In the meantime, we hope to well, we are, we are not hoping Vice ENTITY Rockefeller is going to have a series of meetings around the country where all people, those who want more or those who want less in the field of welfare, can come in and testify and make specific recommendations so we will have the benefit of people at the local level. But in the meantime, we are working I mean literally working to try and improve, cut down the mistakes and the cost of welfare so that we can get more deserved welfare to the people who ought to have it and cut out those that should not qualify. It is my understanding, ENTITY, you will be meeting with Mrs. Caroline Stenderwick, a local representative of the MIA organization, before your departure from Omaha. The families of these missing men tell us they are seeking a more aggressive attitude from your Administration, especially from Secretary Kissinger, in determining the fate of their husbands and fathers. Is there anything especially hopeful you will be able to tell Mrs. Stenderwick when you meet with her today? I have met at least once as ENTITY and once as Vice ENTITY with the representatives of the MIA. In addition, on several occasions, in other communities Dallas, for example I have met with either parents or widows of MIA's. I can assure you that the Defense Department, the State Department, and myself have made every possible effort that we can to get the North Vietnamese to permit us to move in and check on the sites or the locations where we understand there is some possibility a crash might have occurred or a person might have escaped. But the North Vietnamese have totally violated the January 1973 accords by failing to permit us to carry out these investigations. Now, the House of Representatives has just approved and appointed a committee to investigate the whole subject. We will give that committee, under Congressman Montgomery of Mississippi, our full cooperation, lay out in detail what we have done and what the problem is which, in this case, is North Vietnam. I can assure her, as I am saying here, that we have made and will continue to make a maximum effort in this regard. I was going to ask a very light question, ENTITY, but now I am afraid to after that heavy answer. Some people feel that there is a lack of leadership or perhaps I should say a lack of inspirational leadership from the top in the energy crisis situation, and I will tell you what I mean by that.

Interview With Reporters in Omaha.


All of the accent seems to be put on how can we become independent of foreign sources and obviously we have to do that but should not more emphasis really be put on conserving, because this is probably only the forerunner of a number of world shortages and we do not have any feeling of crisis about it. Now, do you really think, for instance, this country should continue to use 30 to 35 percent of the world's energy? We have always said the answer to the energy problem for the United States is, one, stimulation of new sources and conservation of the energy we have. Every document I have ever sent to the Congress, every statement I have ever made, emphasizes both new sources of energy and conservation of those that we have. In my energy program that I submitted in January of this year, we put a considerable amount of emphasis on conservation. The United States has squandered energy; we squander energy today. And we have to convince people they should drive less, they should use less energy in their homes, not quite as cool in the summer or hot in the winter. We have urged the automotive industry to build automobiles that have a higher degree of efficiency. And I am glad to report you may have seen the new models, I think, increase the energy use or they will cut back on gasoline to an average of 13 percent. I could not agree with you more, but you know it takes a crisis sometimes to get people to do what they should. But we are really in a crisis, are we not? Then what I was trying to find out is, do not you really think a direct appeal to the people I think people would sacrifice; I really do. We have tried it. We have made some headway, obviously, because the use of energy is down, whether it is gasoline, whether it is heating oil, whether it is any of the other sources of energy. But it is not enough, and I continue to urge it, and of course, the increase of price by the OPEC nations ought to make people more conscious of our vulnerability and make Congress more responsive to passing a better or any-legislation. ENTITY, in the wake of the recent attacks on your life in some cases maybe an alleged attack on your life-has it caused you to take second thoughts or your family ask you to take second thoughts about running for reelection, and are there any conditions under which you would not seek reelection next year?

Interview With Reporters in Omaha.


I can foresee no circumstances that would preclude me from seeking election in 1976. My family fully supports my candidacy. They are enthusiastic about it. My wife thinks I ought to be a little more careful and cautious as I travel around the country, and she is not the only one, obviously. But we are using, I think, greater discretion and prudence, and on the other hand, for me to sit in Washington and just go through papers, making decisions when I can do that, and at the same time come to Omaha or to Chicago or other places, I think it is important. The American people ought to have an opportunity to see firsthand or to listen more directly with their ENTITY, and we are not going to let unusual circumstances deter us from a responsible effort to travel in this country. Many Presidents lately have made declarations concerning crime and the problems of crime and that something has to be done about it. Certainly, this is an area you must have given a lot of thought to lately. If you could point out the biggest need you think needs to change today to help stop the pattern that crime has taken in the Nation, what would it be? I set that forth in a crime message to the Congress where I said, Our concern today ought to be for the victims of crime. The crime message that I sent to the Congress calls for mandatory sentences for those that participate in a crime of violence using a gun, and we have urged the courts to increase their confinement of convicted criminals. Too many criminals today, after they have been convicted, are put off on probation. There ought to be a penalty for the committing of a crime, and that means confinement. Whether it is 6 months or some other term, I believe mandatory sentences are required in certain crimes. I believe the courts have to be firmer, and I think they you know, it is unbelievable, but a very, very high percentage of crime today is done by a very limited number of people, professional criminals, and they ought to be behind the bars. ENTITY, there has been from time to time there have been reports of controversy between Dr. Schlesinger and Dr. Kissinger, the latest being the question of the Pershing missile for Israel. Is there indeed disharmony in your Cabinet in that regard, and if so, what are you doing about it?

Interview With Reporters in Omaha.


Do you want to venture a guess on who is going to come out on top tomorrow-Democratic field? I will let them have that all to themselves and decide. Want to tell us who you would prefer to face in November? No, no-I will offer no help in who they might want to select. Would you tell us if you have been at all surprised by Gary Hart's surge in the primaries so far? Well, maybe might not have picked that, and yet I think I can understand-a kind of a new face. But I still think that it is too early to really be naming any front-runners or anything in that race. ENTITY, a lot of us pundits have been predicting that this race would turn into a generational conflict. I recall you in the past talking about how-finally how America needs to return to the stature and to the values of its past. Will you be adjusting that strategy if you are facing an opponent who talks about, compares himself-backing the future, as opposed to the policies of the past? No, I have always felt and based any campaigning or anything that I do on what we do, not what the other fellow says he is going to do-what we do and what we plan to do. I do not see any need for any generational struggle in here, but if there is, maybe we can settle it with an arm wrestle. Is it true what Gary Hart says, that you and Walter Mondale represent the policies of the past? As a matter of fact-it might be in the past in that, to the extent that some of the things were principles that this country was based on-but I think that what we have done has been a departure, certainly from the past 40-odd years of Democratic domination in the country in which they have held both Houses of the Congress. ENTITY, can you give us some idea about what you would do in the next term to control the deficits? Are we talking-would you-are you considering possibly another increase, or an increase in taxes by changing the system, say, or would you make any further cuts in entitlement programs? what we think are so-called loopholes that offer not quite fair benefits to some and not to all. We have also discussed and I have asked the Treasury Department to look into something that cannot happen in this coming year, it is going to take more study than this, and that is a simplification of our tax structure.

Interview With Southeast Regional Editors on Foreign and Domestic Issues


We need to look at ways to get the billions and billions of dollars that are not being paid in taxes-owed by people legitimately and not by way of loopholes; in this instance, just outright violations of the tax code. To that extent, yes, we are going to do that. But for the future, we have to bring down the percentage of the gross national product that government is taking in this country. See, I have a degree in economics myself. But I do remember that when I was getting my degree, it was more or less a standard acceptance in economics that the business cycle, so called, and the lean periods previous to that are-what we now call recessions and depressions-when they did occur, that usually it was when the government had gone beyond a certain point in the percentage of gross national product that it was taking. And that was just more or less accepted as standard. And I think that after we get what we have called a down payment, which is about all we can get in this year, with the limited time that Congress is going to be here, then I think, in a bipartisan way, we are going to have to continue to look at government, as to how, structurally, we can reduce the share that government is taking. Can you give us an idea, though-I mean, could you give us some specifics about what you might do? Well, let me give them to this extent. Some of them you could look at, and they could be contained in the Grace commission-or committee reports. Here was a look at government by almost 2,000 top business leaders in the private sector-not only from institutions and so forth but from the business and financial world-that looked at government as they would look at a business if they were thinking of merging or taking it over-as to things that are wrong or that could be changed. And we are really seriously looking at these recommendations, 2,478-or -28?-but anyway, it is almost 2,500 recommendations that they have made. And many of them would require legislative action, because they would result in changes in procedure in the processes of government. In the negotiations that have been going on in the last few weeks on this down payment that you referred to, what concessions have you expressed willingness to make? And what concessions might you be willing to make for your part in these negotiations?


