    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1998, Book I)]
    [April 30, 1998]
    [Pages 641-653]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    April 30, 1998

        The President. Good afternoon. Please sit down. Before I take your
    questions I'd like to make a few comments on a couple of matters that I
    believe are essential to the strength of America in the 21st century.
        Five years ago we started a new economic course for a new economy, a
    combined strategy of fiscal discipline, expanded trade, increased
    investment in education, science, technology, and our people. Today we
    received more good news that that strategy is working. The latest
    economic report shows that in the first quarter of 1998, our economy
    grew at 4.2 percent. Wages are rising while inflation remains low. This
    expansion is not fueled by big Government deficits but by booming
    business investment.
        In the first quarter, unemployment was the lowest in 28 years,
    inflation the lowest in 30 years, consumer confidence at its highest
    level in 30 years. For 5 years in a row now, our economy has been rated
    the most competitive in the world.
        We are living in an American economic renaissance in which
    opportunity is abundant, communities are getting stronger, families are
    more secure and more prosperous. But we cannot allow the hum of our
    growing prosperity to lull us into complacency.
        As estimates of the possible budget surplus expand, so, too, the
    suggestions that we immediately commit to spending that surplus on tax
    cuts or new spending. But Americans have worked too hard for too long to
    put our economic house in order. So I will strongly resist the use of a
    single penny of the surplus until we have first saved Social Security
    for the new century.
        Nor can we turn our backs on America's responsibility to lead in the
    world. We see that, by the way, in the commitment today of the Vice
    President and Mrs. Gore as they represent our Nation on the occasion of the
    50th anniversary of the birth of the State of Israel.
        Today, the health of our economy is also deeply affected by what
    goes on in global affairs and by the health of the global economy.
    Therefore, I call on Congress to step up to its responsibility and renew
    our commitment to the International Monetary Fund and to pay our United
    Nations dues. I am confident we can do this in a bipartisan fashion.
        The debate over NATO enlargement has been a model of bipartisan
    action. I want to thank Senators Lott and
    Daschle, Senators Helms and Biden for their
    leadership on this issue. I hope for a strongly positive vote in the
    Senate later today, because by admitting Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
    Republic we come even closer than ever to realizing a dream of a
    generation, a Europe that is united, democratic, and secure for the
    first time since the rise of nation-states on the European Continent.
        At the threshold of the 21st century, we are on the rise at home and
    abroad. But we have to continue this progress. We have to continue to
    work if we want economic advances and strong national security. We have
    to continue

    [[Page 642]]

    to work if we hope to overcome our divisions at home and work together
    as one nation.
        We can be everything that all of you want us to be and all Americans
    want us to be. But I want to emphasize, the fact that we are doing well
    today should not be a source of complacency. It should not be a pretext
    to drift off into politics as usual or small matters. We need to bear
    down and deal with the long-term challenges of the country.
        Now, to honor my pledge at the White House Correspondents dinner the
    other night, Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press
    International], you get the first question.
        Q. You may not like it. [Laughter]
        The President. I never expected to. [Laughter]

    Monica Lewinsky and the Independent
    Counsel's Investigation

        Q. Mr. President, in view of a new court ruling, Monica Lewinsky may
    have to appear before a grand jury. Under the circumstances, do you
    stand by your previous denials of any relationship with her or that
    anyone encouraged her to lie?
        And while I have the floor, do you think that the special prosecutor
    has gone beyond the call and is out to get you?
        The President. Well, I think modestly observant people are fully
    capable of drawing their own conclusions to the latter question. And as
    to the former question, I have answered it repeatedly and have nothing
    to add to my former answer. I have repeatedly said what the answer to
    that question is.
        Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

    Stock Market

        Q. Mr. President, Wall Street is back above 9100, and the Dow was up
    165 points at 1 o'clock. A lot of Americans are pouring money into the
    stock market now. Do you think that this stock market bubble is going to
    burst? Do you think people should be nervous about that?
        The President. Now, I didn't comment on it when it dropped a lot.
    [Laughter] And I don't think I should now.
        Let me say, there is a lot of speculation about that, as you know.
    The London Economist ran a whole series on it, I think either this last
    edition or the one before that. We have a very productive economy with
    high growth and low interest rates. Also, the fact that there is a
    downturn in many Asian economies I think has created some investment
    capital that normally might have gone somewhere else that may be coming
    back into our country. And that would tend to drive the stock market up.
        I think that what's important here is for all informed people--the
    stock market analysts, the people on Wall Street, Mr.
    Greenspan, whom I think has done quite a fine
    job over the last 5 years in managing his part of our economy--all of us
    need to just sort of talk about what the fundamentals are, what the
    facts are, and if there are any reasons for caution, then they ought to
    put them out there. But I think that to date you would have to say that
    most of what has happened has been spurred by the hard work and the
    productivity of American workers and American businesses and other
    developments around the world over which we Americans had no control.
        But I'm encouraged by the underlying fundamentals, and what I hope
    will happen is that we can avoid any kind of big swings in the market
    one way or the other by just steady, slow--maybe not so slow but, at
    least, steady growth. And I think if we all just get all the facts out
    there to the investors, it's likely to come out all right.
        Q. You're not nervous about where it's going?
        The President. Well, I'd rather it be going up than down--
    [laughter]--in any big sense. But I think that you have to--I mean, even
    when it dropped a lot--you remember a couple years ago when we had that
    big drop--I wasn't terribly worried because I thought it was a
    correction based on the judgment of the people in the market, because
    our underlying economy was healthy and our financial system was honest
    and secure and had integrity and we had strategies for continuing long-
    term growth.
        So I think that's what I'd like to say. It's impossible for me to
    predict the market, impossible for anyone to, or to characterize it. I'd
    just say the economists have a word called ``transparency'' that they
    use all the time that I think is the appropriate thing here. I think
    it's in the national interest for all actual and potential investors to
    have as much information as possible about how we're doing, where we're
    going, and what their investment options are. And then I think the
    markets will go up and down, they'll change.
        But I'm pleased with the success of the market. I do understand the
    bubble theory. I think

