting Congress in the House, which is the one we are anticipating perhaps as early as next week, does not go your way, is that a disavowal of the Pacific trade treaty? Well first of all I-I never hypothesize that we are not going to get this done because it is the right thing for the American people and- You must think about it though. I think it will-but understand, all this does is give me the authority to negotiate the deal. And once we complete the deal, before I sign the deal, I have got to give Congress and the American people and the press 60 days in which this every provision every page is posted on a website.

Interview With Dennis Bounds of KING 5


Let us bring in the Speaker of the House, ENTITY. I know there is still a lot of votes to be counted and, anyway, we have a lot of news to get to. But before we get to that, I just wanted to ask, how is your husband, Paul, doing? He is one good day after another, he is improving. It will take a little while. But we have been so comforted by the outpouring of so many prayers and good wishes and even people saying, 'I was not going to vote, but now I am going to vote because this has gone too far.' I will convey that to him. You know, we last spoke in September. You were confident then that the Democrats would do well, kind of a lonely voice at that time, given high inflation and President Biden's low approval ratings. How did Democrats do it? Well, first of all, thank you for acknowledging that we had a different approach. It was not anything that we ever accepted when the pundits in Washington said we could not win because history, history, history. Elections are about the future. I am very proud of our candidates, both our incumbents as well as our Red to Blue candidates. They never accepted the punditry that they could not win, they had courage, they had purpose, and they understood their district. They also rejected calls from Washington about, 'Oh, your message should change.' No, our message was clear - People Over Politics, lower costs, bigger paychecks, safer communities. And they knew the value of a woman's right to choose, they knew how important it was to protect our democracy, they knew the contrast between themselves and their opponents, and that is what made them win. It was not about Washington said 'you should change your message,' Washington says 'you cannot win.' I hope that is a lesson, because really it depresses the vote sometimes when people say 'it is all over' eighteen months before the election. We never accepted that. Now the road to keeping the Democratic Majority is still quite narrow. Democrats have to run the table on the toss-up races still out there to keep control of the House. Do you see a realistic path to victory? And I give tribute, of course, to our candidates, I also give credit to our grassroots. This - they are our VIPs, our volunteers in politics, millions of doors knocked, millions of doors knocked.

Transcript of Pelosi Interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos


So they crossed a threshold. They leapfrogged over all the projections - the predictions and the rest. Whatever the outcome, we are on the path to taking our country to a better place than with being dragged down by the other side. I am disappointed with what happened in New York, that four votes could make the difference at the end of the day. But we have not - we have not given up, and we have not given up because the quality of our candidates, the purpose of our why, why this is important, and President Biden did a great job presenting about our democracy being on the ballot. So it took a great deal to get to where we are, and we will just see. I said before, and you have heard me say on our walk in the park, it is like the Olympics. In a half a second, you can be a gold, silver, bronze or honored to be an Olympian. But, again, we are very proud of the outcome, and we are very proud because it was a victory For The People, not the punditry, but For The People, as well as the success in Nevada is a personal joy for some of us because of Harry Reid. The President, we have the White House, we have the Senate, and we are going to have a big strong vote in the House, a very different outcome than some would have predicted. And if Democrats keep the Majority, will you run again for Speaker? I am not - right now, I have said I am not making any comments until this election is finished, and we have a little more time to go. I wish it - It is going to take some time to count those votes in California, I know. Your Republican counterpart, Kevin McCarthy, it looks like even if Republicans do prevail, we are going to be talking about 219, 220, maybe 221 votes in the House. Can he govern with that kind of a Majority? Well, it depends on their purpose. In our House, we had that kind of - those kinds of numbers. But we were united - we were very united in terms of being there for the - America's working families, that dominated our discussion - although we have our differences of opinion on certain issues, when it came down to the main purpose of the Democrats, America's working families, there was no question that we would win every vote that we would - took to the Floor.


