    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book I)]
    [April 6, 2000]
    [Pages 644-649]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Interview With Dan Rather of the ``CBS Evening
    News''
    April 6, 2000

        Mr. Rather. First of all, thanks for doing this.
        The President. Glad to.

    Elian Gonzalez

        Mr. Rather. I want to talk to you about guns, gun legislation. But
    the day's news is on Elian Gonzalez. His father is here; the boy's
    father is here. How soon can he expect to see the child?
        The President. Well, first, I think we should say it's a good thing
    that he's here. I'm glad he's here. And
    the Justice Department is working on that, and I think in a way we're
    fortunate to have an Attorney General who
    understands this issue, because Janet Reno was the prosecutor in Dade
    County for many years. And they're working on it. I don't know, I can't
    answer with any specifics. But I have confidence that they'll do the
    best they can to handle it in an expeditious and sensitive way.
        Mr. Rather. ``In an expeditious and sensitive way.'' Mr. President,
    from almost all other citizens, if the Immigration Service rules, and a
    Federal judge backs the ruling, then people will obey the law. What's
    happened here?
        The President. Well, I think the people--you can ask them; they can
    speak for themselves better than I do. But they, I think they feel that
    they're not sure that the process was adequate since it occurred in
    Cuba. I think that's basically what's going on.
        And you know, some of the people there are just against anybody
    going back to Cuba. But I think there are a lot of people who have
    genuine questions about it. And I think the fact that the father has
    come here and will be in a position to show his concern for and desire
    to be reunited with his son should be a big help. And as I said, I think
    the Justice Department will do a good job here, and I think Attorney
    General Reno really understands what's going on.
    And I think we'll work through it.
        Mr. Rather. You have consistently said that the father speaks for
    the son. You stand by that?
        The President. Well, that's the decision that was made by the INS.
    They went down and interviewed the father extensively. And they concluded that based on his
    previous contacts, which were regular, with his son, that he was a fit
    representative to speak for his son. And under our law, since Elian
    Gonzalez is a very young child, someone must be the designated person to
    speak for him. And under our law, the parent, as long as he is a fit
    parent, is that person.
        So the INS made the decision that they felt was appropriate, and the
    judge ruled that they had the authority to make it. And now the family
    members in Miami are appealing to the Court of Appeals and arguing that
    there ought to be a more extensive inquiry into his best interests.
    That's the legal position.
        But I think that the main thing is that the Justice Department is
    handling it and that in the end the law ought to prevail. And I don't
    think that the young man's best interests are served by the rest of us
    talking about it too much. I think the Justice Department is going

    [[Page 645]]

    to try to work through this, and I have confidence that Janet Reno will handle it in a good way.

    Mayor Alexander Penelas of Metro-Dade
    County, Florida

        Mr. Rather. I respect what you say about perhaps we shouldn't
    discuss it too much. But the mayor of Miami--I have in mind you saying,
    well, the law takes care of this. But the mayor of Miami has said that
    if anything bad happens, he will hold you and Janet Reno directly
    responsible, and--I think I quote him, at least indirectly, correctly--
    don't expect any help from him or the city of Miami in enforcing the
    law. Did that surprise you?
        The President. It did. But I think there's been some indication
    since then that he and others want to get this back in a lawful process.
    And I think the mayor of Miami is a fine young leader with an enormous
    amount of potential. But he represents the Cuban-American community.
    He's part of it. They have--I think that it's fair to say they have a
    big presumption against anything that happens in Cuba, including an INS
    proceeding.
        But I think that in the end, the rule of law will prevail in this
    country. The overwhelming majority of Cuban-Americans are law-abiding
    good citizens. They've made a great contribution to our country. And I
    think in the end, the rule of law will prevail. And I think we ought to
    have--just take a deep breath here and realize this is a highly unusual
    case, and let the Attorney General work through
    it. I believe that they will. I believe she'll do a good job on this.