    [[Page 643]]

    the best way to avoid having a big bubble that some day pops is to make
    sure that we have open information about where we are right now, and the
    progress of the market is pretty well tied to the real progress of the
    economy.
        Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

    Iraq

        Q. Thank you. Mr. President, the Pentagon said this week you're
    expected to decide whether to reduce U.S. forces in the Gulf soon. Has
    Baghdad made sufficient progress on allowing weapons inspections to
    permit a reduction in force? And if so, will we see an ending of the
    sanctions against Iraq?
        The President. Well, those are two very different questions. Let me
    say, first of all, we are encouraged by the level of compliance so far
    with the U.N. inspections and by the evidence that has been adduced on
    the nuclear side that more progress has been made. And I believe we've
    already issued a statement that we believe that if Baghdad will continue
    to work with us, that by October the U.N. may well be able to certify
    that they are actually in compliance on the nuclear side, and they can
    go from the inspection to the monitoring phase. Keep in mind, even under
    the agreements, the U.N. resolutions, no matter what is found out in any
    of these areas, there will still be a monitoring regime there.
        Our position on lifting the sanctions is that the U.N. resolutions
    have to be complied with completely, and then we'd vote to lift the
    sanctions. So this is just the nuclear piece. But I am encouraged by
    that.
        Now, on the question of reducing our military presence in the Gulf,
    I would wait for a recommendation from the Pentagon with involvement
    from the State Department and the NSC on that. That is, we have a
    certain number of carrier groups and a certain number of assets to
    deploy at sea. They have to be trained; they also need to be deployed in
    different places for different reasons. So, inevitably, unless we
    believe there is some reason for it to be there at some point in the
    future, I would anticipate some reallocation of our resources. But I
    have not received a recommendation on that yet by the Defense
    Department.
        Sam [Sam Donaldson, ABC News].

    Presidential Standards

        Q. Mr. President, quite a few Americans seem to believe it doesn't
    matter what you may have done in private moments, that that's between
    you and your wife. And some are saying it doesn't even matter if you've
    broken the law, obstructed justice, or committed perjury. Now, you deny
    wrongdoing, I understand. But as a standard for Presidents, what do you
    think: Does it matter what you do in private moments, as alleged? And
    particularly, does it matter if you have committed perjury or in other
    sense broken the law?
        The President. Well, since I have answered the underlying questions,
    I really believe it's important for me not to say any more about this. I
    think that I'm, in some ways, the last person who needs to be having a
    national conversation about this. What I'm trying to----
        Q. But you're the leader.
        The President. I may be the leader, but my job as leader is to lead
    the country and to deal with the great public issues facing the country,
    and to prove Justice Scalia right when he
    said that nothing that could be done to me in a legal way would in any
    way affect my job as President; it would just be one of those things;
    and I could go right on and do my job. And I'm going to do my best to
    prove him correct by doing the public's business----
        Q. So you can't even say whether Presidents ought to obey the law?
        Q. Mr. President, I hate to beat a dead horse, but let me just
    follow that up----
        The President. No, you don't. [Laughter]

    White House Response to Independent Counsel's
    Investigation

        Q. Ken Starr supporters make the case that he could be wrapping up
    his investigation except for the delaying tactics put forward by your
    lawyers, your aides--specifically, the privilege assertions, denying the
    Secret Service the right to testify, denying some of your aides the
    right to testify, denying the First Lady the right to answer certain
    questions because of these privileged questions. And a lot of Americans
    are having a hard time understanding--why assert privilege if there's
    nothing to hide?
        The President. First of all, you've asked three questions; let me
    deal with them.
        On the First Lady's testimony,
    Mr. Kendall's response blows what they said
    out of the water

    [[Page 644]]

    better than anything I could say, and amounts to a ``shame on them'' for
    saying that.
        Secondly, with regard to the Secret Service, I literally have had no
    involvement in that decision whatever. That is a decision that they have
    made based on what they believe--the position they've taken is a
    position they've taken based on what they believe is best for the
    institution of the Presidency. And the court will just have to evaluate
    their arguments and make a judgment.
        Now, thirdly, on the claims of executive privilege, I cannot comment
    on those matters because they are under seal. However, as you know, we
    have suggested to the court that the pleadings and the briefs be made
    public, be open to public inspection, so that you and the American
    people could evaluate the specific executive privilege issues and
    whether you believe they're valid or not. But I can't talk about them.
    Our side has tried to honor all these court orders, and I want to
    continue to honor it. We've asked--it's under seal. I can't discuss it.
        But I will do my best to deal with this in an appropriate way. And
    if the court changes the rules, I hope that we'll be able to release the
    pleadings and the briefs so that all of you can see what this is about
    and draw your own conclusions and then ask questions about it.
        Trudy [Trudy Feldman, Trans Features].

