[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 33, Number 46 (Monday, November 17, 1997)]
[Pages 1761-1772]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Interview With Tim Russert of ``Meet the Press''

November 9, 1997

    Mr. Russert. Mr. President, welcome to ``Meet the Press,'' and thank 
you for helping us celebrate the 50th anniversary.
    The President. Glad to be here, Tim.

Situation in Iraq

    Mr. Russert. The situation in Iraq seems to grow more and more 
tense. As we sit here tonight and talk, the Deputy Prime Minister has 
said that if the United States resumes spy flights over Iraq, they will 
be shot down. If Saddam Hussein was sitting right here in this seat, you 
would look him in the eye and say what?
    The President. Those flights are United Nations flights, even though 
they're American pilots in those planes, and you cannot dictate to the 
United Nations what we do. They will resume, and if you shoot at them, 
you'll be making a big mistake.
    Mr. Russert. If a plane is shot down by the Iraqis, will that be 
considered an act of war by the United States?
    The President. I believe that's how the Pentagon characterized it. I 
think the important thing is that Saddam Hussein needs to know it would 
be a big mistake. We will not tolerate his efforts to murder our pilots 
acting on behalf of the United Nations under United Nations Security 
Council resolutions.
    Listen, all that man has to do is to let the monitors go back to 
doing their job. I think it's important that the American people 
understand what these monitors are doing. People read this word 
``UNSCOM'' in the paper, and they don't know--you know, it sounds like a 
bad cold or something. These monitors have been there working since the 
end of the Gulf war to look for weapons of mass destruction or materials 
used to make weapons of mass destruction.
    They have found and destroyed more weapons capacity, the monitors 
have, than were destroyed in the entire Gulf war, which shows you that 
Saddam Hussein has not stopped trying to develop this capacity. After 
all, keep in mind, this is a man who used chemical weapons on the 
Iranians; he used chemical weapons on his own people. And what they're 
doing there is terribly important. We do not want him to have chemical 
or biological weapons capacity. We believe he has the latent capacity to 
produce more Scud missiles. And we all remember how he aimed the Scuds 
at Israel during the Gulf war.
    So what they're doing is terribly important. And he needs to let 
them go back and do

[[Page 1762]]

their job. None of us are going to be bullied by him.
    Mr. Russert. Have you ever met him?
    The President. Never.
    Mr. Russert. Do you have any intentions of meeting him?
    The President. No.
    Mr. Russert. If, in fact, the Iraqis are able to keep the American 
inspectors away from their biological warfare, aren't they succeeding?
    The President. Well, that's a different question. The group that we 
sent over there, the U.N. sent over there to talk to Saddam Hussein, is 
coming back. They're going to make their report. Then I expect the 
United Nations to take very strong and unambiguous action to make it 
perfectly clear that he has to comply.
    Now, in the past, we've been able to work these things out. We've 
been up to this point before and been able to work them out. If he 
doesn't, then the world community will have to take some action.
    Mr. Russert. Will the Russians and the French and the Arab nations 
support the United States?
    The President. Well, what I would hope they would do is support the 
United Nations. The Russians and the French and the Arab States have a 
huge stake in not allowing him to develop and deploy weapons of mass 
destruction. What if he has a missile with the capacity to reach to 
Europe?
    Mr. Russert. Many people are suggesting what he's really up to is to 
try to provoke an attack by the United States, a Tomahawk missile 
attack; then he would kick all the inspectors out and go right back to 
accelerating his campaign of building weapons of mass destruction.
    The President. That may be. He may be trying to divide the coalition 
as well, with the promise that he'll sell oil at good prices and make 
money for other countries. But so far, I have to tell you, I've been 
impressed with the unity of the world community. I think that he picked 
a peculiar way to try to divide the coalition. He seems to be frustrated 
that the sanctions haven't been lifted. But all he has to do is to allow 
the inspectors to do their job and quit trying to stockpile the ability 
to make these weapons of mass destruction. That's all he's got to do.
    Mr. Russert. We will never have normal relations with Iraq as long 
as Saddam Hussein is there?
    The President. We will never have normal relations with Iraq as long 
as Iraq is out of compliance with these basic resolutions of the United 
Nations. Now, it appears that Saddam Hussein has had several years since 
the Gulf war to put his country in compliance, and he has declined to do 
so.
    Mr. Russert. Do you think there will be the need for military 
strike?
    The President. I don't want to rule anything in or out. I think 
it's--at a moment like this it's very important that the President 
maintain all options and signal none. And that's where I want to be. But 
I think that Saddam Hussein needs to understand that this is a serious 
business. And this is not just the President of the United States; the 
American people feel this way. And it's not just the American people; 
it's the world community.
    There is a United Nations resolution that says that he has to permit 
inspectors to look into what he's doing to make sure he doesn't again 
develop the capacity to make and deploy weapons of mass destruction. 
He's one of the few people who's done it and used it. And we all have an 
interest in stopping him.
    Mr. Russert. And he will comply eventually?
    The President. He will comply eventually or we'll have to see what 
happens then. It will not be without consequence if he does not comply.