And this new - the new Members coming in, again, a constant reinvigoration of the Congress that our founders intended. They will be speaking so clearly to it. We have one of the youngest Members, Congressman-to-be Frost, coming in, and it is - it is pretty exciting for us. It is about what the message and purpose will be demonstrated to the American people. And, again, it is about our democracy. Our democracy was on the ballot. Our planet was on the ballot. Personal freedom was on the ballot. These three issues very important to young voters, and they were very important in our success in this election. Whatever the outcome, you said this week, quote, 'We need to unify, I think it is really important to restore unity to Congress.' What steps do Democrats need to take to bring the country together? Well, we have always been taking that step because we honor our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that should be a unifying principle for us. The - when, many of our bills, we worked very hard to make it bipartisan, bipartisan, bipartisan. With it, you can accomplish almost anything. And the point I want to make is, when the public knows what is at stake and what is happening there, I think we will see more cooperation, again, working together to produce a bill, but not having people vote no, take the dough, and make it look like we do not have bipartisanship, when, in fact, in the bills we do, but in the votes, not necessarily. Before the new Congress is sworn in in January, you have a lot of work in what would be a lame duck session in December. Probably at the top of that list, extending the debt limit because Republicans have said, if they get the Majority, they are going to try to force concessions from Democrats in order to extend the debt limit. Do you believe you can get a permanent or a very large extension of the debt limit during the lame duck session? I think it is important to note that what the Republicans have said is they are going to use the vote on the debt limit as leverage to cut Medicare and Social Security. I think the public should know that. It is a difference of opinion, and I think the public should know who is on their side on all of this. We cannot allow them to cut Social Security.


People paid into it, and the Republicans cannot use it as leverage to say, 'We will only lift the debt ceiling if you will reduce the benefits for our seniors and others on Medicare and Social Security.' But our best shot I think is to do it - to do it now. But again, winning the Senate gave us a lot of leverage for how we go forward if we do not do it in the lame duck. But my hope would be that we could get it done in the lame duck. The Constitution removes all doubt. The full faith and credit of the United States of America should not - is not in doubt. But this is a practice that we have engaged in. And so, we will have to, again, lift the debt ceiling so the full faith and credit of the United States is respected. When the Republicans did this before, it lowered our credit rating. It lowered our credit rating - even though it did not eventually happen, but just the discussion of it. So this is - this is dealing with fire when we are talking about the stability of our credit rating. In the face of all this news, we see that Donald Trump is planning to announce for President again on Tuesday. Is that good news for Democrats? I do not go into any discussion of his plans. I mean, I think it is bad news for the country, let us put it that way, because this is a person who has undermined the integrity of our elections, has not honored his oath of office, who has encouraged people, strange kind of people to run for office, who do not share the values of our democracy. They have said it very clearly in their statements. So he is not been a force for good. So, I do not think his candidacy is a force for good for our country. But that is up to the Republicans to decide - to decide who they will choose. Understand this, we have very vast differences. Republicans do not support science, so they disregard what we are saying about climate. They do not support governance, so they do not want to honor what science tells us in terms of the planet, in terms of health care and the rest. So, we have some very big differences. There is - the main event of it all is the Presidential.


As important as our races are, if we were in Las Vegas, we are the lounge act, they are - the Presidential is the main event, and this will be a very important election, very dispositive of the direction our country will go in. I mean President Biden has been a great President for our country. He has accomplished so much. He has just done so many things that are so great. We need a lot more show to tell it. But he is put money in people's pockets, vaccines in their arms, children back to school, people back to work, for starters, creating 10 million jobs. He has made America independent by passing the CHIPS bill that says we are no longer reliant on those who would withhold products that enable us to manufacture in our country. The IRA - I just saw him make the speech in Egypt where he spoke about America's commitment to preserving the planet with the legislation, the IRA, $368 billion in good-paying green jobs, clean air, clean water for our children, national security issue to stop migrations and competition for habitat and food, as well as honoring our responsibility to future generations. The PACT Act, honoring our veterans, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, all of it with justice, with equity, with inclusiveness, with diversity, taking us to a new place. He has been a great President, and he has a great record to run on. Finally, ENTITY, if you do decide to step away from Congress, how do you want your Speakerships to be remembered? Well, I do not have any plans to step away from Congress. I do not - you asked me about running for Leadership. The - well, my flagship issue has - from the start of my being in Congress has been the climate issue. But in the course of things we - when we had the opportunity to expand health care for all Americans, that has to be my major accomplishment. I take great pride in that. I take great pride in saving it from those who wanted to repeal it. You'd have to ask them. That - Martin Luther King said, 'Of all the inequalities, the inequity in access to health care is the most inhuman,' he said, 'because people can die.' So I thank God for giving me the opportunity to play a role in that. And it is an ongoing role to pass it, to protect it, to expand it.


