[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 30, Number 33 (Monday, August 22, 1994)]
[Pages 1682-1690]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference

August 19, 1994

Cuban Refugees

    The President. Good afternoon. In recent weeks the Castro regime has 
encouraged Cubans to take to the sea in unsafe vessels to escape their 
nation's internal problems. In

[[Page 1683]]

so doing, it has risked the lives of thousands of Cubans, and several 
have already died in their efforts to leave.
    This action is a cold-blooded attempt to maintain the Castro grip on 
Cuba and to divert attention from his failed Communist policies. He is 
trying to export to the United States the political and economic crises 
he has created in Cuba, in defiance of the democratic tide flowing 
throughout this region.
    Let me be clear: The Cuban Government will not succeed in any 
attempt to dictate American immigration policy. The United States will 
do everything within its power to ensure that Cuban lives are saved and 
that the current outflow of refugees is stopped.
    Today, I have ordered that illegal refugees from Cuba will not be 
allowed to enter the United States. Refugees rescued at sea will be 
taken to our naval base at Guantanamo, while we explore the possibility 
of other safe havens within the region. To enforce this policy, I have 
directed the Coast Guard to continue its expanded effort to stop any 
boat illegally attempting to bring Cubans to the United States. The 
United States will detain, investigate, and, if necessary, prosecute 
Americans who take to the sea to pick up Cubans. Vessels used in such 
activities will be seized.
    I want to compliment the Coast Guard and the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service for their efforts. And I want to thank Florida's 
officials, including Governor Chiles and the Florida congressional 
delegation, for their help in protecting and saving the lives of Cubans 
who seek to escape the regime.

Crime Legislation

    Now I'd like to speak just for a moment about the crime bill. In the 
last week I have fought hard to put this crime bill back on track. After 
extensive talks with members of both parties, I have indicated my 
support for strengthening the provisions that require sexual predators 
to report to the police and make sure their communities are notified of 
their presence. And I support cutting overall spending in the bill by 10 
percent.
    These cuts will ensure that every dollar authorized in the bill will 
actually be paid for, not with new taxes and not by diverting dollars 
from other needed programs but, as I have always insisted, with the 
savings we will gain from reducing the size of the Federal Government by 
over a quarter of a million people over the next 6 years, to its lowest 
size in over 30 years, since President Kennedy was here. And all of 
these historic savings will go back to the American people to make their 
streets and their homes, their schools safer.
    I have insisted that we keep the most profoundly important elements 
of the crime bill, to keep it tough by putting 100,000 police officers 
on the street, building more prisons, putting violent criminals away for 
good, by making ``three strikes, you're out'' the law of the land, and 
by other stronger provisions on sentencing. And we're going to keep it 
smart, with the sensible crime prevention programs that steer our kids 
away from drugs and gangs and give them things to say yes to.
    The crime bill must ban handguns for juveniles and take deadly 
assault weapons off our streets. Even though we've come under intense 
pressure from forces that will apparently say anything to take the 
assault weapons out of the bill, I have refused to do so.
    Let's keep in mind what this crime bill is all about. It's about 
removing fear from our streets, our schools, and our home. Innocent 
Americans should not have to fear being preyed upon, as so many do 
today. Innocent children should not have to fear losing their 
childhoods, as so many do today. We owe it to the American people that 
do the work and pay the bills in this country to make sure that people 
who commit crimes get caught, that those who are guilty get convicted, 
and those who are convicted serve their time. We also owe it to them to 
do whatever we can to prevent crime in the first place. That's what the 
police and the prevention programs are all about.
    That's why it is so important and why I have worked so hard to make 
sure that we do not turn this crime issue into yet another Washington 
partisan issue. This is a grassroots, mainstream, nonpartisan issue, and 
so it should remain. It must be an American crime bill. We have worked 
hard on it, and I call upon Congress to pass it without delay.
    Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].

