Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1998, Book I)

[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.