[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 36, Number 13 (Monday, April 3, 2000)]
[Pages 646-660]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference

March 29, 2000

    The President.  Good afternoon. Please be seated. I would like to 
begin by saying that yesterday's announcement that OPEC members will 
increase oil production is good news for our economy and for the 
American consumer. These increases should bring lower prices, which will 
help to sustain economic growth here in America and also, and very 
importantly, throughout the world.
    It will also, I hope, bring relief to hard-pressed truckers in this 
country, who have been especially hard-hit, and others who have high 
fuel costs, by providing a greater balance between oil production and 
consumption.
    While home heating costs and the price at the pump are both expected 
to fall in the next few weeks, I urge the oil companies to do everything 
they can to bring the savings to consumers as quickly as possible. 
Meanwhile, we will continue to monitor developments in world markets 
closely.
    Since January, our administration has taken significant action to 
address high oil prices, from helping more low income and elderly 
citizens to pay their heating bills, to calling for the creation of a 
regional market reserve in the Northeast, to asking Congress to 
immediately reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
    It is also very, very important for Congress now to act on my 
proposal to strengthen our long-term energy security, including new tax 
incentives and investments to support domestic oil producers and to 
promote the development and use of alternative fuels and more efficient 
energy technologies. We can become much more energy efficient and 
support economic development if we do.
    Congress also has an opportunity and a responsibility to make 
progress on a number of other important issues for the American people 
this year. First, we must work together to reduce the staggering toll of 
gun violence in America by passing my proposal for more prosecutors and 
stronger gun enforcement and by finally passing a strong juvenile 
justice bill that closes the gun show loophole, requires child safety 
locks for all handguns, and bans the importation of large capacity 
ammunition clips.
    For 9 months now, key congressional Republicans, egged on by the 
NRA, have stood on a bill and stopped it from being considered by 
keeping it from coming out of conference onto the floor of both Houses 
for a vote. Fourteen days ago a House resolution passed with bipartisan 
support, sponsored by Representative Zoe Lofgren of California. It

[[Page 647]]

simply said that House and Senate conferees should meet to settle their 
differences on the bill that has been languishing in Congress for too 
long. But after 14 days, the response to Representative Lofgren's 
resolution has been deafening silence and still no action. It appears 
the opponents of reform have run out of arguments, so now they're just 
trying to run out the clock.
    This makes no sense. With crime at a 25-year low, and the Brady law 
keeping guns out of the hands of a half-million felons, fugitives, and 
stalkers, the argument is over. Gun safety measures do work and do not 
interfere with the interests of ordinary hunters and sports people. So 
it's time to build on our proven success and pass this commonsense 
legislation.
    Three weeks ago I asked Congress to finish the gun bill and send it 
to me by the anniversary of the Columbine tragedy, April 20th. That 
deadline can still be met. So again, for the sake of our children, I ask 
Congress to stop the delay. This should not be a partisan issue, and it 
should lead to action, not argument.
    There are some other issues I'd like to mention briefly. First, to 
make sure the benefits of Medicare keep pace with the benefits of modern 
medicine, we must reform Medicare and add a voluntary prescription drug 
benefit. Three out of five older Americans lack dependable, affordable 
drug coverage. Since I first raised the issue last year, virtually every 
Member of Congress has voiced support for some kind of new prescription 
drug benefit. I call on Congress to pass a bill that ensures all 
Medicare beneficiaries the option to choose an affordable, accessible 
drug benefit. If they do, of course, I will sign it.
    Second, to protect the interests of 190 million Americans in health 
plans, we should pass a strong, enforceable, bipartisan Patients' Bill 
of Rights. This isn't a partisan issue in America. The House has already 
passed a strong bill, but the insurance lobby continues to oppose it. 
All we need is for the conference of Senators and Representatives to let 
every Member in both Houses vote his or her conscience on a real 
Patients' Bill of Rights. If it passes--and it will--I will certainly 
sign it.
    Third, we should raise the minimum wage by a dollar over 2 years. A 
bipartisan majority in the House voted to do so earlier this month, but 
Republican leaders held the pay raise hostage for tax increases for the 
wealthiest Americans--tax decreases, excuse me--tax breaks that could 
make it impossible to pay down the debt or strengthen Social Security 
and Medicare. I ask again to the Congress: Do the right thing. Everyone 
knows we need to raise the minimum wage. Send me a clean bill that 
raises the minimum wage by a dollar over 2 years, and I will sign it.
    Fourth, we must keep the economy growing, first by opening new 
markets here at home in our hardest pressed communities, rural and 
urban, and second, by opening new markets for American products and 
services around the world. Especially, we need to give our businesses, 
farmers, and workers access to the world's largest consumer market in 
China. There is no more important long-term international economic or 
national security issue facing us today.
    Congress should pass permanent normal trade relations with China 
this spring. I will say again, this requires us to take no further 
action on our part to lower tariffs or open markets. All the concessions 
are being made by China in return for entering an open trading system. 
If we do not do this, then the full benefits of all we negotiated will 
flow to all the other countries in the WTO but not to the United States. 
The economic consequences will be bad. The national security 
consequences will be worse.
    Fifth, we must invest more in our public schools and demand more 
from them. I ask again Congress to endorse the principles in the 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which 
call for ending social promotion and funding only those things which 
work to raise student achievement. And we know that our students can't 
learn in schools that are falling apart.
    Yesterday a bipartisan school construction bill was introduced in 
the House that would provide $24.8 billion in tax credit bonds to 
modernize up to 6,000 of our schools. If the Republican leadership 
doesn't prevent it, Congress could vote on this proposal tomorrow. I ask 
the Congress to pass this bipartisan legislation, and I will sign it.