You said that the war was ended in Iraq. And what we have is a situation in which, in part because of growing mistrust between Sunni and Shia, some of the forces that have always possibly pulled Iraq apart are stronger now. Those forces that could keep the country united are weaker. It is ultimately going to be up to the Iraqi leadership to try to pull the politics of the country back together again. Would you have moved differently in Syria, given this eruption in Iraq and given that the chaos has spilled over now? You know, if what you are suggesting is that there was a simple solution in Syria that would have avoided the civil war and chaos there, that is just not true. You know, you had a ruthless dictator that started killing his own people, and you had the makings of a moderate opposition that still exists and that we still work with, but not an opposition that was going to be in a position anytime soon to be able to compete with an army, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia supporting the regime. They just were not going to be able to do that. And they certainly were not going to be able to immediately compete with a bunch of hardened jihadists who had moved into the vacuum in some of these areas. So, you know, I think that one of the things that the American people, at least, understand is that these societies are going through these enormous transformations. There was a long period after World War II in which authoritarian regimes were able to maintain national boundaries, despite the fact that internally there were all kinds of sectarian divisions. As those regimes have begun to collapse or break apart, in part because of corruption, in part because of, you know, changes in society generally and economic pressures, you know, there is going to be this long, difficult transition moving to a different kind of society in the Middle East. And what we can do is work with the best impulses there. Folks who understand moderation, tolerance, are trying to deliver for their people. We are going to have to deal with some of the worst impulses there, the extremism that ISIS represents. What we are not going to be able to do is to play Whac-A-Mole and chase wherever extremists appear, occupy those countries for long periods of time, and think somehow that we are going to solve those problems. That is something that, even as the world's lone superpower, exceeds our capabilities.

Interview with Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC's Morning Joe


Does the situation in Iraq at all make you consider Afghanistan differently, especially as it pertains to taking the troops out by 2016? I think that what we have done, assuming that the Afghans sign a security agreement that gives our troops immunity, which the Iraqis declined to do, we are prepared to have a residual force that helps to continue to train their forces, to continue to help stabilize the situation as you have a new government coming in. But keep in mind that our goal in Afghanistan was to decapitate al-Qaida, which had carried out 9/11. Now Afghanistan is, you know, a sovereign country that is going to have to deal with its own security. That does not mean that there could not potentially be problems there, just as there are in Iraq. Unless we are prepared to stay indefinitely in all these various countries, something that we cannot afford and would involve, over time, accusations that we were occupying these countries, you know, at some stage they are going to have to take responsibility for working together. Is this part of reality, going back into Iraq? Because you said that the war was ended in Iraq. It is ultimately going to be up to the Iraqi leadership to try to pull the politics of the country back together again. In the meantime, we have got an organization, ISIS, that has the ability to, you know, at least right now in western Iraq, cause a lot of havoc and violence, and over time could pose a serious threat to the United States. That does not mean that we reoccupy Iraq. It does mean that we are going to have to do our best to work with partners in the region, including hopefully a coherent Iraqi government, to slowly chip away at some of the advances that they have made. Would you have moved differently in Syria, given this eruption in Iraq and given that the chaos has spilled over now? You know, if what you are suggesting is that there was a simple solution in Syria that would have avoided the civil war and chaos there, that is just not true. You know, you had a ruthless dictator that started killing his own people, and you had the makings of a moderate opposition that still exists and that we still work with. I think that one of the things that the American people, at least, understand is that these societies are going through these enormous transformations.


And what we can do is work with the best impulses there, folks who understand moderation, tolerance, are trying to deliver for their people. We are going to have to deal with some of the worst impulses there, the extremism that ISIS represents. What we are not going to be able to do is play Whac-A-Mole and chase wherever extremists appear, occupy those countries for long periods of time, and think somehow that we are going to solve those problems. That is something that, even as the world's lone superpower, exceeds our capabilities. Do you think Prime Minister Maliki has demonstrated the ability to bring Iraq together, given what we have seen him do since 2006? And what I said yesterday still holds, which is an election has just taken place. And the test now, not just for Mr. Maliki but for all the leadership in Iraq, is are they able to set aside their suspicions, their sectarian preferences, for the good of the whole? The one thing I do know is that if they fail to do that, then no amount of military action by the United States can hold that country together. Equal pay kicked off your presidency; two of the champions here in the room with us. It is become really a theme, one of the themes of your time here. Do you think there will be a day in our lifetime where women are paid equally across the board? I think there is a whole series of actions that we can take that empower people to make sure they are being treated fairly, but also to give information to employers about what is good for their business. Keep in mind that issues like equal pay for equal work, issues like child care, issues like workplace flexibility and paid family leave, those are not just women's issues. Women now account for 40 percent of the primary breadwinners among American families. You have got men who recognize that they'd like to spend time with their kids too. There are very few families who have not gone through this. And when I think back to when Malia and Sasha were young, the biggest source of stress for us and we were a lot luckier than most was these issues surrounding work and family. You know, I am away down at the state capitol. She is got her own job. Then how do you deal with that? And that is the kind of thing that everybody, I think, can relate to.


