[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 29, Number 12 (Monday, March 29, 1993)]
[Pages 466-475]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference

 March 23, 1993

Russian Reforms and U.S. Economy

    The President. Good afternoon. Before taking your questions today I 
would like to speak very briefly about some foreign and domestic issues.
    First, I want to reiterate that the United States supports the 
historic movement toward democratic political reform in Russia. 
President Yeltsin is the leader of that process. He is a democratically 
elected national leader, indeed, the first democratically elected 
President in a thousand years of Russian history. He has United States 
support, as do his reformed government and all reformers throughout 
Russia. At this moment, Russia is in a constitutional and political 
crisis. President Yeltsin proposes to break the logjam by letting the 
people of Russia decide on April 25th. That is an appropriate step in a 
democracy. Our interest is to see that this process unfolds peacefully.
    We're encouraged that President Yeltsin is committed to defend civil 
liberties, to continue economic reform, to continue foreign policy 
cooperation toward a peaceful world. Russia is, and must remain, a 
democracy. Democratic reform in Russia is the basis for a better future 
for the Russian people, for continued United States-Russian partnership, 
and for the hopes of all humanity for a more peaceful and secure world.
    The United States has great responsibilities abroad and at home. To 
meet these responsibilities, we must not only continue to

[[Page 467]]

support reform and change abroad but also the revitalization of our 
economy here at home. We need to fundamentally change as our times 
require it. On February 17th, I offered an economic plan to provide for 
that kind of fundamental change. Just 5 days ago, the House of 
Representatives took a giant step toward breaking the logjam and the 
gridlock here in Washington in approving the economic plan. And in just 
1 or 2 days, the Senate will have the opportunity to demonstrate that it 
too has heard the people's call for change. Make no mistake about it, 
our people too have demanded a new direction in our economy: cutting the 
deficit, investing in our people, and creating high-skill, high-wage 
jobs for working men and women and for our children.
    Our plan does reduce the Federal deficit now by about $500 billion 
over the next 5 years. And just as important, it will grow the economy 
by investing in our people, their skills, their technological future, 
their health, and by offering new incentives for businesses to create 
jobs. In helping the economy to create millions of new jobs, the great 
majority of them in private business, we are building the foundations of 
a future prosperity, from world-class transportation and communication 
networks to safer streets and smarter schools. Each of these elements, 
reducing the deficit, asking the wealthy to pay their fair share, 
investing in the future, and creating jobs, will work as a package, and 
Congress should pass the package.
    Just as the best social program is a job, the best deficit reduction 
program is a growing economy. This plan sets our country on a new course 
that honors our oldest values, moving away from gridlock to action; away 
from a Government that serves only privileged interests to a Government 
that serves the public interest; away from paying for the mistakes of 
the past and the expediencies of the present toward investing in the 
needs of the future.
    The work has only begun. The Vice President is heading our effort to 
reinvent Government. Cutting back programs that don't work or whose work 
is already done, we're going to do what the smartest companies have 
already done in our country: streamline our operations, eliminate 
wasteful levels of management, and empower our frontline workers to take 
initiative and to take us on a better course. We're going to make 
Government less expensive and more effective. And as we pursue 
fundamental change in our economy, our health care system, and our 
schools, we will ask all our people to do their part.
    The change the American people voted for is now beginning. We have a 
rare moment in Washington's history when people's voices are being heard 
and a rare opportunity to get things done. With the continued 
involvement of our people and the support of Congress, we can deliver 
the changes the people demand here at home. We can give the country the 
best years it has ever had, and we can have the United States still on 
the side of freedom and democracy and market reform around the world. 
Those are the objectives of this administration.
    And I'll be glad to answer your questions. Helen [Helen Thomas, 
United Press International].