[[Page 648]]

    Sixth, to save the lives of thousands of young people who every year 
get hooked on cigarettes, we must now pass legislation allowing the Food 
and Drug Administration to require tobacco, like the dangerous substance 
it is, to be regulated by the FDA. There is strong bipartisan support 
for this idea, and I hope the Congress will pass it. If they do, I will 
certainly sign it.
    Finally, I would like to say a few words about the importance of 
passing the supplemental budget requests without delay. This is urgent 
funding for pressing needs at home and abroad: to help the families that 
were victims of Hurricane Floyd; to provide needed energy assistance for 
families struggling to cope with rising oil prices; to help keep illegal 
drugs out of our Nation by supporting the Colombian Government's 
courageous fight against drug traffickers; to keep the peace, provide 
for our troops, and build stability in Kosovo; and to provide needed 
debt relief to the world's poorest nations.
    When Congress adjourns this summer, we ought to be able to look back 
and say we took real steps to make America better. The issues have been 
decided; they are clearly there. They have also been debated. The 
American people want action, and they deserve it. The only thing left is 
for the congressional leadership to reach across party lines and to work 
with us to break the grip of special interests and do the people's 
business.
    Thank you very much.
    Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].

Israel-Syria Peace Talks

    Q.  Mr. President, you said that the ball is in Asad's court. Is 
that because you think that his insistence on the return of all Syrian 
land under occupation in exchange for peace lacks logic or possibility?
    The President.  It's because he now knows in great detail what the 
Israeli proposals were. And I believe, since they have made an effort to 
be specific and comprehensive, if we're going to make progress, they 
should now be able to know what his specific and comprehensive response 
is on all the issues.
    There is more than one issue here. And if we're going to have a 
negotiation, I don't think it's enough to say, ``I don't like your 
position. Come back and see me when I like your position.'' And I 
understand how strongly he feels about it, but if he disagrees with 
their territorial proposal, which is quite significant, then there 
should be some other proposal, I think, coming from the Syrians about 
how their concerns could be handled. And that's what I meant by that. I 
did my best to try to just present what I thought the options were. And 
if we're going to have a negotiation, it takes two people coming up with 
ideas--or three sides, in this case, if we are being asked to mediate 
it.
    He, obviously, has the perfect right to take whatever position he 
believes is in Syria's interests and whatever he thinks is right. But if 
there is a genuine desire for peace here on both sides, and I believe 
there is, and if both sides face certain significant political 
constraints within their countries, and I believe they do, then they 
both need to come up with some ideas and start talking.
    I mean, the one thing there should be no doubt about is that there 
is a real effort being made here to resolve this. And I think it is 
clear that Prime Minister Barak would like to resolve it, and I think 
President Asad would like to resolve it. So once you know what the other 
side wants and you don't think you can do it, then you ought to come up 
with some alternative way of trying to respond to the underlying 
concerns that are behind the position. That's what I've suggested, and I 
hope that will happen. And meanwhile, the rest of us will keep working. 
I had a good talk with President Mubarak yesterday about that, and I 
hope we can continue to move forward.
    Yes.

New York City Police

    Q.  Mr. President, three unarmed black men have been shot and killed 
by police in New York City in the past 13 months. Do you believe that 
the New York Police Department has a racial problem, and does that 
department require Justice Department oversight?
    The President.  Well, I believe there is a Justice Department review 
of the practices in the department, which I think has been a matter of 
public record for some time. And

[[Page 649]]

in the Diallo case, there was a specific reference to a review of the 
action there for possible civil rights violations. I think the important 
thing I'd like to say is, first of all, there's a lot of evidence that 
in city after city where the crime rate has dropped--and the crime 
rate's gone down a lot in New York; it's gone down a lot in every major 
city in America--there is now ample evidence that the crime rate can go 
down, and the tenor of community police relations can go up. And it's 
largely a matter of the right sort of training, the right sort of 
policies, and consistent effort there.
    On the specific cases, I think I should say no more, particularly in 
view of the latest incident, which was tragic. There is a good U.S. 
Attorney in New York, and I have confidence that whatever decision is 
appropriate will be made as all the facts come out, and that's what's 
being done here.
    But I think that the focus ought to be everywhere on having the 
right kind of training and the right kind of policy direction to say 
that we're going to bring the crime rate down, and we're going to bring 
the quality of police community relations up. The two things are not 
inconsistent. In fact, I think, generally, they reinforce one another, 
and I think that that's what we all ought to be working for in New York 
and everywhere else in the country.
    Randy [Randy Mikkelsen, Reuters].

