    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1995, Book I)]
    [April 13, 1995]
    [Pages 527-537]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Interview With Wolf Blitzer and Judy Woodruff of CNN
    April 13, 1995

        Ms. Woodruff. Mr. President, thank you for being with us.
        The President. Glad to do it, Judy.

    President's Goals and Republican Agenda

        Ms. Woodruff. You are now well over 2 years into your Presidency.
    The common, increasingly common, perception out there is that because of
    the successes of the center-stage role that Newt Gingrich and the House
    Republicans have played, that your Presidency has been somehow
    diminished, made less relevant because of all the activity and the
    agenda-setting that they've been doing.
        The President. Well, they had an exciting 100 days, and they dealt
    with a lot of issues that were in their contract. But let's look at what
    happens now. The bills all go to the United States Senate, where they
    have to pass, and then I have to decide whether to sign or veto them.
        So now you will see the process unfolding. And I will have my
    opportunity to say where I stand on these bills and what I intend to

    [[Page 528]]

    do with the rest of our agenda. I have enjoyed watching this last 100
    days, and have enjoyed giving them the chance to do what they were
    elected to do. And also I made it clear what I would not go along with.
        Last Friday at the newspaper editors meeting, I went through item by
    item what's left on the Republican agenda that has not either been
    defeated or passed, and also the unfinished items on my agenda that will
    create more opportunity and more responsibility in this country.
        Ms. Woodruff. But it's the Republican agenda. And I think it--isn't
    it the case that throughout American political history, the party that
    is controlling the agenda is dominating the American political scene?
        The President. Well, I don't necessarily agree that it's the
    Republican agenda. You know, I brought up welfare reform before they
    did. I started reducing the deficit long before they did and without any
    help from them. We reduced the size of Government before they did. We
    reduced the burden of regulation before they did. We gave relief to the
    States from Federal rules before they did.
        This can be an American agenda. And in addition to that, I have
    tried to make it absolutely clear that I believe that we must continue
    to press ahead nationally with the cause of education and training and
    that any tax relief must be geared to helping middle class people and to
    helping people educate themselves.
        So I just simply disagree that it's an entirely Republican agenda.
    It's an American agenda. And there are a lot of things that are still
    unfinished on our agenda, but these things were started--many of the
    things that they talk about that will actually affect real people in
    their lives were begun under our administration.
        Ms. Woodruff. But, Mr. President, again, the perception is Newt
    Gingrich has been out there on the news every day, the Republicans have
    been out there with headlines in the newspapers. How----
        The President. Well, I'm not responsible--I can't control the
    perception. All I can do is show up for work every day. But I'll tell
    you this: our administration is the first administration in almost 30
    years to run an operating surplus, that is, without interest on the
    debt. We have reduced the size of Government. We have done a lot of
    these things that they talk about. But more importantly, we've focused
    on creating opportunity for the American people.
        Now, they are capturing the headlines now. They had their 100 days.
    Now the bills go to the Senate and the moderate Democrats, the moderate
    Republicans, and the President will have a huge say on what becomes law.
    I will have my say as the bills are debated in the Senate, and I'll
    decide whether to sign or veto them. So there will be more parity here
    as the American constitutional system unfolds.
        And there are other items on our agenda that I want to see dealt
    with. I want them to raise the minimum wage. I want them to do something
    for education in the tax cut. I want them to deal with health care in a
    piece-by-piece basis. The American people thought I bit off too much at
    one time, so let's deal with it on a piece-by-piece basis. I've given
    them several elements that Republicans in the past have said they have
    supported.
        I think the American people want us to work together. But meanwhile,
    look at where we are now compared with where we were 2 years ago. There
    are more jobs. There is more trade. There is a smaller Government, and
    we are moving in the right direction. That's all I can do. That's my
    agenda. If they are part of that--the American people can later sort out
    who gets credit for it when the elections get underway.

    Taxes

        Mr. Blitzer. Mr. President, Bob Dole, who is the Republican
    frontrunner right now for the Presidential nomination, has taken--
    accepted the pledge that he rejected in 1988, no more new taxes. Are you
    prepared to accept that pledge in New Hampshire as well, that you will
    not go forward with any new taxes?
        The President. As a matter of principle, I think it's wrong for a
    President to do that. But look at our record. I told the American people
    exactly what I would do. I said the first time, when I go in I'm going
    to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay more, not because I'm for class
    warfare but because they can afford to. We'll cut spending, raise taxes
    on the wealthiest Americans, and bring the deficit down. We did that.
        Now, what else did we do? We cut taxes on 15 million families with
    incomes of $25,000 a year or less an average of $1,000 a year. We made
    90 percent of the small businesses eligible for a tax cut. We
    established a capital gains tax for investment, long-term and new
    businesses. We just--I just signed a bill passed by

