[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book I)]
[January 28, 1997]
[Pages 77-88]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



The President's News Conference
January 28, 1997

    The President. Good afternoon. Please be seated. Before I take your 
questions, I would like to make a brief statement about the balanced 
budget that I will send to Congress next week.
    This budget shows that we can meet two of our most crucial national 
priorities at the same time. It proves we can protect our children from 
a future burdened by reckless debt even as we give them the educational 
opportunities they need to make the most of the 21st century.
    The budget finally moves us beyond the false choices that have held 
us back for too long and shows that we can cut our debt and invest in 
our children. The budget will help to renew our public schools. It will 
expand Head Start, help rebuild crumbling classrooms. It will double 
funding for public charter schools, giving parents more choice in how 
they educate their children. It will increase funding for Goals 2000 by 
26 percent. And it will help our students to reach high standards and 
master the basics of reading, writing, math, and science.
    It will also enable us to connect our schools and our libraries to 
the information superhighway. The budget more than doubles our 
investment in technology to hook our children up to computers and the 
Internet, and it increases by a third our investment in partnerships 
with teachers and industries to develop quality educational programming 
and technology. In short, the budget will connect our children to the 
best educational technology in the world.
    It will also open the doors of college education wider than ever 
before. I'd like to take a minute now simply to outline our 
unprecedented commitment to higher education. With this budget, national 
support for college education in the year 2002 will be more than double 
what it was on the day I first took office, going from $24 billion to 
$58 billion per year. The budget will fully pay for a $1,500-a-year 
tuition tax credit, a HOPE scholarship for the first 2 years of college, 
to make the typical community college affordable for every American and 
to achieve our goal of making 2 years of college education as universal 
as a high school diploma is today.
    It will also allow a working family to deduct up to $10,000 a year 
for taxes for the cost of any college tuition or job training. And with 
our special IRA for education, most parents will be able to save for 
college tuition without ever paying a penny in taxes.
    In addition, my balanced budget takes further steps to widen the 
circle of educational opportunity. It provides a 25 percent increase in 
funding for Pell grants, the largest increase in the maximum scholarship 
in 20 years, so that over 4 million students will get up to $3,000 a 
year. We'll make 130,000 more students eligible for these scholarships, 
and we will open the scholarships to 218,000 older, low income Americans 
who want to go to college.
    Second, under the balanced budget we will present, we will continue 
to reform our student loan programs to make college loans easier for 
students to get and easier to pay back. We will cut interest rates on 
loans to students while they're in school. We will cut loan fees for 4 
million low and middle income students in half. Fees on 2\1/2\ million 
more will be cut by 25 percent. Taken together, these two steps will 
save American families $2.6 billion over 5 years.
    Third, we will increase funding again for work-study positions for 
students. That will take us, over about a 3-year period, from 700,000 
work-study positions to 1 million work-study positions per year. And it 
will help us to meet our goal of getting 100,000 of those work-study 
students to participate as tutors in our initiative to make sure that 
all of our 8-year-olds can read independently.
    To encourage community service, we will also provide tax incentives 
to encourage loan forgiveness for students who, after college, choose 
professions that give something back, people who use their education to 
work as teachers, in homeless shelters, as doctors in remote rural 
areas.
    All together, these proposals will move us much closer to our clear 
national goal: an America where every 8-year-old can read, where every 
12-year-old can log on to the Internet, where every 18-year-old can go 
to college, where all Americans will have the knowledge

[[Page 78]]

they need to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I am very proud of 
this budget.
    Finally, let me say a word about campaign finance reform. We all 
know we need to find a new way to finance our campaigns and to bring the 
aggregate spending levels under control. Anyone who is involved in 
politics must accept responsibility for this problem and take 
responsibility to repair it. That is true for me and true for others as 
well.
    Last week, I met with Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, and 
Representatives Chris Shays and Marty Meehan. They have introduced 
tough, balanced, credible, bipartisan campaign finance reform 
legislation. I pledged my support to them. I pledge it again today. I 
pledge to do all I can to help them pass this legislation. Any 
legislation we pass should be bipartisan, should limit spending, and 
should leave the playing field level between parties and between 
incumbents and challengers.
    This is our best chance in a generation to give the American people 
campaigns that are worthy of the world's oldest continuous democracy. I 
call on the members of both parties to work with us to get the job done.
    Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].