President-Elect Vladimir Putin of Russia

    Q.  Mr. President, when you spoke with Russia's President-elect 
Putin the other day, what did he tell you to indicate how he might run 
the country, particularly in the areas of the economy and foreign 
policy? And do you think it would be a good idea for you or your 
successor to try to build the same sort of personal relationship with 
Putin that you had with Boris Yeltsin, in view of criticisms that U.S. 
policy was too focused on one 
individual?
    The President.  Well, first, he has expressed a genuine commitment 
to economic reform--and the Russian economy is growing again--and a 
desire to put together a first-rate team. And that was encouraging.
    In foreign policy, he expressed an interest in working with us to 
pursue matters of mutual concern, particularly in the area of arms 
control and in some other areas. And I'm looking forward to working with 
him on that.
    With regard to the personal relations, I think that--President 
Yeltsin, keep in mind, was the first democratically elected President of 
Russia. And he had the sort of personality that was difficult not to--it 
was difficult to remain neutral in dealing with him. And I did like him 
very much, but I also thought he was committed to democracy, and I think 
the fact that he stepped down and that we had a genuine democratic 
transition in Russia is some evidence of that.
    So I think that regardless of personal chemistry--and I hope that 
mine with President Putin will be good, and I hope that my successor's 
will be good with him--the United States and Russia have vast national 
interests that require them to work together on the things with which we 
agree and to manage the difficulties between us where we have honest 
disagreements. So it is the relationship that is important. And the 
personal chemistry will come and go, depending on the personalities. But 
the point is, the fact that I liked Boris Yeltsin didn't stop me from 
differing with him when we were differing, and it certainly never 
stopped him from differing with me in his classic style. And I don't 
expect that to change with President Putin.
    But I think the relationship is very important to the United States 
and to Russia, and it must be worked on constantly. We just have too 
much in common, and we have to work on it.
    Yes, Ellen [Ellen Ratner, Talk Radio News Service].

States and E-Commerce

    Q.  The Internet commission is meeting on electronic commerce, and 
they are giving some proposals. What are your thoughts about what 
proposals you think they should come out with? And also what about the 
States, as electronic commerce becomes more and more available on the 
net and may take revenue from the States?
    The President.  Well, I think-- first of all, I supported the 
moratorium on taxes, and I saw where Mr. Gephardt did as well a couple 
of days ago, and I think that's good. I think that we should.

[[Page 650]]

    I think that the process that has been set up is the right one. I 
don't know what the solution is, but I think the States are going to 
have to get together with these companies and figure out--first of all, 
I don't think there should be any access taxes or new transactional 
taxes or anything that will overly burden Internet commerce, because it 
is making a real contribution to our economy.
    The real issue is, as a higher and higher percentage of sales are 
conducted over the Internet, what happens to the sales tax base of the 
States? Are they going to have to go to a different kind of taxation? 
Because they don't want to prejudice ordinary retailers. On the other 
hand, some of the people in the Internet business think that any sales 
tax will put them at a disadvantage because they have to charge shipping 
charges.
    So I think that is a matter that the States will have to work out. 
Since they are basically State taxes, I think we ought to leave it to 
them. But the Governors are highly attuned to economic development. They 
will not lightly hurt their economies. But they also have 
responsibilities to fund their schools and other public services. And I 
just think they are going to have to work through it.
    I think over the next year or so, you will begin to see some kind of 
consensus emerge.
    Yes, go ahead.

Israel-Syria Peace Talks

    Q.  Mr. President, are you prepared to deploy American advisers, 
monitors, or troops on the Golan Heights to secure an Israeli-Syrian 
peace accord? Did you discuss that at all with President Asad and, if 
so, what was his response?
    The President.  We did not discuss it. So far, all the options being 
discussed by Syria and Israel do not entail that. The only time I ever 
even discussed it is as a theoretical possibility was many years ago 
with the late Prime Minister Rabin. And it was clear to me, even then, 
that both sides were looking for a way to resolve this that would not 
require an international force including American troops there, and I 
think they are still trying to get that done.
    Yes, John [John Cochran, ABC News].

