    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (1999, Book II)]
    [July 21, 1999]
    [Pages 1277-1291]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    July 21, 1999

        The President. Please be seated. Good afternoon.
        Q. Mr. President, you don't know it, but there is such a bright
    light on you--[inaudible]--we can't see you for the light. [Laughter]
        The President. I've been waiting a long time for the halo to appear.
    [Laughter]
        Let me say, ladies and gentlemen, I have a brief opening statement,
    but before I make that and take questions, I'd like to say that, as you
    might imagine, I have been briefed on this morning's developments in the
    search off Martha's Vineyard. Again, let me commend the Coast Guard and
    all the officials at the local, State, and national level for the fine
    work they have done under extremely difficult circumstances.
        Again, I think we should keep our thoughts with the families as
    events unfold, and my thoughts and prayers are with them.
        Today I want to make a brief statement about the choice we face here
    in Washington and in our country about how best to move forward into the
    new century and what to do with the surplus.
        When we look toward the future, it is helpful to remember at least
    the recent past. Six and a half years ago, the budget deficit was $290
    billion and rising. Wages were stagnant; inequality was growing; social
    conditions were worsening. In the 12 years before I took office,
    unemployment averaged more than 7 percent. It's almost difficult to
    remember what it was like. No one really thought we could turn it
    around, let alone bring unemployment to a 29-year low, or turn decades
    of deficits, during which time the debt of our country was quadrupled in
    only 12 years, into a surplus of $99 billion.
        Our Nation has made a seismic shift in the last 6 years, from
    recession to recovery, from a crisis of confidence to a renewal of
    resolve, from economic disorder to a fiscal house finally in order. Now,
    as we debate what to do with our prosperity, we face a critical choice,
    whether to move forward with the fiscal discipline that got us to where
    we are today or return to the

    [[Page 1278]]

    kind of risk taking that got us into recessions and deficits before.
        We must decide whether to invest the surplus to strengthen America
    over the long term, or to squander it for the short term. I think the
    right course is clear. And a bigger surplus only means that the mistake
    could be bigger and the missed opportunity greater if we take the wrong
    course.
        I have proposed a balanced budget that puts first things first. I
    believe we must maintain our sound economic strategy and invest the
    surplus in long-term goals: saving Social Security; saving and
    strengthening Medicare, modernizing it by providing a long-overdue drug
    benefit; and continuing to meet our basic responsibilities in education,
    defense, the environment, biomedical research.
        Tomorrow I will release a report that shows a great and growing need
    for prescription drug coverage. What the study shows is that 75 percent
    of our older Americans lack decent, dependable private-sector coverage
    of prescription drugs; that's three out of every four seniors. Clearly,
    America needs a prescription drug plan that is simple, universal, and
    voluntary. Anyone who says we don't, I believe, is out of date and out
    of touch.
        As I've described, my plan meets these national priorities, while
    paying off the debt by 2015; while investing in America's new markets,
    the places that have not yet felt our prosperity; and while providing
    substantial tax relief, $250 billion of it targeted to help families
    save for retirement, pay for child care, long-term care, for modern
    schools.
        So let's be clear about something. We're not debating whether to
    have tax cuts or not. We should have tax cuts, but tax cuts that provide
    for us first to save Social Security and Medicare, not undermine them;
    tax cuts we can afford, not ones that would demand drastic cuts in
    defense, education, agriculture, the environment; tax cuts in the
    national interests, not special interests.
        Now, these are the risks that are posed by the Republican tax plan
    that the House is about to vote on. Let me tell you what their plan
    would do. It would pile up $3 trillion in debt over the next two
    decades, right when the baby boomers start to retire--that's what it
    costs--right when Social Security and Medicare feel the crunch.
        Because of the cost of the tax plan over the next two decades, I
    should say what it doesn't do. It doesn't do anything to extend the
    solvency of Social Security, to extend the solvency of Medicare, to
    provide the prescription drug benefits, and it would require
    significant--significant--cuts from where we are today in education,
    defense, biomedical research, the environment, and other critical areas.
        If we don't save Social Security, it's not because we can't. If we
    don't strengthen Medicare and add the prescription drug benefit, it's
    not because we can't. If we don't meet these clear national needs, it's
    because we choose not to do so. It will be because, instead, we choose
    to reward ourselves today by risking our prosperity tomorrow.
        I hope Congress will make the right choice. When Members cast their
    ballots on the Republican tax plan, they're really voting also on
    whether to save Social Security and Medicare. They're voting on whether
    to pay off the national debt for the first time in over 150 years,
    something that would guarantee us lower interest rates; higher
    investment; more jobs; higher incomes; and for average citizens, lower
    home mortgage payments, car payments, credit card payments, college loan
    payments. They're voting whether to meet our most pressing national
    priorities in education, defense, nearly every other domain in our
    people's lives. I think the choice is clear between the plan the
    Republican leadership has outlined and the national priorities of the
    American people. I hope we can still work together across party lines to
    save Social Security and Medicare, to safeguard our priorities, and have
    the right kind of tax cut.
        If Congress passes the wrong kind, of course, I will not sign it. I
    will not allow a risky plan to become law. And as I said, we now have
    6\1/2\ years of evidence. This is not really a debate that's just about
    ideas without any evidence. We clearly know what works now, and we ought
    to stay with it.
        As I said, I will work with any member of any party willing to put
    first things first. We can have a tax cut and do the right thing for the
    long term in America. That is my commitment, and I hope that together we
    can fulfill it for our people.
        Thank you very much. Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press
    International].

    [[Page 1279]]