Campaign Finance Reform

    Q. Mr. President, my question ties into that. What should the 
American people think of a Presidential campaign in which a day at the 
White House is sold for $250,000 a couple and the Republican Party sells 
a season ticket of access to Capitol Hill for $250,000?
    The President. Well, first, let me say I dispute a little bit the 
characterization there. I can't speak for the Republicans; they'll have 
to speak for themselves. But the people who were there on the day in 
question were not charged a fee. Some of them were our contributors--had 
contributed in the past--they had raised money for me in the past. Some 
of them had not. And so I don't think it's quite an accurate 
characterization.
    But I will say this: If you look at the money that was raised and 
spent not only by the parties and their respective campaign committees 
in the Senate and House but also by all these independent--apparently 
independent third-party committees and you look at the exponential cost 
of the campaigns related to communications, surely we can use this 
opportunity to make something positive come out of this.
    I mean, I think that all of us--as I said, again--every one of us 
who has participated in this system, even if we did it because we 
thought we had to do it to survive or to just keep up, has to take some 
responsibility for its excess, and I take mine. But we have got to do 
something about it. And the only way we can do anything about it is to 
pass the legislation, the McCain-Feingold bill or some acceptable 
variation thereof.
    Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].
    Q. Mr. President, with all the focus on the Democrat fundraising 
right now, why are you attending a million-dollar fundraiser tonight? 
What kind of an image do you think this leaves? And why do these donors 
make these big-money contributions? What do they get in return?
    The President. Well, first of all, under all conceivable campaign 
finance reform scenarios, it will still be necessary for the parties to 
raise some money. And neither party has the capacity to raise all their 
money from direct mail campaigns and contributions of $100 or less. The 
Business Council, the group that is having this fundraiser tonight, is 
one that would be quite consistent with the McCain-Feingold bill, were 
it to pass. And I, frankly, am very appreciative of the fact that these 
folks have been willing to come and help us and that we have increased 
the ranks of particularly younger, more entrepreneurial people in the 
Democratic Party supporting us. So I think it's an important thing to 
do. I don't think there's anything wrong with raising money for the 
political process. The problem is, it is the volume of money, the amount 
of money, the time it takes to raise, the inevitable questions that are 
raised.
    Now, I can tell you what they get from me. I don't know--you have to 
ask them what they expect. What they get from me, I think, is a 
respectful hearing if they have some concern about issues. I think it's 
a good thing when contributors care about the country and have some 
particular area of expertise they want to contribute. But nobody buys a 
guaranteed result, nor should they ever. They should get a respectful 
hearing, and the President should do what's right for the country.
    Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, CNN].

[[Page 79]]

Taxes

    Q. Mr. President, in your new budget that you'll submit next week to 
Congress there will be tax cut proposals, including some of the 
education tax cut proposals you outlined today. But there also, 
presumably, will be some tax increases in the form of what you would 
describe as corporate welfare, getting rid of some of the tax breaks 
that big business have now. Some Republicans are already suggesting that 
netwise, your budget proposal will have a net increase in taxes as 
opposed to a net decrease. Is that a fair assessment of your budget?
    The President. No. I believe that's incorrect. And let me say, I 
also believe--and again, I'm speaking from memory now; I have not 
discussed this with Mr. Raines in the last several weeks. But I believe 
that--number one, I believe it's incorrect, that we do have a net tax 
cut. Number two----
    Q. Tax increase.
    The President. No, we have a net tax cut. Number two, I believe that 
virtually all of the corporate loophole closings that we have in this 
budget are ones that we had discussed with and reached at least general 
agreement on with the congressional leadership back during the budget 
negotiations, when we were having them last year. I believe that to be 
the case. And if it's not, I'll stand corrected, but that's accurate.
    Yes, Gene [Gene Gibbons, Reuters].

President Boris Yeltsin of Russia

    Q. Mr. President, Boris Yeltsin has been out of work for more than 6 
months now because of his health problems. How has that affected your 
ability to do business with the Russian Government? And a related 
question: How will Yeltsin's health problems affect the timing and 
location of the next U.S.-Soviet summit, which had been set for March?
    The President. Well, first, let me make the most important statement 
I think I can make to your question, which is, I have no private 
information that is inconsistent with the public statements of the 
Russian Government on President Yeltsin's health. I have no reason to 
believe, based on any information I have, that his condition is any 
different from what the Russian Government has said it is--first thing.
    Secondly, I had been very impressed by the extent to which President 
Yeltsin made appropriate delegations to Mr. Chernomyrdin during the 
period of his convalescence leading up to the surgery and then in this 
period after the surgery when he developed his illness. And the Vice 
President and Mr. Chernomyrdin are going to meet pretty soon, and their 
ongoing relationship--we have a huge, full agenda. And we have been 
given no impression by the Russians that we aren't still going to have 
the Yeltsin-Clinton meeting in the March timeframe.
    I think it's very important--you know, we have to work through the 
NATO-Russia relationship in connection with expansion and other issues. 
We have a lot of other security issues. We have to deal with the START 
II issues, with where we go after START II. We have a lot of economic 
issues that are still to be resolved. And so I think we'll go right on, 
and I expect to have that meeting in March. And I expect it to be an 
important one and, I hope, a successful one.
    Mr. Donvan [John Donvan, ABC News].

Bipartisanship

    Q. Mr. President, in your Inaugural Address 8 days ago, you outlined 
some quite lofty goals, for example, the education proposals you were 
speaking about today. But in the days since, many questions in the press 
and in Congress have focused on issues like campaign fundraising. My 
question is whether you are worried that the well is being poisoned even 
now for the realization of these goals before you can even get out of 
the gate, particularly on the issue of bipartisanship?
    The President. No. But all I can do is speak for myself. I have 
tried to conduct the Presidency and to guard my words in a way that 
would make it clear that I intend to follow through on my commitment to 
try to establish a working partnership and a dynamic center, not a 
stable, stale one but a dynamic one, with people in both parties. I 
think we will have to continue to work on that.
    As these--you know, just a few days ago, there were--when someone 
asked me if I thought that in the House the issue over the Speaker would 
poison the well, and I didn't, and I don't. I don't think it has. I just 
think that when matters come up that have to be dealt with, they need to 
be dealt with and disposed of. But the American people expect us to 
focus on how we can lift their lives and improve our conditions and move 
our people