[[Page 1684]]

Cuba

    Q. Mr. President, on behalf of all the press corps, we want to wish 
you a happy birthday.
    The President. Thank you.
    Q. And now----
    The President. Well, you could all do a lot to make it happy. 
[Laughter] That is not a guilt trip; feel no pressure. [Laughter] Thank 
you.
    Q. Mr. President, in the last 35 years we've had an embargo against 
Cuba and increased the economic burden on them. I understand that's why 
the refugees are coming in. What is the problem with taking a few small, 
albeit brave steps to negotiate a possible movement toward democracy 
with Cuba? We've dealt with many Communist countries through the last 35 
years, and we're dealing with them now.
    The President. There aren't many left.
    I support the embargo, and I support the Cuban Democracy Act, which 
was passed in 1992. And I do not believe we should change our policy 
there.
    The fundamental problem is, democracy is sweeping the world; 
democracy and freedom are sweeping our hemisphere. In the Caribbean 
alone, and in Central and South America, in all of this region, there 
are only two countries now not democratically governed with open 
societies and open economies. The real problem is the stubborn refusal 
of the Castro regime to have an open democracy and an open economy. And 
I think the policies we are following will hasten the day when that 
occurs, and we follow those policies because we believe they are the 
ones most likely to promote democracy and ultimately prosperity for the 
people of Cuba.
    Q. But that's not true of North Korea or China, and you're dealing 
with them every day.
    The President. I think the circumstances are different, and I think 
our policy is correct.
    Q. Mr. President, recognizing that you're slowing down the process, 
do people fleeing Cuba still get automatic entry to the United States as 
political refugees if they're not criminals or ill?
    The President. No.
    Q. You're ending----
    The President. The people leaving Cuba will not be permitted to come 
to the United States. They will be sent to safe havens.
    Q. The people who reach here?
    The President. The people who reach here will be apprehended and 
will be treated like others. They will be--their cases will be reviewed. 
Those who qualify can stay, and those who don't will not be permitted 
to. They will be now treated like others who come here.
    Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News].
    Q. Mr. President, under the law it has always been clear that the 
Cuban refugees had a certain priority on staying here. The policy, of 
course, has been that anybody who got here got to stay. What restraints 
are you operating under in terms of the law in changing this policy? Or 
are you likely, sir, to be sued over this?
    The President. No--let me--I'm glad you asked that question in 
contradistinction to the one you asked right afterward. The Cuban 
Adjustment Act will continue to be the law of the land. But we are doing 
our best within that--we will detain the Cubans who come here now. They 
will not simply be released into the population at large. And we will 
review all their cases in light of the applicable law, including the 
Cuban Adjustment Act.
    Q. Do you know how long it will take, how long----
    The President. It depends on how many there are, of course. And we 
don't know.
    Andrea [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News].
    Q. Can you give us some more details? Are these people going to be 
taken to Guantanamo? What kind of strain might this place on our naval 
forces, the Coast Guard? Already we're being told that drug interdiction 
is being cut back. And can you respond to criticism already from Bob 
Dole and Newt Gingrich? In particular, Mr. Gingrich said that your new 
policy is appalling, it's an example of mixed morality, and that he 
thinks it is illegal under the act.
    The President. Well, first, let me answer the factual questions. The 
refugees, those who are fleeing, will be taken first to Guantanamo where 
we will seek safe havens for them. That is plainly not illegal under 
inter- 

[[Page 1685]]

national law, nor do we believe it is illegal under the Cuban Adjustment 
Act.
    Secondly, as to whether it is immoral, I just would say it is my 
belief that the American people and that the Cuban-American people and 
the people of Florida but the people of the entire United States do not 
want to see another Mariel boatlift. They do not want to see Cuba 
dictate our immigration policy. They do not want to see Mr. Castro able 
to export his political and economic problems to the United States.
    Now, that is what is plainly being set up. We have gone through that 
once. We had 120,000 people sent to this country as a deliberate 
attempt--not because they themselves initially wanted to flee; they were 
encouraged to flee, they were pushed out; we had jails open; we had 
mental hospitals open--all in an attempt to export all the problems of 
Cuba to the United States. We tried it that way once. It was wrong then, 
and it's wrong now. And I'm not going to let it happen again.
    Q. Can you respond to the rest of the question?
    The President. Yes, that's my answer to them.
    Q. What about the naval forces, the Coast Guard? Are they up to 
this? Will it affect drug----
    The President. I think the Coast Guard is plainly up to it. We may 
have to have a little more Navy support. I met with the Secretary of 
Defense this morning; we discussed it at length. He is confident that we 
can do what we have to do without undermining our fundamental mission.

