    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1996, Book II)]
    [December 13, 1996]
    [Pages 2195-2206]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    December 13, 1996

    Second Term Transition

        The President. Good afternoon. Please be seated.
        As President, I have worked to keep the American dream alive for all
    those who are willing to work for it, to restore economic growth, and to
    put our Nation on the path to long-term prosperity. One of the
    accomplishments I'm proudest of since 1992 is the way our economic
    advisers have worked as a team to advance America's interests at home
    and abroad. Working together, this team has helped to cut our deficit by
    60 percent; increase our investments in education, the environment, and
    technology; expand America's exports to record levels; and to help our
    economy create nearly 11 million new jobs.
        Today we see new results of that kind of teamwork. American
    negotiators have agreed with the other members of the World Trade
    Organization on a landmark information technology agreement, the pact
    that I worked so hard on at the APEC meeting in Manila recently. I am
    pleased that it will eliminate by the year 2000 all tariffs on
    computers, semiconductors, and telecommunications equipment. That's a $5
    billion cut in tariffs on the American products exported to other
    nations. America leads the world in these industries, and this agreement
    means that there will be extraordinary new opportunities for American
    businesses and workers, so the American people can reap the rewards of
    the global economy as we move into the 21st century.
        Today I'm pleased to introduce most of the members of the team that
    will build on our work.
        The Treasury Department has never been in better hands. Bob Rubin
    has been the captain of our economic team for 4 years, first as Director
    of the National Economic Council, and now as Secretary of the Treasury.
    And I am pleased that he will stay on.
        Larry Summers will continue as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, and
    we'll be calling upon his unique policy and analytic skills in an
    enhanced capacity. Today I am also naming him as a principal on the
    National Economic Council, which will benefit greatly from his expertise
    in domestic and international economic policy.
        As we work toward a balanced budget, the Office of Management and
    Budget will play a critical role, because we have to do it in a way that
    reflects our values and the other policy objectives of this
    administration. Frank Raines has been on the job there for several
    months now, working hard to reach a bipartisan agreement on a balanced
    budget plan. I am happy to say that after 4 months he has agreed to stay
    on the job, in a job that is often the biggest headache in town.
        To prepare America for the 21st century, we must maintain a strong
    Commerce Department. In the last 4 years, two exceptionally gifted
    leaders, my friends the late Ron Brown and Mickey

    [[Page 2196]]

    Kantor, have headed that Department and turned it into an economic
    powerhouse for the American people. It has promoted American business,
    created American jobs through exports and innovative technologies. I
    understand Mickey Kantor's desire to return to private life after 4
    grueling years, but I regret it very much. He is a great talent, a great
    citizen, and I will miss him.
        Today I am pleased to nominate Bill Daley of Chicago as the new
    Secretary of Commerce, a man of rare effectiveness, a longtime civic
    leader, a prominent attorney and business leader. As Special Counsel to
    the President for the North American Free Trade Agreement, he
    coordinated our administration's efforts to forge a broad bipartisan
    coalition to pass that landmark trade agreement. He embodies the values
    of hard work and fair play, faith and family that will serve him in a
    very good stead as the Secretary of Commerce.
        Second, I am pleased to announce my intention to nominate Charlene
    Barshefsky to be our United States Trade Representative, a job she has
    held on an acting basis for 8 months. She's a tough and determined
    representative for our country, fighting to open markets to the goods
    and services produced by American workers and businesses. Her skill is
    demonstrated by the information technology agreement I just announced.
    She has been negotiating it around the clock in Singapore for the last
    week; indeed, I'm not sure she's had any sleep in the last week. But
    this is a remarkable achievement. I'm sorry she could not be here, but
    her husband, Ed Cohen, and her daughters are with us. I spoke to her
    last night in Singapore to congratulate her on this remarkable
    achievement. I know she wishes she could be here, and I'm very glad
    she'll be on the job for America.
        Finally, when I took office 4 years ago, I established for the first
    time a National Economic Council, to coordinate economic policy, to make
    sure we get the best advice and a range of options as well as new ideas.
    Today I am pleased to appoint Gene Sperling to be the Assistant to the
    President for Economic Policy and Director of the National Economic
    Council. Gene was my chief economic policy adviser in the 1992 campaign.
    He's been Deputy Director of the NEC since its creation. He has been
    central to the development of our budget, our tax, our education, our
    training policies. I rely on him heavily, on his knowledge and skill,
    his mind and his heart. As all of you know, he certainly shows that the
    work ethic is still alive and well in America. Indeed, I made him
    promise as a condition of getting this appointment that he would adopt a
    dramatic new idea in the next few years: sleep. [Laughter] I suppose if
    we were giving MVP awards for our economic team, Gene would have been
    there in each one of the last 4 years. And I'm very proud of his service
    and excited about his promotion.
        We know that our economic future is increasingly dependent upon
    mastering the challenges of the global economy. Today I am pleased to
    announce that I am appointing Dan Tarullo to be Assistant to the
    President for International Economic Policy. In his job, Dan will report
    to the heads of both the NEC and the NSC, bringing thus even closer
    coordination between our foreign and our economic teams. He's
    represented the United States around the world as we have negotiated
    trade agreements as Assistant Secretary of State and Deputy Director of
    the NEC.
        I'm also pleased to announce the completion of our foreign policy
    team. Our Ambassador to the United Nations must be someone who can give
    voice to America's interests and ideals around the world, someone who
    can work to reform the United Nations so that it costs less and is
    prepared to meet its new challenges, someone who can not only talk but
    who can also act effectively.
        All Americans have watched admiringly as Bill Richardson has
    undertaken the toughest and most delicate diplomatic efforts around the
    world, from North Korea to Iraq. Just this week, Congressman Richardson
    was huddled in a rebel chieftain's hut in Sudan, eating barbecued goat
    and negotiating the freedom of three hostages. Today I am proud to
    nominate him to be our next Ambassador to the United Nations, to serve
    in my Cabinet and as a principal on our foreign policy team.
        In addition to his already long list of foreign policy achievements,
    he has represented the people of northern New Mexico for 14 years now as
    a member of the House Democratic leadership, and as one of our Nation's
    most prominent and proud Hispanic leaders. He told me last night how
    much he loved the people of his district. He and Al Gore used to compete
    for who held the most town meetings in the entire Congress. I know he
    will serve those con-

