[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book I)]
[March 29, 2000]
[Pages 547-561]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]
The President's News Conference
March 29, 2000
The President. Good afternoon. Please be seated. I would like to
begin by saying that yesterday's announcement that OPEC members will
increase oil production is good news for our economy and for the
American consumer. These increases should bring lower prices, which will
help to sustain economic growth here in America and also, and very
importantly, throughout the world.
It will also, I hope, bring relief to hard-pressed truckers in this
country, who have been especially hard-hit, and others who have high
[[Page 548]]
fuel costs, by providing a greater balance between oil production and
consumption.
While home heating costs and the price at the pump are both expected
to fall in the next few weeks, I urge the oil companies to do everything
they can to bring the savings to consumers as quickly as possible.
Meanwhile, we will continue to monitor developments in world markets
closely.
Since January, our administration has taken significant action to
address high oil prices, from helping more low income and elderly
citizens to pay their heating bills, to calling for the creation of a
regional market reserve in the Northeast, to asking Congress to
immediately reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
It is also very, very important for Congress now to act on my
proposal to strengthen our long-term energy security, including new tax
incentives and investments to support domestic oil producers and to
promote the development and use of alternative fuels and more efficient
energy technologies. We can become much more energy efficient and
support economic development if we do.
Congress also has an opportunity and a responsibility to make
progress on a number of other important issues for the American people
this year. First, we must work together to reduce the staggering toll of
gun violence in America by passing my proposal for more prosecutors and
stronger gun enforcement and by finally passing a strong juvenile
justice bill that closes the gun show loophole, requires child safety
locks for all handguns, and bans the importation of large capacity
ammunition clips.
For 9 months now, key congressional Republicans, egged on by the
NRA, have stood on a bill and stopped it from being considered by
keeping it from coming out of conference onto the floor of both Houses
for a vote. Fourteen days ago, a House resolution passed with bipartisan
support, sponsored by Representative Zoe Lofgren
of California. It simply said that House and Senate conferees should
meet to settle their differences on the bill that has been languishing
in Congress for too long. But after 14 days, the response to
Representative Lofgren's resolution has been deafening silence and still
no action. It appears the opponents of reform have run out of arguments,
so now they're just trying to run out the clock.
This makes no sense. With crime at a 25-year low and the Brady law
keeping guns out of the hands of a half-million felons, fugitives, and
stalkers, the argument is over. Gun safety measures do work and do not
interfere with the interests of ordinary hunters and sports people. So
it's time to build on our proven success and pass this commonsense
legislation.
Three weeks ago, I asked Congress to finish the gun bill and send it
to me by the anniversary of the Columbine tragedy, April 20th. That
deadline can still be met. So again, for the sake of our children, I ask
Congress to stop the delay. This should not be a partisan issue, and it
should lead to action, not argument.
There are some other issues I'd like to mention briefly. First, to
make sure the benefits of Medicare keep pace with the benefits of modern
medicine, we must reform Medicare and add a voluntary prescription drug
benefit. Three out of five older Americans lack dependable, affordable
drug coverage. Since I first raised the issue last year, virtually every
Member of Congress has voiced support for some kind of new prescription
drug benefit. I call on Congress to pass a bill that ensures all
Medicare beneficiaries the option to choose an affordable, accessible
drug benefit. If they do, of course, I will sign it.
Second, to protect the interests of 190 million Americans in health
plans, we should pass a strong, enforceable, bipartisan Patients' Bill
of Rights. This isn't a partisan issue in America. The House has already
passed a strong bill, but the insurance lobby continues to oppose it.
All we need is for the conference of Senators and Representatives to let
every Member in both Houses vote his or her conscience on a real
Patients' Bill of Rights. If it passes--and it will--I will certainly
sign it.
Third, we should raise the minimum wage by a dollar over 2 years. A
bipartisan majority in the House voted to do so earlier this month, but
Republican leaders held the pay raise hostage for tax increases for the
wealthiest Americans--tax decreases, excuse me--tax breaks that could
make it impossible to pay down the debt or strengthen Social Security
and Medicare. I ask again to the Congress: Do the right thing. Everyone
knows we need to raise the minimum wage. Send me a clean bill that
raises the minimum wage by a dollar over 2 years, and I will sign it.
Fourth, we must keep the economy growing, first by opening new
markets here at home in our hardest pressed communities, rural and
[[Page 549]]
urban, and second, by opening new markets for American products and
services around the world. Especially, we need to give our businesses,
farmers, and workers access to the world's largest consumer market in
China. There is no more important long-term international economic or
national security issue facing us today. Congress should pass permanent
normal trade relations with China this spring.
I will say again, this requires us to take no further action on our
part to lower tariffs or open markets. All the concessions are being
made by China in return for entering an open trading system. If we do
not do this, then the full benefits of all we negotiated will flow to
all the other countries in the WTO but not to the United States. The
economic consequences will be bad. The national security consequences
will be worse.
Fifth, we must invest more in our public schools and demand more
from them. I ask again Congress to endorse the principles in the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which
call for ending social promotion and funding only those things which
work to raise student achievement.
And we know that our students can't learn in schools that are
falling apart. Yesterday a bipartisan school construction bill was
introduced in the House that would provide $24.8 billion in tax credit
bonds to modernize up to 6,000 of our schools. If the Republican
leadership doesn't prevent it, Congress could vote on this proposal
tomorrow. I ask the Congress to pass this bipartisan legislation, and I
will sign it.
Sixth, to save the lives of thousands of young people who every year
get hooked on cigarettes, we must now pass legislation allowing the Food
and Drug Administration to require tobacco, like the dangerous substance
it is, to be regulated by the FDA. There is strong bipartisan support
for this idea, and I hope the Congress will pass it. If they do, I will
certainly sign it.
Finally, I would like to say a few words about the importance of
passing the supplemental budget requests without delay. This is urgent
funding for pressing needs at home and abroad: to help the families that
were victims of Hurricane Floyd; to provide needed energy assistance for
families struggling to cope with rising oil prices; to help keep illegal
drugs out of our Nation by supporting the Colombian Government's
courageous fight against drug traffickers; to keep the peace, provide
for our troops, and build stability in Kosovo; and to provide needed
debt relief to the world's poorest nations.