    Vice President Al Gore

        Mr. Rather. Mr. President, you've consistently said that we should
    not politicize the case of this 6-year-old boy. But your Vice President
    has broken with your administration's position, a clearly political
    move. One, were you surprised by that? And two, are you irritated or
    angry about it?
        The President. Well, first of all, I don't know that it was clearly
    political, in the sense that there was a bill introduced in the Congress
    to deal with what the people in Miami say is the main defect in the INS
    proceeding. They say--you know, it's interesting. If you notice, they
    haven't attacked the father. They
    haven't claimed that he was an unfit father.
        Their claim is entirely different. Their claim is that even if
    he is a fit father, that it's not in
    Elian Gonzalez's best interests to be
    returned, at least at this moment. That's their position. So they say,
    if the INS followed the law, then the law ought to be changed so that a
    determination of his best interests can be made.
        Now, once the bill was introduced--there are a lot of reasons I
    don't agree with the bill. I don't support the bill. But once the bill
    was introduced, I think every public figure in America, national figure,
    was going to have to take a position on it.
        And as a matter of fact, I don't believe it was a purely political
    position. I know the conventional wisdom is that the Vice President's
    position was purely political, but he talked to me--I don't know, a day
    or two after Elian Gonzalez's case became
    public, weeks and weeks and weeks ago, and said, ``You know, I'm very
    worried about this process. I'm afraid we're going to have a lot of
    problems with this process. I'm just not sure it's adequate.''
        So you know, he personally and privately said that to me long before
    this bill was introduced and long before it became a matter of big
    public debate. So that's the way he personally feels. And because of
    that and, I think, because he is himself a candidate now, I think he had
    to take a position and say what he thought.
        Mr. Rather. Respectfully, Mr. President, a member of the Vice
    President's staff has been quoted as saying that it ``was a political
    decision.'' And too, he went on to say, the Vice President isn't going
    to ``fall on his sword'' for you. That would lead a reasonable person to
    believe that it was a political decision.
        The President. Well, I don't know. You know, if I knew who said that
    and they were quoted by name, I would have more regard for the quote.
        I don't think he should fall on his sword for me. He's out there now
    making his own case to the American people. All I can tell you is, I'll
    bet you that staff member didn't know that I talked to Al Gore shortly
    after this case became public, and he said to me privately that he was
    disturbed about the process and whether it could adequately account for
    this young man's best interests. That's what
    he told me a long time ago, purely privately, and long before he ever
    said anything publicly about it.

    [[Page 646]]

        Mr. Rather. I want to move on to the subject of guns, but before
    we--just as we leave this----
        The President. He might have meant, you know, that falling on your
    sword sometimes means that you have to agree with the President, whether
    you really agree with the President or not. That's what Vice Presidents
    do when they're not independent candidates. And since I don't think he
    agrees with me, and since he is a candidate, I don't think he should
    mask an honest disagreement. And it's one that I believe that he
    actually believes, based on a private conversation I had long before he
    ever made a public statement.
        Mr. Rather. So you don't have any problem with it?
        The President. No.

    Gun Safety Legislation

        Mr. Rather. Let's talk about guns. Next week, is it fair to say
    you're dedicating the week to doing what you can to get increased, at
    least, handgun control?
        The President. Yes.
        Mr. Rather. You're going to Maryland to be seen with the Governor as
    he signs a new handgun control law into law. Then you're going to
    Colorado, where there is a State ballot initiative that you're backing,
    and this initiative contains many of the provisions that you seek in
    Federal law. Question, why no focus on getting new State laws passed,
    rather than press forward with Federal legislation?
        The President. Because it'll take forever and a day. And because if
    you have Federal laws, they can be more efficiently administered. I
    mean, if you look at--and let me back up and say, I consider these
    measures gun safety measures. I think gun control is still sort of an
    explosive term to the American people, because they think we're going to
    take somebody's guns away from them.
        And the truth is, all we've tried to do is to take preventive
    measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children. And I
    think that on the specific measures, I think the overwhelming majority
    of the American people support us. And Colorado, which is a
    predominately Republican State, I believe this initiative will pass
    because they've had experience with it.
        And I think that it's unconscionable for Congress to hide behind the
    fact that there are States taking action. Maryland required child
    trigger locks this week, for example, and required safety training
    courses and things of that kind for handgun purchases. The State of
    Massachusetts applied its consumer protection laws to handguns, and
    Colorado has got this initiative to close the gun show loophole, which I
    think is very important. But it will take forever and a day for all the
    States to do that, and the Federal Government ought to do it. It's a
    Federal responsibility and a national problem.
        You know, it's simply an extension of what we did with the Brady
    bill. We had all this hoopla when I signed the Brady bill and the
    assault weapons ban about how damaging it was to the rights of gun
    owners, the legitimate hunters and sports people. Not a single hunter
    has missed a day in the deer woods; not a single sports person has
    missed a sport shooting contest. Nobody has been burdened by this, and a
    half-million felons, fugitives, and stalkers have not gotten handguns as
    a result. Gun crime is at a 30-year low in America, not just because
    we've increased gun prosecutions, which we have, but because we have
    done more prevention. That's what this is about.
        Mr. Rather. You're in a fierce fight on Capitol Hill to get Federal
    additional gun safety legislation passed.
        The President. Yes.
        Mr. Rather. And you set April 20th, the anniversary of the
    Columbine, Colorado, high school shootings as the goal. Is there any
    chance that it would get passed by that time?
        The President. Probably not. We have a majority for it in both
    Houses, I think. But the Republican leadership in the Senate may be able
    to keep it from coming to a vote. They can't really keep things from
    coming to a vote in the House, so I think there is a majority for
    closing the gun show loophole, a majority for banning the importation of
    large scale ammunition clips.
        Who could be against that? We've got an assault weapons ban in the
    country, and then we turn around and make a mockery of it by letting
    people import these big ammunition clips which they can put on the guns
    and convert them into assault weapons.
        There ought to be child trigger locks on guns. Most manufacturers do
    it anyway. It ought to be a national requirement.

