And we have proposed that -- there are a number of options on the continental United States where you could hold these people as trials, either in military commissions or in Article III courts, are pending. But unfortunately, there has been a lot of political resistance, and you know, frankly, some of it just politically motivated; some of it people being legitimately scared about, Well, if we have got somebody who we have been told is a terrorist in our backyard, will that make us a target? One of the things that we have had to try to communicate to the country at large is that historically we have tried a lot of terrorists in our courts. We have them in our federal prisons. But it is been one of those things that is been subject to a lot of, in some cases, you know, pretty rank politics. And you know, we have got to work through that process because Congress ultimately controls the purse strings in creating new facilities. If Congress makes a decision that they are going to try to block the opening of a new facility, it potentially constrains what our administration can do. And so this is something that we have got to work through both in Congress but also with public opinion, so that people understand that ultimately this is the right thing to do; by closing Guantanamo, we can regain the moral high ground in the battle against these terrorist organizations. There is been no bigger propaganda weapon for many of these extremists than pointing to Guantanamo and saying that we do not live up to our own ideals. And that is something that I strongly believe we have to resist, even if it has some costs to it and even if it is not always the most politically popular thing to do. ENTITY, we do not have much time left, but I want to make sure we get to the issue of energy, the environment. One of the rare moments where you were able to get applause from your friends on the Republican side of the aisle in Congress the other night was when you mentioned nuclear energy. And just today your budget announced tripling the loan guarantees for nuclear reactors. A lot of people had questions about just how this will work and why you did that. ENTITY, record numbers of young people elected you, in support of a clean-energy future. If money is tight, why do you propose wasting billions in expensive nuclear, dirty coal and offshore drilling? We need to ramp up efficiency, wind and solar that are all economically sustainable and create clean and safe jobs for our generation.

Interview With Steve Grove on YouTube


Well, you are not going to get any argument from me about the need to create clean-energy jobs. I think this is going to be the driver of our economy over the long term. And that is why we put in record amounts of money for solar and wind and biodiesel and all the other alternative, clean-energy sources that are out there. In the meantime, though, unfortunately, no matter how fast we ramp up those energy sources, we are still going to have enormous energy needs that will be unmet by alternative energy. And the question then is, where -- where will that come from? Nuclear energy has the advantage of not emitting greenhouse gases. For those who are concerned about climate change, we have to recognize that countries like Japan and France and others have been much more aggressive in their nuclear industry, and much more successful in having that a larger part of their portfolio, without incident, without accidents. We are mindful of the concerns about storage of spent fuel and concerns about security. But we still think it is the right thing to do, if we are serious about dealing with climate change. With respect to clean-coal technology, it is not possible at this point to completely eliminate coal from the menu of our energy options. And if we are ever going to deal with climate change in a serious way, where we know China and India are going to be greatly reliant on coal, we have got to start developing clean-coal technologies that can sequester the harmful emissions; because otherwise, countries like China and India are not going to stop using coal, we will still have those same problems, but we will not have the technology to make sure that it does not harm the environment over the long term. So I know that there is some skepticism about whether there is such a thing as clean-coal technology. What is true is right now, that we do not have all the technology to prevent greenhouse gas emissions from a coal -- coal-powered -- power plants. But the technology is close, and it makes sense for us to make that investment now, not only because it'll be good for America, but it will also ultimately be good internationally. We can license and export that technology in ways that help other countries use a better form of energy that is going to be helpful to the climate-change issue. ENTITY, I think we are out of time.

Interview With Steve Grove on YouTube


You have just announced a new $447 billion dollar Jobs' Bill. And we all know that African-American unemployment is running really high, above 16%, nearly double that of whites. How does this bill specifically target them? Well, first of all, I think it is important to remember that we are going through the worst financial crisis and subsequent economy that we have seen since the Great Depression and so the challenges for everybody out there is tough. You are right; it is especially tough for the African-American community. The steps we took in the first two and a half years made a difference. It made sure that a lot of folks were still on the job that otherwise would not be. It made sure that states were able to stabilize their budgets, so they were not laying off as many teachers or fire fighters or civil servants that are providing services every day. But, you know, what we realized over the last couple of months is that because of a whole range of issues, including what is happened overseas in Europe, that the economy needs another boost, and we have got to focus more on putting people back to work now. So the Jobs' Bill, overall, is designed to make sure that we are rebuilding schools and bridges and putting construction workers back to work. It makes sure that we are putting teachers back in the classroom. It makes certain that we are providing incentives to hire veterans who have been out of work, but also the long-term unemployed who are out of work. And it makes sure that we are providing tax breaks and tax credits to just about every family and every middle class person and every small business around the country. Now, with respect to the African-American community, they benefit from all of that, but in addition, we are making sure that summer jobs for youth are included in the package. Making sure that we reform our unemployment insurance so that, in addition to 1.4 million African-Americans getting unemployment insurance, we are also providing them a pathway so that they start getting some on-the-jobs training. All those things are going to have a huge impact in the African-American community. Why not say then, This is for you. This is for African-Americans? If there was a banking crisis, then you'd target money for the banks. If there was a national disaster, you'd target your money for the National Disaster Relief. America works when all of us are pulling together and everybody is focused on making sure that every single person has opportunity.

Interview with Emmett Miller of Black Entertainment Television


And so when we put forward a program like, for example, the Health Care Bill, our focus is people who do not have health care. Now it turns out that the majority of folks who do not have health care are also working families, and are disproportionately African-American and Latino, but that does not mean that it is only for them. There are a whole bunch of folks all across the country who need help. And we are going to help every single person who needs help. Were their expectations way back when in 2009 too high? I think that people understood that it took us a long time to get into this mess; it is going to take a long time to get out of this mess. And I look folks in the eye all the time who do not have a job or who have lost their home or who are struggling otherwise. And what they tell me is, as long as I feel like you are fighting for me, as long as I feel like you have my interests at heart, then we are going to stand behind you. The test is not going to be whether we solve this problem overnight. The test is are we projecting a vision for the future. That is going to be one that makes sure that every kid in this country has a shot and that the middle class is still growing and the African-American middle class is growing. Because look, the fact of the matter is that it is a test for America how well those at the bottom do, not just how well those at the top do. And what is always made this country great is the belief that everybody's got a chance regardless of race, regardless of creed. And that is a vision that I think the vast majority of Americans still share. It is been tested over the last three years, but my job is to keep on pushing in that direction. And it is true; you have said you are the ENTITY for all people, not just for one group. But once again, if you have a disaster in a certain area of the country, you are going to target money there. If I am a 16-year-old kid on the south side of Chicago, okay? My mom's working 10 hours a day for peanuts. All I see around me is blight. I am going to help you, a young African-American? Emmett, first of all, that is not what people are saying.


What people are saying all across the country is we are hurting and we have been hurting for a long time. And the question is how can we make sure that the economy is working for every single person? And the truth of the matter is, the vast majority of African-Americans understand that. Now, there is certain communities that have been struggling even when the economy does well, which is why, for example, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program is going to be targeting communities that are having the toughest time. But the other thing I want to make sure that you do not just kind of slip in there with this notion that African-American leaders of late have been critical. There have been a handful of African-American leaders who have been critical. They were critical when I was running for ENTITY. There is always going to be somebody who is critical of the ENTITY. That is my job, in part, is particularly when the economy is going as badly as it is right now, people are going to have concerns. What I think you are seeing all across the board in every community is that when unemployment is high and people are having a tough time, then they have to feel as if there is some hope, there is some prospects out there. And right now, the economy has been bad for a long time. It was bad before I got elected, and it has continued to be very tough for a lot of folks. Until people actually feel better about the economy, they are going to continue to have problems and they are going to continue to hope that the White House can do more. What would you say to the man who stood on the podium back in 2009 that he did not know then what he knows now? Well look, there are a lot of things we know now that we did not know then. I mean, the day I took the oath of office we did not know that the economy had just contracted nine percent in the previous quarter. We did not know that 400,000 people had lost their jobs the month before and another 600,000 were going to lose their jobs the month after. So, I think the depth of the economic crisis worldwide was something that was glimmering on the horizon, but I do not think we fully appreciated it. Making sure that a U.S. auto industry still existed and we did not lose a million jobs.