    ``One China'' Policy and Taiwan

        Q. Mr. President, in U.S. treaty relations, is it obligated to
    defend Taiwan militarily if it abandons the ``one China'' policy? And
    would the U.S. continue military aid if it continues, if it pursues
    separatism?
        The President. Well, let me say, first of all, a lot of those
    questions are governed by the Taiwan Relations Act, which we intend to
    honor. Our policy is clear: We favor the ``one China'' policy; we favor
    the cross-strait dialogs. The understanding we have had all along with
    both China and Taiwan is that the differences between them would be
    resolved peacefully. If that were not to be the case, under the Taiwan
    Relations Act, we would be required to view it with the gravest concern.
        But I believe that both China and Taiwan understand this. I believe
    that they want to stay on a path to prosperity and dialog. And we have
    dispatched people today, as the morning press reports, to do what we can
    to press that case to all sides. This is something that we don't want to
    see escalate, and I believe that what Mr. Lee
    said yesterday was trying to move in that direction. We all understand
    how difficult this is, but I think that the pillars of the policy are
    still the right ones. The ``one China'' policy is right; the cross-
    strait dialog is right; the peaceful approach is right. And neither
    side, in my judgment, should depart from any of those elements.
        Q. So we would still have to go to war with China if it decided to
    break away?
        The President. I will say what I've already said. The Taiwan
    Relations Act governs our policy. We made it clear. And I have--as you
    remember, a few years ago we had a physical expression of that, that we
    don't believe there should be any violent attempts to resolve this, and
    we would view it very seriously. But I don't believe there will be. I
    think that both sides understand what needs to be done.
        Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].
        Q. Mr. President, do you think that President Lee was unnecessarily
    provocative in trying to redefine the nature of the Taiwan-Chinese
    relationship? And is the United States trying to send a signal by
    delaying a Pentagon mission which was going to Taiwan to assess its air
    defense needs? And further, finally, you said that you still believe in
    a ``one China'' policy. How do you address Senator Helms' criticism that
    it's a--that that policy is a puzzling fiction?
        The President. Well, I don't think it's a puzzling fiction. I think
    that--but if Senator Helms means that today
    they're not, in fact, unified, then that's true. But the Chinese tend to
    take a long view of these things and have made clear a sensitivity to
    the different system that exists on Taiwan and a willingness to find
    ways to accommodate it, as they did in working with Hong Kong, and
    perhaps, even going beyond that.
        So I think the important thing is to let--they need to take the time
    necessary to work this out between themselves in a peaceful way. That is
    clearly in both their interests. And I'm still not entirely sure,
    because I have read things which seem to resonate both ways on this,
    exactly what the Lee statements were entitled--
    trying to convey.
        But I think that both sides are now quite aware of the fact that
    they need to find a way to pursue their destinies within the framework
    that we have followed these last several years, which I might add has
    allowed both places to prosper and to grow, to do better, and to have
    more contacts, more investment, and underneath the rhetoric, quite a bit
    more reconciliation. So I would hope that we would stay with what is
    working and not depart from it.
        Q. Is that the meaning of the delay of the Pentagon mission to
    assess the----
        The President. I didn't think this was the best time to do something
    which might excite either one side or the other and imply that a
    military solution is an acceptable alternative. If you really think
    about what's at stake here, it would be unthinkable. And I want--I don't
    want to depart from any of the three pillars. I think we need to stay
    with ``one China''; I think we need to stay with the dialog; and I think
    that no one should contemplate force here.
        Randy [Randy Mikkelsen, Reuters].

    Federal Reserve Board Chairman

        Q. Economists have been calling on you to indicate now whether you
    intend to reappoint Alan Greenspan in order to avoid having the issue to
    become mired in election-year politics and upsetting financial markets
    next year. Would you like to see the Chairman stay on, and has he given
    you any indication of his plans?
        The President. I have, as you know, enjoyed a very good
    relationship, both personally and

    [[Page 1280]]

    professionally, with Mr. Greenspan. I think
    he has done a terrific job. I have no idea whether he would even be
    willing to serve another term. I will make the decision in a timely
    fashion. I do not expect it to become embroiled in election-year
    politics; there's no evidence of that.
        You heard--I think the Vice President said yesterday or the day
    before that he thought he was doing an excellent job. So we believe that as long
    as the United States is fiscally responsible, then the Fed will respond
    to developments in our own economy and in the world economy in a way
    that is clear, transparent, and, I think, designed to keep our growth
    going. So I'm not concerned about it.
        Peter [Peter Maer, NBC Mutual Radio], go ahead.
        Q. I think the Vice President indicated he was sending a signal by
    saying that Chairman Greenspan had been doing an excellent job. Do you
    endorse that interpretation?
        The President. I don't know. All I know is he said he was doing a great job, and I agree with him.
        Go ahead.

    John F. Kennedy, Jr., Aircraft Tragedy/
    Medicare

        Q. Mr. President, you mentioned the Kennedy tragedy at the beginning
    of the news conference. Could you please give us a better understanding
    of what the White House role has been in the conduct of the recovery
    operation and the decisionmaking on the release of information about it?
        The President. Well, I think that--I am unaware of any role we have
    played in the decisionmaking of the release of information, except, let
    me say that today a lot of things are breaking in a hurry, and I believe
    there are some decisions that ought to be announced by the Kennedy
    family and others that ought to be properly announced by either the
    Coast Guard or the NTSB.
        So we have not tried--to the best of my knowledge, had any role in
    the timing or substance of the release of information. And we have had
    no role in the conduct of the operation except that I did talk to
    Admiral Larrabee, I think it was the day
    before yesterday, at a time when the operation might normally have
    ceased, and he said, ``I think we have a chance to find something else
    because of the equipment we have here, even though it's difficult; and
    I'm inclined to believe, because of the circumstances here and because
    who's involved, that we ought to go on a little more.'' And I said that
    I would support it and defend it. And I think it was the right decision.
        Q. Mr. President, if you'll allow me to ask you about two different
    topics. On the Kennedy search, sir, there have been conflicting reports
    about whether or not Mr. Kennedy's body has, in fact, been recovered. I
    understand that based upon the answer you just gave, that might not be a
    question that you'd want to address, but, perhaps, given the fact that
    there is this conflicting information, you could answer that question.
        And secondly, sir, on this notion of a drug benefit, prescription
    drug benefit, you chided the Republicans about targeting tax cuts at the
    wealthy, saying that they're too steered in that direction. How do you
    reconcile that philosophically with allowing rich Americans, rich older
    Americans, to get a prescription drug benefit which even you just said
    this new study will show one in four don't need?
        The President. Well, first of all, it's voluntary. And most wealthy
    Americans are well taken care of under the present program they have and
    won't exercise it. So that's the first point I want to make.
        The second thing I would like to say is I don't think most people
    know this, even some of you may have forgotten, but in the 11th hour of
    the balanced budget, of the deficit reduction package negotiations in
    1993, in order to get up to $500 billion in cuts in the deficit
    projected over 5 years--we did much better, as all of you know--the cap
    was taken off. The income cap was taken off of the Medicare tax, which
    means virtually every single upper income person in America will pay far
    more into the Medicare program than they will ever draw out in health
    care or benefits.
        They are making a net significant contribution today because, unlike
    Social Security taxes where there is still an earnings cap, there is no
    longer an earnings cap on Medicare. And I think a lot of folks have
    forgotten that. So that in that sense, this is the most progressive
    program we have. The upper income people, particularly once you get over
    about $250,000 in income, they're paying far more into this program over
    the course of their life than they could ever draw out if they were sick
    every day from the time they're 65 on.

