[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 36, Number 7 (Monday, February 21, 2000)]
[Pages 311-324]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference

February 16, 2000

    The President. Good afternoon. I would like to cover a couple of 
topics in an opening statement, and then I will take your questions.
    First, let me say that we all know that we're in the midst of the 
longest and strongest economic expansion in our history, with nearly 21 
million new jobs, unemployment at 4 percent, and solid income growth 
across all income groups.
    Americans in public service and in the private sector must remember 
that our success in promoting peace and prosperity is not the result of 
complacency but of our common commitment to dynamic action rooted in 
enduring values. If we want to continue to enjoy success, we must 
continue our commitment to dynamic action.
    There is important work to be done in America this year, and in 
Washington, DC, this year. First, we must stay on the path of fiscal 
discipline that got us to this point. If we stay on that path, we can 
make America, in just 13 years, debt-free for the first time since 1835. 
Then we can use the benefits of debt reduction to preserve two of the 
most important guarantees we have made to the American people, Social 
Security and Medicare, something that will be a challenge as we see the 
number of people over 65 double in the next 30 years with the retirement 
of the baby boom generation.
    Specifically, we can make a bipartisan downpayment on Social 
Security reform by crediting the interest savings from debt reduction to 
the Social Security Trust Fund to keep it strong and sound for 50 years, 
beyond the lifespan of all but the most fortunate of the baby boom 
generation. As a first step toward a comprehensive solution, I believe 
we should do something I called for in my 1999 State of the Union 
Address, to end the earnings limit for Social Security retirees between 
the ages of 65 and 69.
    To strengthen and modernize Medicare, I propose to implement 
important reforms and to dedicate more than half the non-Social Security 
surplus to Medicare, over $400 billion, to keep it solvent for another 
decade, past 2025, and to add a voluntary prescription drug benefit. I'm 
pleased Congress is beginning to take up this issue, and I ask them to 
move quickly and to resist the temptation to spend large portions of the 
surplus before

[[Page 312]]

we have lived up to our commitment to prepare for the undeniable health 
and financing challenges that Medicare will bring.
    We should also move to complete the unfinished business of the last 
Congress, passing a real Patients' Bill of Rights, campaign finance 
reform, hate crimes legislation, an increase in the minimum wage, and 
especially, commonsense gun safety legislation.
    Guns in the wrong hands continue to claim too many young lives--
lives like those of Andre Wallace and Natasha Marsh, the fine young DC 
residents who were gunned down in front of Natasha's home last week and 
were buried just yesterday. We saw it also in Littleton just a few days 
ago, with the shooting deaths of two teenage students from Columbine 
High School.
    Today the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, 
who is with us today, released the first-ever comprehensive analysis of 
gun-related violence in public housing in America. The report shows that 
while crime in public housing is declining, as it is in the rest of the 
country, gun-related crime remains a serious problem there, with 
residents of public housing more than twice as likely to be victims of 
gun violence as other members of our society. More than a million 
children and 360,000 seniors live in public housing in the United 
States. They deserve to be as safe as the rest of us. Ten months after 
the tragedy at Columbine, it is long past time for Congress to pass this 
commonsense gun safety legislation.
    I would also like to address the impact of rising oil prices on 
American families. In the Northeast, the impact has been particularly 
harsh because, from the Mid-Atlantic States to New England, many 
families still rely on home heating oil, a source of heating no longer 
used in the rest of the country. These families have been especially 
hard hit. That is a serious concern, especially because the winter 
months have been colder this year than in the past few years.
    Since January we have released $175 million to help lower income 
families pay their heating bills. We have also asked refiners to keep 
producing at full throttle until the crisis is past. And we directed the 
Coast Guard to expedite deliveries of home heating oil to affected 
areas. These actions have helped to ease the burden on the citizens who 
are most vulnerable. Still, there are too many families with moderate 
incomes who have no option other than heating their homes with oil, and 
they need help, too. There is more to do.
    Secretary Richardson is in New England today holding a summit with 
refiners, distributors, and major users of home heating oil to determine 
how Government and industry can work together to better meet the needs 
of consumers in the Mid-Atlantic and New England States. Today I'm 
announcing additional steps to help families struggling to pay their 
heating bills. I directed my Budget Office and the Department of Health 
and Human Services to release right now the remainder of this year's 
funding for emergency heating assistance, about $125 million more. This 
money will be targeted toward the hardest hit States, those with the 
highest usage of home heating oil. I will be meeting with Governors and 
Members of Congress in those States to ask them to use all their 
authority to expand the pool of people who receive those funds, making 
sure that as many people who need the help can get it.
    And let me explain what I mean by that. Under the present law, 
States can pay LIHEAP assistance, low income heating assistance to 
people up to 150 percent of the poverty line, the national poverty line, 
or up to 60 percent of the median income in their States. In the States 
that are most severely affected, where you have a lot of people who live 
on middle incomes, but particularly if they have children, are really 
hurt by an increase of 2 or $300 a month in their home heating bill--are 
eligible for this assistance but don't presently receive it. So if we 
provide more money--if the States really want to see the maximum number 
of people helped, they have the ability to raise the income limits of 
people eligible for that help and to structure the help accordingly.
    We will also be requesting $600 million in emergency supplemental 
funding for the LIHEAP program to help more hard-hit families through 
the current crisis, as well as to have some money for others who may be 
hard hit later in the year when the hot weather sets in. We will send 
legislation to Congress in the next 10 days, and I hope there will be 
fast action on it.