Many Americans woke up to the news today that the Whitewater independent counsel is investigating an allegation that you, or you and Vernon Jordan, encouraged a young woman to lie to lawyers in the Paula Jones civil suit. And I have told people that I would cooperate in the investigation, and I expect to cooperate with it. I do not know any more about it than I have told you and any more about it really than you do, but I will cooperate. The charges are not true, and I have not asked anybody to lie. ENTITY, where do you think this comes from? Did you have any kind of relationship with her that could have been misconstrued? ENTITY, I am going to do my best to cooperate with the investigation. I want to know what they want to know from me. I think it is more important for me to tell the American people that there was not improper relations; I did not ask anybody to lie; and I intend to cooperate. And I think that is all I should say right now, so I can get back to the work of the country. But you are not able to say whether you had any conversations with her about her testimony, any conversations at all? I think, given the state of this investigation, it would be inappropriate for me to say more. I have said everything I think that I need to say now. I am going to be cooperative, and we will work through it. But is the fact that in this case, as we understand it, a close friend of this young woman was outfitted with a wire, with a microphone to record conversations with her at the instruction of the Whitewater counsel, does that disturb you? Do you regard that Mr. Starr is playing the inquisitor here in this case? But it is inappropriate for me to comment on it at this time. I just have to cooperate, and I will do that. I understand that you do not want to comment on this. There are some commentators on our network, it would be Kevin Phillips, who said that the moral leadership of the Presidency justifies the kind of scrutiny that you are receiving. Do you agree with that? Well, I think there is a lot of scrutiny, and there should be, and I think that is important. I will leave it to others to define whether the kind we have received in volume, nature, and accuracy, and sometimes downright honesty, is appropriate. I just have a certain number of days here. I came here as not a Washington person.

Interview With Mara Liasson and Robert Siegel of National Public Radio


I came here to try to change the country and to work to build the future of America in a new century. And I just have to try to put this in a little box like I have every other thing that has been said and done, and go on and do my job. That is what I am going to work at. , earlier today you said you tried your best to contain your natural impulses and get back to work. Is that what you were referring to? And what were you furious about? 30 last night; I am getting ready for Mr. Arafat; I am working on the State of the Union; and we have got a lot of big issues out there within and beyond our borders. And I do not think any American questions the fact that I have worked very hard at this job. And anything that is a distraction I dislike. Do you see this as a partisan attack? I did not say that. I do not know enough to say any more about this. I do not want to get into that. You know at least as much about it as I do. 30 last night on something else. That is why I have given the answer that I have given to your questions today. Moving on to the matter you were working on late at night last night. First, it seems the message to Mr. Netanyahu from the U.S. was, we want to see you withdraw from some part of the West Bank. First, what is the message to Yasser Arafat, if you could sum it up? Well, first of all, let us talk about what they want. I think what Israel wants is a peace process that moves immediately to final status negotiations and gives them a stronger sense of security. I think what the Palestinians want is a peace process that gives them a stronger sense of self-determination and possibility and dignity. So what we have tried to do for 12 months now, ever since the Hebron redeployment, we have been out involved in the region, talking to all the players that is not the royal we, I mean me, the Secretary of State, Mr. Ross, Mr. Berger, others involved trying to analyze what it would take to get the peace process back on track. And we have formulated some ideas and we talked to the Israeli Prime Minister about them yesterday; we are going to talk to Mr. Arafat about them tomorrow.