Well, frankly, I have lost a little faith in the bipartisan approach to this, because the other side seemed more interested, I think, in politics than they did in meeting us in any way on trying to achieve this down payment. So, I am and have been meeting with the leadership of our own in the House and in the Senate on that very thing, and will be willing, once we all come to agreement and have settled on a plan-and I cannot go beyond that, because we have not -but I will be willing then to go forward with our own proposal and hope that we can, with the support of the people, that we can get bipartisan support for it. So, you are saying you have not even put forth a proposal yet? You have not, even yet, put forth a proposal in these negotiations? Well, this is in our own discussions within, I might say, the family, meaning the Republican leadership, both the House and Senate and myself. We are discussing-and there are a number of viewpoints on figures having to do with spending reductions-and I think we are pretty much agreed on that tax revenues would be-if there are any-would be obtained from corrections in the tax program and not in any change in the rates. ENTITY, not too long ago your finance chairman in Mississippi, William Munger, was reflecting back on the Republican's defeat in the gubernatorial race in that State last year, and he said that in order for Republicans to do well in Mississippi, they had to attract black votes, but if they did the things necessary to attract black votes, they'd be going against Republican philosophy. Do you agree with that? No, I think everything that we have done in our economic approach is of benefit to everyone. I know that there are charges being made-I listened to the debate-that somehow our attempts at economies and all have penalized people who were dependent on government aid. The simple fact of the matter is we are spending more on help for the people and for the needy than has ever been spent before in history. Our budget cuts have been reductions in the increase planned in spending. We have not come to some place where we are spending less than had been spent. But, sir, blacks in Alabama say that they are not going to vote for you. They say they are going to vote for the Democrat, whoever he is. How are you going to counter what they perceive to be an administration that does not have their interest at heart?


Well, you said the key word, that they perceive to be. And I am just going to hope that in the campaign we can reveal to them that they have not been given the truth, that they are the victims of a lot of demagoguery that has portrayed us as guilty of things we have not done. Do you think that all the campaigning among eight contenders for the Democratic nomination has changed public perception of you along those lines or along other lines on Well, even before a campaign started, this has been pretty much the theme of the other side. I have been held up as eating my young, that we have been hostile to the poor and our tax program benefits the rich. How can a program that cuts taxes evenly, percentagewise, across the board-thus leaving the same rate of progression in our progressive tax system-how can that be beneficial to the rich and detrimental to the others? How can it be unfair to the people of lower income or the poor to reduce inflation from double digits-12.5 percent when we came here-down to a third of that or less, less than a third of that. When the people with the least-let us take someone with $10,000 of income between-through 2 years, 1979 and 1980-before we got here. By the end of 1980 that $10,000 would only buy $8,000 worth. He was getting $5,000 a year. He got a $1,000 cut in his ability to buy each year. That was probably the worst tax on the elderly with fixed incomes, the worst tax on the poor who have to spend most of their earnings on subsistence, on the necessities. The person with luxury income who spends a minor portion of it on necessities and the rest on luxuries, they were not really penalized as much by inflation. So, I think everything we have done has been beneficial to everyone at every level. You mention the elderly. If I could ask about that. The large elderly population of Florida-and they-many voters seem to be convinced that you, more than the Democrats, have been trying to restrain the growth or cut back entitlement programs such as social security and medicare. First of all, is that a correct perception? And is it possible in a second term that you would be advocating further cutbacks?


I have said repeatedly that programs like that-there are things that need to be done, but we must never pull the rug out from those people presently receiving their payments from the program and dependent on it. You cannot suddenly undermine them or break your contract with them. Reforms, if there are such to be made, must be made, looking toward the future, on people not yet dependent and who would have plenty of time and warning with regard to such changes. Again, this was-if you will remember, that was the issue of the 1982 campaign. We were guilty of trying to tell the Congress and our opponents that social security was facing financial disaster and it could hit it as early as July 1983. They denied that. I remember hearing the Speaker of the House, himself, deny that that was true. And then after the election was over, we all got together in a bipartisan group and without any animus, came up with a plan to save social security because it would be broke by July of 1983. And we came up with that program. It was not a permanent answer to some of the problems, but it did buy us a great many years down the road before we would again be in the fiscal spot of that kind. Now, as to what we have done in social security since we have been here, the average married couple on social security has had a $180-a-month increase. So, I, again, do not think that we were double-crossing anyone. ENTITY, in 1980 West Virginia was one of, I think, half a dozen States that voted for Carter. And now, 4 years later unemployment is hovering around 15 percent, and the coal industry and the steel industry are ailing, and some Federal programs that West Virginians have depended on have been cut. What would you say to the guy in the street in West Virginia to convince him that he should vote for you in 1984? Well, first of all, we know that unemployment is never consistent with the national average. I described this to some of our own people a little while ago, that to think that it is like the man that drowned trying to wade across a river whose average depth was 3 feet. There are those pockets and certain areas that are going to be hit harder than others. But in the surge which-in reducing unemployment-which is greater than anything we have seen in the last 30 years-even those hard-hit areas are being benefited.


This is why we have for a couple of years now been trying to get the enterprise zone legislation through the Congress. This is a program-and I was amazed when one of the candidates in the debate last night started talking about we must look at tax incentives to help industry and so-forth put people back to work. Well, that is what the enterprise zones are all about, picking those hard-hit spots, both rural and urban, and generating employment through the use of tax incentives. And so far, a number of States have gotten tired of waiting for the Congress to act and do it at a national level, and have put in their own enterprise zone programs. And every one of them is proving tremendously successful. But, knowing that you might get around to unemployment, I just decided some figures might be of interest to you. You represent two, four, six, eight States-and all in the same region. In every one of them the figures for the peak of unemployment, and the figures for-I cannot give them to you except for one State now-but in December, as of the December level of the comeback, were considerably down from the peak. And in the State that you just mentioned, your own, at the peak, unemployment in West Virginia was 21. By December it was down to 15.7. We will not know for awhile, because when the Labor Department gives you the overall statistics, they do not break it down to States at the present figure. It takes them awhile to break it down as to States. So, all I have are the November figures, except for Florida, and that is because they do break it down for the 10 most populous States earlier than they do for the rest. Florida was 8.6 at its peak-or, wait a minute-Florida was 10.4 at its peak, and in December was down to 7.5. But to give you an idea of what the rest of the figures may look like when we get them-for the present, Florida is now down to 6. Ours was at 11.4 in December and in January was back up to 13.5. I mean, some of that has to do with seasonal- Yes, but at the peak you were 16.7. In December you were 12.3. Well, in January it was 13.5. I will be very interested in seeing what it comes out as from February. Is there anything else that you think that the States could do to help pull themselves up?


Well, I think most States, as far as I can see, are doing all they can, just as we are. Maybe-and, you know, all of your States, particularly there in the Sunbelt, you are going to have to recognize also that your reduction in unemployment may be a little slower because of the migration to the Sunbelt. And that means that newcomers coming in, without jobs and looking for jobs, are temporarily going to distort the figures. Back on the economic issue for just 1 minute, back to the budgetary thing-when you campaigned for ENTITY, one of your promises, of course, was to balance the budget by 1984. I wonder what you look at as the main reason for that. What happened to Reaganomics that made it not work like you wanted it to? Nothing happened to Reaganomics. And I am glad you asked this question. Yes, I had the help of some of the finest economists in the country in working on the program that I call the economic recovery program. And toward the end of the summer, 1980, I announced that plan, and based our projections-that, yes, it could balance the budget by '83, based on all the projections that those economists at that time-before the election. Between that announcement and November, that projection was no longer valid, because the economy in 1980 was deteriorating so fast, and had not been projected to do so by any of these notable economists. So, it continued to worsen, and by the time of the Inaugural-then even a later time-was beyond any prediction; it had continued to get worse. Inflation, then, for '79 and '80 had been double digit both years. Now, when I started-you have got to remember that the ENTITY comes in not with his own budget. You are still bound until the following October by the budget of the previous administration. Nor was my program in effect. We were still trying to get it. And in July of 1981 was when the further big dip came. Now, some economists have said, well, we had a 1979, '80 recession, and then the thing that happened in July was another-a different recession. And the bottom fell out with the interest rates that stayed high, the automobile industry, the housing industry-either one of which can start a recession by itself.