    Russia and the Middle East Peace Process

        Q. What do you think is the strategy in the Russian state toward the
    Middle East at this point? And what are you expecting from the London
    talks next week? Is there a Russian strategy?
        The President. I believe there is. I believe that basically what the
    Russians would like to do is to have an influence in a critical region
    of the world. And they have been, after all, cosponsors of the peace
    process with the United States since a period before I became President.
    It goes back to the first Madrid Conference in '92.
        Will we always agree with every position they take? No, we won't.
    But the Russians have pledged to cooperate with us to minimize and
    hopefully eliminate weapons transfers and component part transfers and
    things like that that should not go into explosive environments in the
    Middle East, and we are going to keep working with them to see that we
    achieve that goal.
        Now, in terms of the London conference, I hope that after Secretary
    Albright meets with Mr.
    Netanyahu and Mr. Arafat that we will have the elements of an agreement which
    will get the parties into final status talks. You all pretty well know
    what the parameters are. There is still no agreement on how much of a
    redeployment should be undertaken by the Israelis from the West Bank in
    this next phase. But they are much closer than they were just a couple
    of weeks ago--much, much closer. And there are some other issues that
    may be able to be worked out around that that might still enable us to
    make an agreement.
        I think what both of them are going to have to decide is whether or
    not they believe that they're better off waiting or each side giving a
    little more to get to a final status talks.
        Now, keep in mind, this is not a final peace agreement. We are
    arguing over the dimensions of a step which is part of the Oslo
    agreement designed to get the parties in the final status talks which
    are supposed to be over a year from now--I think May of '99 is when
    they're supposed to end. So what the parties have got to make up their
    mind about is do they want to roll the dice--because, believe me, in the
    nature of all these agreements, the most principled compromise will
    leave both sides dissatisfied, by definition. That's the way--if peace
    agreements were easy they'd all be done already.
        So the most principled compromise will leave both sides
    dissatisfied. What they have to decide is, do they want to roll the
    dice--do they really want to gamble on 6 more months of basically
    everything in suspended animation? Do they really believe it will be
    better then? Do they really believe it will be better in another year?
    What happens when the timetable runs out on the Oslo Accord? Will we be
    closer to peace?
        I think the answer is manifestly no. And so I'm hoping and praying
    that we'll be able to get something positive out of the London accords.
        Yes, ma'am. Go ahead.

    Stock Market

        Q. Mr. President, I'm Evelyn Y. Davis, editor of ``Highlights and
    Lowlights.'' About the stock market--and this is the middle of the
    stockholder meeting season--with the market being dangerously high, and
    the SEC favoring institutional investors, and mutual funds are not
    required to have adequate cash reserves, and these

    [[Page 645]]

    recent circuit breakers instituted by the New York Stock Exchange are
    mostly for the benefit of institutional investors--what is the
    administration going to do to protect small investors, people who have
    maybe like 100 or 200 or 500 shares of stocks in the markets, from the
    forthcoming bear markets? And we all know what has to go up has to go
    down.
        The President. That's true, but it's also true that over time the
    trend has been up. And over any long-term period, the market has
    outperformed Government securities. I do believe that the SEC has a
    responsibility to enforce the laws that are on the books, but the SEC
    cannot repeal the rules of the market, going up or down, for any single
    class of investors. And I am unaware of any specific thing that they've
    been asked to do over and above this.
        Claire [Claire Shipman, NBC].

    Legal Fees Resulting From Independent Counsel's Investigation

        Q. Mr. President, whatever you may think about all of these ongoing
    investigations of your administration, they certainly have pulled in a
    lot of your friends and employees and acquaintances, people who have had
    to appear before the grand jury. A number of times, a lot of people--
    like Betty Currie, for example, who built up large legal fees. And I
    wonder, do you feel in any way personally responsible? And do you still
    intend, as you mentioned in 1996 in an interview, once you're out of
    office to help out with those legal fees?
        The President. Yes, if I can figure out a way to do it, I will. I
    feel terrible about--there are all these people who have been hauled
    through this, who under the governing statute can never get their legal
    bills reimbursed, so that you have--the Independent Counsel not only has an unlimited budget and can go on
    forever--10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years, spend $40 million today, $100 million
    tomorrow--they can take--you're laughing, but we still have one from the
    mid-eighties in effect and--although it's not active. But in this case,
    we had this Resolution Trust Corporation report 2 years ago which
    exhaustively reviewed every issue relevant to Whitewater, and it didn't
    have any effect. The thing just went on and on and on.
        So more and more people get called in, and they spend money they
    don't have for legal fees that they can't afford. And they're never
    targets of investigation; therefore, they're not subject to any
    reimbursement. And I feel terrible about it. If I can think of something
    to do about it, I will.
        Q. Are you responsible for that at all, yourself? I mean, is that a
    personal----
        The President. No, if there's one person in the world I'm not
    responsible for, it's Mr. Starr. I think all
    of you would admit that--and his behavior and what he and Mr.
    Ewing and the others have decided to
    do. I don't think there's any American who believes I'm responsible for
    them.