We hope that by the time we finish the talk that both sides will be closer together than they were before we started. But I think there may be circumstances under which we could take a real leap forward in the Middle East peace process if we get a break or two. It is going to take a while. We have to work with the Palestinians tomorrow, then we have to analyze where we are with both and whether we can go forward. And we may not make any progress at all. And if we do not , I will tell you that. I'd like to ask you, though, after spending so much time with Mr. Netanyahu on this visit and on other visits, some people regard him as a man who always opposed a land for peace settlement to the conflict with the Palestinians, certainly would not have negotiated the Oslo accords had he been in office then, has never liked them particularly. Some would say he is really trying to thwart that process and contain the damage from his standpoint. No, I cannot say that based on what I have seen. I do believe he is made no secret of the fact that he has principle differences with the Oslo process, which he has pledged to support. And we all know he has a different political coalition, and that indeed, the political forces in Israel itself are different than they were even a few years ago in terms of the composition of the population, the rise of these small parties and immigrant-related intense groups and all that. I think that, historically, there is been a little bit of difference in the kind of the texture of the relationship between the Likud Party and the Palestinians and the Labor Party and the Palestinians. But the bottom line is, I think, Mr. Netanyahu is an intelligent man who wants to make peace and understands that there has to be some formula where some marginal increase in territorial insecurity by giving up land is more than offset by a dramatic increase in security by changing the feelings of the people, the climate, the capacity for growth and opportunity. So we are just trying to hammer out what each side will have to do to take another step. ENTITY, in Iraq, diplomacy has not worked yet. UNSCOM is still barred from doing its job the way it sees fit, getting into the sites that it wants to inspect. Yet on the other hand, military action also has downsides. It might upset any progress you are making with allies on other issues.


Do you think the U.S. has any good choices on Iraq? If we define good as easy, the answer is no. The problem is the weapons of mass destruction program, chemical and biological weapons, primarily. And that means that Saddam Hussein cannot determine when, where, and who, when it comes to the UNSCOM teams. So now he says that he is going to determine that, and there is not going to be any when for a couple of months, during which time he will be free to move whatever he wants wherever he wants. I think that this is a big mistake, and I believe that the United Nations will see it as such, and a real thwarting of its position. Do you feel that to even wield the threat of military action, possible military action, that you have to be able to point to some progress in the Arab-Israeli negotiations in order to maintain the support of U.S. friends in the region? It may affect the atmospherics, just, you know, the attitude about America. The main thing is every country in the region and throughout the world has a vested interest in seeing that no one who would either use or sell weapons of mass destruction especially chemical and biological weapons which could be carried around in small amounts, in little valises that no one who would use or sell them has a big program of them, which is why the whole United Nations is against the Iraqi program. They need to think long and hard, these countries that have been a little squeamish about being firm, whether or not it is possible that they could be the victims of this, if not directly from Iraq, from some group or another that Iraq sells to in the future. So I think we need to be firm, and I am going to do my best to keep rallying support and keep working ahead. I prefer the inspections. I prefer the diplomatic pressure. I have not been triggerhappy on this; some here in our country think that we should have acted before. But I do not think we can rule out any option. ENTITY, moving to domestic policy and the budget surplus, Republicans and Democrats on the Hill have already said what they want to do with it, either cut taxes or pay down the debt or spend more money on social problems. But so far, you have been silent on this.


And I am wondering if you are ready to make a commitment to using whatever surplus there might be to shoring up the Social Security Trust Funds, making sure that safety net is there for the baby boom generation when it retires. Well, I will make a commitment that in my State of the Union Address, I will announce what I think should be done. I need to have something to say in the State of the Union that is new. But let me say before I say that, I would like to just caution we have had 5 great years, and we have always done better than we were predicted to do on the deficit. But I think I would still caution the Democratic and Republican leaders of Congress from passing some big 5year program to spend money through spending programs or tax cuts that has not yet materialized. We do not yet have a balanced budget. We have worked so hard for so long to get this done; I sure hate to start counting our chickens before they hatch. So I would like to start with that. And then when I speak at the State of the Union, I will say what I think ought to be done. Would you like to caution equally against shoring up the Social Security fund in that case? Well, in general, I believe my position on Social Security is that we need a bipartisan and fairly rapid process to work through the options and prepare for the long term health and viability of the Social Security system, along with the efforts that are going to be made by the Medicare commission, which I am very hopeful about. One of the big things I hope to achieve before I leave office is entitlement reform in both major systems. So I tell you, I think that that needs to be done, and we are exploring how best to do that. Well, we do not want to let you off the hook too easily. You are not saying you are against using the surplus to shore up the Social Security Trust Funds? I am not saying one way or the other. I am saying I'd like to have something to announce on State of the Union night. That would achieve the aims in theory of raising the cost of a pack of cigarettes by so much that it would be beyond the reach of teenagers, achieve your major aim, and not take companies off the hook for future liability. Are you in favor of such a bill? You'd have a children's only bill that did what? I am sorry, you had a lot of points there.


