    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1999, Book I)]
    [June 25, 1999]
    [Pages 1007-1022]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    June 25, 1999

        The President. Earlier today, in a speech at Georgetown University,
    I discussed the opportunities now before our Nation. Before I take your
    questions, let me just take a moment to recap what I believe is
    America's agenda in the coming months.
        Our trip to Europe advanced America's ideals and interests. Working
    with our partners, we won an agreement to ban abusive child labor
    everywhere in the world, took new steps to strengthen the global
    economy, agreed to triple the debt relief provided for many of the
    poorest nations, and to strengthen democracy and reform in Russia.
        We also worked to put together, to put in place the building blocks
    of peace in Kosovo and to put the Balkans on a shared path to a
    prosperous, united future. I will meet with the region's leaders later
    this summer to give the process further momentum.
        I met with Kosovar refugees in Macedonia who are planning to return
    home. They thanked America and our Allies for giving them a chance to
    reclaim their lives on their native lands. I also met with and thanked
    some of the American air men and women who achieved the success and with
    some of our and other NATO troops who are going into Kosovo now to make
    sure we win the peace. They know that they're doing the right thing, and
    I am very proud of all of them.
        While America is enjoying success abroad, it is important that we
    keep pushing forward on our challenges here at home. This is a time of
    great hope for our Nation. Just today we learned that the American
    economy grew at a 4.3 percent in the first 3 months of this year.
    America plainly is on the right track.
        But we will be judged by what we do with this opportunity, whether
    we seize it or squander it in petty bickering and partisan animosity.
    There will be plenty of time for politics in the months to come. This
    summer should be a season of progress.
        We should start by acting quickly on issues where most lawmakers,
    Democratic and Republican, agree: legislation to let disabled Americans
    keep their Medicaid health insurance when they go to work; an increase
    in the minimum wage; campaign finance reform; a strong and enforceable
    Patients' Bill of Rights.
        I was heartened that earlier today the House overwhelmingly passed
    legislation making sure that foster children are not cast out in the
    cold when their time in foster care ends. This is a vital issue, one
    that Hillary has championed for many
    years. And I am very pleased by the House action.
        Then we must turn to broader ways and, in some ways, more difficult
    challenges facing our Nation. First, we have a duty to maintain the
    fiscal discipline that has produced our prosperity and use it to
    strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the 21st century and to pay
    down our national debt.
        On Tuesday I will propose the detailed plan to modernize Medicare,
    cutting costs, improving service, and helping senior citizens with their
    greatest growing need, affordable prescription drugs.

    [[Page 1008]]

        Second, we must widen the circle of opportunity by investing in
    education while demanding accountability and insisting that the Congress
    keep our commitment of last year to finish hiring 100,000 more teachers
    to lower class size in the early grades.
        Third, in 2 weeks I will be joined by corporate, civic, and
    political leaders of both parties on a 4-day tour of America's new
    markets, the places in our country which have not yet felt the surge of
    our prosperity, to mobilize the private sector to bring jobs and growth
    to our poorest neighborhoods and to build support for our new markets
    initiative to give tax credits and loan guarantees to those who invest
    in America on the same terms we give to those who invest in developing
    economies overseas.
        And fourth, in the wake of the tragedy at Littleton, we must
    continue to meet the challenge of youth violence. Hillary and I are
    developing a national campaign on youth violence, working with parents,
    educators, the entertainment industry, and others. But we also must take
    sensible steps to take guns out of the hands of criminals and away from
    children. We can't expect young people to stand up to violence if
    Congress won't stand up to the gun lobby.
        I proposed and, with a tie-breaking vote by Vice President
    Gore, the Senate passed the measure to
    close the gun show loophole. The Senate also passed legislation to
    require child safety locks, to ban large ammunition clips for assault
    weapons, to ban violent juveniles from owning handguns as adults.
        Two weeks ago the Republicans in the House blocked that measure.
    They would even weaken the current law by letting criminals store their
    guns at pawnshops. Now, there is still time for Congress to act.
    Republican leaders could appoint legislators as negotiators to craft a
    bill that includes the tough Senate provisions. I hope they will do that
    and send me a strong bill. Plainly, the country wants that.
        Again I say, this is sort of like the Patients' Bill of Rights; it's
    really not a partisan issue anywhere but Washington, DC. I hope they
    will send me a strong bill. If they send me one that weakens current
    law, I will send it back to them and keep working until we get the job
    done right.
        Now, this is, admittedly, an ambitious agenda, but it can all be
    done in the coming months. I will use all the powers available to me as
    President, working with Congress and with my executive authority. I will
    summon the citizens of our country to help us to solve these problems.
        This is a good time for America, but we will be judged by whether we
    make the most of it. I look forward to making the effort.
        Thank you very much.
        Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

    Kosovo

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, despite the end of the
    war, there is still a new wave of violence and terror in Kosovo, only
    this time it's Serb homes that are being burned, Serb stores that are
    being looted, and Serb civilians who are being killed. Are you alarmed
    by what's going on there? And why is NATO letting this happen? Can't
    NATO do more to stop it?
        The President. Well, first of all, NATO is not letting it happen.
    We're doing what we can to stop it. And I am concerned about it. I'm not
    particularly surprised after what they've been through. But we signed an
    agreement with the KLA in which they agreed to demilitarize. The
    leader even asked the Serbs to come home. And
    we are deploying our people as quickly as we can. Obviously, if we can
    get all of our people in completely and then get them properly dispersed
    around the country, we'll be able to provide a far higher level of
    protection. And I think it's very important. And for those people who
    lose their homes, they're entitled to have them rebuilt, along with
    everybody else, and I intend to do that.

    President's Initiative on Race

        Q. Mr. President, you covered the waterfront on domestic issues you
    think are very important. But there is a question of racism. And I
    understand there's a report in the White House, already in second draft,
    and it's supposed to be a political hot potato, and therefore you're
    hesitant to make it public.
        The President. Oh, no, that's not what's going on. There is a draft
    of a book that I wanted to produce and asked for help on from Chris
    Edley and from others on our staff and not
    on our staff several months ago. And Chris gave me his draft; then the
    staff looked at it and talked about where it was and wasn't consistent
    with present policies we were pursuing. They gave it all to me.