President Boris Yeltsin of Russia

    Q. Mr. President, would you be willing to hold the summit meeting in 
Moscow if it would be best for President Yeltsin's political health? 
Have you spoken to President Yeltsin? And don't you think that if you 
did go to Moscow, it would engage the U.S. too closely in the power 
struggle in the capital?
    The President. You've got me on both sides of the issue before I 
even started. Well, let me say, first, I have not talked to President 
Yeltsin, but I have sent him two letters, one in response to his 
statement and the other, of course, a letter of condolence on his 
mother's death. I am going to meet in the morning with Foreign Minister 
Kozyrev to get a direct firsthand appraisal of where we are, after which 
it might be appropriate for us to have a telephone conversation. But I 
thought I should have the Kozyrev meeting first.
    As of this time, we have not received any indications that the 
Russians, specifically President Yeltsin and his government, have any 
desire to change the site of the meeting or the time. So we are working 
very hard; indeed, I'm going to have a long session tonight to try to 
prepare for the summit at the

[[Page 468]]

appropriate date in Vancouver. I expect to spend a good deal of time 
this week consulting with the congressional leaders of both parties and 
others who might have ideas about what we ought to put in our package. 
And I intend to go there with an aggressive and quite specific plan for 
American partnership. So that's where we are now.
    Q. Would you go to Moscow if it was called for?
    The President. Well, let me say this. If they were to express an 
interest in that, then it's obviously something that we would have to 
consider. But that has not been done yet. There were some conversations 
this morning between the Secretary of State and Mr. Kozyrev--that has 
not been done yet. If that were to happen, then we would cross that 
bridge when we come to it.
    Q. Mr. President, what would the U.S. policy be if the Soviet 
legislature votes to impeach Mr. Yeltsin, as appears increasingly 
likely? Would you continue to view Mr. Yeltsin as the duly elected 
leader of Russia?
    The President. Well, I view him as such now. He is the only person 
who has been elected. The others are proceeding under a constitution 
that goes back to the Communist era. What I would do under those 
circumstances, I don't want to speculate about.
    First of all, let me say, we have to appreciate, I think, the unique 
character of the events going on in Russia. It is a Russian experience. 
I myself have been, I think, in a way, most interested by the television 
interviews of the people in the street in Russia. You know, just talking 
about it, they sound almost like our people might sound talking about 
some fight we were having here. They've been remarkably level-headed 
about it and of different opinions, obviously. I think we just have to 
let this play out. I don't want to speculate about what the position of 
the United States would be in a hypothetical situation.
    Yes.

Russian Nuclear Weapons

    Q. Mr. President, have you received any assurances about the command 
and control of Russian nuclear weapons in this crisis?
    The President. We are monitoring that very closely, and we will 
continue to monitor that very closely. At the present time, we have no 
reason to be concerned that the command and control procedures that are 
appropriate have been interrupted or face any imminent threat of 
interruption. We feel good about it at this time, and we will continue 
to monitor it closely.
    Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News].

U.S. Role in Russian Reform

    Q. Mr. President, I wonder what your view of the American 
possibilities are. How do you see the U.S. role? Can the U.S. play a 
decisive role, or are we really just ultimately bystanders?
    The President. I think somewhere in between. I think in the end the 
Russian people will have to resolve this for themselves, and I hope 
they'll be given the opportunity to do that in some appropriate fashion. 
I have only the same access, in a way, that you do in terms of all the 
possible developments that are in the air. I do not believe that we can 
be decisive in the sense that we can determine the course of events in 
Russia or, frankly, in the other Republics of the former Soviet Union, 
with which we also have a deep interest. But I do believe that we are 
not bystanders. For one thing, I don't think that this country can do 
what it needs to do in any acceptable timeframe in moving to a 
successful economy unless we move to act across a whole broad range of 
areas. And over the next few days, I should have more to say about that 
as I work hard on this package.
    Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, Cable News Network].