Crime Legislation

    Q. President Clinton, previously you said that the crime bill was 
something that you supported, that you wanted to sign as it was. Now 
you're saying you can take 10 percent out of it. Why shouldn't the 
American people believe that there's still a lot of fat that can come 
out of it?
    The President. First of all, anytime you start a--I've never seen a 
bill that started new programs that you couldn't cut some and maintain 
its fundamental integrity. I said that crime bill was a strong and good 
bill as it was, and it was a strong and good bill.
    But one of the things that happened in conference that has, I think, 
been largely overlooked is that in an attempt to get as much money as 
possible for police officers and law enforcement and for prisons and for 
border patrol, funds were appropriated or were authorized in the crime 
bill that came out of conference in an amount greater than we could 
provide in the trust fund. Keep in mind, the great beauty of this crime 
bill is it's the first major program in American history that's being 
financed entirely by reducing the size of the Federal bureaucracy and 
taking all the savings from the Federal Government and putting it in a 
trust fund to help grassroots Americans get better control over their 
own lives.
    The practical impact of what we are doing by cutting 10 percent of 
this will be to be able to put everything that's left into the trust 
fund. So, in terms of real dollars, I believe there will be more money 
actually appropriated and spent for tough law enforcement and for police 
officers. And I believe that all the fundamental, important things in 
the prevention strategy will be maintained at a very high level and 
dramatically higher than now.
    The principles of the bill are intact: It's the biggest increase in 
police in the history of the country; it's the toughest increase in 
punishment in the history of the country; it's the biggest increase in 
prevention programs in the history of the country.
    I am not a Member of the Congress. They have to work out all the 
details. If they produced this bill out of the conference, I would have 
happily supported this, as I did the other one.
    Q. Wouldn't you just be getting into politics then, by accepting the 
original bill?
    The President. Now, that's one of those questions designed to spoil 
your birthday. [Laughter] Because it's something else--it's designed to 
confuse the American people about what really goes on up here.
    The President is not a Member of the Congress. The Congress made a 
decision that they had a bill that they all wanted. They accommodated 
the interest as best they could. It met all my fundamental criteria: 
assault weapons ban, ban on handgun ownership by kids, tougher 
penalties, longer im- 

[[Page 1686]]

prisonment, more prevention. So does this bill. This bill has the added 
virtue of being able to be fully funded in the trust fund that we are 
creating by reducing the Federal Government to its lowest size in 30 
years.
    And if, in fact--let me just say, Rita [Rita Braver, CBS News], 
there has been no conference. If in fact, the conference proceeds along 
the lines that I generally believe it's going on, and it has the added 
virtue of some strengthening of the language which was put in involving 
this whole sexual predator issue--so, in that sense, I think it is a 
fine bill that meets all the criteria, and it doesn't just gut the 
prevention programs, which I was determined to see not happen.
    Yes, Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, Cable News Network].

Cuba

    Q. Mr. President, you say that you're not going to allow Fidel 
Castro to dictate U.S. immigration policy. But hasn't he just done that 
by forcing you to reverse three decades of a policy? And secondly, what 
do you say to Cuban-Americans, especially in Florida, who feel betrayed 
by this change in policy?
    The President. Well, I believe that most Cuban-Americans want us to 
be very firm. The Cuban-Americans that I know, without regard to their 
party, supported the Cuba Democracy Act, and they remember how awful it 
was for the United States when the Mariel boatlift occurred. They 
remembered what it did in this country and the feelings it engendered in 
this country. And I do not believe they want another Mariel boatlift. 
And I do not believe we can afford to do that. And so my own view is 
that most Cuban-Americans will support what we're trying to do and wish 
us to be firm.
    I would remind you that the Attorney General, who is in charge or 
oversees the INS, who has done a lot of work on this, and who will have 
a press conference, I think, when I finish to answer some of the details 
of this policy, was the prosecuting attorney in Dade County. I talked to 
the Governor last night at some length about this--of Florida.
    I think my own feeling is--and I've talked to Cuban-Americans, of 
course, exhaustively for years now, and we've been in touch with them 
and with the Florida congressional delegation--I believe this policy 
will have broad support. I will be surprised if it does not have broad 
support.
    Yes, Cragg [Cragg Hines, Houston Chronicle].
    Q. By telling Cubans basically to stay home and at least temporarily 
to stomach conditions there, does that make it incumbent on you to be 
more active in seeking to oust Castro?
    The President. Well, what we are telling Cubans is that we have a 
provision for their coming to the United States through in-country 
processing. And at least as of this date, we have no evidence that the 
Castro government has done anything to discourage Cubans from coming to 
the in-country processing, applying for the visas if they're eligible to 
come here, and getting them. That's what we're saying to them. That is, 
we do not have any evidence that would justify believing that that 
process won't work in Cuba as it has in other places. And indeed, the 
Castro government has encouraged Cubans to go down and apply to come 
here. But we don't object to that. That's the policy we have everywhere, 
and that's the policy we should have there.
    Q. But doesn't that make it incumbent on you to unilaterally or 
multinationally press for the ouster of Castro in some way--military, 
economic, whatever?
    The President. The United States had done more than any other 
country to try to bring an end to the Castro government. We have done it 
through the Cuban Democracy Act. We have done it through the embargo. We 
have worked hard, often laboring almost alone to that end. And we will 
continue to do that by whatever reasonable means are available to us.

