[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book I)]
[January 18, 2000]
[Pages 71-78]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]
Interview With Francine Kiefer and Skip
Thurman of the Christian Science Monitor in
Boston
January 18, 2000
Elian Gonzalez
Q. Mr. President, I know your time is valuable. Let me start my
recorder here. The first thing I wanted to ask you, there have only been
a couple of times in this century that Congress has come together, got
their heads together enough, both sides of the Congress, to come
together and pass legislation to give somebody citizenship. It happened
with Winston Churchill, a few other people. I wanted to know if Congress
does--it looks like the first thing they're going to do when they come
back into town is work on the Elian Gonzalez case. If they did pass a
private bill in both Houses and they feel like politically they've got
enough backing to do that, what would you do with that bill if it got to
your desk?
The President. I don't know. I haven't thought about it. I think it
would be--this is not Winston Churchill, for one thing. You know, I
don't think that Congress should put its--unless they know more about
the facts than I do, I don't think they should put themselves in the
position of making a decision that runs contrary to what the people who
have had to do all the investigation have done.
I think that, obviously, if they believe the INS made a mistake,
their decision is subject to challenge in Federal court. And the
Congress--even Members of Congress can petition to be heard there. But I
think that we're setting a--I think that it would irrevocably lead
people to the conclusion that this was much more about politics than it
was whether that little boy ought to be taken away from his
father.
They're basically taking a position that if you live in Cuba, if we
can take you away from your father, you're better off--your parents. And
I think that's--the INS reached a different decision, having
exhaustively looked at what was best for that child.
As you all know, I have no sympathy for the Castro regime. I signed the present bill. I think it is tragic
how they have blown every conceivable opportunity to get closer to the
United States. Just as we were making progress, they murdered those
pilots. So I'm not sympathetic there. But I think that we need to think
long and hard whether we're going to take the position that any person
who comes to our shores who is a minor, any minor child who loses his or
her parents should never be sent home to another parent, even if that
parent is capable of doing a very good job, if we don't like the
Government of the country where the people lived.
And again, I say I am not--I have no brief for the Castro government or for many of their policies. I think the
way he has attempted to politicize this is also terrible. It's not just
the Cuban-Americans that have attempted to politicize it. He has
responded by attempting to politicize it. So this poor little boy is 6
years old. He has scars from his mother's death of which he can only be
dimly aware. And making a judgment about what is in his best interest
and what is most likely to give him a stable, healthy, whole childhood
and allow him to grow into an adult as a solid person, I'm sure, may not
be free of difficulty. And I just think that the decision ought to be
made, insofar as possible, independent of countervailing political
pressures.
State of the Union Address
Q. Mr. President, the State of the Union is right around the corner,
so I guess is the State of the Union part of the interview. In the
previews that you all have made available of what's coming up, it seems
like most of it is beefing up programs that you already have, like
today's announcement, and returning to----
[[Page 72]]
The President. It's quite a beef up. This is the biggest thing ever
done--yes----
Q. Quite a beef up--which is--or trying to get back to unfinished
business. And I was wondering whether you were planning on trying to go
for some new breakthrough issue this year, or whether that's not really
possible in a last year.
The President. Oh, I think that when you see everything we recommend
in the aggregate, you might think that in terms of specifics, it's the
most ambitious set of proposals since my first year.
Last year was a very ambitious speech, but in terms of what I asked
the Congress to do, it required some willingness on their part to meet
with me and work through a joint position on Social Security, for
example, or joint position on Medicare. I still think we may get a joint
position on Medicare, and we may get part way there on Social Security.
I'm still going to try to persuade them to take all the interest savings
that we get from not spending the Social Security surplus and putting
that in the Trust Fund; that will take Social Security out to 2050,
beyond the life of the baby boom generation.
So I'm still not sure we won't make that, but if you just look at
the specific policy proposals I will make, not just in the unfinished
business area but in the new area--and the unfinished business is
important. I mean, you've got the Patients' Bill of Rights, closing the
gun show loophole, and banning the import of large ammunition clips.