    [[Page 1009]]

        I was involved for the last 3 months with the conflict in Kosovo.
    And what has really happened is that I want to do this right. I think
    all of you know how important this whole race issue is to me, and it's
    been amplified in its potential future importance because of the
    problems that we see involving race and ethnic and religious problems
    around the world.
        So I want to make sure that when we put this document out, it is in
    the form of a book which can be useful and have something to say and
    move the conversation and the efforts beyond where we were in the
    Presidential initiative on race. So you shouldn't draw any conclusions
    other than that I want to be personally involved in it and I simply
    haven't had the time to give it the effort that it deserves.
        Q. Is it based on the panel's hearings and so forth?
        The President. Oh, yes, to some extent. It's based on the panel's
    hearings; it's based on very long conversations I had with the people
    that worked on the draft for me, with Mr. Edley and Terry Edmonds
    and others. We had some long, long sessions. I went through everything I
    wanted in the book. I went through some things I wanted to emphasize
    more than were emphasized in the year that the panel was publicly
    meeting--we were having the race dialogs.
        But I think it's very important, but it's got to be, first of all,
    mine. It's got to reflect what I believe and where I think we need to
    go. And secondly, it needs to move the ball forward a little bit.
        There's still a great deal of interest in this. Those of you who
    covered the speech this morning at Georgetown will remember that the
    young woman from Alabama who introduced me
    talked about how the initiative on race got her involved in something in
    her local community. Another one of the Presidential scholars, when she
    walked by me this morning, said, ``I want to know how I can get
    involved. I'm still interested in this.'' So I think there's still a
    great deal of interest in this in the country and maybe especially among
    our younger people. And I just want this book to be very good.
        So you shouldn't--yes, there are some differences of opinion among
    the people who had input in it, but that's not what's caused us not to
    put it out. What's caused us not to put it out is that I have not had
    the time to give to it, to be very careful and relaxed and thoughtful
    about how I say what it is I want to say to the country about this.
        Larry [Larry McQuillan, Reuters].

    Legislative Agenda

        Q. Mr. President, this morning and again just now, you made
    references to a summer of progress, and you were calling for
    bipartisanship to try to accomplish things in the next few months. I'm
    just wondering, with the 2000 campaign obviously heating up and growing
    in intensity, do you feel there's more of an urgency to act right away,
    within the coming months?
        The President. Well, for one thing, I think it would be to
    everyone's advantage to continue to make progress. As I always tell the
    Republicans and Democrats, no matter how much we do, there will still be
    plenty of things on which there is honest disagreement, over which the
    next election can be fought. That is just in the nature of things.
    That's healthy; that's good; that's a two-party system in America.
        But we are all hired by the American people to work here day-in and
    day-out, week-in and week-out, and we make a grave mistake--and it's
    almost never good politics to do the wrong thing, that is, to take a
    pass on making progress when you can do it.
        This is a very unusual moment where we have sustained prosperity,
    the longest peacetime expansion in our history. We've gone from having
    the biggest deficits in history to having the biggest surpluses in
    history. And yet, we have these looming demographic challenges of Social
    Security and Medicare. And we have these big issues that are right
    before us now, the ones I mentioned on which there is basically broad
    agreement.
        So I think that it would be good for America and, therefore, good
    for everyone involved if we go ahead and do this. I think, obviously,
    the closer you get to the election, perhaps the more difficult it will
    be. But I expect--I'll make you a prediction here--I expect that we'll
    get some good things done in the year 2000, before the Congress recesses
    finally for the election then. I expect to keep working right up to the
    very end, and I think that we will continue to make progress.
        But the most important thing is the attitude of the main players in
    Congress, insofar as Congress has to play a role in this.
        Yes, go ahead.

    [[Page 1010]]

    Cox Committee Report on Chinese Nuclear Espionage

        Q.  Mr. President, in the wake of California Congressman Christopher
    Cox's study of spying in the U.S. and, specifically, Chinese attempts to
    spy, you asked your Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to look into
    this, and it came back with a central recommendation that you separate
    the Nation's nuclear labs from the Energy Department.
        Your Energy Secretary seems to be resisting that. Ask me, sir--tell
    me, sir, how you feel about it--[laughter]--and let me ask you once
    again: Do you still maintain that you were not told anything about these
    Chinese efforts to spy at the Nation's nuclear labs during your
    administration, sir?
        The President. Let's go back to the first question--there are two
    separate questions. I read Senator Rudman's
    report. I thought it was quite interesting and had a lot of very helpful
    analyses of how this problem developed. And there were actually two
    separate organizational recommendations that he made in the alternative:
    either that the labs could be put under an independent board, or that
    the labs should be taken out of the present hierarchy of organization
    because of the culture--the committee--the Rudman group talked a lot
    about the culture of the labs and its resistance to oversight. He said
    another alternative might be to take it out from under the present
    organizational structure and make it directly answerable--the labs--
    directly answerable to the Secretary's Office. And he posed those things
    in the alternative.
        I have asked our people to look at it. I have talked to Secretary
    Richardson about it. I think everyone
    recognizes that he has worked very hard to deal with the underlying
    security issues, which are the most important things. And I think we all
    just ought to try to get together and work out what the best
    organizational structure is, and I expect that we will be--I expect to
    have a chance to talk to him about that and to work on it.
        But I think the Rudman report was a service to the country, and I
    think that Bill Richardson is doing a good
    job on trying to implement the security measures that are necessary.
    He's being very, very aggressive.
        Now, on the second question, I went back--I've been interested in
    this question, and I went back and looked at exactly what I said. Let me
    go back to what the facts are. First of all, there's been a 20-year
    problem with lax security at the labs. And what I said was that I didn't
    suspect that any actual breaches of security had occurred during my
    tenure. Since then, we have learned of the offloading of the computer by
    Mr. Lee, from the secured computers into his
    personal computers. That's something we know now that I didn't know
    then.
        But I think my choice of wording was poor. What I should have said
    was I did not know of any specific instance of espionage, because I
    think that we've been suspicious all along. And I have to acknowledge, I
    think, I used a poor word there. I think suspicion is--we have been
    suspicious all along, generally. We did not have any specific instance,
    as we now do, of the offloading of the computer.
        But I also want to emphasize that I took no particular comfort in
    that, because what we have here is--what I learned in 1997 was that
    there was a general problem of very long standing with the security at
    the labs, and I issued the Executive order in early '98 to clean it up.
    And Secretary Richardson has been working on
    it since then. And I think we've made a lot of progress since then.
        Yes.

    Medicare

        Q. Sir, I'd like to ask you about Medicare and your plans that
    you're going to be announcing next week. This is a program that tens of
    millions of Americans depend on, and yet in 15 years it will be
    effectively bankrupt. And you're about to propose what could be a very
    costly additional benefit in the prescription benefit. Why are you going
    to do that, sir? Isn't that going to make the problem worse, not better?
        The President. No. For one thing--let me remind you that we have
    taken a lot of very tough positions to reform Medicare since 1993. When
    I took office, Medicare was supposed to go broke this year. And now it's
    out to--what is it--2015 or something. So we have taken a lot of
    important positions already. And as a matter of fact, as I'm sure you're
    all aware, a lot of the health care providers, particularly rural
    hospitals, nursing homes, home health providers, a disproportionate
    share of hospitals--for the folks listening to us, that's basically
    inner-city hospitals and teaching hospitals that have a whole lot of
    poor folks they take care of who

    [[Page 1011]]

    aren't reimbursed--a lot of those people believe that our savings are
    too great. But we've taken some very tough actions to try to lengthen
    the life of the Medicare Trust Fund.
        When I make my proposals on Tuesday, there will be more to lengthen
    the life further, to make sure that we get through the first quarter
    century and maybe more of the new century with Medicare alive and well.
        But if you look at the long run, I think it's important that we
    propose a prescription drug benefit because life expectancy is going up.
    Drugs are being constantly developed which help to improve the quality
    as well as the length of life, and if they are properly taken, they can
    actually reduce long-term hospitalization and other medical costs.
        Now, it is absolutely true that if we design this wrong, it could
    wind up being a lot more expensive than rosy scenario suggests. But if
    you look at my record here over the last 6\1/2\ years, I've tried to be
    quite conservative in my budget projections and quite responsible in
    handling the budget of the country. And you will see that, I think,
    reflected in the way I make this proposal, including the prescription
    drugs.
        But I don't really think there's any alternative here. You've got 15
    million Americans, seniors, out there without any kind of coverage for
    their medicine. You've got millions and millions of others with
    inadequate or highly expensive coverage. And I just--I really believe
    that this is the most significant health care need that senior citizens
    have today. And I believe that over the long run, the proper
    availability, properly priced, of prescription medicine will actually
    not only lengthen lives and improve the quality of life of our seniors
    and improve their security, their state of mind, but it will also, long,
    long-term, save medical costs because it will keep people out of
    hospitals and out of more expensive treatments.
        Ellen [Ellen Ratner, Talk Radio News Service].

