    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book I)]
    [March 24, 1993]
    [Pages 346-354]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Interview With Dan Rather of CBS News
    March 24, 1993

    President's Schedule

        Mr. Rather. How's your golf game?
        The President. Not very good. I've only played twice. The first time
    it was about 35 degrees with a whipping wind, and the second time, I had
    a very good second nine holes. But I haven't gotten to play very much.
        Mr. Rather. We were talking about your sleep or lack of same over in
    the Oval Office. You mentioned something about a nap. Are you trying to
    nap these days?
        The President. If I can take a nap, even 15 or 20 minutes in the
    middle of the day, it is really invigorating to me. On the days when I'm
    a little short of sleep, I try to work it out so that I can sneak off
    and just lie down for 15 minutes, a half an hour, and it really makes
    all the difference in the world.

    The White House

        Mr. Rather. We're in the Library now, where President Roosevelt made
    his fireside chats. Is this among your favorite rooms?
        The President. I love this room. And this is a highly public room.
    It is actually a lending library. People who work around here can come
    in here and check out these books just like

    [[Page 347]]

    any other library. It's also a public room that's open to everyone who
    comes in the White House on a tour. So people get to see this wonderful
    library of America, great old portrait of George Washington, and as I
    was telling you a moment ago, the little-known anonymous design for the
    White House by Thomas Jefferson. He tried to become the architect of the
    White House anonymously, and his design was rejected in favor of this
    one.
        Mr. Rather. You were mentioning that certain Presidents dominate
    this house, as opposed to how they may be viewed in history. What did
    you mean by that?
        The President. What I meant was most of the Presidents who are
    dominant here were very important Presidents, or all of them. Lincoln is
    plainly the dominant presence here: a bedroom named for him, the room
    where he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, his statues and portraits
    everywhere. But Andrew Jackson is very important here. He put both of
    the round porches on the White House and changed the front to the back
    of the White House and the back to the front. Theodore Roosevelt built
    both the wings, and his portraits are everywhere and his vigor and
    youth. Franklin Roosevelt lived here longer than everyone else, but he
    has just a couple of portraits here in the house and a very modest
    presence, considering the fact that he was plainly the dominant
    personality in terms of the length of time that he dominated here. So
    it's just sort of interesting who dominates, because of the
    contributions they made to the house itself, I think.
        Mr. Rather. What are the chances that Bill Clinton can be one of
    those dominant Presidents in this house?
        The President. Well, I don't know. Probably not much. I think this
    house is in good shape; I don't know that I can do anything to it that
    would improve it. I imagine that I will enjoy living here and that I
    will revere the responsibility about as much as anybody who's ever been
    here.

    The Presidency

        Mr. Rather. What's been your biggest disappointment so far?
        The President. How hard it is to do everything I want to do as
    quickly as I want to do it, that the pace of change, although they say
    we're keeping quite a brisk pace--the House of Representatives adopted
    the budget resolution and my jobs stimulus package last week in record
    time--but I still get frustrated. I have a hard time keeping up with
    everything and keeping it going forward. I'm an impatient person by
    nature, and I want to do things. That's been disappointing.
        But I've been pleased that my staff has worked like crazy, my
    Cabinet's worked hard. We've had a minimum so far of the kind of
    backbiting and factionalism and all that you hear about.

    Economic Program

        Mr. Rather. What would you count as your biggest success so far?
        The President. I think moving the economic program as quickly as
    possible and developing a big consensus for the idea that we need to
    make a serious attempt to both reduce the deficit and increase
    investments in jobs and education and technology. We've got to do both
    at the same time.
        I've been very worried that I wouldn't be able to convince the
    American people or the Congress to do both at the same time because
    we've never done it before in the history of the country. But the
    competition we're in in the world and the problems we've had for the
    last 12 years absolutely require us to invest in our people and their
    jobs and to reduce the deficit at the same time, I believe.