    Tobacco Legislation

        Q. Mr. President, turning to tobacco for a moment, the House
    Republican leadership apparently has rejected Congressman Bliley's
    presentation of a compromise tobacco deal. What state do you think the
    tobacco compromise is in now? Are the Republicans in the pocket of big
    tobacco, and will this have to be fought out in the November elections?
        The President. I certainly hope not. For one thing, Mr.
    Bliley is a conservative Republican from
    Virginia, a tobacco-growing State. Mr. Waxman is a liberal Democrat who's got a great reputation for
    protecting the public health. The fact that they reached an agreement
    should have been some basis of going forward. And all I can tell you is
    I'm heartened by what's happening in the Senate, where we got an almost
    unanimous vote--just missed it by one vote--out of the committee in the
    Senate for the bill sponsored by Senator McCain
    and others. And we are going to work ahead.
        I just don't think we can afford to let politics get in the way of
    this. I mean, the news report was that some people who were going to go
    along with this don't think they have to now because they think they
    found some political way to avoid it. I think that's a terrible way to
    look at this. The only thing that matters is 3,000 kids a day start
    smoking, even though it's illegal to sell cigarettes to kids; 1,000 of
    them a day will die sooner because of it. That is the only thing that
    matters. And we know that there are strategies which will save their
    lives.
        I do not want this to be an issue in the November election. Let me
    say this again: I do not want this to be an issue in the November
    election. If it is an issue in the November election, it will only be
    because those people who have a political or a financial interest in
    seeing

    [[Page 646]]

    that this matter is not resolved between now and November prevent it
    from being resolved. The worst thing in the world would be to play
    politics with our children's health. I'm not going to do it, and I hope
    no one else will.
        Peter [Peter Maer, NBC Mutual Radio].

    President's Response to Questions of Character

        Q. Mr. President, aside from the legal questions that you face both
    here and in the courts, Republicans have been notching up questions
    about your moral authority. How important is moral authority to you as
    you deal with questions like tobacco and drugs? What effect do you think
    this whole wave of controversies has had on your moral authority? And
    what kind of moral authority do you think the Republican critics have?
        The President. Well, let me say, if I were to answer them in kind, I
    might be able to damage their reputation, which they might be able to do
    to me, but I could have no effect on their character, just as they can
    have none on mine. And therefore, I think if I were to answer them in
    kind, it would be more of a reflection on my character than on their
    reputation.
        I believe that it's very important for the President to be able to
    stand up for the values of the American people, collectively, and for
    communities and for families and for individuals. And I think this
    administration has a good record, and I believe I have a good record of
    standing up for the things that will help us to raise our children
    stronger and keep our families stronger and make our country stronger.
    At least I have done my best.
        These things are distracting, and we live in a time where they are
    more prominent than they have been at most times in our country's
    history, although not at all times. And I deal with them the very best I
    can. But I do not think the right thing for me to do is to respond in
    kind. The right thing for me to do is to let others defend me as best
    they can and to go on and worry about the American people.
        Go ahead.

    Tobacco Industry Political Contributions

        Q. I have a question about tobacco.
        The President. Jackie, you can go next.
        Q. I'm sorry.
        The President. No, go ahead, Mara [Mara Liasson, National Public
    Radio].
        Q. I've got the floor. I don't want to give it up. [Laughter]
        The President. Good for you.
        Q. I'm wondering if you are ready to tell the DNC and the two
    Democratic congressional campaign committees to stop taking campaign
    contributions from the tobacco companies.
        The President. Well, it was my understanding that the DNC did not.
        Q. Well, that's not exactly correct. There is still some tobacco
    money----
        The President. It was my understanding that the DNC was not taking
    tobacco money----
        Q. [Inaudible]--the congressional committees.
        The President. Well, I don't tell them what to do. Congress is an
    independent body, as we see, and the House and the Senate committees
    will have to do whatever they're going to do. I have had a chance to set
    the policy for the Democratic National Committee. If it's being
    violated, I will check on it. But I think we're doing the right thing.
    It's legal for those people to contribute if they want. But I think
    until we get this matter resolved of the teen smoking, I think it would
    be better if none of us did. But it's up to them to decide what to do.
        Kathy [Kathy Kiely, Houston Post].

    Independent Counsel's Investigation

        Q. Mr. President, there are some questions that have arisen because
    of Mr. Starr's investigation that both you and your staff have admitted
    are legitimate questions, but that you don't feel you're able to answer
    while his investigation is ongoing. Now that he's said that the end is
    not near, are you willing to live with these questions hanging over you
    for the rest of your administration?
        The President. Absolutely.
        Q. Does that mean, sir, that you would leave these waiting, that
    you're not prepared to sit down and----
        The President. It means that I think every American who has observed
    the conduct of the Independent Counsel would
    expect me to follow the advice of my counsel. And that's what I intend
    to do.
        Q. Secondly, sir, if you believe that Ken Starr is running, as
    you've indicated, a partisan vendetta, and especially if you think he's
    wasting taxpayer money, as you've suggested here, why not ask Attorney
    General Reno to remove him?
        The President. That would not be an appropriate thing for me to do.

    [[Page 647]]

    Congress and the Legislative Agenda

        Q. Mr. President, you and your aides have been insisting for quite
    some time now that you're able to remain focused on the business of the
    country and do your work despite what's going on. But House Speaker
    Gingrich is making it increasingly clear that unless there's some more
    cooperation, some more forthcoming on your administration's part, that
    your agenda on the Hill is going to be stalled. I wonder if there comes
    a point where you feel it's your responsibility to provide some more
    cooperation so that some work can get done for the American people.
        The President. Oh, I don't think anyone really seriously believes
    that's what the last 3 or 4 days have been about. They've been about
    politics. And I'm not going to let--I can be responsible for a lot of
    things, but I'm not responsible for the Speaker's behavior. Neither, however, will I respond to it.
    Nothing he says about me personally--nothing--will keep me from working
    with him and with other Republicans in the Congress to do everything I
    possibly can on every issue before us.
        There is nothing that he can say about me for whatever reason that
    will affect my willingness to sit down with him and others and work for
    the benefit of this country. So it's not going to get in my way. It is
    simply not. I am not going to permit it to happen.
        Now, I will tell you this: The only thing he said recently that
    really bothered me was when he said that he thought that tobacco
    advertising basically had no impact on whether children decided to smoke
    or not. I simply disagree with that. I think there are other reasons,
    but I think that was wrong. And that's something that affects other
    people's lives. That's not Washington politics.
        But you known, whatever people say, let them go. I've got to do my
    job. And I will still welcome them to the White House, and we will do
    our job for the American people because that's what I'm supposed to do.
        Bill [Bill Plante, CBS News]. And Jackie [Jackie Calmes, Wall Street
    Journal].