    [[Page 529]]

    this Congress which I tried to pass last time which provides a tax cut
    for self-employed people for the cost of their health insurance. I have
    proposed a middle class tax cut in connection with continued deficit
    reduction and tied to education. That is my record.
        I'm not out there raising taxes. I'm trying to lower the deficit and
    lower taxes. That is my record. That is my program for this Congress.
    That is the future. But on principle, I think a President runs the risk
    of breeding cynicism to sign that kind of pledge when you have no idea
    what will come forward.
        Let me give you an example. I strongly believe that the Congress
    made a terrible mistake. The only tax break they've given anybody new
    this time is to reject my proposal to ask billionaires who gave up their
    American citizenship to get out of American taxes on money they made as
    Americans to pay their fair share. And for reasons I do not understand,
    the Republican Congress, in conference, in secret, after being lobbied
    by a former Republican Congressman and a former Republican Senator, let
    the billionaires off scot-free.
        So if we sign that, am I raising taxes? I would sign that in a
    heartbeat. People ought to pay what they owe--they shouldn't be able to
    give up their citizenship--pay what they owe.
        Mr. Blitzer. But you would have then signed that into law after they
    included it in the different package, the billionaires loophole.
        The President. They didn't include the loophole, they refused to
    impose the tax. So what I think they ought to do is close the loophole.
    What I did was to give the small-business people and the farmers and the
    professionals whose families are unfairly denied a tax deduction for
    their health care costs that tax deduction so they could get it by tax
    day, which is next Monday. I had to do that. But they ought to put that
    back in. This is an unconscionable thing which has been done.
        But would it violate the pledge, or not? That's the problem I have
    with the question you asked.
        Mr. Blitzer. Let me ask you one more question on taxes. The flat
    tax: The Republicans have now authorized this commission that Jack Kemp
    will head to see if there's a possibility of going forward with a flat
    tax, a simple flat tax. Is this something that you think you would
    support?
        The President. I'm for tax simplification. Anything we can do to
    simplify the Tax Code, consistent with fairness and not exploding the
    deficit, we ought to do. The first time I heard about a flat tax I
    thought it sounded like a pretty good idea. But if you look at it, every
    analysis that I have seen done indicates that the flat tax proposals
    that are out there now will increase the deficit and increase taxes on
    all Americans with incomes of under $200,000 a year. So my answer is,
    I'm going to put a pencil to a piece of paper and figure out how it
    works. And my suggestion to the American people is that they should put
    a pencil to a piece of paper and see how it works.
        We must not explode the deficit. And we must not have a big tax
    shift from people making over $200,000 to all people making under
    $200,000. That's not the fair thing to do.

    President's Leadership

        Ms. Woodruff. Well, in connection with that, Mr. President, you are
    the first President in something like I think it's 140 years to go this
    far in his Presidency without a single veto. Now, you've made some
    threats and you specifically made some at the end of last week. But
    House majority leader Dick Armey is out there, is just flatly saying
    that he thinks you're going to sign any tax cut bill, any tax bill that
    they send you. In other words, they're not taking you seriously.
        The President. He's wrong. Keep in mind, why didn't I--I didn't have
    to veto anything in the last 2 years because it was only the third
    Congress since World War II, only the third Congress since World War II
    when a President passed more than 80 percent of its programs in the
    Congress. That's only happened--President Eisenhower did it, President
    Johnson did it, and I did it. The Congress did not send me anything they
    knew I was going to veto. So there was no need to veto.
        Secondly, the abuse of the filibuster--and I say that advisedly,
    there has been an abuse of the filibuster, which means that one more
    than 40 Senators can hold up any bill--reduces the number of bills
    coming to the President's desk----
        Ms. Woodruff. On which side are you talking?
        The President. Well, in the last 2 years it worked for the
    Republicans. It may work for the Democrats this time. But the point is
    that the sheer number of bills coming to the President are now smaller
    than they used to be. Now, if I get the line-item veto--the line-item
    veto has passed the Senate; a line-item veto