    Stimulus Package

        Mr. Rather. Now, it's my information, I want to check it with yours,
    that what you call the job stimulus part of your economic plan is in
    trouble in the Senate. One, you may not have the votes. Senator Byrd
    said this afternoon that he saw trouble on the horizon. Does that match
    your information?
        The President. We plainly got the votes to pass it as it is or with
    very minor modifications. What most Americans don't know is that of the
    100 Members of the Senate, if you have one more than 40 you can shut
    everything down. And you know, there's been some discussion that the
    Republicans may try to filibuster the stimulus program and may try to
    stop us from trying to create any new jobs. They have 43 Republican
    Senators, and they may be able to hold 41 of them. And if they do, you
    know, they can indefinitely postpone a vote. Well, there's some
    speculation about that. I would hate to see that happen, and I think it
    would

    [[Page 348]]

    not serve them well. The American people did not elect any of us to
    perpetuate the kind of partisan gridlock we've had for the last several
    years, and particularly to have a minority of one House do that. So, I'm
    hopeful that that won't occur. I do hear that.
        You know there's some argument around the edges among the more pro-
    deficit reduction Democrats that we should make some minor changes in
    the jobs stimulus program, but they're not great, I don't think.
        Mr. Rather. Two things strike me, not just about what you said but
    the way you said it. Correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds to me like
    you're really worried about the possibility that it will be slowed if
    not stopped, the stimulus part.
        The President. I think in the end we will pass it because, first of
    all, I think the public would just be outraged at the thought that we
    have a chance here to create half a million new jobs and to do things
    that are good that need to be done and that it would be slowed up. I'm
    just pointing out that if the minority in the Senate can get 40 votes
    plus one, they can stop anything from happening.
        And that's what happened when they tried to gut the motor voter bill
    last week. That would have really been a big--it's a major piece of
    political reform, makes it easier for all kinds of people to register
    and vote. And they were willing to pass the motor voter bill, which
    allowed people to register when they license their car but not allow
    people, low-income people, to register when they pick up their Medicaid
    or Social Security benefits or something else. I've seen it. It can
    happen. All I'm saying is it can happen. I hope it won't, and we'll do
    our best to avert it.
        Mr. Rather. Mr. President, let me come to what I and, I think, a lot
    of Americans perceive to be the gut of this. The economic indicators are
    looking good. Do we really need this, what you call stimulus package
    now? Doesn't it or does it present a real threat to inflation and
    increasing the deficit? Why not either reduce it or call it off since
    the economy seems to be moving?
        The President. Because we're not producing jobs and because it
    doesn't present a threat to inflation, nor does it present a threat to
    the deficit. I agreed over the next 5 years to reduce the deficit by 4
    times as much as the stimulus package over and above the deficit
    reduction that I've proposed, $500 billion of deficit reduction. So, we
    have blown away the amount of the stimulus package over the next 4 years
    in extra deficit reduction. So, we're not adding to the deficit.
        Secondly, the financial markets have already discounted the
    prospects of this being inflationary.
        Third, and most important of all, unemployment in America is too
    high. Unemployment in all the rich countries except Japan is too high.
    We have to prove that we can generate jobs in America again. And there
    is no indication that we are doing that. Now, last month we had a lot of
    new jobs, but way, way over half of them were part-time jobs with no
    health care benefits and no security of lasting. So, we need this to
    create jobs. This program invests in community, invests in people and
    their education. I think it's very important.
        Mr. Rather. Mr. President, I want to talk to you about Russia. Time
    for us to take a break. Stay here with us for our special edition of 48
    Hours, an interview with President Clinton. We'll continue with
    conversation about Russia in just a moment.

    [At this point, the television stations took a commercial break.]

    Russia

        Mr. Rather. Mr. President, just right off the top of your head, what
    percentage of this day have you spent dealing with the problems in
    Russia?
        The President. Probably 30 percent today.
        Mr. Rather. That's a lot.
        The President. A lot.
        Mr. Rather. Why? And let me ask a specific question. If I'm a
    trying-to-do-right American, lost my job, trying to support my wife and
    kids, tell me why I should pay for spending foreign aid to help the
    Russians?
        The President. Because it's in your interest. And let me tell you
    why it's in your interest. For one thing, America needs good customers
    for its products. And Russia, a free Russia with a free economy, would
    prefer to do business with America over any other country. And they
    prefer to buy our farm products and other products, and we have to look
    ahead. Every year we have to be looking ahead to find more and more
    markets for our products because as we get drawn into the global
    economy, we've got