    [[Page 647]]

        But I think we're making progress. I think the action in these
    States indicates it; the initiative in Colorado, with the support of
    many Republican officials in Colorado; the incredibly brave action that
    Smith & Wesson has taken to try to improve the way it markets and
    distributes guns and the way those handguns are sold. I hope they'll
    find some resonance among other gun manufacturers. So we're making
    progress. but this is a brutal fight. The interest behind it, the status
    quo, are very strong.
        Mr. Rather. Do you suppose, if I may--I don't mean to interrupt--you
    say the interest behind this is very strong. As Butch Cassidy said to
    the Sundance Kid, ``Who are these guys?''
        The President. Well, the NRA and other groups even to the right of
    them, and a lot of people in the Congress, in the Republican Party,
    really agree with them. A handful of Democrats do. But it's basically a
    party fight.
        And again I say, if they had any evidence that we had undermined
    hunting or undermined sport shooting or even undermined legitimate self-
    defense, it would be one thing. They don't. The only evidence they have
    is we have kept handguns out of the hands of half million felons,
    fugitives, and stalkers. And the last place, besides person-to-person
    transactions, that such people can get handguns with impunity is at
    these gun shows. So we ought to close the gun show loophole and do a
    background check. It's a no-brainer.
        There are some minor details of adjustment that would have to be
    undertaken to do these background checks, to make it work when you do
    these one-day shows out in rural areas. But they can easily be taken
    care of, and we ought to do it.
        Mr. Rather. You mentioned the Republican leadership in the House and
    the Senate. What I and other reporters talk to them, they say,
    basically, ``Look, the President could get a lot of what he wants. He
    could get the trigger locks for children on handguns. He could get the
    ban on importing the extra long clips--if the President would simply
    compromise on the criminal background checks for gun shows.'' Why not
    make that compromise?
        The President. Well, first of all, we already offered a compromise.
    John Conyers has offered a compromise to
    Representative Henry Hyde that we were hoping
    could prevail in the conference. You know, the bill is in conference
    now. We got a good bill out of the Senate on this gun show loophole
    because the Vice President broke the tie.
    The bill is in conference, and Mr. Conyers offered a compromise.
        Let me say, if you look at the gun shows, they want insta-check. And
    here's the problem. When you do these background checks--let's just look
    at the facts--when you do the background checks, you can get over 70
    percent of the background checks done in the first hour. You can get 95
    percent of them done--or over 90 percent in the first day. So they say,
    ``Well, just agree to a 24-hour background check or an insta-check
    system.'' The real difficulty is, of the roughly 10 percent you can't
    finish in one day, the rejection rate in that 10 percent is 20 times
    higher than the rejection rate in the 90 percent. So what we tried to do
    was to work out an agreement where we let everybody who would be
    cleared, be cleared, but we didn't have an automatic release for the
    others, because they're 20 times more likely to have background problems
    which would not enable them to purchase these guns.
        So I think it is an almost bizarre development, since we're more
    than willing to meet them halfway. We've offered them a good
    compromise--that they would hold this whole bill up to protect that 10
    percent when they know that's where a huge percentage of the problem
    gun-buyers are, people that are likely to use those guns for criminal
    conduct.
        So we have offered a compromise. John Conyers offered a good compromise to Representative Henry
    Hyde, and I hope and pray that they will take
    it or something like it. I'm willing to compromise, but I don't think
    that we ought to gut the main purposes of the background check. And
    again, you know, they say, ``Well, we have these shows out in the
    country. They occur on the weekend. They're not all basically at big-
    city convention centers.'' But the gun could be deposited with the local
    sheriff's office for the weekend while the background check is
    completed, for example. You could deposit the gun and the check and
    return one or the other or both. It would be easy to work through this
    if they really wanted to.
        I just think it's important--I think the child trigger locks are
    important because the accidental death rate in America of the children
    are so high, 9 times higher than the next 25 biggest countries combined.
    But we ought to close the loophole in the Brady law. I am willing