China and Cuba

    Mr. Russert. You met last week with the President of China, a 
country of 1.5 billion people, 7,000 miles away. Why is it that we meet 
with the President of China and trade with China but don't meet with the 
President of Cuba, 90 miles away, a country of 10 million people? Other 
than the size of the economic market, are there any differences between 
the two systems?
    The President. Oh, yes, I think there are plainly some. For one 
thing, the Chinese have shown a willingness to not only engage

[[Page 1763]]

us but to open up and to work with us. Of course, we have differences 
with both China and Cuba on human rights and on their political system.
    But if you just look at the--what happened in the last meeting with 
President Jiang and myself. We said, first of all, we're going to try to 
work together and establish cooperation, not conflict, as the model for 
U.S.-China relations in the 21st century. China agreed to cooperate with 
us in nuclear matters and to stop transfer of nuclear technologies to 
dangerous states. China agreed to work with us aggressively to try to 
solve the problem on the Korean Peninsula. China has agreed to an energy 
and environmental endeavor with us, which is very important in our 
effort to limit greenhouse gases globally. And for people who are 
concerned about human rights, China agreed to continue to work with us 
in developing rule of law systems, which eventually will clearly lead to 
the protection of individual rights, not just economic rights but other 
rights as well. So we've got this ongoing relationship.
    That's what I wanted to do with Cuba. And when I became President, 
we had the Cuba Democracy Act, which passed before I took office, but I 
supported it. And it enabled the President not only to have a tougher 
economic embargo but also to open up with Cuba, to have a gradually 
evolving relationship. And I was working on that until they illegally 
shot those two planes down and basically murdered those people that were 
in those two planes, which led the Congress to pass the present law.
    So we're at an impasse now. I still want that kind of relationship 
with Cuba. But we have to have some kind of indication that there will 
be an opening up, a movement toward democracy and openness and freedom 
if we're going to do that. And I don't have that indication today.
    Mr. Russert. Do you expect to get anything like that from Fidel 
Castro as long as he's there?
    The President. I'm not sure. We get mixed signals from time to time. 
And he's a highly intelligent man. And I know he spends a lot of time 
thinking about the future. So I wish it could be different than it is. 
But we have to have some basis for opening. It can't be a one-way 
street; there has to be some sense that there's an evolution going on in 
Cuba, and it can turn into a modern state.
    Keep in mind, it is now the only country in our entire hemisphere 
that is not a democracy. And that is a very significant thing.

Fast-Track Trade Legislation

    Mr. Russert. Let me turn to another issue confronting our 
hemisphere, fast-track trade authority. A critical vote tomorrow, 
Sunday, in the House of Representatives, whether or not the President of 
the United States should have the unilateral ability to negotiate trade 
deals throughout our hemisphere. Right now you have less than one out of 
three Democratic votes in the House. Are you going to win that vote?
    The President. I'm not sure yet. It's close, and we're working very 
hard. I worked very late the last several nights. I've been working on 
this for weeks. I worked on it today. And I'll be working on it when we 
finish our interview, and I imagine right up to voting time. On the 
other side, the Speaker is working hard to try to get the requisite 
votes from the Republicans.
    It's a difficult issue in the House. In the Senate, we had a 
bipartisan majority in both caucuses; both the Democrats and the 
Republicans voted for it. Among the Governors, virtually every 
Democratic Governor, virtually every Democratic mayor is for it. But the 
House Members, to be fair to them, they feel the pressure of a lot of 
the changes that are happening in this economy. And I think when plants 
close down, there's an automatic assumption sometimes that it's because 
of trade, whether it is or not. And I think that they feel the pressure, 
particularly, on both sides more than most. And it's tough for them.
    But I think the right thing for America is to continue to tear down 
the trade barriers and sell more American products, to try to lift up 
labor and environmental standards abroad. And then, when people are 
dislocated here, if they lose their job from technology or people don't 
buy the products anymore or trade, whatever the reason is, we need to do 
more, more quickly for them. And I tried to put in place those kinds of 
systems.