The Recovery Act, which saved a whole lot of jobs in America, even though the folks who did not lose their jobs may not have known that they might otherwise have lost their jobs. So, you know, what I would tell myself if I traveled back in time? I would say it is going to be a long hard slog and the American people are going to, you know, feel kind of worn down after this much difficulty. But I'd also tell that less gray person to hang in there because the American people are resilient and they have good values and they care about the right stuff, and we will get through this. What would you have now done differently? You talked about the rings you did right with respect to jobs, you talked about the programs you were able to put through, you talked about some of the objectives you had. What would you have now done differently in retrospect? I think if we had had better information, it would have been important for me to able to communicate to the American people the fact that this was going to be a long process. That we were not going to fix this in six months. This was a once-in-a-generation recession. And I think that might have helped brace people for the difficulties that were to come. The other thing that, as I reflect on it, is that in the first year or so we spent a lot of time just doing the right thing and not worrying about selling what we were doing. And I think that the more you are in this office, the more you have to say to yourself that telling a story to the American people is just as important as the actual policies that you are implementing. And they have got to have a sense of where it is that we are going to go, particularly during hard times. I sat down with you five years ago in the hallway of a junior college when you were still Senator. It was The Audacity of Hope book tour. Do you ever think back on those times? What reflections do you have, considering who you are now? You know, Michelle tells me at least that I am the same man now that I was when she met me when I was still in law school. I have a pretty clear idea about what is right and what America is all about. And it involves a belief that everybody gets a chance, that there is a sense that we are in this together.


You know, we are a country that values individual initiative and everybody's got to work hard and everybody's got to be pulling their weight, but we look out for one another. And my politics really is based on those values, and those values have not changed. And the longer I am in this office, the more I believe that when Americans are working together, there is nothing we cannot accomplish. I have seen it time and time again. And part of my job is to help usher America through a very difficult time but still maintain that sense that we are in this together. One of the questions we had was, When? Well look, you know, right now we are in a situation where the economy is stabilized, but it is stabilized with too high unemployment rate. And I think if we get this Jobs Bill passed, that is going to make a difference right away. Some of the things though that have been plaguing the African-American community for too long, those things are going to take years to change. Young people, it was just reported one group for example, is more insured than it is ever been because of the American, or Affordable Care Act. But, how we think about our health habits, all the things the First Lady's doing in terms of what we are eating, in terms of getting exercise, instilling good health habits in our kids- those are things that will take place over the years to reduce the diabetes rate, in the African-American community, for example. How do you get it through Congress? Well, we will get some of it through Congress. And we will just keep pounding away until we get all of it through Congress. And if we do not get all of it through Congress, and we have not seen enough done to help the American people, then we will get a new Congress. Because the bottom line is, that the vision that we put forward in the Jobs' Bill and the ways, by the way, that we intend to pay for it, by making sure that millionaires and billionaires are paying their fair share, that they are not paying lower tax rates effectively than folks who are making 50,000 dollars a year, that combination of efforts to rebuild America, put people back to work, get teachers back in the classroom and paying for it in a responsible way, that vision is one that the American people believe in. I mean, you were citing polls earlier.


We are very pleased to have this opportunity for this first radio interview with you. What will be item number one on the table when you sit down with Soviet leader Gorbachev in Malta? To be sure that we are not operating in a way that there will be unnecessary misunderstanding. I do not want that to happen. I want to be on the same wavelength as much as we can. So, I would say the meeting is designed to see that the two ships do not pass in the night for lack of light. But what specifically will you bring up first? Well, as I say, we have not ever set an agenda. Clearly, I will be interested in getting his views on the dynamic changes taking place in Eastern Europe. We will have detailed conversations about his economy, and I will be glad to talk to him about ours. And so, I think along those two areas you will see a lot of discussion. problems in this hemisphere, support for Nicaragua, for example; Afghanistan; other areas where Soviet interest and the United States do not parallel each other. You sent him a message in reply to his earlier cable, again saying that you support the reforms going on in his country and in Eastern Europe. Do you support them to the extent that you'd put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, and grant the Soviets some sort of economic assistance to spur those reforms? Well, I am perfectly prepared to discuss economic reforms and what the Soviets would like to see in terms of interest from the West. But I noted with great interest Mr. Shevardnadze's view when asked a similar question. We are not looking for aid. We are not wanting somebody to bail us out. They are a sovereign state, have a high degree of pride but clearly, there will be a discussion of economic matters as they affect the Soviet Union. When you say, as you did in a speech this week, that the Malta summit the Malta meeting, as you all here prefer to call it will not be used to negotiate the future of Europe, what does that mean? Are you taking something off the table there? What I am saying is we are not going to have a Yalta. To the extent that it is not the role of the United States of America and the Soviet Union to divide up things or alter borders or do some of the things that took place at the meeting I have just referred to. We are not going to get into that. It is a broad, general meeting we would not do it anyway.

Interview With Peter Maer of Mutual/NBC Radio


Have you, indeed, approved a covert plan that allows the CIA to recruit people to overthrow Manuel Noriega in Panama? Of course I'd love to see Noriega out there, but you know I never discuss intelligence. I was head of the intelligence community for 1 year, a little over a year about a year and one thing that I know you do not do is discuss covert action or rumors about covert action, or confirm or deny covert action. And I wish other people would conduct themselves in that same manner, and then maybe some of the efforts of an intelligence community could be more effective. So, I will not confirm or deny anything of that nature. Now, if you'd like me to state would we like to see Noriega out of office absolutely. I know you want him out of office. How far will you go to get him out? Well, let me ask you this. Since you will not answer that and you will not talk about the specific plan, do you still feel that your hands are tied? do you still feel your hands are tied by Congress on matters like this? No, not on this matter specifically, and if there were to be a plan and I think we have a pretty good understanding with the Intelligence Committee at this point, in the Senate and in the House. Is reunification of the two Germanys is that inevitable? I gave my view on that, and I said that that was a matter for the people of the Germanys to determine. And it is a highly sensitive matter as far as the Soviet Union is concerned, and it is better to leave it right there. But when you look at the way events are going there, is it inevitable in your opinion? And I would say it is a matter for the determination of the German people. Well, many people look at the history books, and they worry about that prospect. Well, we have had discussions with countries that express concerns in this regard because of certain historical precedents, but I do not think that history need repeat itself if there evolves a single German State. But that is down the road, and it is not something that is being pressed. That is a matter for the determination of the German people. Some Members of Congress look at this situation in Europe, and they see it as ripe for debate on considering cutting the defense budget, taking a big chunk out of it. Does that make sense to you? No, it does not make sense to me.


A lot of people think We already have made proposals. We have a bold proposal, a leadership proposal by the United States that has wide support amongst our allies, to do exactly that. Will that be on the table in Malta? Well, it is on the table now. If Gorbachev comes in, and he says why do not we agree to it here? a lot of experts think that he will come in and say that. He is already agreed to it in principle. The Soviet Union has there is no great debate on the principles of the reductions that we have proposed. But the problem is we are hammering out a lot of detail now that cannot be done at a Malta meeting or that has to be done in a multilateral forum. And so, I have been very pleased that the Soviets have been quite supportive of this United States-NATO initiative. Would you be willing to use the Malta meeting as a setting to sign off on such an agreement once I do not want to elevate the expectations of a watching world. That is not going to take place at Malta because the details have not been worked out in the multilateral forum where they are being discussed in Vienna. My hope is that it can meet the timetables I set and the alliance set. Will you sign this DC appropriations bill that includes allowing the use of local funds for abortions for poor women? I have made very clear that I they can test me all they want; they can package it any way they want, but if it expands the use of federally appropriated funds for abortion, I am not going to sign it. And I have been very honest and direct with the District. But if it is appropriated federally, why, I have great difficulty with that, and have been very open with the Congress on it. This is still a very painful subject for you, is not it? It is, I do not like it. I know that our party is big enough to have people in it who differ on this question. If that were not true, I guess I would not have been elected ENTITY, because this issue was widely presented to the American people and very openly debated in debates with Mr. Dukakis, who felt quite differently about it.  Because I was elected to perform on certain things.  I was elected to do certain things. And I want somebody in housing that can support the general initiative on housing. I want people on health that share my respect for human life.


When you were last here, you were at the midst of the floods of '93. You saw Iowa's flooded farm fields. And this year, by contrast, farmers have record crops. But that in turn, as you know, has depressed prices, and the farm recovery is in jeopardy. Well, when I get to Iowa tomorrow, I want to discuss that in greater detail. I have tried to be a good President for the farmers of this country. And our Agriculture Department, our Agriculture Secretary has done a very good job not only in the flood but afterward. I am sure you know that there was an announcement today that the Agriculture Department will give export enhancements to seven states of the former Soviet Union to try to increase the export of livestock, particularly the pork exports to those countries. And we supported ethanol production; we still do. And we are doing a number of other things that I believe will really help the farm economy in Iowa. And I will have some more to say about it tomorrow when I get there. Well, I hate to push my luck with that in mind, ENTITY, but I would like to ask you about the export enhancement program, the EEP. Now, I know Iowa Secretary Dale Cochran has expressed his interest in getting some changes there, at least, that will combat some of the glut in the pork market. Would you like to give us a hint on perhaps what you think you could do to help Iowa pork producers in overseas trade? Well, we are looking at that, as well. And again, I will have more to say about all that when I get there tomorrow. Let me give you one more opportunity? Have you named, or have you decided in your own mind, at least, a new Ag Secretary? And is Ruth Harkin still on your short list? No, I have not made a decision. And she would be good in any position, I think, in the Government, including that one. She is really done more with the Overseas Private Investment Corporation than anybody has in a long time. And I think any American businessperson that is worked with us in trade and expansion would tell you that the Export-Import Bank, Ruth Harkin's agency, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Commerce Department under Secretary Brown, along with the Agriculture Department, have done more for American business than any administration has in a long time. Is Ruth Harkin still interested in the post? Has she given you any indication that she'd like it?