    [[Page 2197]]

    stituents and all the American people exceedingly well as the United
    Nations Ambassador.
        I'm very proud of this team. We're making good progress in putting
    our new people in place, and in resolving all the other outstanding
    questions. I hope the Senate now will move as quickly as possible to
    confirm them. I was very pleased that in 1993, with only one exception,
    all the members of my Cabinet were confirmed the day after the
    Inauguration, and I hope we can continue to push through that process.
        Finally, before our new appointees have a chance to say a few words,
    I know you're all interested in a couple of other matters. I have been
    having talks with a number of other Cabinet members, as all of you know.
    I have not yet finished my conversations, but in the last several days I
    have spoken with Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala,
    Attorney General Janet Reno, and just this morning, our EPA
    Administrator, Carol Browner. I have asked all of them to stay on in
    their current jobs. We will make those and some other announcements
    formally soon, when I finish my round of interviews, so that we can
    announce the rest of our domestic economic team.
        And the last matter I want to mention is, as all of you know, Jack
    Quinn has announced that he will have to leave the White House as White
    House Counsel because of family obligations. Jack and I have known each
    other a long time. He and the Vice President have known each other a
    long time. I just want to say a word of thanks for the integral and
    invaluable work he has done as a White House staff member, the fine job
    he has done as Counsel to the President. He has really been a superb
    Counsel. I will miss him very much. We had a long talk about the
    reasons--I think the good reasons, indeed the best reasons anyone can
    ever have for leaving public service. I will regret that, but I wish him
    well, and I look forward to making an expeditious appointment of a
    replacement.
        Now I would like to ask Bill Daley, Bill Richardson, Gene Sperling,
    and Dan Tarullo to make brief statements, and we will proceed to
    questions.

    [At this point, Secretary of Commerce-designate William M. Daley made
    brief remarks. As United Nations Ambassador-designate Bill Richardson
    began his remarks, Secretary-designate Daley fainted.]

        The President. Where is my doctor?
        I think he's fine. He fainted. I think he fainted; I think he's
    fine. We'll give you a report in a minute.
        Go ahead.

    [Ambassador-designate Richardson concluded his remarks. National
    Economic Adviser Gene Sperling and Assistant to the President for
    International Economic Policy Dan Tarullo then made brief remarks, and
    Secretary-designate Daley returned to the stage.]

        The President. Welcome back.
        Secretary-designate Daley. Thanks.
        The President. Mr. Fornier [Ron Fornier, Associated Press].

    President's Accomplishments and First Lady's Role

        Q. Mr. President, looking beyond today's announcement to your second
    term, can you tell us how you hope history will judge your 8 years in
    office? What single accomplishment would you like to be remembered for?
    And along those lines, could you share your thinking with us on the
    specific roles, the specific roles, the First Lady will play in the next
    4 years?
        The President. That's enough for an hour. [Laughter]
        You've heard me say that I believe this time is most closely
    paralleled in our history to about 100 years ago, when then we moved
    from the farm to the factory, from the rural areas to the city; we
    became primarily an urban manufacturing country. We are now a global
    leader, and the basis of all economic activity is increasingly knowledge
    and information and technology.
        I would like to be remembered as the President who prepared America
    for that future, who prepared America for the 21st century, where we had
    opportunity available to all Americans who were responsible enough to
    exercise it; where we lived with the diversity of this country and the
    diversity of the world on terms of respect and honor, giving everyone a
    chance to live up to the fullest of his or her own ability and building
    a stronger sense of community, instead of becoming more divided as so
    many countries are; and where we continue to be the indispensable nation
    in the world for peace and freedom and prosperity. That is my vision of

    [[Page 2198]]

    America in the 21st century. And when I'm finished, I hope people will
    add up all of the things we did and say, that is what they achieved.
        I have nothing to add to what I've already said about the First
    Lady, except that the State Department has asked her to undertake more
    efforts around the world, following up on the Beijing Conference, like
    the one she did in northern Thailand recently, speaking out on behalf of
    human rights dimensions of women and young girls around the world. And I
    expect she will do more of that, and I expect she will continue her
    interests in children and families and related issues here at home. But
    I have nothing else to say beyond that.
        Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].