When Congress adjourns this summer, we ought to be able to look back
and say we took real steps to make America better. The issues have been
decided; they are clearly there. They have also been debated. The
American people want action, and they deserve it. The only thing left is
for the congressional leadership to reach across party lines and to work
with us to break the grip of special interests and do the people's
business.
Thank you very much.
Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].
Israel-Syria Peace Talks
Q. Mr. President, you said that the ball is in Asad's court. Is
that because you think that his insistence on the return of all Syrian
land under occupation in exchange for peace lacks logic or possibility?
The President. It's because he now knows
in great detail what the Israeli proposals were. And I believe, since
they have made an effort to be specific and comprehensive, if we're
going to make progress, they should now be able to know what his
specific and comprehensive response is on all the issues.
There is more than one issue here. And if we're going to have a
negotiation, I don't think it's enough to say, ``I don't like your
position. Come back and see me when I like your position.'' And I
understand how strongly he feels about it,
but if he disagrees with their territorial proposal, which is quite
significant, then there should be some other proposal, I think, coming
from the Syrians about how their concerns could be handled. And that's
what I meant by that. I did my best to try to just present what I
thought the options were. And if we're going to have a negotiation, it
takes two people coming up with ideas--or three sides, in this case, if
we are being asked to mediate it.
He, obviously, has the perfect right to
take whatever position he believes is in Syria's interests and whatever
he thinks is right. But if there is a genuine desire for peace here on
both sides, and I believe there is, and if both sides face certain
significant political constraints within their countries, and I believe
they do, then they both need to come up with some ideas and start
talking.
[[Page 550]]
I mean, the one thing there should be no doubt about is that there
is a real effort being made here to resolve this. And I think it is
clear that Prime Minister Barak would like to
resolve it, and I think President Asad would
like to resolve it. So once you know what the other side wants and you
don't think you can do it, then you ought to come up with some
alternative way of trying to respond to the underlying concerns that are
behind the position. That's what I've suggested, and I hope that will
happen. And meanwhile, the rest of us will keep working. I had a good
talk with President Mubarak yesterday about
that, and I hope we can continue to move forward.
Yes.
New York City Police
Q. Mr. President, three unarmed black men have been shot and killed
by police in New York City in the past 13 months. Do you believe that
the New York Police Department has a racial problem, and does that
department require Justice Department oversight?
The President. Well, I believe there is a Justice Department review
of the practices in the department, which I think has been a matter of
public record for some time. And in the Diallo case, there was a
specific reference to a review of the action there for possible civil
rights violations. I think the important thing I'd like to say is, first
of all, there's a lot of evidence that in city after city where the
crime rate has dropped--and the crime rate's gone down a lot in New
York; it's gone down a lot in every major city in America--there is now
ample evidence that the crime rate can go down, and the tenor of
community police relations can go up. And it's largely a matter of the
right sort of training, the right sort of policies, and consistent
effort there.
On the specific cases, I think I should say no more, particularly in
view of the latest incident, which was tragic. There is a good U.S.
Attorney in New York, and I have confidence that whatever decision is
appropriate will be made as all the facts come out, and that's what's
being done here.
But I think that the focus ought to be everywhere on having the
right kind of training and the right kind of policy direction to say
that we're going to bring the crime rate down, and we're going to bring
the quality of police community relations up. The two things are not
inconsistent. In fact, I think, generally they reinforce one another,
and I think that that's what we all ought to be working for in New York
and everywhere else in the country.
Randy [Randy Mikkelsen, Reuters].
President-Elect Vladimir Putin of Russia
Q. Mr. President, when you spoke with Russia's President-elect
Putin the other day, what did he tell you to indicate how he might run
the country, particularly in the areas of the economy and foreign
policy? And do you think it would be a good idea for you or your
successor to try to build the same sort of personal relationship with
Putin that you had with Boris Yeltsin, in view of criticisms that U.S.
policy was too focused on one individual?
The President. Well, first, he has expressed a genuine commitment
to economic reform--and the Russian economy is growing again--and a
desire to put together a first-rate team. And that was encouraging.
In foreign policy, he expressed an interest in working with us to
pursue matters of mutual concern, particularly in the area of arms
control and in some other areas. And I'm looking forward to working with
him on that.
With regard to the personal relations, I think that--President
Yeltsin, keep in mind, was the first
democratically elected President of Russia. And he had the sort of
personality that was difficult not to--it was difficult to remain
neutral in dealing with him. And I did like him very much, but I also
thought he was committed to democracy. And I think the fact that he
stepped down and that we had a genuine democratic transition in Russia
is some evidence of that.
So I think that regardless of personal chemistry--and I hope that
mine with President Putin will be good, and I hope that my successor's
will be good with him--the United States and Russia have vast national
interests that require them to work together on the things with which we
agree and to manage the difficulties between us where we have honest
disagreements. So it is the relationship that is important. And the
personal chemistry will come and go, depending on the personalities. But
the point is, the fact that I liked Boris Yeltsin didn't stop me from differing with him when we were
differing, and it certainly never stopped him from differing with me in
his classic style. And I don't expect that to change with President
Putin.
[[Page 551]]
But I think the relationship is very important to the United States
and to Russia, and it must be worked on constantly. We just have too
much in common, and we have to work on it.
Yes, Ellen [Ellen Ratner, Talk Radio News Service].
Electronic Commerce
Q. The Internet commission is meeting on electronic commerce, and
they are giving some proposals. What are your thoughts about what
proposals you think they should come out with? And also what about the
States, as electronic commerce becomes more and more available on the
net and may take revenue from the States?
The President. Well, I think-- first of all, I supported the
moratorium on taxes, and I saw where Mr. Gephardt did as well a couple of days ago, and I think that's good.
I think that we should.
