[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book II)]
[June 28, 2000]
[Pages 1321-1334]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



The President's News Conference
June 28, 2000

    The President.  Good afternoon. This has been a good week for the 
American people: first, the landmark breakthrough in human genomic 
research, which promises to eradicate once incurable diseases and 
revolutionize health care for a very long time to come; second, the 
release of the midsession review, which told us that the health of our 
economy continues its remarkable expansion.
    Our budget surplus this year will be the largest in history, $211 
billion. Over the next 10 years, after we lock away Medicare and Social 
Security surpluses, the remaining surplus is expected to be almost $1.5 
trillion. This progress exceeds even our own predictions just 4 months 
ago, another milestone in what is now the longest economic expansion in 
our history.
    This is a tribute to the hard work of the American people and our 
commitment to fiscal discipline, expanded trade, and investments in our 
people and our future. Now is not the time to abandon the path that has 
brought us here. We must use this moment of prosperity to make important 
investments in our most pressing priorities.
    Chief among them is the need to provide affordable, reliable 
prescription drug coverage to our seniors. There is no question that 
this is a critical need. Just yesterday a study released showed that 
prescription drugs shot up over 10 percent last year alone. That is too 
heavy a burden for our older seniors to pay and for our people with 
disabilities to pay.
    There are some who say we can't provide affordable, accessible 
prescription drug coverage for all our seniors. I believe that's wrong. 
With millions of them without coverage, the absence of prescription drug 
coverage is a fatal flaw in our present health care system. Think about 
it. Because of breakthroughs like the human genome project, in our 
lifetime, there may be new life-saving drug treatments for many dreaded 
diseases. But they won't mean anything if our seniors and people with 
disabilities can't afford them. That's what this debate is really all 
about.
    Today the House is set to vote on a prescription drug plan that 
amounts to an empty promise for too many of our seniors. It's a private 
insurance plan that many seniors and people with disabilities simply 
won't be able to afford. Insurers, themselves, say the Republican plan 
won't work. The bottom line is, their plan is designed to benefit the 
companies who make the prescription drugs, not the older Americans who 
need to take them. It puts special interest above the public interest.
    Let me make it specific and clear. This plan would not guarantee 
affordable prescription drugs to single senior citizens with incomes 
above $12,600 a year or to senior couples with incomes above $16,600 a 
year. And we have all heard countless, countless stories of those

[[Page 1322]]

with crushing medical burdens, that if they could get these prescription 
drugs, would have their lives lengthened and the quality of their lives 
improved.
    An article in today's paper reveals that a group calling itself 
Citizens for Better Medicare is running--I give it points for chutzpa--
Citizens for Better Medicare is running millions of dollars in ads to 
kill our prescription drug proposal. You'd think a group with this name 
would be in favor of affordable Medicare prescription drug coverage for 
all seniors and people with disabilities, but this is one of those 
mysterious interest groups whose financial backers are cloaked in 
secrecy.
    Now, just last night the House of Representatives voted 
overwhelmingly to force groups like this to open their books and 
disclose their fundraising sources to the American people. I applaud the 
House for this vote and all those, Democrats and Republicans, who voted 
for it. With the vote on Medicare in the House, I call on Citizens for 
Better Medicare to respect the will of the Congress and reveal the 
sources of their support today. We should let the American people judge 
who is truly interested in better Medicare.
    It is clear that this lobbying effort is part of a larger campaign 
to block real progress. In fact, the Republican leadership in Congress 
won't even allow our prescription plan to come up for a vote in the 
House--I suspect, because they're afraid it would pass.
    I have offered a Medicare prescription drug benefit that is 
voluntary and affordable. My plan puts the interest of seniors first. 
Whether you're on a fixed income, live in a big city or a rural area, 
the plan is dependable, and it is affordable. This is particularly 
important for rural Americans. More than half of our oldest seniors in 
rural communities go the entire year without any prescription drug 
coverage at all.
    Earlier this week, in an effort to break the logjam, I offered a 
compromise proposal to give seniors the relief they desperately need. I 
said we could pass a prescription drug benefit while providing real tax 
relief to married couples, something the majority in Congress say they 
want to do. And we could do both now within the framework of fiscal 
responsibility.
    As the Vice President has proposed, the 
first thing we should do is to take the Medicare tax receipts we get off 
budget so they are saved for Medicare alone and, meanwhile, used to pay 
down the debt. That will do more to protect and strengthen Medicare. It 
will help extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund to 2023. It will 
put us in a position to pay down the debt completely by 2012, a year 
ahead of schedule. It will enable us still to set aside $500 billion to 
reserve for America's future, to be used after a full debate and after 
this year's elections to meet the country's key priorities.
    Now, with less than 35 days left in the legislative year, time is 
running out for Congress to meet its obligations to the American people. 
They have to make the tough choices to get something done or continue to 
be dragged down by the weight of special interests.
    So again I ask Congress, let's not waste these precious weeks. It's 
time to get down to business, to pass a strong Patients' Bill of Rights; 
to raise the minimum wage by one dollar over 2 years; to pass the 
commonsense gun legislation; to hold tobacco companies, not taxpayers, 
accountable for the health care costs of tobacco; to pass hate crimes 
legislation; to finish the jobs of giving American businesses and 
farmers access to a huge new market by passing permanent normal trade 
relations with China; to open new markets to American investors here at 
home; to bring prosperity to people in places who have been left behind; 
and most important of all, to continue to improve our schools, to demand 
more of them and invest more in them, including more teachers for 
smaller class sizes, after-school programs for all our kids who need 
them, and repairing or modernizing thousands of our schools that are 
today literally falling apart or so overcrowded they can't contain all 
the kids. We can still do a lot of this if we work together in the days 
ahead. That's what the American people want us to do, even in an 
election year.
    There's been some encouraging developments in this Congress. We 
lifted the earnings limit on Social Security; we passed the Africa/
Caribbean Basin trade bill. Apparently, the bill to aid Colombia is 
making good progress. And I think the China legislation will pass if we 
can get it up to a vote in a timely fashion. So the Congress can do a 
lot of things, and I hope they will, and I'm looking forward to work 
with them.
    Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