Defense Budget Cuts

    Q. Mr. President, the former Secretary of State, Dick Cheney, and 
the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sam Nunn, have both 
suggested that your proposed Pentagon budget cuts would perhaps be 
inappropriate at this time of uncertainty in Russia and elsewhere around 
the world. Are you taking another look at all of those cuts to perhaps 
revisit the whole issue?
    The President. I'm not taking another look at the cuts at this time. 
Let me remind you that basically I think we have still presented a 
responsible defense budget. But what I am doing is trying to make sure 
that we can fulfill the missions that we have to fulfill based on any 
projected developments

[[Page 469]]

within the confines of that budget as it's staged over the next 5 years. 
And we'll be able to constantly review that. Obviously, these budgets 
are passed every year for 5 years in the future. And I expect, to 
whatever extent the world is uncertain, we'll have to be more vigilant 
in reviewing what our commitments are.

Aid to Russia

    Q. Mr. President, you've made clear that you support both Russian 
reform and Yeltsin as the embodiment of that reform movement. But if 
President Yeltsin is removed either constitutionally or 
unconstitutionally, would it affect the package of aid, both the size 
and the specific package that the United States would offer Russia, 
without a President Yeltsin? Should the conservatives, the nationalists 
in the Parliament be on notice that it could affect the kind of aid we'd 
contribute?
    The President. Well, let me say again, I don't want to get into 
hypothetical situations because I don't want anything I say or do to 
either undermine or rigidify the situation there. I mean, this is 
something the Russians are going to have to develop.
    The United States has three interests in our cooperation with 
Russia. One is to make the world a safer place, to continue to reduce 
the threat of nuclear war and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Two 
is to support the development of democracy and freedom for the people of 
Russia--it is a vast and great country--and indeed, for all of the 
Commonwealth of Independent States. And three is to support the 
development of a market economy. At every step along the way, with or 
without President Yeltsin in authority, from now, I suppose, until the 
end of time or at least for the foreseeable future, the United States 
will have those interests, and we will be guided by those interests.

Gays in the Military

    Q. Mr. President, you seem to be having some difficulty with the 
Pentagon. When you went to the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt, the sailors 
there were mocking you before your arrival, even though you are the 
Commander in Chief. The services have been undercutting your proposal 
for permitting gays to be in the military. There's been no Pentagon 
creation of the task force that was supposed to be created. The hearings 
are to start a week from now, and Congress has not gotten any advice 
from the Pentagon or from the services as to what to propose. Do you 
have a problem, perhaps because of your lack of military service or 
perhaps because of issues such as gays in the military, in being 
effective in your role as Commander in Chief, and what do you propose to 
do about it?
    The President. No. No, I don't have a problem being Commander in 
Chief. You knew that a lot of the service officers disagreed with the 
position on gays in the military before I ever took office. The 
Secretary of Defense has not been in the best of health; I think he is 
either fully recovered now or on the verge of it. And I asked him to 
give me a report on June 15th. Senator Nunn said back in January that he 
would have hearings sometime probably in March, so I think we're at the 
outer limits of the time that he was going to have hearings. And his 
schedule to have hearings, in my view, has nothing to do with the fact 
that I asked the Secretary of Defense to present to me on June 15th a 
report, which I expect to receive.
    Q. Can I follow, sir? The task force was supposed to be created by 
now. The Pentagon has not created the task force, and there has been no 
report to the Hill. And in fact, Senator Nunn has indicated that he 
thinks some of the compromises that might have been possible, such as 
not having gays go to sea or be in combat, are not constitutional. Does 
that give you pause?
    The President. Not constitutional?
    Q. Would not pass constitutional muster.
    The President. Well, I don't want to get into a constitutional 
debate, but if you can discriminate against people in terms of whether 
they get into the service or not, based on not what they are but what 
they say they are, then I would think you could make appropriate 
distinctions on duty assignments once they're in. The courts have 
historically given quite wide berth to the military to make judgments of 
that kind in terms of duty assignments.
    Yes.