Elian Gonzalez

    Q.  A possible confrontation is looming between the relatives of 
Elian Gonzalez and Federal authorities. As a last resort, would you 
permit Federal authorities or some kind of Federal agents to go in there 
to forcibly take the boy so that he could be sent back to Cuba?
    The President.  Well, I think, surely, we are some distance from 
that because they have to--they will, doubtless--if they do not prevail 
in court, they will clearly appeal. And I would just hope that the law 
would be followed by everyone, including them. I think that there is a 
legal process here. I have done my best to avoid politicizing it. And I 
think that the appropriate authorities, in this case the judges, will 
make a decision. And when that is done, I think that the people on all 
sides should accept the rule of the court. And I----
    Q.  So the relatives realize that is an 
option?
    The President.  What do you mean?
    Q.  That marshals might have to come in there and say, ``Release the 
boy.''
    The President.  Well, that's--it's no more an option there than it 
is for anyone else who doesn't--who says, ``I don't like the way the 
courts decide.'' I don't think they should be singled out. I don't think 
there should be any extra pressure put on them. But on the other hand, I 
think that they should observe the rule of law; just like if they 
prevail in court, the others should accept it. I have done my best not 
to overly politicize this, and I don't think we should. There is a legal 
process here. We ought to let it play out.
    Yes, go ahead, Jim [Jim Angle, FOX News]. I'll take you both. Go 
ahead.

Federal Reserve Board Nominations

    Q.  The Senate so far has not acted on two of your nominees to the 
Federal Reserve Board and shows no inclination to do so. A third slot is 
open as well. Do you have any realistic expectation of seeing action on 
that front this year, or will those slots be filled by your successor, 
whomever he may be?
    The President.  Well, I don't know. I hope that the Senate will 
continue to move forward on appointments. We had some success with 
judicial appointments recently. They are

[[Page 651]]

approving a smaller percentage of nominees than is customary when the 
President is of one party and the Senate majority is of another, and I 
think that is regrettable. But I have worked with the Senate, and I have 
consistently sent the appointments up there, for example, recommended by 
Republicans for Republican slots on various boards and commissions. And 
I hope we will have some progress there.
    They are also holding up a couple of Ambassadors for reasons that 
are totally unrelated to the nominees or any objection that they have to 
their qualifications, and that's not good for America's foreign policy 
interests. So I hope we will continue to see--we will have some breaking 
of logjams the way we did on the judges just a few weeks ago.
    Go ahead, Jim.

Mayor Alexander Penelas of Metro-Dade County, Florida

    Q.  Mr. President, the mayor of Miami--back on the Elian Gonzalez 
case--the mayor of Miami said today that he would withhold any 
assistance from the city, including police, if Federal authorities 
decide to return Elian Gonzalez to Cuba. And if there were any violence 
in the streets, he would hold you and Attorney General Reno personally 
responsible for that.
    That seems to sound like an invitation for the community to block 
Federal authorities and an assurance to them that the Miami police will 
stand aside.
    The President.  Well, I like the mayor very much, but I still 
believe in the rule of law here. We all have to--whatever the law is, 
whatever the decision is ultimately made, the rest of us ought to obey 
it.

National Rifle Association

    Q.  Mr. President, Charlton Heston is on the college speaking 
circuit. And he said last night, ``It amazes me that the President is so 
stubborn when it comes to guns.'' And he notes that there are already 
22,000 gun laws on the books by his count, which he says that the 
administration does not enforce.
    Could you do more to enforce existing gun laws, and how do you feel 
about the attack that the NRA has mounted on you and your 
administration?
    The President.  Well, let me answer the question on the merits. Gun 
prosecutions are up under our administration. And I have asked in this 
budget for a significant increase to enforce the laws, including more 
prosecutors, more ATF agents.
    But again, I would make the main point: The NRA's position is that 
if somebody does something wrong, throw the book at them but do not have 
any preventive measures when it comes to guns. They believe that unlike 
every other area of our life, there should be no prevention. So they 
say--they didn't want us to have the Brady bill. They said it was too 
burdensome on people. But it hasn't been burdensome. They don't want us 
to close the gun show loophole. They say it's too burdensome. They're 
not even for the research into smart-gun technology or for banning large 
ammunition clips.
    There's a case where we have a law on the books that can't be 
effectively enforced. These assault weapons are illegal, but the 
ammunition clips, the big ammunition clips, can be imported because of a 
loophole in the law, so the law we have can't be effectively enforced.
    And I think that it's just wrong to say that because of the second 
amendment or because there are a lot of people that like to hunt or 
sport shoot that prevention plays no role in this.
    How would you feel if I said, for example, the following: ``You 
know, all these people that go through airport metal detectors, 99.999 
percent of them are law-abiding, good people. And it is really a pain to 
go through those metal detectors if you've got a money clip in your 
pocket or a rodeo belt buckle on or something else, and you have to go 
through two or three times or take your belt off or whatever. It's just 
too burdensome, and I'm just sick and tired of it, and I'm going to take 
these metal detectors down in the airports, and the next time a plane 
blows up, we're going to throw the book at them.''
    Now, you're laughing. But what if I said, ``You know, most people 
who drive are good, honest, responsible people, and we should just--we 
ought to repeal the laws, the drivers license laws, and repeal the speed 
limits, and