So, nothing of what happened and the great surge to 10.8 percent in unemployment-none of that could be attributed to our program, because our program had not started. And then, as our program was implemented-and remember, it was only implemented in stages. It took 3 years to get the 25-percent tax cut. Other things that were implemented-and we never got all of the spending cuts. As a matter of fact, we got a little less than half of what we asked in spending cuts. And that is to this day. Now, I could turn around and say that maybe the recovery might have been even better if we had gotten-remember that one stage of our tax cut-10 percent of it-was going to go into effect retroactively to January of 1981, and we did not get it then. And when we did get it, after the drop had occurred, it was only 5 percent, and it did not go into effect until October, which meant that it was about 1 1/4 percent when it only went on for 3 years-or 3 months. And so, I have to say that all of the recovery has taken place after our program went into effect, and none of our program was in effect when the bottom fell out. ENTITY, I want to get clear on one thing. Are you-your comments earlier about this bipartisan-bipartisan meetings over the deficit-when you said you are now pursuing your own plan with other Republican leaders. Are you saying that you have abandoned altogether any hope of reaching any kind of compromise with the Democrats? Are you through talking with them? I hope that maybe when we come forth with this plan and say, Look, here is something now, we will tell you, we are ready to go with; here is a plan -I would like to have, because we cannot get such a plan unless we have bipartisan support. I would like to think that they would do it. But what I meant was that to sit down with them and start from scratch to negotiate, they were very unwilling. We had great difficulty getting them to even meet. And, finally, one meeting they just simply walked away on one issue and refused to talk. And it was not very encouraging to us. Can you still-you do not have any idea about how soon you might have a plan ready to put forward? I am hoping- -before the elections, though. We have got to move on this deficit matter and move fast.


Some of your economic advisers have been saying for some time now, and Wall Street analysts, that we have got to do something about the deficit. And you have just said it needs to be handled or taken by the horns as soon as possible. But you have been saying for some time that-or painting the picture that things are going to be fine, things are going to be okay. And that is not exactly the picture that is come from some of your advisers, if we do not take control of the deficit immediately. And some of the economists-and some of them, I think, are trying to scare the Congress into recognizing that we should be dealing with it. Not scare you, but the Congress. Not scare me, no, because, look, I am not one to underestimate the deficits. I have been talking about them for 30 years. Is it impossible for us to-well, no, you cannot remember; all of you are too young, so it would have to be history for you-but for almost half a century the other party has been in control, as I said earlier, of both Houses of the Congress. And Congress is the only one that can deal with these things. A ENTITY has a veto power, but ENTITY cannot spend a single dime. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives ENTITY the right to spend anything. But for almost this half-century we have every year run deficits. It was almost a trillion dollars by the time we came here. And there were many of us who opposed this. And we were told at the time that the national debt did not matter because we owed it to ourselves. We were told the deficit spending and a little inflation was necessary to maintain prosperity. Well, some of us did not think that added up. And I can show you speeches I made 20, 25 years ago in which I said inflation cannot continue without going out of control eventually. You cannot go down this road. The deficit spending and the piling up of the debt that-it has never worked in history; it never will. Well, now, suddenly, with the big dip that came in July in that recession, with millions more people added-the unemployed, who became wards of the government, which increased the spending, but who were no longer paying the taxes, which decreased that; the very fact that we improve the inflation figure also militated against government revenues, because inflation is a source of tax increase.


And we did not get-we did not think we could reduce inflation that fast. We thought that there would be higher revenues than there turned out to be because of licking inflation. Well, all of this, for them now to suddenly become aware of deficits-and yet, when you try to talk to them, what is the only answer that they have for curbing the deficit? Well-and they will also agree to cut defense spending. Well, defense spending right now is down to a little more than a fourth of the budget. Defense spending, historically, the days of Jack Kennedy, was virtually a half of the budget. Under Jack Kennedy, it was 47.8 percent. So, the-and the increase in taxes-they doubled taxes in the 5 years before we got here. And the deficits increased, because when you increase taxes, they increase spending. And may I point to the 1983 budget resolution passed by the Democratic majority in the House. And they really did not think that it would ever amount to anything or be passed by anyone else. But, if you will remember, they described it as a reaffirmation of Democratic principles. And it did call for somewhere around $70 billion in increased taxes. But it also called for that much increased spending for new programs, social programs. So, this was where we philosophically just were in complete disagreement-that they think you can solve the budget deficit by increasing taxes. They do not even pay attention to the fact that this could subvert the recovery that we re now having and put us back where we were. But beyond that, they have made it plain, and, indeed, their own candidates talk of new spending programs. When you are oh the campaign trail, how much of an issue are you going to make of the school prayer issue and the abortion? Well, I am hoping that before I get out there that we will have the school prayer amendment passed in the Congress. And here again, the effort that is being made to portray that as someway, somehow we are talking compulsory prayer; we are going to compel the schools. I am sure there would be some schools-all we are asking is that they have the right to if they want to. But I think it is a right that we had for the bulk of our entire history in this country. And it did not destroy the country at all. As a matter of fact, crime rates were lower, and we did not have drug epidemics, and all sorts of things.


Let me ask a question about drugs. There is a lot of reports, including administration reports, that there are more illegal drugs coming into this country than ever, especially cocaine-much of it coming through Florida-despite intensified enforcement in Florida and elsewhere. Would you say that that represents a failure of that drug strategy?  Well now, wait a minute-I am going to have to ask, but-you know, I have to tell you something about this room. I do not know whether you have noticed it or not-out there in that center of the room under the dome, you kind of disappear a little on me. I am having so much fun. I was asking about the illegal drug shipments into the country. And the evidence is that there is more illegal drugs coming in than ever before-at least in recent years and despite intensified enforcement in Florida and other places. And what I am wondering is whether you think that because of that that there is going to be a need to change the drug enforcement strategy, and whether the drug enforcement strategy that you have employed has been a success? Then this-if this is a new figure that I have not obtained-our task force in Florida, which is the first time that we have ever put the Federal Government, the State government, and the local authorities, the drug enforcement authorities, and the military involved in trying to head this off-this shipment from out of the country coming in-was so successful in Florida that this is where, why we went to 12 such task forces all around the country on our borders to try and have the same success. When you have got the coastlines that we have got and the borders that we have, I do not think you will ever solve the problem totally by intercepting the drugs. The answer is going to be the kind that has Nancy down in Houston. To really be successful, you are going to have to take the customer away from the pusher. And this we are embarked on also, as you know, with great efforts all through the country. But the figures that we have is that-and the reason for the rest of the other 11 task forces were-that we so slowed it down in Florida and reduced it in Florida, that they began seeking new entry points around the country. But we are the owner now of a fleet of cabin cruisers and yachts and airplanes and helicopters and trucks and cars.


And down there, the last time I was in Florida I remember being taken into a big building there at the airport and shown what we had intercepted, but also on a table that was about the size of that desk, the first time in my life I saw $20 million in cash stacked up there in bills that had been taken away from the drugdealers. It is not just a fellow on a corner with something in his pocket to sell. It is coming in in freighters. It is coming in in airplanes and everything else. But we have stepped up our efforts and have been tremendously successful. Do you think the military can be used to stop, like, particularly some of the drug smuggling that is coming in on that Mobile corridor? What we used was we used their radar facilities; also their air surveillance for information that we needed. I do not think they actually participated in any of the arrests, but they provided the surveillance and the information for us. If they can see an enemy coming in, I can see that. I had just one final question for you related to defense. This year for the third year now you are requesting in your defense budget funds for chemical weapons production. And of course, Congress has narrowly defeated these proposals for the last 2 years. There is been a suggestion made in the last week by some Democratic House Members that any proposal for funding for chemical weapons should be tied to legislation requiring the administration to make a new initiative on talks with the Soviets on chemical weapons control. So, my question is, first, do you think that the United States is doing all it can in this area? Would you agree to a proposal like that? And also, do you see any reasons now why Congress might be willing to pass the chemical weapons appropriation when they have not been? If they were responsible, they would, because the very thing that they are talking about we are going to be ready very shortly to table a treaty for discussion of banning chemical weapons. But the reason why they would be more of help if they would okay the spending is, how better to get the other side, then, to agree to a treaty with us banning this; how much better able we will be if they know that if they do not do that, they will have to face the fact that we have chemical weapons that we can use against them. In other words, it is the same as in the nuclear field. Yes, we want to get them into a verifiable treaty banning chemical weapons.


Hello, ENTITY, can you hear me? What is your impression of Proposition 187, included in the California ballot? I am opposed to it. I do believe that the Federal Government has an obligation to do more to try to help California deal with the problems of illegal immigration. And I have worked hard on that, along with Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer. We have almost doubled the border guards in southern California; we have increased our sending the illegal immigrants who have been convicted of crimes back home. We have given money to California for the very first time to deal with the costs of imprisonment. I have tried to get much more money for education and health care costs of immigration to California. But 187 operates primarily against children. It says, kick the children out of the health clinics. That could cause health problems for the general population. It says, kick the children out of the schools, which means teachers are turned into police officers. It means that the kids can be on the street causing problems for themselves and for others. We have already got too many children on the street. So I believe we have to do more. I found a big immigration mess when I became ENTITY 21 months ago. But this is not the answer, in my opinion, and I hope the voters will turn out and vote and reject 187. It is a way of dividing our people, it is clearly unconstitutional, and it is looking for easy answers to a tough problem. After all, some of the people that are for 187 are part of the problem. When Governor Wilson was Senator Wilson, he responded to the powerful forces in California that wanted more illegal immigrants in California to do work. He sponsored legislation to make it more difficult to remove illegal immigrants from the workplace by going easier on the employers. Now he, all of a sudden, has turned 180 degrees on this issue. But this is a complicated issue without a simple solution. I am committed to working with you to find a solution. I hope that our listeners, our viewers, will turn out and vote on Tuesday and vote against 187, and I hope they will come to the Kaiser Center in Oakland tomorrow where I am going to have a rally at 2 o'clock. if 187 is approved, do you think it will affect the NAFTA treaty with Mexico? I do not know that it will affect NAFTA, but it will certainly affect our relations with Mexico.