    Balanced Budget and Protecting the Poor

        Q. Mr. President, what is your response to the perception that you
    are willing to sacrifice the needy and compassion at the altar of a
    balanced budget and bipartisanship? I refer to the fact that you have
    not mentioned any remedy for the punitive parts of the welfare law
    recently; that you're reviewing children with disabilities with an eye
    to dropping them from benefits; that you may wipe out the fuel--heating
    oil subsidy; that you may slash by $1 billion low-cost housing budgets;
    and a few other things.
        The President. Well, first of all, let me say I have no intention of
    slashing the home heating oil budget as we come to the winter. That's
    one budget item I know something about.
        We have--in the drive to balance the budget we have to make some
    tough decisions, and some of the housing issues will be brought before
    me, I'm sure, in the last round of appeals. But we've not made final
    budget decisions there.
        If you look at the record of this administration, I think it would
    be very hard to make a case that we have been callous toward the poor. I
    mean, look what we did: We doubled the earned-income tax credit, raised
    the minimum wage, increased the availability of immunizations to poor
    children, dramatically expanded the number of poor children in Head
    Start, vetoed two welfare reform bills which revoked the guarantees of
    health care and nutrition to poor children because they did. And as a
    result, there are about a million fewer children living in poverty
    today. We had the biggest drop in poverty among children in 20 years,
    the biggest drop among poverty--among working single women in 30 years.
    the lowest poverty rate ever recorded in 1995 for African-Americans.
    That is the record of this administration. I think it is very hard to
    make a case that an administration with that record and those policies
    is insensitive to the problems of the poor.
        Now, in welfare reform, there are two great issues before us in the
    welfare reform. Issue number one is, there are not now enough jobs
    available, particularly in a lot of urban areas, for all the able-bodied
    people on welfare when they run out of their 2-year time limit under the
    new law. I said that all along. That's why a big part of my campaign for
    the Presidency this time was the commitment to present to Congress and
    to challenge the States to do things like provide special tax incentives
    and wage subsidies and training subsidies to employers to help hire
    people off welfare and to help the cites with a lot of welfare caseload.
    That's the big welfare reform problem.
        Number two, there are problems in the welfare reform bill, as I have
    repeatedly said, that have nothing to do with welfare that will hurt a
    lot of innocent people, principally, the way legal immigrants who get
    hurt, through no fault of their own, are treated and the way the
    nutrition programs, the food stamp programs are treated for single men
    who are willing to go to work and, most importantly, for working
    families. I have set aside several billion dollars in my balanced budget
    plan to fix those problems. And the budget I present to the Congress
    will address both of those within the context of a balanced budget plan.
        On the question of the disabled children, I want to ask all of you
    to help all of us on this, because here's the issue: Nearly everyone who
    reviewed the law as it used to be said that the disability definitions
    were too broad and that it was very difficult to justify, given all the
    needs of the country, the coverage that existed under the old law. And
    we even proposed to the Congress that some changes be made to tighten
    the standards of disability coverage for children under SSI.
        Now what we have to do is to define regulations under the new law.
    So the trick is going to be to do it in a way that does not hurt
    genuinely needy children and families and cause harm instead of
    tightening up a program that virtually everyone who analyzed it thought
    ought

    [[Page 2199]]

    to be tightened up. So we're all going to have to just watch that one
    and try not to mess it up. But the welfare reform bill I think is going
    to prove to be a good bill. I do not think it will increase job poverty
    if we create jobs. We need to fix the nonwelfare parts of the welfare
    bill.
        Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News], let me say before you leave, I know this
    is your last White House press conference; you'll be too important to
    mess with Presidents and other people before long. [Laughter] But over
    the last several years, I think all of us think you have done an
    extraordinary, professional job under Republican and Democratic
    administrations alike, and we will miss you. And we wish you well, and
    congratulations on your new position.

    Independent Counsels

        Q. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you very much, indeed.
        Sir, over the years Republicans have sometimes criticized the whole
    idea of having an Office of Independent Counsel as being subject to
    abuse, possibly raising the prospect of witch hunts. More recently, one
    of your chief political advisers seems to have joined in that thinking,
    and you, yourself, have even suggested that the current Independent
    Counsel may be, as I believe you put it, ``out to get you.'' I wonder if
    you could give us your current thinking on the whole independent counsel
    process and how this particular one is, in your view, doing its job?
        The President. Well, on the second part of that question, I have
    nothing to add to what I said earlier on that.
        But let me say there may be a few limited cases where this is
    appropriate. I was impressed by the comments made by Archibald Cox. I
    believe he wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times a day or two ago.
    And what I think what we ought to do is to search out people like that.
    The American Bar Association recently had a seminar where a lot of
    people who have been involved in this work for years came and talked
    about what kind of cases ought to be covered, what kinds of timelines
    ought to be there, what kinds of limitations on there ought to be.
        And I think what we ought to do is to take people who aren't so
    personally involved in it but who understand the enormous costs of the
    present system, as well as whatever benefits might come to it, and
    reassess it. But I think, you know, we could start with what Mr. Cox had
    to say and analyze it and go from there. But I think--I have to focus my
    attention on trying to complete the agenda the American people elected
    me to complete, and that's what I intend to do.
        I do think this is worth some study and thought, but I think you
    ought to refer to people who are not so caught up in it and don't have
    other things to do, like I do. I need to not think about that. I need to
    think about my plans to grow the economy and improve education and other
    things.
        Mr. Frisby [Mike Frisby, Wall Street Journal].