Interview With John Bachman and Laurie Groves of WHO Television, Des Moines, Iowa


No, I have gone out of my way not to talk to anybody about this right now because I am not ready to deal with it. Secretary Espy will be there until the end of the year. He has done a superb job for the farmers of this country, and I think virtually every agricultural commissioner in every State in the country agrees with that. President Clinton, unemployment is the lowest now it is been nationwide in years, you know this, and the economy is strong. And yet your approval rating is under 50 percent here in Iowa. Now, with that in mind, how do you think that your visit tomorrow will influence Iowa's undecided voters? Well, what we have to do is get the record out there. the family and medical leave law; the Brady bill; the crime bill; immunizations for all the kids in the country under 2; middle class college loans; apprenticeships for people who are not going to college; an expansion of Head Start. But the people do not know it because this has been a contentious 2 years. The Republicans have been more partisan than any party has against a President of the opposing party since World War II. And I have taken on a lot of tough issues, a lot of special interest groups. I have tried to change the direction of this country. And when you do that, you have to be willing to make enemies and you have to be willing to see your approval ratings go down in the short run as people are, at least, confused by all the conflict which is engendered. Plus, everybody knows that the nature of the way Americans get their information today is more contentious, more divisive, more adversarial than ever before. So I have been given an opportunity now in the last week or 10 days of this campaign to get out and talk to the American people and make my case. The people of Iowa are fairminded people. And I was there when you needed me and so was everybody in my administration, in a hurry, in the flood. And we stayed, and we have seen this through. I have been a good President for the farmers of this country and good for the Iowa economy and good for the ordinary working people of this country. And when the record comes out, the people will make the right decision. Plus, the Republicans are offering us an unbelievable journey into the past that got us in so much trouble. I mean, they want to go back to trickle-down economics.


We have already had a big, major press conference I am sorry you all missed it about 20 minutes from here. Are we going to war? There are already accusations and some reports out there that a lot of this turning up the heat now is politically motivated to coincide with the election. ENTITY, I do not think there are already many reports to that end. And I do not think even the most cynical would ever suggest that a President would play politics with the lives of American kids halfway around the world. So, I am sad if you have seen reports like that. I have not , and I think it is the ultimate of cynicism and indecency. one, a major crisis halfway around the world where we have strong support Democrats and Republicans, the American people supporting us, the whole world and the United Nations supporting us. And I do not think any decent, honorable person would ever suggest anything of that nature. So, I would discount it, but I would simply say that you separate that from the political process that is going on. Nobody would make a decision based on some political certainly not me. I have been through World War II, and I have been trying to keep our kids from you know, try to find a peaceful solution to this. So, you have to raise it, but I am offended that anybody would even suggest that. Are we closer to war today? I mean, there seems to be an escalation and turning up the heat in general. I was asked that a minute ago. We are still giving these sanctions a chance to work. We are still moving forces. I will tell you, I am, I'd say, as concerned, if not increasingly concerned, about the lives of Americans. I mean, we still have some supplies there, thank heaven. But it is so brutal and so inhumane and so directly in contravention of international law that I am increasingly concerned about that. You saw some reports I did in the morning paper about testimony about the condition under which some of these guests I mean, hostages are being held. That worries me. Anytime an American citizen is held against his or her will, of course, the President is concerned about that. Is there any way you can get aid to them short of war? And we are looking at every possibility every possibility. Now, I understand that there was going to be an attempt by the Americans to convey the U.S. desire to resupply the Embassy.

Exchange With Reporters on the Persian Gulf Crisis


Has the Charge told the Iraqis that we intend to do that? I am not sure about that, but I think the loudest signal on that was the action taken at the United Nations. And that gets through to Saddam Hussein. I mean, clearly, he sees his continued isolation. Clearly, he feels the condemnation of the entire world of this kind of inhumane activity. But whether there is been a direct contact from Mr. Howell in our Embassy in Kuwait, I do not know about it, and I'd be inclined to doubt that because of the inhumane way in which our Embassy is isolated. If the Iraqis refuse to allow the Embassy to be resupplied, would the U.S. then ask that all the Americans, including the civilians, be permitted to evacuate the Embassy? I'd request that right now. Anybody should have free access to come or go where they want to.  They ought not to have to go be marched off as prisoners. And so, clearly, I'd call on them, and so is the United Nations. This is in keeping with the United Nations condemnation. Are you going to keep them there now that the U.N. has at least given you the right to resupply them? I think we have to look at that. And the main thing is, at this juncture, there are priorities to be sure people have enough to eat and that they are not put under continued duress there. Well, have you made your point? Is it necessary to have them there anymore? There are other Americans there, and always your Embassy has kind of a consular service to try to service the concerns of other citizens. But as others are brutalized and thus sent into hiding, why, that function becomes a little more blurred. So, I just do not know the answer to that. If they blocked resupply, would that be the sort of provocation you have spoken about earlier? Either it would be directly contravening a mandate from the United Nations, and we would view that very seriously, yes. I cannot go into hypothesis. I can understand why you want to know that, why the American people would want to, but it would not be good for me to signal what I might or might not do.  they can hold out. I think we have varying estimates of time. We can talk to them. ENTITY, some people what a drop-dead date is, a pullout date it might be.


I have been talking with a lot of veterans, and a lot of them respect you as Commander in Chief. Some of them are not so sure. Do you feel like you have something to prove to them? No more than to any other Americans, except I think that the veterans of this country are entitled to know what they fought for in the Second World War is not going to be squandered at the end of the cold war. We understood, I think all of us understood, what we had to do as a country when communism rose at the end of the Second World War and took over Eastern Europe. And basically there was nothing we could do about it. I think everybody knew there was nothing we could do about that. But we were able to draw a line in the sand in Europe; we were able to limit the expansion in Korea. Maybe we made some mistakes in overreacting not perhaps just in Vietnam but in Central America because we were so worried about communism. But at least we did do that. We contained communism until it could collapse of its own failures and the truth reaching in to all these Communist countries. And even when we erred, we did so with-in good faith I think. Now, at the end of the cold war, people are having a lot of questions about what is our national defense for or how do we keep our prestige alive and what is our job now in the world. And what I owe them is to make sure that we always have a strong, well-prepared, well-motivated, highly supportive military and that we move to contain the chaos and madness that is still abroad in the world and limit it so that our very existence is not again threatened by alien powers and so we never again have to do a D-Day. I owe them that. And I am going to do my best to pay them. Do you feel comfortable in your role as Commander in Chief? I worked very hard at it. I have spent an awful lot of time with the service chiefs. I have spent a good deal of time out and around with the various services. I have tried to get to know pretty well a lot of the officers who have to make recommendations on policies and then have to carry them out. I have really worked at it.

Interview With Harry Smith of CBS News


If you come to the Presidency from a Governorship, you only have experience insofar as any of your forces, that is, our National Guard had been involved in something like Desert Storm, or if you have got to call them up for some terrible emergency. It is something that I knew I'd have to invest a lot of time and effort in, especially at the end of the cold war. A Governor could more easily move into the role of Commander in Chief during the cold war because the road map was a lot clearer. So I have had to devote a good deal of time to it and still do. But it is something I enjoy, something I believe in, and something that is very important to me. The lives of these men on this ship are very precious to me. And I am well aware that if I send them out into harm's way, I need to be as right as God will let me be right and that this enormous power the United States has now has its limits and its possibilities and clearly its responsibilities. It is hard to be in Europe now during this time, especially in places that you have been and places you will go, and not do some soul-searching. Have you been doing some? I think everybody who is been part of this experience is so overwhelmed by the magnitude of the effort, by the level of courage and will that was required to prevail and how-it was not a foregone conclusion. And it is made me think more deeply, more soberly, more prayerfully even, about the responsibilities that I have now and the problems that we are facing now. Has it made you think or reconsider at all your own lack of service during the Vietnam war? Not in that way, not in the way you ask it. I thought then, based on what I knew then, and I knew quite a bit for a person my age because I'd studied a lot of the documents, that our involvement was an error and that I should try to do what I could honorably to oppose it and to change it. I still believe that. But I think that military service is an honorable thing, and it is something that in that sense I wish I had experienced. And none of us can control the time and place in which we live and the kinds of things that happen. We can only control our reaction to it. At the time I did the best I could.