Interview With Luis Eschegoyan of KDTV, San Francisco


This latest idea floated by the Secretary of State John Kerry, picked up by the Russians, is it possible this could avert a U.S. military strike on Syria? And you know, I think it is certainly a positive development when the Russians and the Syrians both make gestures towards dealing with these chemical weapons. This is what we have been asking for, not just over the last week or the last month, but for the last couple of years, because these chemical weapons pose a significant threat to all nations and to the United States in particular. That is why 98 percent of humanity has said we do not use these. That protects our troops and it protects children like the ones that we saw on those videos inside of Syria. I have to say that it is unlikely that we would've arrived at that point, where there were even public statements like that, without a credible military threat to deal with the chemical weapons use inside of Syria. But we are going to run this to ground. And John Kerry and the rest of my national security team will engage with the Russians and the international community to see, can we arrive at something that is enforceable and serious. You know, one reason that this may have a chance of success is that even Syria's allies, like Iran, detest chemical weapons. Iran, you know, unfortunately was the target of chemical weapons at the hands of Saddam Hussein back during the Iraq/Iran War. And so we may be able to arrive at a consensus in which it does not solve the underlying problems of a civil war in Syria, but it does solve the problem that I am trying to focus on right now, which is making sure that you do not have over 400 children gassed indiscriminately by these chemical weapons. Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. secretary general, says not only control the stockpiles of chemical weapons, but then go ahead and destroy them. He is ready to take that to the U.N. Security Council. That is a lot better than deterring the Syrians from going ahead and using these chemical weapons. Absolutely, and that is why we are going -- we are going to take this seriously, but I have to consistently point out that we have not seen these kinds of gestures up until now. And in part, the fact that the U.S. administration and I have said we are serious about this, I think, has prompted some interesting conversations.

Interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN's The Situation Room


And these are conversations that I have had directly with Mr. Putin. When I was at the G20, we had some time to discuss this and I believe that Mr. Putin does not see the use of chemical weapons as a good thing inside of Syria, or any place else. And so it is possible that we can get a breakthrough, but it is going to have to be followed up on and we do not want just a stalling or delaying tactic to put off the pressure that we have on there right now. We have to maintain this pressure, which is why I will still be speaking to the nation tomorrow about why I think this is so important. Well, you know, I think that it is important for Assad to understand that, you know, the chemical weapons ban which has been in place is one that the entire civilized world, just about, respects and observes. It is something that protects our troops, even when we are in the toughest war theaters, from being threatened by these chemical weapons. It is something that protects women and children and civilians because these weapons, by definition, are indiscriminate; they do not just target somebody in uniform. And you know, I suspect that some of Assad's allies recognize the mistake he made in using these weapons and it may be that he is under pressure from them as well. You know, again, this does not solve the underlying terrible conflict inside of Syria, but if we can accomplish this limited goal without taking military action, that would be my preference. On the other hand, if we do not maintain and move forward with a credible threat of military pressure, I do not think we will actually get the kind of agreement I'd like to see. You are being seen right now on CNN and CNN International around the world, including in Damascus. What I'd like you to do, ENTITY, if you are amenable to doing it, look into the camera, talk directly to President Bashar al-Assad, tell him specifically what you think he must do to avert a U.S. military strike. You know, I do not need to talk in the camera. I suspect he is got people who will be watching this. He is probably watching it himself.


We have been very clear about what we expect, and that is, do not use chemical weapons, control the chemical weapons and now, because we have seen Assad's willingness to use chemical weapons, we are going to have to go further and give the international community assurances that they will not be used potentially by getting them out of there, at minimum, making sure that international control over those chemical weapons takes place. That can be accomplished and it does not solve the broader political situation. I would say to Mr. Assad, we need a political settlement so that you are not slaughtering your own people and, by the way, encouraging some elements of the opposition to engage in some terrible behavior as well. You know, what I am thinking about is right now, though, how do we make sure that we can verify that we do not have chemical weapons that can be used, not only inside of Syria, but potentially could drift outside of Syria? He said in an interview with Charlie Rose that if you, United States, attack, launch military strikes, he said he will respond anythinghe said expect anything, not only from him, but from his allies. That sounds like a threat to the United States. Assad does not have a lot of capability. He has capability relative to children. He has capability relative to an opposition that is still getting itself organized and are not professional, trained fighters. He does not have a credible means to threaten the United States. His allies, Iran and Hezbollah, could potentially engage in asymmetrical strikes against us, but frankly, the kind of threats that they could pose against us are typical of the kinds of threats that we are dealing with around the world that I have spoken of recently, which is embassies that are being threatened, you know, U.S. personnel in the region. Those are threats that we deal with on an ongoing basis. They are always of concern. Obviously, we saw the situation in Yemen just a few weeks ago where we wanted to respond by getting some of our folks out of there. But the notion that Mr. Assad could significantly threaten the United States is just not the case. 9/11, the anniversary this Wednesday, should Americans expect some sort of attack? I think that we are always on heightened alert on 9/11 and we will continue to be.


I will go straight to questions as I have no announcements. I am sure you saw just a few minutes ago that the Senate voted for the filibuster on gun legislation. Well, as you saw on the President's statement yesterday and as you have seen all week from the President and the rest of us, we have been encouraged by bipartisan progress on this very important package of proposals. This was simply -- while very important -- a first stage in an effort to get sensible, common-sense legislation that would reduce gun violence in America while protecting Americans' Second Amendment rights signed into law. But we certainly welcome this development. And now that everybody has their cards out on the table in terms of the budget, is there going to be -- do you think that there will be some kind of push for negotiations in the short term on a grand bargain? Or will this kind of linger until this summer when we have to raise the debt ceiling again? Well, the President is interested in reaching a bipartisan compromise built around the principles that are clear in his budget proposal as soon as possible. The House has passed a budget. The Senate has passed a budget. The President has presented a budget. The President has been engaged in a process of having conversations with lawmakers of both parties; in this case, reaching out directly to Republican lawmakers to find out if they are open to the general principle that we should approach our deficit challenges in a balanced way so that we can protect seniors, secure the middle class, allow our economy to grow, and reduce the deficit in a responsible way. That is the President's approach that is embodied in the budget that he presented yesterday. So whose court is the ball in now? Is it incumbent upon Republicans to -- he said in the Rose Garden yesterday that he wants to see Republicans in the coming days show that they are serious about deficit reduction. So do they have to take some action now to get things going? I would refer you to what the President said. We believe that the President's budget proposal, which incorporates the offer that he made to Speaker Boehner at the end of the year -- which by any definition represents a good faith effort that meets the Republicans at least halfway -- that therefore the Republicans ought to examine that and let the American people know whether or not they are too interested in finding common ground rather than embracing ideological purity.

Barack Obama Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney


I mean, there is only one way to do this in a responsible way that protects the middle class, protects seniors, that makes the necessary investments in our economy that will allow it to grow now and in the future, and that is represented by the President's budget -- a budget that I think you have seen in commentary has been recognized as a compromise proposition. It is an attempt to find common ground so that we can deal with our fiscal challenges on behalf of the whole country and move forward. And the immigration Gang of Eight has agreed that before anybody that is here illegally can be on a path to a green card, that we need to have 100 percent surveillance of our border in Mexico, and I think it is 90 percent apprehension rate, which seems like a pretty high bar to meet. Is that requirement in line with the President's vision for what a real path to citizenship is? Well, the President believes, as he made clear in his blueprint that has been available publicly for a long time now, that there has to be a clear pathway to citizenship available; that comprehensive immigration reform must include both that and must continue the focus that he is placed on border security. I would note that there are a variety of ways to measure improvements and progress when it comes to security. And we can point you to a number of facts, which are that apprehensions are down by nearly 80 percent since 2000 and down 50 percent since 2008. And, at the same time, we have increased boots on the ground along the border to more than 21,000 personnel. That is more than at any time in our history. This is progress that has been broadly recognized by Democrats and Republicans, and demonstrates the President's commitment to border security. When it comes to the actual legislation, we wait for that legislation to be produced, and we will assess it when it is. We absolutely commend the progress that has been made, but the President remains committed to the proposition that the result has to be a bill that can earn bipartisan support as well as his signature. ENTITY, you saw the reaction yesterday, probably from many reporters, on the chained CPI inclusion in the budget. Even one Republican congressman called it an attack on seniors. Is there any concern at the White House that this is something that will make it -- that Republicans will use to avoid the grand bargain and even to hurt Democrats politically? The President's budget represents a compromise.