    Campaign Finance Reform

        Q. What is your strategy now, Mr. President, for a comprehensive
    campaign finance reform, to really make it pass?
        The President. Well, I think the best strategy is to get a clear
    majority of the House of Representatives to demand that it come up and
    then try to put enough pressure on to get the Senate leaders to let it
    come up.
        Basically, the Republican leadership in the Senate has said that
    they're just not going to permit it to come up, because they don't want
    their people who would vote against it to have a recorded vote on it and
    they don't want to run the risk that they've got enough for their folks
    that would vote with all of ours. See, all of our people are for it.
    We've got 100 percent of the Democrats in the Senate for it.
        And so, what I think we have to do is to keep it on the front burner
    enough so that the discomfort level rises high enough that an actual
    vote is allowed. All I've really asked for here is a vote. If we'd just
    get a vote on the bill, I will be very well satisfied, and I think it
    will come out just fine.
        Yes, Ann [Ann Compton, ABC News].

    Candidacy Announcements for 2000 Elections

        Q. Can I ask a political question? When Vice President Gore
    announced officially for President, he chose a date when you were going
    to be out of the country. And according to Mrs. Clinton's supporters, if
    she announces her exploratory committee in the next couple of weeks, it
    would be at a time when you've got a commitment to go out to South
    Dakota. Do you think your personal behavior has made you something of a
    liability to those who are running? And did you take it personally when
    Vice President Gore made his announcement and seemed to set himself so
    clearly separate from you when it came to issues of family?
        The President. Well, first of all, I thought, as I have said
    repeatedly, I thought the Vice President
    had a great announcement. And what he really said in his announcement--I
    actually heard it, so I don't have to have it characterized for me. What
    he said in his announcement was that he had had more experience than
    anybody running, which is true; that he would put forward more specific
    ideas about what he would do if he were elected President than anyone
    has to date, by far, which is true; and that the choice before the
    American people was whether we would build on the progress that we've
    made for the last 6 years or turn around and go backwards, which is what
    I think the real choice will be before the American people. So I
    approved of that.
        And as far as his doing it when I was
    out of the country, I thought that was a good thing. Very often, you'd
    be amazed how many times over the last 6\1/2\ years we have planned for

    [[Page 1012]]

    certain announcements to be made by the Vice President when I was out of
    the country, because that way it gets--I mean, far be it for us to try
    to maneuver the press--[laughter]--but he gets better coverage, and I
    get better coverage--I'm out of the country, so he gets better coverage.
    So I thought that was a good thing.
        And I think on the general point, what I have noticed over now more
    than 30 years, since I first began to volunteer as a young man in
    politics, all politics, all elections are about the future, and all
    candidates are judged on their own merits. And I believe that is the
    case here.
        But I think that the American people know that the country's in good
    shape and that not only our economic policies, our crime policies, and
    our welfare policies, but our family policies are good for their efforts
    to raise their children. And the best thing that I can do, it seems to
    me, is to do the right thing by my country, to just keep working at
    being a good President, and they'll do fine.
        Q. Not be with Mrs. Clinton when she campaigns?
        The President. Well, first of all, she hasn't made a decision to announce to run for the
    Senate. This is not what's going on here. And as a practical matter,
    logistically and legally--as a practical matter, she has to have an
    exploratory committee to continue to talk to people in New York about
    this. That's all this is. She has not made a final decision to run yet.
    So I think that's a whole different issue. And I think that you should
    look at it in that context.
        Mark [Mark Knoller, CBS Radio].

    Kosovo

        Q. Mr. President, considering what's going on in Kosovo now, and now
    that you've had a chance to meet with the refugees in Macedonia on
    Tuesday and you've heard the depth of the hatred that they feel for the
    Serbs and you've heard of the brutality to which they were subjected, is
    it not asking the impossible for the Serbs and the ethnic Albanians to
    live in peace in Kosovo?
        The President. Well, I don't think they could do it without a lot of
    help in the short run. And I think--I was asked this question earlier in
    a slightly different question--I think that the first and most important
    thing is for us to get the whole KFOR force in there, all 50,000, as
    quickly as possible, properly deployed to maximize security. Then I
    think we've got to get people busy doing positive things, rebuilding
    their homes, reestablishing their property records, reestablishing their
    schools. We've got to give them something to think about on a daily
    basis that is positive. Then I strongly believe we need to give them the
    help they need to try to work through this emotionally, psychologically,
    spiritually, morally. I think a lot of these children are going to need
    mental health services, and I hope we can get them. I think that we need
    to bring people in who have been through similar things.
        I had a long talk with Elie Wiesel about
    this after he came back. He went over and toured the camps for me and
    talked to the people. I think that there are people who've been through
    the Holocaust who can help a lot. I think there are people who have been
    through South Africa and the peace and reconciliation commission and 300
    years of what those people went through there who can help a lot.
        I think we need to be quite imaginative about--once we get the
    building blocks of security and the building blocks of reconstruction in
    place and the building blocks of civil society in place, then I think we
    need to be quite imaginative about the human, spiritual dimension of
    this. And I will do my best to be supportive. I've talked to Reverend
    Jackson about this, about the importance of
    bringing in religious leaders from all the--not only from the Muslim and
    the Orthodox faiths to come and work together and work people through
    this but perhaps others as well. So there are lots of things that we
    need to do.
        Can it be done? I believe it can be done. It's going to take a lot
    of courage, and it's going to take some time.
        Go ahead, Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service].

    American Families

        Q. Mr. President--[inaudible]--the future of this country, it seems
    to me that one of our big issues is parenting--that causes divorces--
    [inaudible]--having children and breaking up the families. Isn't there
    any way that we can design a national program to educate people--
    [inaudible]?
        The President. Well, you know, it's interesting. On the--to go to
    your point--when Hillary and I decided that we ought to have this
    grassroots

    [[Page 1013]]

    campaign to try to protect children against violence and we began to
    talk to Pam Eakes, who started the Mothers
    Against Violence movement in Washington State, and others, one of the
    things that we learned, obviously, is that a lot of young people wind up
    being--especially really troubled young people--can often be almost
    strangers in their own homes. And we assume that people ought to just
    know how to do the most important jobs in life, and they're very often
    reluctant to ask for help.
        But I think one of the things that we have to try to do is to
    develop the kind of supports parents need to do a better job. And it's a
    much harder job now than it used to be, especially since the average
    parent is away from his or her children for 22 hours a week more than
    was the case 30 years ago.
        So I do think that we need to do some more. Most parents, however,
    want to do a good job, really, really want to do a good job. And I think
    when you start with that, one of the things that I hope very much will
    come out of this whole movement against teen violence is more efforts in
    that regard. Of course, that's one of the reasons that Hillary wrote her book a few years ago--she knows more
    about that than I do--and, of course, one of the reasons the Vice
    President and Mrs. Gore had those family conferences every year, starting
    before he joined the ticket with me back in '92.
        The short answer to your question is, yes, we should do more to help
    parents do a good job.
        Go ahead, Susan [Susan Page, USA Today], and then John [John King,
    Cable News Network].

