    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book I)]
    [March 23, 1993]
    [Pages 334-343]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    March 23, 1993

    Russian Reforms and U.S. Economy

        The President. Good afternoon. Before taking your questions today I
    would like to speak very briefly about some foreign and domestic issues.
        First, I want to reiterate that the United States supports the
    historic movement toward democratic political reform in Russia.
    President Yeltsin is the leader of that process. He is a democratically
    elected national leader, indeed, the first democratically elected
    President in a thousand years of Russian history. He has United States
    support, as do his reformed government and all reformers throughout
    Russia. At this moment, Russia is in a constitutional and political
    crisis. President Yeltsin proposes to break the logjam by letting the
    people of Russia decide on April 25th. That is an appropriate step in a
    democracy. Our interest is to see that this process unfolds peacefully.

    [[Page 335]]

        We're encouraged that President Yeltsin is committed to defend civil
    liberties, to continue economic reform, to continue foreign policy
    cooperation toward a peaceful world. Russia is, and must remain, a
    democracy. Democratic reform in Russia is the basis for a better future
    for the Russian people, for continued United States-Russian partnership,
    and for the hopes of all humanity for a more peaceful and secure world.
        The United States has great responsibilities abroad and at home. To
    meet these responsibilities, we must not only continue to support reform
    and change abroad but also the revitalization of our economy here at
    home. We need to fundamentally change as our times require it. On
    February 17th, I offered an economic plan to provide for that kind of
    fundamental change. Just 5 days ago, the House of Representatives took a
    giant step toward breaking the logjam and the gridlock here in
    Washington in approving the economic plan. And in just 1 or 2 days, the
    Senate will have the opportunity to demonstrate that it too has heard
    the people's call for change. Make no mistake about it, our people too
    have demanded a new direction in our economy: cutting the deficit,
    investing in our people, and creating high-skill, high-wage jobs for
    working men and women and for our children.
        Our plan does reduce the Federal deficit now by about $500 billion
    over the next 5 years. And just as important, it will grow the economy
    by investing in our people, their skills, their technological future,
    their health, and by offering new incentives for businesses to create
    jobs. In helping the economy to create millions of new jobs, the great
    majority of them in private business, we are building the foundations of
    a future prosperity, from world-class transportation and communication
    networks to safer streets and smarter schools. Each of these elements,
    reducing the deficit, asking the wealthy to pay their fair share,
    investing in the future, and creating jobs, will work as a package, and
    Congress should pass the package.
        Just as the best social program is a job, the best deficit reduction
    program is a growing economy. This plan sets our country on a new course
    that honors our oldest values, moving away from gridlock to action; away
    from a Government that serves only privileged interests to a Government
    that serves the public interest; away from paying for the mistakes of
    the past and the expediencies of the present toward investing in the
    needs of the future.
        The work has only begun. The Vice President is heading our effort to
    reinvent Government. Cutting back programs that don't work or whose work
    is already done, we're going to do what the smartest companies have
    already done in our country: streamline our operations, eliminate
    wasteful levels of management, and empower our frontline workers to take
    initiative and to take us on a better course. We're going to make
    Government less expensive and more effective. And as we pursue
    fundamental change in our economy, our health care system, and our
    schools, we will ask all our people to do their part.
        The change the American people voted for is now beginning. We have a
    rare moment in Washington's history when people's voices are being heard
    and a rare opportunity to get things done. With the continued
    involvement of our people and the support of Congress, we can deliver
    the changes the people demand here at home. We can give the country the
    best years it has ever had, and we can have the United States still on
    the side of freedom and democracy and market reform around the world.
    Those are the objectives of this administration.
        And I'll be glad to answer your questions. Helen [Helen Thomas,
    United Press International].