    [[Page 349]]

    to sell more to other people to keep our incomes high.
        Secondly, we have a real interest in keeping Russia democratic and
    keeping them committed to reducing their nuclear arsenals. Why? Because
    otherwise we have to turn right around and rebuild our defenses at very
    high levels, spend huge amounts of taxpayers' money on nuclear arsenals,
    raise our children in a more dangerous world, and divert needed
    resources which ought to be spent on education and training and
    investment here at home.
        So a safe, a democratic, a free market-oriented Russia is in the
    immediate economic interest of every working American and very much in
    the interest of those folks and their children over the long run. If we
    let Russia revert to a country which will never be able to do business
    with us, that's bad business. If it reverts to a nationalist, even if
    not a Communist, a highly nationalist nuclear power that forces us to
    spend more of our money keeping our guard higher, then that's money that
    will be diverted from the future of the working families and their
    children.
        Mr. Rather. What about the theory that whatever money we try to give
    to the Russians, it would be money down a black hole, just disappear
    because chaos and pandemonium are hour by hour?
        The President. First of all, we don't have enough money to, on our
    own, affect the course of events. Ultimately the Russian people will
    have to work out their own future. But there are some specific things we
    can do which will not hurt us; in fact, will help us, and which will
    send a clear signal to the forces of freedom and democracy and market
    economics in Russia that we and the rest of the West will help them.
        You know, for example, if we provide more food aid, that helps our
    farmers, and we can do it at relatively low cost to ourselves. If we can
    find a way to help to privatize more businesses and to make those work,
    that helps us. If we can find a way to help them run their energy
    business better so they don't lose as much of their oil or their gas in
    the pipeline, that helps them without hurting us. It gives us a market
    for our pipeline products. If we can find a way to help them convert
    their nuclear power plants that are built on the Chernobyl model to a
    different energy source, that could put a lot of our folks to work, put
    a lot of their people to work, and make them safer environmentally and
    economically. So there is a zillion things we can do.
        Now, over the long run, they're going to have to do some things for
    themselves. They're going to have to get control of their rampant
    inflation. They're going to have to make sure that they can get out of
    the bureaucracies that don't work anymore, that clog up all reforms.
    They're going to have to make a lot of decisions themselves. But there
    are some targeted, limited commitments we can make that, no matter what
    happens, won't hurt us very much and carry the potential of helping us a
    great deal while helping to keep good things alive in Russia.
        Mr. Rather. Now you've met with the Russian Foreign Minister this
    afternoon.
        The President. I did.
        Mr. Rather. Did you come out of that with increased confidence that
    Boris Yeltsin will survive?
        The President. He's a very resilient fellow, you know. He's like all
    of us in public life; he's not perfect. I'm not perfect; we all have our
    problems. But he is a genuinely courageous man, genuinely committed to
    freedom and democracy, genuinely committed to reform. And I think now he
    is more open perhaps than in the past at trying to work out some kind of
    accommodation with others who would negotiate with him to keep reform
    going, even though they may have some different ideas. Well, that's what
    I have to do here. I have to work with the Senate and the House, the
    Democrats and the Republicans. I think he's got to work on all that. But
    I think he's got a fair chance to survive. And I think not only the
    United States but I think the major Western countries ought to do what
    they can to be supportive of his elected Presidency now because he
    represents the ideals and the interests of our Nation and our way of
    life.
        Mr. Rather. Mr. President, correct me if I'm wrong, but you've said
    a couple of times, I think, recently that Boris Yeltsin is the only
    democratically elected leader in Russia. In fact, his Vice President----
        The President. That's right.
        Mr. Rather. ----Aleksandr Rutskoy is also democratically elected. I
    just want to go over that. If Boris Yeltsin is impeached because he's
    tried to suspend the constitution and Aleksandr Rutskoy, who has now
    broken with Yeltsin and is also committed to democratic reform, comes
    into power, would you, would the United States

    [[Page 350]]

    Government consider him a democratically elected leader and swing in
    behind him?
        The President. First of all, it is true that he was elected on the
    ticket with Yeltsin. But when Yeltsin was elected, he won an
    overwhelming popular victory. If you go back and look at the
    distribution of votes, there's no question that that's what happened.
        I don't want to get into what might happen or what-if questions. The
    constitution under which these proceedings might take place was one that
    came in 1978 under the Communist government. The only popularly elected
    President ever is Yeltsin. Yeltsin and Rutskoy were elected together on
    a ticket. And we'll just have to see what happens. I think in the end
    the Russian people will resolve this one way or the other by what they
    do or don't do in the referendum in April.
        Mr. Rather. Mr. President, I would love to spend hours talking
    foreign policy. We have such a short time here. Let me try to do
    something reasonably brief, and that is mention some countries and
    potential problems out on the horizon and just have you respond briefly.
        The President. Sure.