[[Page 470]]

Potential Supreme Court Nominee

    Q. Mr. President, on another topic, you've laid out some of the 
criteria you're going to use to choose the next Supreme Court Justice: a 
fine mind, experience in the law, experience dealing with people, and a 
big heart. Does Governor Mario Cuomo fit that criteria, and do you think 
that he would make a good Supreme Court Justice?
    The President. Well, I'm on record on that, but the last time I said 
it, he wound up in the midst of a lot of conversation that I don't think 
either he or I intended. I will stay with my criteria. I will make the 
appointment as soon as I reasonably can. Justice White, I think, 
tendered his letter at this time, before the end of this term of Court, 
in order to give me a significant amount of time to make a judgment. 
This is a very busy time around here, as you know, because of all the 
foreign and domestic activities, but I intend to spend a lot of time on 
that.
    Yes?

FBI Director Sessions

    Q. Mr. President, aides suggest that you've made a preliminary 
decision to remove William Sessions, the FBI Director, from office; 
you're only waiting for a recommendation from Janet Reno. Can you deny 
that?
    The President. Yes, that's not correct. I've not had a decision 
about that. I have asked Janet Reno to look at it. My review of the 
Director and the issues surrounding his appointment is largely confined 
to what has already been in the press. I wanted to wait until I had an 
Attorney General and until she could make a review. I have not made a 
decision, and I am going to wait for her judgment on it.
    Yes, Susan [Susan Spencer, CBS News].

Health Care Reform

    Q. Americans are eagerly awaiting May 1st to find out what you have 
in mind for health care reform. Are you ready to stand here now and make 
a pledge that by the end of your first term all Americans will have 
health insurance? And how much latitude do you think you have 
politically to raise taxes to be sure that that happens before the end 
of your first term? And I have a followup.
    The President. Well, I'm ready to tell you that I will present a 
plan which would provide the American people the opportunity to have the 
security of health care coverage by the end of my first term. Whether or 
not that plan will pass the Congress in the form I will propose it, you 
know, that's a matter for conjecture. But I think we've got an excellent 
chance of passing it. In terms of how it will be paid for, let me say 
that no decision has been made on that. All the surveys show lopsided 
majorities of the American people willing to pay somewhat more, a little 
more, if they were guaranteed the security of health care coverage when 
they change jobs, when someone in their family's been sick, when other 
things happen, when their company can no longer afford it under present 
circumstances.
    But what I'm trying to do now is to reconcile--the key financial 
conflict in the health care issue is this: We've got to give the 
American people the right to know they're going to be covered with 
health insurance, that they're not going to have their costs going up 2 
or 3 times the rate of inflation, and they're not going to lose the 
right to pick their doctor. And we know that if we do it in any one of 
three or four ways, it will save literally hundreds of billions of 
dollars, between now and the end of the decade, of tax money and more 
importantly of private money. Massive amounts of money will be saved. So 
the question is: How much do you have to raise now in order to save all 
that money later? Those are the judgments we'll be making in the next 
month. We've still got about 5 weeks to make the decisions.
    You had a followup.
    Q. I did. I wanted to ask you if long-term care would absolutely be 
included in that package of benefits that you're talking about everybody 
having by the end of the first term.
    The President. To what extent it will be hasn't been resolved 
because of the cost questions there.
    Mark [Mark Miller, Newsweek].

Gays in the Military

    Q. Are you prepared to support restrictions, to follow up on 
Andrea's [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News] question, prepared to

[[Page 471]]

support restrictions on the deployment of homosexual members of the 
service? And if you are, do you think that fulfills the criteria that 
you laid out that discrimination should be on the basis of conduct, not 
orientation?
    The President. That depends on what the report says. That's why I'm 
waiting for the Secretary of Defense to issue the report. But I wouldn't 
rule that out, depending on what the grounds and arguments were.
    Yes.