    [[Page 530]]

    has passed the House. I worked very hard to get it through the Senate
    and to get the Democrats to go along with it, and they did. If they'll
    reconcile the differences, you will see a lot of vetoes under the line-
    item veto.
        Ms. Woodruff. Well, again, on the veto point, I mean, you were just
    in Warm Springs yesterday honoring Franklin Delano Roosevelt. We looked
    into his record; over 13 years of his Presidency he had over 700 vetoes.
    And Arthur Schlesinger, the historian, was there at the ceremony. He was
    telling a reporter--he said Franklin Roosevelt loved a fight, and he
    said President Clinton would prefer to accommodate. Is that an accurate
    perception?
        The President. No, I like to fight. That's how I got elected
    President. That's how I passed an economic program that broke the back
    of deficit spending and bipartisan irresponsibility. The Republicans and
    the Democrats sat up here for 12 years and told the American people what
    they wanted to hear. The Republican Presidents blamed the Democratic
    Congress. The Democratic Congress blamed the Republican Presidents. And
    they quadrupled the debt of this country when I got here.
        What I did was to fight my battles in the Congress and by one vote
    in both Houses won a budget bill that reduced this deficit. I fought for
    a trade bill that gave us more trade. I fought to get a crime bill that
    would reduce the threat of violence on our streets. I've got things done
    that I wanted to signed. If they send me bad bills, I'll be happy to
    veto them. I think that the untold story of the last 2 years is how much
    we got done. I had no occasion to veto a bill. I have no doubt that I
    will have occasions to veto bills now.
        Ms. Woodruff. But just quickly, Mr. President, again, maybe we're
    talking perceptions again, but the perception is that you are a
    President who will bend, who will not stick with what you originally
    said you were for. Hence, you've got people out there like Arthur
    Schlesinger saying he thinks you're an accommodator. I mean----
        The President. Well, let me ask all those people then, if that's so
    true, why did I break the back of trickle-down economics? Why did I
    break the back of 12 years of Democratic and Republican irresponsibility
    in Washington, to reduce the deficit 3 years in a row for the first time
    since Mr. Truman was President? If that's so true, why were we able to
    pass the NAFTA, which was deader than a doornail when I took office? If
    that's so true, why did we pass the crime bill with the assault weapons
    ban in it, which had been dead for 6 years? Why did we pass the Brady
    bill, dead for 7 years? Why did we pass family leave for working
    families, dead for 6 years? Because we got things done out of conviction
    and hard work.
        Sometimes, it's more important what you do than what you don't do.
    Now, vetoes make a big splash. If they'll just simply send me some bad
    bills, I'll be more than happy to veto them. What we should be doing
    here is focusing on what we did to break gridlock, make this Government
    more responsible, and get things done. It was tough. It required hard
    fights. They were bitter, tough battles that we won. When you win, you
    don't have to veto. I like to win, and we won. And the American people
    are better off. But all this talk is, ``Well, let's see some vetoes.''
    Send me a bad bill, I'll be happy to veto it.
        I have had three bills since this Congress started 100 days ago,
    three bills. They were all three bills I campaigned for President on: a
    bill to make Congress live under the laws it imposes on the private
    sector, a bill to reduce the burden of Federal action on State and local
    government, and a bill to provide a tax break to self-employed people
    for the health insurance costs they have. Those were things I ran for
    President on. How can I veto bills that I support? I support those
    bills.
        Just because the Republican Congress passed them--I did not run for
    office to sign a pack of vetoes or to worry about my perception. I ran
    for office to turn this country around. This is a time of enormous
    change and uncertainty. Anytime a President takes on tough battles, gets
    things done, but tries to work through things in a spirit of good faith,
    you have to run the risk of changing perceptions.
        It happened to Harry Truman. He barely had one in four people for
    it. And he was--until the last year of his campaign in 1948, he was
    regularly attacked not for being too decisive, too tough, too
    straightforward but for being too accommodationist--what did he stand
    for, where was he. These are--it's just part of the times. I can't worry
    about the perception. I have to be tough in fighting for what's right
    for the American people. That's what I have done. That's what I will do.
    I did it by passing bills the last 2 years. I'd like to do it by passing

    [[Page 531]]

    bills now, but that's up to the Congress. I told them Friday what I'd
    sign and what I'd veto. Let's see what they do.