    Russia

        Q. Mr. President, would you be willing to hold the summit meeting in
    Moscow if it would be best for President Yeltsin's political health?
    Have you spoken to President Yeltsin? And don't you think that if you
    did go to Moscow, it would engage the U.S. too closely in the power
    struggle in the capital?
        The President. You've got me on both sides of the issue before I
    even started. Well, let me say, first, I have not talked to President
    Yeltsin, but I have sent him two letters, one in response to his
    statement and the other, of course, a letter of condolence on his
    mother's death. I am going to meet in the morning with Foreign Minister
    Kozyrev to get a direct firsthand appraisal of where we are, after which
    it might be appropriate for us to have a telephone conversation. But I
    thought I should have the Kozyrev meeting first.
        As of this time, we have not received any indications that the
    Russians, specifically Presi-

    [[Page 336]]

    dent Yeltsin and his government, have any desire to change the site of
    the meeting or the time. So we are working very hard; indeed, I'm going
    to have a long session tonight to try to prepare for the summit at the
    appropriate date in Vancouver. I expect to spend a good deal of time
    this week consulting with the congressional leaders of both parties and
    others who might have ideas about what we ought to put in our package.
    And I intend to go there with an aggressive and quite specific plan for
    American partnership. So that's where we are now.
        Q. Would you go to Moscow if it was called for?
        The President. Well, let me say this. If they were to express an
    interest in that, then it's obviously something that we would have to
    consider. But that has not been done yet. There were some conversations
    this morning between the Secretary of State and Mr. Kozyrev--that has
    not been done yet. If that were to happen, then we would cross that
    bridge when we come to it.
        Q. Mr. President, what would the U.S. policy be if the Soviet
    legislature votes to impeach Mr. Yeltsin, as appears increasingly
    likely? Would you continue to view Mr. Yeltsin as the duly elected
    leader of Russia?
        The President. Well, I view him as such now. He is the only person
    who has been elected. The others are proceeding under a constitution
    that goes back to the Communist era. What I would do under those
    circumstances, I don't want to speculate about.
        First of all, let me say, we have to appreciate, I think, the unique
    character of the events going on in Russia. It is a Russian experience.
    I myself have been, I think, in a way, most interested by the television
    interviews of the people in the street in Russia. You know, just talking
    about it, they sound almost like our people might sound talking about
    some fight we were having here. They've been remarkably level-headed
    about it and of different opinions, obviously. I think we just have to
    let this play out. I don't want to speculate about what the position of
    the United States would be in a hypothetical situation.
        Yes.
        Q. Mr. President, have you received any assurances about the command
    and control of Russian nuclear weapons in this crisis?
        The President. We are monitoring that very closely, and we will
    continue to monitor that very closely. At the present time, we have no
    reason to be concerned that the command and control procedures that are
    appropriate have been interrupted or face any imminent threat of
    interruption. We feel good about it at this time, and we will continue
    to monitor it closely.
        Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News].
        Q. Mr. President, I wonder what your view of the American
    possibilities are. How do you see the U.S. role? Can the U.S. play a
    decisive role, or are we really just ultimately bystanders?
        The President. I think somewhere in between. I think in the end the
    Russian people will have to resolve this for themselves, and I hope
    they'll be given the opportunity to do that in some appropriate fashion.
    I have only the same access, in a way, that you do in terms of all the
    possible developments that are in the air. I do not believe that we can
    be decisive in the sense that we can determine the course of events in
    Russia or, frankly, in the other Republics of the former Soviet Union,
    with which we also have a deep interest. But I do believe that we are
    not bystanders. For one thing, I don't think that this country can do
    what it needs to do in any acceptable timeframe in moving to a
    successful economy unless we move to act across a whole broad range of
    areas. And over the next few days, I should have more to say about that
    as I work hard on this package.
        Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, Cable News Network].

