    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book I)]
    [February 16, 2000]
    [Pages 257-269]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 257]]

    The President's News Conference
    February 16, 2000

        The President. Good afternoon. I would like to cover a couple of
    topics in an opening statement, and then I will take your questions.
        First, let me say that we all know that we're in the midst of the
    longest and strongest economic expansion in our history, with nearly 21
    million new jobs, unemployment at 4 percent, and solid income growth
    across all income groups.
        Americans in public service and in the private sector must remember
    that our success in promoting peace and prosperity is not the result of
    complacency but of our common commitment to dynamic action rooted in
    enduring values. If we want to continue to enjoy success, we must
    continue our commitment to dynamic action.
        There is important work to be done in America this year, and in
    Washington, DC, this year. First, we must stay on the path of fiscal
    discipline that got us to this point. If we stay on that path, we can
    make America, in just 13 years, debt-free for the first time since 1835.
    Then we can use the benefits of debt reduction to preserve two of the
    most important guarantees we have made to the American people, Social
    Security and Medicare, something that will be a challenge as we see the
    number of people over 65 double in the next 30 years with the retirement
    of the baby boom generation.
        Specifically, we can make a bipartisan downpayment on Social
    Security reform by crediting the interest savings from debt reduction to
    the Social Security Trust Fund to keep it strong and sound for 50 years,
    beyond the lifespan of all but the most fortunate of the baby boom
    generation. As a first step toward a comprehensive solution, I believe
    we should do something I called for in my 1999 State of the Union
    Address, to end the earnings limit for Social Security retirees between
    the ages of 65 and 69.
        To strengthen and modernize Medicare, I propose to implement
    important reforms and to dedicate more than half the non-Social Security
    surplus to Medicare, over $400 billion, to keep it solvent for another
    decade, past 2025, and to add a voluntary prescription drug benefit. I'm
    pleased Congress is beginning to take up this issue, and I ask them to
    move quickly and to resist the temptation to spend large portions of the
    surplus before we have lived up to our commitment to prepare for the
    undeniable health and financing challenges that Medicare will bring.
        We should also move to complete the unfinished business of the last
    Congress, passing a real Patients' Bill of Rights, campaign finance
    reform, hate crimes legislation, an increase in the minimum wage, and
    especially, commonsense gun safety legislation.
        Guns in the wrong hands continue to claim too many young lives--
    lives like those of Andre Wallace and Natasha
    Marsh, the fine young DC residents who were
    gunned down in front of Natasha's home last week and were buried just
    yesterday. We saw it also in Littleton just a few days ago, with the
    shooting deaths of two teenage students from Columbine High School.
        Today the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew
    Cuomo, who is with us today, released the
    first-ever comprehensive analysis of gun-related violence in public
    housing in America. The report shows that while crime in public housing
    is declining, as it is in the rest of the country, gun-related crime
    remains a serious problem there, with residents of public housing more
    than twice as likely to be victims of gun violence as other members of
    our society. More than a million children and 360,000 seniors live in
    public housing in the United States. They deserve to be as safe as the
    rest of us. Ten months after the tragedy at Columbine, it is long past
    time for Congress to pass this commonsense gun safety legislation.
        I would also like to address the impact of rising oil prices on
    American families. In the Northeast the impact has been particularly
    harsh because, from the Mid-Atlantic States to New England, many
    families still rely on home heating oil, a source of heating no longer
    used in the rest of the country. These families have been especially
    hard hit. That is a serious concern, especially because the winter
    months have been colder this year than in the past few years.
        Since January we have released $175 million to help lower income
    families pay their heating

    [[Page 258]]

    bills. We have also asked refiners to keep producing at full throttle
    until the crisis is past. And we directed the Coast Guard to expedite
    deliveries of home heating oil to affected areas. These actions have
    helped to ease the burden on the citizens who are most vulnerable.
    Still, there are too many families with moderate incomes who have no
    option other than heating their homes with oil, and they need help, too.
    There is more to do.
        Secretary Richardson is in New England
    today holding a summit with refiners, distributors, and major users of
    home heating oil to determine how Government and industry can work
    together to better meet the needs of consumers in the Mid-Atlantic and
    New England States.
        Today I'm announcing additional steps to help families struggling to
    pay their heating bills. I directed my Budget Office and the Department
    of Health and Human Services to release right now the remainder of this
    year's funding for emergency heating assistance, about $125 million
    more. This money will be targeted toward the hardest hit States, those
    with the highest usage of home heating oil. I will be meeting with
    Governors and Members of Congress in those States to ask them to use all
    their authority to expand the pool of people who receive those funds,
    making sure that as many people who need the help can get it.
        And let me explain what I mean by that. Under the present law,
    States can pay LIHEAP assistance, low income heating assistance, to
    people up to 150 percent of the poverty line, the national poverty line,
    or up to 60 percent of the median income in their States. In the States
    that are most severely affected, where you have a lot of people who live
    on middle incomes, but particularly if they have children, are really
    hurt by an increase of two or three hundred dollars a month in their
    home heating bill--are eligible for this assistance but don't presently
    receive it. So if we provide more money--if the States really want to
    see the maximum number of people helped, they have the ability to raise
    the income limits of people eligible for that help and to structure the
    help accordingly.
        We will also be requesting $600 million in emergency supplemental
    funding for the LIHEAP program to help more hard-hit families through
    the current crisis, as well as to have some money for others who may be
    hard hit later in the year when the hot weather sets in. We will send
    legislation to Congress in the next 10 days, and I hope there will be
    fast action on it.
        Meanwhile, we will continue to work toward a longer term solution.
    I've asked Secretary Richardson to conduct a
    60-day study on converting factories and major users from oil to other
    fuels, which will help to free up future oil supplies for use in heating
    homes.
        Americans have always pulled together to help their fellow citizens
    in times of need. Over the last 7 years, we've stood to help the victims
    of earthquakes in California, of the farm crisis and a 500-year flood in
    the Middle West, and again and again and recently again this week, the
    violent storms in the South. Now the families in the Northeast need our
    help, too, and we must act.
        Again I say, the United States did not get to this fortunate moment
    by inaction and complacency. We got here by a commitment to giving the
    American people the tools and conditions to solve their own problems and
    continuing to act aggressively and dynamically. This must be a year of
    that kind of action.
        Thank you very much.
        Now, Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International], would you
    like to begin?

