[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 36, Number 46 (Monday, November 20, 2000)]
[Pages 2876-2883]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Interview With Terence Hunt and Walter M. Mears of the Associated Press

November 14, 2000

Impact of 2000 Election

    Q. Why don't we start with the election? Do you think either Vice 
President Gore or Governor Bush is going to be able to govern 
effectively in a situation as divided and increasingly embittered as it 
is now?
    The President. I think it's too soon to draw that conclusion. I 
think the American people are pretty good about uniting around a 
President, particularly if the President gets a certain grace period. 
And I don't think that the circumstances are as rife, or ripe, for 
discord as they were in '93, where Newt Gingrich was in control and--the 
Republican apparatus in the Congress--and had a certain theory about 
what he was trying to do. I think now the country may be quite sobered 
by this, and the Congress may be somewhat sobered by it. You might well 
find that there is a real willingness to work together.
    The fact that the American people were closely divided on the 
candidates for President, and would have been closely divided even if 
Ralph Nader weren't in here, the Vice President would have won the 
election probably, what, 51.5 to 48.5 or something. That indicates that 
the American people--I don't think that means that they don't believe 
there's a dynamic center that can be achieved. And I think that's what 
they will want from the next President and from the next Congress. So I 
think it's too soon to say that bitterness and partisanship will 
paralyze the next President. We don't know that, and I hope it won't be 
the case.
    This is actually, if you think about it, while it was a hard-fought 
campaign, there wasn't a lot of personal criticism in it--some from the 
Republican side against the Vice President but not nearly as harsh as 
we've seen in some campaigns of the past and even less from the 
Democratic side against Governor Bush. There was some, but not much. I 
think, on balance, it was an election fought out over two different 
approaches to the country's challenges and opportunities and different 
positions on specific issues. So I don't think we are necessarily doomed 
to 4 years of stalemate and partisanship, and I hope that won't be the 
case.
    Q. People are talking about the--some people were even saying the 
election is being stolen, and there's all this bitterness, suits. You 
don't think that that poisons the atmosphere?
    The President. Well, I think that depends on what happens in the 
next few days. And so far what I've tried to tell the American people 
is, they have spoken, and we're trying to determine what they said. I 
think there's another million or so votes to be counted in California, 
New York, and Washington State, maybe even a little more. I guess still 
the--some prospect of asking for a recount in Iowa and Wisconsin by the 
Bush people.
    And then there's the attempt to resolve all the questions that are 
out there about the Florida vote. And I think we just--you know, the 
process is underway. Both sides are clearly very equally represented. 
And I just think we ought to let the thing play out. It will work itself 
out in some way or another. We've had this happen before. In 1800 Thomas 
Jefferson was elected in a very divisive, highly partisan election and 
went into the House of Representatives. I think he even had to vote on 
the fitness of the electors. He was a sitting Vice President. You know, 
he gave a very conciliatory Inaugural Address, saying, ``We are all 
Federalists; we're all Republicans,'' and led to a whole new era in 
American politics, out of what was an exceedingly divisive election. He 
was reelected, and Mr. Madison was elected, served two terms; Mr. Monroe 
was elected, served two terms. It was actually probably the most stable 
period in our country's history, in terms of leadership, born out of an 
exceedingly divisive election in 1800.
    So I think it depends upon whether the people believe that this 
whole thing plays out in a fair way. So that's why I've encouraged the 
American people to just relax, take a deep breath, recognize that a 
result of this kind is always possible in a democratic election that's 
hard-fought, and that the most important thing is that, when it's all 
said and done, that people believe that all the issues were resolved in 
a fair way and that the people--franchise was protected and the 
integrity of the process was. It's unfolding. We just--and

[[Page 2877]]

I think as long as it--I just think that's what we ought to keep in mind 
here.
    There's lots of time, you know. The Electoral College is not 
supposed to meet until December 18th; Inauguration is January 21st. It's 
a very stable country, and they're working through it, and we'll see 
what happens.