    Iran

        Mr. Rather. Iran: Particularly if it is proven that Iranian-
    sponsored terrorists had anything to do with the World Trade Center
    bombing, would you be prepared to retaliate?
        The President. First, let's note that even as we speak, we were just
    given notice that another major arrest was made and someone brought to
    the United States from Egypt where the apprehension was made. That's
    very good news. I don't want to speculate about who was behind it until
    I know. That would be a very dangerous thing to do.
        Let me say that I'm more concerned about the Iranian government
    maintaining its militance, perhaps supporting, in general, terrorists
    organizations or engaging in unsafe proliferation of weapons of mass
    destruction for its own use or for the benefit of others. I wish Iran
    would come into the family of nations. They could have an enormous
    positive impact on the future of the Middle East in ways that would
    benefit the economy and the future of the people of Iran. I am very
    troubled that instead of trying to contribute to alleviating a lot of
    the problems of the Islamic people to the region, they are seeming to
    take advantage of them. I hope that they will moderate their course.
        Mr. Rather. I want to move on, but I want to make sure that I
    understand. I asked the question, should it be proven they had anything
    to do with the World Trade, would you be prepared to retaliate? So far,
    you're on the record as not answering.
        The President. That's right. I want to be on the record as not
    answering. I want to maintain all options in dealing with terrorists,
    but I want to be on the record as not answering because I don't want the
    inference to be there that I'm accusing them of something that I have no
    earthly idea whether they did or not.

    Iraq and Saddam Hussein

        Mr. Rather. I understand.
        Iraq and Saddam Hussein: Just before you came into office, you were
    quoted as saying words to the effect, well, if Saddam Hussein goes a
    certain way, I, Bill Clinton, could see relations getting better. Do you
    regret having said that, or is that a fair quotation?
        The President. I think the inference was wrong. What I said was, I
    cannot conceive of the United States ever having any kind of normal
    relationship with Iraq as long as Saddam Hussein is there. I can't
    conceive it. What I said was that I did not wish to demonize him; I want
    to judge him based on his conduct. And in that context, I will be very
    firm, and the United States will remain very tough on the proposition
    that he must fully comply with the United Nations requirements, which he
    has still not done, in order for us to favor any kind of relaxation of
    the restrictions now on him through the U.N. That's my position.

    Bosnia

        Mr. Rather. What used to be called the Balkans, what once was
    Yugoslavia, is now referred to in shorthand as Bosnia. You seem--and I
    say this respectfully, but I want to say it directly--you seem to have
    been all over the place in terms of policy toward Bosnia. One, tell us
    exactly what U.S. policy toward Bosnia is at the moment and what we can
    expect in the future.
        The President. Well, first, let me respond to your general comment.
    And like most Americans, I am appalled by what has happened there; I am
    saddened; I am sickened. And I know that our ability to do anything
    about it is somewhat limited. I'm convinced that anything we do would
    have to be done through the United

    [[Page 351]]

    Nations or through NATO or through some other collective action of
    nations. And I am limited also not only by what I think the United
    States can do or should do but by what our allies are willing to do.
        Now, against that background, we have done a number of things. We
    have been instrumental in tightening the embargo against Serbia. It's
    much tighter than it was when I took office. We have pushed for
    enforcement of the no-fly zone against the Serbians. I think we will get
    that in the United Nations sometime in the next couple of weeks. We have
    begun the airlift operation, which was initially criticized and is now
    universally recognized as having done an awful lot to alleviate severe
    human suffering and to meet profound needs. We have determined that we
    should support the Vance-Owen peace process to try to bring an end to
    hostilities there. But we've also been very clear that if the Bosnians
    will sign off under the Vance-Owen plan and the Croatians sign off on
    it, and the Serbs don't, that we think that we're going to have to look
    at some actions to try to give the Bosnians a means to at least defend
    themselves. I'm very concerned about this.
        But my view is that we ought to try to get the Vance-Owen peace
    process working. If the parties will good-faith agree to a peace
    process, then I would be willing to have the United States participate
    with other nations in trying to keep the peace in Bosnia.