    [[Page 1281]]

        Q. Sir, the question--[inaudible]--Mr. Kennedy's body?
        The President. I just don't think I should make an announcement
    about that. I am aware of what the Coast Guard has done and what they
    have found as of 5 minutes before I came out here. But I simply--I just
    don't think it's appropriate for me--I'll be glad to comment on whatever
    they want to say, but I think I should leave it for them to talk.
        Yes, go ahead.

    Congressional Budget Office Estimates

        Q. Sir, you talked about how expensive the Republican tax cuts would
    be. But the Congressional Budget Office has now just come out with a
    report saying that even with their tax cuts, almost $800 billion in tax
    cuts, they would save about $277 billion over a 10-year period, whereby
    your program would save only about $50 billion; that's about $227
    billion difference. How do you reconcile that? And, you know, people on
    the Hill listen to the CBO.
        The President. They listen to the CBO except where it's inconvenient
    for them, like the Patients' Bill of Rights. The Republicans have freed
    us all now to question the CBO, since they ignored the CBO in the
    Patients' Bill of Rights; they have discredited their own CBO.
        Let me say, I haven't seen that CBO accounting. All I can tell you
    is that all of our budget people were rolling their eyes and saying that
    it was a very creative study.
        Let me just say this: You have 6\1/2\ years of experience with the
    numbers we have given you and the estimates we have made. And every
    single year, our numbers have not only been accurate, but we have done
    better than we said we would do--every single year, for 6\1/2\ years
    now.
        Our studies show that their tax cut over the next two decades will
    cost, first, a trillion dollars, and then 3 trillion in the second
    decade, and that--then an enormous loss to the American people in
    interest savings. That is, we'll have to keep spending more and more of
    our tax money paying interest on the debt, and it will require huge cuts
    in education and defense and other things.
        You cannot--they simply cannot credibly make that statement. And
    they don't put any new money into the Medicare program. And they don't
    have a Medicare reform package out there. So unless they just simply
    propose to bankrupt all the teaching hospitals and a lot of the other
    hospitals in the country and let the Medicare program wither away, as
    one of the previous leaders so eloquently put it, they can't possibly
    finance this tax program without doing serious damage. I can't comment
    on the CBO study, but it doesn't make any sense to anybody I've talked
    to about it.
        Q. May I just follow up?
        The President. Yes.
        Q. The CBO estimates the cost of your Medicare reforms are more than
    twice what you say they are.
        The President. Well, again you have evidence. Let me just say this:
    In the 1997 balanced budget agreement we agreed to a Medicare savings
    figure, okay. And this is the reason all these teaching hospitals are in
    trouble today. We agreed to a Medicare savings figure, and we said,
    ``Okay, here is our health information''--this is what we do in the
    executive branch; we deal with these hospitals--``here are the changes
    you need to make in the Medicare program to achieve the savings that the
    Republicans and the Democrats in Congress and the White House agreed
    on.'' And the CBO said, ``No, no, no, no, that won't come close; you
    need these changes plus these changes.'' And we said, ``Okay, we're
    following the CBO; we put it in there.'' What happened? And that's one
    of the reasons the surplus is somewhat bigger than it otherwise would
    be--the cuts in Medicare were far more severe. Our numbers were right;
    their numbers were wrong; and that's why you've got all these hospitals
    all over America, every place I go, talking about how they're threatened
    with bankruptcy.
        So when it comes to estimating Medicare costs, again, we have
    evidence. And whenever there's been a difference between us and the CBO,
    we've been right, and they've been wrong. That's all I can tell you. No
    serious person--so what are they going to do about Medicare? They say
    our drug program will cost more. They don't put a red cent into it; what
    are they going to do about it? Even if you don't have a drug program, if
    you adopt their tax cut program, they won't be able to do anything to
    extend the solvency of Medicare, and they will have to have huge cuts.
        For them to produce those savings, they are going to--they can't
    even fund my defense budget, much less the one they say they want.
    They're going to have cuts in defense, cuts in

    [[Page 1282]]

    education, cuts in the environment. That's all their savings assumed,
    that they're going to stay with the present budget levels, which they,
    themselves, are trying to get out of even as we speak here today. So
    this is--the American people are not--I mean, this is not rocket
    science; this is arithmetic.
        And we've been dealing with--we went from creative supply-side
    mathematics to elemental arithmetic in 1993. And it has served us very
    well. And all I'm trying to do is stick with basic arithmetic and get
    this country out of debt, save Social Security and Medicare, provide
    this prescription drug benefit, keep us moving forward.
        Q. Mr. President?
        The President. Go ahead, John [John King, Cable News Network].
        Q. Mr. President?
        The President. Next. Let me take John's first, then I'll take you,
    Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service].

    Telephone Conversation With Chairman Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority

        Q. Sir, in your conversation with Chairman Arafat this morning, did
    you ask him to take any specific steps to advance what you believe is
    new momentum toward peace, and did you discuss with him his complaints
    yesterday that he found Prime Minister Barak's 15-month timetable
    unacceptable?
        The President. Well, I told him only this, I said that--I generally
    described my meetings with Prime Minister Barak
    to him. I told him that he was committed to working in partnership with
    Chairman Arafat and honoring any agreements that had been made to this
    point and that any modifications they made, going forward, to the
    benefit of either or both sides would have to be done by mutual
    agreement; that I thought he was completely committed to resolve all the
    issues outstanding in the peace process in an expeditious manner. And
    what I urged him to do was to have this one-on-one meeting; hear him
    out; think it through; and if he wanted to talk to me again after the
    meeting occurred, that I would be happy to talk to him.
        So I went out of my way not to describe Prime Minister
    Barak's proposals or to advocate or not advocate,
    but simply to say that I was convinced they were being made in complete
    good faith and that they would--that the peace process would be
    revitalized, and whatever they did from here on out is something that
    they would do together. And I think he felt good about that. And I did
    say, ``After you have the meeting, if you want to talk about this
    around, I'll be glad to talk to you.'' And he said he did. So that's
    where we are.
        Sarah. Go ahead, Sarah.

    Public Posting of Daily White House Activities

        Q. Sir, your microphone is not working apparently; it seems like
    you're talking very low. We can barely hear you. But in the meantime,
    don't you think it would be a good idea if we announced for the
    country's sake the list of conferences to be held at the White House
    each day, and the list of the people whom the President has appointments
    with?
        The President. I don't know. I never thought about it. Don't you
    have a list of the conferences we have every day here?
        Q. No, indeed. We do--and what if we find out you haven't any?
        The President. Well, I think I ought to talk to our folks about it,
    but I will consider that.
        Go ahead.