[[Page 1323]]

Cuba-U.S. Relations

    Q.  Mr. President, after 7 months, the Elian Gonzalez case is coming 
to a conclusion, removing a thorn from U.S.-Cuban relations. And House 
Republican leaders have struck a deal to ease decades-old sanctions 
against Cuba. Would you accept that legislation? Is it time to normalize 
relations with Fidel Castro's government? What would that take?
    The President.  Let me deal with the questions separately. First, on 
the question of the legislation proposed by Mr. Nethercutt: If I believe that the legislation essentially 
allows for the sales of American food and medicine to Cuba or to other 
countries, but has some protection for us for extraordinary 
circumstances that foreign policy might require, like Senator 
Lugar's bill does in the Senate, then I 
would be inclined to sign the bill and to support it. I've always wanted 
to sell more food and medicine not only to Cuba but to other countries 
as well.
    I have some concerns about it, and I just have to analyze the bill 
as it passed and whatever legislation finally makes its way to my desk, 
because, as I understand it, they put some new restrictions on travel to 
Cuba, which might undermine our people-to-people contacts, which had 
been more and more extensive over the last several months and which, I 
believe, to be very important. And since no Federal programs can be used 
to help finance these food sales, as they can be to other countries, we 
need an analysis of whether there actually will be more sales under the 
legislation.
    So I guess what I want to know--and I just haven't had time to get 
the analysis from our folks--is whether this will be a net plus in terms 
of our strategy, which is to reach out to the Cuban people without 
supporting the Cuban Government.
    Now, the second question you ask is whether it's time to move toward 
normalization. Let me just do a little history here. In 1992, when I was 
running for President, the Congress passed the Cuban Democracy Act, and 
President Bush signed it, and I strongly supported the bill. The bill 
seemed to strengthen economic sanctions on Cuba but actually provided a 
specific, step-by-step way for us to move toward normalizing relations. 
And we were in the process of doing that. We did it in '93, '94, '95. We 
were moving toward sort of--we would do something; they would do 
something. It was working, I thought, quite well. And I thought the law 
was actually quite good. And then, the Cuban Air Force shot the planes 
down and killed American citizens illegally and deliberately. And so, 
since--after that, the Helms-Burton bill passed, and it codified the 
embargo.
    So the real answer to your question is, I don't believe that we can 
change that law until there is a bipartisan majority which believes that 
there has been some effort on the part of the Cuban Government to reach 
out to us, as well.
    I like the old law; I thought it was working well. The killing of 
those innocent people in those two airplanes changed all that. And now 
we're in a position where until there is a bipartisan majority of 
Congress persuaded that there has been a fundamental change, we can't do 
more than what I've been doing, which is to try to aggressively expand 
people-to-people contacts.
    That brings us back to the Nethercutt bill. If I think, on balance, 
it allows the President--not just me, my successor as well--to pursue 
our foreign policy interest and will, on balance, further that policy, 
then I would support it. But I want to analyze it for the reasons that I 
said.
    Go ahead, Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

Middle East Peace Process

    Q.  There are reports that Israel and the Palestinians will be 
coming to Washington next week for talks. Do you think enough progress 
is being made to arrange a Middle East summit, or are you discouraged? 
And secondly, should Israel stop the sale of radar systems to China?
    The President.  Let me answer the second question first because 
that's a much clearer one. We're very concerned about that sale, and 
I've talked to Prime Minister Barak about it 
extensively. And as you know, there's a lot of concern in the Congress, 
so we're still working on that.
    Now, in terms of their coming here for talks, there has been no date 
set. I do not believe that they can resolve the final, most difficult 
issues without having the leaders get together in some isolated setting 
and make the last tough decisions--or decide not to make them, as the 
case may be.
    Of all the issues involved with regard to all the parties in the 
Middle East peace talks, the final status issues between the Israelis 
and the Palestinians are the most difficult. I do not, however, believe 
they're going to get any easier with the passage of time. I think that 
some

[[Page 1324]]

foreign policy problems--the answer is to kick the can down the road and 
wait for them to get better and hope time takes care of them. Some have 
to be decided sooner or later, and sooner is better than later. My own 
instinct is that the cluster of problems here would be better off being 
resolved sooner rather than later.
    I've had Mr. Ross out in the Middle East, 
and then Secretary Albright went, and 
she's going to give me a report. And when she does, then I'll make a 
judgment about whether the time is right to ask them to come here. But I 
have not made that decision yet.
    Go ahead, Paul [Paul Singer, United Press International].

Death Penalty

    Q.  A death penalty question, sir. Do you believe that Governor Bush 
made the wrong decision by allowing Mr. Graham to go to his death last 
week? And secondly, do you believe it's time for the American people to 
stop and reassess where we stand on implementation of the death penalty 
in this country?
    The President.  Well, on the Texas case, I didn't read the file. All 
I know about it is what I've read about it in the press. But let me say 
generally what I think. I think that those of us who support the death 
penalty have an extra heavy responsibility to assure both that the 
result is accurate and that the process was fair and constitutional. And 
that means, to me, at least in modern terms, the broadest possible use 
of DNA evidence and the strongest possible effort to guarantee adequate 
assistance of counsel. That's a big issue. And I think those were two of 
the reasons that motivated Governor Ryan in 
Illinois to do what he did, and have driven a lot of other things in 
this debate. So that's where I think it is.
    Now, I don't know that the American people have changed their 
position that it's still an appropriate penalty under certain severe 
circumstances, and I haven't. But I am concerned also, at the Federal 
level, with the--I don't believe that adequate assistance of counsel is 
an issue in the Federal cases. And as far as I know, there are no cases 
in which the question of DNA is an issue. There may be. I don't know if 
there are some.
    The issues at the Federal level relate more to the disturbing racial 
composition of those who have been convicted and the apparent fact that 
almost all the convictions are coming out of just a handful of States, 
which raises the question of whether, even though there is a uniform law 
across the country, what your prosecution is may turn solely on where 
you committed the crime. I've got a review underway of both those issues 
at this time.
    Yes, Bill [Bill Plante, CBS News].