Health Care Reform

    Q. Mr. President, your own advisers have said that your health care 
reform might cost from $30 billion to $90 billion more a year, cost the 
Government more. That's in addition to the tax hikes you proposed for 
your economic program. Are you saying you cannot tell the middle class 
and working people that you will not seek higher taxes for health care 
reform?
    The President. I'm saying that I have not made a judgment yet about 
how to recover what monies it would take to provide the security to all 
families that they would have some health insurance. That's right, I 
have not made that decision yet. I have sat through now probably 10, 12 
hours, maybe, of intense staff briefings on the health care issue, and I 
would say we have 12 to 15 hours to go before I will be in a position to 
make some of these calls.
    I can tell you this: I will not ask the American people to pay for a 
health care plan until the people who will be making money out of the 
changes that we propose are asked to give back some of the money they 
will make. Keep in mind, these changes will save massive amounts of 
money immediately to some of the health care providers.
    Yes.

President Boris Yeltsin of Russia

    Q. Thank you, sir. Mr. President, if I may return to Russia for a 
moment. As your spokespersons have told us over the past few days, there 
are other reformers there. Is there a danger in putting too much 
American weight behind Boris Yeltsin?
    The President. I don't think so. Some people say, well, what's the 
difference in this and the Gorbachev situation before, and is this the 
same sort of problem? I tried to answer that question earlier about what 
the United States interests are and how we would pursue them. And I've 
tried to be supportive of reformers throughout Russia and, indeed, 
throughout all the former Communist countries and the former Republics 
of the Soviet Union. But he is, after all, the first elected President 
in a thousand years. He has the mandate of having been voted on in a 
free and open election where people were free to vote and free to stay 
home, something that was not true previously. And that is something you 
would expect me to do.
    Let's put it in a different context. Well, we just had the Prime 
Minister of Great Britain here, right? And the United States and Great 
Britain have had historic ties and shared values. You expect me to work 
with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, even if he is of a party that 
was openly supportive of my opponent in the last election. [Laughter] 
Boris Yeltsin is the elected President of Russia, and he has shown a 
great deal of courage in sticking up for democracy and civil liberties 
and market reforms, and I'm going to support that.
    Yes, in the back.

Support for the Economic Plan

    Q. Mr. President, you congratulated the House of Representatives for 
a speedy action on your economic plan last week, but you face some 
tougher hurdles in the Senate in part because some members of your own 
party, like Senator Breaux, are not on board with you. Why haven't you 
been able to get some of these Democratic Senators on board, and are you 
prepared to make some compromises in breaking the gridlock there?
    The President. Well, let me just answer you this way. There were two 
big problems that we confronted when we got here in terms of how the 
people's money was being spent. One problem was the deficit had 
exploded. It had gone from $1 trillion, the debt had, to $4 trillion in 
12 years. The other problem was we'd managed to explode our national 
debt while reducing our investment in the future.
    Now, there are a block of people in the Senate, including some 
Democrats, who believe that the only thing that matters is to

[[Page 472]]

reduce the deficit. Now, believe me, that's a big improvement over the 
past, but I just disagree with them. I don't think that's the only thing 
that matters. I believe that investing in the future matters, too. And I 
believe if we don't change the spending patterns of the Government and 
invest and put some of the American people back to work to create 
millions of jobs, that we're not going to have an economic recovery. So 
we just have a difference of opinion.
    Now, Senator Breaux is much closer to me than many others are in the 
sense that he basically wants to phase in this spending. But the problem 
with phasing it in is if you delay the investment, you also delay the 
impact of the investment, which means you put off the effective date of 
the jobs being created. That's my only argument with him. He, to be fair 
to him, has said, ``This is an acceptable stimulus package and an 
acceptable level of investment, but I think we should, in effect, slow 
down the rate of spending until we have the whole package passed.'' And 
my position is, if the United States Senate will adopt a budget 
resolution like the House did, the American people will know we are not 
going to raise their taxes until we cut spending, and we are going to 
create jobs. And this is a plan where 70 percent of it's paid by people 
with incomes above $100,000, $500 billion of deficit reduction, but 
millions of jobs over the next 4 years, including a half a million in 
this program. So that's my argument, and I hope I'll be able to persuade 
enough to get the vote.
    Yes.