I think that the process that has been set up is the right one. I
don't know what the solution is, but I think the States are going to
have to get together with these companies and figure out--first of all,
I don't think there should be any access taxes or new transactional
taxes or anything that will overly burden Internet commerce, because it
is making a real contribution to our economy.
The real issue is, as a higher and higher percentage of sales are
conducted over the Internet, what happens to the sales tax base of the
States? Are they going to have to go to a different kind of taxation?
Because they don't want to prejudice ordinary retailers. On the other
hand, some of the people in the Internet business think that any sales
tax will put them at a disadvantage because they have to charge shipping
charges.
So I think that is a matter that the States will have to work out.
Since they are basically State taxes, I think we ought to leave it to
them. But the Governors are highly attuned to economic development. They
will not lightly hurt their economies. But they also have
responsibilities to fund their schools and other public services. And I
just think they are going to have to work through it.
I think over the next year or so, you will begin to see some kind of
consensus emerge.
Yes, go ahead.
Israel-Syria Peace Talks
Q. Mr. President, are you prepared to deploy American advisers,
monitors, or troops on the Golan Heights to secure an Israeli-Syrian
peace accord? Did you discuss that at all with President Asad and, if
so, what was his response?
The President. We did not discuss it. So far, all the options being
discussed by Syria and Israel do not entail that. The only time I ever
even discussed it as a theoretical possibility was many years ago with
the late Prime Minister Rabin. And it was clear to me, even then, that
both sides were looking for a way to resolve this that would not require
an international force including American troops there, and I think they
are still trying to get that done.
Yes, John [John Cochran, ABC News].
Elian Gonzalez
Q. A possible confrontation is looming between the relatives of
Elian Gonzalez and Federal authorities. As a last resort, would you
permit Federal authorities or some kind of Federal agents to go in there
to forcibly take the boy so that he could be sent back to Cuba?
The President. Well, I think, surely, we are some distance from
that because they have to--they will, doubtless--if they do not prevail
in court, they will clearly appeal. And I would just hope that the law
would be followed by everyone, including them. I think that there is a
legal process here. I have done my best to avoid politicizing it. And I
think that the appropriate authorities, in this case the judges, will
make a decision. And when that is done, I think that the people on all
sides should accept the rule of the court. And I----
Q. So the relatives realize that is an option?
The President. What do you mean?
Q. That marshals might have to come in there and say, ``Release the
boy.''
The President. Well, that's--it's no more an option there than it
is for anyone else who doesn't--who says, ``I don't like the way the
courts decide.'' I don't think they should be singled out. I don't think
there should be any extra pressure put on them. But on the other hand, I
think that they should observe the rule of law; just like if they
prevail in court, the others should accept it. I have done my best not
to overly politicize this, and I don't think we should. There is a legal
process here. We ought to let it play out.
[[Page 552]]
Yes, go ahead, Jim [Jim Angle, Fox News]. I'll take you both. Go
ahead.
Senate Inaction on Nominations
Q. The Senate so far has not acted on two of your nominees to the
Federal Reserve Board and shows no inclination to do so. A third slot is
open as well. Do you have any realistic expectation of seeing action on
that front this year, or will those slots be filled by your successor,
whomever he may be?
The President. Well, I don't know. I hope that the Senate will
continue to move forward on appointments. We had some success with
judicial appointments recently. They are approving a smaller percentage
of nominees than is customary when the President is of one party and the
Senate majority is of another, and I think that is regrettable. But I
have worked with the Senate, and I have consistently sent the
appointments up there, for example, recommended by Republicans for
Republican slots on various boards and commissions. And I hope we will
have some progress there.
They are also holding up a couple of Ambassadors for reasons that
are totally unrelated to the nominees or any objection that they have to
their qualifications, and that's not good for America's foreign policy
interests. So I hope we will continue to see--we will have some breaking
of logjams the way we did on the judges just a few weeks ago.
Go ahead, Jim.
Mayor Alexander Penelas of Metro-Dade
County, Florida
Q. Mr. President, the mayor of Miami--back on the Elian Gonzalez
case--the mayor of Miami said today that he would withhold any
assistance from the city, including police, if Federal authorities
decide to return Elian Gonzalez to Cuba. And if there were any violence
in the streets, he would hold you and Attorney General Reno personally
responsible for that.
That seems to sound like an invitation for the community to block
Federal authorities and an assurance to them that the Miami police will
stand aside.
The President. Well, I like the mayor very much, but I still
believe in the rule of law here. We all have to--whatever the law is,
whatever the decision is ultimately made, the rest of us ought to obey
it.
National Rifle Association
Q. Mr. President, Charlton Heston is on the college speaking
circuit. And he said last night, ``It amazes me that the President is so
stubborn when it comes to guns.'' And he notes that there are already
22,000 gun laws on the books by his count, which he says that the
administration does not enforce.
Could you do more to enforce existing gun laws, and how do you feel
about the attack that the NRA has mounted on you and your
administration?
The President. Well, let me answer the question on the merits. Gun
prosecutions are up under our administration. And I have asked in this
budget for a significant increase to enforce the laws, including more
prosecutors, more ATF agents.
But again, I would make the main point: The NRA's position is that
if somebody does something wrong, throw the book at them, but do not
have any preventive measures when it comes to guns. They believe that
unlike every other area of our life, there should be no prevention. So
they say--they didn't want us to have the Brady bill. They said it was
too burdensome on people. But it hasn't been burdensome. They don't want
us to close the gun show loophole. They say it's too burdensome.
They're not even for the research into smart gun technology or for
banning large ammunition clips. There's a case where we have a law on
the books that can't be effectively enforced. These assault weapons are
illegal, but the ammunition clips, the big ammunition clips, can be
imported because of a loophole in the law, so the law we have can't be
effectively enforced.
And I think that it's just wrong to say that because of the second
amendment or because there are a lot of people who like to hunt and
sport shoot, that prevention plays no role in this.