Court Involvement

    Q. Are you comfortable with the courts being as heavily involved as 
they're becoming? Should a judge decide whose vote counts and whose 
doesn't?
    The President. I think, in some of these cases, there may not be any 
alternative, because the right to vote is protected and defined in both 
State and Federal law. There's probably no alternative here.
    Now, in the first case, I understand today the judge actually 
declined to get involved. Isn't that right?
    Q. Yes, she would not stay the hand-counting.
    The President. I think that the courts probably will be reluctant to 
be involved as long as they believe that nothing--there's been no legal 
or constitutional infringement on the franchise. We'll just see what 
happens.
    Q. The Vice President has gone back to court against the secretary 
of state's ruling that it has to be done by 5 p.m. tomorrow.
    The President. Like I said, I've done my best not to comment on the 
process but just to say it's unfolding; both sides are well represented; 
they're arguing their points strongly. We should not expect either side 
to do anything less than to make their strongest case. That's what 
they're supposed to do.

Electoral College

    Q. Do you agree with Senator-elect Clinton that the Electoral 
College should be abolished?
    The President. Well, I have mixed feelings about it. I think the 
idea--first of all, it was established to some extent for practical 
reasons, as you know, in the 18th century, and the practical reasons are 
no longer relevant. You know, we know how people voted when they vote. 
So nobody has to come tell us.
    The other argument is that it gives some more weight to the small 
States, because the votes are not proportional to the House of 
Representatives; every State gets the two Senate votes, too, in the 
Electoral College. And arguably, it gets more attention from the 
candidates to the small States.
    Now, I think that ought to be examined. I'm not necessarily sure 
that's so. For example, if you're a Democrat and you know you're going 
to lose every State that's not on the Mississippi River, until you get 
to California, Washington, Oregon, and maybe Nevada, Arizona, New 
Mexico, would you not go there? Would you be any less likely to go there 
if there were no Electoral College? Or might you take a run through the 
high plains and stop in Denver and think that it matters what margin you 
lose by?
    Because what happens is, when these candidates have public funds--
they have limited funds and limited time--it affects not only their 
advertising budget but their travel budget. If you're a Republican and 
you know you can't win New York, you don't go there. But if you knew 
that it might make the difference in whether you got 35 or 42 percent of 
the vote--in this case, if you're Al Gore and you don't think you're 
going to win Ohio, it might make the difference in 46 and 49 percent of 
the vote--might you go?
    So I don't--I'm not quite sure. Again, I believe how this plays out 
will determine it--not only my opinion about it but maybe a lot of 
people's opinion about it.
    Q. Do you expect there to be a serious move? I mean, do you think 
that there is----
    The President. I don't have any idea. I know that Hillary feels 
strongly about it, and it has really nothing to do with the fact that 
she's a Senator-elect from New York now. But you can ask her why she 
feels that way.
    I have mixed feelings. I think that, you know, certainty and clarity 
of outcome is important, so I think it depends on--I think that a lot of 
people's views will be determined by the sense they have about the 
fairness and adequacy of this process over the next however long it 
takes to resolve. And we'll just have to see.

[[Page 2878]]

Presidential Transition

    Q. Do you think it's appropriate at this point for either Governor 
Bush or the Vice President to be planning a transition?
    The President. I don't think I should comment on what they do. I 
don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on that.

Resolution of 2000 Election

    Q. Do you think that this is going to be resolved by the time you 
get back to Washington next Monday? Do you think it should be resolved 
by then? And at what point do you think Americans begin to lose faith in 
the outcome?
    The President. I don't know whether it will be resolved when I get 
back. I don't have an opinion about that.
    I think the important thing is that the process be resolved in a way 
that is as fair as possible, meaning that the American people on both 
sides of this have the highest possible level of confidence that the 
people who went to the polls and voted--that the totals reflect, as far 
as possible, a fair assessment of the people who went to the polls and 
voted.
    And I think that, you know, there are lots of questions out there, 
and I don't think I should comment on it. There is a process in place. 
They are both arguing their points strongly, as they both should. And I 
think that's the most important thing, more than whether it's one week 
or 8 days or 6 days or 12 days or whatever.
    Q. Given how far we've come, do you think it's possible that we're 
going to come out of this and people are going to think it was fair, 
with all the angry charges that are going back and forth and the court 
challenges?
    The President. First of all, this is not just a matter of charges; 
there are certain facts. And I think the facts will come out and be 
established, and then the disputes about how the factual situation 
should be handled will be resolved, and people will reach a conclusion 
about whether they believe that or not.
    I think it's quite possible that people will think in the end that 
the matter has been fairly resolved. They may or may not. I certainly 
hope that they will. But I think it depends upon what the facts are and 
then how the facts are resolved.
    But again I say, this process is still in play. I don't think the 
American people should--and I don't think the press should rush to 
judgment here and just conclude that no matter who is declared the 
winner that the people who voted for the other candidate will think that 
something wrong was done. I think it depends on how it is handled and 
what the facts are.
    Q. Sir, what's your outside timetable, and what's a reasonable 
amount of time?
    The President. I just don't want to comment on it because I don't 
want to prejudice the process. That would be unfair to both candidates 
for me to say. I think my role now is to uphold the basic principles of 
democracy and the integrity of the vote and to ask the American people 
to give this process a chance to play itself out.