Yes, well, first, it would raise the price of a pack of cigarettes simply to deter teenage purchasers of cigarettes. Well, I would favor doing something like that without committing to the specifics if we fail to get a global settlement. But I think we owe it to the attorneys general and the others who worked with us on this in good faith to try to achieve one, because I think, long term, we need to deter teen smoking with more than just a higher price tag for cigarettes. I think there are lots of other things that can be done. And I think that we ought to have certain benchmarks of performance for the tobacco companies, too, which in my view will help because then they will be free to do more that they even have to spend a little more money than they are obligated to under the agreement if they are not meeting the targets, they may decide they ought to do that to save even more money down the road. So I am going to look for a global settlement in the tobacco case for the benefit of our children. If we fail, then I will look at something else. ENTITY, following up on that, you have cautioned Congress not to spend the surplus until they have it. Yet you have committed $60 billion of some projected tobacco settlement bill before it is even passed to new spending. And if you do not get a tobacco settlement, are you committed to those programs? Will you cut elsewhere in order to keep that new spending? I will not, under any circumstances, favor funding anything I have recommended with the surplus with the projected surplus. So, if you do not get the tobacco settlement, you will cut elsewhere? If I do not get in other words, if we do not get the tobacco settlement, we will either have to cut the size of the child care initiative or cut elsewhere, or do something else, because I will not just, on my own, get up and propose that we spend the proposed settlement, or part of it, on these programs. I think they are terribly important, but right now we have got other fish to fry. And we have got to make sure the most important thing is to keep this economy growing, to keep disciplined, to keep strong, to do what makes sense. And that is what has gotten us here, 5 hard years of that, and we do not want to forget that. So we do have new spending in our programs, but it is new spending within a context of fiscal discipline.


It is new discipline with the smallest Federal Government since Kennedy was President and the size of it continuing to go down. Federal prosecutors reportedly rejected a plea bargain agreement not long ago with Theodore Kaczynski, with his lawyers at least, that might have guaranteed his imprisonment for life. Evidently they want the death penalty. Is it important to you, say, if he is convicted, that there be an exercise of the Federal death penalty? If he is guilty, he killed a lot of people deliberately, and, therefore, I think it is something that the jury should be able to consider. From my point of view, I approve of the laws that we have in America now, the sort of two-tiered trial where you determine guilt and then you determine penalty, and I would want to hear all the testimony before I decided how I'd vote in that case. But I do think it should be presented to the penalty phase. Even if you had a guilty plea that as there is no parole in the Federal system guaranteed none and spared any possibility of an acquittal, you would still prefer to reject that plea, to offer the jury the option of the death penalty? I think the jury should have the option. Now, also, as a practical matter, there are not many inmates perhaps he would be one that actually do get life without parole. That is, in a prison system, where you do not want prison riots, you have to reward people who do an extraordinarily good job of being good inmates within the prison system, perhaps the practice of allowing people who have life sentences to be paroled after quite a long period of time is a good one, or, at least, defensible. But juries know that, too. But this was a case where, based on what I know, I would consider it appropriate to present that to the jury. ENTITY, on the Asian financial crisis, a lot of Americans do not understand why taxpayers should help bail out banks and investors in the U.S. or Japan or in Europe who took a risk and made some mistakes. Do not they bear some responsibility? Do not they have to take some of the hit? They do bear some of the responsibility, and they should not all be bailed out. And that is one of the most frustrating things about this. On the other hand, what this is about is about rebuilding confidence in the investment climate of these countries.