How would you feel if I said, for example, the following: ``You
know, all these people that go through airport metal detectors, 99.999
percent of them are law-abiding, good people. And it is really a pain to
go through those metal detectors if you've got a money clip in your
pocket or a rodeo belt buckle on or something else, and you have to go
through two or three times or take your belt off or whatever. It's just
too burdensome, and I'm just sick and tired of it, and I'm going to take
these metal detectors
[[Page 553]]
down in the airports. And the next time a plane blows up, we're going to
throw the book at them.''
Now, you're laughing. But what if I said, ``You know, most people
who drive are good, honest, responsible people, and we should just--we
ought to repeal the laws, the driver's license laws, and repeal the
speed limits. And the next time somebody does something wrong and has a
25-car pileup, we'll just throw the book at them.''
I mean, a sensible society has a balance between prevention and
punishment. And when we put these 100,000 police out, a lot of people
said that wouldn't work. But the truth is, the community policing
program, I believe, has contributed more to lowering the crime rate by
preventing people from committing crimes in the first place than even by
catching them more quickly.
So all I can tell you is, I just disagree with that. And in terms of
their attacks on me, you know, that's what I get hired to do. That's
part of the President's job description, being attacked by people who
disagree with him. That doesn't matter. I still think Charlton
Heston's a great actor, and I love his
movies--[laughter]--and I still watch him every time I get a chance. And
I loved having him here at the White House not very long ago, when he
got one of the Kennedy Center awards.
But that's irrelevant to me. The only question is, what is best for
the safety of the American people? And guns are no different than any
other area of our life. We need a balance between prevention and
punishment.
Go ahead. Did you have a question? Go ahead, John [John King, Cable
News Network] and then Mark [Mark Knoller, CBS Radio].
Privacy Act and the White House
Q. Mr. President, a Federal judge, with whom you have disagreed in
the past, today said it was his opinion that you had committed a
criminal violation of the Privacy Act by releasing those Kathleen Willey
letters during the Independent Counsel investigation. What do you think
of that ruling? And do you agree with the take of one of your legal
advisors earlier today, who called this judge ``a loose cannon''?
The President. Did one of my legal advisors do that? [Laughter]
Well, he does seem to have somehow
acquired a significant percentage of the cases involving the White
House. That's an interesting story.
But anyway, you know, obviously, we don't agree with the ruling. And
I can say that when the decision was made to release those letters, I
didn't even have any conversation with anybody about the Privacy Act. I
never thought about it, never thought about whether it applied or not,
and decided to do it reluctantly only because it was the only way I knew
to refute allegations that were made against me that were untrue. And I
think they plainly did that, and I would not have done it otherwise.
But I think in terms of the law, there are other reasons that I
disagree with the law, with the idea that the Privacy Act, which was
generally designed to protect people who had business with the Federal
Government or were complaining about something that the Government was
doing or had reasons for confidentiality in having to give the
Government records--there were all kinds of reasons for the Privacy Act.
And so I just don't believe that it--I think that the opinion of our
counsel's office and many other judges who ruled on this is that that
act does not apply to this kind of correspondence in the White House.
And so we disagree, and we will proceed accordingly.
Yes, go ahead, and then Mark. Go ahead, Larry [Larry McQuillan,
Reuters].
Gasoline Tax and Oil Prices
Q. Mr. President, in light of the fact that OPEC has decided to
increase production, do you see it as a mistake for the Senate to
proceed with a bill that would suspend the gas tax? And if it reached
your desk, would you veto it?
The President. I don't expect it to reach my desk because there
seems to be bipartisan opposition to it in the House, including among
the leadership. But the problem I have with it, apart from what it might
do to the Highway Trust Fund and the spending obligations that have
already been incurred by the acts of Congress--the budgets--is that I'm
not sure that the savings would be passed along to the consumers, in
addition to that.
So I think there are a lot of questions about it, but I don't expect
it to pass. I do think, however, we shouldn't minimize the real bind
that some Americans have already faced by these high fuel costs. For
most of us who--of course, I don't drive myself anymore--but for most
people who don't have to drive a long
[[Page 554]]
way to work, it may seem an irritant but not a burden. But there are a
lot of Americans who do have to drive a long way to work, who work for
not very much money. And there are a lot of Americans who are in the
trucking business who have been really, really hurt by this.
So I think we have to just keep our powder dry, keep our options
open. But right now I think the prudent thing is to see how quickly
these prices can come down with the increase in production, and for the
House to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We've got to have
that reauthorization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. My authority
even to use that, even as a possible option, expires on Friday. And it's
very, very important for that to pass.
Go ahead, Mark.
United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair
Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you've got any thoughts or advice for
your friend British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the dilemma that he
faces--[laughter]--on whether he should take parental leave, as his wife
has suggested, when their next child is born? And if you don't want to
share your advice with us, what would you do in that situation?
[Laughter]
The President. I would like to have been a fly on the wall when
they first talked about that after it appeared in public. But you know,
I feel very close to both Tony and Cherie. I
don't want to get in the middle of that. [Laughter] But I think Mrs.
Blair said that there must be a ``third way'' to handle this challenge.
[Laughter] That's what she said, although I thought it was a good line.
First of all, I envy him very much. I think it's a great thing for
them, and it'll keep them young. And it's a wonderful thing. You know,
for me, even though Presidents have a very hard schedule--you know, we
keep very long hours--you have some more flexibility with your time
because we live above the store, so to speak. So I wouldn't have the
same burdens, if we were having a baby. I could spend a lot of time with
the baby and still work and work it out.
But I think that that's something they ought to work with. I do
think that the Prime Minister's government did a good thing to try to
provide fathers as well as mothers family leave, though. [Laughter] I
think it's a good policy.
Yes, go ahead. Go ahead, Mara [Mara Liasson, National Public Radio].
Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China
Q. Mr. President, you are lobbying Congress to pass permanent trade
relations for China. You're having a difficult time getting your own
Democrats to vote for it. Vice President Gore has said even though he is
for this agreement, if he was President he wouldn't negotiate trade
deals like this; he would only negotiate trade deals that included labor
and environmental standards. How is that stand of his complicating your
efforts to convince Democrats to vote for this?