Interview With Harry Smith of CBS News


And you know, of course, from what came out that I felt-I had very mixed feelings about it. I tried to get myself even back into the draft because I was so confused about it. But I did the best I could at that time, and I am doing the best I can now. One of the things that I think we learned from that war is that even when we are extremely well-motivated, heroic, and willing to die in large numbers, we cannot win a fight for someone else. We can support other people on their own land fighting for their own destiny, but we cannot win a fight for someone else. There are limits to what we can do. And the enormous reaction after that war happened and after the South Vietnamese forces collapsed 10 days after our final withdrawal almost caused our country to go into a shell for a while. First we overreached, and then we did not do perhaps what we should have done to sort of stick a stake in the ground. And what I am determined to do is learn as much as I can from history but not be imprisoned by it and certainly not be bogged down by it. I have a job to do now. And nobody else in the world has it but me. And one thing I owe these people who are in the armed services is to get up every day and do it the very best I can, unencumbered by anything anybody else says about it but always listening to other people. Along these lines, are you still going to pursue sanctions against North Korea? We are going to take the sanctions debate to the United Nations. There is still time for North Korea to change its course. There is still time for North Korea to work with other countries. It is important that the American people understand what is at stake here. Since I have been President they have let us inspect, because we worked very hard at it, all their facilities for what they are doing now and what they might do in the near future. They have not permitted us to go back and inspect for what they did back in 1989 before I took office. The international inspectors say that means they could divert and may have already diverted nuclear fuel for nuclear weapons. Now, they gave their word they would not do that, and they gave their word they'd let us inspect. They deal with a lot of countries that are rogue countries that promote terrorism. We feel that they ought to keep their word. And if they do not , then we feel we have to seek sanctions.

Interview With Harry Smith of CBS News


I was going to kick off, as the British representative. As you know, the peace process in Northern Ireland is at a critical stage and facing possible disaster at the moment. The Irish Prime Minister, the Catholic Deputy Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, moderate voices in both north and south have no less than 40 editorials in the American newspapers, including in the Washington Post and the New York Times, have called for decommissioning of weapons. It is time, indeed, it is well past time for the IRA to honor its commitment to the Good Friday peace agreement by surrendering its weapons. Is it now also time now for U.S., as you prepare to visit Britain, to help break the logjam by calling on Sinn Fein and its IRA associates to move on surrendering of weapons and bring back stability to Northern Ireland? We strongly the support of Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern's attempts to enact the Good Friday agreement. And one of the crucial points is decommissioning. And my Government stands side by side with those two governments and those two leaders in urging all sides to decommission, to disarm, and to enact the Good Friday agreements. The situation in Northern Ireland is coming to a critical stage. I look forward to talking to my friend about the issue. But there should be no mistake that we believe the decommissioning part of the Good Friday agreement must be upheld. ENTITY, you are coming close to Italy and to the Holy See. Yes, I am looking forward to it. What do you expect from your first meeting with His Holiness the Pope, considering his position on abortions, stem cell, the death penalty? Well, I expect to talk to a very principled man who speaks from strong convictions. And I look forward to being in the presence of a great world leader. In my speech in Warsaw, I reminded people that His Holiness and his influence had amazing effect on transforming-an amazing effect to encourage freedom. I believe-I truly believe he is a great world leader, and I appreciate his efforts of reconciliation and healing. In my country, the Holy Father has an enormous impact, because the leaders of the Catholic Church, for example, stand strong on the principle of life. They also stand strong on making sure that those who have no voice are heard. And I respect the Catholic Church; I respect the leadership. And I look forward to a very frank discussion. This will be my first chance to have met the Holy Father.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


It is not my first time to Rome, though. You cannot help but be excited and be thinking about being in the presence of a great leader, a man who has got such depth, such spiritual strength and depth. And he is had an enormous impact on the world. And so I look forward to that, and I also look forward to seeing Rome again. I was there to visit my daughter, who went to school at the American School in Rome for a 6-month period of time. Laura and I went over to visit her; I believe it was in the fall of '98, right after my reelection as Governor of Texas. We had a wonderful experience, and I am looking forward to going back. ENTITY, the strong U.S. dollar is getting a real problem for the U.S. export industry. Are you worried about this? And a question related to this, the European countries a year ago, when they have been here at the IMF/World Bank meeting, they were talking about taking the role of an engine for the world economy. Do you think, or do you expect them to take this role, and, if, what do you think they are going to do? If the IMF should take a strong role for-- No, the European countries taking a-- Well, I think this. I think that-let me answer the dollar question second. First, as to the role of market-oriented economies and democracies, we do have a role. And the first step is to make sure our economies are strong and that we trade freely between ourselves. That is why I urge-as a matter of fact today, if I am not mistaken, the EU Trade Commissioner and Ambassador Zoellick, the trade commissioner for the U.S., are making a joint statement-if it is not today, it is soon-about the need to have a new global round of trade. In other words, I do believe that those of us who have got rule of law and transparency in our economies, who have got essentially market-oriented economies, have an opportunity to help spread wealth around the world. In other words, if our economies do not grow, it is very difficult for African nations to grow. Because I remind you, I submit the only way for growth is for commerce and trade and capital to exchange across borders. So we do have a-but we have got to make sure our own economies grow.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


And part of the problem I think you are alluding to is the fact that our economy has slowed down. And so we have-and I will talk about this, what we have done to, you know, enhance economic growth-one, we have got a tax stimulus package that is going to be kicking in here soon. About $40 billion will be injected into our economy over the next 3 months in terms of rebates. So that should help bolster consumer activity. Secondly, the Fed has continued to act to cut rates. And whether they will or not in the future is up to Mr. Greenspan. It is an independent part of our Government. But nevertheless, I can safely say to our partners, we are taking steps necessary to make sure our economy recovers, and that includes, by the way, addressing energy. And needless to say, we had a very frank discussion about energy in my last trip to Europe, and I suspect we will have another frank discussion about energy. One of the things-the Prime Minister of Canada and I have had a very interesting relationship, and one that will continue to grow, is over energy. He knows full well- and Canada, by the way, is now the largest supplier of energy to the United States, and there are some great opportunities for us to enhance natural gas deliverability into our country by cooperating in our own hemisphere . My only point is that I will assure my friends and our trading partners that we are doing our part to strengthen our economy, but we have got to work to make sure we reduce trade barriers in order for prosperity to continue. The dollar is what it is based upon market. And the reason I say that is, our Government will not artificially enter markets. The market decides the strength of the dollar. And I would urge other countries, now, to do the same thing. A strong dollar has got, obviously, benefits and problems for us. One, it is harder to export, but it also helps attract capital. And much of our economy relies upon investors investing in the U.S. because of the dollar. And so we understand the pluses and minuses and, therefore, let the market determine the float of the dollar. I do not know if that answered your question properly. My question is-I tried to follow up his question. So, ENTITY, you met Prime Minister Koizumi last month, and it was a very good meeting.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


But Prime Minister Koizumi tried hard to make serious structural reform, and then the Japanese economy continued to decline, and then the yen rate-the result is a weak yen and a stronger dollar. So, President, are you concerned about such a weak yen? And may I-President, my second part of the question is on Kyoto Protocol issues. And President, you know the Japanese Government have been trying to persuade the United States to participate in Kyoto agreement, but the U.S. is still reluctant to join. So my question is, what will be the U.S. reaction if Japan move forward to sign the Kyoto agreement without U.S. commitment to join the agreement? Well, first I did have a great visit with your Prime Minister. He is tackling a very tough economic situation, a huge amount of debt. And he is willing to work hard to restructure and reform the economy so that there is, in fact, transparency and reality in the assessment of the Japanese economy. And I appreciate that a lot. I said in my statement with him at Camp David that we firmly stand with him on his reforms. And of course there may be a consequence as to the yen and dollar relationship, but the market ought to make that decision. I believe Japan-and we hope that Japan does restructure her economy and fully address the loans and the debt overhang in a very constructive, forthright manner. I believe the Prime Minister intends to do that, and I urge him and continue to encourage him to do so. And I appreciate his willingness to take on this very difficult issue, and I think the Japanese people appreciate that as well. Secondly, we also had a long discussion about Kyoto, as I have with many of the leaders around the world, and I made it clear to all the world leaders that our country supports the goals. We just have differences on the methodology. I reminded the people that we spend a lot of money on understanding global warming, that we approach the issue from a science-based perspective, that the goals are unrealistic, however, and that the United States Congress-Senate made it very clear that they were unrealistic with a 95-to-nothing vote and that my assessment of the situation was upfront.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