[[Page 1764]]

    So I think we've had a balanced approach, and I hope we can persuade 
a majority of the House tomorrow that that's the right approach.
    Mr. Russert. Many Democrats took umbrage when you said the vote was 
a no-brainer and that if it was a secret ballot, it would pass easily; 
that perhaps special interests like big labor were forcing them to vote 
publicly other than the way they felt privately.
    The President. No, I didn't say the last. What I said was that I 
thought, in terms of pure economics, if you look at the last 5 years, 
where we've had 13\1/2\ million jobs, we've got the lowest unemployment 
rate in 24 years, we've negotiated over 200 trade agreements, and a 
third of our growth has come from tearing down barriers, I do think 
economically, for the country as a whole, it's a no-brainer. On the 
secret ballot issue, I'm simply repeating what several House Members 
said to me.
    But to be fair, they feel--on every critical vote, Members of 
Congress feel political pressures that may or may not reflect the larger 
economic realities of the country. And I'm sure that that's no different 
than it was on a lot of the other tough votes we've had in the past. 
This is not a question of character; it's a question of judgment. And I 
think that the right judgment is to give the President the authority to 
continue to tear down those trade barriers.
    Mr. Russert. Now, the leader of the Democrats in the House, Dick 
Gephardt, opposes you on this. He said yesterday, ``Please, Mr. 
President, don't trade Democratic values for Republican votes,'' 
specifically saying, ``Will you reduce or cut funding for family 
planning across the world in order to win votes.'' Will you?
    The President. No.
    Mr. Russert. Not at all?
    The President. No. We're not going to trade a matter of principle on 
the Mexico City issue to carry fast track. If we can't get the votes 
without that, then we'll have to regroup and try to figure out some 
other way to go forward with fast track, either next week or when 
Congress resumes.
    I have tried my best in working at this to build a bipartisan 
coalition on every major issue that did not ask either the Republicans 
or the Democrats to give up their principles. So we have kept separate 
our negotiations on the census, for example, and our negotiation on the 
so-called Mexico City language from the trade negotiations.
    We have offered a number of compromises that we thought were 
principled, where the Democrats who disagree with the Republicans could 
save our principles, and they could save theirs, where we could both be 
moving forward. So far we haven't succeeded. We're still working at it.

Taxes

    Mr. Russert. Let me turn to the issue of taxes. The Republicans say 
the solution is either a flat tax or a national sales tax. Are you 
prepared to embrace either of those ideas?
    The President. Not tonight. And let me say why. On the flat tax, it 
has enormous appeal to average people, because they wouldn't have to--
the idea is, even if they lost all--especially if they lost all their 
deductions but paid a lower rate, that they'd never have to have anybody 
help them fill out their taxes again, nor would they ever have to worry 
about whether they were in compliance with the Internal Revenue Service 
laws and regulations again.
    The difficulty there is I have never seen a flat tax proposal that 
was revenue neutral, that is, that kept the balanced budget we've worked 
so hard for now, that didn't impose higher taxes on people with incomes 
below $100,000, and that's most Americans, and that's not fair.
    With the national sales tax, my concern is that, if you shifted to a 
national sales tax, it would raise the price of all products 
dramatically. And we don't know what that would do to inflation in 
America. We don't know whether it could be done without any kind of 
destructive economic consequences. Also, we don't know whether that 
wouldn't be much more regressive for people in the middle and lower 
income working groups.

Gay Rights

    Mr. Russert.  Let me turn to a cultural issue. Tonight you will be 
attending a gay rights dinner, the first sitting President in the

[[Page 1765]]