Vietnam

    Q. Moving on to your major stop on this trip, Vietnam. In 1969, 
which was the last year an American President went to Vietnam, you wrote 
a letter saying you hated and despised the war and had worked and 
demonstrated against it.
    Now that you've been in the position of making decisions of war and 
peace, do you still feel that way about Vietnam?
    The President. What I feel about Vietnam is that, thanks in large 
measure to the bipartisan leadership of Vietnam veterans in the 
Congress--Bob Kerrey, John Kerry, John McCain, Chuck Robb, and Pete 
Peterson, when he was there, now is our Ambassador--the American people 
have been able to look to the future and hope that a future can be built 
which opens a new page in our relations with Vietnam, and hopefully one 
that will put an end to the divisions between the Vietnamese people and 
the American people and between the American--within America and within 
Vietnam and within the Vietnamese people, including the Vietnamese who 
are in America, who believed in what we were doing.
    That's what I think. Now, when we look back on it, the most 
important thing is that a lot of brave people fought and died in the 
North Vietnamese Army, the Viet Cong and the South Vietnamese Army and 
the United States Army; our allies, the Republic of

[[Page 2879]]

Korea and other allies who were there. A lot of people still bear the 
wounds of war in this country and in Vietnam. And the best thing that we 
can do to honor the sacrifice and service of those who believed on both 
sides that what they were doing is right, is to find a way to build a 
different future, and that's what we're trying to do.
    Everything I have done for the last 8 years has been premised on 
that, starting with trying to obtain the fullest possible accounting for 
the POW's and the MIA's. And none of what I have done, as I say, would 
have been remotely possible if it hadn't been for John McCain and Chuck 
Robb and Senator Bob Kerrey and Senator John Kerry and Pete Peterson. 
They literally made this possible, they and the veterans groups and the 
Vietnamese living in America who all supported the American position in 
the war.
    So I think--I don't see this so much as coming to terms with the 
past as moving forward into the future.
    Q. Were there ever points when you were grappling with some of these 
questions in the past 8 years, when you thought about Lyndon Johnson 
facing those things in that very troubled period and having to make 
those decisions which, at the time, you very much disagreed with?
    The President. I see now how hard it was for him. I believe he did 
what he thought was right under the circumstances. Let me just say 
parenthetically, I'm glad to see that there is a reassessment going on 
about the historic importance of President Johnson's term of office, the 
work he did for the civil rights movement, the Civil Rights Act, the 
Voting Rights Act.
    Some people are even beginning to acknowledge that his war on 
poverty was not a total failure, that in fact poverty was reduced. In 
fact, we just this year finally had the biggest drop in child poverty 
since 1966, since Lyndon Johnson was President. And I believe that--you 
know, these decisions are hard. And one of the things that I have 
learned, too, is when you decide to employ force, there will always be 
unintended consequences.
    Q. You talked about all the losses on both sides, 3 million 
Vietnamese losses, 58,000 Americans. Were all those lives wasted?
    The President. Well, first of all, I don't think that any person is 
fit to make that judgment. People fight honorably for what they believe 
in, and they lose their lives. No one has a right to say that those 
lives were wasted. I think that would be a travesty.
    Every war is unfortunate, and when it's over, you always wish it 
could have been avoided. But I think it's a real mistake to look at it 
in that way. I think what we have to do is to think about what we can do 
today and tomorrow and in the years ahead to honor the sacrifice of the 
people who believed in what they were doing. And I think that for 8 
years that's been the policy of this country. And as I said, it had 
bipartisan support and absolutely critical support from leading veterans 
in the country--in the Congress and in the country.
    Q. Do you think the United States owes Vietnam an apology for its 
involvement in the war?
    The President. No, I don't.