    Capital Gains Tax Cut

        Q. Mr. President, Republicans on Capitol Hill still want to cut the
    capital gains tax. Are there any conditions in which you would agree to
    such a cut if it would result in a budget deal?
        The President. Well, I have always said that I was not inherently
    opposed to any kind of capital gains tax, and indeed, there was a
    capital gains treatment in my first budget in '93 for investments in new
    and small businesses that were held for a significant period of time. It
    is not part of my balanced budget because I had other priorities which I
    was trying to advance.
        We are not going to get a balanced budget--which the American people
    need, which our economy needs, and which would do, I think, very good
    things for us not only economically but also psychologically as we move
    forward into this new century--in the absence of bipartisan cooperation.
        So as--when the 50-plus hours I spent with Senator Dole and Speaker
    Gingrich and Mr. Armey last year, I made clear to them in private what I
    have said publicly several times, which is that obviously I had no right
    to say that was a show-stopper in a deal. I was perfectly willing to
    talk about it, but only in the context of balanced budget negotiations.

    District of Columbia

        Q. Mr. President, I'd like to shift the focus to something that I
    think is equally as important--or at least many people think is
    important as some of the so-called national things we speak about, and
    that's the question about the Nation's Capital City--your city, sir. I
    wonder what you could tell us, what help perhaps or comment

    [[Page 2200]]

    you might offer on what many people think to be is a chaotic and failing
    District of Columbia government. Now, the financial control board does
    recommend a partial takeover. I wonder how you feel about that, or is it
    time for a complete takeover, sir?
        The President. Let me, first of all, say I have had several
    conversations in the last 2 months, leading up to and after the
    election, about what I believe is my responsibility and the
    responsibility of our administration to try to play a constructive role
    in making Washington the kind of city it ought to be.
        In the last 4 years, first Alice Rivlin and then Frank have worked
    hard to coordinate what our administration was doing in Washington.
    Henry Cisneros, for example, has done a lot of good work on homelessness
    here in Washington. The Commerce Department has taken some community-
    based initiatives. Even my Secret Service detail adopted a school in
    response to my request for people to do more in Washington. But we have
    not done as much as we can, so that's the first thing I want to say.
        The second thing I want to say is that the American people need to
    understand the unique challenges facing Washington. Washington, DC, is
    really not quite a State but not quite a city. It is not quite dependent
    and not quite independent. And I think that is the source of a lot of
    the difficulties we face today. There is sort of a series of purgatories
    in which Washington has found itself over the years, and very often when
    functions are divided in responsibility, they wind up being nobody's
    responsibility and easy for people to avoid, therefore, the tough
    decisions that have to be made.
        So what--I have asked the Office of Management and Budget and Frank
    Raines in his capacity as head of this task force to review that. I was
    very impressed that the DC control board came out with a set of specific
    recommendations, and I want to review them and try to do two things:
    Number one, I want to respond to the financial recommendations that will
    come both from Frank Raines and from the DC control board. And number
    two, I want to think in a larger way about what kind of more systematic
    effort we can make to be a constructive force in the revitalization of
    Washington.
        This is a beautiful city. This is a city full of talented people. It
    has problems, but so does every other city in America. And I am
    convinced that a lot of these problems have been aggravated over time by
    the fact that--what I would call ``not quite'' factor: not quite a
    State, not quite a city, not quite independent, not quite dependent, and
    so there has just been too much gray area. And we have to try to resolve
    this and work through it. And I promise you a more serious effort.
        Q. Just to follow up, sir, will you be speaking with House Speaker
    Newt Gingrich, who has mentioned trying to work up a plan, and Senate
    Leader Trent Lott----
        The President. Absolutely.
        Q. ----will this be a----
        The President. Again, I would say we have to do this on a bipartisan
    basis. When the control board was set up, Congressman Davis was a very
    constructive force in this, and of course, Eleanor Holmes Norton. So we
    know we have to do this together. And I think we have--those of us who
    live here and work here have a real obligation to try to resolve this.
    But I just want to make it clear that I think we need some serious fixes
    here that deal with this sort of ``not quite'' factor. You've got to
    resolve who is going to be responsible for what, how is it going to be
    done, where are we going to be over the long run?
        Q. But you could do that as President, couldn't you, sir?
        The President. Well, not unilaterally, but we've got to have some
    help from the Congress. We'll work on it.

    Nomination Process and Government Service

        Q. Mr. President, with it now revealed that there are Justice
    Department investigations ongoing about two members of your national
    security team, one nominee and one person who doesn't have to get Senate
    confirmation, I'm wondering if you could tell us why you decided to go
    ahead with people under Justice Department investigation, and whether,
    as Mr. Daley sort of alluded to, you worry that the level of scrutiny
    has become so high that maybe people feel that they are driven out of
    accepting jobs. It's also been reported that you're having trouble
    filling the White House Counsel's post because people don't want a job
    that is going to just be one problem after another--[inaudible]--
    questions on that.
        The President. Well, there was a recent--let me answer two points of
    your question. Number one, I will take full responsibility for whatever
    happens here; I'm fully aware of the status of