    2000 Presidential Election

        Q. Mr. President, you don't seem to have any good news on the
    Northern Ireland and Middle Eastern front, so I thought I'd ask you a
    homefront question. How do you like being targeted in the Republican
    Presidential campaign? Texas Governor--I have to quote this--Texas
    Governor Bush told Senator McCain, quote, ``Whatever you do, don't
    equate my integrity and trustworthiness with Bill Clinton. That's about
    as low as you can get in the Republican primary.'' And McCain said that
    he resented being called ``Clinton'' or ``Clinton-like,'' and a few
    other things. What do you say?
        The President. Well--[laughter]--I have a couple of observations.
    One is, you know, they're playing to an electorate, most of whom did not
    vote for me. And secondly, I have a lot of sympathy with Governor
    Bush and Senator McCain. I mean, it's hard for them to figure out what to run on.
    They can't run against the longest economic expansion in history, or the
    lowest crime rate in 30 years, or the lowest welfare rolls in 30 years,
    or the progress America has made in promoting peace around the

    [[Page 259]]

    world, or the fact that our party overrode theirs and passed the family
    leave and it's benefited 20 million people and it hasn't hurt the
    economy.
        So they've got a
    tough job, and I have a lot of sympathy with them. And I don't want to
    complicate their problems by saying any more about them. [Laughter]
        Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

    Capital Punishment

        Q. Mr. President, there are growing calls for a national moratorium
    on capital punishment, from the American Bar Association to Members of
    Congress. Governor Ryan has halted executions
    in Illinois, as you know, because the convictions of 13 people on death
    row were overturned. On the other hand, Governor Bush said last night
    that he's confident that the 100 people who were put to death in Texas
    under his watch were all guilty. You've had some experience with this.
    You signed four death warrants or execution warrants while you were
    Governor. What's your feeling about a moratorium on executions?
        The President. Well first, I think Governor Ryan did the right
    thing, and it was probably a courageous thing to do, because a majority
    of the American people support capital punishment, as do I. But I think
    that in Illinois, you had a situation where the exonerations and the
    executions were about equal in number over the last several years. So he
    had a difficult situation, and I think he did the right thing.
        And I think that if I were a Governor still, I would look very
    closely at the situation in my State and decide what the facts were.
    There are, I think, not those grounds for that kind of moratorium under
    the Federal law because of the circumstances under which people are
    convicted.
        Now, we have a different review going on here, a Justice Department
    review on the racial impact, or whether there was one, in the death
    penalty decisions under the Federal law. There are 27 people who have
    been sentenced to death under Federal law, 20 in the civilian courts and
    7 through the military system.
        We also are in the process of developing guidelines for clemency
    applications when an individual's claims of innocence or questioning of
    the sentence, even though guilt is not a question, can be pressed. And I
    think, in an attempt to address the problem you mentioned, I think
    Senator Leahy has introduced some
    legislation to try to give convicted criminal defendants access to DNA
    testing and other things which might tend to disprove their guilt.
        So I think all these things need to be looked at. The people who
    support the death penalty, it seems to me, have an especially heavy
    obligation to see that in cases where it is applied, there is no
    question of whether the guilt was there. So the only issue that is left
    is whether, philosophically, you think it is the right or wrong thing to
    do.
        Q. So you would not support a ban? You would not support suspending
    it or a moratorium now?
        The President. In the Federal cases, I don't believe it is called
    for. But as I say, we do have the review going on in terms of the racial
    implications of the way it's been applied, and we also are in the
    process of drawing up guidelines for clemency requests, which obviously
    would give people an opportunity to raise the question of whether there
    was some doubt about their guilt or innocence.
        But I do think Governor Ryan did the
    right thing. I think it was a great thing to do.
        Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

    President's Upcoming Visit to South Asia

        Q. Mr. President, next month you're going on a trip to India and
    Bangladesh, but not Pakistan. What can Pakistan's military rulers do to
    get you to reconsider?
        The President. Well, first of all, I haven't decided whether I'm
    going to Pakistan or not. I have decided that I am going to India and
    Bangladesh, and I will make a decision about whether to go based on what
    I think will best serve our long-term interests in nonproliferation, in
    trying to stop particularly the nuclear arms race, and trying to help to
    promote stability, democracy, and a resolution of the conflict between
    India and Pakistan.
        I hope that my trip will serve to highlight to Americans the
    importance of that region to us and the very real danger that a conflict
    between India and Pakistan not contained is one of the most significant
    security threats to the interests of the United States in this new
    century and, I might say, a tragic situation.
        You know, we--I think one of the reasons we've been able to play a
    meaningful role in Northern Ireland is we have so many Irish-Americans
    here. I think one of the reasons we've been able to play a meaningful
    role in

    [[Page 260]]

    the Middle East is we have a lot of Jewish-Americans and a lot of Arab-
    Americans. I think we forget that among all the some 200 ethnic groups
    that we have in our country, Indian-Americans and Pakistani-Americans
    have been among the most successful in terms of education level and
    income level. They have worked and succeeded stunningly well in the
    United States and, astonishingly maybe, had good contacts with one
    another.
        And I think the United States should be more involved there, even
    though I think that they'll have to work out this business of Kashmir
    between themselves. Unless we were asked by both parties to help, we
    can't get involved. We've been--in every other case we're involved, it's
    because both parties have asked us to be involved.
        But I will make a decision about where to go and what to do based on
    what I think will further our long-term goals. And I have not reached a
    final decision.
        Yes.