[[Page 652]]

the next time somebody does something wrong and has a 25-car pileup, 
we'll just throw the book at them.''
    I mean, a sensible society has a balance between prevention and 
punishment. And when we put these 100,000 police out, a lot of people 
said that wouldn't work. But the truth is, the community policing 
program, I believe, has contributed more to lowering the crime rate by 
preventing people from committing crimes in the first place than even by 
catching them more quickly.
    So all I can tell you is, I just disagree with that. And in terms of 
their attacks on me, you know, that's what I get hired to do. That's 
part of the President's job description, being attacked by people who 
disagree with him. That doesn't matter. I still think Charlton Heston's 
a great actor, and I love his movies--[laughter]--and I still watch him 
every time I get a chance. And I loved having him here at the White 
House not very long ago, when he got one of the Kennedy Center Awards.
    But that's irrelevant to me. The only question is, what is best for 
the safety of the American people? And guns are no different than any 
other area of our life. We need a balance between prevention and 
punishment.
    Go ahead. Did you have a question? Go ahead, John [John King, Cable 
News Network] and then Mark [Mark Knoller, CBS Radio].

Privacy Act and the White House

    Q.  Mr. President, a Federal judge, with whom you have disagreed in 
the past, today said it was his opinion that you had committed a 
criminal violation of the Privacy Act by releasing those Kathleen Willey 
letters during the Independent Counsel investigation. What do you think 
of that ruling? And do you agree with the take of one of your legal 
advisors earlier today, who called this judge ``a loose cannon''?
    The President.  Did one of my legal advisors do that? [Laughter] 
Well, he does seem to have somehow acquired a significant percentage of 
the cases involving the White House. That's an interesting story.
    But anyway, you know, obviously, we don't agree with the ruling. And 
I can say that when the decision was made to release those letters, I 
didn't even have any conversation with anybody about the Privacy Act. I 
never thought about it, never thought about whether it applied or not, 
and decided to do it reluctantly only because it was the only way I knew 
to refute allegations that were made against me that were untrue. And I 
think they plainly did that, and I would not have done it otherwise.
    But I think in terms of the law, there are other reasons that I 
disagree with the law, with the idea that the Privacy Act, which was 
generally designed to protect people who had business with the Federal 
Government or were complaining about something that the Government was 
doing or had reasons for confidentiality and having to give the 
Government records, there were all kinds of reasons for the Privacy Act. 
And so I just don't believe that it--I think that the opinion of our 
counsel's office and many other judges who ruled on this is that that 
act does not apply to this kind of correspondence in the White House. 
And so we disagree, and we will proceed accordingly.
    Yes, go ahead, and then Mark. Go ahead, Larry [Larry McQuillan, 
Reuters].

Gas Tax

    Q.  Mr. President, in light of the fact that OPEC has decided to 
increase production, do you see it as a mistake for the Senate to 
proceed with a bill that would suspend the gas tax? And if it reached 
your desk, would you veto it?
    The President.  I don't expect it to reach my desk because there 
seems to be bipartisan opposition to it in the House, including among 
the leadership. But the problem I have with it, apart from what it might 
do to the Highway Trust Fund and the spending obligations that have 
already been incurred by the acts of Congress--the budgets--is that I'm 
not sure that the savings would be passed along to the consumers, in 
addition to that.
    So I think there are a lot of questions about it, but I don't expect 
it to pass. I do think, however, we shouldn't minimize the real bind 
that some Americans have already faced by these high fuel costs. For 
most of us

[[Page 653]]

who--of course, I don't drive myself anymore--but for most people who 
don't have to drive a long way to work, it may seem an irritant but not 
a burden. But there are a lot of Americans who do have to drive a long 
way to work, who work for not very much money. And there are a lot of 
Americans who are in the trucking business who have been really, really 
hurt by this.
    So I think we have to just keep our powder dry, keep our options 
open. But right now I think the prudent thing is to see how quickly 
these prices can come down with the increase in production, and for the 
House to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We've got to have 
that reauthorization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. My authority 
even to use that, even as a possible option, expires on Friday. And it's 
very, very important for that to pass.
    Go ahead, Mark.