    Welfare Reform

        Mr. Blitzer. Well, let's talk welfare reform, which, of course, is
    an issue very close to your heart. You have said you want to end welfare
    as we know it. The House version is apparently unacceptable to you, the
    Republican version passed in the House.
        The President. Do you want to see a veto? If the Senate passes the
    House bill, I'd be happy to veto.
        Mr. Blitzer. Well, the Senate looks like the Republicans are now
    suggesting they would take out some of the more--what you would consider
    onerous provisions of the House bill but still give the States block
    grants to reform welfare as the States, the Governors, want to do it--
    the Republican Governors, that is. Is that something you would accept?
        The President. No, but I think that they deserve credit for making
    some progress. You know, the Catholic Bishops basically pointed out that
    the House bill could actually be a pro-abortion bill, could encourage
    abortion, it was so hard on children, and it was so weak on work. Now,
    the provisions proposed by these three Republican Governors that the
    Senate is looking at gets out a lot of the stuff that is tough on
    children and unfair to them. And that's good, and they deserve credit
    for that. It's still weak on work, and it's still unfair to the States
    that have huge growing populations of young children.
        So this block grant proposal as it is written would put unbearable
    burdens on States, not necessarily--this is not a partisan issue, but
    the block grant proposal as written I think would be unfair to States
    like Texas and Florida, for example, and maybe very beneficial to States
    with static or declining welfare rolls.
        Mr. Blitzer. Just to nail it down--so this Republican version in the
    Senate that is now being discussed, you would veto that?
        The President. All we know about it is what we see in the papers. I
    believe that it is an improvement over the House bill. But it's got a
    long way to go. We need to be--what the American people want is to see
    people who are on welfare going to work and succeeding as workers and
    parents.
        Now, what they've done that's good is they've adopted all my tough
    child support enforcement provisions. And I applauded the House for
    doing it. Line for line, they did it. I appreciate that, and it's good.
    The Senate now says, ``Well, we're not going to be tough on children,
    we're not going to be--in effect, having a pro-abortion policy or at
    least a brutal-to-children policy.'' That's good. They deserve credit.
        Now let's work on the work, and let's don't be fairer to the States
    that have bigger problems than some other States. The States--this
    proposal--I am for much, much, much more flexibility to the States. Keep
    in mind, it was our administration, not the two previous administrations
    but ours, that has given half the States the freedom to get out from
    under the Federal rules to do what they want on welfare. But we have to
    do it in a way that is fair to all the States. So my concern about the
    block grants is that it won't be fair to all the States.

    Abortion

        Mr. Blitzer. Just wrapping up this segment--on abortion, an issue
    you just raised, you have said repeatedly you would like to see abortion
    safe, legal, and rare. What have you done to make it rare?
        The President. One of the things I've done to make it rare is to
    push very strongly for more adoptions and for cross-racial adoptions.
    One of the things that the Republicans and I agree on, although we may
    have some minor differences about how to do it, is that we should not
    hang adoptions up for years and years and years when there are cross-
    racial adoptions involved. If parents of one race want to adopt a child
    of another, they shouldn't be delayed and hung up by a lot of
    bureaucratic redtape. I think that is very important.
        The other thing I think we have to do is to make it clear to people
    that if they have children, they will be able to raise them in dignity.
    I have tried to improve the lives of women and little children and
    support people who do bring children into this world, to say, ``Okay, if
    you've got a child, even if you bore the child out of wedlock, you ought
    to have access to education and child care and medical care. And then
    you ought to get off welfare and go to work.'' I think if people see
    that they can bear children and still succeed in life, and if they
    understand that if they want to give the children up for adoption, that
    they can do that and know

    [[Page 532]]

    it would be done in a ready and proper way, I think those two things can
    really work to reduce abortions.
        The other thing I think we have to do to reduce abortion is to keep
    campaigning against teen pregnancy. And we have worked very aggressively
    in this administration on anti-teen pregnancy campaigns. So those are
    three things we've done to try to make abortion more rare.

