[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.