[[Page 313]]

    Meanwhile, we will continue to work toward a longer term solution. 
I've asked Secretary Richardson to conduct a 60-day study on converting 
factories and major users from oil to other fuels, which will help to 
free up future oil supplies for use in heating homes.
    Americans have always pulled together to help their fellow citizens 
in times of need. Over the last 7 years, we've stood to help the victims 
of earthquakes in California, of the farm crisis and a 500-year flood in 
the Middle West, and again and again and recently again this week, the 
violent storms in the South. Now the families in the Northeast need our 
help, too, and we must act.
    Again I say, the United States did not get to this fortunate moment 
by inaction and complacency. We got here by a commitment to giving the 
American people the tools and conditions to solve their own problems and 
continuing to act aggressively and dynamically. This must be a year of 
that kind of action.
    Thank you very much.
    Now, Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International], would you 
like to begin?

2000 Presidential Election

    Q. Mr. President, you don't seem to have any good news on the 
Northern Ireland and Middle Eastern front, so I thought I'd ask you a 
homefront question. How do you like being targeted in the Republican 
Presidential campaign? Texas Governor--I have to quote this: Texas 
Governor Bush told Senator McCain, quote, ``Whatever you do, don't 
equate my integrity and trustworthiness with Bill Clinton. That's about 
as low as you can get in the Republican primary.'' And McCain said that 
he resented being called ``Clinton'' or ``Clinton-like,'' and a few 
other things. What do you say?
    The President. Well--[laughter]--I have a couple of observations. 
One is, you know, they're playing to an electorate, most of whom did not 
vote for me. And secondly, I have a lot of sympathy with Governor Bush 
and Senator McCain. I mean, it's hard for them to figure out what to run 
on. They can't run against the longest economic expansion in history or 
the lowest crime rate in 30 years or the lowest welfare rolls in 30 
years or the progress America has made in promoting peace around the 
world or the fact that our party overrode theirs and passed the family 
leave, and it's benefited 20 million people, and it hasn't hurt the 
economy.
    So they've got a tough job, and I have a lot of sympathy with them. 
And I don't want to complicate their problems by saying any more about 
them. [Laughter]
    Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

Moratorium on Capital Punishment

    Q. Mr. President, there are growing calls for a national moratorium 
on capital punishment, from the American Bar Association to Members of 
Congress. Governor Ryan has halted executions in Illinois, as you know, 
because the convictions of 13 people on death row were overturned. On 
the other hand, Governor Bush said last night that he's confident that 
the 100 people who were put to death in Texas under his watch were all 
guilty. You've had some experience with this. You signed four death 
warrants or execution warrants while you were Governor. What's your 
feeling about a moratorium on executions?
    The President. Well first, I think Governor Ryan did the right 
thing, and it was probably a courageous thing to do, because a majority 
of the American people support capital punishment, as do I. But I think 
that in Illinois, you had a situation where the exonerations and the 
executions were about equal in number over the last several years. So he 
had a difficult situation, and I think he did the right thing.
    And I think that if I were a Governor still, I would look very 
closely at the situation in my State and decide what the facts were. 
There are, I think, not those grounds for that kind of moratorium under 
the Federal law because of the circumstances under which people are 
convicted. Now, we have a different review going on here, a Justice 
Department review on the racial impact or whether there was one in the 
death penalty decisions under the Federal law. There are 27 people who 
have been sentenced to death under Federal law, 20 in the civilian 
courts and 7 through the military system.
    We also are in the process of developing guidelines for clemency 
applications when an

[[Page 314]]

individual's claims of innocence or questioning of the sentence, even 
though guilt is not a question, can be pressed. And I think, in an 
attempt to address the problem you mentioned, I think Senator Leahy has 
introduced some legislation to try to give convicted criminal defendants 
access to DNA testing and other things, which might tend to disprove 
their guilt.
    So I think all these things need to be looked at. The people who 
support the death penalty, it seems to me, have an especially heavy 
obligation to see that in cases where it is applied, there is no 
question of whether the guilt was there. So the only issue that is left 
is whether, philosophically, you think it is the right or wrong thing to 
do.
    Q. So you would not support a ban? You would not support suspending 
it or a moratorium now?
    The President. In the Federal cases, I don't believe it is called 
for. But as I say, we do have the review going on in terms of the racial 
implications of the way it's been applied, and we also are in the 
process of drawing up guidelines for clemency requests, which, 
obviously, would give people an opportunity to raise the question of 
whether there was some doubt about their guilt or innocence.
    But I do think Governor Ryan did the right thing. I think it was a 
great thing to do.
    Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

President's Upcoming Visit to South Asia

    Q. Mr. President, next month you're going on a trip to India and 
Bangladesh but not Pakistan. What can Pakistan's military rulers do to 
get you to reconsider?
    The President. Well, first of all, I haven't decided whether I'm 
going to Pakistan or not. I have decided that I am going to India and 
Bangladesh, and I will make a decision about whether to go based on what 
I think will best serve our long-term interests in nonproliferation, in 
trying to stop, particularly, the nuclear arms race and trying to help 
to promote stability, democracy, and a resolution of the conflict 
between India and Pakistan.
    I hope that my trip will serve to highlight to Americans the 
importance of that region to us and the very real danger that a conflict 
between India and Pakistan not contained is one of the most significant 
security threats to the interests of the United States in this new 
century and, I might say, a tragic situation.
    You know, we--I think one of the reasons we've been able to play a 
meaningful role in Northern Ireland is we have so many Irish-Americans 
here. I think one of the reasons we've been able to play a meaningful 
role in the Middle East is we have a lot of Jewish-Americans and a lot 
of Arab-Americans. I think we forget that among all the some-200 ethnic 
groups that we have in our country, Indian-Americans and Pakistani-
Americans have been among the most successful in terms of education 
level and income level. They have worked and succeeded stunningly well 
in the United States and, astonishingly maybe, had good contacts with 
one another.
    And I think the United States should be more involved there, even 
though I think that they'll have to work out this business of Kashmir 
between themselves. Unless we were asked by both parties to help, we 
can't get involved. We've been--in every other case we're involved, it's 
because both parties have asked us to be involved.
    But I will make a decision about where to go and what to do based on 
what I think will further our long-term goals. And I have not reached a 
final decision.
    Yes.

