Would the White House oppose the appointment of a special prosecutor to continue to look into -- to continue the investigation? You have got a House committee, a Senate committee, and the Department of Justice all working on this. I do not think that there is a necessary need at this point to add that. You have got the Deputy Attorney General, who I would say is about as independent as it comes due to the fact that he has such bipartisan support. What gives you such confidence that the rank and file within the Bureau lost faith in the FBI Director? The vast majority of the Bureau is in favor of Director Comey. The real losers here are 20,000 front-line people in the organization because they lost the only guy working here in the past 15 years who actually cared about them. So what is your response to these rank-and-file FBI agents who disagree with your contention that they lost faith in Director Comey? Look, we have heard from countless members of the FBI that say very different things. In fact, the President will be meeting with Acting Director McCabe later today to discuss that very thing -- the morale at the FBI -- as well as make an offer to go directly to the FBI if he feels that that is necessary and appropriate. And we will certainly provide further information on that meeting for you guys. The organization that represents FBI agents is asking for a voice in the selection process of Mr. Comey's successor. I have not had that conversation, but I know, at this point, it is being run through the Department of Justice. And so I would refer you to them on what that process looks like at this point in time. Who did the President consult before making the final decision to fire James Comey? The President spoke with a number of individuals, but at the end of the day, it was the President's decision. And in between Monday night and Tuesday, when he decided to fire the FBI Director, did he speak again with the Deputy Attorney General or the Attorney General? I know that they spoke on Monday, and I believe the next follow-up was actually in writing. Just to be clear, so is it accurate to pull away from the information that we have that Monday night the President made the final call, said I want this in writing as a recommendation, and then took that recommendation as the evidence that he wanted to provide to fire James Comey?


My understanding is the decision was actually made on Tuesday, but the first conversation that he had was on Monday, when there was an oral recommendation made, and the President requested that he see that in writing to review it further. You say you want to move on and focus on the thing that Americans care about. So let me ask you about that. You are somewhat halfway home on healthcare. You still have tax reform to do, a spending bill, debt ceiling, and infrastructure. But what happened yesterday, you could argue, just widened the divide and made D.C. politics more toxic. So how do you go about accomplishing all of those things with, now, the heightened political environment that we are in? Frankly, I am surprised that it did create a divide since you have had so many Republicans and Democrats repeatedly calling for Director Comey to be gone. Frankly, I do not think it matters what this President says, you are going to have Democrats come out and fight him every single step of the way. I think that is one of the things that is wrong with Washington, and I think that is one of the reasons that we have got to get back to focusing on those issues and, frankly, draining the swamp a little bit further. Was he surprised by the Democratic backlash? Did he anticipate it, considering some of the past statements? How could he have, considering the fact that most of the people that are declaring war today were the very ones that were begging for Director Comey to be fired? If Hillary Clinton had won the election -- which, thank God, she did not -- but if she had, and she had been in the same position, she would have fired Comey immediately, and the very Democrats that are criticizing the President today would be dancing in the streets celebrating. So it is just the -- I think, the purest form of hypocrisy. One, there is a report in Israel that indicates the President has made a decision not to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Can you confirm that? Has he made a decision on that? The President has not made a decision yet, and is still reviewing that. Also, President Erdogan, in his speech, I think, this morning, warned the President against moving the embassy to Jerusalem. Does that warning and warning from other Arab leaders play into his decision as he is considering this move? I am not going to get into the decision-making process here.

Donald J. Trump Press Briefing by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Sanders


All I can tell you is that he is still reviewing it, and as soon as we have a decision, I know we will be happy to report back to you guys. Two questions, both related to the selection of a successor to Director Comey. When President Carter chose a FBI director, he had a blue ribbon panel advising him. Presidents Clinton and Obama interviewed several candidates. Is the President going to follow this pattern, or does he have some individual in mind at this point? Right now, I know that there are several individuals being considered, and the first step will be determining the acting -- or, excuse me, the interim director. And that is being handled through the Department of Justice, and I would refer you to them for right now. Oh, yeah, I forgot you have got two. I have got two. He does not get a question anymore. Who is had a birthday. Just want to make sure we got that in again. I was going to say it is a fact that the Association of Former FBI Agents and Veterans of the Bureau generally prefer people who have been agents themselves or have a background in the FBI. Only two former agents have been director in the last four decades. Will the President consider current or former agents for the position? I would say that he is not ruling anything out at this point. But again, as of today, the Department of Justice is handling the first step in this process. Should the Attorney General, who has recused himself from the Russia investigation, have any role in the selection of a successor? And given the fact that in his 100-day interviews, the President himself said he had confidence in Director Comey, at this podium the American people were told he had confidence in Director Comey, can people take at face value what the President says about personnel issues like this, or his views on things, if just two weeks later, he is out? Absolutely, you can take full confidence in the words of the President. In terms of whether or not Attorney General Sessions should have a role -- look, the FBI is doing a whole lot more than the Russia investigation. I know everybody in this room and probably most of the media around the world would like to think that is the FBI's sole responsibility, but that is probably one of the smallest things that they have got going on their plate, and the 20,000 employees that work there. And so he should absolutely have a role in seeing who runs that agency and that department.


Does the President have confidence in the Acting Director? And secondly, you mentioned earlier that you are encouraging the FBI to move on from the investigation. Is it appropriate for the White House to be directing the FBI what to do with any investigation they are currently investigating? I do not think that that was the nature or the intent of my comment, was not to direct the FBI, but I think it is simply -- we are fully compliant with helping this process move along. We'd like to see it completed so that, frankly, all of us can move on and focus on things that Blake listed earlier, like tax reform, like healthcare, like infrastructure. Those are big programs, big priorities for this administration. And, frankly, what we'd like to be the number-one thing that we are talking about here, today, every single day, is not FBI investigations but things that, frankly, affect American voters and American taxpayers every single day. What exactly precipitated the Monday meeting? Was that because of the hearing last week and what he said there? Or did the Monday meeting that the President had with the DOJ officials come out of a longer process of consideration of Comey? The Department of Justice officials were here for other business, not specifically to meet with the President on that. The topic came up, and they asked to speak with the President, and that is how it moved forward. Did the President previously talk to Attorney General Sessions or Deputy Attorney Rosenstein about the possibility of going this way with Comey? Not that I am aware of, no. Did it come up in the discussion process before the confirmation that the President was considering nominating Rosenstein -- did he talk about Comey with Rosenstein then? No, not that I am aware of. The President's statement that he talked to Comey about whether or not he was being investigated raises several questions. Can you talk about why you are not willing to add any more to that about who asked for that and why that was discussed? Who asked for what? About whether or not -- I mean, the President seems to be trying to exonerate himself in this. I mean, can you talk about why you will not add anymore to what that conversation was, how that took place, when it took place -- The three occasions -- could you clarify those three occasions and who initiated? Again, I am not going to get into the specific details. I will check and see if we have follow-up on that.


We wanted to make you are probably very happy today, ENTITY, given the unemployment figures, and we thought bringing you on in this style would be appropriate. You recognize that music, of course? That is what I played on Arsenio. Let us start from the beginning. I have got my lines down. You did it fine. You play my music, and I do your lines. ENTITY, it is a pleasure certainly for us to be able to visit with you here. We were actually broadcasting this program from your Inauguration on the morning of January 20, 1991. We were in the big scaffolding thing that was set up alongside the Capitol building where all the photographers and other broadcasters were. And you waved at us, I think. Now, would you say as you look back on it, nearly 2 years after that day, that you maybe went into the office somewhat naive about the reality of being ENTITY? What do you mean by that? Well, that the magnificence of that moment and the anticipation of the 4 years to follow and, perhaps, 8, how tough it was going to be.  I think to some I think I underestimated a couple of things. First of all, the difficulty of having to manage both a domestic and a foreign policy at the same time when both needed so much change, because we need to be strong at home and strong abroad and fighting for good jobs and strong families and safe streets at home and fighting for greater security and freedom and democracy abroad, that is something I underestimated. The other thing I underestimated was the extreme partisanship of the Republican congressional leadership which we now know from studies is the worst it is been since World War II. No ENTITY ever had to deal with that. Now, notwithstanding that, after the Congress went home, we learned that this was only the third time since World War II when the Congress supported the President more than 80 percent of the time. And so we were able to have a historic reduction in the deficit and to provide a dramatic increase in college loans for middle class people and pass the family leave law and the Brady bill and a dramatic crime bill and immunize the kids in the country who are under 2 by 1996. We did a lot of profoundly important things, but it was an extremely partisan and negative environment. I also underestimated the extent to which the communications in the country would continue to be so combative and negative.