    [At this point, the television stations took a commercial break.]

    North Korea

        Mr. Rather. Mr. President, before I get away from foreign policy,
    very quickly--North Korea, nuclear proliferation: one of those things
    people's eyes glaze over. Important, of course, but is it something that
    consumes a lot of your time?
        The President. Well, it's caused me a lot of concern in the last few
    days. Just for the benefit of our viewers, the North Koreans have
    refused to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors to
    look into sites where they might be illegally producing nuclear weapons
    under the nonproliferation regime. And because they wouldn't allow our
    inspectors in and because the United Nations continued to insist that
    they do so, the North Koreans have now given us notice that they are
    going to withdraw, which means they're going to put themselves outside
    the family of nations seeking to contain nuclear weapons. That would be
    a great mistake, and I hope they don't do it.
        It's deeply troubling to us and to the South Koreans. You know,
    Seoul, which is now a teeming city of well over 8 million people, is
    very close to the 38th parallel, very close to North Korea. And over the
    last few years, relations between those two nations have been warming,
    and people began to dream of reunification in the same way that it
    happened in Germany. So this is a very sad and troubling development. I
    don't want to overreact to it. The North Koreans still have a couple of
    months to change their mind, and I hope and pray that they will change
    their mind and return to the family of nations committed to restraining
    nuclear proliferations.

    Health Care Reform

        Mr. Rather. There's no easy transition to make to health care, but
    we need to move on. So, if I may. As I understand it--correct me if I'm
    wrong--you are telling the American people that their health care
    coverage will be increased, that the deficit at the same time will be
    cut. The translation of that is that there's going to be yet another
    significant increase in taxes, isn't it? How can it be avoided?
        The President. Not necessarily. And we're looking at the options to
    do it. If I might, let me try to describe the problem. And I know we
    don't have a lot of time, but let me be as brief as I can.
        There are the following problems in health care: The average person
    who has health insurance is pretty satisfied with the quality of health
    care, but terrified of losing the health care coverage. They're just
    afraid that either through higher deductibles, higher copay, or just
    outright loss of the insurance, or they had to change jobs but they've
    had somebody in their family that's sick, they won't be able to keep
    their health insurance. That's one big problem. The average business is
    terrified about the cost of health care. We're spending 30 percent more
    than any other country and getting less for it. So more and more people
    lose their health insurance every year. And then there are a lot of
    people who don't even have access to health care. They never see doctors
    or dentists or go to a medical clinic.
        So we've got the most expensive health care system in the world. For
    the people that can

    [[Page 352]]

    afford it and stay with it, you get to choose your doctor, choose your
    providers of all kinds, and it's good stuff. But millions of people live
    with insecurity, and the cost of it is really breaking the economy.
        Now, here is the dilemma. In order to fix this cost problem and the
    security problem, you know, to tell people you can still choose your
    doctor but you're never going to have to worry about losing your health
    insurance, you have to find a way to pay, to cover everybody who doesn't
    now have health insurance, and to stop the loss of coverage for people
    that have it. That costs money.
        But if you do it, that permits you to cut out literally tens of
    billions of dollars of excess paperwork and administrative cost, stop a
    lot of other things that are driving up costs in the system. And you
    literally save, between now and the end of this decade, hundreds of
    billions of dollars, of both private dollars and taxpayer dollars. So
    the issue is, how do we make people secure so you can still pick your
    doctor; you're never going to lose your health insurance, you're always
    going to have it, no matter whether you change jobs or lose your job;
    you're always going to have access to health care. It's going to be
    good. How do we do that? Bring the cost down, and do it within a time
    that is acceptable.
        Mr. Rather. How are you going to pay for that?
        The President. We are looking for a lot of different options, but
    the last thing I think we ought to do, the last place we ought to look,
    is to ask the employers and the employees of America who are paying too
    much for their health care right now to pay more to solve this short-
    term problem.
        But the dilemma is this, quite simply--100 percent of the people who
    studied this problem say this--you may have to pay some more in the
    short run or find some more money in the short run, but over the long
    run it's going to save a massive amount of money. I can do more to save
    money on the Government deficit and to free up money in the private
    sector by bringing health costs in line with inflation and solving this
    problem than any other single thing I can do.
        What we're trying to find a way to do is to cover all the people who
    don't have coverage and to guarantee the security to the working people
    who are afraid of losing it without raising their taxes. And we're
    looking for ways to do it. And there may be some options. We've got 400
    people, including doctors, nurses, health economists, experts from all
    over America working on this, and they've done good work. I think we've
    got a chance. And I've got another month to do it.