I explained to them as clearly as I could that our Nation will work to develop a strategy that other nations can understand clearly, but that they should make no mistake about it, that the idea of this particular treaty-of which there was a goal of-for example, setting a goal of carbon reductions by 1990-something less than the 1990 emissions was something that our country was unable to withstand. You know, some leaders were more sympathetic than others, I must confess. Nevertheless, I do believe that people appreciated the frank assessment, and I believe they are going to appreciate the strategy that we lay out over time to help meet the needs. Each country has to make its own mind up as to how to proceed with this issue. Each country must-the parliaments of these countries must deliberate. The governments must be straightforward, it seems like to me, about the consequences. And we will see how other nations-I know how other nations have accepted my declaration; we will see how they handle it with their own internal politics regarding this issue. But we can continue to cooperate and will cooperate on technology transfers. You know, a new generation of nuclear power and the capacity to be able to handle the waste in a technologically feasible way makes a lot of sense. And our Nation is more than willing to invest in new technologies and to look at how to make the world more clean. I reminded the ministers and the leaders that this also relates to energy. And as one of the trading partners, significant trading partners for many countries, it seems like the nations would want our economy to continue to grow. And yet, in order to do so, we must address our energy needs. But make no mistake about it, when you import nearly 60 percent of your product from overseas, that is a dependency upon foreign sources that can create instability. Secondly, we have got to find-and the State of California was the best in conservation in the Nation. They are the best at putting conservation practices in place, but they ran out of energy. And so on the one hand, we have got to do a better job of conservation, and we will. The Vice President has spent a lot of time talking about that. But we have got to find more energy. They had not built a powerplant in 12 years in the State of California. When you grow your State the way they have-in other words, the demand increases the way it has and there is no supply, it creates a problem. And we have got to address that.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


And it must be-and I put this in the context of an environmental strategy. And the two go hand in hand as far as we are concerned. I talked very frankly to leaders around the table about the need for us to continue to come up with safe alternatives, safe disposal practices for nuclear energy. But our Nation needs to look into it, and so does the developing world, by the way, it seems like to me. And you know, some in Europe have a different perspective about nuclear energy. It is an important discussion, and we will continue to consult with our friends. First of all, I wanted to thank you for inviting us all in-it is a high-working in my life. President Putin yesterday suggested that he wants a new security structure in Europe that would either involve Russia in NATO or NATO disbanded and a new infrastructure with Russia in it. I wonder whether you think such integration can really be on the table. And also, the Russians and the Chinese have just concluded a new treaty on friendship. And both of those countries are firmly opposed to NMD, so I wonder if you are concerned about that issue. I can understand nations that share a large border wanting to work on a friendship agreement. It makes sense to me. First, let me say, we did have a very constructive meeting in Slovenia. It was a very forthright, very straightforward, very open discussion about issues. And I made it very clear to Mr. Putin that Russia is no longer our Nation's enemy. And therefore, I do not think-the therefore of that is that we should not view each other with suspicion, that we ought to think seriously about working together to get rid of a document that codified a cold war distrust. It was a document-when Russia and America divided the world into armed camps and we stared each other down with missiles. I have spoken very clearly to the President that it is time for new leadership to develop a new strategic framework for peace. The threats that the ABM Treaty addressed no longer exists-no longer exists. cyberterrorism, fundamentalist extremists, extremism that certainly threatens us, threatens Israel, who is our strong ally and friend, threatens Russia. We have got to deal with it, the threat in Europe, at some time, perhaps. We must deal with that issue.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


And one way to do that is coordinate security arrangements, is to talk about how to- as to how to deal with the new threats but also is to be able to have the capacity to rid the world of blackmail, terrorist blackmail. And so we had to have the capacity to shoot somebody's missile down if they threatened us. It is a defense, as opposed to relying on peace-but with offensive weapons, why do not we think about developing defensive systems. So I have read with interest the statements-I have been reading with interest the statements by a lot of people. But this Nation, I am committing this Nation to a more peaceful world by a realistic assessment of the threats. And we have got to address them, and I am going to. And I continue to consult with our allies and friends, which I am confident this topic will come up with Tony Blair. I look forward to explaining him my position. I did so with the Prime Minister; I have done so with the leaders of every nation represented here. I did so with Jean Chretien right here at this table during my first working dinner as the President of the United States. He sat right there, and we had this discussion. I explained to him the philosophy behind my attitudes. I firmly believe it is the right thing to keep the peace. And I look forward to a continued dialog starting next-whenever-Sunday, I guess it is, with Mr. Putin, on this very subject. I am not going to speak for him, but I will tell you, he listened very carefully, and I appreciated that. Can both sides belong to the same structure? Well, first of all, his vision, he mentioned this in our press conference in Slovenia, as well. He talked about a NATO that might at some point include Russia. I think that is what he was saying. In the meantime, however, there is a round of NATO expansion-the practicality is, there is a round of NATO expansion next fall, a year from this coming fall, and I will reiterate what I said. It is not a matter of when-I mean, it is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. And countries that are making progress toward democracy and working hard to conform to the action plan, we ought to be very forward-leaning toward those countries. I gave it very-you should read my speech. As Russia looks west, she finds no enemies. She finds no enemies.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


I know you like energy questions, so I will throw a double-barreled energy question at you. The Canadians are always good about double-barreling. You have expressed a strong desire to get at the natural gas that is in the Northwest Territories. How do you reconcile that with the very intense political pressure to bring the gas south, through Alaska, bypassing the Canadian resources? And secondly, you have talked about a continental energy policy, energy pact. You have got free trades with NAFTA. Would a logical next step, given the United States' great need for water, be a water pact? Let me start with the energy. One, an Alaska pipeline; and secondly, a Canadian pipeline-or perhaps a combination of the two. We have got a debate here in America about whether or not America ought to be exploring for natural gas in parts of our State of Alaska. It is very similar to the Northwest Territories in Canada. The Canadian Government has made- along, I might add, with the tribes in that part of the world-have made the decision that exploration for natural gas would not only be economically beneficial but can be done in a way that does not harm the environment. I agree with their assessment. Whether or not the United States is willing to think along the same lines is an open question that is still going to be debated in the United States Senate. Nevertheless, my attitude is, we need supply. And therefore, I have committed myself to working with the Canadian Government to figure out how to get natural gas into the United States. And we are willing to work with your Government to figure out a way that can expeditiously move gas. He is referring-you know, obviously, to the extent that it would be an American pipeline, a pipeline on American soil would make it easier for me politically. Nevertheless, I am a practical man; I want the gas here. We will continue to work on the Alaska pipeline. I know there is enough reserve to justify a Canadian line. It is conceivable we could have both, that would both feed the midwestern market and the western market. The second issue is hemispheric energy, and that really pertains to-I do not know if you know this, but Mexico is a net importer of gas. And so we have got all of us- three of us are continuing to meet on how best to make sure that all of us are able to fully explore the opportunities in the hemisphere.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


But so long as Mexico imports gas from America, it is gas that ultimately will be replaced by Canada in our market. And we have got to encourage Mexico, and I know that President Fox thinks this way, about enhancing exploration for what he calls dry gas in the country of Mexico. As well, we are working on electricity hookups. And one of the things that the Prime Minister and I have talked about, the possibility of hydroelectric power generating in Canada, moving down through to particularly the Midwest. It requires a significant amount of capital outlay, but nevertheless, it is really worth the discussion. Water is-I am from a part of the world where-where I grew up, there was no water. And at one time, when the price of international crude oil got down to around $10 a barrel, water was more valuable than oil, at least where we live. Water will forever be an issue in the United States, particularly the Western United States. I do not know exactly what you have in mind in terms of importation of water. I presume it is -perhaps some have suggested abandoned pipelines that used to carry energy. I would be open to any discussions. Our Nation must develop a comprehensive water strategy as we head-particularly as these Western States continued to grow. You know, one big debate we have in America is whether or not we build more reservoir space, more water storage, aboveground water storage. It is a battle, needless to say, that pits local conservationists versus those with agricultural interests, for example. And I have looked forward to discussing this with the Prime Minister, should he want to bring it up, at any time, because water is valuable for a lot of our countries. A lot of people do not need it, but when you head south and west, we do need it. What is your vision, your master plan for U.S.-European relations, and more specifically, for U.S.-EU relations for 2008, until 2008 when you leave this house? I like an optimistic man. But nevertheless, I appreciate it. Maybe this would reassure all those who have questions about the U.S. strategy. Well, I appreciate that. Look, when I first went to-my first trip to Europe was an icebreaker. You know, some of the leaders had come here, and we had visited. But a lot of folks had never-you know, they had read things about me, so they were not able to hear my vision.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