You've got the minimum wage. You've got the hate crimes legislation, the
``Employment Non- Discrimination Act,'' the prescription drug for
Medicare. So we've got a huge--even though we got a great deal done at
the very end of the last Congress, there's a big unfinished business
list.
And then, as you know, I've been rolling out a lot of these new
proposals. And actually, there will be a couple of things that will be
quite new that I'm not prepared to release yet. But I will have a couple
of new proposals. But I think that the most important thing to me is to
keep the country moving in this direction and aggressively embracing
change, the right kind of change. That, I think, is critical to keep the
recovery going, to keep bringing more people into the process of
prosperity, and to keep bringing the country together. I think that's
very important.
So a lot of what I will recommend that is new is certainly
consistent with what I've been doing for 7 years. I came to office with
a very clear idea of where I thought America was off base, what I
thought we ought to do, what kind of governing strategy I would have.
And I believe that it's working. And I think people--some people will
say, ``Well, he does things in increments.'' But if you walk down the
road 7 years and you look back--I mean, if I told you 7 years ago, after
12 years of quadrupling the national debt, I'll give you in year 6 and 7
the first back-to-back balanced budget surpluses in 42 years, from a
$300 billion debt, you'd say that's not an incremental change; that's a
big change. But you do those things in small steps.
If you look at the millions of people--we've cut the welfare rolls
about in half--it happened in incremental steps. But it's a huge thing
in the aggregate. And all the economic changes--we've got the lowest
African-American, Hispanic unemployment rate ever recorded, the lowest
female unemployment rate in 40 years, lowest poverty rate in 20 years,
lowest single parent household poverty rate in 46 years. So you take it
in steps, but if you keep walking in the same direction, all of a sudden
your steps constitute a giant leap forward.
Federal Budget
Q. In that larger mosaic, how do you--of your record and your legacy
in what you've done incrementally--down the road, how important will it
be if, 15 years from now, we haven't made significant advances on the
debt? I mean, already your budget soon will break the '97 Balanced
Budget Act. And certainly the surpluses are far greater than was
predicted at that time. But how will history judge this generation of
leadership if significant----
The President. I think we should pay the debt off. And I think we
should do it in 15 years. And the proposals that I will make are
consistent with that, based on our latest numbers.
Now, I have two things to say about the '97 budget caps. They were
very severe, and they were thoroughly shredded by the Republican
majority last year by turning everything into an emergency. I mean, the
census was an emergency; Head Start was an emergency; continuing defense
expenditures were emergencies. So the caps are not disappearing this
year; the caps were shredded last year.
[[Page 73]]
So the real question is--the question I asked our people to look at,
and we spent lots of time on it the end of last year--is whether we
could present to the Congress a budget that was not full of gimmicks,
that reflected what the Congress spent last year, inflation in areas
where with--had that--for example, in the defense area where we know
they intended--and still could we do that based on what we now believe
the figures are and what our costs are in health care programs and other
things and still get this country out of debt in 15 years and still not
spend the Social Security surplus.
And the answer, we believe, is yes, that you can avoid spending the
Social Security surplus, continue to get the country out of debt in 15
years, and have a spending program for the next 5 years that reflects
the decisions made by the Congress in the last year, without all those
gimmicks. And you could still have a modest tax cut, nothing anywhere
near the high end of what people had talked about in the campaign and
what the Congress tried to do last year, but you could still have a
modest one.
So I think this is an honest budget that is fiscally responsible and
still gets us out of debt. And I believe that we ought to embrace these
big challenges, and I think that our children will judge us very well if
we do and somewhat harshly if we don't. Because in my lifetime--you've
heard me say this over and over again, but I'm not young any more. I'm
53 years old. In my lifetime we've never had this combination of
economic prosperity, social progress, national self-confidence, with the
absence of internal crisis or external threat. Not that we have no
problems at home or no threats abroad, but none of it is sufficient to
derail us from trying to imagine the future and then go after it.