    [[Page 648]]

    to compromise, but I don't want to destroy the purposes of the
    background check.
        Mr. Rather. Our correspondent Maureen Maher has been doing some
    investigation of some of the loopholes in the Brady law, which turn out
    to be pretty extensive. If you could close one loophole in the Brady
    law, what would it be?
        The President. Oh, the gun show loophole. That's the most important
    one. There are some other loopholes in the Brady law, but if you look at
    the numbers, it's been quite successful. For all of its problems, it's
    been quite successful. And when you do the insta-check, you know, we
    have to do instant checks whenever we can--when you do the insta-check,
    you actually--you lose some people, because if you can't wait 3 days,
    there are some records that haven't been logged in, for example, that
    won't be picked up on the insta-check. But when we passed the Brady
    bill, that's the best we could do. We had to take a bill that would say
    a 3-day waiting period, but insta-check whenever possible when it became
    possible. And so we're stuck with that for the time being.
        I have a totally different view of this than the people on the other
    side of the issue. I think I've demonstrated in 7 years here I've never
    tried to take a gun away from a law-abiding citizen. I've never tried to
    interfere with hunting or sport shooting. But I believe that guns are
    like every other area of national life where there is a lot of loss of
    life and injury. Prevention is always the first line of defense.
        Their position, basically, is: Punish people that violate the law;
    throw the book at them; but in this area alone, let's don't have much
    prevention, because we're worried about the second amendment or a
    slippery slope or whatever. And I just think they're wrong. I think that
    we can save so many more lives by sensible prevention and not interfere
    with legitimate gun owners.

    President's Experience With Guns

        Mr. Rather. Mr. President, did you ever own a gun?
        The President. Oh, yes. I've owned a shotgun. I had a .22 when I was
    little kid. I had a couple of handguns when I was a Governor.
        Mr. Rather. Did you hunt?
        The President. Oh, yes. I suppose I was 12 the first time I had
    target practice, you know, shooting cans off fenceposts. And I normally
    went hunting, duck hunting, once a year when I was Governor. On
    occasion, I went bird hunting. I've been duck hunting a couple of times
    since I've been President.

    Smith & Wesson

        Mr. Rather. Let me follow up on this Smith & Wesson deal. A number
    of people, none of whom want their name attached to it, say, ``Dan, you
    have to look into this deal,'' because, one, Smith & Wesson was about to
    go bankrupt, and so this was a form of what they call financial
    blackmail. Anything to that argument?
        The President. Not that I know of. I don't know that--if it's true,
    I don't know it.
        Mr. Rather. I understand. Any agreement that you know of, the
    Federal Government has agreed to supply Federal law enforcement officers
    with Smith & Wesson weapons?
        The President. No, that was not a part of the agreement. Since then,
    we have looked into the question of whether we--as have many local
    jurisdictions looked into the question--whether they can give any kind
    of preference or consideration to Smith & Wesson in their purchases
    because they've taken this action. But obviously, whatever they do will
    have to take account of the need to get the best possible weapons for
    their law enforcement officials.
        But that was not a quid pro quo; that was something that came up
    later. And we're looking into--I wanted to look into to see what, if
    anything, we can do as well. But I know that a lot of cities were so
    appreciative of what Smith & Wesson did.
        See, here is the deal. This is another thing. This is like the Brady
    bill gun show loophole. The main thing Smith & Wesson did in changing
    its marketing and distribution policies was to focus on a fact that I
    would think that the NRA would want us to focus on, and that is that an
    inordinately high percentage of guns used in crimes are sold through a
    very small percentage of the gun sellers. So the main thing, when you
    strip away everything else Smith & Wesson did, what they're really
    trying to do is to stop providing weapons to people who obviously are
    careless in enforcing the Brady bill or have a criminal clientele or
    otherwise just aren't taking care of their business.
        I would have thought when Smith & Wesson came forward, since this
    had nothing to do with the Brady bill or anything else--this was about
    having gun dealers clean up their act and gun manufacturers putting the
    hammer on them to