Post-Presidential Legal Issues

    Q. Mr. President, as you're well aware, the Arkansas Supreme Court 
Committee on Professional Conduct has initiated an investigation into a 
complaint regarding statements that you made in testimony before Judge 
Susan Webber Wright--action that could include disciplinary action, up 
to and including disbarment. My question, sir, is would you be willing 
to surrender your law license to avoid such a hearing? Or will you fight 
it, up to and including availing yourself of a public hearing, as you 
are entitled to under the regulations?
    The President. Well, let me say to you, the reason--and the only 
reason--I even settled the lawsuit in the first place was because I 
thought that it was wrong for the President to take an hour, much less a 
day, much less

[[Page 315]]

weeks, away from the job of the American people to deal with anything 
that could be a distraction. And I did it only after there was a court 
ruling that the case had absolutely no merit, which was obvious to 
everybody who looked at the facts.
    Now, I haven't changed my position on that. As a result, in all the 
things that have happened subsequently, I have left a lot of things 
unsaid which I might have otherwise said. And I hope I can continue to 
do that, and that's what I'm going to do today. I don't think I should 
be spending my time on this. I think I'm working for the American 
people. And I'm going to do my best to adhere to that. And as a result, 
I have refrained from saying a lot of things I would otherwise have said 
as an American citizen and as a lawyer.
    Yes, go ahead, in the back.

Oil Prices

    Q. Mr. President, along the lines of the heating oil situation or 
whatever, would you at any point consider--because, perhaps as the 
prices continue to spike up--would you at any point consider that it 
could have some detrimental effect on the economy? Would you consider 
tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserves? And conversely, I'd like 
to ask if we as Americans have some kind of divine right to cheap 
gasoline and cheap heating oil?
    The President. Well, you've asked two questions, and let me try to 
answer them. And I'd like to make, if I might, three points.
    Number one, the statute for using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
sets forward the conditions under which it might be used. And I have not 
ruled out any action which I think is in the interest of the American 
people.
    Number two, I think what is in our interest are stable prices that 
are not too high but don't drop real low, encourage overconsumption, and 
then jump way up again. That is, what we need is stable prices that are 
not too high but that are also stable.
    I also think that is in the interest of the producing countries. 
Why? Because if prices got so high they weakened--disregard America's 
economy--other people's economies, that would shrink the markets for the 
producers. If the economy goes down, that would lower the price, and 
they'd wind up with the worst of both worlds. If the price stayed up for 
any period of time, it would make non-OPEC members who could produce oil 
more likely to do it, which would further drive the price down.
    So I think the OPEC members understand that, and I think that there 
is an interest in stable prices at an acceptable level. And we have 
these conversations all along, and I think that is clear. And we will 
see what happens on that. But I wouldn't rule out using the Petroleum 
Reserve.
    Now, the third point I want to make is this. You said, do Americans 
have a right to cheap gas and cheap heating oil. What I want to do, 
because I think it's important for our long-term security, is get 
America in a position where the fuel efficiency of our vehicles is so 
great--or our ability to use alternative-fuel vehicles or dual-use 
vehicles, biofuels, mixed electric and gasoline-fuel vehicles that have 
automatically regenerating batteries--that our capacity to do that is so 
great that we will not be reliant on the ups and downs of supplies and 
the increases that might come in the future would have a much more 
limited impact on us. I would remind you that these increases have had a 
much, much more limited impact on the United States than the oil price 
increases of the seventies, for example, because we're so much more 
energy efficient.
    The final point I would like to make is, there are all kinds of 
problems and historical explanations for why the Mid-Atlantic and New 
England States are so dependent on home heating oil, and no place else 
is, but it's not a good situation. It's just not. We need to examine it. 
That's one of the things I asked Secretary Richardson to look at, is 
look at what are the institutional barriers for businesses and 
individuals converting away from heating oil to heating sources that are 
more commonly used in other places? What are the costs? Are there any 
Federal actions that might be undertaken in concert with the States or 
with the private sector to help minimize those costs and facilitate a 
conversion?
    The people on home heating oil are the most vulnerable people in 
America by a good long ways to these radical swings in oil prices.

[[Page 316]]

And it's also because they're delivered essentially by individual 
businesses who come to your home and send you a bill. Consumers don't 
have the option that many of you who live in DC have, for example. You 
can average your electric bills. You can average your utility bills over 
a period of months. So if you have a couple of bad months, you can 
average them out. Those options are not available to them either.
    So I think we have to look long term, in my judgment, at whether 
there's a conversion strategy there that would enable a whole different 
energy future to open up in terms of home and business energy usage.
    Yes.