I do not think they ought to get one red cent unless the governments commit to do things for the future that will mean these banks will have to take a bigger risk, and get their act cleaned up, unless the International Monetary Fund plan is implemented, and then the U.S. and Japan and these other countries come in as a backup. But if we refuse on the front end to do anything, the problem is it could hurt us a lot worse than it could hurt the odd banker that does not get his money back, because if a lot of people start not getting any of their money back, then other people say, Well, I am going to get my money out, and then others say, Well, I am not going to put my money in ; and then all of a sudden the value of the currency goes way down. They do not have any money to buy American products and all their products are cheaper, competing against ours and other countries. So we have a big economic interest as well as a huge interest in a stable, democratic Asia. And that is why I think we are doing the right thing. I hope in the State of the Union I can persuade the American people that it is the right thing. I want to ask you about Clintonism. We have been hearing a lot about Clintonism lately, a coherent political philosophy that may or may not be identified with you. I think, first of all, it is a very it is a future-oriented political philosophy that attempts to break the logjam between the 1980's and early nineties debate of the Republican position that Government is the enemy and the Democratic position is, sort of, Government is the solution if we do more of the same; we just need to do more. My position is we need a different kind of Government for a different kind of society and a different kind of world. And we need to focus more on giving people the tools they need to make the most of their own lives, more on being a catalyst for good ideas, more on empowering the disadvantaged, and creating opportunity, enforcing responsibility, building community. I think that is what Clintonism is about. And I think it will get us to the 21st century.


I do not think I am betraying any confidence when I say that I checked with the VH1 people and I said, How did you get ENTITY involved in this campaign? And they threw their arms up and they said, He kind of volunteered I mean, he is called many times and said, 'What can I do? ' Why is this so important to you? Well, Hillary and I both spent a lot of time on this, and it is important for two reasons. One is, I was in music when I was the age of these children, and I know what it can do. And secondly, I have been very disturbed over the years over the last 20 years, more and more, as schools have come under financial pressure, they have tended to drop their music programs. You know, the principals have a lot of problems. They have a lot of challenges they have to meet, and many times the money is not there. And the school districts have cut a lot of these music programs out all over the country. And when I heard what VH1 was doing, I did kind of volunteer to get involved. I wrote John Sykes a letter and said, Look, I am for this, and I think we have got to get music back into these schools. A lot of young children we know that a lot of our young children learn better if they have access to music education. Not everyone learns in the same way. Not everyone's brain is stimulated in the same way. And the schools that have vigorous music programs tend to have higher academic performance. What do you say, though I mean, let us say, devil's-advocate it for a second I am a member of the local school board, and I sit down, and I look at the budget, and it is shrinking. And I say, I have got choices. I have to make cuts. I have got school lunches over here. I have books for the library here. I have music education over here. How do you stop me from cutting music education? And that is what that wonderful movie about music education here in New York City, Music of the Heart, was about. But what this program tries to do is to encourage the schools to put some money into music education by giving them extra help with instruments and sometimes with other support.

Interview With Matt Lauer of NBC's Today Show in New York City


And what we have tried to do at the national level, with the National Endowment for the Arts and the President's Commission on the Arts and Humanities that Hillary's the honorary chair of, is to constantly support music education, to emphasize that the schools that have good music education programs see positive other academic advancements as a result of it, and of course, try to get some more funds for the lower income schools out there. I mean, you had music education as a kid; so did I. We took it for granted. We are now in a time of unprecedented economic prosperity, and still today, only 25 percent of schools across this country offer music education as a basic part of the curriculum. See, what a lot of people do not know is, over the last 20 years and particularly in the last decade or so, while our school populations have been growing again, a smaller percentage of property-tax payers have kids in the schools. And an awful lot of our schools are funded primarily through the property tax. So the schools have had all kinds of financial problems. A lot of them have substandard physical facilities. They have the need to hire more teachers to teach various academic requirements that may have come in. And they do not want to stop any of their competitive athletic proposals. So the two things that have suffered most in the schools are the music programs and the art programs, on the one hand, and the physical education programs for people who are not in competitive team sports. I mean, when people like VH1 come in and they donate money like this, it is great, but it is private and public partnership. Why cannot we find a way, even through the Federal Government's assistance, to make sure that this is a basic part of education? I think we should do that. But the main thing we have to do is to build broader public support for doing it. Let me say, interestingly enough, you asked me the budget question. Well, what would you do if you had all these tough budget decisions? Our research indicates that the number one factor in whether music education programs stay or come back to schools is strong community involvement pushing for it. In other words, where people at the grassroots want it, the people who make the budget decisions tend to find a way to provide it.