    Medicare

        Q. Mr. President, a lot of Medicare beneficiaries are enthusiastic
    about the idea of a new prescription drug benefit but perhaps less
    enthusiastic about paying higher premiums to pay for it. Should Medicare
    beneficiaries, themselves, be prepared to endure some pain to get some
    gain? Should they be prepared to pay higher premiums? And especially,
    should higher income Medicare beneficiaries pay means-tested premiums
    that are higher?
        The President. Well, let me just--if I give you all the details of
    my program Tuesday, you won't cover me Tuesday, and then I'll be bereft.
    [Laughter]
        What we should do is, first of all, make sure that the integrity of
    the basic system is strengthened, because there are a lot of seniors who
    depend upon it. And from my point of view, that means making sure that
    it's good for at least another quarter century. So that's the first
    thing we need to do. And to do that, we're going to have to bring in
    more pressures from competition and other things to modernize it.
        Then we should offer a drug benefit, but we should do it--to go back
    to the former question I was asked, your question--we should do it in a
    way that we're quite clear that it won't and can't break the bank, that
    we'll be able to monitor its cost and see how it's going.
        And as to the other, as you know, I've been publicly open to that
    option since 1992. But I think that I want to ask you to wait until
    Tuesday for the details of the program.
        Go ahead, John.

    Tax Cuts

        Q. Sir, we're told that next week, the administration will announce
    that the Federal budget surplus is even larger than you had previously
    projected. Given that, and given your words today about bipartisanship,
    do you think now it might be possible to tackle Medicare and Social
    Security reform and perhaps reach out to Republicans and open the door
    to a larger tax cut than you have discussed previously?
        The President. First, I'm not against tax cuts. I'm not against
    giving the American people some of this money back from our present
    prosperity right now. The question is, what kind of tax cut? Who
    benefits from it? How should it be designed? And how should it be
    handled to guarantee that we're going to take care of first things
    first--strengthen Social Security and Medicare, paying down the debt,
    continuing to secure the health of the American economy?
        Keep in mind, what produced the surplus was the strength of the
    American economy, the fact that we had the will to do the very tough
    things in 1993 and that we followed it up with a Balanced Budget Act in
    1997.
        So my plan has tax cuts. The USA accounts are worth literally
    hundreds and hundreds of dollars to most families every year. They could
    be worth a quarter of a million dollars to a family over their lifetime.
    It's most progressive inducement to save in the history of the country.
    We have tax cuts fully paid for already, for long-term care, for child
    care, for school construction,

    [[Page 1014]]

    for investing in the inner city. So I'm not against tax cuts.
        We have had tax cuts in the past, big tax cuts, for tuition tax
    credits for college, the HOPE scholarship tax cuts, tax cuts for workers
    and families with modest incomes, the child care tax credit, $500 per
    child. We've had lots of tax cuts. I am not opposed to that.
        What I want to do is to make sure that before we go off and start
    cutting taxes by some arbitrary large amount, we take care of first
    things first. We need to know that we're going to modernize and
    strengthen Social Security for the 21st century, that we're going to
    modernize and strengthen Medicare for the 21st century, and that we're
    going to do it in a way that will enable us to continue to pay the debt
    down.
        There will still be money for a tax cut, and a sizable one. Will I
    work with the Congress on that? Of course, I will. If I want to pass it,
    I have to work with them; they're in the majority. Of course, I will.
    But first things first. We've got to get our priorities in order here.
    The American people plainly expect us, first of all, to keep the economy
    going. And the best way to do that is to send a signal to the markets
    that we've resolved Social Security; we've resolved Medicare; and we're
    paying the debt down. That is the most important thing we could do to
    guarantee long-term, economic growth.
        Secondly--the only other point I want to make is, I do not believe
    that it is responsible to have a tax cut if the impact of the tax cut--
    plus the defense increases that we have had to adopt, plus the highway
    expenditures that the Congress wants to adopt--is to cut education or
    cut health care or cut our investments in the environment. There is
    enough money to do all these things and to do it really well, with great
    discipline. But we have to have our priorities in order.
        Go ahead.

    Efforts at Bipartisanship

        Q. Mr. President, 2\1/2\ years ago, in your Inaugural, you said you
    wanted to help the Nation repair the breach. And this morning, again,
    you called for greater cooperation in Washington. But it seems apparent
    that, for many people, you, personally, remain a polarizing and divisive
    figure in national politics. I was wondering if you've ever reflected on
    why, as Mrs. Clinton, I think, has sometimes noted, throughout your
    career, you've always seemed to generate such antagonism from your
    opponents. And do you assign any responsibility to yourself for what
    this morning you described as the rancorous mood in Washington today?
        The President. Since I have been here, I have tried to work as well
    as I could in an open fashion with Members of both parties. I actually
    have developed quite good personal relationships with some Republican
    Members of Congress. But as you know, from the beginning, from 1991, and
    especially after I was elected, particularly the right wing--I've been
    accused of murder and all kinds of things. And it seems almost that the
    better the country did, the madder some of them got.
        Now what I think is, we have a new Speaker, and I think he wants to work with me to get things
    done. And I've had a very cordial relationship with him. I had a nice
    talk with Senator Lott just last week. And all I
    can tell you is, I don't think much about yesterday. I keep telling
    everybody that works for me that we have no right to harbor anger, to
    keep--that people in positions of public responsibilities are not
    permitted to have personal feelings that interfere with their
    obligations to the public. And I would start tomorrow with any Member of
    Congress who wanted to work with me on anything, to do something that I
    thought was good. And that's all I can tell you. There's not a single
    Member of Congress that I wouldn't be willing to work with to do
    something that I felt was good for America.
        And I think that's what the American people want us to do. And all I
    can tell you is--but it is true, I think, generally in our country's
    history, that people who are progressive, people who try to change
    things, people who keep pushing the envelope, have generally elicited
    very strong, sometimes personally hostile, negative reaction. You read
    some of the things people said about President Roosevelt. In retrospect,
    because of the magnificent job he did and because of the historic
    consequences of the time in which he served and what he did for America,
    we tend to think that everybody was for him. That's not true.
        So people say these things. I think you just have to dismiss them
    and go on. And all I can tell you is that we in the White House, we
    try--and I hammer this home all the time--we don't have to like
    everything people say about us, but it can't affect, in any way, shape,

    [[Page 1015]]

    or form, what we're prepared to do in working with people. That's the
    way I feel. People in positions of responsibility owe the public--owe
    the public--their best efforts every day. And they have no right to let
    their personal feelings get in the way. I try not to do it, and I would
    hope others would do the same.
        Yes, go ahead.