MIA's/POW's

    Q. The MIA/POW question is very crucial to us and obviously has been 
through these 8 years. Do you have any feeling about the Vietnamese, who 
have many, many more people never accounted for after this year. Is 
there anything we can do to help them come to terms?
    The President. I think if there is anything that we can do to help 
them, we ought to do it. Of course, their people mostly died there, in 
their country. I think that we should always be in a position of doing 
whatever we can to help them get whatever information or records we 
might have to resolve anything on their front.
    They have let us look at tens of thousands of pages of archives and 
other pieces of evidence which have helped us to identify hundreds of 
remains and return them, and we're still working on it. And I think this 
is something we ought to keep doing together. I think this effort we 
have undertaken is what made it possible for the veterans groups and the 
families of the people who are still missing to support this step-by-
step advancement in our relationship. And I think it ought to be a two-
way street.

[[Page 2880]]

    Q. Do you have any reason to believe that any Americans remain in 
captivity in Vietnam, after the last American POW's were released in 
1973?
    The President. We have no evidence of it. I know there are people 
who still believe that may be the case. And all I can say is that every 
time we've gotten any lead, we've done our best to run it down 
completely, and we will continue to do that.
    Q. Nothing has panned out in any of these reported----
    The President. Nothing has panned out. You know, I'm like every 
other American, I think. I've always hoped against hope that a few of 
them were still there and still alive and that somehow we could find 
them. But so far all the rumors and all the leads have turned up dead 
ends. But I would never close the door on that. If there is ever any 
indication of anything else, I'd be glad to look into it, and I think 
any subsequent American Government would.

Vietnam-U.S. Relations

    Q. How would you describe Vietnam, in terms of its relationship with 
the United States? Where are we now? Friend? Partner? How would you 
describe the relationship?
    The President. I would say that our relationship is evolving. I 
think our work on the POW/MIA issue has been quite positive and has 
improved. I think the interviews that they have done of the people we've 
asked to be approved for relocation to the United States, they've 
improved that quite a bit in the last couple of years.
    I would say that the trade agreement is a very good thing, for the 
same reason I thought it was a good thing for us to make the trade 
agreement with China. It's not as extensive, and it requires year-by-
year renewal, and will do so until they meet all the terms of becoming 
members of the World Trade Organization. But it's a very positive thing.
    I hope that we will continue to see some progress there on the human 
rights issues. There are still political prisoners, religious prisoners 
that we feel should be released. And I hope they will continue to do 
that. We've had some--seen some movement there in the last year of the 
release of some of the Protestants and some Catholics from prison. And I 
think we have to just keep working on that. And then I hope there will 
be an opportunity for some educational exchanges. And eventually, I hope 
that some of the Vietnamese living in America will become part of our 
ongoing development of relationship, because I think that's kind of the 
next big step, I think, from our point of view.
    Q. What do you mean, that the Vietnamese community would become a 
bridge to their original home or--what do you mean?
    The President. I think that a lot of the Vietnamese living in 
America, as you know, or as I said, were basically people who were 
strongly supportive of the position the United States took in the 
Vietnam war, or their children. But the younger people also want to 
build a new relationship with Vietnam. They want to see Vietnam 
modernized. They want to be, I think, eventually reconciled with their 
relatives or the people that lived in their villages. And I think that 
over time, we'll see some more contacts there, and that will be 
positive.
    Q. Do you ever reflect on what it means for an American President 
now to go to the place that symbolized and distorted our politics? You 
know, for much of a generation--I mean, if you look at Watergate, 
Watergate could almost be traced to Vietnam. So much happened because of 
Vietnam. Is this a new chapter? Is this a closing of that door, do you 
think, in any way?
    The President. Well, I think it's a new chapter. The thing that 
makes America work over time is our ability to visualize new futures and 
achieve them.
    We don't need rose-colored glasses here. We still have differences 
with the Vietnamese about the form of government they have. But we've 
decided to approach them the same way we've approached China, the same 
way we deal with other countries with whom we have continuing 
differences.
    But I think there's a strong sense that it's time to write a new 
chapter here. This is, after all--this country, the 12th or 13th biggest 
country in the world. They have about nearly 80 million people, and 60 
percent of them are under 30, an enormous percentage of them under 18.