    Post-Presidency Legal Issues

        Q. Mr. President, as you're well aware, the Arkansas Supreme Court
    Committee on Professional Conduct has initiated an investigation into a
    complaint regarding statements that you made in testimony before Judge
    Susan Webber Wright--action that could include disciplinary action, up
    to and including disbarment. My question, sir, is would you be willing
    to surrender your law license to avoid such a hearing? Or will you fight
    it, up to and including availing yourself of a public hearing, as you
    are entitled to under the regulations?
        The President. Well, let me say to you, the reason--and the only
    reason--I even settled the lawsuit in the first place was because I
    thought that it was wrong for the President to take an hour, much less a
    day, much less weeks, away from the job of the American people to deal
    with anything that could be a distraction. And I did it only after there
    was a court ruling that the case had absolutely no merit, which was
    obvious to everybody who looked at the facts.
        Now, I haven't changed my position on that. As a result, in all the
    things that have happened subsequently, I have left a lot of things
    unsaid which I might have otherwise said. And I hope I can continue to
    do that, and that's what I'm going to do today. I don't think I should
    be spending my time on this. I think I'm working for the American
    people. And I'm going to do my best to adhere to that. And as a result,
    I have refrained from saying a lot of things I would otherwise have said
    as an American citizen and as a lawyer.
        Yes, go ahead, in the back.

    Oil Prices

        Q. Mr. President, along the lines of the heating oil situation or
    whatever, would you at any point consider--because, perhaps as the
    prices continue to spike up--would you at any point consider that it
    could have some detrimental effect on the economy? Would you consider
    tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserves? And conversely, I'd like
    to ask if we as Americans have some kind of divine right to cheap
    gasoline and cheap heating oil?
        The President. Well, you've asked two questions, and let me try to
    answer them. And I'd like to make, if I might, three points.
        Number one, the statute for using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
    sets forward the conditions under which it might be used. And I have not
    ruled out any action which I think is in the interest of the American
    people.
        Number two, I think what is in our interest are stable prices that
    are not too high but don't drop real low, encourage overconsumption, and
    then jump way up again. That is, what we need is stable prices that are
    not too high but that are also stable.
        I also think that is in the interest of the producing countries.
    Why? Because if prices got so high they weakened--disregard America's
    economy--other people's economies, that would shrink the markets for the
    producers. If the economy goes down, that would lower the price, and
    they'd wind up with the worst of both worlds. If the price stayed up for
    any period of time, it would make non-OPEC members who could produce oil
    more likely to do it, which would further drive the price down.
        So I think the OPEC members understand that, and I think that there
    is an interest in stable prices at an acceptable level. And we have
    these conversations all along, and I think that is clear. And we will
    see what happens on that. But I wouldn't rule out using the Petroleum
    Reserve.
        Now, the third point I want to make is this. You said, do Americans
    have a right to cheap gas and cheap heating oil? What I want to do,
    because I think it's important for our long-term

    [[Page 261]]

    security, is get America in a position where the fuel efficiency of our
    vehicles is so great, or our ability to use alternative-fuel vehicles or
    dual-use vehicles, biofuels, mixed electric and gasoline-fuel vehicles
    that have automatically regenerating batteries--that our capacity to do
    that is so great that we will not be reliant on the ups and downs of
    supplies and the increases that might come in the future would have a
    much more limited impact on us. I would remind you that these increases
    have had a much, much more limited impact on the United States than the
    oil price increases of the seventies, for example, because we're so much
    more energy efficient.
        The final point I would like to make is, there are all kinds of
    problems and historical explanations for why the Mid-Atlantic and New
    England States are so dependent on home heating oil, and no place else
    is, but it's not a good situation. It's just not. We need to examine it.
    That's one of the things I asked Secretary Richardson to look at, is look at what are the institutional
    barriers for businesses and individuals converting away from heating oil
    to heating sources that are more commonly used in other places? What are
    the costs? Are there any Federal actions that might be undertaken in
    concert with the States or with the private sector to help minimize
    those costs and facilitate a conversion?
        The people on home heating oil are the most vulnerable people in
    America, by a good long ways, to these radical swings in oil prices. And
    it's also because they're delivered essentially by individual businesses
    who come to your home and send you a bill. Consumers don't have the
    option that many of you who live in DC have, for example. You can
    average your electric bills. You can average your utility bills over a
    period of months. So if you have a couple of bad months, you can average
    them out. Those options are not available to them either.
        So I think we have to look long term, in my judgment, at whether
    there's a conversion strategy there that would enable a whole different
    energy future to open up in terms of home and business energy usage.
        Yes.