And it seems the one--that one of the elements of that future ought
to be a commitment to take America out of debt. Another element of the
future ought to be a commitment from going to--what I said today--trying
to make our country the safest big country in the world. Another element
of that future ought to be trying to prove that we can grow the economy
and dramatically reduce the global warming by maximizing technology. We
ought to be able to prove that we can equalize the economic opportunity,
that we can--without holding anybody back, that we ought to be able to
bring economic opportunity to these poor people in poor places that
haven't had it.
And I think in all those areas, in the education area, in the health
care area, I think we will be judged by whether we made the most of what
is truly a magic moment. The last time we had this sustained rate of
economic growth with low inflation was in the early sixties, about 40
years ago. And if you look at the indicators now, compared to then in
the aggregate, I think you would say our economy is stronger today, but
there were a couple of years there where unemployment averaged under 4
percent and without much inflation.
And it all came apart, first trying to come to grips with the civil
rights crisis at home and then trying to pay for the war on poverty and
the war for equal opportunity and civil rights and the war in Vietnam
abroad. So that, basically, we had a moment there that we lost, not only
because we became divided as a people politically but because our system
simply could not accommodate building the America of our dreams.
Q. So what do you see as a threat to that? I mean, if the Vietnam
period and all of that was a threat, what's the threat to that now?
The President. I don't think there is one. That's why I think we
have no excuse not to really--this should be a truly historic moment in
America. I can't think of any time in our history when we've had this
sort of opportunity. You might argue that it was similar, that the times
which produced Theodore Roosevelt's administration, and then Woodrow
Wilson's, were similar, where we were an emerging global power, we were
basically at peace, where the world was becoming more integrated.
You go back and read McKinley's speeches around the turn of the
century--he was the first President of the last century--he said a lot
of this. It's quite interesting. And so you might argue that that was a
time like this. But I think that--and I think it is a time in our
history that most closely parallels this.
If you go back to the early 19th century, you can find historical
parallels in the exploration of Lewis and Clark and the acquisition of
the Louisiana Territory. But the world was so different then, it's hard
to do.
So I just don't think we ever have had a time like this. It's not to
say we have no foreign crises or security threats. We do. But they can
all be managed. And the cost of managing them now is not inconsistent
with what our obligations are in science and technology, in education,
in
[[Page 74]]
economic opportunity, across the range of other areas.
Agenda on Race
Q. Mr. President, you spoke a while ago about how you wanted to keep
pushing for change. And I was thinking what's happened to minorities
under your administration, that they have seen a pretty drastic
improvement in their standard of living because of the strong economy.
But one could also say that attitudes toward race maybe haven't changed
that much. And I was wondering whether there was something that you
thought you could still do about attitudes towards race in your last
year.
The President. Well, I think they have--first of all, I dispute the
premise. I think they have changed. I think that we continue to see
evidence that it's still a real problem. I mean, the unfortunate
comments that the Atlanta baseball player made,
that's really troubling. On the other hand, the fact that Hank
Aaron and Andy Young met with him is encouraging. I mean, you know, 30
years ago that wouldn't have happened.
I think--last night I watched--I was working on the State of the
Union last night, and I had basketball on, on TV, muted. And I was
watching the Minnesota Timberwolves play the Indiana Pacers. And they
beat them on a buzzer-beater shot. And then they interviewed Kevin
Garnett, who is a very young man. I think he's
the highest paid player in basketball, but he's very young, didn't
finish college. And they asked him what Dr. King meant to him, and how
his life had changed, and you could just see--of course, 30 years ago no
young African-American would be making that kind of money and would have
the kind of slant he had.
So I think things are changing. But I think what I have to do--I
think there are three things generally I should be doing.
Number one, I think we have to continue to try to close the
differential in education and economic advancement. For example, the
African-American high school graduation rate right now is about equal to
the white, non-Hispanic high school rate, which is quite extraordinary.