1996 Campaign Finance Investigation

    Q.  Mr. President, as you know, for the third time, a Justice 
Department investigation has recommended that the Vice President's 
activities in fundraising during the last campaign cycle be looked into. 
Previously, on two occasions, the Attorney General has declined to do 
this. Would it be better for the Attorney General, for your 
administration, and for the Vice President's candidacy if he invited 
such an investigation?
    The President.  Well, first let me say, my understanding is--I know 
this is true in the previous cases, and I think it's true here--is that 
there are some people in the Justice Department that think there should 
be and some who think there shouldn't be. And the Attorney 
General, who has shown no reluctance to ask for a 
special counsel when she thought one was called for, didn't think one 
was called for in this case, and she reaffirmed that yesterday.
    I think the fact that the Vice President released the transcript of his interview was a very good 
thing, because some Republican Senators had made some assertions about 
it that just weren't so--they weren't true. And now that the whole thing 
has been put out in the public, it seems to me that the best thing to do 
is for the American people to make their own judgments about it. But I 
don't see any reason that the Attorney General shouldn't make a decision 
in this case, as she has in every other one.
    Claire [Claire Shipman, NBC].

Vice President Al Gore

    Q.  Another question about your Vice President. A year ago when 
people looked at his poll numbers compared to the Texas Governor's, his 
supporters would say, ``Oh, the election is a long way off.'' Six months 
ago people were saying the election's a long way off with those same 
poll numbers, and today, his supporters are still saying that. And I 
wonder, do you think it's time to suggest that this might be a trend, 
that there is a reason why the Vice President

[[Page 1325]]

is trailing the Texas Governor in the polls? And secondly, you have said 
that the Vice President will not be held accountable, that the American 
people will not hold him accountable, for the scandals of this 
administration. Do you still believe that's the case or is this, in 
fact, part of it?
    The President.  Well, first of all, I said--no, let me say exactly 
what I said--I said that the people would not hold him responsible for 
anything I did that they didn't agree with or that was wrong, and that's 
clearly true. That's still true. There is no evidence of that in the 
surveys.
    Secondly, let me remind you that a lot of these other so-called 
scandals were bogus. Mike Espy was acquitted. The 
Cisneros thing was a tempest in a teapot, 
totally overdone, and you all know that the Whitewater thing was bogus 
from day one. It had nothing to do with the official conduct of the 
administration, anyway.
    Now, so the word ``scandal'' has been thrown around here like a 
clanging teapot for 7 years. And I keep waiting for somebody to say--I 
noticed there was one columnist in the Washington Post that had the 
uncommon decency to say, ``Will no one ever stand up here and say that a 
whole bunch of this stuff was just garbage and that we had totally 
innocent people prosecuted because they wouldn't lie? We had totally 
innocent people's lives wrecked because they wouldn't go along with this 
alleged scandal machine.'' So let's be careful; let's be specific.
    Now, I've already told you, my view is that the Vice President, on 
the only thing as far as I know that he's been in any way implicated in 
is this campaign finance thing. He put out the whole transcript of his 
interview, made himself available for questions, and, I thought, made a 
very compelling case and certainly demonstrated that a lot of the 
accusations against him with regard to that are not so.
    There was also a very interesting article--I think in the National 
Law Journal--which basically went through all of the things and 
concluded that there was no basis for a lot of these criticisms of him, 
under these circumstances. And I think another magazine here--maybe the 
New Republic, the Washington Monthly--one of those other magazines had 
an analysis of it. So I think that we should be very careful in throwing 
that around.
    Now, let me come back to the polls. First of all, I must say, I 
haven't seen any or done any lately, so I don't know. But I'm perplexed 
that I can't remember a time when we had two major polls coming out 
within a couple of days of each other that had 13 points difference. One 
said there was a 13-point difference in the race; the other one said it 
was tied--and they came out, they were done within 2 or 3 days of each 
other. I don't think either one of those pollsters rigged the results, 
so my instinct is that people are still trying to figure out what they 
think about this race.
    And all I can tell you is, I know three things, and I've said this 
over and over again. I know three things. One is, no person in the 
history of the Republic has ever had the positive impact on this country 
as Vice President that Al Gore has had. That is a historical fact. We've 
had a lot of Presidents who were Vice Presidents who were great 
Presidents. Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman were great 
Presidents, but not because of their service as Vice President. Nobody 
has ever done as much for America as Vice President as Al Gore has. 
Therefore, in my lifetime, he's the best qualified person to serve.
    The second thing is, I believe that he's right on the issues. I 
think his economic policy is right. I think it's far more likely to keep 
the prosperity of this country going. I think it's far more likely to 
include people that would otherwise be left out.
    And the third thing is, I think it's important that somebody be 
elected that understands the future. We just announced this genome 
project yesterday. What are we going to do to make sure there's no 
genetic discrimination? A lot of people will want genetic discrimination 
in employment, in promotion, in extension of health insurance. What are 
we going to do to make sure it doesn't exist? What are we going to do to 
make sure, in the computer revolution, that there's no violation of 
people's privacy rights with their health and financial records? A lot 
of people will want to get that private health and financial 
information.
    So I think that what will happen is, we'll come to the conventions; 
we'll have these debates; and somehow--I've been amazed by an amazing 
volatility since the end--you know, at the end of the primary campaign, 
most of the polls had him up a point or two. So there's a been a lot of 
volatility in these polls, and my best judgment is that people are still 
trying to figure out what they're going to do. And sooner or later they 
will. I don't think they

[[Page 1326]]

have--and I think they know those three things about Al Gore, and it's 
still more likely than not that he will win.
    Yes.