The President. It isn't, because if we were having a trade
agreement with China, instead of an agreement on their accession to the
WTO, we could do that. But keep in mind, I favor--I believe I was the
first person in a national campaign ever to advocate the inclusion of
labor and environmental provisions in trade agreements. And we put some
in NAFTA. And we've gotten some good environmental improvements as a
result of it. Even though there are still environmental problems along
the Rio Grande River, a lot has been done. And there have been some
labor standards improvements as a result of it in some places. So I know
a lot of the people who wanted it aren't satisfied that we've done as
much. But it was a really groundbreaking effort.
I went to the International Labor Organization in Switzerland and to
the WTO and to Davos, Switzerland, to argue for a different approach to
trade. I don't think you can take economics, in a global economy that is
becoming increasingly globalized, and act as if it's totally separate
from child labor or other abusive labor practices or what the impact of
economic activity on the environment is.
That is not what this agreement is. I still believe if we can just
get everybody to read what this agreement does, it will pass handily,
because this agreement will create jobs for America. It will create jobs
for labor union members. It will grow the economy. I will say again, in
this--I mean, this is an agreement about the conditions under which
China enters the WTO. The United States doesn't lower any tariffs. We
don't change any trade laws. We do nothing. They have to lower tariffs.
They open up telecommunications for investment. They allow us to sell
cars made in America in China at much lower tariffs. They allow us to
put our own distributorships over there. They
[[Page 555]]
allow us to put our own parts over there. We don't have to transfer
technology or do joint manufacturing in China anymore. This is a
hundred-to-nothing deal for America when it comes to the economic
consequences.
And most of what we have negotiated, we will absolutely lose the
benefit of; if they go into the WTO and we don't approve normal
permanent trade relations with them, what will happen is, all the work
that Charlene Barshefsky and Gene
Sperling did to get those concessions will go
to Europe and Japan and all the people who didn't negotiate it. They'll
get all the benefits, and we won't.
So the consequences, the economic consequences are quite clear and
unambiguous for the United States. And so, I think to--and under the
rules of the WTO, we couldn't impose different standards on their
membership than were imposed on us or anyone else. See, that's the
difference in this.
I agree with the Vice President. When
he gets to be President--I believe he will be--he should continue to
work harder on integrating a whole vision of the global economy that
includes labor and environmental standards and the whole idea of what it
will mean to be part of a global society in the 21st century. I think
that's important.
But if people understand what this is, this is a vote on whether we
will support their membership. And the only way we can do it--and that
we will benefit from their membership. And the only way we can do it is
if they get permanent normal trade relations. It is not like we had a
bilateral trade agreement with China; that is not what this is about.
So if we were in bilateral negotiations, we could argue more
strongly for certain agreements on, for example, climate change, because
we'd be giving them something while they were giving us something. We're
not giving up anything here. These are the terms of their membership,
and it's a hundred-to-nothing deal for us. All we lose here is, if we
reject it, we will lose economic opportunities we will regret for 20
years, and we'll hurt our national security interest.
Yes, go ahead, Susan [Susan Feeney, Dallas Morning News].
Campaign Finance Reform
Q. Sir, could you comment on the Vice President's plan for a $7
billion democracy endowment to pay for congressional and perhaps
Presidential campaigns?
The President. Yes, I thought it was a good idea. I kind of wish I
thought of it myself. And I think--I'll tell you why I think it's a good
idea, very briefly. I think you can't ever really solve the problem in
campaign finance reform unless you have--because what is the problem?
The problem is that it costs so much money to communicate with people
over the mass media. So if you want to solve the problem, you either
have to have a different source of funding, or there have to be
requirements for free or drastically reduced media time. That's the
problem. Otherwise, you're just sort of rearranging where the money
comes from or how you do it.
I don't mean--I think McCain-Feingold is important, and let me
reiterate what the Vice President said. His proposal should not be
interpreted in any way as a reduction of the administration's support
for McCain-Feingold. The Shays-Meehan bill, which is the partner bill,
has already passed the House. Again, if we could bring it up to a vote
in the Senate, it would pass the Senate. A minority is blocking it in
the Senate. We can pass it in the Senate. And we ought to pass it,
because it will do some real good.
But the thing I like about it is, the American people have
reservations about public financing of campaigns. We even have some
trouble with the dollar check-off for the Presidential campaigns. This
proposes to give incentives to people to try to raise the money in a
more voluntary fashion from non-tax sources. So if it could be done and
if the trust fund could be filled up, I think it is actually quite a
good idea.
Go ahead, John [John Harris, Washington Post].
Leadership in China
Q. Mr. President, when you finished your trip to China 2 years ago,
you gave a news conference in Hong Kong in which you praised Chinese
President Jiang Zemin as a visionary, a man of good will, and someone
who was the right leadership at the right time for China. Since then,
China's record on abusing human rights and threatening Taiwan has, of
course, continued to be quite checkered. I wonder if today you still
think Jiang's leadership still deserves that praise you gave it, or if
your judgment today would have to be more severe?
[[Page 556]]
The President. Well, I still think, given the alternatives of who
could have been the President of China, that I'm aware of, and who could
have been the Premier, I think that President Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji are the best team
that could have been in their positions at that time.
As you know, I generally strongly disagree with the Chinese view
that to preserve stability in their society, they have to repress
political and sometimes religious activists to the extent that they do.
I think that's wrong. And there have been several cases in the last
couple of years that have deeply disappointed me.
I know that China has a historic--almost a phobia of internal
disintegration because of the problems that they faced in the last--if
you just take the last 100 years, problems that our society has never
faced. I know that they say that to some extent their cultural views are
not as oriented toward individual rights and liberties as ours are. But
I believe that the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights is a universal
document, and I believe it should be observed, and that's why we voice
our disagreements with China every year. And so I don't like that.
And I hope that--I will say again, I hope that we will see a
lessening of tensions across the Taiwan Straits. I support the ``one
China'' policy. But part of our ``one China'' policy is that the
differences between China and Taiwan must be resolved by dialog, and I
feel very strongly about it.