Interview With Ken Minyard and Roger Barkley of KABC Radio, Los Angeles, California


And I think that somehow unduly sours the American people when the truth is that, for all of our difficulties, this country's in better shape than it was 21 months ago. We are growing jobs at 5 times the rate of the previous 4 years. We have got over 5 million new jobs in 21 months. I mean, we are moving in the right direction. With those accomplishments and a slew of good economic indicators, it is got to you have got to wonder, I would think, to say, This is we should be in great shape here; my popularity should be at an all-time high, and it is not. Who is the most popular politician these days in California? You emerged on top of all the politicians. Pete Wilson, Governor Wilson, came in second. Well, you know, for one thing, I think if you look at the time in which we live, the combative time in which we live and the frustrations people are going through, it is hard for any incumbent politician to be popular. Secondly, I have taken on a lot of tough issues in a very short period of time. And when you go through fights and you take on a lot of strong interest groups and we had to take on tough interest groups to pass the economic plan, to pass the college loan plan, to pass the Brady bill, to pass the assault weapons ban, to try to deal with the health care issue when you do these things, there is it is also, while you are doing it, it can be very unsettling to people because all the news they get is about the combat, the conflict, the things that are going on. So I knew when I started this course that I had to keep my eye on what America would look like in the 21st century. And I had to be willing to have some ups and downs in popularity to try to solve the long-term problems of the country. I just want the American people to know that I have every day I get up and go to work and do the best I can trying to increase their strength for the future, to give them good jobs and safe streets and strong families and to make us stronger in the world. We are moving in the right direction. And I tell everybody at the White House, it is not our job to worry about our popularity, to worry about what the American people think of us every day. But we have to think of the American people every day.


ENTITY, it will be in a few days the anniversary of the D-day. Italy and Europe are grateful to the United States for the liberation from fascism and the nazism. But today, Europe and America are still divided about Iraq. When you go in Europe, there will certainly be some demonstration against you. What is the responsibility of this situation? Yes, look, first of all, we share the same values we being America and Europe. And one of the values we share is the freedom for people to express themselves. So I have no problem with people saying, I disagree. Matter of fact, I think it is a healthy sign, and I think it is positive. We had disagreements about the decision to enforce the U.N. Security Council resolution, but there is common agreement in Europe with America that it is in the world's interest that Iraq be free and peaceful. Today I just talked to the new Prime Minister and had a very good conversation with him. And he said, Thank you for giving us a chance, and thank you for standing with us. And when he said thank you, he was not talking just to me. He was talking to the Italian people and the American people and the Brits and all the people in our coalition that are now helping in Iraq. So I am very upbeat and very as I head over to honor what happened 60 years ago, I think we are now seeing unity to work toward common good today. And I am looking forward to it. Yes, but some Europeans blame you for having kept them out of the decision to go to the war in Iraq. Do you think this is the real reason for present difficulties? Well, first of all, I do not see many difficulties. You mean in Iraq? No, I think you will see in the U.N. there is going to be common agreement. I think we will get a new Security Council resolution. Remember, 1441 at the Security Council, we voted unanimously to say to Saddam Hussein, Disarm, or face serious consequences. Then it became clear he did not disarm and did not disclose, and so we had a debate about the definition of serious consequences. My attitude is, when you say something, you better do it. In other words, the world said, Serious consequences, Mr. Hussein. And so, the United States, along with a lot of other nations, agreed that we must enforce serious consequences. But everybody had a chance to participate.

Interview With RAI Television of Italy


Everybody had a chance, particularly on the Security Council, to say yes or no. But that is now behind us, and that is what is important for the people of your great country to understand. Now, in terms of Iraq, it is tough. And the reason it is tough is because there are killers in that country who want to stop the march to freedom. The worst thing they fear is free elections, but they are not going to stop us. That is what you have got to understand. We are not going to be intimidated by killers in Iraq or anywhere else, for that matter. Some have said that you never admit to any shortcomings, much less failures. Looking back at the past year, do you have anything to reproach yourself regarding what has gone wrong? Did you make any mistakes? Listen, any time you go to war, circumstances change. And the fundamental question is, were we flexible enough to change with the circumstances? Could we this is all hypothetical, when you think about it. We are changing a country from tyranny to freedom, a country where people were brutalized, tortured, raped, killed, maimed, to a country which is going to govern itself. A lot of things did not happen that we thought might happen, the oil production, for example. We thought that would be blown up, and it would cost the Iraqi citizens a lot of money. We thought that people would go hungry or there would be mass refugees, neither of which happened. Our troops stormed through to Baghdad, and then it caused it enabled some of the Saddam loyalists, some of them, to disperse. In other words, they did not stay and fight. And I and our troops were given the flexibility on the ground to deal with that. Now, I wish the Iraqi people had overwhelmingly said, Thank you for coming. Some said, Let us fight them. But do not you think that now this new government could been seen as a puppet government because there are a lot of elements close to America America gives them money? Well, we look, you are talking about the current Prime Minister. And you bet we supported a group that he headed. We did not support him. We supported his group. Because he wanted to get rid of Sad-dam Hussein, and the reason why he did is not because of America. He wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein because Saddam Hussein killed and tortured his fellow citizens. You remember what Saddam Hussein is like. He had torture rooms.

Interview With RAI Television of Italy


I had the other day in the Oval Office seven men whose hands had been cut off by Saddam Hussein. We have shown this picture. Are you happy with this new government in Iraq? The government was picked by the United Nations. Brahimi went under very difficult circumstances and consulted with a lot of people and came up with what appears to be a very diverse government.   One, thank you for taking on a very difficult assignment, thank you for leading; and two, America and our coalition will help you succeed, but it is up to you to succeed. You are in charge, and we will work with you to succeed. How much has the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib damaged the American moral authority and credibility? Obviously, it was a shameful moment when we saw on our TV screens that soldiers took it upon themselves to humiliate Iraqi prisoners, because it does not reflect the nature of the American people or the nature of the men and women in our uniform. And what the world will see is that we will handle this matter in a very transparent way, that there will be rule of law, which is an important part of any democracy. And there will be transparency, which is a second important part of a democracy, and people who have done wrong will be held to account for the world to see. That will stand this process will stand in stark contrast to what would happen under a tyrant. You would never know about the abuses in the first place. And if you did know about the abuses, you certainly would not see any process to correct them. You will visit the Pope as well on June 4th. The Vatican opposed the war and now recommends, look forward and pay more attention to the religious and moral sensitivity of the Iraqi people. What is your opinion about this recommendation? Look, a lot of people did not like the war. I understand that completely, and I do not like war. But I am the guy who has to decide, for our case, whether or not a Saddam Hussein would be a threat to peace, and made a very difficult decision. After having tried all diplomacy, war was the last option.

Interview With RAI Television of Italy


Secondly, I will tell the His Holy Father I appreciate his positions he is a great man and that I look forward to working with the Iraqis to put in place the conditions so that human rights prevail, something that did not happen under Sad-dam Hussein, looking forward to the development of a society in which boys and girls can go to schools and not be filled with hateful propaganda but with knowledge. I look forward to working with the health care workers in Iraq so that people can get decent health care. I will assure His Holy Father that we will do everything we can to elevate the human condition so that people can live in peace and freedom and remind him that a free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East will serve as a great moment of change, will serve as an example for others to follow. You see, when the people in the Middle East see that a free society can exist in the Muslim world, they will demand the same thing. And in the long run, the best way to defeat terror is to promote freedom, and that is what we are going to do. If you cannot succeed with the United Nations, do you have a plan B as an exit strategy in Iraq? We will succeed we will succeed with the United Nations. I have talked to most of the leaders on the Security Council. I have talked to the Russians, the Chinese, the Germans, the French, of course the Brits, and I know there is a consensus that we must work together for the good of the Iraqi people. This is not about America. This is about Iraq and the citizens of Iraq who suffered under tyranny for so long. And now we have a chance to work together to promote a free society in a part of the world, by the way, that is desperate for free societies. I have got great faith in the future. And having talked to the new leadership some of the new leadership in Iraq I can tell you they share that same sense of destiny, the same great hope for their people.

Interview With RAI Television of Italy


You know, I recognize I am on the clock, so let us do it. I saw, ENTITY, a recent Pew Research poll that said, among Republican voters compromise is not a virtue. They value politicians who stick to principles rather than those who compromise. And you will not be surprised to hear that that is what I hear often from my radio listeners. If control of the House changes, as now appears likely, and it is brought about by voters who want to put the brakes on you, how are you going to govern for the next two years? Well, first of all, you know, I think the only poll that matters is going to be on November 2nd. And I still feel confident that it is a very close race in terms of the House. You have got close races all across the country, including in your hometown. And a lot of it is going to depend on turnout. Having said that, there is no doubt that voters across the board, I think, want to see Washington work. They do not want games. They do not want posturing. They do not want business as usual. They want us to focus on them, on jobs, on the economy, on keeping small businesses open. And my expectation is, is that Republicans, should they win additional seats, should they be in a position to hopefully take more responsibility working with us, are going to say to themselves that it is important for us to show some accomplishments over the next couple of years. And I think there is some areas where traditionally we have had bipartisan agreement. I will give you an example -- infrastructure. We should have the best infrastructure in the world. We used to have the best roads, the best airports, the best rail systems. We do not anymore, and it is important for us to, I think, put people back to work right now doing the work that America needs done. And that is the kind of thing that I think we could get bipartisan support. The same is true on potentially reducing our debt and our deficit. Everybody agrees that we have to get control of our deficits. I think us working together, Democrats and Republicans, with a responsible plan that makes sure that we are protecting those core investments like education, that help improve economic growth long term, but also eliminating wasteful spending, is something where we should be able to get some agreement.