[[Page 80]]

together and deal with the things that are before us. And I think if we 
do that and do it in a good-faith way, we'll be able to go forward.
    Now, I'm very encouraged--let me just say this--the most encouraging 
thing has been, to me, the way that my budget proposals have been 
received. Even in criticism they have not been rejected outright. You 
know, 4 years ago when I came here, nobody in Congress took a 
President's budget seriously. They said, ``Oh, his budget scenario is 
always rosy. The numbers are always cooked.'' And we now have 4 years in 
a row when I have presented conservative budget figures, when we've 
brought the deficit down by over 60 percent, and when, now, both sides 
are keeping their powder dry enough to create the possibility we can 
reach a balanced budget agreement. So, on balance, I'm still quite 
hopeful.
    Peter [Peter Maer, NBC Mutual Radio].

Terrorist Attack in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

    Q. Mr. President, both your Attorney General and the FBI Director 
recently expressed concerns about the level of cooperation from Saudi 
Arabia into the investigation into the bombing that killed 19 American 
soldiers last year. What's your assessment of their level of 
cooperation, and do you have confidence in the security of the U.S. men 
who are still on duty there?
    The President. Let me answer the second question first. We have 
worked very hard, as you know, since the Khobar incident, to enhance the 
security of our Armed Forces personnel in Saudi Arabia. In that 
endeavor, we have received the cooperation of the Saudi Government. We 
have relocated a large number of people. We have done a lot of work. 
We've invested a lot of money; so have they. And we believe that there 
is no such thing as a risk-free world, but we believe that our Armed 
Forces are more secure today. And we feel good about that.
    On the investigation, clearly, for our point of view, in our 
Government, the FBI is in charge of that. They have sought the answers 
to some more questions. The Saudi Government has assured us from the 
very highest levels that they would get answers for those questions, and 
so I expect that to happen. And that's all I can tell you at this time. 
The process is ongoing. The investigation is ongoing. The relationship 
is ongoing.
    As you can imagine, this creates--an investigation of this kind 
raises all kinds of complex questions about cooperation against 
sovereignty, about what other interests of that nation might be in play. 
But I'm confident that in the end they will do what I have been assured 
personally by the highest levels of the Saudi Government they should do.
    Q. So you're satisfied with the level to this date?
    The President. Well, it's still in process. We have to see if it 
comes out all right. But we still have--there are further requests for 
information that are ongoing. We'll see how it comes out.
    Yes, Mr. Neikirk [Bill Neikirk, Chicago Tribune].

Hong Kong

    Q. Mr. President, the Chinese have been making a lot of noises about 
clamping down on civil liberties in Hong Kong. How concerned are you 
about this, and will this upset our relationship in any way?
    The President. Well, it wouldn't help anything. I'm concerned about 
it, and I think the--we don't know yet what's going to happen. But the 
Chinese have basically said that it would be a part of China, but its 
system would be left intact. And I think there may be some ambivalence 
about what it means to leave their system intact. And I think maybe some 
would assume that you could impose political uniformity on Hong Kong and 
leave its economic vibrancy intact. It really is, in some ways, almost a 
perfect open market, you know. And I don't know if that's true or not. 
It's a complex society.
    I think anyone who has ever been to Hong Kong more than once--and 
I've been there on several occasions in my life--probably leaves with 
the feeling I have, that you could go there a thousand times and you 
might not ever understand it all. It's a complicated society. And I'm 
not so sure that it can exist, with all of its potential to help China 
modernize its own economy and open opportunities for its own people, if 
the civil liberties of the people are crushed.
    So I think it would be wrong on its own merits, but I think it might 
wind up being less useful to China. So I would hope very much that they 
would look for ways to maximize the continuation not only of the 
economic system but of the personal freedoms that the people

[[Page 81]]

of Hong Kong have enjoyed in making it such an economic engine.
    Yes.

Webster Hubbell and the Lippo Group

    Q. Mr. President, the Lippo Group hired your friend Webb Hubbell 
after he resigned in a scandal from the Justice Department and just a 
few months before he went to jail for embezzlement. So far, no one has 
been able to determine what kind of work he was doing or why he was paid 
a sum reportedly in excess of $200,000. Does anything about this 
arrangement strike you as unusual or suspicious? And given that there 
have been public suggestions this money was offered to encourage his 
silence before the Whitewater investigator, have you taken any steps 
yourself to assure yourself that this is not the case?
    The President. First of all, I didn't know about it. To the best of 
my recollection, I didn't know anything about his having that job until 
I read about it in the press. And I can't imagine who could have ever 
arranged to do something improper like that and no one around here to 
know about it. It was just not--we did not know anything about it, and I 
can tell you categorically that that did not happen. I knew nothing 
about it, none of us did, before it happened. And I didn't personally 
know anything about it until I read about it in the press.
    So I don't think--I think when somebody makes a charge like that, 
there ought to be some burden on them to come forward with some evidence 
to substantiate their charge instead of saying, ``We'll make a charge; 
see if you can disprove it.'' That's not the way things work, and that's 
a pretty irresponsible charge to make without knowing--having some 
evidence of it. And I'm just telling you it's not so.
    Yes, Rita [Rita Braver, CBS News].