    Balkan Summit and Aid to Serbia

        Q. Will you be taking any concrete contributions with you to the
    Balkan summit on investment next week? And you've said that you would
    give only humanitarian aid to Yugoslavia as long as Milosevic is in
    power. Will you have any trouble defining that? Will that cause any
    problems in distinguishing between humanitarian and other aid?
        The President. Well, let me say that I hope very much that there
    will be some positive, concrete commitments that come out of the meeting
    that we're going to have. I do not believe we can achieve the future we
    want in the Balkans and avoid future ethnic conflicts unless there is a
    unifying vision which both brings the Balkan States closer together in
    their economic and political self-interests and then brings the region
    as a whole closer to Europe.
        And so I think that we have to have some incentives to move in that
    direction. And there are direct--there are also indirect things the
    United States can do to help to contribute to that goal. And because of
    all the other things that have been going on--you know it's been a very
    busy 2 or 3 weeks--we haven't actually had an opportunity to sit down
    and go through what our options are, so I can't give you a more specific
    answer.

    [[Page 1283]]

        But I will say this: If what we have done in Bosnia and what we have
    done in Kosovo is to have lasting benefits, we have got to find a way to
    create closer unity among the Balkan States themselves, and then with
    the region and Europe. And that is what I am working on.
        And what was the second question you asked?
        Q. On the humanitarian aid, how will you define it?
        The President. Oh, yes. There may be--frankly, there may be some
    differences of opinion. As you know, I tend to take a rather narrow view
    of it because I don't think that we should, in effect, reward Mr.
    Milosevic's political control by doing
    things which are not humanitarian in nature. But based on the virtual
    daily reports I get about where we all are on this and where we are
    operating in Kosovo, I now no longer expect them to be big debates. I
    don't expect there will be a big difference of opinion.
        Yes, go ahead, John [John M. Broder, New York Times].

    F-22 Funding

        Q.  Mr. President, the House of Representatives appears to be on the
    verge of terminating funding for the F-22 fighter. Will the White House
    fight hard for full funding for that program, even if it means
    sacrificing other Pentagon airplane programs or even pay for servicemen?
        The President. Well, I don't think we should sacrifice the pay for
    our service personnel because we now are getting back in the ballgame in
    recruitment. You know, we've really been--the good economy and the
    increased deployments and the low pay, all combined, it'd be making it
    hard for us to both recruit and retain people. And the people are still
    the most important part of our military, their quality and their
    training and their morale and their commitment and the condition of
    their families. So I don't think that.
        Now, the Congress every year puts other things into the defense
    budget which are not priorities for the Pentagon and are priorities for
    the Congress. We can fund the F-22; we can fund the plane without
    compromising the basic priorities of our national defense within the
    funds set aside, and that is what I will fight to do. I think it would
    be a mistake to abandon the project. I think it has real potential to
    add to our national defense. I have always supported it, and I hope that
    it can be preserved.

    2000 Elections

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You had some fun, recently, with George
    W. Bush and his slogan of ``compassionate conservatism.'' But you went
    beyond the notion that he's not offering many details as policy and
    seemed to ridicule his slogan and even question his sincerity. Were you
    just trying to help Mr. Gore's candidacy, or were you taking the
    opportunity maybe to just needle the leading Republican candidate?
        The President. No, I was just having a little fun. [Laughter] You
    know, this is such a long time; if we don't have any laughs, it's going
    to be a very tedious struggle between now and November of 2000.
        Let me say this. I think that every person struggles to find a
    phrase or something that will sort of stand for what he or she is trying
    to do. So I was really just having a little fun.
        I think the most important thing is that all the candidates make
    their positions clear on the great debates going on now, and make their
    positions clear on what they would do if they got the job. To me, that's
    the most important thing. You know, I am not involved in this campaign
    as a candidate, and I have a full-time job, so I'm not involved in any
    sort of full-time consulting role. [Laughter] So I look at this more
    from the point of view of the average American voter: What will change
    the lives of America?
        For example, every candidate should tell us, are you for the
    Patients' Bill of Rights; are you for closing the gun show loophole; are
    you for raising the minimum wage; are you for the House Republican tax
    plan, or do you favor our plan on Social Security and saving Social
    Security and Medicare, making America debt-free, and having a smaller
    tax cut that enables us to continue to fund education and defense and
    these other things? What are you going to do if you get elected?
        To me, the best thing the Vice President had done is to talk about dramatically intensifying the
    war on cancer; making preschool universal; increasing access to college
    by helping people save without tax consequences; what he could do to
    make America a safer country; what he would do in communities to have
    faith-based organizations cooperate with governments more. I think these
    are interesting ideas about how you build on the progress the country
    has made the last 6\1/2\ years.

    [[Page 1284]]

        So I would say to everyone, use whatever slogans you want, but tell
    us where you stand. I think that's the most important thing.
        Susan [Susan Page, USA Today].
        Q. Mr. President----
        The President. Yes, I'll come over here. I know I'm left-leaning,
    but I will give you--[laughter].
        Q. Mr. President, the economy is going great. In a new USA Today-CNN
    poll this week, your approval rating was at a very healthy 58 percent.
    But that same poll showed that by 50 percent to 38 percent, Americans
    said they wanted to see a change from Clinton administration policies,
    not a continuation of them. What do you think accounts for that
    sentiment for change, and do you think it means that you present
    something of a mixed blessing to Mrs. Clinton and Vice President Gore in
    their campaigns next year?
        The President. I think what that means is people think things are
    going well, but they want a change in policy. I think that's right. If
    you asked me that question, and you worded it in that way, I'd be in the
    50 percent, because I think that--my own view is that in a--particularly
    in a dynamic time, where things are changing, you should want continued
    change. But is change--the question is, should we change in a way that
    builds on what has been done and goes beyond it, which is what I would
    argue; or should you change and go back to the policies we were
    following when we had $290 billion deficits and we averaged over 7
    percent unemployment for 12 years? I mean, I think that's really the
    question the American people have to ask themselves.
        I think change is good. The great thing about this country is that
    it works best when it's sort of in a perpetual stage of renewal. So I
    would, myself, as a citizen, I would vote against somebody who said,
    ``Vote for me, and I'll keep it just like it is; everything that Bill
    Clinton did is exactly what I'll do.'' I would vote against that
    candidate, because I do not believe that is the right thing to do.
        But what I think we should do is we should build on the progress of
    the last 6 years and go beyond it and not adopt a completely different
    approach which has been proven not to work. So all I want the American
    people to do is to remember what it was like before, think what it's
    like now, recognize that ideas and policies have consequences. And the
    American people usually get it right; that's why we're all still around
    here after more than 200 years.
        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. No.
        Q. [Inaudible]--for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Gore?
        The President. No, because I--he has done--look at what the Vice
    President's done. He's staked out new
    issues here. He said, ``Here's how I'm going to change what we're doing
    in cancer research; here's how I'm going to change what we're doing in
    education; here's how I'm going to change what we're doing in crime''--
    but not to reverse what we've done, but to build on it and go beyond it.
    So I think that's very, very--that's the sort of thing that's worthy of
    debate. That's not the same; that is change.
        What the American people have to decide is what kind of change do
    they want. Do they want to build on what has worked for the last 6\1/2\
    years, or do they want to abandon it and go back to what failed them for
    12 years before? That will be the decision they have to make.
        Yes, go ahead.