Cuba-U.S. Relations

    Q.  Mr. President, you've spoken to the congressional constraints 
that are attached to your ability to deal with Cuba, and yet, a hallmark 
of your foreign policy, sir, has been a commitment to engagement, the 
idea that American trade and investment, ideas and practices can be 
powerful engines of change--China, Russia, Vietnam, now even North 
Korea. Do you think, sir, that it's in the American interest not to have 
those tools available in dealing with Cuba? Do you think there's any 
prospect at all that the current policy will actually work? And after 40 
years and now nine Presidents, do you think the time has come to 
reassess?
    The President.  I think the next--I like--I'll go back. I like the 
system that exists under the Cuban Democracy Act. I think Congress has a 
role to play here, but I like the Cuban Democracy Act. I think it's not 
wise to take away from the President all the tools of diplomacy with 
regard to one country that he might have, or she might have, some day 
with another country. So I like that.
    But I will say again, there was a reason for that. All these other 
countries you mentioned, none of them--none of them--by order of the 
leader of the country, killed, murdered two airplanes' worth of people. 
I think there were four people involved. These people were killed 
illegally. It violated the Chicago convention. Even if you believe that 
those planes were in Cuban airspace, which we believe they were not, 
they could not legally be shot down. Now, let's not--that changed 
everything. The deliberate decision to murder those people changed 
everything. And it made me wonder whether Mr. Castro was hoping we never would normalize relations, so then 
he could use us as an excuse for the failures of his regime. But we are 
where we are here.
    What have I done? I was aggressively moving to implement the Cuban 
Democracy Act before that happened. Since then, we have done everything 
we could--and I noticed there was one article about it last week which 
pointed out how Secretary Albright had 
dramatically increased the people-to-people contacts and the travel to 
Cuba. We are doing what we can.
    Obviously, I think that anything we can do to engage the Cuban 
people, to get them involved in the process of change, to get them to 
look outside the world, to get them to look beyond the present system 
they have, is a positive thing to do. And that's why I answered in 
response to that very first question, to evaluate the legislation in the 
House on the food and medicine sales, I've got to really have an 
analysis of it to say, will the restrictions and personal contact, which 
the legislation imposes--which I think are a mistake--be outweighed by 
the increased sales of food and medicine, in terms of the ultimate 
benefit to the Cuban people? And I will look at it and see.
    Yes, George [George Condon, Copley News Service].

Supreme Court Decision on Partial Birth Abortion

    Q.  Mr. President, does the closeness of today's abortion vote in 
the Supreme Court suggest to you that abortion rights are at risk in the 
next court? Or does it suggest that the fact that partial birth abortion 
can survive even a conservative court say that they aren't as threatened 
as some believe?
    The President.  Well, first, I think the court decision is clearly 
the only decision it could reach consistent with Roe v. Wade. So I think 
what you know there is that that's the vote for Roe v. Wade. You can't 
have a rule like the rule of Roe and then ignore it. So that's why--if 
you remember, on this late-term abortion issue a couple of years ago, I 
pleaded with the Congress to adopt a broad limitation on late-term 
abortions consistent with Roe v. Wade, but to make an exception for the 
life and health of the mother, as the Supreme Court decision required. 
They declined to do that, and so we've had a political impasse here, and 
then you've seen what's happened in all these States.
    So the decision is, I think, consistent with Roe v. Wade. And as you 
pointed out, it was narrowly upheld. I think that's about what the vote 
for Roe is. And I think that in the next 4 years, there will be 
somewhere between two and four appointments to the Supreme Court, and 
depending on who those appointees are, I think the rule will either be 
maintained or overturned. And I think that it's very much in the 
balance, depending on what appointments are made in the next 4 years. 
That's what I believe.

[[Page 1327]]

    Yes, go ahead, Larry [Larry McQuillan, USA Today].

Gasoline Prices and Energy Policy

    Q.  Mr. President, Governor Bush has been critical of you and the 
energy policy of the administration, saying that you've failed to 
adequately convince OPEC to increase oil production. He also claims 
that, if he became President, he'd be able to use personal diplomacy to 
persuade allies, like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, to, I believe he said, 
turn on the spigot. Do you find that kind of claim realistic? And do you 
have any reaction to his criticism of you?
    The President.  Well, first of all, I have spent an enormous amount 
of time on this in the last several months, and there have been two 
decisions by OPEC to increase production--not as much as we would like.
    If you look at the allocation of the production increases against 
the real capacity of those countries, most countries don't have the 
capacity to produce much more than their latest allocation, except for 
the Saudis. And it's clear that they were trying to maintain some sort 
of harmony within the OPEC family.
    Let's go back. I think that these big increases in gasoline prices 
in America are the result, as I said, I think, several weeks ago, first 
and foremost, of the unfortunate decision of OPEC several months ago to 
cut back production at the very time the world economy was growing. They 
left production out there when the world economy sunk, which is one 
reason we had very inexpensive gas prices for a good period of time. And 
these two developments grated up against each other. So that's the first 
thing.
    Then the second thing is, we had here, as you know, in America--so 
we had a tight supply situation. Then we had some broken pipelines, 
which interrupted supplies, which caused a temporary spike. And then in 
the Midwest we did have, apparently, some, but I think quite a modest, 
impact on prices because of the intersection of the clean air rules with 
trying to mix the fuels in a different way, particularly ethanol.
    And I think what we have to do now is to keep doing what we can to 
get production up, to let this FTC investigation proceed. I think the 
gas prices have dropped 8 cents a gallon in the Midwest and, in the 
blended fuels area, 12\1/2\ cents a gallon just since the investigation 
was announced. But the main thing I would say to you is, we need a long-
term energy strategy to maximize conservation and maximize the 
development of alternative sources of energy and also maximize domestic 
sources of energy.
    Now, let me just mention two or three things--I've mentioned this 
before. The House, by the way, has reauthorized the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, and I compliment them on that. That's a good thing. We also 
need a home heating oil reserve for the Northeast. We need to do that. 
That's very important. We ought to pass my proposal to provide tax 
credits to people who manufacture or buy energy-efficient homes, cars, 
and consumer products. That ought to be done. We ought to pass my 
appropriations to help develop alternative sources of energy and energy 
conservation technologies.
    Since I've been President, or since '95, anyway, the Congress has 
approved approximately 12 percent of my requests, and the House voted to 
zero our participation in the Partnership for New Generation Vehicles. 
This kind of research is just as important as the human genome research 
in terms of the role of the Government in this. A lot of this basic 
research needs to be done by the Government. We can be driving cars that 
get 80 miles to the gallon through fuel cells, through electric cars, 
through natural gas fuel, a lot of other options, within a matter of 3 
or 4 years if we'll just get after it and treat this like it's 
important. So I think that's very important.
    Let me just mention one other thing. I think it's very important to 
pass a comprehensive electricity restructuring proposal, because they 
also, the electricity companies also--electric companies--use 
traditional fuels, and if we can reduce their reliance on it, obviously 
it will lower the price for other purposes. I think there's $20 billion 
a year in savings to the American people through electricity 
restructuring, which is also quite important.
    Yesterday the Vice President issued a 
number of other proposals, including what he said he felt should be done 
with some of the surplus, which dealt with energy efficiency in 
factories and power plants. And all the analyses there show that there 
are massive, massive savings there, again, which would not only cut 
their bills but by freeing up supply would lower the overall price of 
the fuel that we need.
    So that's the system we need. We need to--it's all out there. It's 
not like we don't know that these technologies are there. It's not like 
we don't know we have options for conservation.