    President's Approval Ratings After Kosovo

        Q. Mr. President, normally when the United States wins a war, that
    victory is accompanied by a surge of approval for the Commander in
    Chief. The war in Kosovo has not produced that sort of bounce for you.
    As a student of the polls, what do you think they're trying to tell you
    here?
        The President. First of all, I don't know that we know that yet. I
    just don't know that we know that. And the important thing for you to
    know is that I did what I thought was right for the United States and
    for the children of the United States and for the future of the world.
    And I'm not responsible for anything but that, including the reaction of
    some after it was over, and we turned out to be right about what would
    and wouldn't work. It's totally irrelevant.
        Abraham Lincoln once said, in a much graver time, that if the end
    brought him out all right, it wouldn't matter what everybody said
    against him. And if it didn't, 10,000 angels swearing he was right
    wouldn't make any difference.
        So I have tried to do what I think is right for my country here. I
    believe that the young people of America are likely to live in a world
    where the biggest threats are not from other countries but from horrible
    racial, ethnic, and religious fighting, making people very vulnerable to
    exploitation from organized criminals, drug runners, terrorists, who
    themselves are more and more likely to have weapons of mass destruction
    no matter how hard we work against it.
        So I think anything I can do to reduce terrorism, to reduce the
    ability of terrorists to have weapons of mass destruction, or to stand
    against racial and ethnic genocide and cleansing is a good thing for our
    future.
        You know, that's all I can tell you. I did what I thought was right.
    I still believe it was right. And I'll keep working to make it work out.
    And the public and the members of the other party and others, people can
    react however they like. I just have to do what I think is right, and
    that's what I'll do.
        Yes, go ahead.

    Congressional Democrats

        Q. Sir, in advancing your agenda you talked about the need for
    bipartisanship, but don't you have a problem with congressional
    Democrats? They say, ``Bill Clinton doesn't have to face another
    election; we do.'' And they want to run against a do-nothing Congress.
    As an experienced political pro, don't you have some sympathy for them?
        The President. I do, except--I have a lot of sympathy for them. But
    first of all, not all Democrats believe that. You see a number in the
    House, and I think probably a majority in the Senate, do not agree with
    that. But I think you--you have to, first of all, say, what is our
    obligation here to the American people? Our obligation is to work for
    the welfare of the country.
        Secondly, I think that nowhere near half the responsibility so far
    rests on them for the current atmosphere. I mean, they tried--we tried
    on the guns. We tried on a lot of other things--on campaign finance
    reform. We're trying on many other issues. I think that--I wouldn't
    overestimate the extent of that.
        But secondly, just as a--you know, if you look at 1996, where we got
    a lot done for America that year--we didn't just beat the contract on
    America; we actually did a lot of good things for America. The Democrats
    made gains in the Congress in 1998, against all the odds, against all
    the weight of history. We got--we passed a big education budget at the
    end of 1998--100,000 new teachers--and had a program to run on, and the
    Democrats were rewarded, against all the odds.
        So my view is that if you believe that Government has a role to play
    in our national life and you accept the fact that there will be honest
    and legitimate differences between the two parties on outstanding
    issues, no matter how much we get done, you're better off doing what you
    can, that you believe in, so you can go tell the people you did that.
    And then say, but look what still needs to be done; look what still
    needs to be done.
        Elections are always about tomorrow. So I think that--I can only
    tell you that I think both in terms of what is right for the American
    people and what is the best politics, we should keep trying to move
    forward.
        Yes.

    [[Page 1016]]

    Justice Department Tobacco Litigation

        Q. I want to talk to you a little bit about tobacco litigation. You
    had said in your State of the Union Address that the Justice Department
    was going to bring a Federal case against the tobacco companies. But
    what we're hearing is that the Justice Department had serious
    reservations about that case. Are they close to being resolved, those
    reservations, and when do you expect the case to be brought?
        The President. Well, I hope so. Let me say just this, I would not
    have announced it in the State of the Union Address if I hadn't had a
    clear signal from the Justice Department that they thought there was a
    legal basis to proceed. We knew if we needed statutory authority to sue
    under Medicare--a further act of Congress to sue under Medicare, on
    exactly the same grounds all the States have already sued to recover
    under Medicaid, that in this Congress, given the power of the big
    tobacco in this Congress, it would be hard to get.
        So we worked for a year or more with the Justice Department on this,
    arguing back and forth about whether it could be done. We--I and my
    administration--we were prepared to do this way over a year before I
    announced what I did in 1998. Maybe as many as 2 years. I just don't
    remember exactly what the time frame was, but it was quite a long while
    that we wanted to do this.
        So I did not make the announcement in the State of the Union Address
    until I believed, at least, that the Justice Department felt that while
    it would be complicated, big, and difficult, that we did, in fact, have
    a cause of action and we could bring it. So that's all I can tell you. I
    don't know any more.
        Yes.

    Support for President's Agenda

        Q. Mr. President, a question about polling statistics on your
    domestic issues. Recently, or quite frankly, your numbers have been
    tracked on certain issues showing that core groups, people who have
    supported you in the past, have now fallen off. Do you fear, sir, that
    perhaps you are beginning a disconnect with the American people? And how
    can you possibly lead in Congress on the legislative agenda that you've
    outlined if you don't have the backing of your core groups?
        The President. Well, for one thing, the only polls I've seen show
    overwhelming public support for the Patients' Bill of Rights, for
    closing the gun show loophole, for the other commonsense gun
    initiatives--overwhelming support. There is public--strong public
    support for campaign finance reform. There's overwhelming public support
    for the gun legislation and some of these issues, like the Patients'
    Bill of Rights, for example, the support is almost uniform among
    Republicans, Democrats, and independents.
        So I don't know what issues we're pushing, as it happens, that the
    public agrees with the Republicans and disagrees with us on. I recognize
    that the public was ambivalent about Kosovo, but they were ambivalent
    about Bosnia and Haiti and a lot of the other things that I've done in
    foreign policy--helping Mexico when they were in trouble. But I think
    the President hires on to make the tough decisions and controversial
    decisions, too.
        You know, the Democrats stayed--when we were in much worse shape in
    '93 and '94, the Democrats stayed because they believed we were right.
    We knew that when we cut the deficit $500 billion and we were all by
    ourselves--we didn't have any Republican votes--it wasn't going to be
    popular. And you could characterize it, but it was the right thing for
    America. And look at where our economy is today.
        So I think, no matter what the polls say, you just have to get up
    every day and do what you think is right. And that's what we're doing,
    and I think we'll be borne out.
        Yes, go ahead.