    Syria-U.S. Relations/Iran

        Q. In your last press conference, sir, with Prime Minister Ehud
    Barak, you mentioned you wanted better, normalized relations with Syria.
    Now, have you received any response, positive response or indication
    from Syria towards that? And on Iran, can you share with us the
    administration's views of the last events and administrations in Iran?
    Thank you.
        The President. Well, on Syria let me say, the only thing I can tell
    you is that the statements, at least, that have been coming out of Syria
    have been quite encouraging in terms of the regard that President
    Asad seems to have for Prime Minister
    Barak, and the willingness, the openness that
    there is to negotiating and moving toward peace. So I'm encouraged by
    that.
        And on Iran, frankly, I'm reluctant to say anything for fear that it
    will be used in a way that's not helpful to the forces of openness and
    reform. I think that people everywhere, particularly younger people,
    hope that they will be able to pursue their religious convictions and
    their personal dreams in an atmosphere of greater freedom that still
    allows them to be deeply loyal to their nation. And I think the Iranian
    people obviously love their country and are

    [[Page 1285]]

    proud of its history and have enormous potential. And I just hope they
    find a way to work through all this, and I believe they will.

    Health Insurance

        Q. You mentioned the Patients' Bill of Rights. It seems like that
    was an argument by both parties over providing more for people who
    already are lucky enough to have health insurance. And in fact, neither
    party dealt with some very fundamental issues that energized you and the
    First Lady 5 and 6 years ago. The question is, with such a robust
    economy and the budget surpluses, if not now, when, and if not you, who,
    would provide the leadership to provide for those folks?
        The President. Yes, but I think the bigger question is how. That is,
    it is true that just as we've predicted in 1993 and 1994, that the
    percentage of people who have health insurance on the job is going down,
    just as we said it would, if nothing was done. So what we have tried to
    do is to isolate discrete populations that seem to be most in need and
    try to offer them help.
        In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we reached bipartisan agreement
    on a proposal that would fund providing health insurance for up to 5
    million more children through State-designed programs. Now, I've been a
    little disappointed--and I'm not being critical of any of the States,
    either, here--but I've been a little disappointed that the uptake on the
    program has been a little slow. That is, I would have thought by now
    we'd have almost 3 million of those 5 million children enrolled already
    because we've got the money there, and we're well behind that.
        So we are looking at whether there are things that we can do at the
    national level to work with the States to simplify access to the
    children's health insurance programs that the States have set up. And I
    also had a talk with Senator Kennedy the
    other day, who believes that for little or no more extra money, we could
    actually adjust the program and take in several million more children.
    So the children are the biggest group.
        Then, I have a proposal, as you know, that's part of my Medicare
    reform proposal that I didn't mention today, but I want to reiterate it,
    that would allow the most vulnerable group of people without health
    insurance, people between the ages of 55 and 65, to buy into the
    Medicare system in a way that would not compromise the integrity of the
    system. So I think that is quite important.
        In addition to that, there are a lot of States--excuse me, there are
    some States--Tennessee was the first State to do this under the former
    Governor, Mr. McWherter; they started it--
    which are allowing lower income working families to buy into their
    Medicaid programs on a sliding scale.
        So if all these things were done, we would dramatically reduce the
    number of people without health insurance, and we'll eventually,
    probably, get down to--if we keep pushing in this direction, get down to
    the point where the largest group of people without health insurance are
    young, single people who believe that they're going to live forever and
    be healthy forever and don't want to bear the cost. And we'll have to
    think about, then, what to do.
        But I think the best thing to do is try to get as many kids as we
    can covered and then try to get these people who are out of the work
    force who are older, but they're not old enough to get Medicare, to get
    them at least where they can all afford, on a sliding scale, to buy into
    the Medicare program.
        Go ahead, Scott [Scott Pelley, CBS News].

    John F. Kennedy, Jr., Aircraft Tragedy

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. On the Kennedy tragedy, sir, will you
    authorize the Navy to participate in a burial at sea ceremony? Why do
    you believe it's justified to spend so many Federal resources on this
    tragedy? And finally, sir, I wonder if you would give us your thoughts
    on Mr. Kennedy's last visit here to the White House. I understand you
    and the First Lady took him on a tour.
        The President. Well, we have received--I have received no official
    word, personal word from the family about what burial arrangements they
    want. Until they make a statement about it, I just don't feel that I can
    say anything.
        Secondly, I will say that until just a couple of days ago the
    recovery efforts--the rescue, then the recovery efforts that were
    undertaken, were consistent with what would have been done in any other
    case. Because the Coast Guard felt that they had the capacity to succeed
    in this if they had a few more days, and because of the role of the
    Kennedy family in our national lives, and because of the enormous losses
    that they have sustained in our lifetimes, I thought

    [[Page 1286]]