Paternity Leave and Prime Minister 
Tony Blair

    Q.  Mr. President, I wonder if you've got any thoughts or advice for 
your friend, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the dilemma that he 
faces--[laughter]--on whether he should take parental leave, as his wife 
has suggested, when their next child is born? And if you don't want to 
share your advice with us, what would you do in that situation? 
[Laughter]
    The President.  I would like to have been a fly on the wall when 
they first talked about that after it appeared in public. But you know, 
I feel very close to both Tony and Cherie. I don't want to get in the 
middle of that. [Laughter] But I think Mrs. Blair said that there must 
be a ``third way'' to handle this challenge. [Laughter] That's what she 
said, although I thought it was a good line.
    First of all, I envy him very much. I think it's a great thing for 
them, and it'll keep them young. And it's a wonderful thing. You know, 
for me, even though Presidents have a very hard schedule--you know, we 
keep very long hours--you have some more flexibility with your time 
because we live above the store, so to speak. So I wouldn't have the 
same burdens, if we were having a baby. I could spend a lot of time with 
the baby and still work and work it out.
    But I think that that's something they ought to work with. I do 
think that the Prime Minister's government did a good thing to try to 
provide fathers as well as mothers family leave, though. [Laughter] I 
think it's a good policy.
    Yes, go ahead. Go ahead, Mara [Mara Liasson, National Public Radio].

Normal Trade Relations Status for China

    Q.  Mr. President, you are lobbying Congress to pass permanent trade 
relations for China. You're having a difficult time getting your own 
Democrats to vote for it. Vice President Gore has said even though he is 
for this agreement, if he was President he wouldn't negotiate trade 
deals like this, he would only negotiate trade deals that included labor 
and environmental standards. How is that stand of his complicating your 
efforts to convince Democrats to vote for this?
    The President.  It isn't, because if we were having a trade 
agreement with China, instead of an agreement on their accession to the 
WTO, we could do that. But keep in mind, I favor--I believe I was the 
first person in a national campaign ever to advocate the inclusion of 
labor and environmental provisions in trade agreements. And we put some 
in NAFTA. And we've gotten some good environmental improvements as a 
result of it. Even though there are still environmental problems along 
the Rio Grande River, a lot has been done. And there have been some 
labor standards improvements as a result of it in some places. So I know 
a lot of the people who wanted it aren't satisfied that we've done as 
much. But it was a really groundbreaking effort.
    I went to the International Labor Organization in Switzerland, and 
to the WTO, and to Davos, Switzerland, to argue for a different approach 
to trade. I don't think you can take economics in a global economy that 
is becoming increasingly globalized and act as if it's totally separate 
from child labor or other abusive labor practices or what the impact of 
economic activity on the environment is.
    That is not what this agreement is. I still believe if we can just 
get everybody to read what this agreement does, it will pass handily,

[[Page 654]]

because this agreement will create jobs for America; it will create jobs 
for labor union members; it will grow the economy. I will say again, in 
this--I mean, this is an agreement about the conditions under which 
China enters the WTO. The United States doesn't lower any tariffs. We 
don't change any trade laws. We do nothing. They have to lower tariffs. 
They open up telecommunications for investment. They allow us to sell 
cars made in America in China at much lower tariffs. They allow us to 
put our own distributorships over there. They allow us to put our own 
parts over there. We don't have to transfer technology or do joint 
manufacturing in China anymore. This is a hundred-to-nothing deal for 
America when it comes to the economic consequences.
    And most of what we have negotiated, we will absolutely lose the 
benefit of. If they go into the WTO and we don't approve normal 
permanent trade relations with them, what will happen is, all the work 
that Charlene Barshefsky and Gene Sperling did to get those concessions 
will go to Europe and Japan and all the people who didn't negotiate it. 
They'll get all the benefits, and we won't.
    So the consequences, the economic consequences are quite clear and 
unambiguous for the United States. And so I think, to--and under the 
rules of the WTO, we couldn't impose different standards on their 
membership than were imposed on us or anyone else. See, that's the 
difference in this.
    I agree with the Vice President. When he gets to be President--I 
believe he will be--he should continue to work harder on integrating a 
whole vision of the global economy that includes labor and environmental 
standards and the whole idea of what it will mean to be part of a global 
society in the 21st century. I think that's important.
    But if people understand what this is, this is a vote on whether we 
will support their membership. And the only way we can do it--and that 
we will benefit from their membership. And the only way we can do it is 
if they get permanent normal trade relations. It is not like we had a 
bilateral trade agreement with China; that is not what this is about.
    So if we were in bilateral negotiations, we could argue more 
strongly for certain agreements on, for example, climate change, because 
we'd be giving them something while they were giving us something. We're 
not giving up anything here. These are the terms of their membership, 
and it's a hundred-to-nothing deal for us. All we lose here is if we 
reject it, we will lose economic opportunities we will regret for 20 
years and will hurt our national security interest.
    Yes, go ahead, Susan [Susan Feeney, Dallas Morning News].