    [[Page 649]]

    do it, rewarding those that are good, punishing those that aren't. I
    would have thought that's the kind of thing the NRA would like. I was
    actually kind of surprised that they and the gun dealers went so totally
    the other way about this, because you can't get out of the fact--we now
    have evidence--a very small percentage of gun dealers sell a very high
    percentage of the guns used in serious crimes. That's what we're trying
    to get at.

    Hillary Clinton's Senate Campaign

        Mr. Rather. Mr. President, I have all kinds of things I'd like to
    ask you about, including China and the World Trade Organization, but the
    clock is running on us. Let me ask you two questions, and I'll let you
    get on to your next meeting.
        You recently said at a meeting that the First Lady, in her bid for a
    Senate seat in New York, faces--I think this is your direct quote--``a
    right-wing venom machine that's collecting double tons of money to
    defeat her.'' Was that too strong, on reflection?
        The President. Well, it depends on how you interpret the facts.
    Richard Viguerie is doing Mayor
    Giuliani's mail. Mayor Giuliani, when he
    was mayor of New York, basically said, ``I'm not a Reagan Republican
    anymore. I'm a moderate Republican. I'm pro-choice. I'm for the Brady
    bill. I'm for the assault weapons ban. I'm for the President's crime
    program.'' We worked together. We had a good relationship.
        Now he's got Richard
    Viguerie doing this venomous mailing,
    talking about what a left-wing crazy my wife is, when--while he was
    mayor of New York, he was in agreement with her and me on most issues.
        Mr. Rather. While he was helping the mayor.
        The President. No, while Rudy Giuliani was mayor. But the Viguerie mailings, which are being sent to people who have fought
    me the whole time I'm here--which is fine--are basically using the same
    old standard hard-core right-wing stuff, the kind of stuff we saw
    Governor Bush do to Senator McCain in South Carolina, that kind of--sort of that kind of
    thing.
        And I think if he's going to do it
    and get the benefit of it, he can raise a lot of money, because a lot of
    us folks see beating Hillary or beating the Vice President as another way of going after us for what we've tried to
    do here on issues like gun safety and vetoing the big tax cuts to keep a
    balanced budget and the surplus and other things we've fought for. They
    see that as a way of continuing the battle.
        He can raise a lot of money that
    way, but I don't think he should be able to raise it for free. That is,
    I think he ought to have to be accountable for the rhetoric being used
    in his behalf and the money that's coming in as a result of that kind of
    inflammatory right-wing rhetoric.
        Mr. Rather. Would you be surprised if I told you that tonight's CBS
    poll indicates the First Lady is up by 8 points now in the race with
    Giuliani?
        The President. A little bit. But I think it's going to be a close
    race and a hard race. But she knows why she's running. She knows what
    she wants to do for New York. I'm really proud of her, and I just--I
    think these polls will change a lot between now and November.
    He's a very formidable opponent.
        Mr. Rather. You don't think that what one newspaper has called the
    ``wealthy hate Hillary campaign'' will, in the end, sink her?
        The President. No, I don't. I think the main thing that she's got to
    think about is not what they're saying about her but what she's going to
    say to the people of New York. I think a lot of that is--when you have
    opposition in politics, a lot of times what they're trying to do is
    distract you from doing your main job, which is to communicate with the
    people and to serve the people. And I think if she'll just focus on
    that, talk about her life, her work, and what she wants to do, I think
    she'll do fine.
        Mr. Rather. Mr. President, I'm getting the cut signal. I so much
    appreciate you taking the time to do this. Thank you very, very much.
        The President. Thanks, Dan.
        Mr. Rather. Tell the First Lady hello for us.
        The President. I will.

    Note: The interview was videotaped at 2:25 p.m. in the Roosevelt Room at
    the White House for later broadcast. The transcript was embargoed for
    release until 6:30 p.m. In his remarks, the President referred to Juan
    Miguel Gonzalez, father of Elian Gonzalez; Richard A. Viguerie,
    chairman, chief executive officer, and president, Conservative HQ.com;
    Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York City; and Gov. George W. Bush of
    Texas. A tape was not available for verification of the content of this
    interview.