    [[Page 2201]]

    the issues relating to Mr. Berger and Mr. Lake, and based on the advice
    of Mr. Quinn, my White House Counsel, I decided to go forward because I
    am convinced that nothing they did was in any way disqualifying, and
    because the issues involved were very straightforward, but have been
    over at the Justice Department for some time, and we had to make a
    decision. I mean, the work of the people has to go forward.
        So what we decided to do is to let the thing go forward. You know
    what the issues are; they've been fully disclosed; there's nothing there
    that has not been disclosed, to the best of my knowledge. And I made a
    decision, based on the advice of my Counsel, that the best people that I
    wanted to appoint could in fact be appointed and that the issues
    outstanding were not disqualifying.
        Now, to the larger question you asked, there is no question that the
    climate has changed to the point where a lot of people don't want to
    fool with it anymore. There's no doubt about it. In fact, I was sort of
    touched by what Mr. Daley said because I have to say that the truly
    moving thing is how many gifted men and women of all walks of life are
    still willing to serve, notwithstanding the fact that they know they may
    be subject to things that are excessive and unfair.
        There was, a couple of weeks ago, a commission--I can't even
    remember who chaired the commission, but I know Lloyd Cutler was a
    member of it--on the whole appointment process. You know what I'm
    talking about, don't you? I'm--what was the formal name of the
    commission? Yes, the 20th Century Fund Commission. And they made a lot
    of recommendations there that I thought had a lot of merit.
        Now, of course, the appointment process is largely controlled by the
    Congress and by the Senate, and it would require the Senate to, with
    some discipline, moderate its own procedures and change it. But I
    thought it was quite impressive, the thoughtfulness, the fairness, and
    the balance of that fund's recommendation. So I couldn't add anything to
    the recommendations they made. I think that ought to be studied, and we
    ought to decide what to do about it.
        Q. Just to follow up, sir, do you think that there's any possibility
    that mistakes made within your own White House, though, have contributed
    to this perception?
        The President. But I don't think--when you're making millions and
    millions of actions, literally, over a 4-year period, everybody's going
    to make some mistakes. The question is, does the mistake amount to a
    violation of law? Does it amount to a dereliction of duty? Does it
    amount to some dark attempt to undermine the public interest?
        I mean, there is a sense--what I think we need here is full
    disclosure, but reasoned judgment, and a certain balance here. You know,
    in order to get all of the information out, you have to have the
    information accompanied with balance. And I think everybody has to ask
    themselves what is fundamentally fair here. I think a lot of people who
    don't want to come in say, well, somebody raises a question, then there
    is a presumption of guilt, you have to prove yourself innocent of things
    you're not even sure of what the charge is. And that's what I think we
    have to avoid, which is why I thought the suggestions of this 20th
    Century Fund Commission bore some evaluation.
        Again, I don't have time to think much about it, because I have to
    keep working on the agenda that I ran on, the agenda I've been working
    on, and the one I'm trying to implement for the next 4 years. But I do
    think that those of you in a different position might well evaluate it.
        Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, CNN].

    Balanced Budget Amendment and Partial Birth Abortion

        Q. Mr. President, with Congress coming back into a new session,
    there seems to be indications they will take up two issues which are
    contentious which you have opposed in the past: an amendment to balance
    the budget, a constitutional amendment to balance the budget--you caused
    some, I guess, concern a few weeks ago among some of your aides by
    suggesting you could live with a constitutional amendment to balance the
    budget--and secondly, legislation that would ban a late-term abortion
    procedure known as partial birth abortions. Could you tell us exactly
    what kind of language you could accept on both of those issues that
    would allow you to go forward and support those matters?
        The President. Well, they're two different things there. First of
    all, what I said on the balanced budget thing, I don't think--let me try
    to be clear here so I won't be misunderstood. I do not believe it is
    good policy or need-

    [[Page 2202]]

    ed to have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I do
    believe that it's good policy for America to pass a balanced budget plan
    now and to implement it. And I believe I have some credibility on that
    because we've cut the deficit by more in 4 years than anybody has in a
    month of Sundays. So everybody knows that--and my record as Governor was
    that of a fiscal conservative.
        So this is not about fiscal conservatism. It is about whether you
    can design a constitutional amendment which in difficult and very
    different times than the ones in which we now live won't do more harm
    than good. That's my only concern there.
        And so the only thing--what I was trying to say when I was asked
    about this before is, there have been changes in the composition of the
    Senate which at least apparently give them enough votes to pass this
    amendment. So what I was saying is I'm not for this, but if you're going
    to do it, try to do it in a way that gives you enough flexibility to
    deal with the kinds of things that can happen. We're passing this
    constitutional amendment in a very different environment than some of
    the environments in which we've lived in the last 30 years. That's the
    only point I was trying to make on that.
        Now, perhaps changes in the House will make it more difficult to
    pass in the House, but I just don't know. You know, the President cannot
    veto a constitutional amendment. It gets passed and sent out to the
    States. So that's the point I want to make on that.
        On the partial birth abortion issue, I would very much--I wanted to
    sign that legislation when I first heard about it; I thought I would
    sign it, since I am generally opposed to third-trimester abortions
    anyway and signed legislation to restrict them in Arkansas.
        The problem is, I will say again, there are a few hundred women
    every year who have personally agonizing situations, where their
    children are born or about to be born with terrible deformities which
    will cause them to die either just before, during, or just after
    childbirth. And these women, among other things, cannot preserve the
    ability to have further children unless the enormous size of the baby's
    head is reduced before being extracted from their bodies. This is a very
    painful thing to discuss. I have met six of these women. I will say
    again, three of them were pro-life Catholics. One of them was a pro-life
    evangelical Christian. This is not a pro-life, pro-choice issue. To me
    this is a practical problem. I believe that people put in that situation
    ought not to have Congress tell them that they're never going to be able
    to have children again.
        Now, I know there are just a few hundred of them, and I know that
    all the votes were on the other side. And I am well aware that there
    were several places in this country where major political headway was
    made against the Vice President and me and against some of our
    candidates for Congress and against others running for other things
    because of this issue, because it sounds so awful when you describe it--
    that the politics is all on the other side. But one of the things the
    President is supposed to do is to look out for the few hundred against
    the many millions when the facts are not consistent with the rhetoric.
        And I'm just telling you--Hillary and I, we only have one child. And
    I just cannot look at a woman who's in a situation where the baby she is
    bearing against all her wishes and prayers is going to die anyway, and
    tell her that I am signing a law which will prevent her from ever having
    another child. I'm not going to do it.
        Now, I pleaded and I pleaded and I pleaded last time with the
    Congress to adopt highly restrictive language on this procedure which
    would make it clear that there had to be a very serious health problem
    for the woman involved before it could be adopted, in addition to having
    her own life at stake--a very serious health problem, like having the
    ability to have a child again. And they would not do it. And they would
    not do it. And they would not do it, I believe, because it was great
    politics. But it's bad policy.
        So if we will--if we can have the right sort of language here--I
    don't like this procedure. I don't think anybody ought to just, you
    know, show up 8 months and 2 weeks pregnant and say, ``I just think I'd
    like to have an abortion, and this is what I want to use.'' I think the
    States should have taken care of that. Eighty percent of the States
    have, but 20 percent haven't. But if they will help me with language
    here and do it in good faith, I will happily sign this bill.
        But there are a few hundred people every year that are adversely
    affected by this, and I am the only person that's elected by all the
    people that feels, therefore, less pressure on this. I have to do what I
    think is right. I cannot take away from these women the right to bear