Campaign Finance and White House Access

    Q. Back on this issue of fundraising. You've talked about it maybe 
in general terms, but specifically last week the White House put out a 
list of coffees. It showed that at one coffee that included the 
Comptroller of the Currency, the Secretary of the Treasury, there were 
people who--bankers who had contributed something like $325,000. You 
attended that coffee. There was another coffee with another regulator of 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission; something like $500,000 was 
contributed by people who were at that coffee. And I wondered if, in 
retrospect, you had any feelings about, number one, regulators being at 
political coffees, and also your own participation. Obviously, you're 
not going to be doing this again for your own reelection, but is this 
something that you have decided you will continue doing, and what have 
you come to in your own mind on this issue?
    The President. I have a different opinion about my participation and 
the regulators' participation. First, let me tell you about--I can only 
comment on the first instance you mentioned, the bankers meeting. I 
think it is an appropriate thing and can be a good thing for the 
President and for the Secretary of Treasury to meet with a group of 
bankers and listen to them and listen to their concerns and, if they 
have certain issues, to explore those issues.
    I can tell you categorically that no decision ever came out of any 
of those coffees where I or anyone else said, ``This person is a 
contributor of ours; do what they asked us to do.'' But I think those 
meetings are good. I think the President should keep in touch with 
people. I think he should listen to people. I never learn very much when 
I'm talking, and I normally learn something when I'm listening. So I 
think that they're good.
    In retrospect, since the DNC sponsored it, I do not think the 
Comptroller of the Currency should have been there. I agree with Mr. 
Ludwig, and he should have been told who was sponsoring it, and it would 
have been better had he not come. I agree with that. But I think there 
is a distinction to be made between the President meeting with people, 
listening to them, and then, at least if they raise some serious issues, 
having them looked into. But I never made a decision for anybody because 
they were contributors of mine. I don't--but I do think it's important 
to listen to people.
    But you're right--or he was right, it would have been better if he 
had not been there. Regulators should not come to meetings that are 
sponsored--have any kind of political sponsorship, I don't think.
    Q. So you intend to keep going with these coffees, sir? Do you 
intend to keep going with these coffees?
    The President. I don't know. But I can tell you--well, I intend to 
keep going with coffees. I don't know whether they'll be sponsored by

[[Page 82]]

the DNC or whether we'll just bring them in through our own regular 
offices. But I also had lots and lots and lots of coffees over the last 
4 years that had nothing to do with the DNC, where a lot of people came 
were not contributors or even active supporters of mine, but they were 
from different walks of life around the country. And I found them very 
helpful, where I would just sit down and talk for 4 or 5 minutes and 
then listen for an hour or so and maybe ask questions based on whatever 
people had to say to me.
    I think it's an effective way for the President to hear firsthand 
how the operations of the Government or developments in the country are 
affecting people. So I think that the coffees themselves are a very good 
device. But I do believe, particularly if sponsored by a political 
party, it's not appropriate for the regulator to be there.

Social Security and the Budget

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. A number of Democrats in Congress 
oppose a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution unless the 
Government promises to stop spending surplus Social Security funds, 
borrowing and spending them. Would you--though you oppose an amendment, 
you will propose a balanced budget; will you stop using surplus Social 
Security funds?
    The President.  Well, the using--the funds that are collected on 
Social Security are going to be invested in some way. When you say 
``using,'' what they do, they cover the deficit by basically being sold 
for Government securities. Social Security is not, therefore, in effect 
separated from the Government. But those securities will come back with 
interest to the Government later on. And by then, what will have to 
happen is, when we start running short of money 20 years or so from now, 
the Government will have to have been on a balanced budget for some 
years by then, so that when the bonds are repaid, they can be used to 
pay Social Security.
    We couldn't right now, neither the Republicans nor I and the 
Congress, could produce a balanced budget tomorrow that could pass, if 
you said the Social Security funds cannot be counted, if you will, as 
part of the budget.
    But let me say--you raise an interesting question, however, which is 
why I don't favor this amendment--I've given the Congress a plan to 
balance the budget. I've made it clear that we will work with them to 
meet the Congressional Budget Office budgetary projections. And we're 
going to do this. And now they know that I have credibility because 
we've worked on it for 4 years and we've done almost two-thirds of the 
work.
    When you amend the Constitution, you do it forever. No one can 
foresee the circumstances that will come a generation from now or 50 
years from now or even 10 years from now. And the way I read the 
amendment, it would almost certainly require after a budget is passed, 
if the economic estimates turn out to be wrong, the executive branch, 
the President, the Treasury Department, to impound Social Security 
checks or to turn it over to courts to decide what to be done. And it 
would put us in a position, in my view, of doing things that are 
counterproductive.
    The Congress--[inaudible]--is about to vote on this--the House is--
against a background of 4 years of stable growth and 4 years of 
declining deficits. But we don't know what external factors in the world 
might be brought to bear on our country in the next 10 or 15 years that 
might have terribly counterproductive impulses if we were cutting aid to 
children and raising taxes in the teeth of a big recession or we were 
impounding Social Security checks or something of that kind. I just 
think that the Congress has an obligation to think of what could happen 
here in the future and ask themselves whether they really want to 
straitjacket the United States.
    What we ought to do is follow prudent policies, balance the budget, 
and go forward. But we shouldn't compromise what might happen 10, 15 
years from now with an amendment to the Constitution. I think it's bad 
economic policy and bad policy. And I think we're going to wind up with 
some decisions in the courts and some decisions on Social Security and 
aid to kids and other things that future generations won't be very 
grateful to us for just because it seemed so popular now because we 
haven't balanced the budget since 1969.
    Q. If I may, Mr. President, could I just follow up? Mr. President, 
could I just follow up on one thing? There are a number of reform plans 
around that would give people part of their taxes back to put into 
private accounts. If it was only part of their taxes and some sort of 
safety net was preserved, would you favor some private accounts out of 
Social Security tax money?