    Moral Decline

        Q. I've got a follow to that. The polls are also showing that
    although people do acknowledge that they're doing better in the economy
    and that they're doing well personally, they show a deep concern for the
    Nation's moral fabric, and actually that concern seems to be growing.
    What responsibility do you, personally, take for that, and what can you
    in the White House do to address these moral problems that seem to be
    cropping up more and more in the polls?
        The President. Well, I think people are worried about--I think the
    most important thing on that is what happened, the shattering effect
    that Littleton had. In terms of what happened to me in the impeachment
    issue, I did what

    [[Page 1017]]

    I could by telling the American people what I was going to do, that I
    was going to go back to work being the best President I could be, and I
    was going to go back to work to try to repair my family life. I have
    worked very hard for a year to do that, and the public, at the time, had
    a strong response to that. That's all I can do, and that's what I have
    done. I've done that very faithfully.
        So I don't think that's what's going on. I think people are worried
    when they see the fabric of life still under great strain in spite of
    the fact that we have quite a large amount of prosperity. And I think
    what we all have to do is to ask ourselves: What can we do to reinforce
    the ability of families to raise their children, to teach them right
    from wrong, to increase the chances that they'll be able to live strong,
    whole lives? And I believe, therefore, that there is, in that sense, a
    moral component to the debate we're having over guns.
        I mean, basically, we know--let me just give you one example. We
    know from the experience of the Brady bill that if we do background
    checks, thousands of people--at gun shows--thousands of people who
    shouldn't buy guns won't get them. Now we know that. I think that's a
    positive moral value. The people on the other side essentially say,
    ``Yeah, but we don't want to be inconvenienced.'' And when people see
    inconvenienced elevated over the life of a child in this context, I
    think that causes them problems.
        We know that in the case of the Patients' Bill of Rights, that
    people think it's a moral issue if they need to see a specialist or they
    need--if they get hurt in an accident and they can't go to the nearest
    emergency room. They know that. And when they see, in effect, someone
    else's convenience elevated over that, I think that's a problem for
    them.
        So I think that there are lots--this is a complicated thing. But my
    own view of that is, what we have to do is not pretend that the
    Government can solve all the moral questions, not evade what people have
    to do personally in their own lives with their own families, but neither
    can we take the dodge that the Government has no responsibility.
        That's why I tried so hard after that Littleton incident. That's why
    I'm so disappointed in what Congress did in the House on this gun issue,
    because I tried so hard after that Littleton incident not to play
    politics, not to point the finger at anybody, not to say, ``Oh well,
    it's this, that, or the other thing.'' You know, I went to Hollywood, I
    challenged the entertainment community, even though they had done far
    more to try to move the ball forward than anybody in the gun community
    until the gun manufacturers started helping, and they've done a good
    job, too, a lot of them.
        I still believe that people think that there is too much ``everybody
    for himself,'' and if people can get away with what they do because of
    their position, they'll do it. And I think what I tried to do was to
    acknowledge it to whatever extent I had done, that it was dead wrong,
    and I was going to spend the rest of my life trying to rectify that,
    which is all anybody can do. And I think most people accept that. They'd
    rather have somebody do that than go around trying to give a lot of
    speeches about how good they are and then open the door for the gun
    lobby to run the Congress.
        So you'll just have to make up your own mind about that. But I think
    that--what I think is important is that we stop trying to figure out how
    to make points against one another by saying, ``I'm better than you
    are.'' You know, I was raised in a family that would have given me a
    whipping if I had done that as a boy. I was raised to believe that we
    were suppose to try to be humble in our personal search but aggressive
    in trying to help our neighbors. That's the religious tradition I was
    raised in.
        Now, I get the feeling that people say, ``Well, what we should do is
    be arrogant about how good we are, and the heck with our neighbors.'' I
    don't agree with that. I think we'd be better off with the former
    tradition, and I think it has deeper roots in American life and is more
    consistent with what we should be doing.
        George [George Condon, Copley News Service].

    Lessons From Kosovo and Bosnia

        Q. Mr. President, wartime Presidents, even the great ones, Lincoln,
    Wilson, or Roosevelt, all discovered that wars never went exactly the
    way they planned it. In Kosovo, what surprised you or went a way that
    you didn't expect, and what lessons did you learn in Kosovo?
        The President. The bombing went on--I had two models in my mind on
    what would happen with the bombing campaign. I thought it would either
    be over within a couple of days, because Mr. Milosevic would see we were united, or

    [[Page 1018]]

    if he decided to sustain the damage to his country, that it would take
    quite a long while for the damage to actually reach the point where it
    was unsustainable. It took only a little longer than I thought it would
    once we got into the second model.
        But I was surprised about some of the things. I was surprised that
    it took--I was surprised, on the one hand, that we lost no pilots. I was
    surprised by that. I was surprised that we'd lost only two planes and no
    pilots.
        I know that from your point of view, there were a lot of civilian
    casualties, but that's because you got to cover them as opposed to
    covering the civilian casualties of the Gulf war. If you talked to any
    military person that was involved in both conflicts, they will tell you
    that there were far, far more civilian casualties in Iraq. I mean, many
    more by several times as many.
        I was a little surprised that we had no more problems than we did in
    maintaining our allied unity, given the enormous pressures that were on
    some of our allies. And I think that gives you some indication about the
    depth of conviction people had that this was right.
        Let me just say this, I think one way to understand this--I almost
    never see this, but let me just--one way to understand this about why we
    all did what we did even when a lot of folks thought we were crazy or at
    least thought we couldn't prevail, is I don't think I can even begin--I
    am very surprised--I was surprised and heartbroken that the Chinese
    Embassy was hit because of the mapping accidents. That did surprise me.
    I had no earthly idea that our system would permit that kind of mistake.
    That was the biggest surprise of all.
        But let me just say one other thing. I think that when you look at
    this conflict and you seek to understand, well, why did President
    Clinton do this, why did Tony Blair do this, why
    did Jacques Chirac go along, why did the
    Germans get in there with both feet so early, given their history and
    all this--I think you have to see this through the lens of Bosnia. And
    keep in mind, in Bosnia, we had the U.N. in there first in a
    peacekeeping mission. Then we tried for 4 years, 50 different diplomatic
    solutions, all those different maps, all that different argument. And
    the end of it all, from 1991 to 1995, we still had Srebrenica. We still
    had--and when it was all said and done, we had a quarter of a million
    people dead and 2\1/2\ million refugees.
        And I think what you have to understand is that we saw this through
    the lens of Bosnia. And we said we are not going to wait a day--not a
    day--if we can stop it. Once we knew there was a military plan, they had
    all those soldiers deployed, they had all those tanks deployed, we knew
    what was coming, and we decided to move.
        So yes, there were surprises along the way. I'm terribly sorry about
    the Embassy. We made our report--I've gotten a report and the Chinese
    got--I made sure the Chinese got essentially the same report I did. We
    didn't put any varnish on it. And I'm sorry about it. But our pilots on
    the whole did a superb job, and we did the right thing. And I hope that
    the American people, as time goes on, will feel more and more strongly
    that we did.
        Yes.