The inclusion of entitlement reform, specifically chained CPI and means testing of Medicare, comes at the specific behest and request of Republican leaders, as you know. Back in December of 2012, Speaker of the House Boehner said that he wants to use a new method of calculating benefits for entitlement programs known as chained CPI. Again, a Republican congressionalist is citing another news source, Bloomberg. A Republican congressional aide said that Boehner is pressing harder for the CPI revision than for other entitlement changes. Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader -- this is quoting the Wall Street Journal -- said bipartisan agreement on higher Medicare premiums for the wealthy and increase in the Medicare eligibility age, and slowing cost-of-living increases for Social Security could move both parties closer to a budget deal. And by that, a budget deal he meant and everyone meant in December of last year, a budget deal that would be balanced and include revenues, which obviously was part of the President's approach. Mitch McConnell said again that chained CPI was something that he wanted as part of a broader deal. And cynical attempts to make it otherwise by some represent I think dissonance within the Republican Party, and we have seen plenty of condemnation from conservatives and Republicans of that sort of flagrantly ridiculous and cynical attempt to disown a proposal that emanated from Republican leaders. It is the responsible thing to do to try to find common ground. To find common ground you need to meet the other side halfway. You need to accept you are not going to get everything you want. You need to accept things that the other side wants. The three proposals I mentioned that Republican leaders said they wanted as part of a bipartisan deal that would include revenue as well as entitlement reforms -- of those three, the President has included two in his budget. By definition, two out of three is more than halfway. So the President expects and hopes that members of the common-sense caucus will recognize the common-sense nature of his proposal, how it demonstrates as a seriousness of purpose that should infuse everyone's efforts here in Washington when it comes to addressing our budget challenges, and that we can move forward. This is the spirit in which the President had dinner with a dozen Republican senators last night, the second such dinner in recent weeks. And it is the spirit in which he will approach his conversations with Republicans going forward. Let me throw two other quick issues at you.


Why is the President meeting with CEOs from the banking industry today? And what is the purpose of their meeting? Well, there is a meeting, a roundtable, that is being held with other members of the administration, and that is part of our ongoing engagement with the financial sector and with the business community. As you know, we engage with the business community all the time. I would have to take the question. Not that I am aware of. The President met yesterday with the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, who today expressed their opposition to the forced feeding of hunger strike inmates in Guantanamo. What reaction did the President give to that opposition in their meeting yesterday? First of all, what I can tell you is that you know our commitment to close Gitmo. It is a commitment shared by the former President, by military leaders, and other Republicans, including Senator McCain. And we continue to be committed to closing that facility in our national security interests. I do not have any specific response to what is happening now, except to say that the President remains committed to closing Gitmo for national security reasons. But is he aware of this hunger strike? Is he following it? The President obviously is updated on a number of issues. I have not had a specific conversation with him about this. In the 2008 campaign, the President, then-candidate Obama, issued a statement saying, I will not touch Social Security. So a number of Democrats are now accusing the President of breaking his word. You just said it was a Republican proposal, so why is a Democratic President issuing a Republican budget? Because he is President of the whole country, and he believes we need to reach a budget compromise that is balanced, that allows the economy to grow, that secures a rising and thriving middle class, and invests in the economy of the future while reducing our deficits in a responsible way. His budget is proof that you can do that; that you do not need to take the path embodied by the House Republican budget, which would dramatically slice investments in education; would block grant Medicaid, cut it dramatically, harming families who have children with disabilities; would voucherize Medicare, shifting costs onto seniors at an average of thousands of dollars per year, all the while giving a massive tax break to wealthy individuals and the most well-connected. But is it getting the nation anywhere closer to a deal? Well, he believes he is because it represents compromise and an attempt to find common ground.


It is incumbent upon Republicans to do the same -- to, in the spirit of compromise and a desire for progress, to meet the President halfway and to accept that they will not get what they want, that the document they passed in the House is maybe satisfying in an ideological way, but it is not in any way representative of either what the American people broadly support or what could ever become law here in Washington, and that instead, they ought to embrace the idea of balance. But is this who he really is, and progressives are misunderstanding what he truly believes in? The President believes that it is in the overall interest of the nation's economy and middle class that we reach a budget deal of the kind the he presented yesterday. And the reason that is, is because we need to continue to grow the economy and create jobs. That is the best thing we can do for middle-class families and for the people he fights for every day. In order to achieve that deal, he recognizes he will have to make some tough choices and that Democrats will have to accept things that they would not otherwise want to do; but so, too, will Republicans. Republicans who suggest that the only way to move forward in deficit reduction is to put the burden entirely on seniors and the middle class are wrong, and it will not be accepted and it is not an approach that this President will accept. And it is an approach that, by the way, was the center of debate for an entire year in a presidential election and the American people roundly rejected it. He has accepted as part of his offer to the Speaker of the House, which is included in his budget proposal, a compromise position and entitlement reforms that he can accept as part of a broader deal that asks everybody to participate in the effort and that invests in our economy, and secures and enhances the middle class. The cloture was invoked with a pretty strong margin. Does the President have any sense of whether the voices from Newtown, whether public attitudes really did make any impact on the Senate? Did he raise it with the senators last night? And is it premature to think that the NRA's voice in Congress is not as strong as it used to be? I would say a couple of things.


The President has no doubt whatsoever that the voices of the Newtown families and the voices of Americans across the country that were raised this week as part of an effort to urge the Senate to move forward, and not block procedurally the progress on this legislation, had a positive effect and may well have been decisive. The President has said all along, and you heard him in Hartford on Monday, that Congress will do the right thing if the American people speak up, if they raise their voices, if they make their views known. And as he said then, it is not about him; it is about the American people and what the right, common-sense thing is to do when it comes to taking action to reduce gun violence. On the second part, as I said to Josh, this is an important milestone, but it is an early milestone. And there is no question that challenges will continue to be placed in the way of making progress on passing common-sense legislation that would reduce gun violence. But we are obviously very pleased with today's vote. Does the President have real concerns about the assault weapons ban, the size of ammunition clips, as being things that will not be able to move forward? Reinstatement of the assault weapons ban makes eminent sense. Making sure that military-style assault weapons are not available on the streets of the United States is a common-sense approach. It does not infringe upon Americans' Second Amendment rights. Limiting the size of ammunition clips will save lives, and it is not an infringement on the Second Amendment rights of the American people. The President strongly supports Second Amendment rights. So he insists -- as the American people insist, as the families of the victims of Newtown and Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek and Virginia Tech, and so many other places across the country insist -- that the United States Senate on each of these holds itself to account, that senators vote on these aspects of the legislation, that they do not filibuster or use other procedural measures to avoid being held to account. And if they have to vote no, they should vote no and explain why, rather than hide behind procedure and other parliamentary tricks to obscure what is really happening. On the question that Josh asked about immigration, do you want to state a position on this apparent agreement the Gang of Eight has come up on border security?


Well, there is an apparent agreement that -- I mean, if you have the bill to show me, I'd be interested to take it with me and bring it back here. But we will await legislation and we will evaluate it when it emerges. We are encouraged by the process. The President's commitment to border security is evident not just in his blueprint, which makes clear that border security -- So you do not want to weigh in one way or the other, whether they should include it or not? Again, border security absolutely must be part of comprehensive immigration. If you have legislation that demonstrates what is in it, I'd be interested in seeing it. They are still working on it. When it emerges, we will evaluate it. What is a take-away from the dinner last night? A different group of senators -- do you think this is something that is gaining momentum? The President feels like it is a worthwhile exercise and it is not just a sort of for-show thing? Well, it is certainly not for show in the President's mind. The President believes that both dinners and all of his engagements with Republicans have been constructive and useful. He is very much of the mind that exploring the possibility of finding common ground is in the interest of the American people and the American economy, and it is in the interest of trying to find bipartisan solutions to a whole range of issues, not just our budget and fiscal challenges -- but immigration reform, reducing gun violence, taking steps to enhance America's energy independence and security, making sure that we continue to invest in education and research and development. So there are a variety of arenas here where the possibility of bipartisan compromise exists. In spite of the polarization that does pertain here in Washington, it is also the case that whether it is on gun violence and the vote that we have talked about that happened today, or on immigration reform, or within the context of at least the discussions that the President has been having, there is at least evidence of the potential for bipartisan cooperation. Did either one of the dinners in of themselves propel what we saw on the Senate floor today on gun control or the progress being made on immigration? I would not presume, on the President's behalf, to suggest that any single meal he had with lawmakers led to a specific result.