[[Page 83]]

    The President. Well, first of all, I would favor nothing that would 
compromise the integrity of the system. Secondly, even the Social 
Security Advisory Commission couldn't agree on that, so I can't make a 
decision on that, to support something like that, without knowing more 
about it.
    There are two different options that were recommended--or three 
different ones--and I just--I think that what we need to do, as I've 
said before, we need to make some changes in Social Security to lengthen 
its life a little bit. We don't want to start getting in trouble in 
2019; it ought to have a longer lifespan than that. And we ought to do 
it through a bipartisan process that is either like the one that was 
done in 1983 or that at least consults all the people who will be 
affected by it. And I think that if we start now, we can make modest 
changes that won't be too burdensome to anybody, that will secure Social 
Security for another 50 years. And I think that's what we ought to be 
doing.

District of Columbia

    Q. Mr. President, I wonder if we could just shift the focus briefly 
to something you've become much more interested in lately, the troubled 
Capital City here. The District of Columbia Congresswoman has 
reintroduced her wide-ranging tax cut plan today, which offers relief on 
the Federal level for everybody, and the working poor would indeed be 
eliminated, as you know. She is also saying today that she wants your 
help on this and she thinks that her tax plan should be included in your 
new DC recovery plan, that the one cannot work without the other, and 
that time is fast slipping out for the Capital City, that action needs 
to be taken soon or we're going to go down the tubes.
    The President. Well, let me say, I believe that we should have a 
three-point plan. One is the thing that Congresswoman Norton and I agree 
on, that we should have the Federal Government assume those things that 
are now burdening the District of Columbia that in every other place in 
the country those costs are borne by State governments, not local 
governments. You can't expect any city to function and be successful if 
they have to pay the State's cost as well as the city's cost, raise 
taxes when people can go right across the Potomac River or right up the 
road into Maryland and have the same cost borne in a different way. So I 
think that responsibility shift is important.
    Secondly, I think the Federal Government needs a more disciplined 
effort to see what else we can do within the resources we now have to 
help DC in law enforcement, in education, in transportation, right 
across--and housing and homelessness.
    Thirdly, I think there needs to be an economic incentive in the form 
of tax relief. Now, I haven't seen what Congresswoman Norton introduced 
today. The last time this came up, the folks at Treasury and OMB thought 
that the proposal was more costly than we could afford. But I intend to 
make one, and I think it will be a significant incentive for people to 
invest in DC and to help to grow the economy here. I think that's a very 
important component. So I agree with her on the general point. I just 
have to see the specifics before I can make a commitment.
    Yes, Mara [Mara Liasson, National Public Radio].
    Q. I wonder if I could just follow up?

China and Human Rights

    Q. Your annual human rights report is about to come out this week. 
It's reported that it will say there are no active dissidents in China. 
They're either all exiled, or they're in jail. Does this mean that your 
policy of constructive engagement has failed to get the kind of results 
you wanted to get on China's human rights behavior?
    The President. It means that we have not made the progress in human 
rights that I think--that I had hoped to make, yes. But it does not mean 
that if we had followed a policy of isolating ourselves from China, when 
no one else in the world was prepared to do that, that we would have 
gotten better results. And I think--I still believe, over the long run, 
being engaged with China, working with them where we can agree--which 
helps us on a whole range of security issues that directly bear on the 
welfare of the American people, like the problems on the Korean 
Peninsula--and continuing to be honest and forthright and insistent 
where we disagree has the greatest likelihood of having a positive 
impact on China.
    Keep in mind, the time horizon here for how we judge them has to be 
broadened a little bit. They tend to look at things in a long-time 
horizon. They're going through some significant

[[Page 84]]

changes themselves within their country, economic and political changes. 
And I believe that the impulses of the society and the nature of the 
economic change will work together, along with the availability of 
information from the outside world, to increase the sphere of liberty 
over time. I don't think there is any way that anyone who disagrees with 
that in China can hold back that, just as eventually the Berlin Wall 
fell. I just think it's inevitable. And I regret that we haven't had 
more progress there more quickly, but I still believe that the policy 
we're following is the correct one.
    Jim [Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News].