[[Page 1328]]

    Some of you were with me, I think it was 3 years ago now, when I 
went out to San Bernardino, California, to a stop on the rail line 
outside Los Angeles, to a lower income housing project where they 
promised 40 percent lower utility bills, using elemental solar 
reflectors that looked like just little shingles on roofs, better 
windows, better insulation. And I can tell you, after 3 years, the 
average utility bills are 65 percent lower than they would be for that 
kind of floorspace for those families in other places in California.
    So it's out there. All we have to do is to make up our mind that 
we're going to accelerate this. That's what I think we should be doing.
    Q.  Mr. President, does that mean that Governor Bush is 
oversimplifying things when he points to places like----
    The President.  Yes, I think that it's a--we all rate our powers of 
persuasion differently, you know, and our powers of persuasion sometimes 
work when people's interests are involved and sometimes don't. But it's 
not just a question of how much oil is being pumped. And obviously, I 
have done what I could in the way I felt was most effective to increase 
production. I will continue to do that. But I think it's a simple answer 
to a complex problem and--although I saw that story that one of you put 
out about his 1992 letter in which he was 
arguing for high energy prices. So I'm glad that he's changed his 
position anyway. It's amazing how a few years will do that to you. So I 
like that.
    Yes, John [John Harris, Washington Post].

Presidential Decisionmaking

    Q.  Mr. President, supporters of Vice President Gore have been 
fairly blunt in raising questions about whether Governor Bush has the 
knowledge and depth to be President. On the other hand, many scholars 
have noted that Ronald Reagan managed to be effective by concentrating 
on a few big ideas and leaving the details to others. In your experience 
here, how important is command of facts and plain old brainpower to 
being President? Are there other qualities that are more important? 
[Laughter]
    The President.  That's a dead-bang loser, isn't it? [Laughter] No 
matter what I say, I'm in a big hole.
    Well, first of all, I don't think it's so much a question of 
intelligence, generically. I think it's more a question of curiosity and 
willingness to learn what you think is important, and learn--I guess--I 
think that no President can say, ``Well, it should be enough for the 
voters if I get the best advisers in my party, and they come up with a 
position, and I take it.''
    So what the voters will have to analyze here is, how important is 
the fact that Al Gore spent 20 years 
working on arms control issues, for example, and dealing with all these 
things. How much of an effort--see, I ran as a Governor, although I had 
been a Governor a lot longer--but how important is what you know, what 
you've learned in the job you've got?
    And I think this is a question that's more readily addressed, 
really, to the candidates than to me. I'm a different person. 
Everybody's different here. So I always felt that I needed to know as 
much as I could, not so I could make decisions without experts and 
without advisers but so I'd be in the best position to evaluate the 
advice I was getting.
    But it's very important for a President not to try to micromanage 
the Presidency. So what you try to do is to find a balance between--
because it's a deciding job; it's a deciding job. And a lot of our 
Presidents, I think, have had some problems, not because they knew too 
much but almost because they worked so hard that they were so tired, 
they maybe couldn't make really good decisions when they were tired.
    But I think what you know counts, because I think the more you know, 
the better position you're in, not only to draw your own conclusions but 
to take advice. And so, I think what--the best is a balance, obviously. 
It's like everything else in life; the best is a balance. The best is a 
President that's had broad experience and that knows a lot and that is 
curious--I think curiosity is profoundly important--but also a President 
who understands what the big, important things are and then can listen 
to the right people. You've got to have a blend of both if you want to 
make the best decisions. That's my view.
    Mark [Mark Knoller, CBS Radio].

Supreme Court Decision on Gays in the Boy Scouts

    Q.  Mr. President, what do you think of the Justices' ruling this 
morning that allows the Boy

[[Page 1329]]

Scouts to bar gays as leaders? And if you disagree with it, can you 
justify your role as honorary president of the Boy Scouts, which 
discriminates against gays and atheists?
    The President.  Well, first of all, the Court's ruling, I noticed 
with interest--I haven't read it yet, but I did get a pretty good report 
on it--I noted with interest that they seem to go out of their way to 
draw the ruling quite narrowly and to limit it strictly to the question 
of whether the Boy Scouts could pick the people who were going to be 
Scout leaders.
    I, generally--I have to tell you, I'm generally against 
discrimination against gays, and I think that the country has moved a 
long way. And I'm proud of the things that we've been able to do, and 
I'm disappointed we haven't been able to do more in some areas, but I 
think we're moving in the right direction. And I think that's all I 
should say. The Boy Scouts still are--they're a great group. They do a 
lot of good. And I would hope that this is just one step along the way 
of a movement toward greater inclusion for our society, because I think 
that's the direction we ought to be going in.
    Go ahead, Jim [Jim Angle, Fox News].