They were told things through the newspapers; sometimes things were true, sometimes frankly not so true. But nevertheless, it gave me a chance to have a very honest dialog. Patrice, I think they realize that, one, my Nation is firmly committed to NATO, the expansion of NATO. Our commitment to NATO is real. One of the big issues- that is important for people's vision of the American role-very important. You know, during the course of the campaign, I made it clear that I thought that our military should be used to fight and win war-that is what I thought the military was for-and that I was concerned about peacekeeping missions and that we have got to be very clear about-to our friends and allies about how we use our troops for nation-building exercises, which I have rebuffed as a-basically rebuffed as a kind of a strategy for the military. And as a result of that, some in Europe were very concerned about our presence in the Balkans, for example. We came in together. That is an important statement for people to understand, that our Nation will continue to work with our European friends-in this case, to bring stability to the Balkans and Macedonia. We have got an Ambassador on the ground there working with the EU Ambassador to bring peace. Having said that, it is important, however, to continue to work, though, to replace troops in a responsible manner with civil institutions, civil structures that can do the same thing the troops are doing. We have got to work for a police force and security arrangements that are run locally, so that the NATO troops at some point in time will no longer serve as peacekeepers. Now, that is obviously more opportunistic to do that in Bosnia than it is in Kosovo at this point in time, but nevertheless, we must do so. In terms of the EU, I believe that we can have a very constructive relationship with the EU. Obviously, there are some concerns where we differ, but we should not allow these differences-like biotechnology, for example, which I talked about today in my speech regarding developing nations. The U.N. came out-this is kind of an aside-the U.N. came out with a very interesting study that made it clear that biotech and biotechnology will enhance the ability of poor nations to grow more plentiful amounts of food. We agree with that position. And yet, we have a disagreement with our European friends on that, it seems like.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


Nevertheless, we should not allow those disagreements to undermine and to kind of diminish the fact that we share the same values. And it is the values that unite-not just the history but the values that unite America with Europe. The values of freedom, free press-I emphasize free press being exercised right here in the Family Dining Room at the White House-free speech-it will be exercised in Genoa, I suspect--free elections, free religion, basic values that we share. And our European friends, I believe, are beginning to understand that about me, that I respect Europe, I respect our history, but most of all, I respect the values of Europe, and that I will not let differences of opinion get in the way for the larger vision-and that is a Europe free and whole, a Europe expanded, and a Europe in partnership with America. And we will have frank discussions. Look, the only thing I can do in these meetings, and I will do-I will just tell people what I think. I will represent my Government in a way that is forthright, transparent. And some will like it, and some will not like it. But they will always know that I will be willing to listen, discuss, and consult on issues of importance. I would not be sitting here as the President if I did not have an optimistic view of how we can work together. And secondly, I think people will find that, as I said today, that I do embrace a kind of compassionate conservatism in the international arena that recognizes that those of us who are fortunate have an obligation to help the developing nations, the sick. It is unbelievable that on my watch and on the watch of the other leaders around the table that Africa, for example, suffers the pandemic that it does. And we must come together, and we must take this issue incredibly seriously and work together to help develop-help Africans develop a strategy of education, treatment, and cure that will work, and help fund it, and crank up our NGOs to go help. And I think the people will see the strategy and-- Does it look to you that these big meetings are increasingly being held behind armed camps? You were in Quebec City; WTO is going to meet in the desert. In Genoa, they are on a boat, some of them, and Canada is talking about making it on a mountaintop next year.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


Let me say, I-in Quebec City, I do not know what percentage, but I would say clearly 95 percent of the people were there to stage a peaceful protest about a variety of issues. Some anarchists wanted to make it difficult for the Canadian Government to conduct a meeting. And in all due respect, those who try to disrupt and destroy and hurt are really defeating the cause of-their cause, it seems like to me. I think a lot of people in the world are just kind of sick of it. You know, secondly, as I said, the people who are protesting are hurting the poorer nations. If they are trying to undo trade, it seems like to me, their strategy and their philosophy will lock people into poverty. And I strongly disagree with them, and I made that clear in a speech today. You need to get the exact wording in the transcript. There should be no question about my view, about what these voices of isolationism and protection are doing. They can couch it in any words they want, but they are condemning people to poverty, as far as I am concerned. They need to go and ask the people. Ask the African nations; ask what their hope is. Find out from the people that they are supposedly speaking on behalf of exactly what their opinion is, and they are going to find a different point of view. I thought Quebec City was-first of all, I got to see Quebec City in kind of a nearempty state, which was beautiful. But obviously, any time you are meeting and you have got issues to discuss and there is tear gas wafting through the air, it kind of changes the atmosphere somewhat. But that is not going to prevent me from having a good dialog with the leaders. The truth of the matter is, the discussions inside the halls of these buildings are fairly immune to what is going on. And the other thing is, there are some there, they just want to get their picture on TV. Are you concerned about Argentina? I am concerned about Argentina. I am concerned about Argentina, Marc . And our Nation is very much-you know, watching the situation very carefully. Late last night off the news-I am sure the news reported-it looked like there was an agreement between the governors and the central government as to how to rein in spending, which is a very important step in a-direction that Argentina needs to go.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


I'd like to say a special word of thanks to David Kessler for the work he did historic work he did at the FDA when he was here. Thank you, Dr. Koop, and members of the public community who are here. To Members of Congress, the attorneys general, the representatives of plaintiffs in the private litigation and we have one of the injured parties here representing all of them we thank all of them for coming today. This is a time of prosperity and hope and optimism for America, with our economy improving, making progress on our social problems, our efforts to lead the world to a more prosperous and peaceful future making headway. But I think we all know that this country still has some significant challenges, especially in the health field. And if we think about what we want America to be like in the 21st century, the health of our people and especially the health of our children must be paramount in our thinking, in our vision, and in our efforts. That is why a year ago I worked with the FDA and we launched this nationwide effort to protect our children from the dangers of tobacco by reducing youth access to tobacco products, by preventing companies from advertising to our children. The purpose of the FDA rule was to reduce youth smoking by 50 percent within 7 years. Earlier this year, a Federal judge in North Carolina said that the FDA has the authority to regulate tobacco products to protect the health of our children. There have also been other examples of litigation progress, as you know, brought by private plaintiffs and by the attorneys general. Now, these victories for public health drove the tobacco companies to the bargaining table. They extracted concessions that would have been literally unthinkable just a short time ago. I want to say a special word of thanks to the attorneys general and the other parties who worked hard to negotiate this settlement. Everyone knows we would not be here had it not been for their foresight, their determination, and their relentless efforts. Now we have this unprecedented opportunity to enact comprehensive tobacco legislation, working with all the parties involved, the Members of Congress, the attorneys general, the representatives of injured parties, the public health community, the tobacco farmers, and others. We have moved from confrontation and denial and inertia to the brink of action on behalf of our children, and that is all to the good. the dramatic reduction of teen smoking. In the coming weeks I will invite congressional leaders from both parties to the White House to launch a bipartisan effort to enact such legislation.

Remarks on Proposed Tobacco Legislation and an Exchange With Reporters


There are five key elements that must be at the heart of any national tobacco legislation. That is why I believe the first thing any tobacco legislation must include is a comprehensive plan to reduce teen smoking, including tough penalties. These penalties should be non-tax-deductible, uncapped, and escalating to give the tobacco industry the strongest possible incentive to stop targeting children as new customers. One of the surest ways of reducing youth smoking is to increase the price of cigarettes. Today I call for a combination of industry payments and penalties to increase the price of cigarettes by up to a dollar and a half a pack over the next decade, as needed, to meet our youth reduction targets. And I call upon the House to follow the lead of the United States Senate and repeal the provision giving the tobacco industry a $50 billion tax credit. Second, any legislation must affirm the full authority of the FDA to regulate tobacco products. I believe the FDA's jurisdiction over tobacco products must be as strong and effective as its authority over drugs and devices. In particular, legislation cannot impose any special procedural hurdles on the FDA's regulation of tobacco products. Third, effective legislation must include measures to hold the industry accountable, especially in any efforts to market products to children, while insisting on changes in the way it does business. I ask the industry again to make a voluntary commitment to stop advertising to children. And I call upon Congress to pass legislation providing for broad document disclosure so that the public can learn everything the tobacco companies know about the health effects of their products and their attempts to market to our children. Fourth, Federal tobacco legislation must aim not only to reduce youth smoking but to meet other health goals as well. These include the reduction of secondhand smoke, the expansion of smoking prevention and cessation programs, the strengthening of international efforts to control tobacco, and the provision of funds for medical research and other important health objectives. We must build on the bipartisan agreement to fund children's health care in the recent balanced budget. And finally, any tobacco legislation must protect tobacco farmers and their communities. We know that tobacco farmers are honest, hardworking people, most of whom live and work on small, family owned farms. In some States, entire communities rely on income from the tobacco crop. Any legislation must protect these farmers, their families, and their communities from loss of income. Let me say in closing, I want to thank the Vice President especially, who cares so passionately about this issue.