Campaign Finance Reform

    Q. Mr. President, some lawmakers on Capitol Hill still think it 
would be a good idea to appoint an independent counsel to investigate 
some of the campaign fundraising that occurred last year. And at the 
same time--what's your latest thinking on that? And at the same time, if 
I may, you often decry what you call a cynicism that you believe is 
pervasive in Washington, but given the amounts of money that were raised 
last year, the way they were raised, and some of the explanations for 
the way they were raised, isn't the public entitled to a little bit of 
healthy skepticism, if not cynicism, about the entire process?
    The President. Well, to answer your first question, I'm going to 
take Bob Dole's advice because that's a decision for the Attorney 
General to make. And to answer your second question, yes, healthy 
skepticism is warranted. But keep in mind, I would say to the skeptics, 
the vast majority--indeed, a huge percentage, way, way over 90 percent--
I don't know what it would be--the vast majority of the money that was 
raised by both the Democrats and the Republicans was raised in a 
perfectly lawful fashion, completely consistent with the requirements of 
the law. The vast majority of the people who gave money to both the 
Democrats and the Republicans were people who believed passionately in 
the course that those two parties were pursuing and the candidates and 
what they were trying to do--and to their House committees and the 
Senate committees.
    The problem is that the margins create great problems because of the 
sheer volume of money that is being raised today. As I said before, it's 
too much money, takes too much time to raise, raises too many questions. 
And the cynicism is well--and the skepticism is well-founded. If it 
becomes cynicism, then it removes the incentive on the part of the 
Congress to pass campaign finance reform because cynics will say it 
won't make any difference anyway.
    If you look at the present campaign laws, I think you can make a 
compelling case. I have not heard this point made, but I believe it to 
be true. I believe when these reforms arose out of the Watergate thing 
back in the mid-seventies, I think they worked pretty well for several 
years. I believe they elevated the reputation of politics, and I think 
the reforms worked pretty well. What happened is, no system in a world 
changing like ours can be maintained indefinitely, because the economy 
changes and particularly--look at how your work has changed. When you 
travel with me, you carry these little computers around, and you run 
these pictures up on computers, and you send them from the plane 
somewhere else. I mean, just think of all the things that have changed. 
This system has not been fixed in over 20 years. During that 20 years, 
there has been an explosion in ways of communicating with people and an 
exponential increase in the cost of communicating. And a system which I 
would argue to you really worked pretty well, after it was passed in '74 
and going forward, has been overtaken by events.
    So, cynical, no; healthy skepticism, you bet. We should always be 
skeptical. But we need to change the system. It's got to be--it's just 
outdated.
    Ellen [Ellen Ratner, Talk Radio News Service].

Welfare Reform

    Q. Mr. President, what specific mechanisms do you plan on working 
with the private sector in terms of creating more welfare jobs for 
people who are on welfare?
    The President. Primarily two. One, I will offer a special tax 
incentive--there was a story about it today, I think, in the New York 
Times--a special tax incentive that'll be a 50 percent credit for up to 
$10,000 a year in pay for people who are clearly, provably hired from 
welfare and put into new jobs.
    Secondly, we have given the States--and there was a story, I think, 
in the Post today talking about how a lot of the States are trying to 
push this down to the community level. That's

[[Page 85]]

good. That's not bad, that's good, as long as they give the communities 
the means they need.
    The second thing is that every community should know that the 
employers in that community, if they hire people from welfare to work, 
can get what used to be the welfare check for at least a year to use as 
an employment and training subsidy. Why? The welfare rolls have gone 
down 2.1 million in the last 4 years; it's the biggest drop in history. 
I think a fair reading of it would say about half of this decline came 
from an improved economy and about half of it came from intensified 
efforts to move people from welfare to work. Now, I don't have any 
scientific division, but anyway, there's some division there.
    The rest of the people that are on welfare now, by and large, are 
people who will be more difficult to move from welfare to work and have 
stay there. So I think we're going to have to give some incentives. But 
if it works and if every community in the country would set up an 
employment council and turn this into a family and an employment program 
like Kansas City has and all employers have those two incentives, I 
think we'll be able to meet the requirements of this welfare reform bill 
in a way that will be good for the people on welfare and good for their 
kids.
    Kathy [Kathy Lewis, Dallas Morning News].

Legal Immigrants and the Budget

    Q. Mr. President, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee 
over the weekend laid down some markers for what he thinks would create 
chances for your budget to be alive on arrival on the Hill. On welfare, 
one of the things he mentioned was increased spending for legal 
immigrants, and he said he hoped you wouldn't insist on it. How do you 
deal with that in your budget, and will you continue to insist on it?
    The President. Well, let me say, I like Mr. Archer very much, and 
we've had a good relationship, and I appreciate what he said about me 
meeting him halfway on Medicare. But there have been reports in the last 
couple of days about Republican Governors with high immigrant 
populations coming back to their Republican congressional leaders and 
saying, ``Please reconsider this.''
    My budget will contain funds and propose changes consistent with the 
promises I made when I signed the welfare reform bill and when I 
campaigned to the American people on this issue. I believe that the bill 
is counterproductive in the way it treats legal immigrants who through 
no fault of their own wind up in desperate circumstances and in other 
ways that I think are not good for families and children.
    So I will propose some changes. And I hope that when we get all 
through here--again, I hope this will be treated just like the budget 
issue--I would ask our friends on the Republican side and the Democrats 
who care as passionately about this as I do to keep our powder dry. Let 
us make our case on the merits. Let them hear from the Republican 
Governors of places like Texas and New York that have these huge 
immigrant populations of good people that are making great contributions 
to this country, that are working like crazy and making this a better 
place, and listen to the practical impact of the law that's now there on 
the immigrant population. And I'm not sure we can't get some changes. 
I'm very hopeful that we can, and I'm going to give it my very best 
effort.
    Q. Mr. President----
    The President. Wait a minute, I'll take a couple of more. Just a 
minute.
    Deborah [Deborah Mathis, Gannett News Service]. No, no, Sarah's 
[Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service] next. Let Deborah talk.
    Go ahead.