[[Page 2881]]

    Q. So they know of the war, but they didn't experience it the way we 
did.
    The President. What they know of the war is what they hear their 
parents talk about or what they'll learn in history books, the same way 
that our children do, those of us that are of that age. I think that 
what we want to do is give them a chance to--the Vietnamese a chance to 
find some greater prosperity, the global economy, and we believe it will 
bring greater openness to their society and a whole different future for 
them--a different relationship and a different relationship that will 
involve the Vietnamese who've come to our county and, on the whole, have 
done so very well in America and enriched our Nation.

Situation in the Middle East

    Q. I was going to ask you if there really is anything left to be 
done in the Middle East, whether diplomats can now cause what's 
happening in the streets to stop happening?
    The President. I think it depends on whether we can reduce the 
violence to the point where it's possible to resume negotiations.
    Q. Can you do that?
    The President. The unbelievable irony of the present situation is, 
with this level of violence is unfolding in the aftermath of the first 
serious discussion, official discussion that the Israelis and the 
Palestinians had, which occurred at Camp David on the serious, difficult 
final status issues of the Oslo agreement. And I might add, after Camp 
David, they continued to talk in informal ways. And they know that while 
there are still differences between them, they are agonizingly close to 
a resolution of these fundamental issues.
    I think they also know that violence begets violence and that in the 
end they're still going to be neighbors. So they're either going to keep 
killing each other at varying rates with one side feeling beleaguered, 
the Israelis, and the others feeling oppressed, the Palestinians, or 
they're going to come to grips with this and complete the process they 
agreed to complete when they signed the agreement on the White House 
lawn in September of 1993.
    So that's the frustration. The answer to your question is, yes, 
there's more that can be done, but I do not believe it can be done with 
this level of violence going on. I just don't think that's possible.
    Q. How do you get control of that--Sharm al-Sheikh, you weren't able 
to do it there. You've had these----
    The President. The Sharm al-Sheikh agreement was perfectly fine. It 
just hasn't been implemented. So that's why I saw Arafat and Barak this 
week, and I think within--in this coming week you'll see whether there 
is going to be any kind of effort to change course.
    You know, somebody has got to quit shooting. And I think the 
demonstrations in the daytime have gone down among the Palestinians, but 
the nighttime shooting hasn't. I think everyone understands now that it 
may not be possible for Chairman Arafat to control everything every 
Palestinian does immediately. It may not be possible for Prime Minister 
Barak to control everything every Israeli does immediately. But this 
thing can be reduced dramatically if they want to get back to the 
negotiating table. I think the Israelis will respond in kind if the 
Palestinian shootings will diminish now. You know, we had a rough day 
today, and the Palestinians said it was in retaliation for the shooting 
of the resistance leader the other day. We'll just have to see what 
happens.
    But the ironic answer to your question is, every time I talk to 
them, I come away more convinced that we could actually have an 
agreement if they could free themselves of this cycle of violence and 
get back to the negotiating table.
    And I think if they--I think there's a way to do it, and I'm going 
to try to see what we can do this week. That's all I can say. I'll do my 
best.
    Q. A secret plan? A Clinton secret plan?
    The President. No, I don't have a secret plan. I just think the more 
I talk about this sort of thing, the harder it is to do.

North Korea

    Q. We wanted to ask you about also North Korea. Did the missile 
talks fail in Malaysia--did they fail to give you what you wanted

[[Page 2882]]

to hear? How far apart is that, and what's the prospect of a trip there?
    The President. Well, we're making some progress, but we haven't 
resolved it all. We think it's quite important to work out an 
arrangement with them in which, one, we stop the missile development--
they stop the missile development and the sales of missiles. Now, they 
obviously need to earn some funds from some other places, and we think 
there are ways they can do that.
    Secondly, we want to keep the North-South dialog going. We strongly 
support what President Kim Dae-jung did with Chairman Chong-il. We think 
that was a good thing to do, and we think it ought to continue. And we 
want to also continue the agreement we made with them early in my term, 
which ended the nuclear development program, which when I became 
President, I was told by my predecessors that it was the most serious 
national security problem we were facing at the time.
    So I wouldn't rule out or in a trip, if that's where you're going on 
this. I just think the most important thing is that we're engaged with 
them and we're making constructive progress. And I hope we can make more 
before my tenure is over, because I think it will leave my successor an 
easier time.