But the college-going rate is different. And the Hispanic dropout rate
is still quite a bit higher, largely because of the immigrants, first--
immigrants. So I think that this economic empowerment agenda I have, and
the education agenda, the Hispanic education initiative, all those
things, closing those gaps, that's important.
Number two, I think we need to continue to have a vigorous
enforcement of the law and highlighting those things we do not agree
with.
And number three, I think we have to continue the activities of the
President's Office on One America. I think we need to continue to
appoint more people from different backgrounds. We need to continue to
have more meetings. We need to continue to highlight the problems. And I
need to continue to speak out and work on this in America.
I said three, but I like to say the fourth thing is I think that
when our country continues its mission to try to end racial and ethnic
and tribal and religious conflicts around the world, I think that has a
reverberating effect here at home. I can give you just one very concrete
example.
Chelsea and I went to Kosovo together, and we went to the military
camp. And you have this highly racial and ethnically diverse American
military, very conscious of what they were doing in Kosovo and trying to
end ethnic cleansing, and also very aware that insofar as they work
together and live together and create a genuine community where
everybody was treated equally, the power of their example could have as
big an impact on the people of Kosovo as the force of their arms.
So I don't think this--this is the sort of work that may never be
done, since in all of human history we haven't succeeded in rooting out
people's fear or suspicion of those who are different. And there always
will be those radicals which seek to advance themselves by demonizing
groups of others. But I think we're doing better there. I think we're
doing--and I think there is a lot more we can do.
Cyberspace Warfare and Cyberterrorism
Q. The Chinese Army's daily newspaper has signaled its willingness
to aggressively use the Internet as a venue for warfare, to attack our
military websites and our military--attack us through on-line methods.
You in your critical infrastructure report recently sort of achieved
parity with that and--with your ROTC Corps idea and that sort of thing.
But I'm wondering what precedents that sets. Even what we did in the
conflict with Serbia, the precedents that that sets is sort of like
fighting each other, attacking each other's satellites. Are you
concerned about the precedent that using on-line
[[Page 75]]
warfare in any form will have for future generations, since we are the
most vulnerable set on the planet from E-commerce to a lot of our
Government installations?
The President. Because we're more open, you mean?
Q. Yes sir, because we're more open.
The President. And more Internet----
Q. So we bring down--in a hypothetical conflict, we bring down the
PLA's air defense system, and they just take out our 911 systems and all
that--turn out all the lights at every 7-Eleven in the country.
The President. Well, I think, first of all, it is unrealistic to
think that such systems would not be the targets of our adversaries. I
think they're far more likely to be the targets of terrorists, organized
criminals, narcotraffickers, than other countries.
I believe that the answer is that we have got to be as strong as we
possibly can be in the whole area of cyberspace safety. We've got to be
as resistant to cyberterrorism and assault as we possibly can.
And interestingly enough, this is something we get to practice on
every day a lot, because every day there are always people trying to
break into our computers, break into the Defense Department computers,
break into various security computers. And so we get to work at it every
day. And we've given a lot of thought to how you protect power systems,
how you protect telephone systems, how you protect financial records.
And so all I can say is that the question you asked confirms what I
said at the National Academy of Sciences, I guess over a year ago. I
think that's when I spoke there. We have got to be prepared to deal with
the explosion of technology in ways that could threaten our security,
not only on data systems themselves. Another thing you're going to see--
everything involving technology is getting smaller, the miniaturization
of everybody. Everybody's got their little notepads now.
Q. I just got the Palm Pilot.
Q. He's way ahead.
The President. You ought to see old Kris's Palm Pilot. It's got
everything from his great grandfather's birthplace--I just saw the
newest AT&T and Nokia telephone that fits right inside the palm of the
hand. Now, that same miniaturization process is bound to go on with
weapons. So you're not only going to have the attempt that you mentioned
to invade, to invade telecommunication systems and computer systems, but
you're also going to have a miniaturization system that will affect
chemical and biological weapons and other sophisticated traditional
weapons, which will make them harder to detect, easier to use, easier to
comport. You may have composite materials that don't show up on airport
scanners. All these things are going to happen.