    [At this point, the television stations took a commercial break.]

    Homosexuals in the Military

        Mr. Rather. Mr. President, at your news conference yesterday,
    correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you got a little testy when you
    were asked about gays in the military, respect for you in the military.
    Am I wrong about that?
        The President. No, I didn't feel testy. I thought it was an
    unusually worded question, but that's all part of it. No, I don't mind
    talking about it. Let me say, I talk on a regular basis with General
    Powell. I have met with the Joint Chiefs. I have a whole schedule of
    things that I'm working through now to continue to work with the
    military. This is a very difficult time for them.
        Mr. Rather. Well, is it correct that you have reversed your
    position? You say we now----
        The President. Absolutely wrong.
        Mr. Rather. Did you misspeak yourself?
        The President. No, I didn't misspeak myself. Nothing I said
    yesterday is in any way inconsistent with anything I've ever said before
    about this.
        First, let's review this issue. Half the battle is over. Half the
    battle is over. The Joint Chiefs agree that they should stop asking
    enlistees whether or not they're gay. So they have already said, we
    won't ask you to lie, and we won't use your forms against you. And if
    you get in and you perform well, that's fine.
        I agree and everybody else agrees that any kind of improper sexual
    conduct should be grounds for dismissal or other appropriate discipline.
    There's no difference in opinion on that. There is a very limited
    argument here, which is if you do not do anything wrong but you do
    acknowledge that you are gay, should you be able to stay in the military
    and, if so, should you be able to do anything anyone else can do?
        The question I was asked yesterday was as follows: Would you
    consider any restrictions on duty assignments? And the answer is, I am
    waiting for the report of the Secretary of Defense

    [[Page 353]]

    made in conjunction with the Joint Chiefs. I think they're divided among
    themselves on this issue. Other nations which admit gays into the
    military, some of them have no differences in duty assignments, and some
    do. What I said was, if they made a recommendation to me, would I review
    it and consider it? Of course I would. I mean, I asked them to study
    this. I can't refuse then to get the results of the study and act like
    my mind's made up. This is not an area where I have expertise. I have to
    listen to what people say. I will consider the arguments. I have a
    presumption against any discrimination based on status alone, but I will
    listen to any report filed.