Campaign Finance Reform

    Q.  Sir, could you comment on the Vice President's plan for a $7 
billion democracy endowment to pay for congressional and perhaps 
Presidential campaigns?
    The President.  Yes, I thought it was a good idea. I kind of wish I 
thought of it myself. And I think--I'll tell you why I think it's a good 
idea, very briefly. I think you can't ever really solve the problem in 
campaign finance reform unless you have--because what is the problem? 
The problem is that it costs so much money to communicate with people 
over the mass media.
    So if you want to solve the problem, you either have to have a 
different source of funding or there have to be requirements for free or 
drastically reduced media time. That's the problem. Otherwise, you're 
just sort of rearranging where the money comes from or how you do it. I 
don't mean--I think McCain-Feingold is important. And let me reiterate 
what the Vice President said. His proposal should not be interpreted in 
any way as a reduction of the administration's support for McCain-
Feingold. The Shays-Meehan bill, which is the partner bill, has already 
passed the House. Again, if we could bring it up to a vote in the 
Senate, it would pass the Senate. A minority is blocking it in the 
Senate. We can pass it in the Senate. And we ought to pass it, because 
it will do some real good.
    But the thing I like about it is, the American people have 
reservations about public financing of campaigns. We even have some 
trouble with the dollar check-off for the Presidential campaigns. This 
proposes to give incentives to people to try to raise the money in a 
more voluntary fashion from non-tax sources. So if it could be done and 
if the

[[Page 655]]

trust fund could be filled up, I think it is actually quite a good idea.
    Go ahead, John [John Harris, Washington Post].

Leadership in China

    Q.  Mr. President, when you finished your trip to China 2 years ago, 
you gave a news conference in Hong Kong in which you praised Chinese 
President Jiang Zemin as a visionary, a man of good will, and someone 
who was the right leadership at the right time for China. Since then, 
China's record on abusing human rights and threatening Taiwan has, of 
course, continued to be quite checkered.
    I wonder if today you still think Jiang's leadership still deserves 
that praise you gave it or if your judgment today would have to be more 
severe?
    The President.  Well, I still think, given the alternatives of who 
could have been the President of China, that I'm aware of, and who could 
have been the Premier, I think that President Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji 
are the best team that could have been in their positions at that time.
    As you know, I generally strongly disagree with the Chinese view 
that to preserve stability in their society, they have to repress 
political and sometimes religious activists to the extent that they do. 
I think that's wrong. And there have been several cases in the last 
couple of years that have deeply disappointed me.
    I know that China has a historic--almost a phobia of internal 
disintegration because of the problems that they faced in the last--if 
you just take the last 100 years, problems that our society has never 
faced. I know that they say that to some extent their cultural views are 
not as oriented toward individual rights and liberties as ours are. But 
I believe that the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights is a universal 
document, and I believe it should be observed, and that's why we voice 
our disagreements with China every year, and so I don't like that. And I 
hope that--I will say again, I hope that we will see a lessening of 
tensions across the Taiwan Straits.
    I support the ``one China'' policy. But part of our ``one China'' 
policy is that the differences between China and Taiwan must be resolved 
by dialog, and I feel very strongly about it.
    But having said all that, I still believe that, given the available 
alternatives of which I am aware, these two men have been the best team 
that was available for China. And I think this decision they've made to 
join the WTO is a decision basically to modernize China in ways that 
will go far beyond the economy. I think it will lead--you get all this 
telecommunications revolution permanently manifest in China, they will 
not be able to control the Internet; they will not be able to control 
access to information; they will not be able to control freedom of 
expression. It will become a more free country and a more open country. 
And that is a very, very good thing. That's another big reason we ought 
to sign onto this, because we ought to be a part of their opening.
    There will be more openness in the next 5 years, if China enters the 
WTO and all the telecommunications revolution hits at full force, than 
there has been in the last 20 years, since Deng Xiaoping started this.
    Yes, go ahead.

Campaign Finance Reform

    Q.  Mr. President, I'd like to return to campaign finance reform, if 
I could. Vice President Gore, in announcing his proposal, called himself 
an imperfect messenger on that subject. Isn't that an acknowledgement, 
sir, of something you and he have long denied, that there was an attempt 
to bend, if not break, the spirit, if not the letter, of campaign 
finance laws during your reelection campaign?
    The President.  No, I disagree with that. He said--he has never said 
that he knew that any of the money that he raised was not lawfully 
raised. And I don't believe he did. And I can certainly tell--you look 
at the difference in the way we reacted in 1996 and the way the other 
party reacted to allegations of illegal foreign money, for example.
    What did we do? We spent $4 million, that we had to go out and 
raise, to put all these records on computer disks, to give it all to the 
Justice Department, to make sure that everything was there. There was no 
slow-walking, no stonewalling, no nothing. I was outraged when I found 
out that the system