    Gun Safety Legislation

        Q. Mr. President, on the topic of gun control, as you're well aware,
    the central sticking point in the Congress is over this division between
    the Senate and the House over a waiting period for gun sales at gun
    shows. The Senate has endorsed 72 hours. The House and a goodly number
    of Democrats endorsed 24 hours. Would you accept a compromise in-
    between, sir, or is that 72-hour waiting period so important, you prefer
    no bill to a compromise?
        The President. Well, first, I think, to me, this is a fact question.
    There are two benefits to the waiting period. One is, does it really
    give you an adequate amount of time to check the records? And two is,
    should there be a cooling-off period if somebody who is really hot buys
    a gun with a bad intent and might cool down and refrain?
        If you move away from 72 hours to a shorter period, then the
    question is, since so many of these gun shows occur on the weekend, will
    there be access to the records to do the check? Will you be able--I
    mean, to me, in terms of all compromises--at least, I can only tell you
    what I believe--this is not theology. This is, what does it take as a
    practical matter to have a bill that works to keep people alive? I mean,
    there's no question that the Brady bill has kept a lot of people alive.
    And there is, furthermore, no question that there has not been a huge
    amount of inconvenience in the waiting period.
        Now, I know what the argument is. The argument is, well, the gun
    show people are mobile. So it's not like you can wait 5 days, go back to
    the same store where you placed the order for the gun, and it's going to
    be there 5 days from now. And the gun shows are mobile. I understand
    what the problem is. But there has got to be a solution here that deals
    with that. Maybe they could park the guns at the local police department
    or something else. There's got to be some way to deal with this that
    allows us to have a practical law that works. The one thing I will not
    do is, I will not sign a law which promises the American people that
    this is going to make them safer, and it won't do it.
        But I am not hung up--I don't think we should be hung up on any of
    the facts. The facts should be, what is necessary to make us a safer
    people? What is necessary to save more lives? That should be the only
    driving concern.
        Yes, go ahead, Jim [Jim Angle, Fox News].

    2000 Campaign

        Q. Mr. President, is a candidate's past record on abortion fair game
    in a campaign? The First

    [[Page 262]]

    Lady seems to think it is; the Vice President seems to think it isn't.
        The President. Oooh. [Laughter] Now, if I get into that, then you'll
    have me handicapping that debate last night. [Laughter]
        Let me just say this. I'll make a generic comment about that because
    I think all of you are going to be writing about this. I see, you know,
    one candidate says this about the other's record. Then one complains
    about how the other one interprets his record and all that kind of
    stuff. I have never seen a hard-fought political race where candidates
    did not disagree with their opponent's characterization of their record
    and their positions. I mean, that's part of the debate, and it's always
    going to happen.
        And again, I think anything I say to get in the middle of that is
    not--I'm not running for office, and by and large, I think I shouldn't
    comment under--there may be a few exceptions, but I think basically the
    American people are in the driver's seat. They're making this decision.
    I get to vote like everybody else, but I'm not a candidate, and I don't
    think I ought to get in the way unless there's some specific issue
    related to something I've done as President.
        Yes.

    Northern Ireland Peace Process

        Q. Mr. President, may I return to Northern Ireland, sir? In light of
    what's happened this week, wasn't it a mistake not to ask for specific
    assurances to disarm from the IRA, not Sinn Fein but the IRA, in advance
    of going down the political road and starting a new government?
        The President. I think Senator Mitchell believes--who, you know, negotiated the Good Friday
    accords--that like any accords of that kind, there were compromises
    involved that both sides had to accept about the other. And I believe he
    thought he got the strongest agreement he could. It was ratified
    overwhelmingly by the Irish people, by both communities in the North and
    overwhelmingly by the Republic of Ireland.
        It has been honored, to date, in all of its specifics, including
    standing up the governmental institutions, although there was a delay of
    several months in doing that. And then the de Chastelain report came
    out, and then after the British Government passed through the Parliament
    the bill, in effect, suspending the institutions and reasserting control
    over Northern Ireland, the IRA made certain representations which
    General de Chastelain considered quite
    hopeful. And now they're in a rough spot.
        But I don't think you can Monday-morning-quarterback that. I think
    Senator Mitchell and all the people who
    were negotiating it got the best deal they could from both sides. And I
    think what we have to recognize now is, while this is a very unfortunate
    development, a year ago at this time the Irish had had no taste of what
    self-government was like. They now have had it, and they like it--
    positive point number one.
        Positive point number two: The IRA has given no indication whatever
    that they will revert to violence. And so that means that they still
    think, no matter what the rhetoric says, that all the parties really
    believe that they ought to find a way to work this out. And I can assure
    you, virtually every day since I've been here, we've worked on this. And
    in the last several days, we've been involved on a daily basis, and
    we're working very hard to work this out. I can't tell you what the end
    will be. I can only tell you that I think we're way ahead of where we
    would have been, and I still think there's a good chance we'll get
    there.
        Yes, Claire [Claire Shipman, NBC] and then Susan [Susan Page, USA
    Today].

    Vice President Al Gore

        Q. Maybe this will be one of the exceptions that you'll be willing
    to make. Senator Bradley has made it a point of late to challenge Vice
    President Gore's veracity, essentially, to cast him as a politician not
    to be trusted. He's been your Vice President for the last 7 years. Are
    you offended by those remarks? Certainly there's nobody in a better
    position than you to speak to his character.
        The President. Well, my feelings are not relevant, but I can say
    this: He has always--one of the great strengths that he had as Vice
    President is that he was always brutally honest with me. I mean, he was
    never afraid to disagree with me. And when we had very tough decisions,
    very often we'd be in these big meetings, and very--you see these--when
    these tough decisions come down--and I mean this, no offense to any of
    you; this is actually a compliment to you. But when you've got seven
    people in a meeting and some huge decision is on the line and you
    realize that if you make the wrong call, it cannot only be bad for the
    country, it