That's why we're going to make cars out of different materials, make
weapons out of different materials. And in the whole history of combat
among nation-states and before that, feudal groups or tribal groups, the
normal thing that happens is a weapons system will be developed, and it
will enjoy a period of success, and then a defense will be developed to
it, and then there will be equilibrium until a new weapons system is
developed that will give some dominance, and then you'll have some
equilibrium. What we're trying to do with this massive investment we're
making against bioterrorism, chemical terrorism, nuclear terrorism,
cyberterrorism, is to collapse the timespan between offense and defense.
One of the things, for example, that we really hope that will come
out of the human genome is that we'll be able to develop software
programs that will immediately adjust the antidote for certain viruses.
If there's a biological warfare attack and you've got a mad scientist
somewhere who changes the--I'm just making this up--but who changes the
anthrax virus, for example, in some way it's never before been changed,
and so then this person--and then they spread it over 400 people in some
town, and they begin to come around--what we're attempting to do with
the human genome project, what I think one of the corollary benefits
will be is that you'll have software packages developed so that you will
be able to immediately analyze that, and someone will tell you exactly
how you would have to modify the antidote to anthrax to meet the new
strain that is resistant to all known antidotes.
So this whole struggle, as things change faster and faster and
faster and you have the miniaturization of weapons systems to parallel
with the miniaturization of other communication systems, will be to keep
closing the gap between offense and defense until there is close to no
difference as possible.
[[Page 76]]
That is the struggle for security in the 21st century. And I have
tried to put America on that path. Without frightening the American
people, without raising alarm bells, I've tried to make sure that when I
left office we would have in place a properly funded, properly staffed
system to prepare for the security threats of the 21st century. All the
press goes to the high-dollar hardware systems--should we have a
strategic defense initiative, a missile defense.
Q. Mr. President, we're running out of time here, so do you mind if
we move on to some other topic?
The President. This is a big issue. All I'm saying is--I'm not--
missile defense is important if we can do it. And missile threat is
important. But you should know that I consider both the cyberthreats and
the miniaturization of these other threats very significant. But I do
believe when I leave office we'll have for my successor and for our
country a system that will enable us to deal with it.
President's Spiritual Growth
Q. Since you are talking to the Christian Science Monitor, we are
interested in your spiritual journey, which you've mentioned a couple
times. And you've talked about how amazed you've been by the power of
forgiveness, especially in the last 18 months. And I was wondering if
you could share with us what your own spiritual growth has been. Have
you found any Bible passages particularly dear? Have you found any
concepts that you've held onto that have helped promote your own
spiritual growth? Could you just describe what's been happening with
your own growth in the last 18 months?
The President. Well, this is a subject I think people in public life
should address with some amount of humility and reluctance, not because
people shouldn't be willing to affirm their faith but because we should
remember the story that Christ told, in effect, bragging about the
people that prayed in their closets instead of on the street corner. So
I say that with all--but having said that, I think the thing that has
struck me is that in this journey I have made to try to--that really has
been a lifetime journey for me, and it's certainly something that's
deepened since I've been President and something that I had to really
focus on the last 2 years--I think the thing that I have really had to
work on is trying to gain some spiritual anchor that will enable me to
give up resentments and disappointment and anger and to understand that
in seeking forgiveness I had to learn to forgive.
It's easy to ask for forgiveness. A lot of people think it's hard,
but I think it's--when you plainly need it, it's easy enough to ask for.
But we're taught over and over again that we can't get it unless we give
it. And I think what is--you know, there's the wonderful Scripture where
people are admonished to forgive those not just in the same measure that
they're forgiven but 70 times 7.
I think that what I have gained more than anything else is a certain
humility in recognizing how important forgiveness is, but how it doesn't
count and it can't count unless you can give it as well as ask for it.