Russian Nuclear Weapons

    Q. Mr. President, could you explain, please, the situation on 
nuclear weapons in Russia?
    The President. This is self-selection over here. It's impressive. 
[Laughter] Go ahead.
    Q. Mr. President, given the fact that both the START I and the START 
II treaties are hostage to the political outcome in Moscow, and given 
also the potential for conflict, armed conflict between Russia and 
Ukraine, are you prepared to draft contingency plans, at least, that 
would either restore funding or add funding to the Strategic Defense 
Initiative, if not the space-based part, at least the ground-based 
element, as a hedge against the worst possible outcome?
    The President. Well, we're not in a position to make a judgment 
about the worst possible outcome now. Let me say, I've talked to 
President Kravchuk twice about the Ukraine's position on START I, and 
I'm very concerned about the very issues you raised. But let me say that 
even as we speak I'm not ready to say that there is a strong likelihood 
that we can't proceed with both START I and START II and that we can't 
resolve the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine. If that becomes 
apparent that we can't, then we will obviously assess our position and 
all of our options.

North American Free Trade Agreement

    Q. Mr. President, on April 2, the Free Trade Agreement negotiators 
are going to meet again to talk about the additional agreements. Now, 
there has been a lot of talk that your administration plans to be very 
tough. How do you characterize being tough? Do you agree with that 
statement, and is there any room for compromises? How are you seeing 
those negotiations?
    The President. Well, I wouldn't call it being tough. I would say 
that I intend to try to get a trade agreement that will be in the best 
interest of both the United States and Mexico. And keep in mind, this is 
not simply a trade agreement, this is also an investment agreement. And 
the issue is whether, when we make it much more attractive for the 
United States to invest in Mexico and much more secure, shouldn't we 
also, in the interest of both the economies of Mexico and the United 
States, see that basic environmental standards and labor standards are 
observed, and shouldn't we have some protections greater than those 
embodied in the present agreement in the event that there is severe 
economic dislocations because of unintended consequences? I believe that 
we should. And I believe that's in Mexico's interest. And I would just 
point you to a much smaller example. We had examples in our aid program 
where the United States spent taxpayers' money to encourage American 
companies to invest in Central America, who then went down there and 
actually lowered wages instead of raising them in the host country. So

[[Page 473]]

what I'm trying to do is to promote market reforms and the benefits of 
them to both countries.
    Second thing, let me say, I have enormous admiration for President 
Salinas and for what he's doing. I want to support that. And I want to 
remind all of you that insofar as to the trade portion of the NAFTA 
agreement goes, just look at the unilateral reductions by the Salinas 
government in trade barriers; took the United States over the past 5 
years from a $6 billion trade deficit to a $5 billion-plus trade surplus 
with Mexico. So I have no quarrel with the trade provisions. But the 
investment provisions need to be used in ways that will raise wages on 
both sides of the border instead of lower wages on both sides of the 
border and pollute the environment. That's what I want to avoid.

Cuba-U.S. Relations

    Q. Among the people you have charmed, it seems you have charmed 
President Fidel Castro because--[laughter]--in a recent interview with a 
TV network, he wanted to meet with you. Would you be willing to meet 
with him? And a Democratic administration might change the approach 
towards Cuba, versus a Republican?
    The President. I have no change in Cuba policy except to say that I 
supported the Cuban Democracy Act, and I hope someday that we'll all be 
able to travel to a democratic Cuba.
    Debra [Debra Mathis, Gannett News Service]----
    Q. Would you meet with President Castro?
    The President. I said ``democratic Cuba''--elections.
    Go ahead.

Deaths in Mississippi Jails

    Q. A totally different subject, although it is south of here. I 
wonder about, in Mississippi, where as you know, civil rights and human 
rights groups are asking for your help in investigating the 40-plus 
hangings, suicides supposedly, in Mississippi jails. Some of the civil 
rights groups say that they are asking you, in fact, to order a Justice 
Department investigation. Have you heard from them directly, and are you 
amenable to that request?
    The President. Well, I'm very much concerned about the deaths in the 
jails. I have not had a--if they have communicated with me directly, my 
staff has not yet discussed it with me, although they may have done so. 
What I would always do in a situation like that is to first discuss it 
with the Attorney General after an assessment of the facts and to see 
whether it is appropriate. But obviously, if we were asked to look into 
it, I would certainly at least discuss it with the Attorney General.