    [[Page 2203]]

    further children. It would be wrong, and I will not do it.

    Stock Market

        Q. Mr. President, do you share Alan Greenspan's view that Wall
    Street is currently in the grips of irrational exuberance? And agree or
    not that the market is overpriced, when the inevitable correction comes,
    what is the degree of risk that it will throw the economy into a
    tailspin?
        The President. Well, I don't comment on the Fed's decisions, and I
    don't comment on the market's movements, so I shouldn't talk about the
    Fed Chairman's comments about the market's movements. [Laughter] Nothing
    I say will produce any good.
        I think the answer to your second question is the same--I'll tell
    you an interesting story. You know when the market fell in '87, by blind
    accident, when the market closed, the then-wealthiest man in America,
    Sam Walton, was sitting in my office in Little Rock, in the Governor's
    office, just by pure coincidence. He was there on business. He came in
    to see me, and we were sitting there at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, or
    whenever it was, and the market closed in New York. So he called, and I
    said, ``Sam, how much money did you lose today?'' He said, ``A billion
    dollars, on paper.'' And I said, ``What do you think about it?'' He
    said, ``I think tomorrow I'm going to get in my airplane and fly to a
    little town in Tennessee where they're opening a new Wal-Mart, and if
    the pickups and the cars show up and people get out and buy goods,
    America's all right. This is a Main Street economy.''
        So I say to you, I'm very pleased that not only wealthy people but a
    lot of middle class people have made a lot of money in the markets. A
    lot of people's retirements are more secure because of it. I'm proud of
    the vibrant markets we have. They will change. They go up and down; they
    always do. My job is to keep the underlying fundamentals sound so that
    tomorrow, in all those little towns all across America, people can get
    up and go to work and go to the store and buy something. If that
    happens, I think we'll be okay.
        Q. Mr. President, given the fact that people have invested in
    pensions, 401(k)'s, it really has become a middle class situation, isn't
    it almost inevitable that a correction would trigger a tailspin?
        The President. No. I don't think we should over-conclude that. Look
    at '87. Look at everything since 1929. You've seen long-term--over the
    long term, if we have the discipline, all of us, to ride out the
    inevitable changes in the markets, the markets have produced a very
    steady growth over the long run, even with ups and downs and even when
    the downs were fairly significant.

    Television Rating System

        Q. Mr. President, as the country prepares to see its first
    television rating system devised, can you give us some of your thoughts
    about whether or not an American parent who feels particularly concerned
    about violence but perhaps not so concerned about exposing his or her
    child to sexual content or bad language--should that parent be able to
    know in advance if a television program has violent content?
        The President. Let me try to answer you based on what I know now. Of
    course, that is the controversy about the proposed television rating
    system which the industry has come up with. They said that they would
    try to develop a television rating system which would more or less
    parallel the movie rating system. I have not yet had a report on it, but
    apparently that is what they have done. All I know is what all of you
    have reported about it, but apparently that is what they have done.
    Therefore, the big conflict now is whether the rating system should be
    more content-based instead of age-based. This is like the movie system
    except it has more age categories than the movie system, as I understand
    it.
        I guess what I would say to you is that I believe that it's a good
    thing that on these cable movies you have--you get a sort of a sheet
    comes on the screen and checks the content issues. But it's a very
    different thing with all of these hundreds and hundreds of television
    programs that are on and everything. What I would say is, let's remember
    how far we've come. This has been debated for 10 years. We now have one;
    we're going to have one a year before televisions have to start
    including the V-chip.
        The industry itself has promised to review where they are within 10
    months. So what I think we should do, since I feel very strongly the
    Government should not do this--this must be an industry-based thing, the
    Government should not be involved in this--what I think

    [[Page 2204]]

    ought to happen is that all of the parents in the country ought to look
    at these ratings, ask themselves the questions you've just asked, check
    the shows against the ratings, give it 10 months to work, and then if
    they're inadequate or there needs to be some more content in the rating
    systems, then after a 10-month test period we'll be able to make that
    argument, I think, all of us. And I think the industry has shown that
    they're interested in doing something here.
        I believe that at this moment we shouldn't say that the whole thing
    is not worth doing, I think, because it does bear rough parallels to
    what's been done in the movies, except there are more age categories, as
    I understand it.