    Campaign Finance Reform

        Q. Mr. President, speaking of issues, is there any reason to take
    seriously a promise from any politician of either party for campaign
    finance reform, to regard it as anything other than lip service, when by
    actually voting for campaign finance reform in a way that would cause
    the bill to pass, they'd be facilitating challenges to themselves? Do
    you believe that this is really possible?
        The President. Oh, yes.
        Q. And why would anybody do it?
        The President. Well, I believe it's really possible because I think
    a lot of politicians know that the cost of campaigns and advertising,
    particularly--and particularly television advertising--has gotten so
    expensive that they're spending all their time raising money. And it's
    wearing them out, and it makes them--some of them, at least--I think
    very few people really are terribly compromised and wind up voting in
    ways different than they would otherwise vote, but I think they know it
    raises all kinds of questions they wish it didn't raise. And I think
    most people in public life would love to do it.
        But as I have said before, since the Republicans now have a majority
    in Congress, it is more difficult for them because they raise more large
    money, more total money, more foreign money--they raise more money in
    all these categories that people have raised objections to, so it is
    harder for them. But even among the Republican ranks, a lot of people I
    think genuinely want to do it. And I think that we're just going to keep
    working and try to get it done.
        Yes. You never got your question, did you? Go ahead, I'm sorry.

    Congress and the Legislative Agenda

        Q. Mr. President, given the questions about your moral authority
    this week, together with the trouble for the tobacco bill and IMF
    funding, is this going to be looked on back as the week where the era of
    bipartisanship between you and congressional leaders ended? And if not,
    what are you going to do to revive things so you can get something done?
        The President. Well, I don't think so. We're having some problems
    over the tobacco issue, but keep in mind--because of the stuff that's
    coming out of the House, which I don't really know how to assess--but
    keep in mind, we have a bill slated to go to the floor of the Senate
    that passed, I believe, 19 to 1. And therefore, the Senate is moving
    forward.
        Look at the funding for the International Monetary Fund, which is
    very critical to our

    [[Page 648]]

    long-term economic stability. It passed the Senate 86 to 14, total
    bipartisan support. So--they're voting on NATO today; I expect it to be
    a bipartisan vote. And they'll be--and by the way, the opposition will
    be bipartisan, too. So I don't think a few days of high-level static in
    the House of Representatives, which may have more to do with their
    affairs than with the rest of us--I don't pretend to understand it all--
    I don't think that should make us believe the era of bipartisan
    Government is over.
        If they--if the American people will send them a clear signal and
    they conclude it's in their interest to work with me and work with the
    Republicans and the Democrats in the Senate and all of us that are
    working together to do it, then I think that's what will happen. It's a
    question of what they conclude is in their interest. And I don't
    understand it entirely, but I'm going to keep working to get it done.
        Q. [Inaudible]--money, how do you pay for all your initiatives, and
    if the Republicans instead used the money for a tax cut, would you veto
    the tax cut?
        The President. Well, let me back up and say most of my initiatives,
    the Federal part of most of my initiatives are paid for by nontobacco
    sources. I believe--I believe, and I think they disagree with me, and we
    can argue that out in the future--that could be a subject for the coming
    election--that if we give them back a whole lot of money that they have
    already spent on Medicare--Medicaid--if they get money back from the
    Federal Government as a result of this settlement and especially if they
    get more than they anticipated getting under the original attorney
    generals' agreement, I think, it is appropriate for us to say you ought
    to spend this on children. And the best way to spend it on children is
    on child care and education--early childhood education--getting down to
    small classes in the early grades, because we had the biggest increase
    in child health in 35 years in the balanced budget agreement last year.
        So I think that's an appropriate thing to do. If they disagree with
    me, then we can argue about that. But I would never stand in the way of
    a tobacco bill that actually reduced childhood smoking because they
    disagreed with me about how to invest the money. But I would expect a
    bill to actually help our kids.
        Okay, you guys. Jacobo [Jacobo Goldstein, CNN Radio Noticias], go
    ahead.

    Cuba/Fast-Track Trading Authority

        Q. You have just returned from Santiago, where you attended the
    second Summit of the Americas. Many of the hemispheric leaders told you
    or made public their belief that the U.S. embargo is not working against
    Cuba; it has brought about no democratic changes. Prime Minister Jean
    Chretien has just visited Cuba. President Castro used the opportunity
    welcoming him to say that the U.S. had committed war crimes against the
    Cuban people and should be judged in an international court for that
    embargo. My question is, sir, do you believe the embargo is working?
        And number two, you promised the leaders in Santiago you would work
    to get fast track. With the economy doing so well, isn't this a good
    time to start pushing Congress?
        Thank you.
        The President. Well, the answer to the second question is it's
    probably not the best time because it is even closer to the election,
    and for reasons that I disagree with, a lot of Members of Congress--and
    most of them in my own party--think that it's not a good thing to do
    politically. I think it is imperative for our future, and I will
    continue to try to pass it. But I don't think this is a good time right
    now.
        What was the other question?
        Q. Castro--the Cuban embargo.
        The President. Oh, the Cuban embargo. On the Cuban embargo, I think
    that it has been useful, but I also believe that we should do more to
    minimize the damage to the Cuban people--which is why, after the
    Pope's visit, I relaxed a lot of the
    restrictions on the transfer of food and medicine and on travel there,
    in an attempt not only to help and strengthen the Cuban people but also
    to strengthen the church and other institutions of society, in the hope
    that there can be a transition to a more open, freer place. And I'm
    still hoping for that.
        Go ahead, Mark [Mark Knoller, CBS Radio].