    [[Page 263]]

    could be very bad for the health of the administration, it's amazing to
    see how some people guard their words because they're so afraid that
    what they say, even though the meeting is in confidence, will be public.
    In all those tough times, he took a--he decided what he thought was
    right, and he took a clear and unambiguous stand. And I think the
    country is better for it.
        And I could give you lots of examples. I mean, when it was an
    unpopular thing to go into Kosovo, he wanted to do it. When it was
    unpopular to go into Bosnia, he wanted to do it. When it was unpopular
    to stand up for freedom in Haiti, he wanted to do it. When only 15
    percent of the people thought we ought to help Mexico but I knew it
    could hurt our economy, he was right there. And I could go on and on. So
    all I can tell you is that in all my dealings with him, he has been
    candid in the extreme and all anyone could ever ask.
        Now, I'll say again what I said before: I have never seen a tough
    race where people fought with each other where they didn't have
    different interpretations of each other's record and each other's
    positions. And then once you disagree with someone's position or
    someone's record, then the person will say, ``I just think you're
    mischaracterizing it.'' Now, depending on the level of heat and
    intensity of the campaign, how they say that and how they feel about it
    will go up or down. But this happens in every election.
        And I think the important thing to remember is, you've basically got
    four people running for President now who are people of accomplishment,
    people who have certain convictions, people who have, I think, pretty
    clear philosophies and records. And I know that everybody will get hot
    and mad at everybody else, but, I mean, this is not a bad thing for
    America, this choice they've got. And they're very different.
        So America has a good choice. And I think that it's tough to be in
    these races, and when you're not running anymore, you can look back--
    everybody can look back on a life in public life and say, ``There's one
    thing I said I kind of wish I hadn't said,'' or, ``I said that, and I
    believe what I said, but I wish I said it in a slightly different way.''
    But by and large, what's happening here is just perfectly normal, and we
    shouldn't get too exercised by it.
        Q. You don't think Bill Bradley's charges have been below the belt?
        The President. Well, I don't agree--I'm not going to get into
    characterizing his charges. You ask me if the Vice President--I don't
    have to fight this campaign for anybody. You asked me if the Vice
    President has been perfectly honest and candid with me, and I said, yes,
    in the extreme. And that's true, and America's been well served by it.
    That's all I can say.
        My experience is that he is exceedingly
    honest and exceedingly straightforward and has taken a lot of tough
    positions which, since he always, presumably, knew he wanted to run for
    President, could have cost him dearly, and he did it anyway. And I was
    proud of him for doing it.
        Yes, Susan.

    Kashmir

        Q. Mr. President, I would like to follow up on Steve Holland's
    question. You said that it's up to India and Pakistan to settle the
    issue of Kashmir and that they have not asked the U.S. to help mediate
    that dispute. If India and Pakistan both ask the United States to get
    involved to try to help mediate the issue of Kashmir, would the United
    States be willing to do that?
        The President. Absolutely. I would. Why? For the same reason we've
    been involved in Northern Ireland and the Middle East. Because, number
    one and most importantly, it is a hugely important area of the world. If
    the tensions between India and Pakistan on the Indian subcontinent could
    be resolved, it is my opinion, based on my personal experience with
    people from India, people from Pakistan, and people from Bangladesh,
    that the Indian subcontinent might very well be the great success story
    of the next 50 years.
        You're talking about people who are basically immensely talented,
    have a strong work ethic, a deep devotion to their faith and to their
    families. There is nothing they couldn't do. And it is heartbreaking to
    me to see how much they hold each other back by being trapped in
    yesterday's conflicts--number one.
        Number two, like Northern Ireland and the Middle East, this country
    has been deeply enriched by people from the Indian subcontinent, and I
    think we might be, because of our population, in a position to make a
    constructive contribution. But if they don't want us, it won't be doing
    any good. We'd just be out there talking into the air. And I'm not in
    for that.

    [[Page 264]]

        Yes, Mark [Mark Knoller, CBS Radio].

    Post-Presidency Legal Issues

        Q. Mr. President, by your answer earlier to John Roberts [CBS News],
    did you mean to say that you or your lawyers would not offer a defense
    to the Committee on Professional Conduct?
        The President. No, I meant to say I'm not going to discuss it any
    more than I absolutely have to because I don't think I should be dealing
    with it. I should be dealing with my job.
        Yes, Mara [Mara Liasson, National Public Radio].

    2000 Presidential Election

        Q. You say you're not running this year, but you are casting a
    shadow over the debate on the campaign trail. And all of the
    candidates----
        The President. I'd like to think I'm casting a little sunshine over
    it. [Laughter] I keep trying to build these fellows up, you know. I'm
    being nice and generous and all that. [Laughter]
        Q. All of the candidates are running against your behavior and
    conduct, not just the Republicans, as Helen mentioned, but all of the
    candidates.
        The President. Well, if I were running, I'd do that. [Laughter]
        Q. But on the other hand, also all of the candidates, Republicans
    and Democrats, do sound a lot like you when they talk about policy. Even
    the Republicans say they want prescription drug coverage for Medicare--
    --
        The President. Yes.
        Q. ----and they support a Patients' Bill of Rights with the right to
    sue. And I am wondering if you could comment on both aspects of your
    influence, both the negative, the fact that everybody seems to be
    running against your behavior, and also, on the other side, why everyone
    seems to sound like you when they discuss policy.
        The President. First of all, I think, for the Republicans, it's
    probably good politics to do that, because they spent years and years
    trying to tell everybody how bad I am.
        Q. But it's not just----
        The President. So, so--but for everybody--the public, however--
    people are really smart, you know, and it's pretty hard to convince them
    that they should hold anyone responsible for someone else's mistake,
    particularly a personal mistake. I mean, I can't imagine any voter ever
    doing that. That's like shooting yourself in the foot.
        I even caution people, for example, if somebody says something--one
    of you says something or prints something or has a story that we don't
    agree with--I tell people all the time, ``Don't ever talk about the
    press. There is no such thing as `the press.''' You can't blame--if you
    think somebody made a mistake, you can't blame everybody else for a
    mistake somebody made. But that's in a professional context. In a
    personal context, it's even more true.
        So my view is that the voters are going to--this is, as I have said
    repeatedly, the Presidential election is the world's greatest job
    interview. And the voters are going to hire someone that they believe,
    of course, is a good person, a strong person, a person who will be a
    credit to the office. But they want to know, what in the world are they
    going to do? How are we going to keep this expansion going? How are we
    going to meet the big challenges facing the country?
        And it is, to me, a source of reassurance--not personal but for my
    country's future--that so many of the candidates have adopted at least
    some of the policies that we have tried to put in place over the last 7
    years, that moved the country away from this big, deep partisan division
    that dominated Washington politics for so long.
        So all I can tell you is, I think--my instinct is that the voters
    are going to take the measure of these people. They're going to think:
    Who will be a good President; who will make good decisions; and do I
    agree with this person, in terms of priorities and positions? That's
    what I think. I think the implication that anybody would be held
    responsible for somebody else's mistake or misconduct is just--it's a
    real insult to the American people. And they're not going to do that.
    That's not in their interest, and it's not in their nature. They're too
    smart and too good for that.
        Yes.

    Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China

        Q. Mr. President, would you rule out the one-year automatic renewal
    of China's normal trading status, unless Congress disagrees? And do you
    think that would be a formula Democrats would find easier to accept?

    [[Page 265]]

        The President. That would be a--I would not support that because, in
    order to get China into the WTO and in order for us to benefit from the
    terms of the agreement that Ambassador Barshefsky and Gene Sperling and
    others made with China, they have to get permanent normal trading
    status. And since you asked the question, let me tell you why I feel so
    strongly about it. This is not a political issue for me. This is a huge
    national security issue, for three reasons.
        Number one, our biggest trade deficit is with China, because China
    has access to our markets and our access to theirs is highly restricted.
    This trade agreement offers no increased access to the American markets
    by China but gives us dramatically increased access to their markets.
    Moreover, it means that we can get access to their markets without
    having to transfer technology or agree to do manufacturing in their
    country. And we retain specific rights, even once China is in the WTO,
    on a bilateral basis to take action if there is a big surge of imports
    in some sector into our economy that would throw a lot of people out of
    work in a short time.
        So, economically, from agriculture to high-tech products to
    automobiles and all things in between, I think this agreement is a clear
    hundred-or-nothing deal for us, if the price of admission to the WTO is
    modernizing and opening the economy.
        Number two, having China in a rule-based system increases the
    likelihood not only that China will follow the rules of the road in
    terms of the international economy but that China will cooperate more in
    other forums, the United Nations and many other areas--to try to help
    reduce, rather than increase, the proliferation of dangerous weapons or
    technology, for example. That's what I believe with all my heart.
        Number three, I believe this agreement will change China from
    within, more than all the other economic opening of the last 20 years
    combined, fairly rapidly because of the dramatic increase in access to
    communications and contact with the outside world that this agreement
    portends.
        Now, as I said in the State of the Union Address, and I tried to say
    it again when I went over to Switzerland to talk, the truth is, I don't
    know what choice China will make. I don't know what path China will
    take, and neither does anyone else. I don't want to oversell this to the
    American people in that sense. But what I believe I do know, based on
    all my experience not only as President but just with human nature, is
    that they are far more likely to be constructive members of the
    international community if they get into the WTO and they make these
    changes than if they don't.
        And I think it's quite interesting--one of the things that has
    really moved me on this, since one of the big issues with which we have
    differences with China is in the repression of political and religious
    expression, is how many of the religious groups that actually have
    missions operating in China agree with this. People that have actually
    worked there, lived there, and been subject to some of the repression
    there agree that what we're doing is the right thing to do. I think that
    a substantial--a majority of opinion in Taiwan agrees that this is the
    right thing to do.
        So I'm going to push this as hard as I can. I want to get the
    earliest possible vote I can. And I cannot tell you how important I
    think it is. I think that if we didn't do this, we would be regretting
    it for 20 years. And I think 10 years from now we'll look back, and no
    matter what decisions China makes, we'll say the only thing we could
    control is what we did, and what we did was the right, the honorable,
    and the smart thing to do for America over the long run.
        Yes.

    Federal Election Commission

        Q. Both Senator Bradley and Vice President Gore have condemned your
    nomination of Bradley Smith to the FEC. Would you care to take this
    opportunity to explain exactly why you've nominated this man and to say
    what exactly this says about your own commitment to the campaign finance
    reform that you said you would support?
        The President. Well, it doesn't say anything about my commitment,
    although I think they were right to condemn it, except that--look at
    what the law says. The law says, A, this is a Republican appointment,
    and B, as a practical matter, the way the appointments process works in
    the Senate, if you want anybody to be confirmed for anything, you have
    to take--and the Republicans in this case happen to be in the majority--
    the majority leader always makes that recommendation.

    [[Page 266]]

        Now, I have--I argued with him, as he will
    tell you, for months about this. And there is a reason they wanted
    Bradley Smith on the FEC. You know, he
    hates campaign finance reform, Bradley Smith does. He's written about
    it. And he'll get a 3-year appointment now, where it will be one person
    on the FEC. And I don't like it, but I decided that I should not shut
    down the whole appointments process and depart from the plain intent of
    the law, which requires that it be bipartisan and by all tradition that
    the majority leader make the nomination.
        And I think it ought to be instructive for the American people, and
    you ought not to change the subject and confuse them. We have a bill,
    the McCain-Feingold bill before the Congress. The administration is for
    it. Both the Democratic candidates for President are for it, and 100
    percent of our caucus in the Senate and the House are for it, every last
    person down to the last man and woman. There is only one reason this is
    not the law: The Republicans are not for it.
        And ever since I've been here--we didn't have unanimous support in
    '93, but ever since '94, '95, somewhere in there, we always had a big
    majority of the Democratic Party for campaign finance reform and a big
    majority of the Republicans against it, even though some Republicans are
    for it. But basically, the big majority of the Republican Party,
    particularly in the House and the Senate--I don't mean out in the
    country; I mean in the House and the Senate--are against this. That's
    why it is not the law of the land.
        That is the ultimate truth. This appointment demonstrates that. It's
    the poster child--this should be--this is like a big neon sign, ``Hello,
    America needs''--if you care about this issue, you need to know what the
    real issue is here. Ever since I've been here, there's been an attempt
    to say, ``Oh, a pox on both their houses. The Democrats don't really
    care. If they really cared, if the President really cared, somehow we
    would have this.'' It is just not true. What else can we do? Both our
    Presidential candidates, the White House, and 100 percent of our Members
    of Congress are for it. Why hasn't there been a signing ceremony?
    Because they are against it.
        Now, this man, his writings and his honest convictions demonstrate
    that. And I hope there will be no further doubt about this. The American
    people can make their own decision.
        Go ahead.