    Russia

        Ms. Woodruff. Mr. President, let's move to a somewhat different
    area, international relations. You're going to Russia in about a month,
    a little less than a month from now, to celebrate V-E Day, to meet with
    Boris Yeltsin. You are going despite the fact that the Russians have
    refused, so far, U.S. pleas that they not sell nuclear technology to
    Iran. And the question is, I mean, even setting Chechnya aside and what
    they've done there, given the fact that this whole question of nuclear
    proliferation poses such a dangerous specter--creates such a dangerous
    specter for the entire world, will the Russians pay no price for this
    policy of selling this technology to Iran?
        The President. Well, first of all, let me explain why I'm going to
    Russia, and let's look at this issue in the larger context. We are still
    negotiating with the Russians on this issue. We do not want them to sell
    this technology to Iran. It is true what the Russians say, that it's
    light-water technology, it's the sort of thing North Korea is going to
    get as a part of denuclearizing North Korea. We don't want Iran to have
    anything, anything, that could enable it to move toward developing
    nuclear capacity, so that we do not support this. And we are continuing
    to work to try to dissuade them.
        But look at our relationships with Russia in the broader context.
    First of all, I think it very important that the rest of the world
    continue to support democracy, economic reform, and nonaggression in
    Russia. If you look at where we are now compared to where we were 2
    years ago, Russian reform, economically, is still in place, the
    democratic system is still in place in Russia, the elections system and
    the constitutional system is still functioning. They have come a long
    way.
        They made this agreement with Iran before I became President. The
    question is, are they going to follow through on it or back off of it?
    But you have to see it in the larger context.
        I am going, I might add, along with every other leader of a World
    War II country, to Russia because the Russians lost 20 million people in
    World War II, far more than any other country did. Their price was
    great. And part of their alienation from the rest of the world, and the
    West in particular, has been rooted in their collective consciousness
    that we never understood why they were more, we thought, paranoid, at
    least more isolated than the rest of us because of that cost. So I think
    I'm doing the right thing to go. I will continue to work on the Iranian
    thing, but I do not believe that disengaging with Russia and refusing to
    go and participate in this ceremony is the right way to do it.
        Ms. Woodruff. Well, I understand what you're saying about history
    and about their sacrifice. And I think most Americans, no doubt,
    appreciate that point. But given the fact that the greatest danger out
    there facing this entire globe is nuclear proliferation, where is the
    United States prepared to draw the line?
        The President. But what interest would it serve--if they can legally
    do this under international law, what interest would it serve for me to
    stay home when by going there and continuing to engage the Russians we
    might make progress?
        Let me remind you of what has happened in Russia since I've been
    President. They have withdrawn all of their troops from the Baltics, for
    the first time since before World War II. We have completed START I.
    They are rapidly dismantling nuclear weapons. We have succeeded in
    getting all of the other former Soviet states to be nonnuclear states.
    So in the context of nonproliferation, we have made huge, huge progress
    in the last 2 years.
        This is an area of disagreement. I intend to take it up with them.
    But I think engaging them, going at them, going right at them, and
    working through this is the way to do it.
        Ms. Woodruff. Will they ultimately pay a price one way or another?
        The President. Well, let's see what they do. Obviously, if they
    don't--obviously, if they do this, it will affect our relationships with
    them, just as all the positive things they've done have affected our
    relationships with them. The United States has been a very strong
    supporter of Russian reform. We have done everything we could to help
    them succeed, and we have gotten a lot for that. We have gotten a lot
    for that.

    [[Page 533]]

    They are rapidly destroying their own nuclear missiles. We are moving in
    the right direction.
        This is one area of disagreement, but it pales in comparison to all
    the progress we've made to lower the nuclear threat in the world in our
    other agreements with Russia.

    Iran

        Mr. Blitzer. Mr. President, you've had this dual containment policy
    towards Iran and Iraq. Yet, U.S. oil companies still are the biggest
    buyers of Iranian oil, and they sell it around the world except in the
    United States. There is some talk that you're thinking about
    strengthening the U.S. sanctions against Iran. Can you tell us where you
    stand on that?
        The President. We're looking at what all of our options are. I think
    we need to be as firm as we can be. Our administration stepped in when
    Conoco signed that agreement, and they backed off of it. That was a good
    thing. And we are looking at what else we can do.
        Mr. Blitzer. Well, you could pass proposed legislation or just take
    Executive orders to force U.S. companies to no longer purchase Iranian
    oil.
        The President. We are looking at all of our options, and I'm going
    to get a report pretty soon on what I can do by Executive order, what I
    might ask the Congress to do. The Congress is also looking at this.
        Every country that we speak with, every world leader I talk to in
    the region and beyond still believes that Iran is the biggest cause of
    instability and the biggest potential threat to the future. And they
    have chosen not to change their conduct, so we are forced to continue to
    look at our options.

    American Prisoners in Iraq

        Mr. Blitzer. How far are you willing to go in terms of Iraq in
    winning the release of the two American prisoners who are being held in
    Baghdad?
        The President. I'm not prepared to make any concessions on the
    United Nations resolutions. The resolutions speak for themselves. Mr.
    Ekeus just issued his report in which he raised questions about what
    they might be doing on biological warfare. We saw in the horrible
    incident in the Japanese subway the potential of biological and chemical
    weapons in small vials, small amounts. So we have to separate the United
    Nations resolutions and the sanctions against Iraq from this incident. I
    want those two Americans home; the government should give them clemency.
    They did not--clearly, they did not go across the border with any intent
    to do anything wrong. The United Nations has now taken responsibility
    for the mistake they made in letting them through the checkpoint. They
    should simply be released. It is the decent thing to do. But the United
    States cannot make any concessions on the sanctions issue to get their
    release. That would be wrong.