The work that is been done on reducing gun violence in the Senate is to the credit of those who have been engaged in that work on Capitol Hill. We have obviously been engaged with them in that work. The same holds for progress being made on immigration reform. As the President made clear when he talked about it from the beginning after the election, he wanted to see progress emerge from the Senate through the Gang of Eight process because he believed that would produce the best opportunity for bipartisan legislation that reflected his principles and that he could sign. So the credit is widespread, but we should not be assigning credit yet. We are not at the finish line in any of these areas yet. We need to keep pressing so that Congress keeps moving and hopefully produces legislation that the American people will support, that Congress will vote for, and that the President can sign. I want to talk to you about North Korea before I let you go. Has it been the President's intention -- because we have not heard him speak to this issue directly for some weeks -- to not, by staying out of public eye and staying out of this in an audible sense, avoid anything that can be either misinterpreted or just not engaged to suggest to the North Koreans that he is rising to their level? I mean, even analysts who are very accustomed to this cycle of provocation and rhetoric do feel that this looks, sounds, and appears different than other cases. And the average American, they are hearing a lot of things that may unnerve them, and yet they have not heard from the President of the United States. Is he intentionally staying out of this for some strategic communication reason? The President has been directing his national security team to take necessary precautionary measures that will ensure that we can both defend ourself and our allies -- defend ourselves and our allies, defend the homeland. And I think that represents the fact that he is concerned about the stepped-up rhetoric and the provocative behavior by the North Korean regime. It is also the case that what we have seen of late from Pyongyang represents a familiar pattern of behavior. And as you refer to it as cycles, and I think that is an appropriate way to describe it, we have seen this kind of cycle in the past. It is always destabilizing, and it is never in the interest of the North Korean people.


It only serves to further isolate North Korea and to undermine any hope the North Korean regime has of reentering the community of nations and assuring the international community that it intends to abide by the obligations that it has made. So we are taking necessary steps -- But is it in the interest of the President not to talk about it and talk to the country about it? I think the President has made clear through the actions of his administration and this government, through the variety of means that have been reported on and the steps that we have taken, the seriousness with which we take this. It is also important to note, as I said, that we have seen a pattern of -- this is reflective of a pattern of behavior that has been going on for quite some time from North Korea. Is this a top issue with Ban Ki-moon later on today? I believe there will be a number of issues discussed with the United Nations Secretary General. This is certainly one of them. It is an issue that the Security Council took up not very long ago, passing a resolution condemning North Korean behavior and sanctioning North Korea that was unanimous, that included affirmative votes from both the Russians and the Chinese. And we are working with our allies in Seoul and Tokyo, as well as with Moscow and Beijing to try to bring about a change in behavior from the North Koreans, asking especially the Russians and the Chinese to use the influence they have, the unique influence they have with the North Koreans to prevail upon Pyongyang to ratchet down the rhetoric and the behavior, because it is in the interest of every nation in the region that there be stability in the region, and that there ultimately be a Korean Peninsula that is denuclearized. On another topic, Syria, which obviously is likely to come up -- been a lot of reports the last couple days suggesting that the U.S. is increasing its aid to the rebels. Can you be direct with us about how significant you see this increase in aid? And what does it mean? I appreciate the question. The President himself has said that we are constantly reviewing possible options that could help end the violence and accelerate a political transition in Syria. We have provided more than $115 million in nonlethal assistance to the Syrian opposition thus far and have been steadily increasing that assistance to help the opposition become stronger, more cohesive, and more organized.


And as Secretary Kerry announced in Rome, soon we will be providing food rations and medical kits to both the coalition and to the opposition's supreme military council in order to feed the hungry and tend to the sick and wounded. The President has directed his national security team to identify additional measures to continue increasing nonlethal assistance to assist the operation -- the opposition, rather. So I think that addresses your question. We are on an upward trajectory with our assistance, both humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people and direct assistance --nonlethal assistance -- to the Syrian opposition. And we will continue to step up that assistance. The President has directed his team to identify additional measures that we can take to increase that assistance, and we will have a decision to announce in the future. I do not have an announcement to make today. DNI Clapper was on the Hill today, and in some important testimony he said directly that if Assad falls, he said, it is a tough call whether or not the chemical weapons stockpile can be secured. How worried are you about that? It sounds like a pretty dramatic statement from the DNI. Well, there is no question, as we have stated all along, that the disposition of chemical weapons in Syria is a matter of concern to the United States and our allies and partners -- a matter of great concern obviously to countries in the region. And we have made clear, as the President did I believe from this podium, that the use or proliferation of chemical weapons is a red line as far as he is concerned when it comes to the Syrian regime. I would point you to what Director Clapper said. I will not engage in hypotheticals about the welcomed day when Assad is finally -- or when Syria is finally rid of Assad and what will happen. But you can be sure that the disposition of those weapons will be a matter of focus and concern for this nation, as well as many others. ACLU has released some documents that they obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request with the IRS, where IRS agents claim they can go through people's emails and text messages without a warrant. Is the White House concerned about the IRA making that claim in terms of people's privacy? I would have to take the question. I am not aware of the story or the documents that were obtained, and I would certainly refer you to the IRS as a starting point. Last thing -- and this may be in the same boat on.


There is a German family, came to America in 2008 seeking asylum because they did not like German public schools. The reason why it relates to the White House is they got asylum, it was then overturned, and there is a chance they are going to be deported. And there is a petition at whitehouse.gov, an online petition, and it is gotten over 100,000 signatures saying they want the President to intervene so that this family does not have to go back to Germany. They think the public schools -- they have been home-schooling their kids here in America, and they do not like the German public schools. It is reached over 100,000 signatures. What is the process for reacting to something like that? And are you aware of this specific case? I am not aware of it. I will certainly take the question. We do have a threshold beyond which we respond to We the People= petitions, and if that threshold is crossed, I am sure we will respond. But I do not have a specific comment on this case. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said of North Korea that it is skating very close to a dangerous line. Does the President share that assessment? And has he identified a red line, a line by which North Korea crossing that would be unacceptable? Well, I will not engage in hypotheticals about what red lines there are. It is unacceptable to flagrantly violate your international commitments, as North Korea continues to do. And the result of that behavior has been increasing international consensus around the proposition that North Korea's flagrant violations of its obligations must stop. That has resulted in increased isolation and sanctions. It has resulted in all the range of actions that we have taken in response to the recent series of provocative acts and statements. There is no question that North Korea -- because of its development of a nuclear weapon, because of its violation of its commitments, its development of missile technology -- represents a danger and a threat. And that is why we address it the way that we do. So I think that the words of Secretary Hagel are reflective of the administration's view of this problem. It is why we have taken the actions that we have taken to ensure that we can enhance both the security of both the homeland and our allies. And we will continue to take necessary, prudent measures as the situation demands. Well, I guess getting at it from a different angle, the President has identified a clear red line when it comes to Syria, for example.


I am not sure what you are asking, because the President identified a clear red line about chemical weapons -- the use of or proliferation of the chemical weapons that the Syrian regime possesses. North Korea is already in flagrant violation of its international obligations. It is engaged in the development of nuclear weapons. It is engaged in development of missile technology that is in contradiction to its commitments. And that is why you see the international response that you have seen. And we will continue to work with our allies in Seoul and Tokyo, as well as with partners in the region and around the world, to attempt to prevail upon North Korea to choose a different path. That path, by the way, is open to North Korea. There is an opportunity for North Korea to give up a path that has resulted in isolation and impoverishment for North Korea, and rather to abide by its obligations and therefore enter the international community or rejoin it, and improve the lot of its people. And we hope that North Korea takes that path. Going back to the budget -- if the budget is a first offer of sorts and the President has already put chained CPI on the table, where does he go in negotiations? Is he willing to offer anything more when it comes to entitlements? It has been asked in the past whether this is a starting point. The President's budget represents a fair-minded, serious offer at trying to find common ground with Republicans. The American people expect and support a balanced approach to deficit reduction. The American people expect their leaders in Washington to protect senior citizens, to protect the middle class. They certainly do not expect or support an approach that would put the burden of deficit reduction on seniors and the middle class. They support investments in education and innovation, in infrastructure that the President has within his budget. They support universal access to pre-K for America's children, because that is good for the children now and it is good for the development of our economy in the future. The President's budget is a common-sense document that represents a sincere attempt to compromise with Republicans on behalf of the whole country. The fact is it is not an la carte menu, as I think Gene Sperling said yesterday in our briefing. When the Republican leadership said during fiscal cliff negotiations that when it came to entitlement reforms, that they wanted the President to go along with chained CPI and means testing of Medicare as part of an agreement that would include revenues, the as part of part is very important.