Interview With Michael Smerconish on MSNBC


Well, I am glad you raised the deficit, ENTITY, because on the subject of the economy, I have been watching, and it seems like the Brits have thrown under the bus one of their own in John Maynard Keynes. And you know, Keynes was THE proponent of deficit spending by government to avoid recession. And what occurs to me, sir, is that while your approach has been an $800 billion stimulus, over there they are raiding the retirement age, they are making 130 billion in spending cuts, and they are eliminating a half million jobs. Which begs this question, why is not that the right approach for us? Well, keep in mind, first of all, that they had a big stimulus program over the course of the last two years. So actually, Britain has taken the same approach that we have, and most countries have taken the same approach, which is that in crisis when you had a complete collapse of the economy and jobs were being shed at a pace of hundreds of thousands a month, that it was very important to make sure that the government was able to provide a backstop and allow businesses to heal and recover. Now, we have done that over the last two years. The question is, what do we do going forward? And our problem has not been as bad as Britain's in terms of debt relative to GDP. Our problem is a long- term structural problem that has to do with the fact that we have got an aging population, we have got a bunch of entitlements that are very expensive and are very popular. People like Social Security, they like Medicare. I think that those are pillars of security for people in the retirement age. And so we have to make sure that those are there for future generations, but we have got to make sure that we make some adjustments so that those programs are in place. And I think that we can responsibly set a pathway where, over the course of several years, we are reducing our deficit without endangering economic growth, without endangering, you know, the core investments that are required to make sure that the American dream continues, and without completely shredding our safety net. In a word, what I hear from listeners on a day- to-day basis is, angst. And you talk about the American dream. I was raised to believe that, of course, if I worked hard and had a good education, I would further those achievements of my folks.


What I hear from people is a concern that that is no longer the case. They are fearful that their own children will continue to exceed their own opportunities. Well, look, we have gone through a tough decade. I mean, obviously, we have been focusing mostly on this brutal recession that we have gone through, the worst since the Great Depression. But between 2001 and 2009, middle-class families saw their income go down by 5 percent. During that period, job growth was more sluggish than anytime since World War II. So middle-class families have every right to be frustrated and concerned. And the answer is going to be making sure that we are doing what we have always done best, which is innovate, have a dynamic private sector that is investing in new plants and new equipment and hiring new workers. We have got to have a government that is lean and mean, but also making important investments that foster long-term growth. I already mentioned infrastructure. Making sure that we have got the best education system in the world. We used to be ranked number one in the proportion of college graduates. We now rank 21st and 25th, respectively, in our math and science education. And we have begun addressing them over the last two years. So for example, we took away tens of billions of dollars that were going in the form of unwarranted subsidies to banks, and we have made sure that that money was going into making student loan programs cheaper so that more people have access to college educations. That is going to be critical for our long-term growth. I will say, this is an example of the choice that we confront in this election, because my colleagues on the Republican side right now have said that they want tax cuts for the top 2 percent, the wealthiest Americans. And that would cost $700 billion, and they have no way of paying for it. But part of the way that they are suggesting to pay for it is to potentially cut education by 20 percent. That is not a smart way for us to get our debt and deficits under control. We do not want to undermine those things that help us grow over the long term. But I guess that is the reason why I brought up the British model or the British example, is because what I hear from folks on a day-to-day basis is they want to see some corresponding reduction of federal spending. You know the perception of those that you most need to reach. The perception is that the spending is wildly out of control.


You know, the truth of the matter is, is that the budget that we have set up, where we have proposed freezing non- defense discretionary spending, if we followed that program would mean that non-defense discretionary spending, everything other than defense and security spending, would actually be lower as a percentage of our GDP than any time in 50 years. So we each year have identified billions of dollars in cuts and wasteful spending. And you know, as I said before, part of what we have to recognize is that over the last two years we had a brutal recession and a critical crisis that had to be addressed. And that did increase the deficit. I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that we would have seen hundreds of thousands of teachers laid off, hundreds of thousands of firefighters and police officers laid off. This is not just at the federal level. It is also at the state level. We had to help them because their budgets were getting decimated by the severity of this recession. But having said that that, you know, that was a crisis moment that had to be addressed, what people are actually right about is that we have got to make sure that, moving forward, we are doing so in a responsible way. And the best way for us to do it is to do it with a scalpel, not a machete, and to make sure that the cuts we are making are not eliminating those things that are going to help us grow. One percentage point of additional economic growth next year or the year after actually would do more to close the deficit than anything else that we could do, because it brings in more revenues. So you know, if we could make sure that we are eliminating wasteful programs while at the same time growing the economy, that should be the sweet spot that we are aiming for. ENTITY, why is no one who supported the health-care bill running on it ? Well, I think that you have seen a couple hundred million dollars' worth of negative TV ads that make it very difficult to do so. I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, there was an awful lot of misinformation about this health-care bill while we were debating it, and that has continued after we have finished debating it and after it is into law. So you know, I recognize that, you know, folks feel barraged by negative information, but let us look specifically at what was in this health-care bill.


You have got us closing the donut hole so that senior citizens are able to get their prescription drugs. We have got young people who are able to stay on their parents' health-care insurance policy until they are 26-years old. We have got young people who can now get health insurance, even if they are got a preexisting condition. We have got basically a patient's bill of rights that says that insurance companies cannot drop you when you get sick, cannot drop you because of some fine print in your insurance policy, cannot impose arbitrary lifetime limits that mean you might be bankrupt, even though you have got health insurance if you have had a serious illness. You know, when you look at the specific provisions of the health- care bill, they are all very popular. And you know, I think that it is going to be very important as these things get online and people are seeing how this provides more choice and more competition for them, gives them more control of their health care, gives them more options, allows them to keep their doctor, I think that a lot of this is going to go away. You have earned more than your fair share of political stripes. Is it, politically speaking, a mistake for the Democrats, who supported the health-care proposal, not to be running on it, to go full bore in support of it out on the campaign trail? My attitude has been that I was sent here to take on hard problems. We took over at a moment where probably the nation was facing the greatest set of challenges at least since World War II. And you know, we should be clear and strong about the steps we took to save this country from a second Great Depression, to make sure that we still had a U.S. auto industry and can produce clean cars for the future, that we made the biggest investment in clean energy in our history so that solar panels and wind turbines are built here in the United States and not somewhere overseas, that we are working to expand exports, that we are improving our education system, that we have got a health-care system that is now on track to provide better quality at a better price. You know, those are things that, you know, I want everybody to know about. There are a lot of folks who are hurting out there. You know, there are families who are losing their homes. There are people who have been looking for a job for a year.


ENTITY, you have been getting a lot of criticism from your detractors who say that you have been spending too much time abroad. Have you been spending too much time abroad? How do you respond to them? I responded -- when I go to The Hague on a GATT meeting, trade meeting, the purpose of which is to open up agricultural markets to American products, that that is good for the American farmer. It is good for the American agricultural worker. When I go to the peace conference in Madrid, I happen to think that it is in the national interest to try to help bring peace to that troubled corner of the world. When we stand up against Saddam Hussein's aggression and beat back that, I think it is in the American interest. When I go to the Soviet Union and work with Yeltsin and Gorbachev in turning over that whole system, helping them now move down democracy's road, that is in our pure economic interest. And when I am going to go to Japan, it will be in the same thing. We have got to open up those markets. So, I think there is a frustration on the part of the Democrats, some of them that make these silly charges because they do not put it in the perspective of a global economy. We are in a small world. And thank God we have the exports we have got, or you'd have much tougher economic times right here in this State that is hurting. That is the way I'd respond to it. ENTITY, what is your domestic agenda with election right around the corner? Are there certain things that you want to address more than others? The crime bill, it is been up there, challenged them in March to 100 days to pass, and it has not passed. A transportation bill that is job-concentrated that would help the economy immediately. I challenged them to 100 days. It is now, what, 265 days later or something like that. I want to see us do much better in terms of growth. I happen to believe -- and they dump on me, the Democrats on capital gains -- I think that would stimulate small business and create new businesses and new jobs, and it would make us more competitive abroad. We have got IRA's that would kick off first-home buyers savings. We have got all kinds in growth programs; enterprise zones is another one that I think would help. But we are up against the Democrats in the Congress who want to try to do it their way.