    Cuba

        Mr. Blitzer. One final loose end on an international issue, Cuba:
    Jesse Helms has a resolution, as you know, pending that would prevent
    the U.S. from dealing with companies in Europe or Canada or Japan that
    deal with Cuba, and this has caused an uproar around the world. You
    haven't taken a position on this Helms amendment yet. Are you prepared
    to say you support it or oppose it?
        The President. I support the Cuban Democracy Act, which was passed
    in 1992 and which we have implemented faithfully. The Cuban Democracy
    Act gives us the leeway to turn up both the heat on the Cuban Government
    and to make certain changes in policy in return for changes that they
    make. It is a carefully calibrated, disciplined, progressive approach. I
    believe it will work. I do not--I don't know why we need any more legal
    authority than we already have.
        I would be, obviously, as I have been in the past, interested in
    knowing the views of Senator Graham on this because I trust his
    judgment. He's been an expert in this area and he's worked hard and was
    a sponsor, along with Mr. Torricelli, of the last Cuban Democracy Act.
    But we have been very firm. Our administration's position has been much
    tougher than the previous administrations, but we've also operated under
    the Cuban Democracy Act to restore, for example, direct telephone
    communications, which has been a good thing for the Cubans and a good
    thing for the United States.
        So I like the way the act is now. I think we should continue to
    operate under it. I know of no reason why we need further action.
        Ms. Woodruff. And just in connection with the Cuba question, Mr.
    President, your Secretary of State and National Security Adviser have
    been talking a little more lately about some diplomatic opening, further
    diplomatic opening

    [[Page 534]]

    to Cuba. Is there something you're considering of that nature?
        The President. There is nothing specific. What I want us to
    emphasize is the Cuban Democracy Act was a very carefully drawn bill of
    balance, of sticks and carrots--not carrots and sticks, sticks and
    carrots. It toughened the sanctions on the front end but provided for
    the United States to take appropriate, carefully calibrated actions in
    return for things that might be done within Cuba to open the country
    politically and economically.
        But I have been given no specific recommendations by them, and I
    certainly have not approved any.

    Value of the Dollar

        Ms. Woodruff. International economic question: It's 50 years after
    World War II. The German mark and the Japanese yen are doing a whole lot
    better, a whole lot better, than the American dollar out there. And as
    you know, critics are pointing to your administration, to U.S. policy,
    and saying the dollar is falling because the policies of this
    administration and this government have contributed, have been wrong.
    What's going on?
        The President. The economic condition of the American people is a
    whole lot better than the economy of Japan and Germany right now,
    although the German economy is coming back. We have lower unemployment;
    we've produced more jobs; we have low inflation.
        Now, when--I would remind you that when I was in charge of economic
    policy and the Congress was supporting it--I'm still in charge of
    economic policy; the question is, what's the Congress going to do--we
    had lower deficits, low inflation, high growth, and a dollar that was
    stronger. I have no idea what is happening in the markets with the
    dollar, and neither does anybody else entirely. You ask them, a lot of
    people who make a living doing this think it's maybe speculation. But I
    tell you this: We do have to reduce the deficit further.
        But I would just like to point out that if you look at the total
    Government deficit in the United States on an annual basis today, it is
    tied with Japan for the lowest deficit in the world. It is lower than
    Germany's. It is lower than any other European country. What is going on
    here? If they're saying something about the deficit, it's not because of
    the way we've managed the last 2 years, it's because of the massive
    accumulated debt of the previous 12 years which requires a lot of
    borrowing to finance.
        So what does that mean? That means we have to do more deficit
    reduction. What does that mean? It means it's unwise to be out here
    talking about tax cuts until you explain how you're going to reduce the
    deficit. Deficit reduction and appropriate, targeted, modest tax cuts,
    that's my policy.
        The world markets may not know it yet, but that's going to be the
    policy of the United States. The United States will continue to reduce
    the deficit. We'll reduce it more. We will have a responsible policy,
    and the dollar will respond accordingly.

    Jonathan Pollard Espionage Case

        Mr. Blitzer. Mr. President, I want to talk U.S. politics in a
    second, but one loose end. There's story out today that you're thinking
    about a swap that would free Jonathan Pollard, the U.S. naval
    intelligence analyst who was convicted of espionage for Israel, as part
    of a three-way deal with Israel, Russia, and the U.S. First of all, is
    that true? And second of all, do you think that--he's now served 10
    years--is that long enough for the crime that he committed?
        The President. No one has said anything to me about that, nothing.
        Mr. Blitzer. On the swap, you mean?
        The President. Nothing.
        Mr. Blitzer. Okay.
        The President. And on Pollard, I'm going to handle his case the way
    I handle anybody else's. I get recommendations when people apply for
    clemency from the Justice Department, I review them, and I make a
    judgment on them.