    Foreign Campaign Contributions

        Q. Mr. President, our political system does not outlaw contributions
    by foreigners, and these legal contributions are made to both Democrats
    and Republicans. When foreigners give huge sums of money--$10,000 or
    $100,000 or $400,000--what do you think they think they will get in
    return?
        The President. I think it's probably different for different people.
    You know, when--sometimes, according to reports that I've read in the
    press, they think maybe it may enhance their standing in their own
    countries. Sometimes they may think that it's something they ought to do
    because they have business operations in America--which they have to
    have, you know, they have to be somehow involved in America to give
    legally. They may think that it enhances their standing as citizens.
        Sometimes there may be a specific issue. I suppose--and I don't
    begrudge this; this is perfectly legal--but when the British tobacco
    company, Brown and Williamson, made significant contributions to the
    Republicans, they did it because they agree with their position and
    disagree with my position on the regulation of tobacco and the
    restriction of the advertising, sales, and marketing of tobacco to
    children.
        So there are different reasons. But let me reiterate what I said
    about this earlier. I believe that has been legal, and I can understand
    why it has--you know, if you've got a green card, you're paying taxes,
    you're working here, maybe you ought to be able to give. If you have a
    business here, maybe you ought to be able to give. I understand the
    argument. But I think that, as we've seen in the last few weeks, it
    raises more questions than it answers, and I personally believe that the
    campaign finance reform legislation should make contributions by adult
    non-citizens illegal. Now--and we shouldn't do it anymore.
        Furthermore, I think we ought to go on and pass the campaign finance
    reform legislation. As I said Wednesday in my speech to the DLC,
    repeated reasonable bills have died by Senate filibuster. Let me tell
    you, there is always an objection to any bill. There has never been a
    perfect piece of legislation passed by the Congress. There is always a
    theoretical or actual objection anybody can raise to any bill. But the
    time has come to quit killing this by filibuster and to pass it. And I'm
    prepared to do my part. And we ought to start with the McCain-Feingold
    bill. It's a good bill, it's a reasonable bill, it's a bipartisan bill,
    and we ought to pass it. And we should amend it to make the foreign
    contributions not legal anymore.
        Mara [Mara Liasson, National Public Radio].

    Education

        Q. Mr. President, when you begin your campaign to improve public
    education in this country, are you going to follow up on a suggestion
    that you made in the first Presidential debate, which is to encourage
    States and cities to offer vouchers for private school choice?
        The President. I don't believe I made that suggestion.
        Q. You said that States and cities should be allowed to do it.
        The President. No--well, I've always thought they should be allowed
    to do it. I supported Milwaukee's right to do it. But I'm not going to
    encourage or discourage. I think it should be made based on the facts of
    the case. I am opposed to the Federal Government doing it. Our aid is
    too limited, and it is too targeted, and it is too much needed for what
    is done now. And if I were at the State and local level, I would not be
    in favor of it because I think the schools are underfunded. I don't
    think they're overfunded. But I do believe that they have the legal
    right to do it, and I don't support any action to take that legal right
    away from them. And if they think the situation is totally out of hand
    and they want to try what they did in Milwaukee, I think they ought to
    have the right to do it.
        Q. This is along the same lines. You talked over the course of your
    Presidency a lot about

    [[Page 2205]]

    college accessibility, affordability, tuition credits, et cetera, but
    there are festering problems at the secondary and elementary levels
    across this country, probably nowhere more pronounced than in this very
    city. Do you have any initiatives or programs in mind that can reform,
    if not rescue, the public schools of America?
        The President. Well, the rescue of the public schools of America
    will have to be done by the people who are in control of them. We do
    fundamentally have local control of our schools, and under the
    constitutions of virtually every State in the country, the States are
    constitutionally responsible for them. So when you hear people say they
    want local control and they don't like all these Federal rules, the
    truth is, we do have local control.
        The Federal contribution to public education is about 7 cents on the
    dollar; never been higher than 10 cents on the dollar. But there are
    things that we can do and that I believe we should do. First of all, I
    think we should support reform efforts. That's why I have supported
    things like public school choice and charter schools. We have in this
    balanced budget plan sufficient funds for 3,000 charter schools which
    would triple the number of schools created under the umbrella of local
    school districts but without a lot of the rules and regulations which I
    think make real learning more difficult, with more control for the
    parents and the principals and the teachers in each school.
        Secondly, I think we should support the establishment in every State
    of national standards of excellence and means of measuring it. And one
    of the things I think we should do more of where I think we have not--
    let me back up and say, when we did the education summit in 1989 with
    President Bush and the Governors all came together and we stayed up all
    night and wrote the national education goals, if you read the document
    that goes with the goals we wrote, we were moving to deal with what was
    a really tough issue.
        Keep in mind, this is now a 13-year effort in our country, starting
    back--going back to the ``Nation At Risk'' report in early '83, when we
    said our schools are in trouble, we need more math, we need more
    science, we need more foreign language, we need higher standards, we
    need better paid, better trained, and more accountable teachers--all
    those things that came out in '83. So then, all of the States worked on
    that. So by '89, we could see that the problem was, you can always have
    more and better of anything, but what is the goal here?
        And that's why the national educational goals were adopted, so we
    would have some way of measuring whether we were succeeding. But we all
    understood that even though we wanted constitutional responsibility and
    local control, that our children were going to be judged by global
    standards. And the next step is plainly to devise not Federal Government
    but national standards of excellence.
        We got there in mathematics and science; there actually are pretty
    widely accepted mathematics and science standards at the high school
    level and, to some extent, at the junior high school level. There was
    all the controversy over the history standards--do you remember that,
    right after I took office? They were not developed in our
    administration, but they were presented then. I still think we can
    achieve standards in the arts.
        And then I believe there has to be a nationally recognized means of
    testing kids so that we know, by some more or less universal standards,
    whether our kids know what they're supposed to know. And I think that we
    should work very hard on that, not Government standards but national
    standards. And I think unless we're prepared to hold all of our kids up
    to the light of real measurement, we'll never know and we'll never
    succeed in having a genuine national education system.