And that basically--I used to see life as a struggle for always learning
more things, cramming more things in my head, anywhere I could do more
things, you know. Now I see the search for wisdom and strength is also a
process of letting go. A lot of things you have to let go of.
And I've been helped a lot by a lot of these ministers that have met
with me and the Scriptures they've given me to read; by a lot of
Christians and even sects of Christians have written me around the
country with tracts on forgiveness, how you merit it in what you do and
how you have to give it in turn; and also a number of people with whom I
have worked as President.
I learned a lot--I've had on more than one occasion the opportunity
to talk to Mr. Mandela about how he came to
forgive those who were his oppressors, you know, and how he felt about
it and how he--what kind of forgiveness he ever sought for himself. I've
really tried to deal with this in a very serious way, and I think I've
learned quite a lot about myself in the process. And it's an ongoing
effort. But I have to remember every day that human nature is so prone
to find self-respect in some element of one's character that you think
is superior to someone else, and a lot of this is a matter of letting
go. You just have to learn to let that go, just get up every day, try to
do the best you can, be the best person you can be, and continue that
individual journey of growth.
And I work on it--hard. And it's been a very humbling experience,
but I think very much worthwhile for me, personally.
[[Page 77]]
Chelsea Clinton
Q. Mr. Lockhart is giving me the one-more-question signal, so I
thought what I might do is use an old Wolf Blitzer trick which is----
The President. Which is what--ask three questions?
Q. Ask a question with the second question. [Laughter] Well,
briefly, you mentioned Chelsea just a moment ago. And as you know, the
White House can be a pretty tough place on first kids. But the thing you
always hear everybody talk about is the poise and the grace that she has
now as a young woman. I'm wondering basically what you attribute that
to, and how you feel the press has been on her--if they've kind of been
giving her a fair shake as the kind of parameters were laid out from the
very beginning?
And secondly, not at all related to that, is you were heavily
criticized for the FALN commutations, and there's a lot of irony in
that, in that you're the least pardoning President in the modern
history. You've issued fewer pardons that any President in the modern
era. I'm wondering why you haven't availed yourself of that Presidential
power more, since aside from the FALN thing, there's typically very
little fallout for that, using that power.
The President. Well, let me say first, I think--let me answer the
first question first. Say exactly what you asked me about Chelsea again.
Q. The thing you hear everybody talking----
The President. Oh, how the press treated her.
Q. How the press treated her, but how she, under the hothouse
environment that the White House can be, with all the looking in----
The President. I feel, first of all, very grateful that even though
I don't agree with everything--first of all, I think it's impossible to
generalize about ``the press,'' and it will become harder and harder to
refer to something called ``the press.'' Where is the press in the
publications in the merger of America Online and Time Warner, right? So
I'm always reluctant--I sort of knew what that was, I thought, when I
got elected. I'm not sure I know what that is anymore.
But I think that, by and large, all elements of the press, with some
very few exceptions, have been willing to let my daughter have her life
and try to grow up and deal with all the challenges that entails and the
extra burdens of her parents being in public life and all the
controversies and ups and downs we've exhibited, without trying to shine
the glare on her. And I am profoundly grateful for that, because I think
every young person needs the chance to find his or her own way to
maturity. And it's very difficult when your parents are as publicly
exposed and prominent in daily life as her parents are.
And it's made more difficult if you are prematurely turned into a
public figure. I think to some extent she is one anyway, whether she's
in the press or not. But I think basically the press has been sensitive
to that. And I am profoundly grateful for that.
And I hope that the life that her parents have lived in public life
has been--has offered more good than bad for her, as a child growing up.
And she's a young woman now, and I hope that, on balance, it's been a
positive thing. We love her very much, and we hope that it's--and
believe that, on balance, it's been good.
Now----
Presidential Pardons
Q. On the related question of the pardons--[laughter].
The President. Let me say about----
Press Secretary Joe Lockhart. She's
going to get a pardon. [Laughter]
The President. I want to say something here that nobody has ever
given me a chance to say in public before. This is important to me. And
I've been working on this hard. I did not know until--ironically, until
the controversy over the FALN thing that I had, apparently, both
commuted fewer sentences and issued fewer pardons than my predecessors.