    Hillary Clinton's Senate Campaign

        Q. Mr. President, current polls show that your wife is virtually
    tied with her likely challenger, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, when it comes to
    women voters in New York, and that she is trailing when it comes to
    white voters. And by most accounts, women will play a decisive role in
    this race. Can you address why you think your wife is having some
    trouble connecting with women voters, in particular; what advice, if
    any, you're offering her to help her better connect? And are you playing
    the role of a senior strategist in her campaign?
        The President. Well, I'm basically doing for her what she's always
    done for me. You know, I'm talking to her about whatever she wants to
    talk about. I'm giving her my best ideas. I thought she had a wonderful
    announcement. I was really proud of her. She got up there and said that
    she understood she was new to the neighborhood, but she wasn't new to
    the concerns of the people of New York. And then she said in exact
    detail--she did what I believe all candidates should do--she said,
    ``Look, if you vote for me, here's what you get. Here's what I'll fight
    for. Here's what I'll do. Here's what I'll fight against. Here's what I
    won't do.''
        And now the campaign is underway, and I think she's doing remarkably
    well, given the unusual nature of the campaign and the formidable
    obstacles out there. And I think now the people will begin to listen and
    debate, and I think she'll do real well. But I'm very proud of her, and
    I think she's doing fine.
        But you should not--all I'm doing for her is what she did for me. So
    when she says something, it's what she believes. And she's made up her
    mind what she wants to run on, what she wants to be for, and why she
    wants to do it. And I was ecstatically happy with the way her
    announcement came out, because I just knew it was her. And I just think
    if--you know, you just go out there and make your best shot and hope
    that it works. But my instinct is, she'll do right well.
        Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service], go ahead.

    Public Access to the President

        Q. Sir, do you see any way to make the Presidency a position that is
    closer to the people? It's sort of aloof now. And you're a friendly

    [[Page 267]]

    type of man. You must see some means whereby you can bring the
    Presidency down to the people more.
        The President. Well, I think part of what makes the Presidency aloof
    is that if you show up for work every day, you don't have as much time
    to spend with people as you'd like. I think that--I think technology
    will help some. I think this web chat I did earlier this week with Wolf
    Blitzer [Cable News Network], where he asked me
    questions, but he also let a lot of other people ask questions--I
    thought that was a good way to do it. I think that--in my first term, I
    did a lot of these townhall meetings, and I think they're good, although
    I think they tend to get turned in a certain way around whatever's
    breaking in the news at any given time.
        I've tried to not get too aloof from the people. I went down to the
    Rio Grande Valley the other day. I was the first President since
    President Eisenhower to go down there, and I've been there three times.
    And a lot of people came out, and I stopped along the street and talked
    to them and visited with them. I think that you have to have--I think
    doing these press conferences helps. I think using the Internet and
    finding other ways that ordinary citizens can ask you questions in the
    course of your work helps. And I think that you have to find the proper
    balance of work in Washington and getting out with the folks to do that.
        It's a constant struggle, but my instinct is that technology will
    help. I think a lot of you, for example--I think your jobs are changing
    because of the way technology works. And there will be ways that you
    also can help make people in public life less aloof and bring more
    people into it. It's going to be very interesting.
        Yes, go ahead.

    Northern Ireland Peace Process

        Q. Mr. President, to follow up on what you said before, you said
    that no one should be held accountable for somebody else's actions. But
    if you examine the suspension of the powers in Northern Ireland last
    week, the British Government was holding Sinn Fein responsible for the
    IRA not disarming. According to the Good Friday accord, they encouraged
    both sides to encourage disarmament. Is there any protest on your part
    to the British Government for bringing down a democratically elected
    government and--similar to the way you pointed your finger at the IRA in
    a statement saying that you hoped that there wouldn't be any backsliding
    after they retracted their previous statements?
        The President. Well, let me say, first of all, I was in constant
    contact with the Irish and the British Governments, and I think we all
    know what is going on here. The question is, how can we keep the peace
    process going; how can we get the institutions back up; and how can we
    keep the Unionist Party involved and under the leadership of David
    Trimble, an objective I believe that Sinn Fein
    strongly supports? That is, I believe that they believe that they have
    to have people they can work with in order to make this thing last.
        I have found that my influence is greater when I say what I think
    about most of these things to the parties themselves but when I don't
    try to make their jobs any harder by what I say, particularly after the
    fact. Now, our big job now is to get these people back on track. In
    order to do it, we have to honor the votes of the people of Northern
    Ireland; we've got to stand these institutions back up; and then all the
    parties that said they supported the Good Friday accords and the people
    they represent, who voted in record numbers for it, they've got to
    comply. And we've got to find a way to get this done.
        And I think that--I know it's not satisfying to a lot of people;
    they want me to be judgmental about everything. And all I can tell you
    is, in private I've tried to be straightforward and clear with them. But
    I don't want to say anything that would make it even harder to put this
    thing back together. We've got to keep going forward. The most important
    thing now is to look about how to go forward and how to get--how to keep
    the Unionists in harness and how to find a way to comply with all the
    requirements, including putting those institutions back up.
        Yes.