    U.S. Secret Service and Confidentiality

        Q. Mr. President, back on the Secret Service, if I can. It argues
    that if its agents and officers were to cooperate with Independent
    Counsel Ken Starr, that it would cause you to keep them at a distance.
    Is that true, sir? Would it change the nature of your relationship with
    the Secret Service detail if they were to cooperate with the Independent
    Counsel?

    [[Page 649]]

        The President. I think what it argues is--what the Secret Service
    argues is that the institution of the Presidency would be affected
    because the President, for example, would feel that conversations in the
    limousine going to and from places and other things that he might do in
    the future that have every right to be kept confidential would be
    subject to questioning. And even if there was nothing unlawful about
    them, they would then be leaked, even if leaking is illegal. And
    certainly, they have lots of evidence to support that worry.
        I mean, as I understand it, that's their argument. However, I have
    had no conversations with them about it. And I think, again, I should
    not comment on it. They are making a case about the institution of the
    Presidency. President Bush has said that he
    agrees with them, and you might ask other former Presidents what they
    think. But it's the--the Secret Service has made this decision on its
    own; I am not involved with it. And I think that that's the way it ought
    to stay.
        Mr. Cannon [Carl Cannon, Baltimore Sun].

    Clemency

        Q. Mr. President, earlier you spoke about the hardship of people who
    had to get lawyers and spend money who have done nothing wrong and are
    not even being targeted with an investigation. My question is about
    people who have been targeted. I'm asking how far along are you in your
    thinking about possible pardons for people who you think have been
    wrapped up in an investigation that they never would have even been--
    they never even would have come across any prosecutor's radar screen if
    you----
        The President. No one has asked me for one and there's been no
    discussion about it.

    Tobacco Industry Role in Legislation

        Q. President Clinton, I wanted to talk to you about politics and the
    tobacco legislation. Specifically, one way you could take the politics
    out of the tobacco legislation is by embracing the tobacco industry and
    inviting them back into the process. Do you have any intention of doing
    that, and are there any plans for some sort of tobacco summit?
        The President. Well, first of all, they walked away. We didn't drive
    them out. I was--the first I knew about them leaving was when they
    called a press conference and said they were leaving. I thought they
    were negotiating with the Congress. We were trying to negotiate with the
    Congress. We had--the only vehicle you have is when the leader, in this
    case the leader of the Senate, signed--Senator McCain's committee, the jurisdiction over the committee--he got
    together with Democrats and Republicans on the committee. They put
    together a bill, and it was voted out. They said they didn't like the
    bill, thought it was going to get worse, and they were walking away. And
    then they started running their television ads. And that's all I know.
        So I would hope that before this is over they would come back and
    rejoin the negotiations. I think it would be better if they were at the
    table. And as you know, at least at the edges there's some questions
    about the Government's ability to impose certain restrictions on
    advertising unless it is done in a consent agreement with their
    participation. So I would like to see them a part of this.
        Scott, [Scott Pelley, CBS News] go ahead.
        Q. Mr. President----
        The President. I'm working, Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News
    Service]. I'll get there. Be patient.

    Monica Lewinsky

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You suggested at the beginning of this
    news conference, sir, that you've answered the questions about Monica
    Lewinsky. But respectfully, there has been no explanation for her dozens
    of visits to the White House after her employment here ended; no
    explanation for the Secret Service concern about her behavior in the
    West Wing; no explanation about the extraordinary effort by your
    secretary and your closest friends to find her a job. Sir, could you now
    give us some better sense of what appears to be an extraordinary
    relationship that you had with this woman, and fulfill your promise to
    the American people of more, rather than less, sooner rather than later?
        The President. Well, first of all, you have more information than
    you did when I said that, and secondly, I have nothing else to say. I
    have been advised--and I think it's good advice under the
    circumstances--but I just don't have anything else to say about that.
        Q. Are you in legal jeopardy, sir?

    [[Page 650]]

    Sidney Blumenthal and Hickman Ewing

        Q. Mr. President, your adviser Sidney Blumenthal last week called
    Ken Starr's deputy, Hickman Ewing, a religious fanatic who has
    proclaimed that he operates from a presumption of guilt. Sir, I want to
    ask you if that's an appropriate comment, if you agree with it, and if
    you agree with Mr. Blumenthal's assertion that Starr is abusing, not
    just using, his office in an effort to destroy your Presidency?
        The President. I don't have any comment about that. I believe there
    was an article on Mr. Ewing in the New Yorker in which he made some
    comment about his presumption of guilt, and you can just--his words
    ought to stand or fall. Nobody else should be able to characterize them.
        Go ahead, Mr. Bennett [James Bennett, New York Times]. And then
    Sarah. And then John [John Harris, Washington Post].