    1996 Presidential Election

        Mr. Blitzer. Let's talk U.S. politics for a few moments. Bob Dole is
    the frontrunner, but there are a lot of other Republicans out there. How
    do you assess the political scene right now in terms of the challenges,
    not only from the Republican side but potentially a Democratic
    challenger like former Governor Casey of Pennsylvania trying to come
    into this race as well?
        The President. Well, on the Republican side, I don't know how to
    assess it because it depends, obviously, as any primary battle does, on
    how they distinguish themselves from each other and who votes in the
    primary and how the various States view it. And I simply don't know
    enough about their primary electorate to

    [[Page 535]]

    do that. I'm going to let them decide who they want to put up, and
    they'll do that in due course.
        Bob Casey is a man I served with as Governor. I have a high regard
    for him, and I have a lot of respect for him. And I kept in pretty close
    touch with him and his family when he went through his medical problems.
    And I think he's a remarkable, resilient person. He is a committed anti-
    abortion, anti-choice person who has served with distinction in
    government. We agree on many, many issues. I believe you can be pro-
    choice and anti-abortion; he doesn't believe that. And he believes that
    the Democratic Party has been badly hurt by the abortion issue and that
    it's more important than any other issue. And he believes that with a
    real depth of conviction. And he will have to do whatever he thinks is
    right, and he will do that. I am sure he will do whatever he thinks is
    right.
        I think when you look at the alternatives between the Democrats and
    the Republicans and the fact that the Republicans seem to like to--it's
    hard to know where they really stand on that issue; they talk one way
    and act another. I would hope that he would think about that and think
    about what would happen in the event of a campaign. But that's his
    decision, and whatever he does, I will respect.
        Mr. Blitzer. Still on politics, Mr. President, some of your
    political aides talk about you as the ``43 percent President,''
    referring to the percentage of the vote you got in '92. Is it the
    operating assumption around here and with you that there will be a third
    candidate in the general election, that there will be a Democrat--you, a
    Republican, and someone else?
        The President. I have no earthly idea. And you know--let me just say
    how I am doing this. Sometimes you talk to people who work around here
    about this stuff more than I do. I try to minimize that kind of
    speculation. We have no control over that.
        After the November election, when the people decided to give the
    Republicans control of Congress, I made a decision which I am adhering
    to, which is that I would do the very best I could to do exactly what I
    thought was right, that I would not worry about the monthly fluctuation
    in the polls, that if anything, worry about it even less than I had in
    the 2 previous years when I had taken a lot of unpopular positions. And
    I'm going to do more of what I did down in Dallas on Friday where I just
    took an outline of the positions that I feel and I just get up there and
    say what I think and let the American people digest it and deal with it
    the best way they can.
        Ms. Woodruff. So you mean while there's all this wild political
    speculation out there about what's going to go on, you're able to ignore
    that? Is that what you are saying?
        The President. I don't think about it much. Of course, I don't
    ignore it, but I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it. The one
    thing I think every President owes the American people is to focus on
    what the American people need, to do what he thinks is right and best,
    and to realize that you waste a huge amount of energy focusing on things
    over which you have no control. I have no control over who seeks the
    Republican nomination, whether anybody seeks the Democratic nomination,
    and I certainly have no control over whether there's a third-party
    candidate. That is irrelevant. So I can't worry about it. It's a waste
    of time.

    Political Change in Southern States

        Ms. Woodruff. Well, let me ask you about something over which you
    may have some control, and that is these defections of Democrats to the
    Republican Party. We had Congressman Deal, Senator Shelby, Senator
    Campbell. Just looking at the South alone, I mean, the trend is all in
    the Republican direction. Are we now in a situation where you've got an
    all solid Republican South where we used to have a solid Democratic
    South, and is there anything you can do to stop that?
        The President. Well, the solid Democratic South in Presidential
    elections has been breaking up since 1948. Harry Truman stood up for
    civil rights, and he lost four States to Strom Thurmond.
        Ms. Woodruff. So you are saying there is nothing you can do?
        The President. Well, no, I think there is. I think what we have to
    do--first of all, we have to get down there and make our case at
    election time. You know, when I spoke to the Florida Legislature, for
    example, I noticed after it was over a lot of the Florida Democrats came
    up to me and said there were Florida Republicans who said they agreed
    with what I said. They did not know what the position of the
    administration was, and they felt reassured by it.
        The South cares about education. The South cares about welfare
    reform. The South cares