Elian Gonzalez

    Q.  Thank you, Mr. President. As you know, the Supreme Court 
declined to intervene today either to stop Elian Gonzalez from leaving 
the country or to overrule other courts, all of which have deferred to 
your administration. As you look back on this----
    The President.  That's pretty rare, isn't it? [Laughter]
    Q.  As you look back on this, sir, do you have any sense, any 
regrets, at all about the way your administration handled this matter? 
And in light of what you've said about Cuba here today, sir, do you have 
any second thoughts about Elian returning to Cuba?
    The President.  Well, if he and his father had decided they wanted to stay here, it would be fine 
with me. But I think that the most important thing is that his father 
was adjudged by a people who made an honest effort to determine that he 
was a good father, a loving father, committed to the son's welfare.
    And we upheld here what I think is a quite important principle, as 
well as what is clearly the law of the United States. Do I wish it had 
unfolded in a less dramatic, less traumatic way for all concerned? Of 
course I do. I have replayed this in my mind many times. I don't know 
that we had many different options than we pursued, given how the thing 
developed. But I think the fundamental principle is the right one, and 
I'm glad we did.
    I was just in Germany, having a discussion with Chancellor 
Schroeder about some family reunification 
issues where we have serious differences with the Germans, who are our 
great allies, on this. And as I looked and reviewed some of these cases 
that I've tried to bring to the attention of the German officials, it 
made me even more convinced that we had upheld the proper principle 
here.
    Yes, John [John King, Cable News Network].

National Missile Defense System

    Q. Mr. President, we hear increasingly from senior officials here 
and at the Pentagon that when it comes to national missile defense, 
you're inclined, essentially, to split the difference, authorize the 
contracting but leave the decision about whether to break from the ABM 
Treaty to the next President. Is that a fair reflection of your 
thinking?
    The President.  The most important thing I can say to you about that 
today is that I have not made a final decision and that most of this 
speculation that is coming in the press is coming from people who have 
not talked to me about it.
    Let me try to at least set up the thing, because I'm working hard on 
it now. Remember when we put out--when Congress passed a law about this 
a couple years ago, you remember, and we had to sort of come up with 
some timetables, I said two things that I want to repeat today.
    First of all, insofar as there might be technology available which 
would protect us and other people around the world from missile attacks 
with warheads of weapons of mass destruction, obviously, anybody would 
have a moral obligation to explore that technology and its potential. I 
believe that.
    Secondly, whether I would make a decision to go forward with 
deployment would depend upon four things: one, the nature of the threat; 
two, the feasibility of the technology; three, the cost and, therefore, 
the relative cost of doing this as compared with something else to 
protect the national security; and four, the overall impact on our 
national security, which includes our nuclear allies and our European 
alliance,

[[Page 1330]]

our relationships with Russia, our relationships with China, what the 
boomerang effect might be about whatever China might do in South Asia, 
with the Indians and then the Pakistanis, and so on.
    So what I have tried to do since then is to say as little as 
possible, except to explore what would have to be done in our 
relationships with the Europeans, our allies, and with the Russians, in 
the first instance, to keep our options open--could we get an agreed 
upon modification to the ABM Treaty.
    Even the Russians--keep in mind, don't minimize--everybody talked 
about how we didn't reach an agreement, Mr. Putin and I, when I was in Russia. And that's absolutely 
true; we didn't. But we did get a document out of there which I think is 
quite important, because the Russians acknowledged that there are new 
and different security threats on the horizon; that is, that it's quite 
possible that in the next few years, countries not part of the arms 
control regimes of the last three decades could develop both long-range 
missile delivery capability and weapons of mass destruction which they 
could put on warheads, and that none of this would be covered by, 
essentially, the mutual deterrence structure of the ABM Treaty and all 
the things we've done since then.
    So they recognize, too, that we, in the new century, in the coming 
decades, are going to have to make adjustments. Now, what they don't say 
is, they don't want America unilaterally building a missile defense that 
they think someday can undermine their deterrent capacity. That's kind 
of where they are now, and we're still talking about all that.
    But John, the truly accurate thing is that I have not yet formulated 
a position which I am prepared to go to the American people with, but I 
will do so some time over the next several weeks based on those four 
criteria and what I think is the right thing to do.

Northern Ireland Peace Process

    Q.  Mr. President, last Monday the IRA allowed inspectors to come in 
and see caches of their weapons. Would you like to see the other 
terrorist organizations on the Protestant sides allow inspectors to look 
at their weapons? And are there any words that you could say to the 
people of Northern Ireland who are facing the marching season, other 
than Colonel Crowley's oft ``peace is good'' position--any personal--
[laughter]--any words from the heart that you could ask as they approach 
this very tense time?
    The President.  You know, one of the hardest things I've had to 
learn in life is that not every cliche is wrong. [Laughter] Peace is 
good. Well first, I think it would be a good thing for all the 
paramilitary groups that have secret arms caches obviously to follow the 
lead of those who are doing what's been done. I think this is a great 
deal. I think this is a very, very hopeful development.
    And it ought to inform the marching season--that is, if people are 
going to do their marches, ought to do it mindful of the context in 
which they're doing it and the diminished tension and the enhanced hope 
for long-term peace and the institutions working again, and all of that.
    This is America. We can't say--anybody can march; anybody can talk; 
anybody can say whatever they want to say. But everybody ought to--what 
I would hope is that there will be a new sense of responsibility and a 
new sense of possibility in Northern Ireland because of these 
developments.
    You know, there's been lots of work done now over the last several 
years on this. We've come a long way since the first talk of then Prime 
Minister Major and then Prime Minister 
Reynolds, and I think that the work, 
particularly the things that have been done, the commitments that have 
been made, and the actions that have been taken in the last few months, 
they ought to be cherished by the people of Northern Ireland, and we 
ought to have a marching season that unfolds, I would hope to the 
maximum extent possible, in recognition of all we have seen.
    Yes, ma'am.