    Aid to Farmers

        Q. There's one issue that you didn't raise in your list of domestic
    priorities, and that's agriculture. As you know, the agricultural
    economy is not doing well. Some say it's in a death spiral. Senate
    Democrats have tried to add a $6 billion aid package to agricultural
    appropriations. Now the Senate Republicans have written you a letter
    asking you to acknowledge the crisis and set a dollar amount for what
    you think might be needed to keep those farmers on the land this year.
        The President. Well, we're working on that. Last year, at the end,
    we got about that much money--about $6 billion in emergency
    appropriations last year for the farmers. And it is quite bad this year,
    and we are going to have to give them more support. And I intend to do
    it.
        I just want to point out, when this Congress passed the freedom to
    farm act, I warned them that there was no safety net in there and that
    it would only work as long as farm prices stay at an acceptable level.
    And I think what we have to face now is whether or not this is another
    emergency.
        From the point of view of the farmers, it's a terrible emergency;
    it's a crisis. We have to deal with it. But from the point of view of
    the Congress, what they have to face is, is this a second year of an
    emergency, or do they have a fundamentally flawed bill? And if the
    answer is the latter, can we handle this with emergency legislation, or
    do we need to change the law?

    [[Page 1019]]

        But if you're asking me, am I going to recommend more help for
    America's farmers? The answer is, yes. There is no other alternative.
    This was--there were a lot of good things in the freedom to farm bill.
    It gave more freedom to farmers; it gave more opportunity for
    conservation reserve; it had more for rural development. But it had no
    safety net, and it was obvious to anybody that ever fooled with
    agriculture for several years that sooner or later this was going to
    happen. And it happened. And it was as predictable as the Sun coming up
    in the morning. And I think it would be terrible to let thousands of
    more farmers go under, under these circumstances.
        Yes, go ahead.
        Q.  Which one?
        The President. You.

    First Lady's Travel

        Q.  Thank you. As the First Lady considers a possible Senate bid in
    New York, she's made an unusual number of campaign-style appearances in
    the Empire State using Government jets at taxpayer expense. I wanted to
    ask you if you thought that was an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer
    money and if you think the privilege should continue once--or if--she
    finally does announce her candidacy.
        The President. Well, part of how she travels is determined by the
    Secret Service. She is willing to do--first of all, in the exploratory
    phase and if she should become a candidate, she will fully comply with
    all the Federal rules and regulations that govern her. But part of how
    she travels is determined by what the Secret Service says. And you'd be
    amazed how many times in the last few years we've wanted to take the
    train to New York, for example, and haven't been able to do it.
        So these are legitimate questions that we take quite seriously, she
    takes seriously, and we're trying to work through them as best as
    possible.
        Yes sir, in the back.

    Action Against Serbia

        Q. Thank you, sir. How do you want to be remembered abroad, as a
    leader who wanted to shape America's face among other nations? How do
    you want to be remembered in the Balkans, in Eastern Europe, where
    people have strong feelings about America, different kinds of feelings?
    And pardon me for asking that, do you expect if someone, somewhere,
    wants to put a price tag on your head, just as the State Department
    offered $5 million to get Mr. Milosevic, given the controversy that NATO
    leaders might also have committed war crimes by bombing vital
    infrastructure in the region? Thank you.
        The President. Well, first of all, we have not put a price on Mr.
    Milosevic's head for someone to kill him.
    We have offered a reward for people who can arrest and help bring to
    justice war criminals, because of the absence of honoring the
    international extradition rules in Serbia. So let's get that clear. No
    one is interested in that. The United States policy is opposed to
    assassination, has been since Gerald Ford was President, officially, and
    I have rigorously maintained it. So we don't try to do that to heads of
    state. So that's the first thing.
        Secondly, NATO did not commit war crimes. NATO stopped war crimes.
    NATO stopped deliberate, systematic efforts at ethnic cleansing and
    genocide. And we did it in a way to minimize civilian casualties. Our
    pilots were up there--I'm telling you, there were days when they were
    consistently risking their lives because the Serbs were firing at them
    with shoulder-fired missiles in the midst of highly populated villages,
    and the pilots did not fire back and take them out because they knew if
    they missed, they would kill civilians.
        Yes, there were civilians killed. But I will say again, if you
    compare the civilian losses here with the losses in Desert Storm, it's
    not even close. They did a magnificent job. They were brave. We tried to
    minimize casualties. Every target we hit was relevant to the,
    essentially, the state machine of terrorism that Mr.
    Milosevic was running.
        And finally, I'm not concerned right now about how I'm being
    remembered; I'll be remembered when I'm gone. Right now, I'm not gone,
    and I've got lots to do.
        Yes, go ahead.

    Okinawa

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You're just back from the G-8 summit
    meeting in Cologne, Germany, and next year you're going to Okinawa,
    Japan, for another summit meeting. Okinawa is the home of a huge U.S.
    military presence in Japan and the Far East. And I'm wondering if you
    will try hard and resolve all the major issues pending between the U.S.
    and Japanese Governments about the U.S. bases in Okinawa,

    [[Page 1020]]

    most importantly, the relocation of the Futenma Air Base, before you go
    there next year. Thank you.
        The President. Absolutely. I don't want to go over there and have
    all these things hanging out. I hope they'll all be resolved. Let me
    say, I think it's a very exciting thing, and I congratulate Prime
    Minister Obuchi on wanting to host this
    conference in Okinawa. It's very unusual, in a way, for a leader to do
    that, to take the conference so far away from the capital city. And I
    think it's very farsighted. I hope it will be good for the people and
    the economy of Okinawa, and I hope to goodness we'll have all the
    outstanding issues resolved by the time we get there.
        Jane [Jane Fullerton, Arkansas Democrat- Gazette], go ahead.

    Post-Presidency Plans

        Q. Both you and the First Lady have indicated that you plan to live
    in New York once you leave the White House. I'm just curious what you
    would say to the people of Arkansas, the people who have supported you
    and who helped you run for President. Should they feel used or abandoned
    in any way? [Laughter]
        The President. No. Now, let me say this: I have made it clear what I
    intend to do and what I intend to do from the beginning. What I intend
    to do is to divide my time between, as I said in my interview with CNN
    from Europe, I intend to divide my time between Arkansas and New York. I
    intend to spend at least half my time at home, when I'm not traveling
    and doing other things, because I've got a library and a public policy
    center to build, and I want it to be great, and I want it to be a great
    gift to my State. I've worked quite hard on it and thought a lot about
    it.
        And I think that--I think the people at home will be quite excited
    about it when they see what we're going to do and will be thrilled by
    it. And I won't be home so much, I'll be underfoot, you know, I'll just
    be--but I'll be there quite a lot.
        Yes.

    Northern Ireland Peace Process

        Q. Mr. President, on Northern Ireland. Sir, on Wednesday the
    deadline looms, and I was wondering whether or not if the IRA does not
    sign up for disarmament in time for Wednesday's deadline, whether or
    not--or a timeline is established for disarmament--will Gerry Adams
    still be allowed to come to the United States and raise funds?
        And secondly, do you have any personal words that you'd like to
    express to the people who are about to undergo another marching season,
    where it's been a very volatile and very bloody situation at times?
        The President. I'd like to answer the second question first. The
    people of Northern Ireland, a majority of both communities, voted for
    the Good Friday accords. They voted for peace, for decommissioning, for
    universal acceptance of the principle of consent. And in American terms,
    that's majority rule. They voted for new partnerships with the Irish
    Republic, and they voted for self-government.
        They were right when they voted for that agreement. It's still the
    right thing for the future of Northern Ireland. So I would ask those who
    march and those who are angry at the march to remember that.
        I don't want to answer your first question for a simple reason--I
    have been in intense contact with Prime Minister Blair and with Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, Bertie
    Ahern. As you know, I have invested a great
    deal in the process of peace. And I don't think we have a great deal of
    time to resolve this complicated issue. It's politically and emotionally
    complicated.
        But I just would ask all the parties--the only thing I want to say
    about it publicly now--if it doesn't work out, there will be plenty of
    time for you to ask me all the other questions, but I'm still banking
    that we'll get it to work out. But I think everybody needs to think
    about how far we've come, all the things that are in the Good Friday
    accords, the fact that the public, Catholic and the Protestant public,
    voted for them, and ask, no matter how difficult these issues are, how
    in goodness' name we could ever let this peace process fall apart?
        This is a very serious, serious period. And I do not want to say
    anything that would make it worse. And in the days ahead, I intend to do
    whatever anybody thinks I can do to save it. But I hope and pray it will
    be saved, because the Good Friday accords were good when the people
    voted for them, they're good today, and the differences, though they are
    profound, are as nothing compared to the cost of losing it.
        Go ahead.

