[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.