Interview With Steve Schiff of KPLR - TV in St. Louis, Missouri


I think I was elected to do the things I have told you I am trying to do. There seems to be some bickering today between Democrats and Republicans in Washington; some of the Democrats saying that it is going to lead to a tax increase. We just got a breakthrough on that a few minutes ago. And I talked to Bob Dole, Bob Michel, thanked them; thanked Speaker Foley, the leader of the Democrats in the House; Chairman Rostenkowski, the Democratic leader of the Ways and Means because we have come to agreement now in a way that operates within the budget agreement and, thus, will not raise people's taxes. My argument with the unemployment bill that was passed before is they just wanted to bust the budget agreement, just added to the burden for the 94 percent of the people who are working. And so we finally prevailed on this, provided the Senate votes for it. So, I think there is good news there on the economic front, certainly on the front for those who should have been getting these checks long ago. We want to help people that are hurting, whose benefits have run out. But it is ENTITY that has to protect all the people. And that is what I think we have done now. Let us turn to the ENTITY issue. Why do not we have a national ENTITY bill? What would an ENTITY bill do? Well, I do not know, I am asking you. Well, if you are asking me, we are doing a good job on research. We are spending far more per victim on ENTITY research than we are on heart disease or cancer, which are far greater killers. We have got to do more in the education front on ENTITY. When I talked to the researchers at National Institutes of Health, I think they feel that they could use more money, but I do not think they feel a shortage of research funds is what is important. We are trying to speed ENTITY research drugs to market even though some are going to accuse us of getting them there before they have been fully tested. I think maybe we need to do more in terms of education. And that is one reason I'd like to see Magic Johnson on our National ENTITY Commission, if he feels that it is something he is interested in doing. The reason I asked you is because I thought maybe there was some ENTITY bill I am not familiar with. And I think this approach to sensitize people on the health considerations is important.


ENTITY is a disease where behavior has a lot to do with whether you get the disease or not, unlike cancer or unlike some of these other diseases. So, maybe we need to do more in the education field here. Well, it just seems that the former Surgeon General, Mr. Koop, did a lot of talking until he was criticized about it -- too much talking about ENTITY. And now Ms. Novello does not seem to be talking too much about it at all. Well, I do not know that that is a fair criticism because I think she is out there discussing it, trying to encourage people to look at it as a major national health problem, trying to dispel some of the myths about ENTITY. I have tried to do that. My wife is wonderful at that. When you hold an ENTITY baby in your arms to show that, look, this is not something that is going to be passed just from casual touching like this. But, look, if you asked me am I happy with my role; can I do more? Of course, I want to try to do more. But it is not a function of money, is the point I am trying to make here, I do not believe. I think it is a function of education, getting people to stop doing things that put their own lives at risk, educate people to that end, and show a certain sense of compassion for the victims of ENTITY. A member of your party is running very strongly down in Louisiana. You really know how to hurt a guy. And you have been quoted as saying that if you lived in Louisiana, you'd vote for Edwin Edwards. I have not felt too happy about the choice; I will be honest with you. But, look, here is a deal where normally ENTITY, or this ENTITY, would not get into a local race of this nature. Normally I'd been in there on the side of a Republican, if it is a Republican versus Democrat. But this one's a matter of conscience. This is a matter of saying to the Nation, in my judgment, we must not condone bigotry, anti-Semitism, racism, the ugliness that is coming out as a result of this man, Duke's, past. And I am sorry I -- what I hope I have not done is to inadvertently let him use this to get sympathy inside the State. But here I have a responsibility in the Nation to say, Look, this is too much.


It is nice to hear your voice again. Oh, I am so glad you heard them, sir. I know the budget is the burning issue of the moment. You may have seen a Conrad cartoon; it showed you in caricature, and the caption was Or maybe you'd like Bush back and another $2 trillion debt. How could we avoid that and make the whole economic climate healthier? Well, the first thing we have to do is to gain control over our economic destiny again. The deficit is spinning out of control. It was about $74 billion a year in 1980; it is over $300 billion this year. The debt, as you know, has gone from $1 trillion to $4 trillion. And because of that, the money we ought to be investing has not been there. You can see that very clearly in Los Angeles and southern California when you had all these defense cutbacks. We should have been reinvesting all that money in domestic technologies to put the people back to work here at home in high-speed rail, environmental cleanup, all kinds of other things. But the debt was so big that the money went to pay interest on the debt and into exploding health care costs. So our economic plan is terribly important to the people of the United States and the people of southern California because it begins to give us some control back. Already, the fact that the plan is making progress has brought down long-term interest rates. I know one lady who called you said her husband was in construction. Because we are at 20-year mortgage rates lows, there have been 130,000 new jobs come into this economy in construction in the last 4 months. That is the biggest increase in 9 years. Now, it is going to take a while to reach southern California, because that is one of the most distressed areas of our national economy. So you have got to bring the deficit down. You have got to do it in a way that is fair to the middle class, by making upper income people pay the lion's share of the burden. Over the next 5 years, we still need to spend some money to try to redevelop the businesses, the communities, and retrain the workers that have been hurt so badly by defense cutbacks. So this is a good plan, and it is still the only real plan on the table. A lot of people have criticized it, but it is hard to quarrel with the results of it.

William J. Clinton Interview With Michael Jackson of KABC Radio, Los Angeles, California


Just the progress of the plan is bringing down long-term interest rates. We have got three-quarters of a million new jobs in the economy since January 20th, and I am encouraged. We have got a long, long way to go, and we are dealing with some economic trends that have been in place for 20 years in the world economy. But we can turn it around if we will do so with discipline and if we will stop the delay, if we will go forward now and pass the plan. ENTITY, you mentioned critics. Congressman Henry Hyde, speaking for the Republicans, claimed over the weekend that the Senate Democrats are going to agree to a tax-and-spend, tax-and-spend program this summer that will result in another version of the biggest tax hike in history. In a nutshell, by year's end, will the rich be taxed considerably more, heavily taxed? By year's end, if the plan passes, upper income taxes will go up, taxes on the upper 6 percent of the American people; two-thirds of the tax burden would be paid for by people with incomes above $200,000. The tax on the middle class, in the form of an energy tax, would be phased in over a 3-year period and would amount to no more than $17 a month for a family of four with an income of $50,000 to $60,000, by the third year of the plan. By contrast, families with incomes of under $30,000 would be held harmless, and there would be an incentive in this tax program, for the first time, for people who work 40 hours a week but have children in the home and are still in poverty. The tax system would actually lift them out of poverty. But the most important thing from my point of view is that there cannot be taxes without an equal amount of spending cuts. People who say there are not spending cuts just have not said it right. And for Mr. Hyde, whom I like a lot, to just get on there and chant their old tax-and-spend line, I mean, you know, that is the same crowd that presided over the last 12 years where we went from a $1 trillion to a $4 trillion debt, increased the national deficit every year, and reduced our investment in the future. I mean, they actually set in motion the policies which you see manifest all around you today in southern California. And I do not see how they have any credibility on this.


They were all designed to increase the deficit by moderating tax increases with no offsetting cuts. We are either going to have to make up our mind whether to do the tough stuff necessary in terms of budget cuts and fair revenue increases to bring this deficit down and get control of our economic future and keep these interest rates down, or we are not. And let me just make one other point. For anybody who has refinanced a home loan or refinanced a business loan or gotten a car loan, a consumer loan, a college loan at lower interest rates, a lot of people are going to in the middle class and even some upper income people are going to save more money on lower interest rates than they are going to pay in higher taxes. We have got to start investment in this economy again. And if we do not , we are going to be in real trouble. You had someone call from Orange County; I see what is happened to real estate in Orange County. our proposal contains significant incentives to get the real estate business in California up and going again and throughout the country. There are all kinds of things in this plan which are very, very good for business, that the business community has been asking for for years. But we do ask people who are earning income, who have it and whose taxes went down in the eighties while the deficit went through the roof, to pay a fairer share of the tax burden so we can bring the deficit down. Does Ross Perot concern you? And I pose it that way because of his stand on NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. He really is claiming that this country and particularly this State of California is going to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs that would go to Mexico if the agreement should be ratified. Well, I disagree with him on that issue. There are other issues on which I think we are agreed. We have got a version of the line-item veto in the United States Senate. I very much hope it will pass; I strongly support that. I am pushing for campaign finance reform to reduce the influence of special interests in campaigns, something that he and I both talked about in the last campaign. We have got that out of the Senate; we need to pass it in the House. We are pushing for lobbying reform, something we both talked about last time. We passed a dramatic increase in the requirements for reporting of lobbyists in the Senate. I hope we can pass it in the House.