Vice President Al Gore

    Q.  Mr. President, I'd like to know how you feel Al Gore is doing at 
being his own man. The reason I ask that question is so many of his 
policies seem to be extensions of your policies, and even last week in 
the handling of the renewed call for a special prosecutor, the press was 
full of reports of how his response was very ``Clintonesque.'' So how do 
you think he's doing at establishing a sense of his own identity?
    The President.  Oh, I think he's done that very well. Let me remind 
you, when I asked him to become Vice President, there were some people 
who criticized me, who said what a dumb

[[Page 1331]]

thing I did because we were the same age, we came from--although he 
never lets me say that; he's a year younger than I am, and looks much 
younger now because he has no gray hair--but anyway, that we came from 
the same part of the country, and we basically came from the same wing 
of the Democratic Party. But I thought I was getting good balance 
because he knew things I didn't know about arms control, energy, 
environment, the way Washington worked.
    So it shouldn't surprise you that having worked here for 8 years, as 
we all have, that a lot of the new things he proposes would grow 
naturally out of what has been done, rather than being a departure from 
it. But I must say, I read quite carefully those proposals he made 
yesterday, and while he did incorporate a lot of what I have proposed on 
energy efficiency, he went way beyond anything I'd ever proposed, too. I 
was kind of sorry I'd never thought of one or two of the things that 
were in there.
    So I think he's doing fine on that. I think that--if you just go 
back to the times when this has happened before to good effect and--if 
you go back to when President Nixon ran in 1960 or when Hubert Humphrey 
ran in '68 or when President Bush ran in '88, it's a gradual process. 
But then one day, it reaches, in the words of that now-famous book that 
everybody is reading, it reaches a tipping point and people kind of get 
it, and they say, ``Oh, there it is. There this person is.'' And I think 
that's happening with him. And I think after the conventions, it will be 
crystal clear. And the main players on the stage of American political 
life will be the two candidates for President.
    Mara [Mara Liasson, National Public Radio].

Gasoline Prices

    Q.  Mr. President, the proposals that Vice President Gore laid out 
yesterday on energy and the proposals that you discussed today are all 
long-range solutions to the Nation's dependence on oil. In terms of the 
problems that drivers in the Midwest are experiencing right now, during 
the summer driving season, with high gas prices, what would be so bad 
about suspending gas taxes temporarily just to give those drivers a 
break?
    The President.  First of all--well, the Federal gas tax is not that 
big. Most of the gas taxes come from--are at the State level. But if it 
were done--and Congress debated this before--if it were done, they would 
just have to decide what they were willing to pay in terms of either the 
deferral or the cancellation of Federal highway projects. And that's--
it's a tradeoff, and they would have to make that judgment.
    It would--even there, it would take some time, and there was some 
question, as I remember, when it was raised before, whether all those 
price savings would be passed along to the consumers. So I think if the 
Congress was going to do that, they would want to have some assurance 
that that would be done.
    But let me say, this is not such a long-term deal. First of all, the 
most important thing is to let the industry know we're running a serious 
investigation here--and I would remind you, gas prices have dropped 8 
cents in the Midwest, a gallon, since we announced it, at the pump--
more, much more, at the wholesale level--and the blended gas has dropped 
more than 8 cents a gallon. So let's not minimize that.
    The second thing we need to do is to make absolutely sure that 
everything that can possibly be done to make sure the pipelines are 
flowing properly and the refineries are working--that's done. You know, 
we had a small problem, you may remember, where I used the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve recently because of a breakdown in supply available to 
a refinery in the South. So if I can find any other kind of backlogs 
like that where there is something I can do to get the flow going, I 
will do that as well.
    But the most important thing I can tell you is, I think that this, 
as we get more production online, this present price crisis will begin 
to abate. But we will have fundamentally higher prices, now that the 
rest of the world's economy has recovered, and now that virtually all of 
the OPEC members but Saudi Arabia are operating virtually at full 
capacity--until we make up our minds that we're going to drive higher 
mileage vehicles and do other things that use less oil.
    And we are not talking about a long, long, long-term thing. You're 
talking about--a lot of these cars could be on the road and available 
for sale within 2 years--a lot of them. And it's just a question of 
whether we think it's a national priority, because--we've treated the 
human genome like a priority every year because we all want to live 
forever. And that's good. I'm not minimizing that. I'm not being 
flippant about that. We do. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. But we 
only get interested

[[Page 1332]]

in this when the price of gasoline goes through the roof.
    And this was inevitable. We were actually quite--I expected it was 
going to hit sooner, but the Asian financial crisis dropped it down. 
Now, they went up more than they should have and more than any of us 
anticipated, including me. And I think part of that is perhaps not 
justifiable, and that's what we're seeing--why we're seeing some price 
adjustments in the Middle West today.
    But the only real answer for this is for us to develop alternative 
sources to oil and more efficient ways of using the energy we have. And 
we can do it in a hurry if we just put our minds to it.
    Q.  If I could just follow up on that. The Federal gas tax is 18 
cents, which is not insignificant. Half of that was instituted 
originally for deficit reduction. Now that we don't have deficits and, 
in fact, we have record surpluses, what would be wrong with temporarily 
rolling back, say, 9 cents, or maybe even just the 4.3 cents that you 
instituted as part of your 1993 budget deal?
    The President.  Inherently, there's nothing wrong with it. But you 
would want to know two things: first of all, the Congress should be 
satisfied that whatever the financial consequences are to the highway 
construction and repair program are consequences they're willing to pay, 
and they think their constituents are willing to pay, number one. And 
secondly, they'd need some assurances that actually the people would 
benefit from it at the pump.
    Deborah, go ahead [Deborah Mathis, Gannett News Service].