And so, what we can best do, I think, is to point out consistently what the overall educational benefits are, number one, and number two, to try to get more Federal assistance out there to the schools to help deal with their big problems. That is why I am trying to get the Federal Government to help with school construction and school repair, to help the school districts hire teachers to lower class sizes so they do not have to cut out music to hire that extra teacher when the population goes up, and to get the overall aid to low income schools up. So if we do those things and we get the kind of grassroots support we need, then what VH1 will be doing is supplementing a growing trend, instead of trying to fill a huge hole. Is it possible to take it a step further? From what I understand now, the Federal Government supplies about 9 percent of funding for schools; local and States provide the rest. Can you offer States incentives? Can you say to them, Look, we will provide more funding if you take it upon yourselves to make music education part of your basic curriculum? We could do that. I had not thought of that, exactly in that way. What we tried to dolet me just say this. What we have tried to do for the last 7 years, since I have been ENTITY, is to say, Look, here are the Nation's education goals. They include music and the arts. And if you come up with a plan to meet those goals, we will give you some help to implement the plan, which included music and the arts. Basically, the specific targeted dollars we have for schools go to schools that have greater financial need, because they have got a higher percentage of low income kids, or to hire more teachers, generally, because the school population is going up. I think if we will stay with the position that we are going to help all the schools that have these goals, which include music and the arts, and then we come in with the big ticket items, which are personnel and school building and repair, and we can build the kind of grassroots support we need, then these music programs will be able to survive. But one of the things that really happened is a lot of folks just took the music programs for granted. A lot of people who were making tough budget decisions assumed nobody would care if they were eliminated.


So I think what is going to happen you will see a big infusion of public money going back into these programs because of what VH1 has done and because more and more parents will insist on the music being there. And I will be glad to do whatever I can to help. We are going to take a little break. When we come back, I understand we are joined by another special guest, and we will talk more about music education. And we are back with President Bill Clinton at P.S. 96 in East Harlem. Let me ask for a couple of quick answers to some questions in the news. Congress is holding hearings on security breaches there. Two hard drives containing nuclear secrets disappeared. It is not clear, but I think it is very important to get to the bottom of it. The FBI is investigating it, and we have got Senator Baker and Congressman Hamilton, who have agreed to take an independent look. It is a serious issue, and I think what we ought to do is just see the investigation through and see where the facts lead us. But we need to do what we can to find out what happened, whether there was a security breach, and if so, how we can change it so it will never happen again. You and I were both watching the news earlier about gas prices. People in Chicago, Milwaukee, in particular, paying 40 cents a gallon more than the rest of us. It is been very frustrating to me. I am quite concerned about it. Let me tell you what we know. We know that the prices were affected by the shutdown of a refinery, which is coming back up, a leak in a pipeline, which is the cheapest way to transport gas, and an unusual increase in demand in the Chicago-Milwaukee area. And all that affected it. Also, they used the cleaner gasoline, which is more expensive to produce, but that is only about 5 or 6 cents a gallon. So we know that it would be more expensive for a little while until the transportation and the refinery problems are solved. What we do not know is whether there was any price gouging. So we have got the Federal Trade Commission looking into that, and we have also had the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency looking into it. I am very worried about it. But I am hoping that we can break the logjam on it soon.  If you will stay with it long enough, until you like to hear yourself play, then it will be easier for you to keep practicing.


But if you play one of these reed instruments, you will squeak a lot. If you play a string instrument, it'll hurt your ears in the beginning. And when you reach the point where you like to hear yourself play, then it is all downhill from there. Maybe it is a good time for you to relate to them also. You had a music teacher in your early life who had a pretty strong impact on your life. I had a well, my high school band director, Virgil Spurlin, is still a friend of mine, still writes me to this day. My grade school band director was a man named George Grey, who had a big impact on me. My vocal my choir teacher when I was in elementary school, I still remember vividly. All the kids I knew had access to choir and could be in the band if they wanted to. And I am so glad that John Sykes and VH1 and all these people are trying to make it possible for you to do this, because it is something you do not have to I was not as good as Billy Joel, see, so I did not get to be a professional musician. But I had a wonderful time. It changed my life for the better. And it still benefits me, and I still play. you have to be thinking a lot about legacy. And you look at young people in the third and fourth grade how do you want them to be a part of your legacy?  And I want them to grow up in a country that is a more just and decent country, where there is less discrimination and where people work together more. But it is really important that kids are not deprived of opportunities like music, just because of where they happen to live and whether their parents have money or not. That should not be what determines this. You have got some free time coming up in January, and Billy, you have got a little free time. I am thinking, you go to the garage in Chappaqua; you get a little amplifier like you used to do in high school aggravate the neighbors, and put together a little band here. Billy Joel, it is always good to see you.