    it was appropriate to give them a few more days. And if anyone believes
    that was wrong, the Coast Guard is not at fault; I am. It was because I
    thought it was the right thing to do under the circumstances.
        Now, you asked about--John Kennedy had actually not been back to the
    White House since his father was killed, until I became President.
    First, he was on an advisory committee that made a report to me, and he
    came back to the Oval Office, where he saw the desk that he took the
    famous picture in--coming through the gate--for the first time since he
    was a little boy.
        And then last year, maybe you would have a better memory than I
    would, but it seems to me it was last May, when we had the event at the
    White House celebrating the series that HBO did on the Apollo program.
    Do you remember they did a series on the space program that was done
    after the movie came out? And Tom Hanks came; a
    lot of people came. And he was invited because of his father's role in
    starting the space program. And he and Carolyn came. And afterward I asked them if they would like
    to go upstairs, and he said he would. So I took him upstairs and showed
    him the residence, which he'd not seen since he was a tiny boy.
        And I showed him some of my--the memorabilia that I had from his
    father's service. I have a picture of his father speaking to the Irish
    Parliament, and a number of other things which he thought were very
    interesting. And we took a--we had a very nice evening. And I sent him
    the pictures from it. And then, in return, he sent me a signed copy of
    his favorite picture of his father, which is now upstairs. It's John
    Kennedy campaigning in Virginia, in Charlottesville, in 1960. It's quite
    a lovely picture, interesting picture.
        But it was a nice night. I think that he really wanted to kind of
    come to terms with all of it. And I think he and Carolyn, they were delightful young people, and they
    had a great time here that night. And Hillary and I loved having them
    here. It was quite a great night.
        Q. To just follow on that, sir, just one question, if I may. Is
    there anything that Mr. Kennedy said to you that night that particularly
    struck you?
        The President. We just had a friendly conversation. You know, I knew
    him pretty well by then. We'd been--I met him years ago when he was a
    law student, doing a summer internship with Mickey Kantor's law firm out in Los Angeles, long before I
    ever thought I'd be here, and before I ever thought we'd have any other
    contacts. He just happened to be--Mickey asked me if I'd speak to his
    law clerks, because I was in L.A. to give an education speech, and I
    went by and visited with them, and he was there. And we had been
    together on many occasions since then.
        The thing that struck me was I thought he was--he said he was glad
    to be back. And I think he was a very deliberate person, as many people
    have noticed, about when he would be publicly exposed and all of that.
    He had his mother's care for having a private life. And I think that he
    had not--I'm not sure he had really felt he wanted to come back to the
    White House before he did. But especially in light of everything that's
    happened, I'm glad he had the chance to come back here one more time and
    see the residence and know where he was when he was a little boy. I'm
    glad he did that. I'm grateful that that happened.
        Yes, go ahead. Yes, yes, please.

    Colombia and Mexico

        Q. On Colombia, the Pastrana administration are asking the United
    States for $500 million to support the military against the guerrillas.
    Is your administration ready to respond to that request? And also, the
    Colombians are asking for more direct intervention from the United
    States. Are you considering this possibility? And also, Mexico, you're
    going to meet with President Zedillo in October. And the Mexican
    Government is still rejecting the extraditions of major drug lords. What
    are you going to ask him? You're going to get assurance from him to
    extradite these big narcotic traffickers to the United States?
        The President. Well, you know, we had no extraditions between Mexico
    and the United States for a long time, and we've actually had some now.
    So we've moving in the right direction. And President Zedillo and I have been pretty successful in continuing to
    move our relationship in the right direction, so we'll work on that.
        On Colombia, I'm not prepared to make any kind of dollar commitment
    today. But let me say, I have stayed in close touch with President
    Pastrana, and I admire the fact that he has
    really thrown himself into trying to end the civil

    [[Page 1287]]

    conflicts in Colombia, to stop the insurgency. The people in the United
    States have a real interest in that because I think that until the civil
    discord in Colombia is brought to an end, it is going to be much, much
    harder for us to restrain the activities of the narcotraffickers there,
    and their reach.
        So, in addition to wanting a neighbor and a democracy in Latin
    America to be free of the kind of violence and heartbreak that the
    Colombian people have undergone because of this, it is also very much in
    our national security interest to do what we can, if we can be helpful
    in ending the civil conflict, so that Colombia can be about the business
    of freeing itself of the influence of the narcotraffickers in ways that
    would be good for Colombians and good for us as well.

    2000 Election

        Q. Another question about the Presidential race. Aside from asking
    George W. Bush to come forward and give specifics on the issues that you
    mentioned, could you tell us what you find objectionable about this
    trying to present a new moderate face for his party, just like you did
    for the Democrats? And could you tell us whether you're worried whether
    he will figure out how the Republicans can occupy the center of American
    politics?
        The President. No.
        Q. You don't think he can?
        The President. No, no. I don't think I'll answer those questions.
    [Laughter] I will say--no, look, let me say again, I wouldn't even agree
    with the characterization you gave of my first answer.
        When I ran for President in 1991, the first thing I did was tell the
    American people what I thought was going on in our country and what I
    would do. And if you remember, the late Senator Paul Tsongas and I were
    actually almost ridiculed at the time because we both put out these very
    detailed plans of what we would do. If you go back and get one of those
    plans now, you'll see that virtually everything we said we'd do, we did
    do, except for the things we tried to do and were defeated on.
        And my view is that there are a lot of things that count in a
    Presidential election toward a successful Presidency, but it is--that go
    beyond specific issues, and judgment plays a role in it, and crises will
    always come up, and things can be learned and all that. But it really
    matters where you stand on the big issues that everybody knows about
    that are going on right now, and it matters where we're going in the
    future.
        So that's the only point I want to make. And I think any--I would
    say that applies to every candidate. I don't want to answer the
    questions you ask me, because that's not my job. My job is not to
    handicap this horse race, not to comment on it, not to comment on the
    candidates. My job is to work for the American people. But I'm going to
    answer these questions from the point of view of Joe Citizen. That's it.
    Every political question you ask me from now on, I'm going to pretend
    that I'm living back in Little Rock already and I'm working on my
    Presidential library and I'm sitting here as a voter saying, where do
    they stand, what will they do, all of them? And I do believe the Vice
    President has done the best job of telling
    the American people what he would do and--to go back to Susan's
    formulation--how he would change the country in a positive way.
        George [George Condon, Copley News Service].

    Space Program

        Q. Mr. President, as the Nation has celebrated the 30th anniversary
    of the Moon landing, a lot of the former astronauts have lamented that
    no President after Kennedy set a kind of national goal like President
    Kennedy did of landing on the Moon. Do you think that, in your view, is
    the country not receptive today to that kind of goal-setting by a
    President, or is it something a President should do, set a goal of
    landing on Mars?
        The President. Well, we are planning to land on Mars. But I think
    that for one thing, when I became President, the space program was
    actually in peril. And we--the space station was certainly at risk. And
    I have fought for it, and I believe in it. And one of the things I
    talked to--Neil Armstrong and Buzz
    Aldrin and Michael Collins were in to see me yesterday, and we talked about
    where we could go with this. And Dan Goldin
    was there, the NASA Administrator, and Dr. Neal Lane, my science adviser, and we talked about how we could use
    the coming of the millennium as--you know, the First Lady sponsored all these other lectures here. And I
    told him about Stephen Hawking's lecture
    and what he said. And we talked yesterday about how we could set some
    goals for the space program, capture the imagination of

    [[Page 1288]]

    the American people, and broaden the support for it.
        And one of the things that I suggested, that I think would be quite
    helpful, that we're going to work on now, is what we can do to dramatize
    for the American people--you mentioned Mars, but I think what is more
    likely to capture the imagination of the American people are the
    benefits to us here on Earth of continued advances in space. And some of
    them, particularly in the health field, are likely to be breathtaking.
    They're principally in the area of the environment and health.
        So I asked our people to start working on that, and they said they
    would be willing to help us. I have to tell you that it was a great day
    for me yesterday to have them come by the White House. They also gave me
    a Moon rock, by the way, but only on loan. [Laughter] And the Moon rock
    is 3.6 billion years old. So when I feel very tired, I'll look at it and
    feel young again. [Laughter]
        Yes, go ahead. We had an Irish question first, I promised. Go ahead,
    what's the Irish question?
        Q. Thank you, sir. Given the----
        The President. You want to ask one, too?