    Defense Budget Cuts

        Q. Mr. President, the former Secretary of State, Dick Cheney, and
    the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sam Nunn, have both
    suggested that your proposed Pentagon budget cuts would perhaps be
    inappropriate at this time of uncertainty in Russia and elsewhere around
    the world. Are you taking another look at all of those cuts to perhaps
    revisit the whole issue?
        The President. I'm not taking another look at the cuts at this time.
    Let me remind you that basically I think we have still presented a
    responsible defense budget. But what I am doing is trying to make sure
    that we can fulfill the missions that we have to fulfill based on any
    projected developments within the confines of that budget as it's staged
    over the next 5 years. And we'll be able to constantly review that.
    Obviously, these budgets are passed every year for 5 years in the
    future. And I expect, to whatever extent the world is uncertain, we'll

    [[Page 337]]

    have to be more vigilant in reviewing what our commitments are.

    Russia

        Q. Mr. President, you've made clear that you support both Russian
    reform and Yeltsin as the embodiment of that reform movement. But if
    President Yeltsin is removed either constitutionally or
    unconstitutionally, would it affect the package of aid, both the size
    and the specific package that the United States would offer Russia,
    without a President Yeltsin? Should the conservatives, the nationalists
    in the Parliament be on notice that it could affect the kind of aid we'd
    contribute?
        The President. Well, let me say again, I don't want to get into
    hypothetical situations because I don't want anything I say or do to
    either undermine or rigidify the situation there. I mean, this is
    something the Russians are going to have to develop.
        The United States has three interests in our cooperation with
    Russia. One is to make the world a safer place, to continue to reduce
    the threat of nuclear war and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Two
    is to support the development of democracy and freedom for the people of
    Russia--it is a vast and great country--and indeed, for all of the
    Commonwealth of Independent States. And three is to support the
    development of a market economy. At every step along the way, with or
    without President Yeltsin in authority, from now, I suppose, until the
    end of time or at least for the foreseeable future, the United States
    will have those interests, and we will be guided by those interests.

    Homosexuals in the Military

        Q. Mr. President, you seem to be having some difficulty with the
    Pentagon. When you went to the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt, the sailors
    there were mocking you before your arrival, even though you are the
    Commander in Chief. The services have been undercutting your proposal
    for permitting gays to be in the military. There's been no Pentagon
    creation of the task force that was supposed to be created. The hearings
    are to start a week from now, and Congress has not gotten any advice
    from the Pentagon or from the services as to what to propose. Do you
    have a problem, perhaps because of your lack of military service or
    perhaps because of issues such as gays in the military, in being
    effective in your role as Commander in Chief, and what do you propose to
    do about it?
        The President. No. No, I don't have a problem being Commander in
    Chief. You knew that a lot of the service officers disagreed with the
    position on gays in the military before I ever took office. The
    Secretary of Defense has not been in the best of health; I think he is
    either fully recovered now or on the verge of it. And I asked him to
    give me a report on June 15th. Senator Nunn said back in January that he
    would have hearings sometime probably in March, so I think we're at the
    outer limits of the time that he was going to have hearings. And his
    schedule to have hearings, in my view, has nothing to do with the fact
    that I asked the Secretary of Defense to present to me on June 15th a
    report, which I expect to receive.
        Q. Can I follow, sir? The task force was supposed to be created by
    now. The Pentagon has not created the task force, and there has been no
    report to the Hill. And in fact, Senator Nunn has indicated that he
    thinks some of the compromises that might have been possible, such as
    not having gays go to sea or be in combat, are not constitutional. Does
    that give you pause?
        The President. Not constitutional?
        Q. Would not pass constitutional muster.
        The President. Well, I don't want to get into a constitutional
    debate, but if you can discriminate against people in terms of whether
    they get into the service or not, based on not what they are but what
    they say they are, then I would think you could make appropriate
    distinctions on duty assignments once they're in. The courts have
    historically given quite wide berth to the military to make judgments of
    that kind in terms of duty assignments.
        Yes.