Gun Control Legislation

    Q. Mr. President, on the topic of gun control, as you're well aware, 
the central sticking point in the Congress is over this division between 
the Senate and the House over a waiting period for gun sales at gun 
shows. The Senate has endorsed 72 hours. The House and a goodly number 
of Democrats endorsed 24 hours. Would you accept a compromise in-
between, sir, or is that 72-hour waiting period so important, you prefer 
no bill to a compromise?
    The President. Well, first, I think, to me, this is a fact question. 
There are two benefits to the waiting period. One is, does it really 
give you an adequate amount of time to check the records? And two is, 
should there be a cooling-off period if somebody who is really hot buys 
a gun with a bad intent and might cool down and refrain?
    If you move away from 72 hours to a shorter period, then the 
question is, since so many of these gun shows occur on the weekend, will 
there be access to the records to do the check? Will you be able--I 
mean, to me, in terms of all compromises--at least, I can only tell you 
what I believe--this is not theology. This is, what does it take as a 
practical matter to have a bill that works to keep people alive. I mean, 
there's no question that the Brady bill has kept a lot of people alive. 
And there is, furthermore, no question that there has not been a huge 
amount of inconvenience in the waiting period.
    Now, I know what the argument is. The argument is, well, the gun 
show people are mobile. So it's not like you can wait 5 days, go back to 
the same store where you placed the order for the gun, and it's going to 
be there 5 days from now. And the gun shows are mobile. I understand 
what the problem is. But there has got to be a solution here that deals 
with that. Maybe they could park the guns at the local police department 
or something else. There's got to be some way to deal with this that 
allows us to have a practical law that works. The one thing I will not 
do is, I will not sign a law which promises the American people that 
this is going to make them safer, and it won't do it.
    But I am not hung up--I don't think we should be hung up on any of 
the facts. The facts should be, what is necessary to make us a safer 
people? What is necessary to save more lives? That should be the only 
driving concern.
    Yes, go ahead, Jim [Jim Angle, Fox News].

2000 Campaign

    Q. Mr. President, is a candidate's past record on abortion fair game 
in a campaign? The First Lady seems to think it is; the Vice President 
seems to think it isn't.
    The President. Oooh. [Laughter] Now, if I get into that, then you'll 
have me handicapping that debate last night. [Laughter]
    Let me just say this. I'll make a generic comment about that because 
I think all of you are going to be writing about this. I see, you know, 
one candidate says this about the other's record. Then one complains 
about how the other one interprets his record and all that kind of 
stuff. I have never seen a hard-fought political race where candidates 
did not disagree with their opponent's characterization of their record 
and their positions. I mean, that's part of the debate, and it's always 
going to happen.
    And again, I think anything I say to get in the middle of that is 
not--I'm not running for office, and by and large, I think I shouldn't 
comment under--there may be a few exceptions, but I think basically, the 
American people are in the drivers's seat. They're making this decision. 
I get to vote like everybody else, but I'm not a candidate, and I don't 
think I ought to get in the way unless there's some specific issue 
related to something I've done as President.

[[Page 317]]

    Yes.

Northern Ireland Peace Process

    Q. Mr. President, may I return to Northern Ireland, sir? In light of 
what's happened this week, wasn't it a mistake not to ask for specific 
assurances to disarm from the IRA, not Sinn Fein but the IRA, in advance 
of going down the political road and starting a new government?
    The President. I think Senator Mitchell believes, who, you know, 
negotiated the Good Friday accords, that, like any accords of that kind, 
there were compromises involved that both sides had to accept about the 
other. And I believe he thought he got the strongest agreement he could. 
It was ratified overwhelmingly by the Irish people, by both communities 
in the North and overwhelmingly by the Republic of Ireland.
    It has been honored, to date, in all of its specifics, including 
standing up the governmental institutions, although there was a delay of 
several months in doing that. And then the de Chastelain report came 
out, and then after the British Government passed through the Parliament 
the bill, in effect, suspending the institutions and reasserting control 
over Northern Ireland, the IRA made certain representations which 
General de Chastelain considered quite hopeful. And now they're in a 
rough spot.
    But I don't think you can Monday-morning-quarterback that. I think 
Senator Mitchell and all the people who were negotiating it got the best 
deal they could from both sides. And I think what we have to recognize 
now is, while this is a very unfortunate development, a year ago at this 
time, the Irish had had no taste of what self-government was like. They 
now have had it, and they like it: positive point number one.
    Positive point number two: The IRA has given no indication whatever 
that they will revert to violence. And so that means that they still 
think, no matter what the rhetoric says, that all the parties really 
believe that they ought to find a way to work this out. And I can assure 
you, virtually every day since I've been here, we've worked on this. And 
in the last several days, we've been involved on a daily basis, and 
we're working very hard to work this out. I can't tell you what the end 
will be. I can only tell you that I think we're way ahead of where we 
would have been, and I still think there's a good chance we'll get 
there.
    Yes, Claire [Claire Shipman, NBC] and then Susan [Susan Page, USA 
Today].

Al Gore

    Q. Maybe this will be one of the exceptions that you'll be willing 
to make. Senator Bradley has made it a point of late to challenge Vice 
President Gore's veracity, essentially, to cast him as a politician not 
to be trusted. He's been your Vice President for the last 7 years. Are 
you offended by those remarks? Certainly there's nobody in a better 
position than you to speak to his character.
    The President. Well, my feelings are not relevant, but I can say 
this: He has always--one of the great strengths that he had as Vice 
President is that he was always brutally honest with me. I mean, he was 
never afraid to disagree with me. And when we had very tough decisions, 
very often we'd be in these big meetings, and very--you see these--when 
these tough decisions come down--and I mean this, no offense to any of 
you; this is actually a compliment to you--but when you've got seven 
people in a meeting and some huge decision is on the line and you 
realize that if you make the wrong call, it cannot only be bad for the 
country, it could be very bad for the health of the administration, it's 
amazing to see how some people guard their words, because they're so 
afraid that what they say, even though the meeting is in confidence, 
will be public. In all those tough times, he took a--he decided what he 
thought was right, and he took a clear and unambiguous stand. And I 
think the country is better for it. And I could give you lots of 
examples.
    I mean, when it was an unpopular thing to go into Kosovo, he wanted 
to do it. When it was unpopular to go into Bosnia, he wanted to do it. 
When it was unpopular to stand up for freedom in Haiti, he wanted to do 
it. When only 15 percent of the people thought we ought to help Mexico 
but I knew it could hurt our economy, he was right there. And I could go 
on and on. So all I can tell you is that in all my dealings with him, he 
has