    Northern Ireland Peace Process/Africa

        Q. We both have a--given the various meetings underway with Mo
    Mowlam here, and George Mitchell there, has any progress been made on
    the Irish situation? And is one side more to blame than the other on it?
        The President. Okay. Why don't we take both Irish questions at once.
    What's your Irish question?
        Q. Last week you seemed to kind of get fired up when you were
    talking to the teenagers from Colorado. You said that the politicians in
    Northern Ireland were behaving akin to school children. Do you feel,
    after all the work that you've done on this project, that perhaps it was
    misplaced, and you should have perhaps pushed in a place more like
    Africa, where they have thousands of people dying from ethnic strife,
    instead of 3,500 over 30 years?
        Q. And if I can have a third Irish question, what role, if any, do
    you expect to play, Mr. President, in breaking the deadlock?
        The President. Okay, let me answer the Irish questions; then I'll
    come back to the ``Should we have done something else?''
        I've talked to Senator Mitchell, and
    he is willing to spend some time--he can't go back full-time for another
    year or 2, but I'd like to put this in some--at least I'd like to tell
    you how I look at it.
        Obviously, I am very disappointed at the breakdown of the process
    here. But I do think it's important to note that neither side wants to
    abandon the Good Friday agreement. And that's very important. It's also
    important to note that everybody agrees on what their responsibilities
    are and what the other side's responsibilities are, and everybody agrees
    that it all has to be done by a date certain.
        So they have agreed to break out the two areas causing problems, the
    decommissioning and the standing up to the executive, and try to figure
    out how they can unlock that. And Mo Mowlam,
    as you pointed out, is working hard on it, and they've asked Senator
    Mitchell to come back and do some work on
    it, and my instinct is that it will be resolved.
        Now, let me say in terms of your characterization, here's the
    problem. To the outsiders--I told the parties that to the outsiders--no
    one, none of us outside, even somebody like me that's been so involved
    in this, no one will understand if this thing breaks down over who goes
    first; that that did sound like the kind of argument that young people
    have, you know. Who goes first?
        Underneath that, there's something deeper. The Protestants are
    afraid that the IRA will never disarm if they let the Sinn Fein go into
    the executive branch, and the IRA do not believe, since the agreement
    did not require decommissioning as a condition of getting into the
    executive branch, they don't want to have to spend the rest of their
    lives being told that it wasn't the vote of the people, it wasn't the
    Good Friday accord, it was what the Unionists and Great Britain did to
    force them to give up their arms that got them to disarm. They believe
    that would, in effect, require them to disavow what they've done for 30
    years.
        And what they're saying is, ``When we surrender our arms, we're
    surrendering to our people. Our people voted for this. We are
    surrendering to the will of the people that we represent.'' So when you
    put it in that textured way on both sides, it makes it clear why it
    becomes a difficult issue. And I can't think of anybody better to try to
    work through it than George Mitchell,
    because he's got it all in his head, and he's put 3 years into it. But
    my instinct is that we will get this worked out.

    [[Page 1289]]

        Now, you asked about did I think we had misplaced our energies. I
    don't think so. We have--for one thing, we don't have a stronger partner
    in the world than Great Britain, and for another, we don't have a bigger
    ethnic group in America than the Irish, and we're tied by blood and
    emotion to the Irish struggle. I also think that it has enormous
    symbolism, beyond the size of the country and the number who have died.
    And if it can be resolved, I think it will give great impetus to the
    forces of peace throughout the world. So I don't believe for a moment we
    made a mistake.
        But let me also say I think we should be more involved in Africa,
    and I've tried to involve us more in Africa. I did everything I could to
    head off that civil war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. It's not a civil
    war; they are two separate countries, but they once were together and
    they're basically now arguing over the divorce settlement. And I don't
    mean to trivialize it in that characterization. And we are still
    actively involved in trying to stop that.
        Reverend Jackson played a significant role
    in trying to end the awful carnage in Sierra Leone, and I'm very
    grateful for that. We're now working, and we're able to work with
    Nigeria to try to stabilize the region. We are training African
    militaries and the Africa Crisis Response Corps, so that we can,
    hopefully, prevent further carnage. So I believe the United States
    should be more involved in Africa.
        And of course, the announcement that the Vice President made on our behalf the other day of our new AIDS
    initiative in some ways may be the most important thing we can do to
    save lives there.
        So I agree that we should be more involved. But I don't agree that
    we misplaced our energies in Ireland. I'm proud of every late night
    phone call and every frustrating hour I've spent on it.
        Yes, go ahead.
        Q. Can I ask about you?
        The President. Well, I don't want to talk about me.
        Q. Oh, come on.
        The President. I'm not a candidate for anything.
        Go ahead, what? Go ahead. All right, one more.

    White House Bicentennial

        Q. Listen Mr. President, with due respect, in another development, I
    know that you are for Africa, and you know that I support the initiative
    of Africa, now, of my friend the President of the Dominican Republic
    because we are Afro-Latino. But I am not concerned at this moment about
    Mars. I am concerned about a place where I have been for 20 years, the
    White House, that is going to celebrate 200 years next year. I wonder if
    you would tell the people of the United States what you are going to
    plan for that big celebration?
        And another thing, Mr. President, I am disgusted with you. You have
    been hiding something extraordinary, the performance of the trade
    promotional coordinating committee, that has been carrying out in the
    last year a national exporting strategy, are the participants in the
    prospective of this economy. Why don't you speak about the success of
    that initiative? It's a sin that you--[inaudible]--you talk about a lot
    of things that is nothing, another thing that is good for America and
    the prosperity of the world.
        The President. Well, a lot of things that are good for America don't
    make good news for them, you see.
        Q. And I have a followup. [Laughter]
        The President. No, let me just say--[laughter]--a followup?
    [Laughter] Now, that's really good. That is really--oh, God, is that
    good.
        Let me just say that we will have a lot of celebrations of the 200th
    birthday of the White House next year, and it's neat that it coincides
    with the first year of the new century and the millennium. So we'll
    have--I'm not prepared to announce them yet, because I want others who
    deserve more credit than I do to be able to do that. But it will be a
    signal honor for us to be living here in that year, and we'll be able to
    do a lot. And I hope we'll have even more American citizens coming to
    the White House next year to be a part of it.
        Go ahead. Just that followup--that showed a lot of guts. [Laughter]
    If this is a followup, I'll give you another question. [Laughter]