But having said all that, I still believe that, given the available
alternatives of which I am aware, these two men have been the best team
that was available for China. And I think this decision they've made to
join the WTO is a decision basically to modernize China in ways that
will go far beyond the economy. I think it will lead--when you get all
this telecommunications revolution permanently manifest in China, they
will not be able to control the Internet; they will not be able to
control access to information; they will not be able to control freedom
of expression. It will become a more free country and a more open
country. And that is a very, very good thing. That's another big reason
we ought to sign onto this, because we ought to be a part of their
opening. There will be more openness in the next 5 years, if China
enters the WTO and all the telecommunications revolution hits at full
force, than there has been in the last 20 years, since Deng Xiaoping
started this.
Yes, go ahead.
Campaign Finance Reform
Q. Mr. President, I'd like to return to campaign finance reform, if
I could. Vice President Gore, in announcing his proposal, called himself
an imperfect messenger on that subject. Isn't that an acknowledgement,
sir, of something you and he have long denied, that there was an attempt
to bend, if not break, the spirit, if not the letter, of campaign
finance laws during your reelection campaign?
The President. No, I disagree with that. He said--he has never said
that he knew that any of the money that he
raised was not lawfully raised. And I don't believe he did. And I can
certainly tell--you look at the difference in the way we reacted in 1996
and the way the other party reacted to allegations of illegal foreign
money, for example.
What did we do? We spent $4 million, that we had to go out and
raise, to put all these records on computer disks, to give it all to the
Justice Department, to make sure that everything was there. There was no
slow-walking, no stonewalling, no nothing. I was outraged when I found
out that the system for checking the backgrounds of contributors and
things like that had been dismantled without my knowledge or approval.
And I did not do all that work. And keep in mind, you mentioned
'96--we didn't have--we raised the funds we needed for my Presidential
reelection in 7 months. And I believe--you can go check this--but I have
been told that ever since the campaign finance laws came in, in the
seventies, that we had the smallest number of violations and fines of
any Presidential campaign, the Clinton/Gore '96 campaign did.
So--I know those funds were raised through the party, but I was as
appalled as the next person when I found out that we had taken funds,
that people had given us money that wasn't legal. We didn't need it to
win. It was wrong, and we did everything we could to try to correct it
and set it right. And we spent a lot of money doing it.
And so I think what he meant is that he had been involved in one
incident which he felt was unfortunate, and we raised soft money.
[[Page 557]]
And we've done it aggressively because we don't believe in unilateral
disarmament.
But I would just point out that 100 percent of our caucus, the
Democratic caucus in the Senate and the House--100 percent of us--and
the White House, the whole Democratic Party in Washington, DC, support
the McCain-Feingold bill. So if it had been up to us, it would have been
law years ago. And I think that's worth something.
So I think he's a good messenger. You
know, I think he was showing a little humility, and I think that's
always a good thing. We're all flawed in some way or another. But I
think that, you know, he passionately believes this. And he worked very
hard to come up with not only our support for McCain-Feingold, and his,
but some way to build on it to solve the real problem.
The thing that I worry about, for example, in addition to--you know,
most of you are concerned about the large contributions and the soft
money. But something else, I think, that should concern you--not so much
for me, because I have--it's easy for me to get around, and I have great
living conditions here, and the Vice President does. But it bothers me that Republicans and Democrats in
the House and the Senate have to spend the time they have to spend
raising the funds for their campaign. And the wear and tear on them,
getting on those airplanes, you know, once or twice a week, all the
time, when frankly, I think, if they were home resting, you know,
reading good books, spending time with their families--you're laughing.
This is a serious deal.
You think about it. This is a significant cost to our political
system, that these people have to spend the time they have to spend to
raise the funds required to wage their campaigns. It wears them out, and
I worry about them. You know, this is a hard enough job. And I really
believe that Congress would function better if they didn't have to spend
this much time. So that's another reason that I support not only McCain-
Feingold, but I think that this idea of the Vice President's, or something like this that would alleviate the
burden of spending so much time, I think the American people would get a
lot better Government, and the Members of Congress would get a lot more
sleep.
George [George Condon, Copley News Service].
China-U.S. Relations/Taiwan
Q. Mr. President, back on China for a second. This morning the
Chinese told Sandy Berger that U.S.-Chinese relations were at a critical
juncture. Do you agree that things are critical right now? And also, you
mentioned your continued support for a ``one China'' policy. Do you
envision any circumstances in which you could support Taiwanese
independence?
The President. Well, first, I think they're at a critical stage
primarily because of this--of the China-WTO decision before the
Congress. And secondly, I think that they would be at a critical stage
if we were to abandon our ``one China'' policy.
But you know, we made an agreement with the Chinese a long time ago.
When we normalized relations under President Carter, after a period of
years of developing them, starting with President Nixon's historic trip
there, it has been the unanimous bipartisan position of every President
and every administration that that was the right decision. It has also
been, to this point, the position of all elected leaders in Taiwan.
I remember, I was there as a Governor in 1986 at their Tientien Day
celebration, and they had a map of China which showed Taiwan being a
part of China, too, even though they had the political tilt the other
way.
And I think that they have so much to gain from each other. I mean,
the investment of Taiwanese in China, for example, as you know, is
enormous. And if they just keep talking, they'll work this out. They'll
find a way to work this out. The Chinese have been quite clear that they
were willing to be patient and to negotiate an arrangement which might
even be different from that in Hong Kong. And I think that Taiwan's got
a lot going for it. And I don't think either one of them needs this
crisis right now.
So I just think they need to--and I've been very impressed by the
President-elect in Taiwan and the way he's
handled this since his election, what he's had to say. And he seems to
be quite well aware of the weighty responsibility he now has and the
great opportunity he has. And so I just think they need--this is a big
issue. They need to get together, start the dialog again, and figure out
where to go from here.