history of the country to do so. What statement are you trying to make?
    The President. Well, Tim, you know, I grew up in the segregated 
South in the forties and fifties. And all my life, from the time I was a 
child, I was taught and I have believed that every person in this 
country, no matter what their differences are, in their lifestyle or 
their race or their religion, if they obey the law, show up for work 
every day or show up for school, if they're good citizens, they ought to 
be treated with respect and dignity and equality. And they should be 
subject to no discrimination in the things that we all have to have 
access to, like education and a job and health care. What I'm trying to 
do is to continue to move that forward.
    I know this is a difficult issue for a lot of Americans. I know that 
particularly for Americans who've never known anyone who was gay or 
lesbian personally, it's an issue that often arouses discomfort. But I 
think it's the right thing to do. I think we have to keep working until 
we say for everybody, the only test should be: Are you a law-abiding, 
hard-working citizen, do you do the things we require of all citizens. 
If you do, you should be subject to no discrimination, and you ought to 
be part of the family of America. That's what I believe. And if my 
presence there tonight advances that goal, then that's a good thing.
    Mr. Russert. Do you believe that homosexuality should be taught in 
schools as an acceptable alternative lifestyle?
    The President. No, I don't think it should be advocated. I don't 
think it should be part of the public school curriculum.
    But on the other hand, I don't believe that anyone should teach 
schoolchildren that they should hate or discriminate against or be 
afraid of people who are homosexuals. That is the real issue. The real 
issue is the one that we're going to take up next week at the White 
House with the Hate Crimes Conference. We're going to have the first 
Hate Crimes Conference ever at the White House next week. And we're 
going to deal with that, not only against homosexuals but against other 
groups of Americans.
    I don't believe that we should be in the business of ratifying or 
validating or politicizing the issue. I think the real problem in 
America is still continuing discrimination and fear and downright 
misunderstanding.
    Mr. Russert.  Now, Vice President Gore caused a stir when he said 
that Ellen, the TV star who will be honored tonight at the dinner--he 
said, quote, ``millions of Americans were forced to look at sexual 
orientation in an open light.'' Was Vice President Gore correct?
    The President. Well, I think when she did that on television, and 
you got to see the interplay with her family and her friends who were 
not homosexual, you got to see all that--I think for many Americans who 
themselves had never had a personal experience, never had a friend or a 
family member who's a homosexual, it did give them a chance to see it in 
a new light. So I think he was accurate about that.
    My experience in life--all I can tell you is what my experience is--
and I'm not talking about as President, I'm talking about as a citizen 
now, as a person--is that most people's attitudes about how homosexuals 
should be treated really are determined more than anything else based on 
whether they have ever known someone who is homosexual. Now, whether 
most people's attitudes about whether the lifestyle should be condoned 
or condemned is a function, perhaps, of their religious training. But 
we're not talking about people's religious convictions here. We're 
talking about how people in the public arena, as citizens, should be 
treated in terms of their right to education, to jobs, to housing, and 
to be treated free of discrimination. And that is the agenda that I want 
to further for all Americans. And that is what I think we ought to be 
focusing on.

Administration Accomplishments

    Mr. Russert. In preparing for this interview, we went out and talked 
to thousands of American viewers, voters, with a poll, and we asked some 
interesting questions. The first was, what do you think the best 
accomplishments were of the Clinton administration.
    And let me show it to you on the screen and--going to read from 
there: protecting Medicare and education, 30 percent; improving economy 
and creating jobs, 23; keeping

[[Page 1766]]

the U.S. at peace, 13; balancing the budget, 13.
    Would you agree with that list?
    The President. That's a pretty good list. I think the--what I've 
tried to do is to give the American people the confidence that if we 
follow the right policies and we all do the right things, we can make 
America work again, and we can actually prepare our country for the 21st 
century.
    So I think the economy is an important accomplishment. I think the 
role we played in contributing to the declining crime rate, the role we 
played in moving people off welfare into work, and the role we played 
passionately in not only protecting Medicare and education but trying to 
reform Medicare and trying to improve the quality of education and the 
access of all Americans to college, I think those will be some enduring 
legacies of the administration.

Stock Market

    Mr. Russert. Are you worried about the roller-coaster stock market?
    The President. No. The market, by definition, goes up and down. And 
we've been very blessed in America to have strong financial markets and 
to have good, strong underlying institutions. And the market was, I 
think, 3,200 the day I took office. So I think most Americans are well 
pleased with where it is now compared to where it was 5 years ago.

Administration Failures

    Mr. Russert. Let's look at the bad news, the failures of the Clinton 
administration, and put them up on the screen here for you: diminishing 
the Presidency because of ethical problems, 29 percent; not addressing 
Social Security and Medicare long term, 27 percent.
    On the first one, Mr. President, as you know, many people concerned 
about campaign finance and how your campaign was funded and so forth, we 
have a situation now where 31 people have pleaded the fifth amendment, 
11 people have fled the country. Are you at this point willing to 
acknowledge that there was at least too much excessiveness in the 
fundraising on behalf of your election?
    The President. Well, what appears to have happened is that there 
were people who gave money to the Democratic Party who were not legally 
entitled to give money to the party. Now, as far as I know, when the 
leaders of the party found out about it, when I found out about, we 
spent several million dollars doing a review and gave back all the money 
that we knew of that was not properly accepted.
    Mr. Russert. About $3 million.
    The President. It was a mistake to accept it. And what we've been 
trying to determine is whether we could have known--whether the party 
people could have known, if they'd done the right reviews in the first 
place. And I think some of them, they could have been known. And I think 
that was a mistake. But I said that back in 1996, before the election, 
we have to take responsibility, all of us, including me, for not having 
in place the kind of reviews that would have protected against that kind 
of problem.
    Now, however, I generally disagree with that. I think that this 
administration, when the history books are written and people look back 
at it, the public will have a very different opinion when they read the 
history about the ethical performance of this administration. In the 
moment, once you're accused and hearings are held, a certain percentage 
will think that you must have done something wrong personally or 
tolerated people doing something wrong, and I don't believe that's the 
case.
    On the other issue, I agree with that. I think that one of our 
agenda is that we still have to address the long-term problems of Social 
Security and Medicare for when the baby boomers retire, so that the 
Social Security and Medicare will be there for them without 
overburdening their children who are attempting to raise their 
grandchildren. I think that's very important.