    Support for Vice President Gore and First
    Lady

        Q. Sir, you've stressed that you have plenty to do, and yet for some
    time, your political career has enjoyed the benefits of support from two
    people in particular--the Vice President and

    [[Page 1290]]

    the First Lady--two people who are now in a position to expect some
    support from you. I'm wondering what you feel you owe those two people
    in terms of political support, and as you plan your schedule in the
    weeks and months ahead, how you'll balance that assistance against your
    job as President, and finally, how you personally are adjusting to what
    people might think is an interesting shift in role.
        Q. I have a followup to his question. [Laughter]
        The President. Now, I believe that. [Laughter]
        Well, I will do whatever I'm asked to do, basically. I'll try to be
    helpful. And if I can be helpful, I will be. But I think the best thing
    I can do for anyone who generally shares our ideas, is part of our
    party, trying to move the country forward, is to continue to be a good
    President and take care of our country.
        But I don't mind hard work, and I don't mind long hours, and I find
    myself, apparently unlike some of my predecessors--but I just read what
    you all say about it--but I don't feel myself winding down; I feel
    myself keying up. I want to do more. I want to try to make sure that I
    give the American people as much as I can every day. So I've got plenty
    of energy, and I'll do whatever I'm asked to do.
        I owe them a great deal. I think Al Gore--everybody in this room
    knows that he's had far more responsibility and gotten more done that
    any Vice President in history. Nobody's ever had a role that even
    approximates that. I don't think the American people know that yet, but
    I know that. And he deserves a lot of credit for what he's done, and he
    has my friendship and my support. But I also think that it's a mixed
    blessing, as you say, because people want to see any Vice President out
    there on his own. If you go back and look at where Richard Nixon was in
    1959, you will see the same sort of thing. So I think I see this as a
    rhythmic process. I think he'll do fine.
        But the reason I think that has nothing to do with the questions you
    ask me. The reasons I think that are, A, he's a good man with a good
    record, but most importantly, he's out there telling the American people
    how he would change the country for the better. And I think that's
    important.
        I did an interview, and I talked about Hillary and this; if she
    decides to do this, I will do whatever I can do. And if she's
    successful, I will happily go to the Senate spouses meeting if that's
    part of the job. I have never known anybody who didn't run for office
    who was a more effective, more consistently committed, completely
    passionate public citizen than her. So if she decides to do it, and if
    the people of New York decide that they want her to do it, that's a
    decision for them to make, and they have to deal with that. And she's
    trying to deal with that, you know, the whole question of moving there.
        It is true that shortly after we came here I said, ``You get to
    decide where we live from now on for the rest of our lives.'' And she
    said, ``I want to go to New York''--in, like '93. This is just something
    that happened later. So I'll be dividing my time between home--I'm going
    to be home and build my library and build my center--I'll divide my time
    between there and New York, whatever she does about this Senate race.
        But if I can help her in any way, I will, because I think it would
    be a great thing for the country, not only because of what I owe her--
    she just--what she knows and how she's lived and what she's done. I
    mean, it's very unusual to find somebody like that who has that much
    knowledge and background and passion all packed into one place. I mean,
    I know that you think I'm a biased observer, but I think I could support
    it with evidence.
        Q. Mr. President----
        The President. Go ahead, Bill [Bill Plante, CBS News].

    President's Future Plans

        Q. In that same vein, sir--[laughter]--as the spotlight shifts from
    you to your Vice President and to your wife, are you likely to be
    content drifting slowly offstage, or do you think that someday you will
    want to run for office, some office again? Or are you willing to tell us
    this afternoon, sir, that you will never again run for elective office?
        The President. I don't have any idea. [Laughter] Really, I don't
    know. Let me just say this. I love this job. I love it. Even on the bad
    days you can do something good for the country; you can do something
    good for the future. I have loved doing this. And I have given it every
    ounce of my energy and ability and judgment. And I feel very fortunate.
    But we have a system that I, frankly, agree with, even though I'm in
    pretty good shape. We have a system that says

    [[Page 1291]]

    a President gets two terms, and then the President has to go find
    something else to do with his life. And there are lots of other worthy
    things to do.
        And I was a very happy person before I became President. I've never
    had any trouble finding something interesting to do that I believed in.
    And I will do my best to use the opportunity and the gift the American
    people gave me to serve in this position to be a useful citizen of my
    country and the world for the rest of my life, and I have no doubt that
    there will be some way I can do that. And I'm, frankly, kind of excited
    about it. I mean, it's a new challenge. I'll have to think in a
    different way and do a different way.
        Will I miss a lot of the things about this job? Yes. I'll even miss
    all of you, believe it or not. [Laughter] But I'm just grateful that
    I've had the chance to serve and that the results have been good for our
    people and for our country and, I think, for the world.
        And you know, that's part of life. Life has its rhythms. And the
    people that are most satisfied and most happy in life take the rhythms
    of life and make the most of them, instead of sitting around moping and
    wishing the rhythms were something other than they are. That's just not
    the way the life works. And listen, I'm way ahead, and I'm very
    grateful.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 179th news conference began at 2:35 p.m. in the
    East Room at the White House. In his remarks, the President referred to
    President Lee Teng-hui of Taiwan; First Coast Guard District Commander
    Rear Adm. Richard M. Larrabee, USCG, who headed the search and recovery
    efforts off the coast of Martha's Vineyard, MA, to locate the missing
    aircraft that carried John F. Kennedy, Jr., his wife, Carolyn Bessette
    Kennedy, and her sister Lauren Bessette. The President also referred to
    Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel; President Hafiz al-Asad of Syria;
    Gov. George W. Bush of Texas; former Gov. Ned Ray McWherter of
    Tennessee; actor Tom Hanks; former U.S. Trade Representative Michael
    (Mickey) Kantor; President Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico; President Andres
    Pastrana of Colombia; Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong, Edwin (Buzz)
    Aldrin, and Michael Collins; physicist Stephen W. Hawking; former
    Senator George J. Mitchell, who led the multiparty talks in Northern
    Ireland; United Kingdom Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Marjorie
    Mowlam; civil rights leader Jesse Jackson; and President Slobodan
    Milosevic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).
    A portion of this news conference could not be verified because the tape
    was incomplete.