[[Page 318]]

been candid in the extreme and all anyone could ever ask.
    Now, I'll say again what I said before: I have never seen a tough 
race where people fought with each other, where they didn't have 
different interpretations of each other's record and each other's 
positions. And then once you disagree with someone's position or 
someone's record, then the person will say, ``I just think you're 
mischaracterizing it.'' Now, depending on the level of heat and 
intensity of the campaign, how they say that and how they feel about it 
will go up or down.
    But this happens in every election. And I think the important thing 
to remember is, you've basically got four people running for President 
now who are people of accomplishment, people who have certain 
convictions, people who have, I think, pretty clear philosophies and 
records. And I know that everybody will get hot and mad at everybody 
else, but, I mean, this is not a bad thing for America, this choice 
they've got. And they're very different.
    So America has a good choice. And I think that it's tough to be in 
these races, and when you're not running anymore, you can look back--
everybody can look back on a life in public life and say, ``There's one 
thing I said I kind of wish I hadn't said,'' or, ``I said that, and I 
believe what I said, but I wish I said it in a slightly different way.'' 
But by and large, what's happening here is just perfectly normal, and we 
shouldn't get too exercised by it.
    Q. You don't think Bill Bradley's charges have been below the belt?
    The President. Well, I don't agree--I'm not going to get into 
characterizing his charges. You ask me if the Vice President--I don't 
have to fight this campaign for anybody. You asked me if the Vice 
President has been perfectly honest and candid with me, and I said, yes, 
in the extreme. And that's true, and America's been well served by it. 
That's all I can say.
    My experience is that he is exceedingly honest and exceedingly 
straightforward and has taken a lot of tough positions which, since he 
always, presumably, knew he wanted to run for President, could have cost 
him dearly, and he did it anyway. And I was proud of him for doing it.
    Yes, Susan.

Possible Involvement in a South Asia Peace Process

    Q. Mr. President, I would like to follow up on Steve Holland's 
question. You said that it's up to India and Pakistan to settle the 
issue of Kashmir and that they have not asked the U.S. to help mediate 
that dispute. If India and Pakistan both ask the United States to get 
involved to try to help mediate the issue of Kashmir, would the United 
States be willing to do that?
    The President. Absolutely. I would. Why? For the same reason we've 
been involved in Northern Ireland and the Middle East. Because, number 
one and most importantly, it is a hugely important area of the world. If 
the tensions between India and Pakistan on the Indian subcontinent could 
be resolved, it is my opinion, based on my personal experience with 
people from India, people from Pakistan, and people from Bangladesh, 
that the Indian subcontinent might very well be the great success story 
of the next 50 years.
    You're talking about people who are basically immensely talented, 
have a strong work ethic, a deep devotion to their faith and to their 
families. There is nothing they couldn't do. And it is heartbreaking to 
me to see how much they hold each other back by being trapped in 
yesterday's conflicts--number one.
    Number two, like Northern Ireland and the Middle East, this country 
has been deeply enriched by people from the Indian subcontinent, and I 
think we might be, because of our population, in a position to make a 
constructive contribution. But if they don't want us, it won't be doing 
any good. We'd just be out there talking into the air. And I'm not in 
for that.
    Yes, Mark [Mark Knoller, CBS Radio].

Post-Presidential Legal Issues

    Q. Mr. President, by your answer earlier to John Roberts [CBS News], 
did you mean to say that you or your lawyers would not offer a defense 
to the Committee on Professional Conduct?
    The President. No, I meant to say I'm not going to discuss it any 
more than I absolutely have to because I don't think I should

[[Page 319]]

be dealing with it. I should be dealing with my job.
    Yes, Mara [Mara Liasson, National Public Radio].

2000 Presidential Election

    Q. You say you're not running this year, but you are casting a 
shadow over the debate on the campaign trail. And all of the 
candidates----
    The President. I'd like to think I'm casting a little sunshine over 
it. [Laughter] I keep trying to build these fellows up, you know. I'm 
being nice and generous and all that. [Laughter]
    Q. All of the candidates are running against your behavior and 
conduct, not just the Republicans, as Helen mentioned, but all of the 
candidates.
    The President. Well, if I were running, I'd do that. [Laughter]
    Q. But on the other hand, also all of the candidates, Republicans 
and Democrats, do sound a lot like you when they talk about policy. Even 
the Republicans say they want prescription drug coverage for Medicare--
--
    The President. Yes.
    Q. ----and they support a Patients' Bill of Rights with the right to 
sue. And I am wondering if you could comment on both aspects of your 
influence, both the negative, the fact that everybody seems to be 
running against your behavior and also, on the other side, why everyone 
seems to sound like you when they discuss policy.
    The President. First of all, I think, for the Republicans, it's 
probably good politics to do that, because they spent years and years 
trying to tell everybody how bad I am.
    Q. But it's not just----
    The President. So, so--but for everybody--the public, however--
people are really smart, you know, and it's pretty hard to convince them 
that they should hold anyone responsible for someone else's mistake, 
particularly a personal mistake. I mean, I can't imagine any voter ever 
doing that. That's like shooting yourself in the foot.
    I even caution people, for example, if somebody says something--one 
of you says something or prints something or has a story that we don't 
agree with--I tell people all the time, ``Don't ever talk about the 
press. There is no such thing as `the press.' '' You can't blame--if you 
think somebody made a mistake, you can't blame everybody else for a 
mistake somebody made. But that's in a professional context. In a 
personal context, it's even more true.
    So my view is that the voters are going to--this is, as I have said 
repeatedly, the Presidential election is the world's greatest job 
interview. And the voters are going to hire someone that they believe, 
of course, is a good person, a strong person, a person who will be a 
credit to the office. But they want to know what in the world are they 
going to do? How are we going to keep this expansion going? How are we 
going to meet the big challenges facing the country?
    And it is, to me, a source of reassurance--not personal but for my 
country's future--that so many of the candidates have adopted at least 
some of the policies that we have tried to put in place over the last 7 
years, that moved the country away from this big, deep partisan division 
that dominated Washington politics for so long.
    So all I can tell you is, I think--my instinct is that the voters 
are going to take the measure of these people. They're going to think: 
Who will be a good President; who will make good decisions; and do I 
agree with this person, in terms of priorities and positions? That's 
what I think. I think the implication that anybody would be held 
responsible for somebody else's mistake or misconduct is just--it's a 
real insult to the American people. And they're not going to do that. 
That's not in their interest, and it's not in their nature. They're too 
smart and too good for that.
    Yes.