Japan-U.S. Trade

    Q. Mr. President, on another trade issue, during your campaign last 
year in Michigan and other States, you criticized a Bush administration 
decision which allowed foreign-made minivans, MPV's to come into the 
country at low tariff rates. This led the auto industry and auto workers 
to believe that you would take action early in your administration to do 
something about this. Have you changed your mind on that subject, or do 
you still intend to take action?
    The President. No, I haven't changed my mind on that subject. That 
issue is now under review, along with a number of others relating to our 
trade relations with Japan. And let me just say this: I had hoped, and 
still hope, to engage the Japanese Government in an ongoing dialog 
across a whole broad range of these issues. If you look at the history 
of American trade relationships, the one that never seems to change very 
much is the one with Japan. That is, we're sometimes in a position of 
trade deficit, but we're often in a position of trade surplus with the 
European Community. We once had huge trade deficits with Taiwan and 
South Korea, but they've changed now quite a bit; they move up and down. 
But the persistence of the surplus the Japanese enjoy with the United 
States and with the rest of the developed world can only lead one to the 
conclusion that the possibility of obtaining real, even access to the 
Japanese market is somewhat remote. And I will say again, I was 
astonished that the Bush administration overruled its own customs office 
and gave a $300 million a year freebie to the Japanese for no apparent 
reason. And we got nothing, and I emphasize nothing, in return. So, no, 
I haven't changed

[[Page 474]]

my position about that. I did hope to put it in the context of a larger 
set of trade issues to be raised first with the Japanese Government 
before acting unilaterally. But my own opinion about that has not 
changed.
    Yes, Randy [Randy Lilleston, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette], go ahead.
    Q. Mr. President, you've been----
    The President. I'm going to come back to the right. I'm left-handed, 
you know, and I--[laughter]--sometimes discriminate. No, go ahead.

Potential Supreme Court Nominee

    Q. Mr. President, during the campaign you gave some pretty strong 
indications that your Supreme Court nominee--you would certainly 
consider their position on abortion. Is that still the case?
    The President. Thank you for asking, because I want to emphasize 
what I said before. I will not ask any potential Supreme Court nominee 
how he or she would vote in any particular case. I will not do that. But 
I will endeavor to appoint someone who has certain deep convictions 
about the Constitution. I would not, for example, knowingly appoint 
someone that did not have a very strong view about the first amendment's 
freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech 
provisions. And I strongly believe in the constitutional right to 
privacy. I believe it is one of those rights embedded in our 
Constitution which should be protected.
    Yes.
    Q. Mr. President, on the issue of the Supreme Court, is your 
commitment to a Government that looks like America, does that also 
extend to the Supreme Court to the extent you can influence that through 
your appointments? Will you be taking age into consideration? And given 
what you just said about the right to privacy, do you think it's 
appropriate and will you or members of your administration be asking 
potential nominees if they support the right to privacy and whether they 
think that right includes the right to abortion?
    The President. I'll answer the question. I will not ask anybody how 
they will vote in a specific case. I will endeavor to appoint someone 
who has an attachment to, a belief in a strong and broad constitutional 
right to privacy. And on the age issue, I will not discriminate against 
people who are older than I am. [Laughter] Yes. I won't discriminate 
against people who are of a different gender, of a different racial or 
ethnic group.
    Q. How about a Government and the Court that looks like America, 
sir--on diversity?
    The President. I don't know how many appointments I'll get to the 
Supreme Court; I don't know what will happen there. I'm going to appoint 
someone I think will be a great Justice.
    Go ahead.