But on NAFTA we just disagree. I believe that a country like ours, if we want to generate more jobs, we are going to have to increase the volume of trade. Number one, something you know perhaps better than other Americans, anyone who wants to shut a plant down and go to Mexico today for low wages can do it. And they will be able to do it just as well today or tomorrow as they could after NAFTA is ratified. Number two, as you have seen in California, as long as incomes are very depressed in Mexico, you are going to have a bigger and bigger problem with immigration that goes beyond the legal limits of the law. And what I see happening with NAFTA is a Mexico that can buy more American products, where more Mexicans will want to stay home and be near their families because they will be able to make a living. And Mexico will be the leader of a whole new wave of trading partners for the United States, going down past Mexico into Central America, into Chile, into Venezuela, into Argentina, into other countries. I believe it will create jobs for America. I would not do it if I did not think so. And let me also tell you that there is beginning to be a little bit of a chill in the wind of people who think that they ought to just automatically move their plants to Mexico to save money. There is a big story just in the last day or so about General Motors moving 1,000 jobs back from Mexico to the United States to Michigan, a high-cost State with very productive labor, to produce some of their small cars. So I am very hopeful about this. And let me make one last point. About 4 years ago we had a $5 billion trade deficit with Mexico. Today, because of the trade barriers that Mexico has lowered, we have a $6 billion trade surplus, which means we have created more jobs because of trade with Mexico than we have lost because of jobs moving down there. Now, we do not want to just have a trade agreement with no standards. The Mexican people are going to have to be willing to work with us on environmental standards and on labor standards so we do not just open the floodgates to move jobs to Mexico in ways that will not even raise incomes in Mexico. But if we do it right, it will create jobs for both countries. I mean, Europe is in the worst recession since the 1930's; Japan has been hit, too.


By contrast, are not things beginning to get better here? Well, they are beginning to get better here, and they are beginning to get better here basically for two reasons. First off, American industry was really battered here during the entire 1980's and in fact starting back in the mid-seventies. And there has been a determined effort by people running our firms in the private sector to become more competitive, so a lot of them are. And that increased productivity, increasing output per worker, the increasing ability to compete with countries around the world, that is helping things to get better. The second thing that is making things better is that this administration's serious effort to bring the deficit down has helped long-term interest rates to get down to their lowest rate in 20 years, and that is leading people to refinance, freeing up some money, and we are getting some more investment. But I do not want to mislead anybody. If you look at southern California, if you look at Connecticut, if you look at some of the States that have been hit especially hard by defense cutbacks of all kinds and other economic problems, we are still going to have to have a very disciplined plan to invest and grow our way out of the problems of the last few years. But yes, we are in better shape now than Europe and Japan. In fact, if we could get some more growth in those countries, we'd be in better shape because we are not selling as much to them as we would be because of their economic problems. They do not have the money to buy American products. And when I go to Japan in a couple of weeks to talk to the leaders of Europe and Japan, one of the things we are going to be talking about is that America is doing what they asked us to do; we are bringing our deficit down. And we want the Europeans to bring their interest rates down and the Japanese to invest some more money in their economy so they can grow it, because they do not have the deficit we do. And if we can work together, we can grow the world economy and that means jobs for America. But you are quite right, we are actually in better shape than Japan and Europe is right now, except for unemployment rates. Japan's still got a lower unemployment rate than we do. Thank you, and again, I want to thank your callers for the thoughts they expressed.


More than half of Americans have lost confidence in your ability to lead the country and get the job done. That may have been stunning to you? I have been dealing with stuff like this since 2009. How do you turn it around? There have been a number of times where, you know, the punditry said gosh, you know, how do you turn it around. And what we do is staying focused on what matters and chip away at it and try to make progress. People have health care. What I do worry about is that right now we have got a Republican Party that seems to only care about saying no to me. You have got Speaker Boehner talking about suing you for executive actions that he says has crossed the line. He says we elected a president; we did not elect a monarch or a king. Well, you notice that he did not specifically say what exactly he was objecting to. I am not going to apologize for trying to do something while they are doing nothing. But what I have told Speaker Boehner directly is, if you are really concerned about me taking too many executive actions, why do not you try getting something done through Congress. The majority of the American people want to see immigration reform done. We had a bipartisan bill through the Senate, and you are going to squawk if I try to fix some parts of it administratively that are within my authority while you are not doing anything? You mentioned immigration. Do not come; if you come, you will be deported. Actually, we have done that. The problem is is that, under current law, once those kids come across the border, there is a system in which we are supposed to process them, take care of them until we can send them back. Do not send your children unaccompanied on trains or through a bunch of smugglers. That is our direct message to the families in Central America. If they do make it, they will get sent back. More importantly, they may not make it. Let us talk about Iraq. How serious is this ISIS threat to people here in Minnesota, around the country? I was so struck by an article that Ryan Crocker, who served as Iraq ambassador under you, wrote last week. Make no mistake. They have 2,000 fighters with Western passports that do not need a visa to get in. Are we under serious threat right now from ISIS?

Interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News Good Morning America


You know, I think we have been under serious threat my entire presidency, and we have been under serious threat predating 9/11 from those who embrace this ideology. But they are gaining strength, are not they? Well, they are gaining strength in some places. But we have also got a lot better at protecting ourselves. Let me ask you a final question on foreign policy. It comes from something you wrote back in 2006 in Audacity of Hope. Without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands, America will lack legitimacy and ultimately the power it needs to make the word safer than it is today. The majority of Americans do not support your path on foreign policy. Are you failing by your own standard? ENTITY, I not only go back to the polls, but let me just say that throughout the first half of my presidency, polls consistently showed strong support for my foreign policy and -- But the public has to support it, does not it? One of the things we also realized during the course of five years is that, if the problems were easy, somebody else would have solved them already. And one of the great challenges of this job but one of the great privileges of this job is that, you know, you are tackling stuff that is really tough. And I am glad that, after five years, I am still here able to do it. We really only had a couple of shots at the goal. We have advanced from a nonfactor to being a solid middle -- we are a middle-of-the-pack team. But we are now in the mix. You get a sense that it is captured the popular imagination. I was surprised by how much this has broken through. My little girl -- my nine-year-old came up to me and asked to watch the game Sunday, but she does not seem much into TV, but everybody's talking about it. Well, if you think about it, part of it is what is happening with us as parents. You know, even kids who end up being basketball players or whatever, a lot of times their first sport is playing soccer. I will tell you, though, we have to -- there have been elements, which I will not detail, of our foreign policy that have had to be shaped around the World Cup. You know, certain phone calls, certain meetings, initiatives that we might roll out that we have had to think about.


Since your party's defeat in the election, you have made two major executive actions - one on immigration, one on Cuba. One of those might have been difficult to do before the election; the other surely would've been difficult to do before the election, which makes me wonder - is there some way in which that election just passed has liberated you? Keep in mind that all these issues are ones that we have been working on for some time. It took about a year to arrive at the Cuba policy that was announced yesterday, including extensive negotiations with the Cuban government, meetings with the Vatican, making sure that we had looked at all the policy ramifications. And I was persuaded that ultimately this would be good for the Cuban people and more likely to lead to a loosening up of the restrictions or oppression that exists there. With respect to immigration reform, obviously I'd been working on that for six years. But this was the moment when you could do those things? Well, I do - here is what I do think is true - that, um, I have spent six years now in this office. We have dealt with the worst economic and financial crisis since the Great Depression. We have dealt with international turmoil that we have not seen in - in a lot of years. And I said at the beginning of this year that 2014 would be a breakthrough year - and it was a bumpy path. But at the end of 2014, I could look back and say we are as well-positioned today as we have been in quite some time economically; that American leadership is more needed around the world than ever before - and that is liberating in the sense that a lot of the work that we have done is now beginning to bear fruit. And it gives me an opportunity then to start focusing on some of the other hard challenges that I did not always have the time or the capacity to get to earlier in my - earlier in my presidency. Can I think of you as shifting from things you had to do to things you more want to do? Think about how much energy was required for us to yank ourselves out of the economic circumstances we were in when I came into office. That was a big lift and it took up a lot of time. Health care, I believed, was profoundly important for the future of the country - a big lift with significant political cost - but we are now seeing that it is paid off.