Campaign Financing

    Mr. Russert. Let me get to Social Security in one second, but ask a 
followup on the campaign finance. People like Johnny Chung, Charlie 
Trie, John Huang have become household names in many ways. Do you think 
that they should come back to the United States and not take the fifth 
amendment and voluntarily tell you and the country everthing

[[Page 1767]]

they know so we can be certain, and particularly you as Commander in 
Chief, that our national security was not compromised?
    The President. When I asked President Jiang about that, you know, 
the question about was the Chinese Government involved, which was a 
question that was raised, he emphatically denied to me personally that 
their government had tried to do anything to influence the outcome of 
this election. And he said that he would cooperate with that. Of course, 
I have encouraged everybody to cooperate with the investigators. I think 
everyone should. So that's my position for those gentlemen and for 
everybody else. I think we ought to get to the bottom of it.
    But let met say, one thing that Senator Fred Thompson said that I 
really agree with, is that he said he hoped that his hearings, before he 
shut them down, would lead to reforming the system. And you know, before 
you had this job, you used to work for people who were elected 
officials, and I think that you will at least acknowledge there's 
something to the point that people don't go out and raise money because 
they want to, and then they find things to throw the money at. People 
raise money because they think they have to raise the money to buy 
access to communications with the public, and the cost of campaigns has 
been going up.
    Now, what I favor is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform 
bill, trying to control the amount of contributions and limit 
expenditures. And then I think we have to have access in the media to 
either free or reduced air time to people who observe these limits. I 
think we've got to have both if we're going to have real campaign 
finance reform.
    Mr. Russert. The other complaint, raised by Common Cause, 
particularly, and others, is that you received $75 million in public 
funding for the Presidential race but then went out and raised $50 
million in so-called soft money, largely corporate money, and bought TV 
ads all across the country, which brought your popularity ratings up 
considerably. And people said, that's inappropriate, you really did push 
through a huge loophole and use big corporate money to pay for TV ads 
designed and controlled by you, in effect, and that's what helped get 
you elected.
    The President. But keep in mind what the money did at first. Those 
ads were designed to put forward the Democratic Party's position against 
the Republican majority, the new Republican majority in Congress and 
their attempt to implement the contract on America. They benefited me, 
and they benefited all Democrats because people agreed with what we 
wanted to do as compared with what was being done there. And they lifted 
the party as a whole.
    The law basically says that you can't do anything that solely 
benefits you or any other particular candidate. I refused to let any ad 
run until it had advance clearance from the lawyer for the Democratic 
Party. And presumably Senator Dole did the same thing when the 
Republican Party did that. And presumably they got clearance even before 
they ran ads that affected only one congressional seat up in Staten 
Island, $800,000 of them.
    Should we limit the soft money expenditures? Yes, we should. How can 
we do it? Only if we're prepared to change the law. Otherwise, there's 
too much experience where one candidate, who's a good candidate with no 
money, is blown away because the other candidate that has a lot of money 
has the only access to the voters. That's what this is about. If we get 
another kind of access to the voters--let me just ask you to do this 
some day. One of the things I'd like to see you do here one Sunday is 
analyze the last British election, for example, and look at the 
television time that was given to Tony Blair in Labour and John Major in 
the Conservatives. See how they used it. See whether or not it wasn't 
more enlightening for the voters. See, if we had the right kind of 
campaign finance reform, how we could cut the cost and elevate the level 
of the debate in a way that I think would increase voter turnout and 
confidence in the system.
    I acknowledge that we all have played a role in bringing down voter 
confidence. But it's the only system that's out there, and if you don't 
try to get your communication out and the other side does, they will 
prevail nearly every time.

[[Page 1768]]

1996 Campaign

    Mr. Russert. Would you acknowledge the ads were pro-Clinton and 
anti-Dole?
    The President. Yes, because--but it was only because--first of all, 
they should have been pro-Clinton because the Democratic leaders in 
Congress and I were trying to put our position out against the 
Republican contract on America. And Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich 
were the leaders of the contract side. But at least they furthered the 
debate on the great national issues before Congress at the time. The 
Republican ads were even more specific. I never ran an ad, for example, 
on my upbringing or anything like that.
    But as I said, to the best of my knowledge, every ad the Republicans 
ran was approved by their lawyers. I know every ad we did was approved 
in advance. The answer is to change the system. We wouldn't have this 
sort of thing if there was ample access for honest, open debate and 
communication. Once you've talked to the voters, and they've heard your 
side, and they've heard the other side in a free and open way, then you 
don't have the incentive for all this.