Campaign Finance Reform

    Q. Mr. President, on campaign finance reform, could you tell us how 
you plan to end soft money contributions to State and national parties?
    The President. First let me say that I intend to come forward with a 
proposal that will end the use of soft money in Presidential campaigns 
in the next few days. We're working on it now. We're working on trying 
to hammer it out with the friends of campaign finance reform in both 
Houses of the Congress. I will attempt to do it in a different way that 
will at least enable the parties to raise sufficient funds to involve 
grassroots people and empower people to participate in the political 
process, but I think that we should do away with this soft money issue 
and make a lot of other changes as well, and we're working on it. We 
should have a bill out that has the support of the administration quite 
soon. We've been working very hard now for the last couple of weeks on 
it.
    Press Secretary Myers. Last question.

Forest Conference

    Q. Mr. President, you're going to the forest conference in a couple 
of weeks, looking for a solution to an issue that has dragged on for a 
long time partly because both sides are unwilling to compromise or share 
the pain and, some say, the previous administration's unwillingness to 
obey the law of the land. How do you propose to find a solution where so 
many have failed or been unwilling to find a solution?
    The President. Let me say, I would like to begin by having the 
United States have one position, and let me come back to the

[[Page 475]]

larger issue. The forest summit involves, as you know, what will happen 
to the old growth forest and to adjacent forests in the Pacific 
Northwest which are the habitat of the spotted owl, but which also are 
now a very small part of what once was a massive old growth forest up 
there. Thousands of jobs are at stake, but the very ecostructure of the 
Pacific Northwest is also at stake. The parties on both sides have been 
paralyzed in court battles, and all timber sales have been frozen, 
including many timber sales that virtually all environmentalists think 
should go forward, because of the impasse. One of the problems has been 
that the United States itself has taken different positions across the 
Agencies. So the first thing I hope to do is to be able to at least 
adopt a uniform legal position for the United States.
    The second thing I want to do is go out there along with the Vice 
President and listen, hammer out the alternatives, and then take a 
position that I think will break the logjam. The position--it may be 
like my economic program--it'll probably make everybody mad, but I will 
try to be fair to the people whose livelihoods depend on this and fair 
to the environment that we are all obligated to maintain. And let me 
say, I live in a State that's 53 percent timberland. I have dealt with a 
lot of these timber issues for many years. The issue is, in this case, 
what is the right balance, given some facts that are inevitable about 
what's going to happen. And I think we can hammer out a solution. And as 
I said, everybody may be somewhat disappointed, but the paralysis now 
gripping the lives of the people out there is totally unacceptable.

Economic Stimulus Package

    Q. Sir, did you screen those projects in the economy stimulus 
package before you sent them to the Hill? The Republicans are saying 
there are so many things in there that are totally unnecessary. I can't 
believe that you sent those up there; and maybe somebody did it for you. 
[Laughter] But there are--[inaudible]--in there and swimming pools and 
copying statues----
    The President. No.
    Q. ----and even a project on studying the religion in Sicily.
    The President. No--[laughter]--let me say, you will read those bills 
for years in vain and not find those projects. The----
    Q. Well, the----
    The President. Let me say, I have a letter here, dated on March 22d, 
to Senator Byrd from Leon Panetta about those alleged projects. What Mr. 
Panetta points out is to say that none of the specific projects 
referenced are actually in the legislation proposed by me. What they 
have done is to go to these Departments and say, if you had this much 
more money, give me every absurd thing you could possibly spend the 
money on. I am not going to let those things be done.
    The other thing they have done is to go to some isolated parts of 
the country and pick atypical examples of community development block 
grant funds. I would remind you that it was the Republicans who've 
always supported the community development block grant proposal on the 
theory that we ought to rely more on the States and local governments to 
make judgments about how best to create jobs. So, I will do everything I 
can to keep undue waste and abuse from coming into this process. I do 
not support it.
    We've got to quit. Thank you. We'll do it again sometime. I like 
this. [Laughter]

Note: The President's seventh news conference began at 1:02 p.m. in the 
East Room at the White House.