President's Future Plans

    Q.  Sir, you know we're obligated to ask you about your post-
Presidential plans just in case you've made a decision since the last 
time we asked you. [Laughter] I recall that many years ago, you were 
asked about--when you were still Governor of Arkansas, you were asked 
about your future political plans. And interestingly, you didn't mention 
the Presidency, but you did say that you had always wanted to be in the 
United States Senate. Is that on the table for you? Have you made any 
other decision that we need to know about?
    The President.  No. But let me remind you what the context--you go 
back and read that interview. I think you'll see what I said was, when I 
was a young man, I always wanted to be a Senator, and I never thought 
about being a Governor. But when I became a Governor, I found that I 
liked being an executive better than I liked being a legislator. And I 
still feel that way. I think--maybe I'll run for the school board some 
day. That's about the only thing I can imagine doing. I don't have any 
other plans. I just want to be a good citizen.
    Go ahead, in the back.
    Press Secretary Joe Lockhart.  Last 
question.

Congressional Action on the Budget

    Q.  Republicans in Congress are seeking to pass the spending bills 
early this year, in an effort to get out of Washington and go campaign 
in the fall. And yet, there are significant differences between what 
they want to spend and what you have proposed. I'm wondering, what do 
you see as the major points of disagreement at this time, and do you 
think that we're in for the same type of prolonged budget stalemate that 
had been featured in the past?
    The President.  That's entirely up to them whether we're in for the 
budget stalemate. But if you just--look at the education budget. I mean, 
how many times do we have to go down this road? You know, it's still not 
supportive of the 100,000 teachers and the smaller classes; it's still 
not supportive of the dramatic expansion in after-school programs, which 
is critical to school performance; still has nothing in there for school 
construction; still is inadequate in terms of my plan that people ought 
to either identify these failing schools and either turn them around or 
shut them down--and lots of other problems with the school program.
    If you look at the crime proposals--this is unbelievable. When they 
wouldn't adopt the commonsense gun safety legislation, all I heard was 
this constant barrage about how, if only the administration would 
enforce the gun laws on the books, everything would be wonderful; we 
wouldn't have any problems in America.
    So what I said, ``Look, why don't we do both? We have increased gun 
prosecutions under my administration, but we can do more. So please, 
give me some more money for people to investigate gun crimes, for people 
to prosecute gun crimes, to develop safe gun technology''--this whole--
it was nothing but a straight enforcement measure; exactly what they 
said they wanted, and no money for it.

[[Page 1333]]

    Still no support for the 50,000 new police officers in the higher 
crime areas. And still the constant threat of these environmental 
riders, and underfunding of the land's legacy initiative, and a number 
of other things.
    So we still have some serious differences. Now, we've been doing 
this every year since 1995; we just sort of slightly change the script 
every year. And I'm more than happy to do it again, because, frankly, in 
the end, we normally wind up with an agreement that's pretty good for 
the American people.
    But the timing in which we do it--it depends more on them than me. 
I'm not going to give up my commitment to education as our most 
important domestic priority and what we're doing to build the future of 
our children. And I think--we've got the crime rate down now to a 25-
year low; we can't stop the policy that works. And here I gave them a 
big proposal that is exactly what they say they want and believe in, and 
they don't want to fund that.
    So we'll just have to see what happens. I'm kind of hopeful about 
it, though. It's just late June, here. This drama has several more acts 
before it's over.
    Go ahead. We'll take one more. Go ahead, sir.

National Missile Defense System/Korean Summit

    Q.  Mr. President, if I could return you to missile defense for a 
moment. The missile defense plan was based in large part on the threat 
from North Korea. You've now seen a first warming of relations between 
North and South. South Korea is not enthused about the missile defense 
plan. I'm wondering whether you now view it as urgent as you did--the 
threat as urgent as you did a few months ago. I'm also wondering whether 
you would be willing to meet with Kim Chong-il of North Korea?
    The President.  Well, first let me say, I got a report both from 
President Kim on the phone and from his 
representatives in person about the summit of the Koreas. And I thought 
it was a very, very important development and a great tribute to 
President Kim's vision and courage and persistence. And I also think it 
justified the American policy, which is that we would never allow 
ourselves to be put in the middle between the two Koreas, that we wanted 
them to meet and work together.
    So we, I think, contributed to it; the Chinese and others did as 
well. I think this is good for everybody, and I'm encouraged by it. I'm 
also encouraged by the moratorium that the North Koreans have on 
testing. But they still have a missile program, and so it's still 
something that the United States has to be mindful of and to prepare to 
deal with and to keep up with. And of course, I hope it will go away as 
a problem. I hope it for the people of North Korea, too.
    All these countries that have a lot of people in great need that are 
spending vast sums of money on defense, it's one of the great tragedies 
of the world today. So, would I like it to go away? Of course I would. 
Do I think it's gone away because of this meeting? I don't. Do I think 
it might? It might, and I hope it will, but we don't know that yet.
    Thank you.

 Note:  The President's 192d news conference began at 1:45 p.m. in the 
East Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Prime 
Minister Ehud Barak of Israel; Ambassador Dennis B. Ross, Special Middle 
East Coordinator; Gary Graham, convicted felon executed in Texas on June 
22; Republican Presidential candidate Gov. George W. Bush of Texas; Gov. 
George H. Ryan of Illinois; President Fidel Castro of Cuba; former 
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy; former Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development Henry G. Cisneros; Juan Miguel Gonzalez, father of 
Elian Gonzalez; Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany; President 
Vladimir Putin of Russia; Assistant Press Secretary for Foreign Affairs 
P.J. Crowley; former Prime Minister John Major of the United Kingdom; 
former Prime Minister Albert Reynolds of Ireland; General Secretary Kim 
Chong-il of North Korea; and President Kim Dae-jung of South Korea. A 
portion of this new conference could not be verified because the tape 
was incomplete.

[[Page 1334]]