That is what the President believes. It has to be not just revenues on the one hand and entitlement reforms on the other, but the whole approach has to be embraced -- a balanced approach that allows for investments so that our economy can grow, that allows for the kind of security for the middle class and seniors that is so essential. And it allows for the guarantee that those programs represent to our seniors to continue into the future. So the Republicans have to decide -- and there are rank-and-file Republicans who believe this already, but Republicans including leadership has to decide whether they want to find compromise or they would rather stick to positions that are at odds with where most of America is, and are certainly at odds with where the President is. Is the President confident he can get his own party on board with this, given the backlash? Does he need to start having dinner with them? The President is confident that -- as he was during the fiscal cliff negotiations, as he was in previous negotiations with the Speaker of the House -- that Democrats will support a bipartisan compromise that ensures that our assistance programs to our seniors are safeguarded, and that that guarantee is provided; that ensure that investments in education are made, and investments in innovation and research and development and infrastructure are made. The budget represents tough choices, there is no question. But it also expects from the other side that they make tough choices. Back to the CEO meeting this morning -- I know ENTITY had asked a question -- but I was wondering, did the President plan to bring up unemployment with the executives, and did he talk up his budget a bit with them? I was not in the meeting. I do not have a readout of it. We have a strategy of engagement with the business sector that is ongoing and this is part of that strategy. I certainly would not be surprised if some of these matters came up. The need to deal with growing the economy and creating jobs is his number-one priority. So I am going to go out on a limb and say that this is something that he would want to talk about. And it is certainly his belief, as you saw embodied in his budget document, that we need to reduce our deficit, but do it in a way that allows our economy to grow and secure the middle class. I will take the question and we will see.


Just staying with the business meeting for a moment, can you talk about why it is important for the President -- or if the President believes it is important to do this outreach to business? And also, do you think that the outreach in the second term has stepped up or we are seeing more of it than we did in the first term? I think the outreach that we have seen has been ongoing. And our outreach includes not just obviously to business, but to a whole range of sectors of the American economy and a variety of groups with different interests. I think what you have seen from the White House is an engagement with business around the simple proposition that we need to take steps to reform our immigration system because that is good for the economy and good for the middle class. We need to take steps to reduce gun violence, and there are some business leaders who are very much interested in that effort. And we need to take common-sense steps to grow our economy and reduce our deficit, and that is obviously of interest to the business sector. ENTITY, on drone strikes, I wanted to ask you about -- the President has said that the only targets of drone strikes are senior operational leaders of al Qaeda and associated forces whom you know are involved somehow in some plotting of attacks against the U.S. Can you explain why classified U.S. intelligence documents that McClatchy has reviewed suggest otherwise? I, as you would expect, am not going to talk about classified documents that others would have obtained. I can tell you that our strategy in dealing with counterterrorism is to utilize the tools available to us. When it comes to the means with which we do that, the President has addressed it and we have been, as an administration, very transparent through a series of speeches by John Brennan, the Attorney General and by others, as well as comments by the President, about the approach that we take in that effort. But can you explain -- some of the documents suggested that there -- Again, ENTITY, you are not going to get me to comment on classified information. Any legal justification, though, for strikes that suggest you have been working with Pakistan and targeting their insurgents -- Again, I do not have any comment on what you are representing as classified information. Returning to Beyonc and Jay-Z -- Jay-Z released a rap today. I know the other day you said that Treasury was the one that cleared their trip.


He suggested that he got White House clearance and that he personally spoke with the President. I turned Havana into Atlanta/ Boy from the hood got White House clearance/ Obama said, 'Chill, you gonna get me impeached'/ You do not need this anyway/ Chill with me on the beach. I guess nothing rhymes with Treasury. Because Treasury offers and gives licenses for travel, as you know, and the White House has nothing to do with it. So are you saying that he did not -- the President did not have a conversation with Jay-Z? I am absolutely saying that the White House, from the President on down, had nothing to do with anybody's personal -- anybody's travel to Cuba. That is something that Treasury handles. You cannot rhyme that? The President did not communicate with Jay-Z over this trip. ENTITY, do you have something? Let me read this while I have it, which is in answer -- or part answer about our response to the cloture vote. I wanted to let you know that following the Senate's cloture vote, President Obama spoke by phone with family members of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy who are here in Washington, D.C. to ask Congress to pass common-sense measures to reduce gun violence. The President congratulated the families on this important step forward, noting that the bipartisan progress would not have been possible without their efforts. He reiterated that much work remains, and pledged to continue fighting for the votes they deserve. Just to follow up on Syria, al Qaeda in Iraq released on Monday a statement saying they were joining in Syria some opposition groups. And how can you make sure that the money you are going to provide to some opposition groups are not going to end up in those al Qaeda supporters? Well, we work with the Syrian Opposition Coalition, and we obviously are interested in helping and assisting in their consolidation and organization and their overall efforts -- the opposition in Syria that is committed to democratic principles and that is committed to a brighter and more democratic future for Syria. There is no question, and this is a concern around the region, that extremist elements try to take advantage of, in a variety of areas, including Syria, the kind of upheaval that you have seen in a tragedy like Syria. And that is obviously of concern to us, and we monitor it regularly.


But we are focused on assisting the opposition, the Syrian Opposition Coalition, and the members of the broader Syrian opposition that are committed to a more democratic future for Syria. And I just have another question related to huge breaking news in France and Europe at this moment. The budget minister of Franois Hollande lied to the people in France about a hidden Swiss account when he was trying to do something about the tax evasion. What is your reaction to that? And what will you say for public officials in terms of probity? Well, I am not aware of that and I will not comment on what seems to be an internal matter in France. So I really do not have a response. I have two questions. One, yesterday, hundreds of minorities from Bangladesh, including Hindus, Buddhists and Christians, were demonstrating outside the White House. What they were saying, a message for the President that it should read that they are being targeted in Bangladesh because of their race and religion and their beliefs. And whenever there is a problem in Bangladesh and minorities are under attack by the extremists and groups. I do not have a specific response to the demonstration. Obviously, the administration and the President support the civil rights of peoples around the world, but I am just not aware of the specific demonstration or the issues in terms of a presidential response. And as far as guns are concerned, yesterday hundreds of Sikhs were at the Indian Embassy celebrating the Vaisakhi, their national holiday. And talking to them, what they are saying that among them were the families of the victims from Oak Creek, Wisconsin. What they are saying is that guns kill -- it does not matter how many rounds, and it should be banned at all completely, because as long as guns are in the wrong hands of the people, there will be -- people will be killed. And that is the message they were telling me to send to the President and to the Congress. The President's approach is one that embraces common-sense measures to reduce gun violence that do not infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of the American people, Second Amendment rights that the President supports. And you have seen that reflected in the legislation that he supports up on Capitol Hill and in the set of proposals that he made and announced together with the Vice President earlier this year. You were asked last week about the series of leaders coming to visit and talk with the President. Can you talk about the importance the President attaches to having President Morsi here?


Will that happen possibly before the G8? I know you are not going to read out any visit plans. Well, I have no announcements to make beyond -- about visits beyond the ones that we already have announced, and which you made note of, and that is that the President will be hosting his counterparts from the UAE, from Qatar, Jordan and Turkey in Washington over the next several weeks. Syria will certainly be one of them. Our relationship with Egypt is and has been very important, and we continue to engage with the Egyptian government. I just do not have any particular next engagement to announce to you at the presidential level. The information also of the $200 million in aid for Jordan that was announced in Amman, can you take that question and get it to us? Well, I have to take it. I am sure the State Department would be a good place to go for more details about it. Back to the budget, if the President's deficit reduction plan is enacted, how many jobs would be lost under his plan as opposed to sequestration? The President's budget will increase job growth in the United States. It includes, in stark contrast to alternatives, investments that will create jobs. It includes tax cuts targeted to small businesses, for example, who hire veterans or small businesses who increase the size of their payroll, for example. It includes investments in infrastructure that will lead to immediate job creation as well as future economic growth and job creation because of the improvements in our roads, bridges, ports, and airports. So the President's -- it is an excellent question because the President's budget proposal, which contains within it his deficit reduction offer to the Speaker, has to be looked at as a whole because it is the President's number-one priority to take measures that help the economy grow, that help it create jobs, that secure and grow the middle class, and reduce our deficit in a responsible way. And the whole point that he was trying to make, and I think he made very well in the Rose Garden, is that you can do that. You can, if you go about it in a responsible way -- and responsible is certainly not what the sequester represents -- but if you go about deficit reduction in a responsible way, you can do it and also invest in our economy in a way that allows it to grow and create jobs. But do you have a number?