    President's Response to Questions of Character

        Q. In light of your comments before about character, Mr. President,
    I'd like to ask you about a divergence we've seen in the polls recently.
    Public polls have suggested that the strong majority still approves of
    the job you're doing as President. The majority no longer feels that you
    share their moral values, and they say that they no longer respect you
    as a person. I wonder if you find that distressing and how you account
    for it?
        The President. Well, I don't think it's hard to account for. It's
    been part of a strategy that's--it goes all the way back to 1991. And--
    but it used to distress me greatly; it doesn't anymore.
        You know, I will say again, all these people that have been working
    hard on this for 7 years now. They can affect my reputation; they can do
    nothing, for good or ill, to affect my character. Unfortunately, they
    can't make it any better either. They can't make it any better; they
    can't make it any worse. They can't have an impact on it.
        And it's obvious, I think, to the American people that this has been
    a hard, well-financed, vigorous effort over a long period of time by
    people who could not contest the ideas that I brought to the table,
    couldn't even contest the values behind the ideas that I brought to the
    table, and certainly can't quarrel with the consequences and the results
    of my service, and therefore, personal attack seems legitimate. I have
    never done that in my public life. I don't believe in it, and I'm not
    going to participate in it. But all I can do--I can't say--I can't get
    in an argument with the American people about this. All I can do is show
    up for work every day and do the very best I can. That's what I did
    today, and that's what I intend to do tomorrow.

    China

        Q. Mr. President, it looks as if you're getting ready to sign an
    agreement with China which will give them help and some of our secrets,
    and not just be a friendly thing. Would you sign this without the
    American people having had wide discussion over this and debate--don't
    you need approval of Congress? Would you just go ahead and sign this?
    Because after all, that's one of our greatest enemies is China.
        The President. Well, Sarah, I'm not sure I know the specific issue
    you're referring to, but I would not make any agreements with China in
    secret, and they would be subject to the knowledge of the Congress and
    the debate of the American people. We are trying to get to a point where
    we can work more closely with them and where they cooperate more closely
    with us. So we're trying to build the same kind of world in the future
    and not a very different kind of world. And I hope we'll get there.
        Yes, John, go ahead.

    Independent Counsel's Investigation

        Q. Mr. President, there have been reports--news reports that the
    Independent Counsel has invited you to voluntarily answer questions
    about the Lewinsky matter, but so far you haven't committed to an
    interview. Are those reports true, and would you commit to answering
    questions that he has, or do you believe that he's simply too biased in
    his investigation and, therefore, you don't have an obligation?
        The President. I don't have anything to say about that. All my
    interactions with him, Mr. Kendall speaks for me, and I just have nothing to say.
        Go ahead, Bill [William Douglas, Newsday]. Bill and then April
    [April Ryan, American Urban Radio Networks].

    President's Initiative on Race

        Q. Recently, some conservatives who you met with at the White House
    in December said that

    [[Page 651]]

    they feel that your race initiative has not been inclusive, and they're
    embarking on their own race initiative. Do you agree with their
    assessment? And also, the year for your initiative is drawing to a close
    rapidly. Do you foresee extending that period?
        The President. Well, first of all, I guess you're referring to Mr.
    Connerly and Ms. Thernstrom, and I'm glad if they want to spark a debate. But I
    did invite them here to be part of our discussion, and I invited other
    conservatives who were not able to come. And I've done what I could to
    broaden this debate in many ways and not just to those who claim a
    special stake in it. What we did on ESPN I thought was in some ways one
    of the more interesting things that has occurred in the last year.
        So I welcome any kind of organized discussion. Today we've got about
    40 Governors and the YWCA announcing that all over the country they're
    going to be engaging in these kinds of discussions. I think all of this
    is to the good, not bad. So I would encourage people who disagree with
    me about all these issues to seek out people who are different from them
    and get into the debate and the dialog and talk it through.
        Now, as we come down to this year, to be perfectly candid, I have
    not made a decision about how best to carry forward this. But in some
    form or fashion we have to carry this forward, because what I'm trying
    to do is to get people to think about our racial diversity as an
    enormous asset for America in the 21st century if we become more of one
    nation as a result of it.
        So we have--for example, I've got a lot of legislative proposals on
    the table which are critical to this: our whole empowerment zone, more
    community development banks, all the things we're doing to try to close
    the opportunity gaps in our inner cities and our rural areas; the EEOC
    budget, which, to go back to one former question, I believe the Speaker
    is committed to support, which will be very good, to clear out this huge
    backlog in discrimination cases before the Federal Government. There are
    lots of specific things we still have to do, as well as other avenues of
    dialog that I think need to be explored.
        April.