Health Care Reform

    Q. Mr. President, one of your fellow Democrats in the Senate, Sam 
Nunn of Georgia, said yesterday that it would be months if not years 
before a health care reform bill is produced. And the Congressional 
Budget Office said that a possible moderate compromise didn't cost out. 
There's a growing feeling in Washington that this health care crusade is 
hopelessly bogged down in

[[Page 1687]]

Congress at this point. What is your view of the situation?
    The President. That they should keep working at it; that if we don't 
move now there's a chance that it won't happen at all. You know, the 
congressional timetable is often different from the American timetable. 
I mean it took 7 years to pass the Brady bill and 7 years to pass family 
leave.
    But for 60 years people have acknowledged that not covering all 
Americans and having no system for dealing with the explosive costs and 
the inequalities in the health care system were a problem. They have 
reached a significant crisis stage here, with 5 million more Americans 
losing their health insurance in the last 5 years alone, with the costs 
exploding in the last 12 years. And I believe that the time has come to 
deal with this.
    Now, Senator Nunn simply observed what I think is clearly a fact, 
which is that in the Senate there is unlimited debate and you can have 
unlimited amendments. But a lot of these issues do need to be worked 
through.
    I think the comments Senator Kennedy and Senator Mitchell made today 
about the fact that this bipartisan group was at least attempting to 
work with them, and in the process of so attempting, finding out how 
hard it is. It's easy to stand on the sideline and lob brick bats at 
these efforts and quite another thing to produce your own effort. But 
their comment made me believe that there is still a chance that people 
will work together and resolve this. So I would say to them, keep 
working, keep working at it, because if you delay, you may lose it 
altogether.
    Q. Well, at this point, would you take something less than what 
Mitchell or Gephardt has proposed just to keep the process moving, since 
as you say if we don't get it now, we probably won't get it.
    The President. I think that, for one thing, that's not so easy to 
do, because as we've also seen from the studies of the Catholic Health 
Association and others, the so-called ``something less'' approach often 
does more harm than good; that when you just try to patchwork this, 
often you lead to more people without insurance and higher insurance 
rates.
    What I would say to you is, give the process time to unfold. I know 
for you it's been going on a long time, since we first began to debate 
this a year and a half ago. I think for the American people, it's almost 
like the baseball season, the pennant's just begun. I hope we can have 
the pennant in the other one, too, and the series. But I think we need 
to let this thing unfold a little more. I wouldn't prejudge it yet.
    Ron [Ron Brownstein, Los Angeles Times].

Crime Legislation

    Q. Mr. President, back to the crime bill. If the approach you're 
offering now, the changes you're offering now, does not produce enough 
votes to pass the bill, will you under any circumstances agree to sever 
the assault weapon ban for a separate vote in the House and the Senate?
    The President. I won't agree to that because I think it's a mistake. 
And let me say--I don't want to overly comment on it, but let me try to 
describe what the problem is. The bill has already passed the House. But 
in the Senate, as you know, we could have 55, 56, 57, 59 votes for that 
bill in the Senate and it could still be filibustered. And we should not 
permit that to happen.
    I also believe that there is a chance that this whole process in the 
last few days--we may look back on this in a year or so and think that 
this was the beginning of an effort, again, in other areas to work in 
good faith across the party lines. I have shown my good faith. I have 
taken the risk that all people take when they talk to people who are 
opposed to them of, well, being asked the questions like Rita asked me. 
But in this town it won't work if we have American problems unless we 
try to reach out across party lines. A lot of these issues don't work 
like that.
    So if we can work through this in good faith, my view is that we'll 
maybe be setting the stage to have more things like NAFTA and the Brady 
bill and the education bills and then this one where we can work 
together. So I don't believe we will have to do that, and I am against 
doing it. I think it would be a real error.