Campaign Finance Reform

    Q. To follow up on Jim Miklaszewski's question, the people are not 
just skeptical or cynical about politics or about campaign finance. They 
are more specifically cynical and skeptical and suspicious of this White 
House, of this administration, partly because of the way information has 
trickled out, the way memories have been stubborn and sometimes revised 
at the last moment--at an opportune moment, it would seem. And I'm 
wondering what's new about the White House now and the way you handle 
delicate information, and what you want to tell the people about it?
    The President. First of all, I want to tell the people, when you get 
asked hundreds of questions, it's not possible to remember the answer to 
every one. I think some of these people make honest mistakes. I read 
things in your reports all the time that aren't quite factually 
accurate, but I don't think you deliberately did it. It's impossible to 
do--we're living in a society that

[[Page 86]]

is deluged in information. So I think that what we've all got to be 
candid enough to say is, no one is blameless here; it costs so much 
money to pay for these campaigns, that mistakes were made here by people 
who either did it deliberately or inadvertently. Now, it's up to others 
to decide whether those mistakes were made deliberately or 
inadvertently. It's up to me to do what I can to clean up the system.
    Now, what should they believe about us? Well, first of all, I got 
the Democratic Party to make some unilateral changes in its fundraising 
policies and asked our friends in the Republican Party to do the same 
and offered to completely get rid of the so-called soft money, the 
larger contributions, if they would. Secondly, we're out here working 
hard as a party, as a White House, and me personally as President, to 
pass the McCain-Feingold bill which would put an end to these problems 
and modernize this system. So I think that's quite important.
    Now, I do not believe you will ever get the politics out of 
politics. That is--and that's not bad. I think people who fight for 
candidates and who help them and who help parties will be people that 
the people who represent them want to hear from and want to maintain 
access to. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. That's the 
way the system works. And I don't think anyone should imply that your 
first obligation once you get elected is to stop talking to the people 
that helped you get there.
    But I think that we've got to improve the system. And I understand 
why the cynicism is there. But again I will say, I'd ask you to look--
way, way over 90 percent of all the people who gave money and way over 
90 percent of all the people who gave--of all the money that was raised 
is clearly consistent with the law in both parties, as far as I know. I 
mean, I can't really speak for the Republicans, but I'd be astonished if 
that were not so. I would be astonished if it were not so.
    So there is no pattern and practice here of trying to push our 
system over the brink into corruption. What happens is, there is a race 
to get as much money as you can to keep from being buried by the other 
people and to make sure you can get your own message out and, at the 
edges, errors are made. And when they're made, they need to be 
confessed, and we need to assume responsibility for them. And that's 
what I'm trying to do up here today. But I can't say, Deborah, in 
response to your question, that I know that any of these people who gave 
insufficient answers to you did it in a deliberate or deceptive way, 
because a lot of times people just ask questions, and they don't have 
all the answers. And they're trying to cooperate and don't do such a 
good job.
    Sarah, go ahead. I promised you a question.

Health Care

    Q. Sir, the National Coalition on Health Care has issued a wonderful 
report. It's the largest consumer organization on the subject. They say 
that at 58 million people, 60 percent of those people were against the 
present health care system as being totally inadequate, and they don't 
have faith in it. Now, we heard last year a lot of stuff about how 
people were satisfied with the most wonderful health care system in the 
world. Well, apparently, that's baloney, according to this report. And 
there's a lot of talk being done about preserving Medicare, but Medicare 
won't do it. It won't go all the way to take care of the people of this 
country. And this report shows that they simply cannot meet the big 
bills of hospitals and doctors. Aren't you going to try again this year 
with Hillary to devise a good national health care program for this 
country?
    The President. Well, I read that report, and I found it very 
interesting. But I think what that report was saying--and again, I don't 
want to read between the lines, all I did was read a news column on it--
but I can tell you what I got out of it, and then let me respond to your 
question. What I got out of it was people said, ``Well, I may feel good 
about my doctor or my local hospital, but I'm worried about the security 
of this system. I'm worried about whether, if managed care controls 
everything, whether I'll lose any control over important decisions 
affecting my life. I'm worried about whether if I lose insurance here, 
whether I can take it there.''
    And what I think we have to do is to recognize that our society--and 
I think we've played a role in it here, but I think the whole system 
deserves credit for it--we've done a much better job in holding down 
inflation in medical care and bringing it closer to the general rate of 
inflation. There's some indication it's going up again, but I hope we 
can keep it down. And we have done a better job of some other things, 
like ending the 48-hour delivery rule and all that. But we have not--or 
the 24-hour delivery.

[[Page 87]]

But we have not done enough to increase access to affordable care for 
people who don't have coverage, to deal with the problem that there are 
still a lot of children in working families that are poor who aren't 
covered and to deal with the fact that there are people who are 
unemployed who, even though we just made it legal for them to carry 
their insurance with them when the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill passed last 
year, they can't afford to do that.
    So in my budget, we will have, in effect, an unemployment health 
insurance plan to help people, families who have insurance keep it when 
they're employed. And I intend over the next 4 years to work very hard 
to try to find other ways, as I said, in a step-by-step way to allow 
people affordable access to this system. It will never be completely 
stable for anyone until everyone at least has affordable access to it.
    Yes, one foreign person over here.