Normal Trade Relations Status for China

    Q. Mr. President, would you rule out the one-year automatic renewal 
of China's normal trading status, unless Congress disagrees? And do you 
think that would be a formula Democrats would find easier to accept?
    The President. That would be a--I would not support that because, in 
order to get China into the WTO and in order for us to benefit from the 
terms of the agreement that Ambassador Barshefsky and Gene Sperling and 
others made with China, they have to

[[Page 320]]

get permanent normal trading status. And since you asked the question, 
let me tell you why I feel so strongly about it. This is not a political 
issue for me. This is a huge national security issue--for three reasons.
    Number one, our biggest trade deficit is with China, because China 
has access to our markets and our access to theirs is highly restricted. 
This trade agreement offers no increased access to the American markets 
by China but gives us dramatically increased access to their markets.
    Moreover, it means that we can get access to their markets without 
having to transfer technology or agree to do manufacturing in their 
country, and we retain specific rights, even once China is in the WTO, 
on a bilateral basis to take action if there is a big surge of imports 
in some sector into our economy that would throw a lot of people out of 
work in a short time.
    So, economically, from agriculture to high-tech products to 
automobiles and all things in-between, I think this agreement is a clear 
hundred-or-nothing deal for us, if the price of admission to the WTO is 
modernizing and opening the economy.
    Number two, having China in a rule-based system increases the 
likelihood not only that China will follow the rules of the road in 
terms of the international economy but that China will cooperate more in 
other forums, the United Nations and many other areas--to try to help 
reduce, rather than increase, the proliferation of dangerous weapons or 
technology, for example. That's what I believe with all my heart.
    Number three, I believe this agreement will change China from within 
more than all the other economic opening of the last 20 years combined, 
fairly rapidly, because of the dramatic increase in access to 
communications and contact with the outside world that this agreement 
portends.
    Now, as I said in the State of the Union Address, and I tried to say 
it again when I went over to Switzerland to talk, the truth is, I don't 
know what choice China will make. I don't know what path China will 
take, and neither does anyone else. I don't want to oversell this to the 
American people in that sense. But what I believe I do know, based on 
all my experience, not only as President but just with human nature, is 
that they are far more likely to be constructive members of the 
international community if they get into the WTO and they make these 
changes than if they don't.
    And I think it's quite interesting--one of the things that has 
really moved me on this, since one of the big issues with which we have 
differences with China is in the repression of political and religious 
expression, is how many of the religious groups that actually have 
missions operating in China agree with this. People that have actually 
worked there, lived there, and been subject to some of the repression 
there agree that what we're doing is the right thing to do. I think that 
a substantial--a majority of opinion in Taiwan agrees that this is the 
right thing to do.
    So I'm going to push this as hard as I can. I want to get the 
earliest possible vote I can. And I cannot tell you how important I 
think it is. I think that if we didn't do this, we would be regretting 
it for 20 years. And I think 10 years from now, we'll look back, and no 
matter what decisions China makes, we'll say the only thing we could 
control is what we did, and what we did was the right, the honorable, 
and the smart thing to do for America over the long run.
    Yes.

Federal Election Commission

    Q. Both Senator Bradley and Vice President Gore have condemned your 
nomination of Bradley Smith to the FEC. Would you care to take this 
opportunity to explain exactly why you've nominated this man and to say 
what exactly this says about your own commitment to the campaign finance 
reform that you said you would support?
    The President. Well, it doesn't say anything about my commitment, 
although I think they were right to condemn it, except that--look at 
what the law says. The law says, A, this is a Republican appointment, 
and B, as a practical matter, the way the appointments process works in 
the Senate, if you want anybody to be confirmed for anything, you have 
to take--and the Republicans in this case happen to be in the majority--
the majority leader always makes that recommendation.

[[Page 321]]

    Now, I have--I argued with him, as he will tell you, for months 
about this. And there is a reason they wanted Bradley Smith on the FEC. 
You know, he hates campaign finance reform, Bradley Smith does. He's 
written about it. And he'll get a 3-year appointment now, where it will 
be one person on the FEC. And I don't like it, but I decided that I 
should not shut down the whole appointments process and depart from the 
plain intent of the law, which requires that it be bipartisan and by all 
tradition that the majority leader make the nomination.
    And I think it ought to be instructive for the American people, and 
you ought not to change the subject and confuse them. We have a bill, 
the McCain-Feingold bill before the Congress. The administration is for 
it. Both the Democratic candidates for President are for it, and 100 
percent of our caucus in the Senate and the House are for it, every last 
person down to the last man and woman. There is only one reason this is 
not the law: The Republicans are not for it.
    And ever since I've been here--we didn't have unanimous support in 
'93, but ever since '94, '95, somewhere in there, we always had a big 
majority of the Democratic Party for campaign finance reform and a big 
majority of the Republicans against it, even though some Republicans are 
for it. But basically, the big majority of the Republican Party, 
particularly in the House and the Senate--I don't mean out in the 
country; I mean in the House and the Senate--are against this. That's 
why it is not the law of the land.
    That is the ultimate truth. This appointment demonstrates that. It's 
the poster child--this should be--this is like a big neon sign, ``Hello, 
America needs''--if you care about this issue, you need to know what the 
real issue is here. Ever since I've been here, there's been an attempt 
to say, ``Oh, a pox on both their houses. The Democrats don't really 
care. If they really cared, if the President really cared, somehow we 
would have this.'' It is just not true.
    What else can we do? Both our Presidential candidates, the White 
House, and 100 percent of our Members of Congress are for it. Why hasn't 
there been a signing ceremony? Because they are against it. Now, this 
man, his writings and his honest convictions demonstrate that. And I 
hope there will be no further doubt about this. The American people can 
make their own decision.
    Go ahead.