Interview with Steve Inskeep of National Public Radio


Not only have more than 10 million people benefited from the marketplace exchanges that we set up, not only have millions more gotten health coverage through expanded Medicaid in those states that are willing to do it, but we have actually seen health care costs grow at the lowest pace in 50 years, which is part of why we have been able to bring down the deficit by two-thirds. On education, we really wanted to dig in and make sure that we started reforming a system that was not serving our kids well for the competitive 21st century environment. So, these were all big structural shifts that we had to do. I could - I put immigration on that list and was frustrated that we were not able to get legislation. And - and so, the executive action was, in some ways, just a first step in what I hope will be a continuing effort going forward. But it - what is true is that I am in a position now where, with the economy relatively strong, with us having lowered the deficit, with us having strong growth and job growth, for the first time us starting to see wages ticking up, with inflation low, with energy production high - now I have the ability to focus on some long-term projects, including making sure that everybody is benefiting from this growth and not just some. And on the international front, you know, even as we are managing ISIL and trying to roll them back and ultimately defeat them, even as we have been executing the draw down in Afghanistan in a responsible way, the moves like the Cuba diplomatic initiative are ones that I want to make sure I continue to pursue partly because, frankly, a - it is easier for ENTITY to do at the end of his term than a new president coming in. You were able to start Cuba without Congress; able to start on immigration without Congress. Each of those issues cannot be fully resolved without Congress. Is there anything that you personally intend to do differently in your ap-proach to Congress in hopes of getting better results in your final two years than you have on some occasions in the past? I can always do better in every aspect of my job and congressional relations is not exempt from that. I am obviously frustrated with the results of the midterm election. I think we had a great record for members of Congress to run on and I - I do not think we - myself and the Democratic Party made as good of a case as we should have.


And, you know, as a consequence, we had really low voter turnout and the results were bad. On the other hand, now you have got Republicans in a position where it is not enough for them simply to grind the wheels of Congress to a halt and then blame me. They are going to be in a position in which they have to show that they can responsibly govern, given that they have significant majorities in both chambers. And, you know, what I have said repeatedly is that I want to work with them; I want to get things done. I do not have another election to run. There are going to be areas where we agree and I am going to be as aggressive as I can be in getting legislation passed that I think help move the economy forward and help middle class families. There are going to be some areas where we disagree and, you know, I have not used the veto pen very often since I have been in office, partly because legislation that I objected to was typically blocked in the Senate even after the House took over - Republicans took over the House. Now I suspect there are going to be some times where I have got to pull that pen out. And I am going to defend gains that we have made in health care; I am going to defend gains that we have made on environment and clean air and clean water. But what I am hopeful about, and - and we saw this so far at least in the lame duck - is a recognition by both Speaker Boehner and Mitch McConnell that people are looking to them to get things done and that the fact that we disagree on one thing should not prohibit us from getting - getting progress on the areas where there is some overlap. Well, let me figure out if there is overlap on immigration. In an interview in August, you described the Republican Party as being captive to nativist elements of the party. What did you mean by that and can you work with people who you think of in that way? Well, on immigration, I probably cannot ; I am - Steve King and I fundamentally disagree on immigration. If - if - if your view is that immigrants are either fundamentally bad to the country or that we actually have the option of deporting 11 million immigrants, regardless of the disruptions, regardless of the cost and that that is who we are as Americans, I reject that.


On the other hand, I think that there are a lot of Republicans who recognize that not only do we need to fix a broken immigration system, strengthen our borders and streamline the legal immigration system, but that we have to show realism, practicality and insist on accountability from those who are here illegally and that the best way to do that is to provide them a path to get legal - paying a fine, submitting to background checks and so forth. I - I think the Republican Party contains a lot of legislators who recognize that; and we know that because those folks voted for a comprehensive bill in the Senate that in many ways was more generous than I was able to offer through executive action. So - so, the question then becomes, by me having taken these actions, does that spur those voices in the Republican Party who I think genuinely believe immigration is good for our country? Does it spur them to work once again with Democrats and my administration to get a reasonable piece of legislation done? Or does it simply solidify what I do think is - is a nativist trend in parts of the Republican Party? And - and if it is the latter, then probably we are not going to get much more progress done and it'll be a major debate in the next presidential election. I think that if a Republican lawmaker was sitting here, he might say, Wait a minute. I am not captive to nativist elements. I have actual concerns and you are not addressing them. Well, the problem is what are those concerns and - and how is it that I am not addressing them? If - if the concern is border security, we have got more resources, more border police, more money being spent at our borders than any time in the last 30, 40 years. If the concern is the flow of illegal workers into the country, that flow is about half of what it was and is lower than any time since the 1970s. So, you know, you have to describe specifically what are the concerns that you have got. If you are concerned that somehow immigrants - illegal immigrants are a drain on resources and forcing, you know, Americans to - to pay for services for these folks, well, every study shows that is just not the case. Generally, these folks do not use a lot of services and my executive action specifically is crafted so that they are not a drain on taxpayers; instead, they are going to be paying taxes, and we can make sure that they are.


So, you know, they'd have to identify for me specifically what those concerns are other than some sense that, you know, these folks should - just should not be here. Is the United States more racially divided than it was when you took office six years ago, ENTITY? No, I actually think that it is probably in its day-to-day interactions less racially divided. But I actually think that the issue has surfaced in a way that probably is healthy. I mean, the - the issue of police and communities of color being mistrustful of each other is hardly new; that dates back a long time. It is just something that has not been talked about - and for a variety of reasons. In some cases, something as simple as the fact that everybody has cell phones now so that you can record some of these events, you know, it is gotten a lot of attention; I think that is good. I think it then points to our ability to solve these problems. It is understandable the polls might say, you know, that race relations have gotten worse - because when it is in the news and you see something like Ferguson or the Garner case in New York, then it attracts attention. But I - I assure you, from the perspective of African Americans or Latinos in poor communities who have been dealing with this all their lives, they would not suggest somehow that it is worse now than it was 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Well, let me mention a couple of data points that perhaps do not suggest it is worse but suggest a broad gulf. One has to do with Ferguson... Which you alluded to. There is a case where there was a grand jury investigation that was released; there were thousands of pages of testimony; people went around reading them - I certainly did. And in the end, surveys showed that majorities of white people thought the grand jury was right not to indict the officer who shot Michael Brown; majorities of African Americans found the grand jury was wrong. How do you lead the country when people see the basic facts so profoundly differently? Not new, but how do you deal with it in your final... I - I think that the fact that there is a conversation about it and that there are tools out there that we know can make a difference in bridging those gaps of understanding and - and - and mistrust; should - should make us optimistic.


You know, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, I passed a racial profiling bill. From the perspective of African Americans, yeah, there was a common, you know, phenomenon called driving while black - that you were more likely to be stopped particularly in certain jurisdictions. If you'd asked whites in those jurisdictions do you think traffic stops were done fairly, the majority of whites probably would say yes because it is not something they experi-ence. It is not because of racism; it is just that it is not something that they see. We were able to work with the police departments and the state police in Illinois and persuade them that they would be doing a better job policing if we just kept track so that we had data. And combined with training, suddenly those officers out there are more intentional about how they decide should I stop somebody or not. And the incidents of racial profiling went down. The same is true with a lot of these issues. If you have good policing - I guarantee you that nobody's interested more in good policing than African American community or Latino community because they are more likely to be victimized, if they are in low income communities, by crime. And the task force that I have put together is drawing from police and faith community and civic leaders and activists - and what is been striking to me in the conversations we have had is - is that they are interested in solving a problem as opposed to simply stewing in the hopelessness of race relations in this country. And - and - and I am convinced that we actually are going to see progress on this issue next year. Let me ask about another data point that reflects on the Democratic Party that you will want to leave behind in a... Couple of years - and this is something that has changed in recent years. As everybody knows, the coalition that is elected you twice included huge minority participation - record minority participation. You had huge percentages... The white vote for Democrats has gone down to rather dramatic levels, which suggests a political division between races that is different than it used to be. So, when I was elected in '08, I actually did better among white voters in some jurisdictions than John Kerry did. 2012, it might have dipped, but it was still on par with what had happened before.


In the midterms because of the nature of the electorate, it tends to exaggerate some of these racial differences - I guess my point being that I think it ebbs and flows in part given circumstances. I do think that right now there are a lot of white working class voters who have not seen enough progress economically in their own lives, and despite the work that we have done to try to strengthen the economy and address issues like child care or minimum wage or increasing manufacturing, that is not what they read about or hear about in the newspapers. They hear about an immigration debate or they hear about, you know, debate surrounding Ferguson, and they think, I am being left out. Nobody seems to be thinking about how tough it is for me right now, or I have been down-scaled, I have lost my job, et cetera. You know, part of my responsibility then is to communicate directly to those voters. And part of the Democratic Party's job is to communicate directly to those voters and say to them, You know what? We are fighting for you. And one of the best examples of this is the Affordable Care Act, which - if you were just looking at the way it is been couched and characterized by the Republican Party, and in some cases by the news, the perception is somehow that this is largely something that is benefiting black and Hispanic and downscale voters. Well, the truth of the matter is that a state like Kentucky that does not have a massive black or Hispanic population has been one of the strongest states - Mitch McConnell's state's one of the best states in using the Affordable Care Act to insure huge numbers of working class white voters. It is just they do not call it Obamacare; they call it something else. And - and so, there is sometimes a gap in perceptions that we have to bridge. I think there is a legitimate sense of loss, particularly among men, who have seen manufacturing diminish; construction has been in the tank. The jobs that are out there are not ones that are traditionally jobs that, you know, blue collar men aspire to. And, you know, we have got to speak to those concerns. Now, the flip side is, you know, nobody would - would be happier than me to see the Republican Party try to broaden its coalition. Immigration reform, by the way, was a great opportunity for the - for the Republican Party to do so.