Middle East Peace Process

    Q. Mr. President--Mr. President, both Israel and Syria seem willing 
and ready to come to the negotiating table, and they both want American 
diplomacy as an honest broker. Prime Minister Netanyahu will come to 
Washington next month. How will you act together to energize this track 
and reach comprehensive peace in the Middle East, which is clearly a top 
priority of your administration?
    The President. Well, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Chairman Arafat, King 
Hussein, and President Mubarak are all coming here in the next couple of 
months. And I must say again how much I appreciate the agreement reached 
on Hebron and the other understandings reached between Prime Minister 
Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat and the fact that so far things seem to be 
being implemented in an appropriate way and going all right.
    There will never be a comprehensive peace in the Middle East until 
we resolve this matter with Syria--between Syria and Israel. And that 
requires the willingness of the parties. What our experience has been, 
mine, the Secretary of State, Secretary Christopher, and now Secretary 
Albright, Mr. Ross, and our whole team--has been that when both parties 
want to make peace, no matter how far apart they seem, we've found a way 
to get there. If they're not sure it's time to make peace, no matter how 
close it seems to an outsider, we don't seem to be able to bridge the 
gap. So you can be sure that that will be a major focus of our 
discussion, whether we can find a way to work together.
    Yes.

Medicare

    Q. Mr. President, your Medicare reform plan was criticized for 
relying too heavily on savings squeezed from health care providers. Why 
shouldn't Americans who can afford to pay higher Medicare premiums pay 
them?
    The President. Let me respond to the criticism. First of all, in my 
health care reform proposal I supported higher income--increases in 
Medicare premiums on higher income Americans, but it was part of a 
comprehensive health care reform. What I was attempting to do, after 
meeting at some length with Secretary Shalala who worked through these 
issues with me, the specifics of the Medicare reform, was to demonstrate 
that we could balance the budget, meet the Republicans halfway, and put 
10 years on the life of the Trust Fund without a premium increase. If 
we're going to have a longer term Medicare reform--I have never said 
that I would rule that out, but I didn't want to rule it in. I presented 
a budget that was consistent with my priorities. And I'm prepared to 
meet with Senator Lott and discuss that and other issues. But I 
presented a budget that I though was the best budget to achieve our 
objectives.
    You've been trying to stand up all this time. Go ahead.

Campaign Fundraising Investigation

    Q. Thank you, sir. When you are finished here, Mr. President, 
Senator Thompson is expected to go to the Senate floor to discuss his 
committee's investigation into these fundraising issues. I'm wondering 
if you would like to say something to him regarding White House 
cooperation and the possibility of looking into Republican fundraising 
as well.
    The President. I have instructed everybody here to fully cooperate 
with him. My new Counsel, Mr. Ruff, is going to meet with Senator 
Thompson and the appropriate people, and we will be fully cooperative. I 
think that's very important.
    And on the question of the Republicans, I just want him to be fair. 
I think that it's very important to be fair and even-handed, because I'm 
confident that any investigations will reveal what I said, that the vast 
majority of people

[[Page 88]]

who give do so well within the law and with the best of motives; they 
really believe in what they're doing--on both sides. And what we need to 
do is find out whether there are any systematic flaws here that need to 
be addressed and address them. But in the end, I'm telling you, no 
matter what this hearing uncovers, in the end, if you want to get rid 
of--if you want to turn cynicism back into skepticism, you have to pass 
McCain-Feingold or some other acceptable campaign finance reform.
    Mr. Cannon [Carl Cannon, Baltimore Sun]. I'll take one more 
question.

Capital Gains Taxes

    Q. Mr. President, in Chicago the day you gave your acceptance speech 
at the convention, you unveiled a plan in which homeowners would not 
have to pay virtually any capital gains taxes. We haven't heard much 
about it since then. And my question is, is that going to be in your 
budget, that proposal, and will you go a little further if the 
Republicans want to do a little more on capital gains?
    The President. The answer is, yes, my homeowners exemption, capital 
gains exemption is in the budget. Everything I talked about at Chicago 
is in the budget. And the capital gains issue has never been a 
particularly high priority with me because I've never seen it 
demonstrated as a big engine of economic growth overall and because I 
thought the previous--as you know, this is nothing new--the proposal 
that the Republicans made in their budget I thought was entirely 
excessive and would really almost squander money by having it be 
retroactive.
    But what I've--I have tried to practice what I preach here. I want 
to keep our powder dry; I want them to keep their powder dry. I will 
present a budget. I know what my priorities are. I know what theirs are 
on the taxes. And then what we need to do is to meet each other in good 
faith. This and all other issues can best be resolved by an early 
attempt to work through to a balanced budget agreement.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President's 134th news conference began at 2:30 p.m. in the 
East Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to former 
Senator Bob Dole, 1996 Republican nominee for President; Prime Minister 
Binyamin Netanyahu of Israel; Chairman Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian 
Authority; King Hussein I of Jordan; and President Hosni Mubarak of 
Egypt.