    Potential Supreme Court Nominee

        Q. Mr. President, on another topic, you've laid out some of the
    criteria you're going to use to choose the next Supreme Court Justice: a
    fine mind, experience in the law, experience dealing with people, and a
    big heart. Does Governor Mario Cuomo fit that criteria, and do you think
    that he would make a good Supreme Court Justice?
        The President. Well, I'm on record on that, but the last time I said
    it, he wound up in the midst of a lot of conversation that I don't think
    either he or I intended. I will stay with my criteria. I will make the
    appointment as soon

    [[Page 338]]

    as I reasonably can. Justice White, I think, tendered his letter at this
    time, before the end of this term of Court, in order to give me a
    significant amount of time to make a judgment. This is a very busy time
    around here, as you know, because of all the foreign and domestic
    activities, but I intend to spend a lot of time on that.
        Yes?

    FBI Director Sessions

        Q. Mr. President, aides suggest that you've made a preliminary
    decision to remove William Sessions, the FBI Director, from office;
    you're only waiting for a recommendation from Janet Reno. Can you deny
    that?
        The President. Yes, that's not correct. I've not had a decision
    about that. I have asked Janet Reno to look at it. My review of the
    Director and the issues surrounding his appointment is largely confined
    to what has already been in the press. I wanted to wait until I had an
    Attorney General and until she could make a review. I have not made a
    decision, and I am going to wait for her judgment on it.
        Yes, Susan [Susan Spencer, CBS News].

    Health Care Reform

        Q. Americans are eagerly awaiting May 1st to find out what you have
    in mind for health care reform. Are you ready to stand here now and make
    a pledge that by the end of your first term all Americans will have
    health insurance? And how much latitude do you think you have
    politically to raise taxes to be sure that that happens before the end
    of your first term? And I have a followup.
        The President. Well, I'm ready to tell you that I will present a
    plan which would provide the American people the opportunity to have the
    security of health care coverage by the end of my first term. Whether or
    not that plan will pass the Congress in the form I will propose it, you
    know, that's a matter for conjecture. But I think we've got an excellent
    chance of passing it. In terms of how it will be paid for, let me say
    that no decision has been made on that. All the surveys show lopsided
    majorities of the American people willing to pay somewhat more, a little
    more, if they were guaranteed the security of health care coverage when
    they change jobs, when someone in their family's been sick, when other
    things happen, when their company can no longer afford it under present
    circumstances.
        But what I'm trying to do now is to reconcile--the key financial
    conflict in the health care issue is this: We've got to give the
    American people the right to know they're going to be covered with
    health insurance, that they're not going to have their costs going up 2
    or 3 times the rate of inflation, and they're not going to lose the
    right to pick their doctor. And we know that if we do it in any one of
    three or four ways, it will save literally hundreds of billions of
    dollars, between now and the end of the decade, of tax money and more
    importantly of private money. Massive amounts of money will be saved. So
    the question is: How much do you have to raise now in order to save all
    that money later? Those are the judgments we'll be making in the next
    month. We've still got about 5 weeks to make the decisions.
        You had a followup.
        Q. I did. I wanted to ask you if long-term care would absolutely be
    included in that package of benefits that you're talking about everybody
    having by the end of the first term.
        The President. To what extent it will be hasn't been resolved
    because of the cost questions there.
        Mark [Mark Miller, Newsweek].

    Homosexuals in the Military

        Q. Are you prepared to support restrictions, to follow up on
    Andrea's [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News] question, prepared to support
    restrictions on the deployment of homosexual members of the service? And
    if you are, do you think that fulfills the criteria that you laid out
    that discrimination should be on the basis of conduct, not orientation?
        The President. That depends on what the report says. That's why I'm
    waiting for the Secretary of Defense to issue the report. But I wouldn't
    rule that out, depending on what the grounds and arguments were.
        Yes.

    Health Care Reform

        Q. Mr. President, your own advisers have said that your health care
    reform might cost from $30 billion to $90 billion more a year, cost the
    Government more. That's in addition to the tax hikes you proposed for
    your economic program. Are you saying you cannot tell the middle class
    and working people that you will not seek higher taxes for health care
    reform?