President's Experience in Office

    Q. What's your greatest personal satisfaction of your 8 years, as 
you near the end of them? And what's your greatest personal 
disappointment?
    The President. Oh, that's hard to say; it's hard to say on both 
counts.
    My greatest personal satisfaction, I think, is that our country is 
in so much better shape than it was 8 years ago and not just 
economically. I think it's economically probably the strongest it has 
ever been, but it's also a more equal society. We have incomes rising at 
all levels for the first time in three decades. We have a big drop in 
poverty. We have a big drop in crime. We have the welfare rolls cut in 
half. We have fewer people without health insurance, for the first time 
in a dozen years.
    Performance of our students in the schools is getting better. We 
have more minority kids taking advanced placement courses and going on 
to college. And I think in each of these areas we've had policies which 
have contributed to this.
    We also have a real--I think there is more social cohesion, 
notwithstanding the division of this vote. We've got 150,000 kids 
serving in AmeriCorps, more than served in the Peace Corps in the first 
20 years. We've had, I think, a real attempt to try to bridge the racial 
divide in this country and deal with those issues and confront a lot of 
the problems that still exist in America.
    So I feel good about both the fact that the country is in better 
shape and, I think, there is a lot of self-confidence, a sense of 
possibility in this country. I think in part that explains how free 
people felt to debate the issues in the last campaign and to make their 
choices. I'm very, very grateful for that.
    And I will leave office with that sense of gratitude, because I 
think that's what every President wants to do. Every President wants to 
feel that during his tenure of service, America grew stronger and 
healthier and better. I feel good about where we are in our relations 
with the rest of the world. I think we've basically been a force for 
peace and prosperity.
    What is my greatest regret? I may not be able to say yet. I really 
wanted, with all my heart, to finish the Oslo peace process, because I 
believe that if Israel and the Palestinians could be reconciled, first 
the State of Israel would be secure, which is very important to me, 
personally, and I think to the American people; secondly, the 
Palestinians would be in control of their own destiny; third, a peace 
with Syria would follow shortly; and fourth, the Middle East would not 
only be stable, which is good for America's interests, and not just 
because of the oil but the forces of progress and prosperity--progress 
and reconciliation, excuse me--would be stronger in all countries, 
including Iran. And I felt that I really think this is a sort of 
linchpin which could lead to a wave of positive developments all across 
the region. And I think that's very important.
    Most of the people in the Middle East are young; there are all these 
kids out there. What are they going to--are they going to be raised to 
believe their faith requires them to hate the Israelis and the Americans 
and anybody else that's not part of their faith and

[[Page 2883]]

politics? Are they going to be perpetually poor, even if they have a 
fairly decent education? Are we going to see that whole region being 
integrated into a global system and these children having a whole 
different future, in which they're reconciled with their neighbors in 
Israel and deeply involved in the world in a positive way? Are they 
going to be using the Internet to talk to terrorist cells about chemical 
and biological weapons, or are they going to be using the Internet to 
figure out how to grow new businesses and have new opportunities and 
build new futures for their families and their children? So if it 
doesn't happen I'll be profoundly disappointed, but I'll never regret a 
minute I spent on it because I think it's very important for the future.
    I have never bought the thesis--on an inevitable collision course 
with the Islamic societies, or that the 21st century had to be dominated 
by terrorists with highly sophisticated weapons, fueled by broad popular 
resentment from people who are both disenfranchised and poor. I don't 
think it has to be that way, and I think if we could really make a big 
dent in this problem, it would give confidence to the forces of reason 
and progress throughout the region.

Note: The interview was taped at 12:40 a.m. aboard Air Force One en 
route from Kona, HI, to Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, and the transcript 
was released by the Office of the Press Secretary on November 16. In his 
remarks, the President referred to Chairman Yasser Arafat of the 
Palestinian Authority; Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel; President 
Kim Dae-jung of South Korea; and Chairman Kim Chong-il of North Korea. A 
reporter referred to Secretary of State Katherine Harris of Florida. A 
tape was not available for verification of the content of this 
interview.