Democratic Party

    Mr. Russert. The state of the Democratic Party--as you mentioned, 
the open House seat in Staten Island, the Republicans won. The 
Republicans won the mayoralties in New York and Los Angeles, the two 
largest cities; the Governorships in New Jersey and Virginia. In the 
last 4 years, since you've been head of the Democratic Party, titular 
head of the Democratic Party, 20 percent of the Democratic Congressmen 
are gone, 20 percent of the Senators, 38 percent of the Democratic 
Governors have lost. What is wrong with the Democratic Party?
    The President. Well, I think it's going through a period of 
transition, and I think it will come out stronger.
    Now, you should say, to make full disclosure, that every one of 
those Republican election victories you just mentioned was in a seat 
already held by a Republican and, in every case but one, by the 
incumbent who won.
    Mr. Russert. Fair enough.
    The President. And that we nearly won a race in New Jersey which no 
one in the world thought we had a chance to win.
    Mr. Russert. But the House and Senate and Governorships were all 
incumbent Democrats.
    The President. No, some of them were--some of them quit and the open 
seats went to Republicans. I think the biggest problem we've had in the 
Senate is people leaving. If in the last 4 years four Senators had 
stayed, we'd have 49 Senators, and we'd be virtually even. Same thing in 
the House. A number of our House seats were people leaving.
    But the House seats we lost in '94, I think, were because we were 
successfully attacked for the economic plan. The Republicans were able 
to convince people it was a big tax plan on them when it wasn't, and 
they haven't felt the benefits, and because we failed to reform health 
care, something I really regret. And that's partly my responsibility.

Entitlement Programs

    Mr. Russert. Before we take a break--you mentioned Social Security 
and Medicare; Medicare goes broke in the year 2001, Social Security has 
a deficit 2012. Will President Bill Clinton, in the final 3 years of his 
Presidency, move to restructure Medicare and Social Security in a way 
that may in fact raise retirement age, increase premiums, perhaps even 
reduce benefits in order to make it safe for people in my generation?
    The President. First, let's say--Medicare does not now go broke in 
2001; it's got 12 years on the life of it now. We have more prevention, 
more choices, and more cost controls in the Medicare reform program 
that's part of the balanced budget. So it doesn't go broke now in 2001. 
Social Security is in better shape because of the declining inflation.
    But do we have to have a longer term reform for Social Security and 
Medicare, and should it occur before I leave office? The answer to both 
those questions is yes.
    Mr. Russert. Many believe that Richard Nixon went to China--he was 
the fervent anti-Communist who could make that deal. It's going to take 
Democrat Bill Clinton to really make tough decisions and say, ``We have 
to raise retirement age. We have to raise

[[Page 1769]]

premiums. We have to reduce benefits for the next generation.'' Are you 
willing to do that?
    The President. I'm willing to do what it takes to preserve and 
protect Social Security for the next generation and for the people who 
have to have it in this generation and also for Medicare. We've got a 
Medicare commission that's about to be appointed by the Congress and by 
the President, and I think together we're going to come up with a good 
bipartisan solution on that. And then we'll have to take on Social 
Security.
    I think it is a mistake for me right now to advocate various 
specific reforms because if it prejudges the work of the commission, it 
will make it more difficult for them to do it and then for us to pass it 
in a bipartisan way. But I'm willing to take the hard decisions 
necessary to preserve both of these programs so they'll be available to 
people, and they'll work for people, and they'll keep America coming 
together. I think it's terribly important, a big part of the agenda for 
the next century.
    Mr. Russert. We have to take a quick break. We'll be right back with 
more of our conversation from President Bill Clinton on the 50th 
anniversary of ``Meet the Press'' right after this.

[At this point, the network took a commercial break.]

Investigations

    Mr. Russert. We're back, talking to President Clinton. All the 
allegations against you, the Whitewater, the lawsuit, Travelgate, 
coffees, sleepovers, on and on--your favorable rating is still near 60 
percent. Are you, not Ronald Reagan, the true Teflon President?
    The President. I think down deep inside people are fair-minded, 
first of all, and they know there is a difference in somebody making a 
charge against you and having it be true. Secondly, and more 
importantly, what I've tried to do as President is to cooperate with any 
investigation, answer any question, but save most of my time and energy, 
not for defending myself but for working for the American people.
    My whole theory is, if the American people are doing better, then 
everything else is going to come out all right. And that's what we work 
on. That's sort of our credo at the White House. Don't think about 
ourselves; think about the American people. Try to move the ball forward 
every day. Try to make sure when we're done the American people are 
better off than they were when we started.