    [[Page 339]]

        The President. I'm saying that I have not made a judgment yet about
    how to recover what monies it would take to provide the security to all
    families that they would have some health insurance. That's right, I
    have not made that decision yet. I have sat through now probably 10, 12
    hours, maybe, of intense staff briefings on the health care issue, and I
    would say we have 12 to 15 hours to go before I will be in a position to
    make some of these calls.
        I can tell you this: I will not ask the American people to pay for a
    health care plan until the people who will be making money out of the
    changes that we propose are asked to give back some of the money they
    will make. Keep in mind, these changes will save massive amounts of
    money immediately to some of the health care providers.
        Yes.

    Russia

        Q. Thank you, sir. Mr. President, if I may return to Russia for a
    moment. As your spokespersons have told us over the past few days, there
    are other reformers there. Is there a danger in putting too much
    American weight behind Boris Yeltsin?
        The President. I don't think so. Some people say, well, what's the
    difference in this and the Gorbachev situation before, and is this the
    same sort of problem? I tried to answer that question earlier about what
    the United States interests are and how we would pursue them. And I've
    tried to be supportive of reformers throughout Russia and, indeed,
    throughout all the former Communist countries and the former Republics
    of the Soviet Union. But he is, after all, the first elected President
    in a thousand years. He has the mandate of having been voted on in a
    free and open election where people were free to vote and free to stay
    home, something that was not true previously. And that is something you
    would expect me to do.
        Let's put it in a different context. Well, we just had the Prime
    Minister of Great Britain here, right? And the United States and Great
    Britain have had historic ties and shared values. You expect me to work
    with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, even if he is of a party that
    was openly supportive of my opponent in the last election. [Laughter]
    Boris Yeltsin is the elected President of Russia, and he has shown a
    great deal of courage in sticking up for democracy and civil liberties
    and market reforms, and I'm going to support that.
        Yes, in the back.

    Economic Program

        Q. Mr. President, you congratulated the House of Representatives for
    a speedy action on your economic plan last week, but you face some
    tougher hurdles in the Senate in part because some members of your own
    party, like Senator Breaux, are not on board with you. Why haven't you
    been able to get some of these Democratic Senators on board, and are you
    prepared to make some compromises in breaking the gridlock there?
        The President. Well, let me just answer you this way. There were two
    big problems that we confronted when we got here in terms of how the
    people's money was being spent. One problem was the deficit had
    exploded. It had gone from $1 trillion, the debt had, to $4 trillion in
    12 years. The other problem was we'd managed to explode our national
    debt while reducing our investment in the future.
        Now, there are a block of people in the Senate, including some
    Democrats, who believe that the only thing that matters is to reduce the
    deficit. Now, believe me, that's a big improvement over the past, but I
    just disagree with them. I don't think that's the only thing that
    matters. I believe that investing in the future matters, too. And I
    believe if we don't change the spending patterns of the Government and
    invest and put some of the American people back to work to create
    millions of jobs, that we're not going to have an economic recovery. So
    we just have a difference of opinion.
        Now, Senator Breaux is much closer to me than many others are in the
    sense that he basically wants to phase in this spending. But the problem
    with phasing it in is if you delay the investment, you also delay the
    impact of the investment, which means you put off the effective date of
    the jobs being created. That's my only argument with him. He, to be fair
    to him, has said, ``This is an acceptable stimulus package and an
    acceptable level of investment, but I think we should, in effect, slow
    down the rate of spending until we have the whole package passed.'' And
    my position is, if the United States Senate will adopt a budget
    resolution like the House did, the American people will know we are not
    going to raise their taxes until we cut spending, and we are going to
    create jobs. And this is a plan where 70 percent of it's paid

    [[Page 340]]

    by people with incomes above $100,000, $500 billion of deficit
    reduction, but millions of jobs over the next 4 years, including a half
    a million in this program. So that's my argument, and I hope I'll be
    able to persuade enough to get the vote.
        Yes.