I did not know that, but you should know what my generic attitude is.
Generically, I believe a President should rarely commute sentences
and should have good reasons for doing so if he does, knowing that that
will always be somewhat controversial--that is, if you attenuate a jury
or a judge's sentence. That's what I did in the FALN case. I did it
after Chuck Ruff, my lawyer, did an
extensive survey. I thought it might be controversial. I regret it
became as controversial as it was. I still think, based on the facts of
those cases, I did the right thing. I still believe strongly that I did
the right thing.
And I can tell you categorically there was no politics in it, that
Chuck Ruff handled this, and everything he
says about it is true. I think everyone knows him as being an extremely
[[Page 78]]
truthful person. He handled it entirely, and only he handled it. And
then he dealt with me on it.
Now should we do some more commutations? Perhaps we should. But I
think I would probably always be on the low side of that. On the other
hand, I tend to have a much more generous attitude on pardons,
particularly because under the Federal system--I think people ought to
get their voting rights back; I don't think they ought to be
discriminated about in getting jobs or keeping jobs or getting contracts
if they have discharged their sentence and they've been out in law-
abiding society.
Now, over time, before I ever got there, there developed a whole
apparatus in the Justice Department which is its own independent
bureaucracy for evaluating these things. And the tradition is that the
President doesn't rule on them, one way or the other, until you get all
these recommendations sent to you. And I think what I believe is that--
although this operation has a life of its own, I've asked--I've tried to
review it now because my instinct is that we should be granting more
pardons. I don't mean we should just be cavalier. I mean if you still
think somebody might be involved in something wrong--not so much to wipe
away the past as to free people up to live in the present and future.
There are all kinds of--suppose when you're 18 you commit some
offense which gets you a 5-year sentence. And suppose--and let's suppose
under the sentencing guidelines then applicable, you served 2 years of
the sentence. Well, my view is if you served the 2 years, then you get
out, and you've got 3 years on parole. So the 5 years is discharged.
Then you have to serve--then you live a couple more years, and you have
a totally exemplary life. I don't think that your past mistake should
unduly cramp your present and future life.
If you do something really terrible, you're going to be in prison
for a long time. But I mean, people are just getting out all the time--
90 percent of the people who go to jail get out. When they get out, we
do not have a vested interest in seeing them continue to be punished.
Our interest as citizens, after they pay their debt to society, is to
see them be successful. I mean, when somebody pays, then when they get
out, surely we don't want them to keep on paying. If they have to keep
on paying, that's why you end up with more crime and a less successful,
less healthy society.
So my instinct is that--again, I speak for myself; each President
will be different on this--is that the President should be pretty
reluctant to shorten sentences but should be willing to do so in
appropriate cases; but that the President should be more forthcoming in
being willing to grant pardons when it's not really for the purpose of
pretending that it didn't happen but of liberating people to make the
most of their todays and tomorrows, because every single American has a
big stake in people who actually do get punished later going on and
living their lives in a straight and effective way. So that's my take on
this. And we're looking to see whether there are any kind of changes we
can make to be more effective in that regard.
Q. Thanks.
The President. I'm glad you asked me. You're the only person who
ever asked me that.
Note: The interview began at 5:13 p.m. in the 15th Floor Lounge at the
Park Plaza Hotel. In his remarks, the President referred to Juan Miguel
Gonzalez, father of Elian Gonzalez; President Fidel Castro of Cuba; John
Rocker, relief pitcher, MLB Atlanta Braves; Henry (Hank) Aaron, member,
Baseball Hall of Fame; Andrew Young, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.;
Kevin Garnett, power forward, NBA Minnesota Timberwolves; and former
President Nelson Mandela of South Africa. An interviewer referred to
Wolf Blitzer, correspondent, Cable News Network. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this interview.