The President and the Press

    Mr. Russert. Your attitudes towards the press. Your Press Secretary, 
Mike McCurry, said something interesting----
    The President. I couldn't believe he said that.
    Mr. Russert. I want to show it to you on the screen and get your 
reaction.
    The President. I couldn't believe he said that.
    Mr. Russert. The President, quote, ``refuses to believe the press 
does the things that they do only because of happenstance. He's just 
convinced there is some general global conspiracy out to ruin his life 
and make him miserable.''
    The President. He must have been tongue in cheek when he said that. 
He couldn't have been serious when he said that.
    Mr. Russert. Do you think we do a good job? Have we been fair to 
you?
    The President. On balance, yes. I think--first of all, I don't think 
there has ever been a President of either party and any philosophy that 
didn't think that he should have gotten a better press. So that just 
goes with the territory. I think there have been rather dramatic changes 
in press coverage over the last 20 years, particularly in the Washington 
press, which bear some examination and evaluation by those of you who 
are in the press. But I don't think that the President gets anywhere by 
making any comments on the press.
    I believe in the first amendment. When President Jiang of China was 
here, I was pushing freedom of the press with him. And I said that it 
would be hard to find anybody that had been beat up much more than I 
have in the press, but I still thought the country was stronger when we 
were free to speak. I raised the freedom of press issues when I was in 
Latin America recently.
    I think it's one of the best things about this country. And how it 
should be done and

[[Page 1770]]

whether it's being done in the most responsible and effective way can 
only be determined by members of the press themselves in our system, 
because that's the only way you can keep it free.
    I don't hate all the press and all that business. I think Mike was a 
little tongue in cheek there.

President's Place in History

    Mr. Russert. George Washington, the American Revolution; Abraham 
Lincoln, the Civil War; Franklin Roosevelt, World War II; Ronald Reagan, 
the cold war: What will be Bill Clinton's legacy, absent a war? And, 
two, are Presidents as consequential now as they were before the end of 
the cold war?
    The President.  Oh, yes. I think they are but in different ways. 
First, I think a President's legacy is ultimately determined by--after 
he's gone from office, and maybe after he's gone from this Earth, when 
people can read all the records and see the real significance of what 
happened with the benefit of hindsight and without any prejudice for or 
against.
    I can tell you, when I came to this office, I ran because I thought 
this was a profoundly important time in our history, moving into a new 
era and a new century, changes in the way we work and live and relate to 
each other, relate to the rest of the world. And I had a vision for what 
I wanted America to look like when I left office. I wanted this to be a 
country where there was opportunity for every person responsible enough 
to work for it, where our country was still the leading nation for peace 
and freedom and prosperity, and where, with all these differences we've 
got, we're still coming together as one America. That's my vision. I 
hope someday some scholar will say it was my legacy.
    Mr. Russert.  Kennedy had the Cuban Missile Crisis. LBJ had civil 
rights. Bill Clinton has what?

President's Future

    The President.  He had to make America work in a new world. We had 
to relate to a global economy, a global society. I think that's what 
I'll be judged on: Did I help America transform itself so that we would 
still be the greatest nation in the world in a global economy, a global 
society with the most diffuse and different population, diverse 
population in our history?
    Mr. Russert. We asked our people across the country what you would 
do when you left office at the ripe old age of 54, and this is what they 
said. They volunteered--50 percent, you give speeches and work for 
causes, pretty much like former Presidents; 15 percent said go into 
private business; 14 percent said teach at a university; 13 percent said 
run for another office. Will Bill Clinton ever run for another office?
    The President. I don't know. I might run for the school board 
someday.
    Mr. Russert. But not the U.S. Senate?
    The President. I don't think so.
    Mr. Russert. How about the Supreme Court?
    The President. I don't think so. I'm a little bit too much of an 
activist. I love studying the law, and I used to be a law professor, you 
know, and I taught constitutional law----
    Mr. Russert. And William Howard Taft went from the Presidency----
    The President. He did.
    Mr. Russert. ----to chief judge of the Supreme Court.
    The President. He did. But I think I'm a little too active for it. 
And I think the--I might like to do everything that was on that list in 
some form or fashion. What I want to do is to be useful to my country, 
to advance the causes of peace that I've worked for around the world, 
whether it's in Ireland or the Middle East or Bosnia. I want to help 
build these structures to deal with terrorism and environmental crises 
and all of that. I want to help children realize their potential if 
they're forgotten here at home or abroad.
    But I don't want to be underfoot. I don't want to be under some 
President's foot. If I can help my country and if a President wants to 
ask me to help, I'll show up and do it.
    Mr. Russert. But you might run for office?
    The President. I might like to be on the school board someday----

Popular Perception of the President

    Mr. Russert.  Let me show one last graphic up here, and this is a 
fun one. We asked,