ENTITY, let me start by thanking you very much for granting this interview. I wonder if we could start with a little bit of the news of the day. Today you issued a written statement expressing deep regret for the deaths at No Gun Ri. But the word apologize did not appear in that statement. Is there a reason for that, that you drew a distinction between expressing regret and apologizing? Well, for me, now, other than that I told them to try to draw the statement up based on what we actually knew about the facts. And I worked very closely with or our people have with the Government of South Korea. We want to be responsive to the people there. And I hope the statement will be taken well by the people of South Korea as a genuine expression of regret about what happened. On another issue, there is a story now that a Navy pilot may have been shot down and may be held in Iraq. Do you have any information that leads you to believe that there are Americans held POW in Iraq? Well, I think the most I should say about this now is that in this particular case, and in this case only, I reviewed the evidence that we had, and we concluded that we should take him off the killed-in-action list and put him on the missing list, which means, obviously, that we have some information that leads us to believe that he might be alive. What does the United States do about it? Well, now that we have some information, we will begin well, we have already begun working to try to determine whether, in fact, he is alive; if he is, where he is; and how we can get him out. Because, since he was a uniformed service person, he is clearly entitled to be released, and we are going to do everything we can to get him out. If Iraq was holding an American, they could not use it as an issue with the United States unless they let us know they had somebody. Why would they hold somebody and not let us know about it? Would that be to their advantage? That is why we did what we did on the classification. We have enough information that makes us believe that at least he survived his crash, at least that that is a possibility, and that he might be alive. And I thought, in fairness to his family and everyone else involved, based on a review of the information and the Defense Department's recommendation, we should change the status.

Interview With Mark Knoller of CBS Radio in Dover, New Hampshire


But that is all we know, and I do not want to raise false hopes to either. Along the same lines, do we now know for certain that Usama bin Ladin was behind the attack on the U.S.S. Cole? I cannot say that. I can we do believe he was behind some other attacks on our people and that people affiliated with him have been involved in other attacks. But we are investigating this. We are still running down some of the leads. We are still doing some of the work. I think that we will know, and I think that the United States will take appropriate action. That is, I have absolutely no doubt that President-elect Bush will continue to pursue the investigation and, when the evidence is in, will take appropriate action. And when that happens, I will support him in doing so. And lastly, on a bit of domestic politics, do you think that Senators would have a good reason not to vote for John Ashcroft for Attorney General because he blocked your nomination of Ronnie White? Well, first, I think that it was a terrible mistake by the Senate to do it, to do it on a strict party-line vote, which required them to get some Republicans to change their position, including the other Senator from Missouri, who had introduced Judge White to the Judiciary Committee, and the Senators on the Judiciary Committee who had voted his nomination out positively to the floor. I am going to follow my policy here. You know, I will be an ex-President when this is done, and I do not believe I should be commenting for some period of time on public affairs, plus which my wife is a Senator. She has to vote on it. So I am going to let she can speak for herself, and the other Democrats and Republicans will speak for themselves. I do not think I should say more. I have known Senator Ashcroft a long time. I know he is genuinely very, very conservative, and that is what is in his heart. But I did not think this was about that, and it surprised and profoundly disappointed me. I thought that with just 9 days left, you might speak out with a little more reckless abandon than usual. Look, I need my Miranda warnings when I talk to you guys, you know. I cannot even make a joke in Chicago without having it blown out of proportion. Well, as long as you raised that issue, were you trying to say that you question the legitimacy of George Bush's election?


I have said clearly that I agree with exactly what Vice President Gore said, that in this country we observe the principle of judicial review. The Supreme Court has ruled, and the rest of us have to accept it. And that confers, in a legal sense, a literal legal sense, that confers legitimacy. But I did not say anything different than I have always said; all the Democrats were disappointed that the votes were not counted. And I was trying to pay a little homage to Bill Daley in his hometown of Chicago, with a lot of his family and friends there, by saying you know, he did, I think, did a very good job running the Vice President's campaign. They did win the popular vote. We were having a good time. Again, let us look back at your 8 years in office, ENTITY. After you were inaugurated in January of 1993, how long do you think it took you to get up to speed as ENTITY? Well, I would say there has there is a different answer to that depending on what the issue the question is. For example, I think that the issues that I talked about today when I reviewed our domestic record on social policy, I think we were ready from day one. I think we were and I think part of that was the fact that I'd been a Governor for a dozen years, that I'd been through a tough economic period, had a clear economic philosophy, had worked on education and welfare reform and crime and the environment. Part of it was the fact that I'd had the opportunity to represent the Governors with the White House and the Congress on many issues. On foreign policy, I think I was up to speed on some things and had to learn a lot on others, and I tried to be a quick study. On the ways of Washington, I think it took us probably, you know, even as much as a year, a year and a half, before we really had a good feel for some of the rather different ways in which the town works and the ways in which what a President does and says communicates itself to the other decisionmakers and to the larger American public in a way that was quite different than had been my experience as Governor.


So I did have a lot to learn about that, and I worked hard at it, and I think it is interesting; I was laughing the other day with Mack McLarty, to illustrate the point we had our roughest political problems in the first 2 years, but if you look back on the last 8 years, some of the most important and, I believe, most fundamentally sound decisions were made in those same 2 years. We passed the first big first we passed the economic plan, which included, among other things, the empowerment zones and the earnedincome tax credit and all the things that got rid of the deficit, as well. And then we passed the family medical law. We passed the Brady law. We passed the crime bill. We passed NAFTA. You know, we did a phenomenal number of things in those first 2 years, substantively. But because of the whole sort of contentious atmosphere, some of the problems that we had with health care and other issues, I think that it was not as successful politically and I say that in the best sense politically, meaning we did not communicate as well to the American people or the other decisionmakers in Washington in a way that people could see exactly what was happening and that we were underway here. So I think it took me longer to get the politics right. I think it took a little while for me to get entirely comfortable with all the foreign policy and national security issues I had to deal with not too long. And I think we were ready on the substance of domestic policy from day one. As we are about to inaugurate a new President, can the American people believe that its new President will be ready for the job on day one, or do we have to give them a period for on-the-job training? Well, I think he is like any new President. I think he has certain strengths and will be ready in some ways, and I do not think any human being can be ready in every way on day one. I think that is why, traditionally, Presidents have had a little bit of a honeymoon to get going. But it is a job, like other jobs, and people of good will who work at it can do it.


I think he is obviously got all these people around him who going back to the Ford administration, heavily involving the Reagan and Bush administrations people that have worlds of experience and will help him avoid some of the pitfalls which otherwise might come his way or anybody's way, going into that job. And so I think the dealing with Washington part of it, and through the players in Washington, with the press, I think he will be better prepared on that score than I was. I think on national security, he is got a very, very experienced team, so I think that he will get up to speed there in fairly short order. And on domestic policies, we have different views, and that is where the points of greatest conflict were in the campaign between our two sides. But I think on some things, like education, he is had the opportunity to really work in Texas on, and I think his concern is genuine. And on other things, we will just have to see what happens. I mean, I was a Governor for a dozen years, in good times and bad times. So I think that he will need some time to get kind of just the kind of feel the rhythm of some of these domestic issues, because they were not part of his experience. But I think that the American people should not particularly worry about that because he is got a very experienced team, because he has been a Governor, and because the country is in real good shape right now. And I think he will get right up there to speed on the issues as quickly as possible. I am not too worried about that. As you look back over your years in office, are there things, big things, that you wish you could do over or do differently? If I had it to do again, in the first 2 years I might try to pass welfare reform first, and then do health care. Or I would tell the American people that we had to do the deficit reduction first, and there were only two ways to have universal health coverage. Let me just back up and say, a lot of people believe that if the health care plan had been differently designed or something, it could have passed. The truth is that because of the combined effect of the condition of the economy and the inability to raise taxes, we could have neither an employer mandate or a Government-funded program sufficient to insure 100 percent of health care coverage. It was not in the cards. And I think that is one of the things I talked about.


I mentioned at the end of this speech all the things that have happened this year unheard of in the eighth year of a Presidency for all these things to happen. But I have a much greater sense now of the pace of things and how much you can jam through a system. And so, if I had it to do again, I think I would either try to flip the order and do welfare reform and then health care, or I would go before the American people and say, Look, I know I told you that I wanted 100 percent coverage, and I do, but here is the condition of the budget; here is the condition of the country. I cannot pass either an employer mandate or a tax increase, and you cannot get 100 percent coverage without either one. So we are going to take these five steps now. If I had it to do over again. I think in a policy sense, that was the place where the wheel kind of ran off the tracks and we got a little out of position with the American people, and we took that terrible licking in the '94 campaign. When you leave office at noon on January 20th, are you fearful that as you approach the next stage in your life, that the best part of your life is over? You know, in some ways this is the best part of my life because being ENTITY is the greatest honor any American could have and the greatest job any American could have. But I have given a lot of thought to this. I have enjoyed every phase of my life, from being a little boy to going off to college, to living in England, to being a teacher, to being a young attorney general. There is never been a part of my life in which I have not been absorbed, interested, and found something useful to do. And I think that I owe it to my country and to the people around the world who share the values and concerns I do, to try to be a good citizen-servant for the rest of my life. And if I do it right, it is a whole new challenge trying to figure out, how are you going to organize your life, how are you going to organize your day? I mean, for 27 years, most days since I entered public life, I have just been on a relentless schedule. And I have the opportunity now to kind of reimagine what I want my life to be like.