The fact that I got - I have received 75 percent of the Latino vote and 70 percent of the Asian American vote in the last two elections is something that the Republican Party should worry about because it is actually fixable for them. George Bush - I disagreed with a lot of issues. But he was absolutely right in his position on - on promoting comprehensive immigration reform, reaching out to the Latino community, and as a consequence, did pretty well. So - so, some of this I think is - is a matter of circumstance. There is a burden on Democrats to need to make very clear to a broad swath of working class and middle class voters that we are, in fact, fighting for them. And there is also an obligation on the part of the Republican Party to make sure that they are broadening their coalition to reach out to the new face of America. Let me ask a few questions, ENTITY, about America's place in the world and how you see it and how you'd like to move it if you can in the last couple of years that you have. We are speaking at a moment after you have announced that you are restoring diplomatic relations with Cuba. You want to reopen an embassy there. Is there any scenario under which you can envision, in your final two years, opening a U.S. embassy in Tehran? I - I never say never, but I think these things have to go in steps. You know, Cuba is a circumstance in which for 50 years, we have done the same thing over and over again and there had not been any change. And the question was, should we try something different with a relatively tiny country that does not pose any significant threat to us or our allies? Tehran is a large, sophisticated country that has a track record of state-sponsored ter-rorism, that we know was attempting to develop a nuclear weapon, or at least the component parts that would be required to develop a nuclear weapon; that has engaged in disruptions to our allies; whose rhetoric is not only explicitly anti-American but also has been incendiary when it comes to its attitude towards the state of Israel. So, there is a lot of history there that is different from the history between us and Cuba. And the strategic importance of - of Tehran is - or Iran is different from what we face with Cuba.


Having said that, if we can get a deal on making sure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon - and that deal is possible; we know the terms of what that would look like. If Iran recognizes that it is in its own interests, having already said that they are actually not interested in developing a nuclear weapon, to go ahead and prove that to the world, so that over time as it is verified, sanctions are removed, their economy begins to grow, they are reintegrated into the international community - if we can take that big first step, then my hope would be that that would serve as the basis for us trying to improve relations over time. You know, I was asked very early in my - my presidential race back in 2007 - would I meet with these various rogue regimes? And what I said then remains true. If I thought it advances American interests, yes; I believe in diplomacy, I believe in dialogue, I believe in engagement. But in order for us to I think open that aperture with respect to Iran, we have to get this nuclear issue resolved - and there is a chance to do it and the question's going to be whether or not Iran is willing to seize it. I think there are elements inside of Iran that recognize the opportunity and want to take it; I think there is some hardliners inside of Iran that are threatened by a resolution of this because they are so invested politically and emotionally in being anti-American or anti-Western that - that it is frightening for them to - to open themselves up to the world in this way. That raises a word that I want to bring up that former Secretary of State Clinton used in a speech the other day. She was criticized for talking about empathy - having empathy or understanding for even enemies around the world. There are, though, military people who use empathy for the enemy, by which they mean not sympathy but understanding the enemy so you can... Do you feel that you have sufficient empathy for the Iranians, meaning do you feel you understand what it is they need to get a deal done and is it possible? I think we do because if you - if you look at the negotiations as they have proceeded, what we have said to the Iranians is that we are willing to recognize your ability to develop a modest nuclear power program for your energy needs - that there is a way of doing that that nevertheless gives the world assurances that you do not have breakout capacity.


And, you know, Iran suffered from a terrible war with Iraq in which millions of their countrymen were lost. They have legitimate defense concerns - but those have to be separated out from the adventurism, the support of organizations like Hezbollah, the threats they have directed towards Israel. And - and so, on the one hand, you need to understand what their legitimate needs and concerns are. On the other end, you do not need to tolerate or make excuses for positions that they have taken that violate international law, are contrary to U.S. interests, are contrary to the interests of our allies. They have got a chance to get right with the world. This is not just about us. I mean, there is a reason why we have been able to get this far in the negotiations. We mobilized the international community at the start of my presidency - a classic example of American leadership. The sanctions worked because we did not just get our usual allies' support of this; we got China in support of it; we have Russia that still is supportive of the position that the P5+1 has taken in negotiations. So, when I came into office, the world was divided and Iran was in the driver's seat. Now the world's united because of the actions we have taken and Iran's the one that is isolated. They have a path to break through that isolation and they should seize it. Because if they do, there is incredible talent and resources and sophistication inside of - inside of Iran and it would be a very successful regional power that was also abiding by international norms and international rules - and that would be good for everybody. That would be good for the United States, that would be good for the region, and most of all, it would be good for the Iranian people. One other question, ENTITY - in a speech in September, you spoke of the United States' legacy of freedom, is the phrase that you used. You spoke of preserving that and wanting to extend it. I want to ask about efforts to extend the idea of freedom or democracy around the world, particularly in the Middle East. You disagreed with invading Iraq partly to de-mocratize that country. You had your own efforts - and Egypt has not turned out very well... It came full circle and it is back under military rule. Libya's in chaos; Syria's in chaos; Tunisia is maybe the only thing that has arguably come out of the...


Do you feel that you understand proper and potentially successful ways to extend democracy in the Middle East over your final two years? I think it is important to distinguish between the actions that we take to promote democracy and human rights and rule of law and good governance and the humility to understand that, in the end, these things are going to happen because the people in these countries demand them. Let me just move out of the Middle East momentarily and then we will swing back. This is one of the most isolated countries for the last 40 years, ruled by a brutal, repressive military junta. We seized that opportunity. We engaged with Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Prize winner, but we also engaged with President Sein, who saw that Burma was traveling down a dead end. They had parliamentary elections for the first time. They are now preparing to amend their constitution and schedule broader parliamentary elections. And there are all kinds of troubles in Burma; the experiment may go haywire. They may not be able to reconcile all the different ethnic groups inside the country; the military ultimately may not be willing to give up its prerogatives and its power. Now, we want to be on the side of those who can take advantage of that opportunity. I feel very confident, very good about the work we are doing there. But I cannot guarantee success because ultimately it is going to be up to the Burmese people and Burmese leaders to seize this moment. The Middle East, I think, is - is similar, but in some ways even more difficult. Because you have this counter-narrative in the Middle East in which a sizable portion of Islamic extremists have been able to penetrate the imaginations of young people there; you have govern - governments that oftentimes are creaky, do not serve their people, are repressive; you do not have a civic tradition there. And so, you have to almost start from scratch in many of these countries. What we can do is to be opportunistic and find places where somebody's ready and willing to move forward and do everything we can to help - and Tunisia's a great example of that. Not perfect - still dangerous, still troublesome; but you have seen a civil society develop, elections take place, a constitution get drafted, Islamists being willing to be involved in the political process without trying to take it over completely and accommodations to the fact that economic and social reforms are required for that country to succeed.


You have not seen it in Libya; it is broken off into tribal elements. Which raises a question - is there a responsibility by the United States to do more in Libya, having been involved in... I - I think that the challenge that we are going to have is a recognition that we are hugely influential; we are the one indispensable nation. But when it comes to nation-building, when it comes to what is going to be a generational project in a place like Libya or a place like Syria or a place like Iraq, we can help, but we cannot do it for them. Now, I think the American people recognize that. There are times here in Washington where pundits do not ; they think you can just move chess pieces around the table. And whenever we have that kind of hubris, we tend to get burned. Where we are successful is where we see an opportunity, we put resources in, we support those who are trying to do the right thing for their society; and every so often, something breaks. But - but I think that one of the things I have learned over six years, and it does not always suit the news cycle, is having some strategic patience. You will recall that three or four months ago, everybody in Washington was convinced that President Putin was a genius... And he had outmaneuvered all of us and he had, you know, bullied and, you know, strategized his way into expanding Russian power. And I said at the time we do not want war with Russia but we can apply steady pressure working with our European partners, being the backbone of an international coalition to oppose Russia's violation of another country's sovereignty, and that over time, this would be a strategic mistake by Russia. And today, you know, I'd - I'd sense that at least outside of Russia, maybe some people are thinking what Putin did was not so smart. Are you just lucky that the price of oil went down and therefore their cur-rency collapsed or... Is it something that you did? And part of our rationale in this process was that the only thing keeping that economy afloat was the price of oil.