Hillary Clinton's Senate Campaign

    Q. Mr. President, current polls show that your wife is virtually 
tied with her likely challenger, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, when it comes to 
women voters in New York, and that she is trailing when it comes to 
white voters. And by most accounts, women will play a decisive role in 
this race. Can you address why you think your wife is having some 
trouble connecting with women voters, in particular; what advice, if 
any, you're offering her to help her better connect? And are you playing 
the role of a senior strategist in her campaign?
    The President. Well, I'm basically doing for her what she's always 
done for me. You know, I'm talking to her about whatever she wants to 
talk about. I'm giving her my best ideas. I thought she had a wonderful 
announcement. I was really proud of her. She got up there and said that 
she understood she was new to the neighborhood, but she wasn't new to 
the concerns of the people of New York. And then she said in exact 
detail--she did what I believe all candidates should do--she said, 
``Look, if you vote for me, here's what you get. Here's what I'll fight 
for. Here's what I'll do. Here's what I'll fight against. Here's what I 
won't do.''
    And now the campaign is underway. And I think she's doing remarkably 
well, given the unusual nature of the campaign and the formidable 
obstacles out there. And I think now the people will begin to listen and 
debate, and I think she'll do real well. But I'm very proud of her, and 
I think she's doing fine.
    But you should not--all I'm doing for her is what she did for me. So 
when she says something, it's what she believes. And she's made up her 
mind what she wants to run on, what she wants to be for, and why she 
wants to do it. And I was ecstatically happy with the way her 
announcement came out, because I just knew it was her. And I just think 
if--you know, you just go out there and make your best shot and hope 
that it works. But my instinct is, she'll do right well.

[[Page 322]]

    Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service], go ahead.

Isolation of the Presidency

    Q. Sir, do you see any way to make the Presidency a position that is 
closer to the people? It's sort of aloof now. And you're a friendly type 
of man. You must see some means whereby you can bring the Presidency 
down to the people more.
    The President. Well, I think part of what makes the Presidency aloof 
is that if you show up for work every day, you don't have as much time 
to spend with people as you'd like. I think that--I think technology 
will help some. I think this web chat I did earlier this week with Wolf 
Blitzer [Cable News Network], where he asked me questions, but he also 
let a lot of other people ask questions--I thought that was a good way 
to do it. I think that--in my first term, I did a lot of these townhall 
meetings, and I think they're good, although I think they tend to get 
turned in a certain way around whatever's breaking in the news at any 
given time.
    I've tried to not get too aloof from the people. I went down to the 
Rio Grande Valley the other day. I was the first President since 
President Eisenhower to go down there, and I've been there three times. 
And a lot of people came out, and I stopped along the street and talked 
to them and visited with them. I think that you have to have--I think 
doing these press conferences helps. I think using the Internet and 
finding other ways that ordinary citizens can ask you questions in the 
course of your work helps. And I think that you have to find the proper 
balance of work in Washington and getting out with the folks to do that.
    It's a constant struggle, but my instinct is that technology will 
help. I think a lot of you, for example--I think your jobs are changing 
because of the way technology works. And there will be ways that you 
also can help make people in public life less aloof and bring more 
people into it. It's going to be very interesting.
    Yes, go ahead.

Northern Ireland Peace Process

    Q. Mr. President, to follow up on what you said before, you said 
that no one should be held accountable for somebody else's actions. But 
if you examine the suspension of the powers in Northern Ireland last 
week, the British Government was holding Sinn Fein responsible for the 
IRA not disarming. According to the Good Friday accord, they encouraged 
both sides to encourage disarmament. Is there any protest on your part 
to the British Government for bringing down a democratically elected 
government--and similar to the way you pointed your finger at the IRA in 
a statement saying that you hoped that there wouldn't be any backsliding 
after they retracted their previous statements.
    The President. Well, let me say, first of all, I was in constant 
contact with the Irish and the British Governments, and I think we all 
know what is going on here. The question is, how can we keep the peace 
process going; how can we get the institutions back up; and how can we 
keep the Unionist Party involved and under the leadership of David 
Trimble, an objective I believe that Sinn Fein strongly supports? That 
is, I believe that they believe that they have to have people they can 
work with in order to make this thing last.
    I have found that my influence is greater when I say what I think 
about most of these things to the parties themselves but when I don't 
try to make their jobs any harder by what I say, particularly after the 
fact. Now, our big job now is to get these people back on track. In 
order to do it, we have to honor the votes of the people of Northern 
Ireland; we've got to stand these institutions back up; and then all the 
parties that said they supported the Good Friday accords and the people 
they represent, who voted in record numbers for it, they've got to 
comply. And we've got to find a way to get this done.
    And I think that--I know it's not satisfying to a lot of people; 
they want me to be judgmental about everything. And all I can tell you 
is, in private I've tried to be straightforward and clear with them. But 
I don't want to say anything that would make it even harder to put this 
thing back together. We've got to keep going forward. The most important 
thing now is to look about how to go forward and how to get--how to keep 
the Unionists in harness and how to find a way

[[Page 323]]

to comply with all the requirements, including putting those 
institutions back up.
    Yes.