[[Page 1688]]

Cuba

    Q. Mr. President, Fidel Castro has been very high on the list of 
American demonology because he was a national security threat. I think 
of the Cuban missile crisis; he would provide a base for the Soviet 
Union. That's all ended now. Do you foresee a form of government, 
democratic government, in Havana with free elections that includes Fidel 
Castro? Or is it a case that Castro must go before there's any 
normalization?
    The President. Well, in any democracy it's up to the people to make 
their own decisions. The United States does not pick leaders or delete 
leaders for other countries. We let people make their own decisions.
    I don't want to get into that. I think what we need is a movement 
toward democracy and a free economy.

Legal Defense Fund

    Q. Mr. President, when the legal defense fund was set up for you to 
handle the costs of defending against the litigation, Lloyd Cutler said 
he was intervening in that as Presidential Counsel because it threatened 
the Presidency, these tremendous costs. Since then, the fund has decided 
it cannot legally solicit, leaving no explanation since then of, a, how 
will the money be raised to pay these bills and, two, in lieu of enough 
funding to do it, what other options do you have to protect the 
Presidency from the threat that he was talking about?
    The President. I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. I'll 
just have to let you ask Mr. Cutler that. I'm just trying to stay way 
from that whole issue of the fund, and I can't answer those questions.
    Yes, go ahead, Mike [Mike McKee, CONUS].

Bipartisanship

    Q. Mr. President, I hate to ask you one of those questions that 
might spoil your birthday again, but in light of problems that you have 
been having up on Capitol Hill, many people are wondering if changing 
your communication strategy, shuffling your staff might not be really 
addressing the problem; that perhaps I was wondering if you've thought 
about this, that as a President elected with 43 percent, you may be 
trying to do too much too fast. And Democrats on Capitol Hill may be 
trying to take too much of a partisan advantage of having control of the 
entire Government and perhaps exceeding your mandate.
    The President. Well, first, I don't want the Democrats to take 
partisan advantage; I just want us to get what's necessary for the 
country done. I do not believe the country believes that we should sit 
still up here.
    And for all your talk about trouble, let me remind you that every 
objective survey says that in 1993 this administration got more support 
from Congress than any administration since World War II except 
President Eisenhower in 1953, when he had a less ambitious agenda, and 
President Johnson in 1965, when he had a bigger mandate and more support 
from the Congress. So I think we're doing quite well with the Congress 
if you look at it in any kind of historic pattern.
    Now, I realize the fights and the conflicts and the delays endure 
more than the achievements. But we reversed Reaganomics. We passed an 
economic program that was part of a strategy that has given us 3 years 
of deficit reduction for the first time since Truman, over 4 million 
jobs. We have the most advances in trade than we've had in a generation, 
in the last year and a half. This economic program is working. We broke 
7 years of gridlock with the Brady bill. We passed NAFTA, which was 
deader than a doornail when I became President; we revived it and passed 
it.
    So I believe this Congress is capable of working together, often on 
a bipartisan basis. And they still have some great opportunities here. 
They have the crime bill, the campaign finance reform bill, the lobby 
reform bill, the bill that passed the House last week that has not yet 
passed the Senate to require the Congress to live under the laws it 
imposes on the American people, which I think is a very good bill, and 
of course, the health care challenge.
    But I believe what I have to do is to keep trying to change things. 
Anytime you try to provoke as much change as I have, you're going to 
have resistance. And you will be criticized. Is it more difficult that I 
had 43 percent of the vote? Perhaps it is. But I think you can make 
another argument, which was that 62 percent of the American people voted

[[Page 1689]]

for fundamental change in the things that we were doing and in the way 
Government works.
    If anything, I would say that I've been most disappointed, looking 
back, not so much in my inability to get things done, because once 
people look at the list it's a very long and impressive list, but I 
haven't been as successful in changing the way it works, that is, in 
trying to get the Democrats and Republicans to reach across to each 
other in good faith and work through these things. That's why I think 
this crime bill could be an important thing. It could be a way of people 
in both parties saying, ``We're putting you first for a change, not 
ourselves.''