    National Drug Control Policy Director Barry McCaffrey

        Q. Mr. President, General Barry McCaffrey is in the midst of
    controversy over the needle exchange program, as well as a personality
    conflict. Mr. President, what are your words to General McCaffrey's
    detractors, especially those in your Cabinet, your administration, and
    those Democrats in the CBC that are joining Newt Gingrich to get
    McCaffrey out of the drug czar's office?
        The President. Well, first of all, I think we ought to look at his
    record. I think he's got quite a commendable record. We have more than
    double--we've had a strategy that was as follows with the drug issue:
    one, to try to help parents teach their children that drugs are wrong
    and illegal and can kill you; two, to try to support local law
    enforcement efforts and local community efforts at not only punishment
    but prevention; three, to try to increase our capacity to stop drugs
    from coming in at the border. We more than doubled border guards, for
    example, from 3,000 to 6,000. We've got another 1,000 coming in this
    budget. We've got a fund set aside in the highway bill to increase the
    technological capacity of the Government to stop drugs coming in at the
    border.
        And General McCaffrey has been behind a lot of that. He's also done
    enormous work with the supply countries and Latin America, trying to get
    them to work with us. And he's made some real headway. He's one of the
    reasons we've got this alliance against drugs at the last Summit of the
    Americas. He supported huge increases in funding for treatment and for
    testing and treatment for inmates not only in Federal but in State and
    local penitentiaries. So I think he's got a good record.
        Now, he believes that the benefits of needle exchange are uncertain
    and that the message you send out is not good, that somehow the
    Government is empowering drug use. There are people all over the country
    who agree with that. Now, the weight of medical research and the
    American Medical Association has a different view. Their view is that it
    may help to lower the transmission of HIV, and there is no evidence that
    it increases drug use.
        I think--if I might, I mean, that's the next logical question, why
    did we make the decision we did--because the weight of scientific
    evidence was what I just said. But if you look

    [[Page 652]]

    at it, it's clear: If you go all across the American cities or go to
    Vancouver, Canada, anyplace where they've had a needle exchange program
    where there has been serious testing, the only place it really works to
    reduce HIV transmission and to reduce drug use is when the people who
    come in to exchange needles get pulled into treatment programs.
        So the real issue is, will there be more funds for treatment? And
    that's obviously--I'm getting as much money out there as I can, but
    that's why I think it should remain a local decision and why I made the
    decision I did and why I'd like to see this controversy put behind us,
    because I think in a way, in terms of impact on people, it has been--
    there has been more heat than light on it.

    NATO Expansion and Hungary's Economy

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. This is for Hungarian national
    television--[inaudible]. What is your message, sir, to those nations,
    particularly to Hungarians, millions of them living below the poverty
    line? I mean the Hungarian poverty line. Will they be better off by
    joining a military alliance? Some critics here say that this is like
    putting the cart before the horse. Military comes first; economic
    integration just second. What's your take on that?
        Thank you.
        The President. Well, first, I think it's a very legitimate question.
    It is a legitimate question. It's a question that bothered me, for
    example, when some other countries not nearly as prosperous as Hungary
    were asking to be considered for NATO membership. For the United States
    and for other NATO members, we have to trust the elected representatives
    of the countries involved--in this case, Hungary, Poland, and the Czech
    Republic--to make the right decision on that.
        My view is, if it can be afforded--for Hungary, Poland, and the
    Czech Republic--if it can be afforded, consistent with a commitment to
    economic growth and benefits preserving the social contract for the
    people, it will be good economically over the long run for Hungary,
    because it will tie Hungary more closely to the emerging global economy
    of democracies, it will identify Hungary even more clearly as a
    responsible nation capable of helping NATO solve other peacekeeping
    problems, and it will remove any lingering questions, however rational
    or not, about Hungary's security. So I think it will be good for the
    economy over the long run if it could be managed now.
        George [George Condon, Copley News Service].

    President's Response to Questions of Character

        Q. Following up on Peter's earlier question, to what degree do you
    believe that a President, any President, is a role model in his private
    behavior? And does that not justify questions about private behavior
    that might otherwise be considered intrusive?
        The President. Well, those are questions that you need to ask and
    answer without my involvement for the simple reason that our consensus
    about that over time has been--it's changed dramatically, first of all.
    Secondly, there is a difference between the question you asked and the
    exact nature of what's happened here over the last 5\1/2\ years, which I
    am sure you appreciate.

    Cuba

        Q. Mr. President, as President of the United States, the country
    leader to defend democracy in the world, are you ready to accept a
    democratic vote by the majority of the members of the OAS to reinstate
    Cuba as an active member of the inter-American system? If not, why not?
        The President. No, and because just last year, the OAS voted to kick
    anybody out who abandoned democracy. So we would look completely
    hypocritical if we said, ``Here's the set of rules we have for all of
    our members; if you abandon democracy you're out of here. But we feel so
    terrible that Cuba has been under this dictatorship for 40 years and has
    been outside the OAS that we think we'll bring them in here.''
        First of all, I think it's hypocritical. Secondly, I don't believe
    that democracy has been in effect and is secure enough from the enormous
    pressures that are on a lot of these countries to guarantee that we can
    preserve it if we were to make that sort of mistake.
        Now, other countries in the OAS in the Americas are perfectly free
    to disagree with our position on Cuba. For example, the Canadian
    Prime Minister--one of you just asked a
    question--just went to Cuba. But I think when he was there, he was also
    pressing for democracy and human rights. We can have differences in our
    approach to the same goal, and I wouldn't criticize that. But I think to
    open up the OAS or the Summit of the Americas process to a

    [[Page 653]]

    nondemocratic nation, in my view, would be a big mistake.
        This country stands for freedom and democracy. We're fighting like
    crazy to preserve it in countries where it is very difficult to do so,
    where people literally put their lives on the line every day for
    freedom. And when people are out there risking their lives, we ought not
    to send the wrong signal about how important that is to us.
        Thank you.

    Note: The President's 157th news conference began at 2 p.m. in the East
    Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to one of his
    private attorneys, David E. Kendall; Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
    of Israel; Chairman Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority;
    Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and Deputy Independent Counsel W.
    Hickman Ewing, Jr.; Abigail Thernstrom, senior fellow, Manhattan
    Institute; Ward Connerly, chairman, American Civil Rights Institute; and
    Prime Minister Jean Chretien of Canada.