[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.