    Potential Supreme Court Nominee

        Mr. Rather. Mr. President, time is running out on us here. I want to
    give you an opportunity on this program before this tremendous audience
    to indicate who your choice on the Supreme Court is going to be. This is
    a great opportunity for you to do it. I want to give you an opportunity.
        The President. I thought you'd never ask. [Laughter] I must tell you
    I have not reached a final decision. The problems in Russia and just the
    stuff I've been doing on the economy have kept me from spending quite as
    much time on it as I would have. But Justice White, to his everlasting
    credit, gave me his letter now for his resignation in June, and his
    successor can't take office until October, so he gave us some time.
        I love the Constitution of the United States, and I believe in the
    Supreme Court as an institution. I used to teach constitutional law.
    There will be few things that I will do in this job that I will take
    more seriously, few responsibilities I will cherish more. And I will try
    to appoint someone that I think has the potential of being a magnificent
    Justice, someone who will be a defender of the Constitution, but someone
    who has good values and common sense and who understands the real life
    experiences of Americans as well as the law.
        Mr. Rather. Let's talk about this for a moment. I think you were
    just starting college when the last Democratic President had a chance--
    --
        The President. That's right.
        Mr. Rather. ----to choose someone for the Supreme Court. If you
    think about it, it's been a long time.
        The President. A long time. President Johnson put Thurgood Marshall
    on the Court, and I just went to his funeral. It was a long time ago.
        Mr. Rather. If you're not going to reveal who it's going to be--I'll
    give you another opportunity to do that--tell us in what directions you
    hope to take the Court? I mean, you make an appointee hoping that he
    will at least bump the Court in some other direction. Let's talk
    philosophically about the Court.
        The President. Well, there was a lot of talk, as you know, during
    the last 12 years when the Republicans held the White House, about
    trying to move the Court in a sort of a rightward direction. Indeed, the
    political platforms of the Republicans were repeatedly filled with
    litmus tests and specific requirements and everything, and pushing the
    Court to the right. In fact, as has always been the experience with
    Presidents, some of the appointees did, in fact, move to the right.
    Others turned out to be much more complicated people. You know, they had
    different views. I would like to put someone on the Court who would make
    sure that there was a certain balance in the debate, that there was a
    real feeling for the rights of ordinary Americans under the
    Constitution, but that also someone who was hard-headed, who understood
    that the criminal law had to be enforced, that you didn't want to over-
    legalize the country. There's a nice balance to be formed.
        I'd also like to put someone on there who was a very cogent and
    powerful arguer and who could show respect for the other Justices, who
    could be a good colleague, and who could engage people in honest dialog.
    I mean, I think the Supreme Court is no different, really, in that sense
    from a lot of other units. I can't help but believe that when they're
    all talking together and working together and honestly trying to pick
    each other's brains, that they're not only free to act on their own
    convictions but they'll learn from one another and maybe make better
    decisions.
        Mr. Rather. During the campaign, you campaigned as one who would be
    a President tough on crime. There became this opening on the Supreme
    Court. You talked about wanting to appoint a Justice with a ``big
    heart.'' What do you mean ``big heart''? Does that mean trouble for
    prosecutors and law enforcement officers?
        The President. No, not at all. As a matter of fact, I think--there
    may be differences about capital punishment, for example. I've supported

    [[Page 354]]

    capital punishment, and I still do. And I wouldn't necessarily make that
    a litmus test, because there's a big majority on the Supreme Court that
    support capital punishment. So whatever my appointee turns out to do on
    that, it won't change the majority. The majority agree with me on that
    issue.
        But I think that being big-hearted is not the same thing as being
    soft-headed. I mean, we need an administration that takes an aggressive
    approach to the crime issue. But we need to be smarter about it. I mean,
    we can't talk tough on crime and make sentences tougher and refuse to
    pass the Brady bill and make people wait 7 days before criminals can buy
    handguns. We ought to take automatic weapons out of the hands of kids in
    the streets of our cities. If we're really going to be tough on crime,
    we ought to be not only tough in the traditional ways but also to change
    the environment some.

    Academy Awards

        Mr. Rather. Mr. President, it's my unfortunate duty now to ask the
    tough questions you don't want to hear. Number one, do you have a
    favorite in the Oscar race for the Academy Awards? Have you seen these
    movies? Which one do you favor?
        The President. I haven't seen them all, so I can't say. The ones I
    have seen I enjoyed. I thought Clint Eastwood's western was very good,
    ``The Unforgiven,'' and a remarkable departure from a lot of his past
    movies. I thought Jack Nicholson was brilliant in ``A Few Good Men.'' I
    try to see all the Oscar movies every year. I still haven't seen ``Scent
    of a Woman.'' I'm working on that. I'm trying to have that brought into
    the White House. And when I see them all, then I'll have my favorite,
    but I don't think it's fair until I give them all a shot.

    NCAA Basketball Championships

        Mr. Rather. I know you don't follow basketball, but I'm willing to
    make you an offhand wager that North Carolina slaughters Arkansas.
        The President. I bet they don't. I don't think they can slaughter
    them. We haven't lost too many games by a lot of points. Arkansas
    doesn't have any tall players. As you saw in the St. John's game where
    they played an incredibly talented, well-disciplined team, they often
    win by never quitting, a philosophy that I try to follow myself.
        Mr. Rather. Mr. President, you're very generous. We appreciate your
    hospitality. Thank you very much.
        The President. Thank you.

    Note: The interview began at 5:25 p.m. in the Library at the White
    House, and it was broadcast nationwide at 10 p.m. In his remarks, the
    President referred to Gen. Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff. A tape was not available for verification of the content of this
    interview.