Oil Prices

    Q. Mr. President, back on the rising oil prices, Secretary 
Richardson is beginning a series of consultations with oil companies. Do 
you think that this will have some moderating effect on oil prices?
    The President. I think that oil prices may well moderate. We'll have 
to see about that. But what I think that he wants to do is to make sure 
that we've gotten rid of some of the bottlenecks. There are plainly some 
reasons that are only indirectly related to the general rise in oil 
prices--that home heating oil prices, for example, have gone up so 
explosively. That's why he went up to Boston first and why the Coast 
Guard is trying to assure rapid delivery of the oil.
    So I think that he believes that in his talks with the oil 
companies--not necessarily he can talk the oil prices in the aggregate 
down but that they may be able to take certain specific steps which 
would alleviate some of the biggest burdens on them.
    Yes.
    Q. [Inaudible]--the oil-producing countries, I believe he's going to 
make some consultations around the world.
    The President. Yes, I think we're in regular touch with them, and 
they know what our views are. I think that's all I should say about 
that.
    Yes.

DNA Testing for Death Row Inmates

    Q. Back on an earlier question, the death penalty, you mentioned 
that supporters of the death penalty, like yourself, have a special 
burden to make sure that innocent people are not executed. And you 
mentioned the Leahy bill, but you didn't state a position on that. That 
would make DNA testing available to death row inmates. Is it a good 
idea? Is it workable? Would you sleep better at night if it were law?
    The President. Well, first of all, the reason I didn't take a 
position on it--I tried to make it clear that I am quite favorably 
disposed toward it, but I just learned about it in the last couple of 
days, and I've asked our people to review it, to answer the questions 
that you ask.
    Would I sleep better at night, if it were law? If it would really 
work, I would. In other words, I am favorably disposed toward it. I just 
want--and we just have a review underway to analyze the law, how it 
would work, whether it will work, what, if any, practical problems are 
there. And I am trying to come to grips with it, and as soon as I do, 
I'll be glad to state a position. But I want to make it clear--I thought 
I had made it clear before--I am favorably disposed.
    Yes.

Vieques Island, Puerto Rico

    Q. On the issue of Vieques and Puerto Rico, currently, there is 
major resistance by religious groups, civic groups, opposition parties 
to the agreement reached on Vieques. There's continued civil 
disobedience on Navy lands. This might entail a Waco-style operation to 
get these protesters out. Are you willing to go all the way with Federal 
authority to clear these Federal lands? And as a followup, do you 
believe in your heart that Puerto Rico's colonial status is the root of 
this problem or is related to Puerto Ricans' ambivalence to issues of 
national security?
    The President. I think the root of the problem--I think the root of 
the problem is twofold. One is, as the Pentagon has acknowledged--and 
they should get credit in Puerto Rico for doing this. It's hard to get 
people in Washington to admit they're wrong, including me. We all hate 
to do it, you know--including you. We all hate to do it. The Pentagon 
has acknowledged that the 1983 agreement was not followed in letter and 
spirit. They have acknowledged that. That left a bad taste in the mouths 
of the people of Vieques and of all Puerto Rico.
    Problem two is the unwillingness of the Congress to give a 
legislatively sanctioned vote to the people to let them determine the 
status of Puerto Rico. Now, I think those are the roots of the problem.
    Now, there may be some people there who, on any given day, would be, 
I don't know, against the military or would think the military shouldn't 
train or whatever. But it's clear that if you look at the offer we 
made--to begin now to give the western part of the

[[Page 324]]

island to Puerto Rico; to facilitate transit back and forth between 
Vieques and the main island; to do a lot of the other environmental and 
economic things on the island of Vieques; to have no live fire in the 
short run here while we're going through this transition period; to cut 
the training days in half; and then to let the people decide for 
themselves with the future of the island is; but to give us a transition 
period when we don't have any other place to train--it is a perfectly 
reasonable compromise, unless either those first two things are eating 
at you, so you don't trust anything America or the Pentagon does or 
unless you're just philosophically opposed to America having a military 
which has to train.
    So I still believe it's a good agreement. I will continue to work 
with the Governor, with the Mayor in Vieques, with the authorities, with 
a view toward trying to work this out. I want the people of Puerto Rico 
to decide this. You know, I did a message to them. I wish they could 
decide their status. If it were just up to me, if I could sign an 
Executive order and let them have a sanctioned election, I would do it 
today. And I view this compromise as an empowerment of the people of 
Puerto Rico and, to that extent, a ratification of their longstanding 
grievances.
    But the people of Vieques should be able to decide this. And I don't 
think that--just as I don't think the Pentagon should impose it on them, 
I don't think the demonstrators should stop them from having a vote 
either. I think they ought to be able to make a judgment.
    Thank you very much. Thank you.

Note: The President's 186th news conference began at 2:25 p.m. in the 
East Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Nicholas 
Kunselman and Stephanie Hart, students at Columbine High School, 
Littleton, CO, who were murdered in a Subway sandwich shop on February 
14; Gov. George W. Bush of Texas; Gov. George H. Ryan of Illinois; 
former Senator George J. Mitchell, who chaired the multiparty talks in 
Northern Ireland; Gen. John de Chastelain, Canadian Defense Forces, 
chair, Independent International Commission on Decommissoning; David 
Trimble, leader, Ulster Unionist Party; Gov. Pedro Rossello of Puerto 
Rico; and Mayor Manuela Santiago of Vieques, PR. Reporters referred to 
Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York City; Judge Susan Webber Wright, 
U.S. District Court for Arkansas, who presided over the Paula Jones suit 
against the President; and former Senator Bill Bradley. The President 
also referred to LIHEAP, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.