He is played a key role in our efforts to protect our children from the dangers of tobacco. I have asked him to take the lead in building broad bipartisan support around the country for our plan. I also want to thank Secretary Shalala, Secretary Glickman, and Bruce Reed, and all those who worked so hard on our administration's analysis of the proposed settlement and where we are. And finally, let me say again, we would not be here if it were not for all the people in this room and the countless others they represent around the country. To me, this is not about money. It is not about how much money we can extract from the tobacco industry. It is about fulfilling our duties as parents and responsible adults to protect our children and to build the future of this country. We are doing everything we can in this administration to give parents the tools they need to raise their children, but parents have to be our partners as well. If this is not just about money, we have to recognize that even beyond the tobacco companies and all of us in this room, every parent in America has a responsibility to talk to their children about the dangers of tobacco, illegal drugs, and other things that can hurt them. We know if we have strong parental responsibility here, they can make a great deal of difference in protecting our children as well. If we take responsibility, if we pass this legislation, if we do what we should here, if the tobacco industry will work with us, if other Members of Congress in both parties will work with us, we will have gone a very long way toward creating the state of health for our children that will make America an even greater nation in the new century. ENTITY, what are the chances of the Congress adopting your policy? Well, first of all, I was encouraged by some of the comments that were made by some industry representatives. I think that they know that they have to have Federal legislation. They have an interest in that as well. And I would hope that they would be willing to work with us. But we cannot have the FDA crippled here, and we have to have real and meaningful penalties if the targets for youth smoking are not met. And so I feel very good about that. I think the Congress I think it is highly likely that they will take action. When they take action depends, I think, upon when they can work through the issues for themselves and how they decide how to divide up the work among the committees.


We could have hearings on this fairly soon, and I would hope to work with the Congress to develop a bill that would embody these principles. ENTITY, you have not said what you are willing to agree to for the tobacco industry. Are you willing to agree to immunity from future liability? Well, I do not think they have asked for future liability, I think they have asked for immunity from liability for past suits. And the question there would be, what are they willing to agree to? They need to come and meet with us. We need to discuss it, and we need to see whether we can embody these five principles. To me, I will say again, this is not primarily about money. This is about changing the behavior of the United States, both the behavior of the tobacco companies, the behavior of the American people, the future behavior of our children. I am trying to create an environment here with these five principles that I believe would achieve that. And if they want to be our partners in it, I think we can get there. Are you willing to put your prestige on the line to ensure that this becomes law? Well, I think my personal prestige on this has been on the line for more than a year now. There for a while, I thought more than my prestige was on the line. You know, for a person involved in public life in Washington today, personal prestige may be an oxymoron. But at least you still have your neck most days. What do you say to the people ENTITY, how do you protect the well-being of tobacco farmers sounds like you are going to take away their livelihood. Well, there are a number of things which can be done, and I do not want to get into the details. Secretary Glickman can talk about it. But we have had farmers in various sectors in our agriculture society facing constricted incomes before, and we have done things which helped them. There was a for example, I remember a few years ago something that affected dairy farmers in my State. There was a massive buyout program for dairy farmers, and in a lot of States like Arkansas, there were any number of small farmers that were having a very difficult time who had a chance to start their life on a different basis. I do not want to minimize this. Tobacco has a very high return per acre. You cannot just say to a tobacco farmer to go plant soybeans, even if the soil will hold them.


This is, from an agricultural point of view, economically complex. But nonetheless, we have a responsibility to these people. They have not done anything wrong. They have not done anything illegal. They are good, hard-working, taxpaying citizens, and they have not caused this problem. And we cannot let them, their families, or their communities just be crippled and broken by this. And I do not think any member of the public health community wants to do that. And the Agriculture Department and I am personally very committed to this part; to me, this is one of the five things we have to do. We are trying to change America and make everybody whole. And they deserve a chance to have their lives and be made whole and go on with the future as well, and I am determined to see that they are a part of this. What do you say to the attorneys who thought this was a good deal and very proudly proclaimed it? Well, first of all, they were a part of all these ongoing reviews. Everybody was heard in this review process. And secondly, they all recognize, too, that this agreement has to be ratified by Congress. The tobacco companies recognize that. That means that all of us who are part of that process are, in effect, parties to this case, too. And that is the way you need to look at this. We are building on their deal. We are not rejecting their agreement. We are building on it. We are not rejecting what the attorneys general did. We are building on it. Look, if it had not been for what they did, we would not be here. I realize that there were two great things that started this. One is what Dr. Kessler and what we did at the FDA, and the fact that our administration was the first one ever willing to take this on. The other was the actions by the attorneys general and the private lawsuits that got the disclosure of the documents that created a total change in the public attitude and the public efforts here. And then long before that, there were the efforts of all of these people here from the public health community who have been telling us all this for years. And they had the public primed for it. Then the lawsuits brought about the disclosures, and then the FDA was moving. Those three things together, I think and of course, now there have been a lot of congressional hearings. Representative Waxman had a full head of hair when he came to Congress before he started on tobacco.


And so I think you have got to give to me, we are building on this progress, and that is the way you have to look at this. We are trying to do the best thing for the country in a way that is consistent with the agreement they made. We are building on the agreement. We are not tearing it down. We are building on it. And I think we can get legislation that will reflect it. What do you think about the string of air crashes, ENTITY, that have happened Bosnia, the German representative that was killed? We do not have all the facts yet. I was briefed early this morning on it, and obviously I am profoundly concerned for the diplomat and the people that were on the aircraft and their families. But I cannot comment on the facts of it until we absolutely know what the facts are. I must say, we are making on balance, we are making some progress in Bosnia again. The events of the last several weeks are hopeful for the peace process and the Dayton accord. What do you have to say about the air safety, and what are you going to be doing about that? I had a talk with the Secretary of Defense about them the day before yesterday, and I think we have to, first of all, analyze each and every one to see whether there is some pattern that would require some kind of review by the Air Force or whether it is just an unfortunate stream of coincidences that they all happened at the same time. I noted one that I learned about this morning involved Air National Guard planes, for example. That may or may not have anything to do with any problem with planes or anything like that. I would not over jump to conclusions about this. Remember, every year I try to say this once a year, so I want to say it now it is easy for the American people to forget the risks that our men and women in uniform undertake. Every year we lose a couple hundred people serving the United States in the military in peacetime. I am heartsick about the plane we are missing off the coast of Africa that took a demining team in there to continue our work against landmines.


As you have watched what is happening in Congress, do you feel that House Republicans are coming any closer to anything that you could sign? If they offered you more, ENTITY, would you be willing then to negotiate things, like a delay in Obamacare in the individual mandate? We are not going to delay the Affordable Care Act. There are millions of Americans right now who do not have health insurance. And they are finally, after decades, going to be in a position where they can get affordable health care just like everybody else. And that means that their families, their kids, themselves, they have got the basic security that you and I enjoy. And the notion that we would even delay them getting that kind of peace of mind, potentially going to a doctor to get treated for illnesses that they currently have simply because the Republicans have decided, ideologically, that they are opposed to the Affordable Care Act is not something that we are going to be discussing. As we talk, ENTITY, we are on a day when, obviously, a shut-down is looming. You said earlier that you were going to be talking to the leaders. Did you mean Republican leaders and if so, which one? Well, I am going to be talking to all of them. And we still have a window; there is still an opportunity during the course of this day to avert a shut down and make sure that we are paying our bills. What can you offer? ENTITY, when you say what can I offer, I should not have to offer anything. They are not doing me a favor by paying for things that they have already approved for the government to do. That is part of their basic function of government. That is not doing me a favor. That is doing what the American people sent them here to do, carrying out their responsibilities. I have said consistently that I am always happy to talk to Republicans and Democrats about how we shape a budget that is investing in things like early childhood education, rebuilding our roads and bridges and putting people back to work, growing our economy, making sure that we have got the research and development we need to stay at the cutting edge and that deals with some of our long- term debt issues. But we are not going to accomplish those things if one party to this conversation says that the only way that they come to the table is if they get 100 percent of what they want. And if they do not , they threaten to burn down the house.

Interview with Steve Inskeep of National Public Radio's All Things Considered


People who follow this closely, ENTITY, will know that you have negotiated in the past with Speaker Boehner and those negotiations have often fallen apart; that your vice president has negotiated with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and sometimes those negotiations have succeeded, but there do not appear to be negotiations going on now. Do you believe there is anyone in Congress in a position of authority you can deal with who could deliver an agreement to you? I like Speaker Boehner. I like Mitch McConnell. I think they are, you know, in challenging positions because right now they have been unwilling to say no to the most extreme parts of their caucus. And at the point where they are willing to say no to the most extreme parts of their caucus, I think that there are a whole bunch of Republicans both in the Senate and the House who recognize this is a bad strategy. I am in conversations with those senators on a regular basis, and some of those House members, and they recognize that the greatest country on Earth should not be doing business this way. And I think if John Boehner stood up and said, we are going to make sure that the government stays open, we are going to make sure that basic government functions are being carried out, we are going to make sure that America pays its bills on time, like we always have throughout our history, but I am still going to take principled stands on a whole range of issues where I differ with ENTITY. I think the vast majority of American people and the majority of Republicans would say that is the kind of leadership we expect. Would he lose his job? But it requires some willingness on his part to put the long-term interests of the country ahead of short-term political interests. Ironically, over time, I actually think that would be good politics. Look, I want a successful Republican Party in the sense of one that is interested in governing. You know, Congress is going to go back and forth over the next five, 10, 20 years. And what we want is both parties to be able to have principled disagreements, to have very tough fights, but to make sure that the underlying stability of the country is maintained and that we are not demonizing the other side, we are not locking ourselves into ideological positions that we cannot move off of, we are not boxing ourselves in. And unfortunately, that is what we have seen -- that is the pattern that we have seen over the last several years.