    Russia

        Q. Mr. President, could you explain, please, the situation on
    nuclear weapons in Russia?
        The President. This is self-selection over here. It's impressive.
    [Laughter] Go ahead.
        Q. Mr. President, given the fact that both the START I and the START
    II treaties are hostage to the political outcome in Moscow, and given
    also the potential for conflict, armed conflict between Russia and
    Ukraine, are you prepared to draft contingency plans, at least, that
    would either restore funding or add funding to the Strategic Defense
    Initiative, if not the space-based part, at least the ground-based
    element, as a hedge against the worst possible outcome?
        The President. Well, we're not in a position to make a judgment
    about the worst possible outcome now. Let me say, I've talked to
    President Kravchuk twice about the Ukraine's position on START I, and
    I'm very concerned about the very issues you raised. But let me say that
    even as we speak I'm not ready to say that there is a strong likelihood
    that we can't proceed with both START I and START II and that we can't
    resolve the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine. If that becomes
    apparent that we can't, then we will obviously assess our position and
    all of our options.

    North American Free Trade Agreement

        Q. Mr. President, on April 2, the Free Trade Agreement negotiators
    are going to meet again to talk about the additional agreements. Now,
    there has been a lot of talk that your administration plans to be very
    tough. How do you characterize being tough? Do you agree with that
    statement, and is there any room for compromises? How are you seeing
    those negotiations?
        The President. Well, I wouldn't call it being tough. I would say
    that I intend to try to get a trade agreement that will be in the best
    interest of both the United States and Mexico. And keep in mind, this is
    not simply a trade agreement, this is also an investment agreement. And
    the issue is whether, when we make it much more attractive for the
    United States to invest in Mexico and much more secure, shouldn't we
    also, in the interest of both the economies of Mexico and the United
    States, see that basic environmental standards and labor standards are
    observed, and shouldn't we have some protections greater than those
    embodied in the present agreement in the event that there is severe
    economic dislocations because of unintended consequences? I believe that
    we should. And I believe that's in Mexico's interest. And I would just
    point you to a much smaller example. We had examples in our aid program
    where the United States spent taxpayers' money to encourage American
    companies to invest in Central America, who then went down there and
    actually lowered wages instead of raising them in the host country. So
    what I'm trying to do is to promote market reforms and the benefits of
    them to both countries.
        Second thing, let me say, I have enormous admiration for President
    Salinas and for what he's doing. I want to support that. And I want to
    remind all of you that insofar as to the trade portion of the NAFTA
    agreement goes, just look at the unilateral reductions by the Salinas
    government in trade barriers; took the United States over the past 5
    years from a $6 billion trade deficit to a $5 billion-plus trade surplus
    with Mexico. So I have no quarrel with the trade provisions. But the
    investment provisions need to be used in ways that will raise wages on
    both sides of the border instead of lower wages on both sides of the
    border and pollute the environment. That's what I want to avoid.

    Cuba-U.S. Relations

        Q. Among the people you have charmed, it seems you have charmed
    President Fidel Castro because--[laughter]--in a recent interview with a
    TV network, he wanted to meet with you. Would you be willing to meet
    with him? And a Democratic administration might change the approach
    towards Cuba, versus a Republican?
        The President. I have no change in Cuba policy except to say that I
    supported the Cuban Democracy Act, and I hope someday that we'll all be
    able to travel to a democratic Cuba.
        Debra [Debra Mathis, Gannett News Service]----
        Q. Would you meet with President Castro?
        The President. I said ``democratic Cuba''--elections.
        Go ahead.

    [[Page 341]]

    Deaths in Mississippi Jails

        Q. A totally different subject, although it is south of here. I
    wonder about, in Mississippi, where as you know, civil rights and human
    rights groups are asking for your help in investigating the 40-plus
    hangings, suicides supposedly, in Mississippi jails. Some of the civil
    rights groups say that they are asking you, in fact, to order a Justice
    Department investigation. Have you heard from them directly, and are you
    amenable to that request?
        The President. Well, I'm very much concerned about the deaths in the
    jails. I have not had a--if they have communicated with me directly, my
    staff has not yet discussed it with me, although they may have done so.
    What I would always do in a situation like that is to first discuss it
    with the Attorney General after an assessment of the facts and to see
    whether it is appropriate. But obviously, if we were asked to look into
    it, I would certainly at least discuss it with the Attorney General.