And if, in fact, we were steady in applying sanction pressure, which we have been, that over time it would make the - the economy of Russia sufficiently vulnerable that if and when there were disruptions with respect to the price of oil - which inevitably, there are going to be sometime, if not this year then next year or the year after - that they'd have enormous difficulty managing it. I - I say that, not to suggest that we have solved Ukraine, but I am saying that to - to give an indication that when it comes to the international stage, these problems are big, they are difficult, they are messy. But wherever we have been involved over the last several years, I think the outcome has been better because of American leadership. Because of American leadership, not only have we not seen another Ebola case here in the United States - and when we do, we will be prepared for it - but internationally, resources, medics, testing, science has poured into poor countries. We are practically rebuilding their public health infrastructure because of our leadership. It does not happen in two weeks; it does not happen in - in four weeks. But if we are steady about it and we are focused and we are clear that we possess capacities as well as values that require us to engage, that we will be successful. Just to wrap this up with this idea that you began with, of doing things that you want to do rather than... Have to do, has your limited response to ISIS in Iraq and Syria been driven in part by a sense that this is a very dangerous threat, but not the biggest problem the United States faces in the world, and you do not want to be distracted from far bigger things going on elsewhere? I think we cannot underestimate the danger of ISIL. They are a terrorist network that, unlike Al Qaeda, has not limited itself to the periodic attack but have aspirations to control large swaths of territory, that possess resources and effectively an army that pose great dangers to our allies and can destabilize entire regions that are very dangerous for us. So, I - I do not want to downplay that threat. It is a real one; it is the reason why I have authorized, as part of a broader 60 nation coalition, an effort to fight back and to push them back and ultimately destroy them. America is probably as well positioned for the future as we have been in a very long time.


We have created more jobs since I have been ENTITY than Japan, Europe and every other advanced nation combined. Our energy resources, both conventional and clean energy resources, put most other of our competitors to shame. Demographically, we have got a young population, in part because of immigration. We have got the best universities in the world; we have got the best workers in the world. Our manufacturing base has come roaring back, led by the auto industry, but not restricted by it. Our deficits I have cut by two-thirds. And so, if you look out towards the future, America is in a great position and our military is more capable than any military in history. We do not really have a serious peer, at least on the conventional level, although obviously Russia is a - is a significant nuclear power. The question then becomes, alright, how do we play those cards well? Part of it is at-tending to immediate problems like ISIL; part of it is making sure that we are firm in upholding international norms as we have been in Ukraine; part of it is managing short-term crises that could turn into long-term disasters if we are not attentive, like Ebola. But ultimately, the thing that is most dangerous for the United States is us not tending to the very sources of our strength. So, it is true that when it comes to ISIL, us devoting another trillion dollars after having been involved in big occupations of countries that did not turn out all that well - I am very hesitant to do that because we need to spend a trillion dollars rebuilding our schools, our roads, our basic science and research here in the United States; that is going to be a recipe for our long-term security and success. And what we have also learned is that if we do for others what they need to do for themselves - if we come in and send the Marines in to fight ISIL and the Iraqis have no skin in the game, then it is not going to last. When we look at an issue like Ukraine, we have to be firm with the Russians but we have also got to make sure that we have got our own fiscal house in order; we got to make sure that we are doing what we need to do to build our manufacturing base because ultimately, the big advantage we have with Russia is we have got a dynamic, vital economy, and they do not . They rely on oil; we rely on oil and iPads and movies and you name it.


On immigration, Valerie Jarrett was quoted in Las Vegas as saying that there is a window between now and August to get immigration overhaul done. And she says, We have a commitment from Speaker Boehner, who is very frustrated with his caucus. And in a tweet today, Valerie herself said that this was lost in translation and that she actually meant that it was a commitment to trying. But I guess the question is -- a commitment to trying what and when? Speaker Boehner, other House Republican leaders and leading Republicans outside of the House of Representatives have all expressed deep interest in moving forward on immigration reform. And we have found those comments and that interest to be encouraging and indicative of some movement among Republicans in the House towards support for comprehensive immigration reform. What the President has said and others have said is that the opportunity before us is something very rare and we ought to seize it here in Washington, all of us. The House ought to follow the Senate's lead and pass comprehensive immigration reform. In the Senate, a comprehensive bill passed with Democratic and Republican support. Republicans across the country, business leaders across the country, faith leaders and law enforcement leaders across the country are behind this effort. They recognize that passing comprehensive immigration reform will provide a huge boost to our economy, to our security, to principles of fairness. And for those reasons we ought to move forward, and what we hope is that the House will move. And that is a message that Valerie was carrying and that we have all been carrying for some time now. Is the suggestion here that if does not happen by August, or at the end of August -- have an August recess -- that the President will take matters into his own hands, he has some authority to do some things -- that we do something beyond just tweaking the margins? Well, I am not going to speculate about the future. What we have always said will always remain true, which is comprehensive immigration reform requires action by Congress. The President is always interested in moving the ball forward on his agenda where he can, even if Congress refuses to act. But there are some things that require congressional action, and this is one of them. So the Senate acted in this Congress, and has put a bill forward that enjoys broad bipartisan support across the country in communities and among interest groups that do not often get together behind the same priority.

Barack Obama Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney


And we hope that Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Chairman Ryan and others hear all the voices of support, including traditional Republican voices, traditional conservative voices for comprehensive immigration reform and move forward with it. That is what Valerie was talking about. That is what the President has talked about and I have talked about and others. We should get this done for our economy. We should get this done for our security. We should get this done because it will allow us to innovate more here in this country in ways that will build our economy and create high-paying jobs in this country. So the opportunity is there for the taking, and we hope that the Speaker and other Republican leaders in the House avail themselves of the opportunity. A question on Ukraine -- reports today of pro-Russian insurgents pulling out of buildings, government buildings in the city of Mariupol. And this is because steelworkers employed by one of the wealthiest men in Ukraine are patrolling the streets with police officers. I am wondering, is that a welcome development at the White House? Or is there a concern that the government in Kyiv is relying on oligarchs to essentially run the government in these tense regions? Well, I am not sure that is how I would interpret the story that you are referring to. We certainly welcome any indication that separatists that have seized buildings, who have set up roadblocks, stockpiled weapons, are vacating buildings and ceasing the kinds of activities that have only destabilized the situation in Ukraine and led to confrontations and violence. And the fact that significant portions of the population in Ukraine, including in eastern Ukraine, do not support the agenda of Russian-backed separatists but support a united Ukraine and support a process by which decisions around constitutional reform and devolution of power from the center are made in an appropriate way -- that is a good thing. These are the kinds of issues that the Ukrainian government in Kyiv has promised will be discussed in dialogue with Ukrainians from all parts of the country at roundtables that are facilitated by the OSCE. And all of this comes as we move closer now to a presidential election on May 25. And our focus and the focus of the OSCE and the Ukrainian government and all of our partners in this effort is on ensuring that those elections are able to go forward. And the OSCE has reported that the preparations, the technical preparations for the elections are proceeding well.


Separatists have disrupted preparations in some isolated areas of Donetsk and Luhansk, but in the vast majority of the country, as you know, Jim, the situation is calm and preparations are on track. ENTITY, General Motors was assessed a $35 million fine today over its ignition switch issues. I have not discussed it with him. I would refer you to obviously the agency involved here, the Department of Transportation and the National Highway Safety and Traffic -- NTSB, whatever that acronym stands for. But they are the bodies that you should address questions about it to. Has he been following that issue? Well, he is certainly broadly been following it. It is been an issue that is received a lot of attention, understandably. But in terms of that process, that is not something that I would have a lot to say about. You have talked a lot about the issue with China and Vietnam, and wanting that to be resolved in a way that is diplomatic and without provocation. Do you want China to move the oil tanker? Here is what I'd say about that -- and I appreciate the question. First of all, we are closely following, out of our mission to Vietnam, the protests in Vietnam around this issue. But regarding the broader issue of China's unilateral decision to introduce an oil rig accompanied by numerous government vessels for the first time in waters disputed with Vietnam, we would say what we have said repeatedly, which is this is a provocative act and it raises tensions in the region, and by raising tensions makes it more difficult to resolve claims over disputed territory in a manner that supports peace and stability in the region. So we consider that act provocative and we consider it one that undermines the goal that we share, which is a peaceful resolution of these disputes and general stability in the region. We are very concerned about dangerous conduct and intimidation by government-controlled assets operating in this area. And we call on all parties to conduct themselves in a safe and professional manner to preserve freedom of navigation and overflight, to exercise restraint, to take steps to lower tensions, and to address competing sovereignty claims peacefully and in accordance with international law. As you know, sovereignty over these islands, the Paracel Islands, is disputed. This is occurring in waters claimed by both Vietnam and China near those islands. These events highlight the need for claimants to clarify their claims in accordance with international law and to reach agreement on appropriate behavior and activities in disputed areas.