[[Page 558]]
But if you look at the future that awaits the Chinese and that is
already embracing the Taiwanese, you know, they have huge market
percentage globally in a lot of the various components of the computer
industry, for example--huge. And I just don't think they want a
political problem to take all that away from their people. And they'll
find a way to do it. They need to stick with this framework and find a
way to get their dialog going again.
Yes, go ahead.
Chelsea Clinton
Q. Although not unprecedented in history, it's unusual for a
President's child to have such an important limelight as Chelsea had
during your state visit to the Asian subcontinent. With the First Lady
fully engaged in New York, will we be seeing more of Chelsea? Did she
express an interest to make more state visits with you, sir? How do you
think she did?
The President. Well, I think--she's like Hillary and me. All three
of us, I think, we want to savor the weeks and months we have ahead in
this, our last year. And I told her that if she could take time off from
school, I'd like for her to go with me on some of these trips.
I was--I think she was kind of taken aback by the attention she got
in India, in particular. And I think it was because she had been there
with her mother before, and they had both made a very favorable
impression in Bangladesh and India and Pakistan. So--but I think she was
quite surprised by it, and I don't think she sought it out in any way.
But you know, when your child grows up--I think any parent with a
grown child can identify with this--you're always sort of pleasantly
surprised when they still want to hang around with you a little. And
it's a wonderful thing. So for me, it is just a personal thing. And any
time I can be with her, I want to be with her.
Yes, go ahead.
White House E-Mail
Q. Mr. President, it was reported today that the White House had a
computer disk with Monica Lewinsky's E-mails. Sir, what do you think
about the notion that it wasn't turned over sooner, and how would you
assess your administration's overall handling of E-mail problems at the
White House?
The President. I don't know it, but I believe that was known years
ago. I believe that. I don't--I don't--I don't handle the E-mail things.
I can tell you this: my Counsel, Beth Nolan, is
going up to the Hill, I think tomorrow, to talk about this. I believe
that it is accurate to say that we had turned over everything that had
been found, and from what I understand, some things were not found
because they were in a different system. So now we're working out how to
cooperate with the Congress.
But my Counsel will talk about it tomorrow,
and I'm confident that whatever is the right thing to do, we will do.
Yes, go ahead.
``American Beauty''/Youth Violence
Q. It's coming up on the year anniversary of Columbine, and around
this time last year, you had a summit at the White House where you
talked not only about the gun aspect of violence but also the cultural
aspect in our society of it. And considering that we just had a movie
sweep the Academy Awards that had a pretty violent ending, I wondered
whether you felt the entertainment industry has made much progress in
this area?
The President. Well, first of all, I certainly don't believe that
movie glorified violence. I have never suggested that we should have
movies that--as long as there is a good ratings system--movies that
didn't have violence, which is part of a normal theme.
I thought it was an astonishing movie, actually. And I certainly
don't think anyone who watched it and understood it would think of it as
glorifying violence. I think it would be--I think a lot of the tragedy
and fear that is behind people who misuse guns would be apparent there.
And so I think, if anything, it was an antiviolence movie.
I think that some progress is being made. I think that there are
still problems with whether the ratings systems make sense and make
sense in relations to one another, between the movies, the TV programs,
and the ones that are being developed for the Internet--I mean, the
video games. And I just--I think there are still some improvements that
need to be made.
I know that Hillary said that she
thought there ought to be a uniform system, and I think that that
would--if it could be made more uniform, more simple, more
understandable, I think that would make a difference. And I still
[[Page 559]]
think there is too much gratuitous violence produced in entertainment.
But I don't think that applies, that's a fair criticism of ``American
Beauty.''
Let me say this. Since the year, though, since you mention that, the
National Campaign Against Youth Violence, with our Executive Director,
Jeff Bleich, has done a lot of work, and they're
doing a lot of work on city-by-city efforts and efforts by specific
sectors of the community and dealing with all these aspects. So there's
quite a lot of vigorous involvement. We've even got a Youth Advisory
Council now, and they're working.
So I've been pleased by what they're doing, and I hope we can get a
lot more people involved in it in my last year here. And then when I
leave, I hope that the new administration will take this up and keep it
going, obviously with whatever personnel they choose. But I hope this
will become a permanent fixture of the National Government's efforts as
well as the council we have within the Federal Government to work on
this until the youth violence rate goes way down. There's just tons of
work to do.
Yes, go ahead.
Situation in Kosovo
Q. A question, please, about Kosovo. A short while ago, a senior
Pentagon official was quoted as saying we're at ground zero in terms of
building a better and more secure society over there. And there have
been some instances that suggest U.S. troops are coming into more
danger. How does it appear that this situation will be in the future,
more dangerous, less dangerous? What are the stakes for us now?
The President. Well, first, I think that there clearly are still
deep-seated aversions in the Serbian and Kosovar-Albanian communities
for each other. There is a lot of fear, a lot of mistrust, a lot of
hatred. There is continuing activity of which we do not approve by some
radical elements in the Kosovar-Albanian community. There is some
evidence that the Serbs may be trying to work a little mischief in the
northern part of Kosovo.
But the main problem is, those people were oppressed for a decade,
and then they were all run out of their country. And there is still a
lot of bad blood, and it's not going to go away in a year or two. But I
think that the international community did a very good job of sending
the soldiers in. But we have to do more.
And I've been on the phone quite a lot about this, by the way, in
the last, oh, month or so, trying to make sure that all of us get our
money there on time and that we get more police there. We've offered
more police, and many of the European countries have, as well. We need
more civilian police there, and then we need to make sure that the money
flowing to Mr. Kouchner at the U.N. Mission
flows in a timely fashion so that people can be paid and that the civil
institutions can get up and going.
But you know, this takes time. I remember, when we started in
Bosnia, people thought it would never get any better, and it's better.
And there's still problems, but it's better. This is not going to be
done shortly.
But I would say this: I would urge the Congress to pass both the
military and the non-military components of the Kosovo supplemental
request, because if we want the Europeans to do their part--and they
are; I must say, in the last month or so they have really geared up the
speed with which they are moving their investments into Kosovo--then
we're going to have to do our part.