    Campaign Financing

        Q. Mr. President, in the last election the Democratic Party raised
    more money than it ever had before. Do you think you put too much
    pressure on your fundraisers, and do you take any sort of personal
    responsibility for the problems and the embarrassments that subsequently
    developed?
        The President. Well, yes, I think any of us who were involved in it
    have to take some responsibility. I certainly do. But let me say that I
    did everything I could to make it clear that I wanted the law followed
    to the last letter. I wanted every ``t'' crossed, every ``i'' dotted.
        In our campaign, Lyn Utrecht and others rigorously checked every
    check that came in. But I feel very badly that there were some funds
    received which should not have been received. Some of them were illegal.
    Some of them were not illegal, but on better judgment would dictate that
    they not be received. I also believe it's

    [[Page 2206]]

    a disservice to the more--to the 99 percent of the people plus and the
    more than 98 percent of the contributions that the Democratic Party
    received that were perfectly legal and perfectly appropriate.
        So, yes, I think that. And that's why I am pleased that the
    Democratic Party has contracted with a law firm and an accounting firm
    to review all this, to analyze what was done, get to the bottom of it,
    and make sure that it never happens again.
        But I'll say again, the real answer, in spite of all of that, it is
    very difficult to raise that kind of money in that kind of way without
    some problem occurring. You remember back during the campaign, there was
    an official of the Dole campaign who actually had to plead guilty to a
    money-laundering operation. And I'm sure Senator Dole felt somewhat
    responsible for that, although I do not believe in any way he knew about
    it or condoned it.
        What you see here is too much money being raised, raising too many
    questions, and taking too much time away from all the people involved.
    The answer to this--there will never be a perfect answer until we reform
    the campaign finance system.
        So, yes, we should--the Democratic Party should investigate,
    evaluate what's done, make sure its house is clean, and should live
    within the rules. But even living within the rules, you're going to
    have--the amount of money it takes to communicate with the American
    people today, unless you make campaign finance reform--restrict spending
    limits, give people access to free media time in return for restricted
    limits--unless you do that there will always be questions raised, even
    when their contributions are perfectly legal.
        The answer is to reform this system. We can do it now. If one good
    thing could come out of this whole issue, it would be shining the bright
    light on the larger issues of how campaigns are financed today and how
    we're the only country in the world that really does it like this--or at
    least in the Western world, I believe, and we ought to stop it and have
    some campaign finance reform.

    Terrorist Attack in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

        Q. Can we get just one foreign policy question, sir? Have you seen
    any evidence to support Saudi Arabia's suspicions that Iran may be
    somehow involved with the Khobar Tower bombing? And if those suspicions
    do get played out, what kind of consequences might Iran face?
        The President. As you might imagine, I have spent a great deal of
    time on the Khobar issue since it occurred, first of all, making sure
    that we redeployed our forces in Saudi Arabia, making sure that we
    strengthened our defenses, making sure that we analyzed very carefully
    what had been done, because all of us policymakers from top to bottom
    underestimated the degree of terrorist threat which could be presented
    to our men and women in uniform, and they don't deserve that. They
    deserve the best possible decisionmaking by us.
        I have also exerted a lot of effort to make sure that we were
    cooperating and working with the Saudis in investigating the murder. The
    FBI Director has been there on more than one occasion. We have worked
    hard on this.
        I think it is only fair, however, to say that the investigation is
    not completed. I have not reached any--been presented with any final
    conclusions. I have not reached any final conclusions myself. And
    because of that, anything I say about what we might do if we knew what
    had happened would only give rise to an inference that I had really
    concluded someone was guilty of something that I don't know they're
    guilty of yet. So I can't say more except to say that we are on top of
    this and we are going to stay on top of it.
        Thank you.

    Note: The President's 132d news conference began at 2 p.m. in Room 450
    of the Old Executive Office Building. In his remarks, he referred to
    Archibald Cox, former Watergate special prosecutor. The President also
    referred to the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
    Management Assistance Authority. A portion of this news conference could
    not be verified because the tape was incomplete.