    [[Page 1021]]

    Books on the Clinton Presidency

        Q. Mr. President, in the wake of the books by George Stephanopoulos
    and Bob Woodward, I was wondering if you think that you can have
    anything close to a candid or a frank conversation with aides or, for
    that matter, lawyers these days, and whether you believe that this makes
    you a more isolated President as a result of this trend?
        The President. Well, I don't feel isolated. I mean, you all are
    having at me pretty good here today. [Laughter] And that's one of the
    reasons I'm still here, because I haven't been isolated, either from the
    American people at large or from a wide and large network of friends.
        I haven't read either book, and I haven't read the excerpts of the
    book, Mr. Woodward's book in the Washington
    Post, so I can't comment because I don't know exactly what was said. And
    I think it's better for me not to comment on something that I haven't
    read.
        Yes, sir. The gentleman in the back.

    Reconstruction of the Balkans

        Q. Mr. President, you've been very much involved in the last few
    weeks in an attempt to create a Balkan reconstruction program. Many
    people, including yourself, have referred to the Marshall plan after
    World War II as kind of a comparison to what you want to accomplish. And
    yet, you and your administration officials have insisted that Serbia
    cannot be involved in this until Milosevic is out.
        Given the nature of the Balkan economy, which is a very integrated
    area with the electricity networks, the transportation networks, the
    Danube River, which is a unifying force which unites the entire region,
    isn't it a folly to try and conduct a program of this nature by
    excluding Serbia? And really economically impossible without Serbia as a
    part of the picture you cannot really get the whole economy moving.
        And secondly, is there not a danger--I realize that you have said
    that the reason for excluding Serbia was to try and get the Serb people
    to reject Milosevic. But isn't there a danger that they may indeed
    coalesce around Milosevic, feeling themselves as victims, and support
    him in spite of his own personal character, simply because of the
    bitterness towards the West after the bombing and the sanctions and now
    what they feel is disappointment over the reconstruction?
        The President. To answer your question, first of all, I don't think
    it's folly or impossible to think we can have a Balkan reconstruction
    plan--a southeastern Europe reconstruction plan without Serbia, but it
    would be terribly unfortunate and more difficult. What will happen is
    that new networks will be formed, and the relative importance of Serbia
    will be diminished if they're not a part of it. But it will be much more
    difficult, and it will be very unfortunate.
        Now, having said that, what the Serbian people decide to do, of
    course, is their own affair. But they're going to have to come to grips
    with what Mr. Milosevic ordered in
    Kosovo. They're just going to have to come to grips with it, and they're
    going to have to get out of denial. They're going to have to come to
    grips with it. And then they're going to have to decide whether they
    support his leadership or not, whether they think it's okay that all
    those tens of thousands of people were killed and all those hundreds of
    thousands of people were run out of their homes and all those little
    girls were raped and all those little boys were murdered. They're going
    to have to decide if they think that is okay.
        And if they think it's okay, they can make that decision. But I
    wouldn't give them one red cent for reconstruction if they think it's
    okay, because I don't think it's okay, and I don't think that's the
    world we're trying to build for our children. So I think it's simple.
        And I'm--look, I met with Mr. Milosevic in Paris; I shook hands with him; I had lunch across
    the table from him. It was a delightful and interesting lunch. And I
    thought, well, maybe he had some distance between the extreme activities
    of the Serbs in Bosnia. And then he went right out and did it all over
    again, and I mean with people directly under his control. And I do not
    believe we should give them any money for reconstruction if they believe
    that is the person who should lead them into the new century. I do not,
    and I will not support it.
        Yes, go ahead.

    Taxes

        Q. You said earlier that you would not be averse to cutting taxes.
    And yet, your budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office,

    [[Page 1022]]

    actually raises taxes overall by some $50 billion over 5 years. Why is
    this, in an era of surpluses?
        The President. Well, now, what are they counting? They're counting
    all the money from the tobacco tax that we used to pay for the----
        Q. All of it.
        The President. I believe that you have to have a very generous
    interpretation to reach that conclusion. You look, we're giving 11
    percent of the surplus on the USA accounts as a whole--11 percent. We
    have, in addition to that, you've got the long-term care tax credit;
    you've got the child care tax credit; you've got the continuing funding
    of all the education and child tax credits that we had in the previous
    budgets. And my guess is to get to that, they have to not count the
    continuing funding of the tax cuts but count the continued extension of
    tax increases that have to have extenders as new revenues. I can't
    imagine how they got it otherwise.
        We did have a large cigarette tax increase in there because we were
    trying to depress teen smoking, and we were trying to get funds to use
    to deal with the health consequences of what is a virtual epidemic among
    young people.
        But I am for the tax cuts, and I will go back to the answer before.
    I've got new tax cuts in this budget, and I will work with the
    Republicans on it. But we should not--we should not--pass up this chance
    to save Social Security, to save Medicare, to give the prescription drug
    benefits, to pay the debt down, which will keep the economy stronger and
    keep people with more jobs and higher incomes. Then we can talk about
    the tax cuts. And if Mr. King is right and we have
    some more money, then we can talk about that. But let's deal with first
    things first. [Laughter]
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 176th news conference began at 3:47 p.m. in
    Presidential Hall (formerly Room 450) in the Old Executive Office
    Building. In his remarks, he referred to Hashim Thaci, leader, Kosovo
    Liberation Army (KLA); Christopher Edley, consultant, One America: the
    President's Advisory Board on Race; Deputy Assistant to the President
    and Deputy Director of Speechwriting James (Terry) Edmonds; Presidential
    scholar Danielle Huff, who introduced the President at Georgetown
    University earlier in the day; former Senator Warren B. Rudman,
    Chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; dismissed Los
    Alamos National Laboratory scientist Wen Ho Lee; Holocaust survivor,
    author, and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel; civil rights leader Rev. Jesse
    Jackson; Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom; President
    Jacques Chirac of France; Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi of Japan; Prime
    Minister Bertie Ahern of Ireland; and President Slobodan Milosevic of
    the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). The
    President also referred to the Kosovo International Security Force
    (KFOR) and the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
    (Public Law 104-127). A portion of this news conference could not be
    verified because the tape was incomplete.