    Japan-U.S. Trade

        Q. Mr. President, on another trade issue, during your campaign last
    year in Michigan and other States, you criticized a Bush administration
    decision which allowed foreign-made minivans, MPV's to come into the
    country at low tariff rates. This led the auto industry and auto workers
    to believe that you would take action early in your administration to do
    something about this. Have you changed your mind on that subject, or do
    you still intend to take action?
        The President. No, I haven't changed my mind on that subject. That
    issue is now under review, along with a number of others relating to our
    trade relations with Japan. And let me just say this: I had hoped, and
    still hope, to engage the Japanese Government in an ongoing dialog
    across a whole broad range of these issues. If you look at the history
    of American trade relationships, the one that never seems to change very
    much is the one with Japan. That is, we're sometimes in a position of
    trade deficit, but we're often in a position of trade surplus with the
    European Community. We once had huge trade deficits with Taiwan and
    South Korea, but they've changed now quite a bit; they move up and down.
    But the persistence of the surplus the Japanese enjoy with the United
    States and with the rest of the developed world can only lead one to the
    conclusion that the possibility of obtaining real, even access to the
    Japanese market is somewhat remote. And I will say again, I was
    astonished that the Bush administration overruled its own customs office
    and gave a $300 million a year freebie to the Japanese for no apparent
    reason. And we got nothing, and I emphasize nothing, in return. So, no,
    I haven't changed my position about that. I did hope to put it in the
    context of a larger set of trade issues to be raised first with the
    Japanese Government before acting unilaterally. But my own opinion about
    that has not changed.
        Yes, Randy [Randy Lilleston, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette], go ahead.
        Q. Mr. President, you've been----
        The President. I'm going to come back to the right. I'm left-handed,
    you know, and I--[laughter]--sometimes discriminate. No, go ahead.

    Potential Supreme Court Nominee

        Q. Mr. President, during the campaign you gave some pretty strong
    indications that your Supreme Court nominee--you would certainly
    consider their position on abortion. Is that still the case?
        The President. Thank you for asking, because I want to emphasize
    what I said before. I will not ask any potential Supreme Court nominee
    how he or she would vote in any particular case. I will not do that. But
    I will endeavor to appoint someone who has certain deep convictions
    about the Constitution. I would not, for example, knowingly appoint
    someone that did not have a very strong view about the first amendment's
    freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech
    provisions. And I strongly believe in the constitutional right to
    privacy. I believe it is one of those rights embedded in our
    Constitution which should be protected.
        Yes.
        Q. Mr. President, on the issue of the Supreme Court, is your
    commitment to a Government that looks like America, does that also
    extend to the Supreme Court to the extent you can influence that through
    your appointments? Will you be taking age into consideration? And given
    what you just said about the right to privacy, do you think it's
    appropriate and will you or members of your administration be asking
    potential nominees if they support the right to

    [[Page 342]]

    privacy and whether they think that right includes the right to
    abortion?
        The President. I'll answer the question. I will not ask anybody how
    they will vote in a specific case. I will endeavor to appoint someone
    who has an attachment to, a belief in a strong and broad constitutional
    right to privacy. And on the age issue, I will not discriminate against
    people who are older than I am. [Laughter] Yes. I won't discriminate
    against people who are of a different gender, of a different racial or
    ethnic group.
        Q. How about a Government and the Court that looks like America,
    sir--on diversity?
        The President. I don't know how many appointments I'll get to the
    Supreme Court; I don't know what will happen there. I'm going to appoint
    someone I think will be a great Justice.
        Go ahead.