But you know, we have to find ways to get people, first of all, to
accept living normal lives, to provide basic protections, and then to
get used to, in halting steps, living and working together. And this is
not easy, but it can be done.
And when I think of the other peace processes in which I have been
involved, most of them really take hold after people have lived with the
insanity of their previous position so long that they are tired of it,
they are bored with it, and they are willing to lay down their hatred
and hurt. And we're still at a point where, in Kosovo, a lot of people
are carrying their hatred and hurt around, and a lot of others seek
political advantage over it.
All I can tell you is I think we did the right thing to go in there
and let those people go back home. I think it's better than it would
have been if we hadn't gone in there. And I think we are just going to
have to work like crazy to try to make it work. I never thought it would
be easy, but I do think it's possible.
Yes. Go ahead.
[[Page 560]]
Energy Policy
Q. Mr. President, tomorrow on the Hill, Republicans will accuse you
of a failed energy policy when we look at America's continued dependence
on foreign oil. Even a Member of the Democratic Senate says that not
enough has been done, that we have grown complacent.
And when you look at the popularity of sport utility vehicles in
this country, sir, have you done enough, both practically and
psychologically, to promote the idea of weaning this country off of
fossil fuels?
The President. Well, maybe not. But I've done a lot more than the
Congress has. And I think it is ironic that they would say that, since
for years now I have been pleading with them to give us some more tools
to promote the development of alternative fuels and to promote both the
manufacture and the purchase of energy-saving technologies.
You know, I have talked until I was blue in the face about this for
years, and a lot of times it's like you're alone in the forest and no
one hears you. I felt like the tree falling in the forest. If no one
hears it, did it fall and make a sound? You know, I--maybe we should do
more, but maybe now people will be listening more.
Of course, different Members have different takes on it. Some
Members think we ought to have more oil production at home, and for some
Members, that means we ought to have oil production offshore in places
we don't have it now. But if you look at all of our proven reserves, I
don't think anyone really believes that we can become more energy
independent unless we become more energy efficient and develop more
alternative fuels. That is the long-term answer here. And believe me, if
the Congress--if any Member of Congress of either party wants to do more
on that and is ready to do more than I have done in the past and ready
to advocate something beyond what I've advocated in the past, I will be
the first person to applaud that person. And I will work with them in
any way, shape, or form I can.
I hope very much that this is a little bit of a wakeup call for all
of us and that we can put this on the front burner and get some action.
And I think--I am like everyone else--after you say something several
times and you look like you're not going to make any progress on it, you
tend to go on to something where you can make progress. And it was hard
to get people interested in it, especially when oil prices dropped to
$12 a barrel. And I think--I hope this has been a sobering experience
for the American people and for all of us and that we can now do more.
And I'm certainly prepared to do more and prepared to give others the
credit for taking the lead. I don't care about that. And what we
should--we can do a lot, a lot.
Again, let me just review one or two of the things that I said in
the State of the Union, just very briefly. We are reasonably close, I
believe--most of the scientists I've talked to think that we're
reasonably close to cracking what I would call the fuel-to-biofuel
conversion problem. If you, for example, if you want to produce ethanol
today, it takes about 7 gallons of gasoline to make about 8 gallons of
ethanol. You wind up a little ahead, but not much. Scientists believe
that if we can unlock the chemical problem that is analogous to cracking
the crude oil molecule that made gasoline possible, we can get down to a
conversion ratio of 1 gallon of gasoline for 8 gallons of ethanol. If
you do that and then we get 80-mile-a-gallon cars, you're looking at 500
miles to the gallon, in effect. So that's important.
I have done everything I can, and the Vice President has taken the lead on this partnership for new-generation
vehicles, where we've worked quietly now for over 7 years to work with
the auto companies to develop high-mileage vehicles, vehicles that run
on electricity that have self-regenerating batteries, so you don't have
to pull in every 80 or 90 or 100 miles to recharge them, or dual-fuel-
use vehicles that are beginning to come on the market.
Now, on the sports utility vehicles, I think, you know, the American
people, they want to drive those vehicles. They like those big vehicles.
But if they're going to drive them, we're either going to have to find a
way for them to get better mileage or run on alternative fuels over the
long run. And I think we will be able to do that.
In the--and let me just give you one other example. I don't want to
beat a dead horse, but one of my proposals was to give tax incentives
for the manufacturers and to purchasers--for consumers--to buy certain
energy-efficient materials. The National Home Builders has worked with
HUD and the Energy Department to build lower cost housing for working
people
[[Page 561]]
on modest incomes in various places that cut the fuel bills by 40 to 60
percent, just by using better insulation, new solar panels that look
just like ordinary shingles on roofs, and glass that lets in more light
and keeps out more heat and cold.
These things are out there now, and we just need to increase the
percentage of people that are using them. If you can afford the right
kind of light bulb, which may cost you 2\1/2\ times as much, it'll burn
4 or 5 times longer and can save a ton of greenhouse gas emissions just
over the life of a big light bulb.
So there are lots of things we can do, but we need to create some
markets for doing this. And there hasn't been a lot of interest in it, I
think, probably since the high prices of the seventies. But even at
modest oil prices, the profits are there if we can just highlight this.
So I hope--I will say this: I think I should do more. I hope I can do
more. But I'd like their help to do more, as well.
Thank you.
Note: The President's 189th news conference began at 2:10 p.m. in the
East Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to President
Hafiz al-Asad of Syria; Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel; President
Hosni Mubarak of Egypt; former President Boris Yeltsin of Russia;
Representative Richard Gephardt; Cuban youth Elian Gonzalez, rescued off
the coast of Florida on November 25, 1999, whose custody the Immigration
and Naturalization Service decided in favor of his Cuban father;
Charlton Heston, president, National Rifle Association; U.S. District
Judge Royce C. Lamberth; President-elect Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan; and
Bernard Kouchner, Special Representative of the Secretary-General and
head of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo. A
portion of this news conference could not be verified because the tape
was incomplete.