Let me mention, ENTITY, that one reason this is such an emotional moment is that people on both sides of the debate over the Affordable Care Act seem to believe that once the individual mandate takes effect and people begin receiving subsidies, the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, stays forever -- cannot be removed, because there will be political support for it. Do you believe that? Keep in mind -- if you are a Republican -- and we have heard some Republicans make this argument -- some of those who are leading the charge on this make this argument -- and essentially, what they are saying is, once this is fully implemented and millions of people who currently do not have health care have health care at reasonable prices and protections are in place for consumers across the board, that it will be sufficiently successful and popular that people will not want to repeal it. So the notion is we have got to stop it before people like it too much. Well, part of the argument is sometimes, people come to like things that the government cannot afford anymore. Well, this is -- this is the argument that was made with respect to Social Security; this is the argument that was made to Medicare. It turns out, actually, people liked it, and we could afford it. And unlike the prescription drug plan that was passed by Republicans, which now is very popular with seniors, although at the time that it was passed was actually less popular than the Affordable Care Act, according to the polls -- we paid for the Affordable Care Act. It does not add to the deficit. If the assumptions in current law held. Well -- but the assumptions so far not only have held, they have actually exceed expectations. Health care costs have gone up slower since we passed the Affordable Care Act. There were great predictions coming from the Republicans that health care costs would go up even faster; that has not happened. There were predictions that the market places that we are setting up -- essentially, the group plans where people buy health insurance -- would not offer a good deal to consumers. And so far, the bids have come in from insurance companies, and lo and behold, they have actually come under the estimates that the government had so far. So the truth is that every prediction about how bad the Affordable Care Act would be for individual consumers out there has not proven to be true. That is ENTITY speaking yesterday at the White House. Now, Medicare -- the program for seniors ENTITY mentioned -- has actually turned out to be hard work to afford.


The cost of all health care has been rising for years. And one major question about the Affordable Care Act is whether it will meet its goal of containing those costs over time. Despite the government shutdown, the main parts of the law take effect today. Health exchanges are supposed to open; websites and other locations across the country where people without insurance can shop for private plans. I asked ENTITY if he was prepared for significant glitches as the exchanges open. In the first week, first month, first three months, I would suspect that there will be glitches. This is 50 states, a lot of people signing up for something, and there are going to be problems. And I guarantee you, there will be problems because we have got precedent. When Massachusetts, just one state, set this up, it took quite a long time. It took several months before everything was smoothed out. Of course, the same was true with Medicare and Social Security and every other social program that we have set up -- the Children's Health Insurance Program. But what we are confident about is that people will be able to take a look and find out whether this is something that is going to be good for their families. You have talked a lot during your time in office about the widening gap between the rich and everybody else. This is a decades-long trend, but a good part of that trend has now taken part -- taken place on your watch. Overwhelming majority of the increase in income in this country went to the wealthiest 1 percent. Why is that happening on your watch? Well, it is one of my biggest concerns. And part of it has to do with the fact that these long-term trends have accelerated. Globalization, combined with technology, have stripped away a lot of the basic security that middle-income people had because a lot of those middle-income jobs have left. Either they were moved overseas, they were replaced with technology -- whether you are talking about a bank teller, a travel agent, a high-level administrator in a lot of companies, if you go to many manufacturers, it is all roboticized. So some of the -- that is part of the trend. Are your efforts not helping with this? The law was passed under a Democratic Congress. Well, no -- there are no doubts that what we have done has helped. So for example, the changes we made in the tax law that increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans while locking in tax cuts for middle-class Americans, that helped.


The economist Tyler Cowen was on our program the other day. He'd written a book about income inequality. And he argued, based on his analysis, that it is really inevitable, it is going to get worse, and the thing for public officials to do is to adapt to it rather than try to change it. Well, I do not accept that. America is, always been, at its best when everybody who is willing to work hard has a chance to succeed. I mean, we are seeing the same trends in Scandinavian countries that historically were -- prided themselves on great equality. We have seen it magnified in less developed countries and emerging markets. So these are global trends that we are going to have to fight against. But if we are educating a workforce that has the skills they need to compete, if we have a tax system that is fair and not rewarding those who can afford high-priced accountants and lawyers, if we are rebuilding our infrastructure in this country, not only to make us more competitive but because those create jobs that cannot be exported, if we are increasing a minimum wage so that it is reflective of the same purchasing power that existed many years ago, if we are creating more ladders of opportunity for people who are locked in neighborhoods that have been abandoned and small towns where factories have closed, if we do those things, then we can lessen the impact of these broader market forces. On the one hand, they create a situation in which consumer goods are cheap and they create a situation in which we can have access to goods and services that we would never have had before. On the other hand, it does create a situation in which a lot of the jobs that are created are at the very top, high-skilled, you know, creative work that cannot be replicated, or at the bottom, low-skilled jobs. What we do not have are those jobs in the middle that we have to really focus on building, because we can outcompete anybody when we have smart policies. You have said you will not negotiate over an extension of the debt ceiling. I just want to make sure that I am clear on that. If there is no agreement, if the debt ceiling is -- the debt limit is reached, if the United States is going into default or at risk of going into default, you absolutely will not negotiate, even in that circumstance?


And the reason, ENTITY, is because if we establish a pattern whereby one faction of one party controlling one chamber in Congress can threaten default, that the United States of America is no longer meeting its obligations and fulfilling the full faith and credit of the United States unless they get a hundred percent of what they want, then we have established a pattern that fundamentally changes the nature of our government. At that point, any president -- not just me -- any president is subject to that kind of blackmail continuously. If you had a Republican president in here and a Democratic speaker said, we are not going to raise the debt ceiling unless you pass background checks on guns; we are not going to pass the debt ceiling unless you raise the corporate income tax by 30 percent, you know, that Republican president would find him or herself in a similar position. Raising the debt ceiling is not raising the debt, it is simply saying Congress is authorizing the Treasury to pay for those things that Congress has already approved. So a potential debt-ceiling crisis approaches, even as the president tries to manage ordinary business. He had hoped to name a new Fed chairman by now, giving Congress time to act this year to find a successor to Ben Bernanke. As he pondered that decision, I asked if the president wants the next Fed chair to change course for the Fed. He began by noting that the Fed is a dual mandate, one part is protecting the currency. Part of that mandate is also full employment, making sure that the economy is growing in such a way that people have the chance to succeed. Should the Fed be doing more in that department? Well, I think that the Fed has to constantly monitor where the economy is moving, but we cannot put the entire burden on the Fed. And this brings us back to the original point about potential government shutdowns or potential default because we are not paying our bills. The -- we have dug ourselves out of a deep hole, and the economy now has grown. We have created jobs for 42 consecutive months. We have created 7.5 million new jobs. Manufacturing's come back in ways that many people would not have anticipated. The deficit, which was the main rationale back in 2011 for Republicans to engage in this brinkmanship, has gone down faster than any time since World War II and has been cut by more than half since I came into office.


Well, I am glad to see you all and welcome you here, for many of you, for the first time. As you know, in the State of the Union Address I issued a challenge, and as part of my explanation of the New Covenant in challenging citizens to be more responsible, to people of faith and to religious leaders specifically to help us to deal with those problems that we have to deal with person by person and from the inside out, to help us to deal with the problems of teen pregnancy and outof-wedlock birth, to help us to deal with the challenges of excessive violence, to help us to deal with the things that have to be organized and dealt with literally one by one at the grassroots level. And while I think we have to be more tolerant of all people, no matter what their differences are, we need to be less tolerant of conditions that are within our power to change. And as you know now, for 2 years, ever since I took this job, I have been trying to find ways to galvanize the energies of people of faith to work together on a common agenda that nearly all Americans would agree on and, at the same time, to try to respect the differences of opinion and views. Our administration strongly supported the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and we have worked very hard to implement it in a good faith way. And I think an awful lot of people from right across the spectrum of religious affiliations in our country would agree that we have done that. Anyway, if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer. But the other thing I was going to say today what I said today was that the problems our country faces today are quite profound, you know, the fact that a rising tide is not lifting all boats; that a lot of people, in spite of this remarkable recovery, have not gotten a raise and they are more vulnerable with their health care, their pensions; and the fact a lot of people find their values violated and their security violated by crime and violence and the breakdown of the social order It would be very hard to assert that there are more profound difficulties than the problems of previous days, than the problems that George Washington or Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt confronted.

Interview With Religious Affairs Journalists