[[Page 1771]]

what is the image you have of Bill Clinton? Forty-two percent said 
playing the saxophone; 40 percent, running in jogging shorts; 7 percent, 
playing golf; 6 percent, eating at McDonald's.
    The President. It's funny, I haven't eaten at McDonald's a single 
time since I've been President. [Laughter]
    Mr. Russert.  But playing golf. How many mulligans do you take in 
the average 18 holes?
    The President. One now.
    Mr. Russert.  One mulligan?
    The President. Yes.
    Mr. Russert.  And what's your handicap?
    The President. Twelve, thirteen, something like that. I'm playing--
it's better than it was when I became President, mostly because I've 
gotten to play with a lot of good golfers, and they've taught me a lot.
    Mr. Russert.  Mr. President, we have to take another quick break. 
We'll be right back with more of ``Meet the Press'' right after this.

[The network took a commercial break.]

Retrospective

    Mr. Russert.  Fifty years ago this week, November 6, 1947, NBC's 
``Meet the Press'' first traveled the airwaves. For a half-century it 
has presented interviews with the top U.S. and international leaders, 
questioned by many of the Nation's best journalists. This morning we 
will salute all the outstanding individuals who have made ``Meet the 
Press'' the longest running television program in the world. And we 
offer this look back at 50 years of history in the making, just some of 
the more than 2,500 programs that offered viewers across America a 
weekly window to the world.

[A videotape of highlights from the first 50 years of ``Meet the Press'' 
was shown.]

Running for the Presidency

    Mr. Russert. Mr. President, was it a dream for someone from Hope, 
Arkansas, to join that galaxy of international leaders?
    The President. It was an amazing review of the last 50 years and it 
seems impossible sometimes that I was part of it, but I'm very grateful 
for the chance I've had to serve, and I'm grateful, frankly, for the 
program that you and your network have put on for 50 years. I relived a 
lot of my own life and the life of our Nation and the world looking at 
that. You should be very proud of that.
    Mr. Russert. In May of 1991 Bill Clinton was on ``Meet the Press''--
[laughter]--and asked about the '92 election. Let's take a look.
    The President. What did I say?

[A videotape excerpt of the May 1991 broadcast was shown.]

    ``Q. Deep inside, do you think there is a good chance that a 
Democratic candidate could win the White House?
    ``Governor Clinton. No.
    ``Q. Not a chance but a good chance.
    ``Governor Clinton. Today? No. A year and a half from now? Maybe.''
    The President. That's a good brief answer.
    Mr. Russert. You won.
    The President. I did.
    Mr. Russert. But back in May of '91 you weren't so sure.
    The President. No, and I hadn't even decided to run then. And when I 
did decide to run, I think my mother was the only person who thought I 
had a chance to win. But that's the miracle of the American system. The 
thing that we have in Presidential campaigns, if you become the nominee, 
is that everybody hears your message.
    Mr. Russert. When you first started running in '92, was it kind of a 
trial run for '96, and----
    The President. Oh, no.
    Mr. Russert. You really thought you could win?
    The President Absolutely. I had--what I think is most important, if 
you run for President, is you have to know what you want to do if you 
win. You have to have a passionate desire to change the direction of the 
country, and I did. I had some very definite ideas, and so I thought, 
I'm going to do this because I think it's important. If I win, fine. If 
I don't, I'll be proud I tried.
    Mr. Russert. Before you go, Mr. President, we have compiled a book, 
``Fifty Years of History in the Making: Meet the Press,'' in which you 
are prominently mentioned as

[[Page 1772]]

the third sitting President to join us on ``Meet the Press.''
    The President. Great.
    Mr. Russert. We thank you for celebrating our 50 years----
    The President. Thank you.
    Mr. Russert. ----and welcome you back anytime.
    The President. I've got one for you, too.
    Mr. Russert. Oh, no.
    The President. The new book on the Buffalo Bills.
    Mr. Russert. Oh, God, here it is.
    The President. Signed by the author.
    Mr. Russert. And I have promised I will remain moderator of ``Meet 
the Press'' until the Buffalo Bills win the Super Bowl, which means I'm 
going to be here a very long time.
    The President. You'll still look very young.
    Mr. Russert. President Bill Clinton, thank you very much for joining 
us.
    The President. Thank you.

Note: The interview was recorded at 7:30 p.m. on November 8 at the NBC 
Studios for broadcast at 10:30 a.m. on November 9. In his remarks, the 
President referred to President Saddam Hussein of Iraq; President Jiang 
Zemin of China; President Fidel Castro of Cuba; and actress Ellen 
DeGeneres. The President also referred to the United Nations Special 
Commission (UNSCOM).