    Oil Prices

        Q. Mr. President, back on the rising oil prices, Secretary
    Richardson is beginning a series of consultations with oil companies. Do
    you think that this will have some moderating effect on oil prices?
        The President. I think that oil prices may well moderate. We'll have
    to see about that. But what I think that he
    wants to do is to make sure that we've gotten rid of some of the
    bottlenecks. There are plainly some reasons that are

    [[Page 268]]

    only indirectly related to the general rise in oil prices--that home
    heating oil prices, for example, have gone up so explosively. That's why
    he went up to Boston first and why the Coast Guard is trying to assure
    rapid delivery of the oil.
        So I think that he believes that in his
    talks with the oil companies--not necessarily he can talk the oil prices
    in the aggregate down but that they may be able to take certain specific
    steps which would alleviate some of the biggest burdens on them.
        Yes.
        Q. [Inaudible]--the oil-producing countries, I believe he's going to
    make some consultations around the world.
        The President. Yes, I think we're in regular touch with them, and
    they know what our views are. I think that's all I should say about
    that.
        Yes.

    DNA Testing for Death Row Inmates

        Q. Back on an earlier question, the death penalty, you mentioned
    that supporters of the death penalty, like yourself, have a special
    burden to make sure that innocent people are not executed. And you
    mentioned the Leahy bill, but you didn't state a position on that. That
    would make DNA testing available to death row inmates. Is it a good
    idea? Is it workable? Would you sleep better at night if it were law?
        The President. Well, first of all, the reason I didn't take a
    position on it--I tried to make it clear that I am quite favorably
    disposed toward it, but I just learned about it in the last couple of
    days, and I've asked our people to review it, to answer the questions
    that you ask.
        Would I sleep better at night, if it were law? If it would really
    work, I would. In other words, I am favorably disposed toward it. I just
    want--and we just have a review underway to analyze the law, how it
    would work, whether it will work, what, if any, practical problems are
    there. And I am trying to come to grips with it, and as soon as I do,
    I'll be glad to state a position. But I want to make it clear--I thought
    I had made it clear before--I am favorably disposed.
        Yes.

    Vieques Island, Puerto Rico

        Q. On the issue of Vieques and Puerto Rico, currently there is major
    resistance by religious groups, civic groups, opposition parties to the
    agreement reached on Vieques. There's continued civil disobedience on
    Navy lands. This might entail a Waco-style operation to get these
    protesters out. Are you willing to go all the way with Federal authority
    to clear these Federal lands? And as a followup, do you believe in your
    heart that Puerto Rico's colonial status is the root of this problem or
    is related to Puerto Ricans' ambivalence to issues of national security?
        The President. I think the root of the problem--I think the root of
    the problem is twofold. One is, as the Pentagon has acknowledged--and
    they should get credit in Puerto Rico for doing this. It's hard to get
    people in Washington to admit they're wrong, including me. We all hate
    to do it, you know, including you. We all hate to do it. The Pentagon
    has acknowledged that the 1983 agreement was not followed in letter and
    spirit. They have acknowledged that. That left a bad taste in the mouths
    of the people of Vieques and of all Puerto Rico.
        Problem two is the unwillingness of the Congress to give a
    legislatively sanctioned vote to the people to let them determine the
    status of Puerto Rico. Now, I think those are the roots of the problem.
        Now, there may be some people there who, on any given day, would be,
    I don't know, against the military or would think the military shouldn't
    train or whatever. But it's clear that if you look at the offer we
    made--to begin now to give the western part of the island to Puerto
    Rico; to facilitate transit back and forth between Vieques and the main
    island; to do a lot of the other environmental and economic things on
    the island of Vieques; to have no live fire in the short run here while
    we're going through this transition period; to cut the training days in
    half; and then to let the people decide for themselves with the future
    of the island is; but to give us a transition period when we don't have
    any other place to train--it is a perfectly reasonable compromise,
    unless either those first two things are eating at you, so you don't
    trust anything America or the Pentagon does, or unless you're just
    philosophically opposed to America having a military which has to train.
        So I still believe it's a good agreement. I will continue to work
    with the Governor, with the mayor in Vieques, with the authorities, with a view toward
    trying to work this out.
        I want the people of Puerto Rico to decide this. You know, I did a
    message to them. I wish they could decide their status. If it were

    [[Page 269]]

    just up to me, if I could sign an Executive order and let them have a
    sanctioned election, I would do it today. And I view this compromise as
    an empowerment of the people of Puerto Rico and, to that extent, a
    ratification of their longstanding grievances.
        But the people of Vieques should be able to decide this. And I don't
    think that--just as I don't think the Pentagon should impose it on them,
    I don't think the demonstrators should stop them from having a vote
    either. I think they ought to be able to make a judgment.
        Thank you very much. Thank you.

    Note: The President's 186th news conference began at 2:25 p.m. in the
    East Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Nicholas
    Kunselman and Stephanie Hart, students at Columbine High School,
    Littleton, CO, who were murdered in a Subway sandwich shop on February
    14; Gov. George W. Bush of Texas; Gov. George H. Ryan of Illinois;
    former Senator George J. Mitchell, who chaired the multiparty talks in
    Northern Ireland; Gen. John de Chastelain, Canadian Defense Forces,
    chair, Independent International Commission on Decommissioning; David
    Trimble, leader, Ulster Unionist Party; Gov. Pedro Rossello of Puerto
    Rico; and Mayor Manuela Santiago of Vieques, PR. Reporters referred to
    Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York City; Judge Susan Webber Wright,
    U.S. District Court for Arkansas, who presided over the Paula Jones suit
    against the President; and former Senator Bill Bradley. The President
    also referred to LIHEAP, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.