    Campaign Finance Reform

        Q. Mr. President, on campaign finance reform, could you tell us how
    you plan to end soft money contributions to State and national parties?
        The President. First let me say that I intend to come forward with a
    proposal that will end the use of soft money in Presidential campaigns
    in the next few days. We're working on it now. We're working on trying
    to hammer it out with the friends of campaign finance reform in both
    Houses of the Congress. I will attempt to do it in a different way that
    will at least enable the parties to raise sufficient funds to involve
    grassroots people and empower people to participate in the political
    process, but I think that we should do away with this soft money issue
    and make a lot of other changes as well, and we're working on it. We
    should have a bill out that has the support of the administration quite
    soon. We've been working very hard now for the last couple of weeks on
    it.
        Press Secretary Myers. Last question.

    Forest Conference

        Q. Mr. President, you're going to the forest conference in a couple
    of weeks, looking for a solution to an issue that has dragged on for a
    long time partly because both sides are unwilling to compromise or share
    the pain and, some say, the previous administration's unwillingness to
    obey the law of the land. How do you propose to find a solution where so
    many have failed or been unwilling to find a solution?
        The President. Let me say, I would like to begin by having the
    United States have one position, and let me come back to the larger
    issue. The forest summit involves, as you know, what will happen to the
    old growth forest and to adjacent forests in the Pacific Northwest which
    are the habitat of the spotted owl, but which also are now a very small
    part of what once was a massive old growth forest up there. Thousands of
    jobs are at stake, but the very ecostructure of the Pacific Northwest is
    also at stake. The parties on both sides have been paralyzed in court
    battles, and all timber sales have been frozen, including many timber
    sales that virtually all environmentalists think should go forward,
    because of the impasse. One of the problems has been that the United
    States itself has taken different positions across the Agencies. So the
    first thing I hope to do is to be able to at least adopt a uniform legal
    position for the United States.
        The second thing I want to do is go out there along with the Vice
    President and listen, hammer out the alternatives, and then take a
    position that I think will break the logjam. The position--it may be
    like my economic program--it'll probably make everybody mad, but I will
    try to be fair to the people whose livelihoods depend on this and fair
    to the environment that we are all obligated to maintain. And let me
    say, I live in a State that's 53 percent timberland. I have dealt with a
    lot of these timber issues for many years. The issue is, in this case,
    what is the right balance, given some facts that are inevitable about
    what's going to happen. And I think we can hammer out a solution. And as
    I said, everybody may be somewhat disappointed, but the paralysis now
    gripping the lives of the people out there is totally unacceptable.

    Stimulus Package

        Q. Sir, did you screen those projects in the economy stimulus
    package before you sent them to the Hill? The Republicans are saying
    there are so many things in there that are totally unnecessary. I can't
    believe that you sent those up there; and maybe somebody did it for you.
    [Laughter] But there are--[inaudible]--in there and swimming pools and
    copying statues----
        The President. No.
        Q. ----and even a project on studying the religion in Sicily.

    [[Page 343]]

        The President. No--[laughter]--let me say, you will read those bills
    for years in vain and not find those projects. The----
        Q. Well, the----
        The President. Let me say, I have a letter here, dated on March 22d,
    to Senator Byrd from Leon Panetta about those alleged projects. What Mr.
    Panetta points out is to say that none of the specific projects
    referenced are actually in the legislation proposed by me. What they
    have done is to go to these Departments and say, if you had this much
    more money, give me every absurd thing you could possibly spend the
    money on. I am not going to let those things be done.
        The other thing they have done is to go to some isolated parts of
    the country and pick atypical examples of community development block
    grant funds. I would remind you that it was the Republicans who've
    always supported the community development block grant proposal on the
    theory that we ought to rely more on the States and local governments to
    make judgments about how best to create jobs. So, I will do everything I
    can to keep undue waste and abuse from coming into this process. I do
    not support it.
        We've got to quit. Thank you. We'll do it again sometime. I like
    this. [Laughter]

    Note: The President's seventh news conference began at 1:02 p.m. in the
    East Room at the White House.