Interest Rates

    Q. Mr. President, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates again 
this week. Some Democrats are saying that it could cause an economic 
slowdown. How many more rate increases will you take before you also 
criticize the Fed?
    The President. Well, when the Federal Reserve raised rates this 
week, the Chairman, Mr. Greenspan, said that he thought that this would 
be sufficient for a time. The truth is that our economic strategy has 
produced more rapid growth than they thought it would and that we 
thought it would. We are even doing better than we thought we would. We 
have got over 4 million jobs already in the last year and a half, and 
we've got rapid growth in the economy, dramatic new investments in the 
private sector. So they're worried about inflation. When it is apparent 
to me that the drag on the economy will be more about slowing the 
economy down than stopping inflation, I will do what I can to influence 
that policy. But I think my policy of letting them do their job and 
having me do mine has worked out rather well.
    And I would remind you that from the time we announced--let me just 
go back through a little history here--from the time we announced that 
we would have a serious assault on the deficit after the election in 
November, from that day for a very long time thereafter, we had dramatic 
drops in interest rates which fueled last year's expansion. So I think 
that we have to recognize that the Fed did respond to the efforts we 
made and what they're responding to now is a robust and growing economy. 
Of course, it could be slowed down too much, but we don't have any 
evidence at this time that that has, in fact, occurred.

Mexico

    Q. Mr. President, happy birthday. Next Sunday, Mexico is going to 
have Presidential elections. Can you give us your assessment? What do 
you think? What do you expect, and what is going to be the impact in the 
relations of Mexico and the United States? Do you expect continuity?
    The President. I expect the elections to be free, open, and fair. 
And I expect them to produce a result which will be accepted by the 
people of Mexico. And I expect the United States to continue its 
deepening friendship with Mexico. I think that our relationships are 
growing. I think, in spite of the political changes and the economic 
difficulties of Mexico in the last 2 years, we have had great success. I 
think NAFTA clearly was a great success if you look at the economic 
benefits to the United States and what has happened. So I'm looking 
forward very optimistically to the future with Mexico.

Middle East Peace Process

    Q. Mr. President, on the Middle East, sir, progress continues 
between Israel and the Palestinians, but there is still violence. But I 
wondered, sir, if you have an assessment on that. Is there any update on 
the Syrian front? Have you heard recently from President Asad? And also, 
has any progress been made in countering worldwide terrorism?
    The President. You've asked me a lot of questions there. Let me try 
to answer them all. I believe we are still on a path of steady progress 
in the hope of achieving an agreement that resolves the differences 
between Israel and Syria. Serious problems remain, but I would say 
significant advances are being made.
    With regard to the Palestinian agreement, I think everyone always 
knew there would be some operational difficulties because the PLO had, 
to be fair to them, never had been in charge of a country. That is, they 
had never had to operate a government and to deal with

[[Page 1690]]

all the mundane and maybe sometimes even boring day to day problems 
that, unless they are properly managed, you can't keep a society 
together. I think we're making some headway there. I don't want to 
minimize the difficulties, but I do not expect them to be so great as to 
derail what we're doing.
    On the terrorism front, I can tell you that every week, several 
times a week, I get an update on our efforts. And while, as you could 
appreciate, I cannot discuss many of them in great detail, I believe 
that we are making progress. But I believe this is a problem we'll all 
have to be very vigilant about for years to come.
    Trudy [Trudy Feldman, Trans Features].

President's Birthday Wishes

    Q. Mr. President, can we turn the subject to your birthday today? 
What stirs within you as you celebrate another birthday? And if you 
could have three wishes fulfilled today, what would those three wishes 
be?
    The President. Well, I woke up this morning just grateful to be 
here. That's what I'm feeling--I mean, grateful to be alive, grateful to 
have my health, grateful to have my family, grateful to have the chance 
to serve. And you know, I like the tough fights, so this is an 
exhilarating period for me. I like the big challenges. I think we're all 
put on this Earth to try to make a difference.
    If I had three wishes, I would wish for the crime bill to pass--
[laughter]--one; I would wish that I would make more progress on the way 
we do things around here as well as on the substance, because if we can 
open our minds and hearts to each other and play a little less politics, 
we can solve the health care problem, too, and other things. And I would 
wish that I won't have to give up my whole vacation because I still have 
dreams of breaking 80 on the golf course before I'm 50. [Laughter]
    Let me say, I feel that I--you know, this is not an easy job for you 
either. So since it's my birthday, if we adjourn here, let's go into the 
dining room, and we can have some cake and whatever else is in there.
    Thank you very much. Come on, let's have some cake.

Note: The President's 69th news conference began at 1:30 p.m. in the 
East Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Florida 
Governor Lawton Chiles and Syrian President Hafiz al-Asad.