    [[Page 536]]

    about a strong stance against crime. The South has done very, very well
    economically under our policies, changing trickle-down economics, not
    going back to tax and spend but working on the invest and growth
    strategy that I ran for President on.
        Ms. Woodruff. But they are voting for Republicans?
        The President. They are, but I think they will be fair-minded when
    there's an honest debate. I don't think that the--in many cases they've
    gotten the other side of the coin. If you look at Florida, for example,
    or in Georgia where you have two seasoned Democratic Governors that
    survived the biggest Republican tidal wave in decades, they did it
    because they were strong and tough and they stood up for what they
    believed in and they did not apologize or pussyfoot around. They just
    said, ``Here's what I did, here's why I did it, and here's where I
    stand.'' And not only that, they talked about what they were going to do
    to in the future. And they survived the tidal wave. I think that the
    Democrats will do well by following the examples of Lawton Chiles and
    Zell Miller.

    The Presidency

        Mr. Blitzer. Mr. President, if you step back a little bit and look
    over the span of your Presidency, what has been the most exhilarating
    moment in your Presidency, and what has been the most depressing moment
    for you since becoming President?
        The President. I've had a lot of exhilarating moments, but I think
    that in terms of what's happening for Americans, I was exhilarated when
    the economic plan passed by only a vote because I knew it was the
    beginning of turning the country around. And I knew that if we got the
    deficit down, if we gave lower income working people a break, if we made
    college loans more affordable, if we expanded Head Start--that is, if we
    offered more opportunity and demanded more responsibility; all that was
    in that economic plan--that we could get this economy going again and we
    could offer some opportunity. So that was a great moment for me.
        On a purely personal basis, I think the passage of the national
    service bill and seeing all those young people come up here and seeing
    them go out across our country and sort of cut through all the rhetoric
    and bureaucracy and everything and just start changing America from the
    grassroots up and earning their way into college has been the most
    personally rewarding thing for me.
        Mr. Blitzer. And depressing?
        The President. The most depressing moment, I think, for me was when
    our young men were killed in Somalia, because they went there to save
    the lives of the Somali people. They did a magnificent job, and it was a
    very sad thing. And I think we learned some valuable lessons from it,
    and the lesson is not to withdraw from the world, not to walk away. What
    we did in Rwanda, what we did in Haiti, especially, shows that there is
    a good way and a right way to do these things. But that was a very--
    personally, it was the most personally depressing moment to me.

    Entertainment Industry Values

        Ms. Woodruff. Mr. President, Bob Dole said this week, 2 days ago,
    that the entertainment industry in this country, television, movies,
    advertising, is poisoning the minds of American young people. He said
    Hollywood ought to be shamed into improving all of these things. You've
    gotten a lot of money from Hollywood interests and political
    contributions. Do you think Hollywood--should you be holding Hollywood
    more accountable for these sorts of things?
        The President. Well, I would remind you that long before Senator
    Dole said anything about it, I actually went to Hollywood and challenged
    them to deglorify violence, to deglorify sexual misconduct, to deglorify
    drug use, to deglorify destructive behaviors, and to try to help to
    build this country up. I also said the same thing in the State of the
    Union Address. And if you'll remember, it got as strong a response as
    anything that we had done. I think there----
        Ms. Woodruff. And you're still saying that?
        The President. Absolutely. And I think there has to be--I think what
    we need is--nobody wants to abolish the first amendment, but people who
    can shape our culture have a responsibility to try to help build it up.
    And when they show things that are destructive, they need to be shown in
    a destructive light, not in a glorified light.
        So if I might give you two examples, I think that one reason people
    liked ``Forrest Gump'' is they thought it reasserted American values.
    And it didn't hide the problems of the sixties, seventies, and eighties;
    in fact, it explored them, but it showed them in a sad and tragic light.

    [[Page 537]]

        The movie ``Boyz N the Hood'' was a violent movie, but it
    deglorified, it demystified gang life. No one could watch that movie and
    walk away from it with anything other than that children should not do
    these things. So there is a way for these subjects to be dealt with and
    to be commercially successful and still send cultural messages that
    bring us together and make us stronger.
        Ms. Woodruff. All right, Mr. President, thank you for joining us.
        The President. Thank you.

    Note: The interview began at 11:40 a.m. in the Roosevelt Room at the
    White House. In his remarks, he referred to Rolf Ekeus, chairman, United
    Nations Special Commission (Iraqi Weapons), and Americans David
    Daliberti and William Barloon, who were arrested for illegally crossing
    the Iraqi border on March 13.