[[Page 656]]

for checking the backgrounds of contributors and things like that had 
been dismantled without my knowledge or approval.
    And I did not do all that work. And keep in mind, you mentioned 
'96--we didn't have--we raised the funds we needed for my Presidential 
reelection in 7 months. And I believe--you can go check this--but I have 
been told that ever since the campaign finance laws came in, in the 
seventies, that we had the smallest number of violations and fines of 
any Presidential campaign, the Clinton/Gore '96 campaign did.
    So--I know those funds were raised through the party, but I was as 
appalled as the next person when I found out that we had taken funds, 
that people had given us money that wasn't legal. We didn't need it to 
win. It was wrong, and we did everything we could to try to correct it 
and set it right. And we spent a lot of money doing it.
    And so I think what he meant is that he had been involved in one 
incident which he felt was unfortunate, and we raised soft money. And 
we've done it aggressively because we don't believe in unilateral 
disarmament.
    But I would just point out that 100 percent of our caucus, the 
Democratic caucus in the Senate and the House, 100 percent of us--and 
the White House--the whole Democratic Party in Washington, DC, support 
the McCain-Feingold bill. So if it had been up to us, it would have been 
law years ago. And I think that's worth something.
    So I think he's a good messenger. You know, I think he was showing a 
little humility, and I think that's always a good thing. We're all 
flawed in some way or another. But I think that, you know, he 
passionately believes this. And he worked very hard to come up with not 
only our support for McCain-Feingold, and his, but some way to build on 
it to solve the real problem.
    The thing that I worry about, for example, in addition to--you know, 
most of you are concerned about the large contributions and the soft 
money. But something else, I think, that should concern you--not so much 
for me, because I have, it's easy for me to get around, and I have great 
living conditions here, and the Vice President does--but it bothers me 
that Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate have to spend 
the time they have to spend raising the funds for their campaign. And 
the wear and tear on them--getting on those airplanes, you know, once or 
twice a week, all the time, when frankly, I think, if they were home 
resting, you know, reading good books, spending time with their 
families--you're laughing. This is a serious deal.
    You think about it. This is a significant cost to our political 
system, that these people have to spend the time they have to spend to 
raise the funds required to wage their campaigns. It wears them out, and 
I worry about them. You know, this is a hard enough job. And I really 
believe that Congress would function better if they didn't have to spend 
this much time. So that's another reason that I support not only McCain-
Feingold, but I think that this idea of the Vice President's, or 
something like this that would alleviate the burden of spending so much 
time, I think the American people would get a lot better Government, and 
the Members of Congress would get a lot more sleep.
    George [George Condon, Copley News Service].

China-U.S. Relations/Taiwan

    Q.  Mr. President, back on China for a second. This morning the 
Chinese told Sandy Berger that U.S.-Chinese relations were at a critical 
juncture. Do you agree that things are critical right now? And also, you 
mentioned your continued support for a ``one China'' policy. Do you 
envision any circumstances in which you could support Taiwanese 
independence?
    The President.  Well, first, I think they're at a critical stage 
primarily because of this--of the China-WTO decision before the 
Congress. And secondly, I think that they would be at a critical stage 
if we were to abandon our ``one China'' policy.
    But you know, we made an agreement with the Chinese a long time ago. 
When we normalized relations under President Carter, after a period of 
years of developing them, starting with President Nixon's historic trip 
there, it has been the unanimous bipartisan position of every President 
and every administration that that was the right decision. It

[[Page 657]]

has also been, to this point, the position of all elected leaders in 
Taiwan.
    I remember, I was there as a Governor in 1986 at their Tientien Day 
celebration, and they had a map of China which showed Taiwan being a 
part of China, too, even though they had the political tilt the other 
way.
    And I think that they have so much to gain from each other. I mean, 
the investment of Taiwanese in China, for example, as you know, is 
enormous. And if they just keep talking, they'll work this out. They'll 
find a way to work this out. The Chinese have been quite clear that they 
were willing to be patient and to negotiate an arrangement which might 
even be different from that in Hong Kong. And I think that Taiwan's got 
a lot going for it. And I don't think either one of them needs this 
crisis right now.
    So I just think they need to--and I've been very impressed by the 
President-elect in Taiwan and the way he's handled this since his 
election, what he's had to say. And he seems to be quite well aware of 
the weighty responsibility he now has and the great opportunity he has. 
And so I just think they need--this is a big issue. They need to get 
together, start the dialog again, and figure out where to go from here.
    But if you look at the future that awaits the Chinese and that is 
already embracing the Taiwanese, you know, they have huge market 
percentage globally in a lot of the various components of the computer 
industry, for example--huge. And I just don't think they want a 
political problem to take all that away from their people. And they'll 
find a way to do it. They need to stick with this framework and find a 
way to get their dialog going again.
    Yes, go ahead.

Chelsea Clinton

    Q.  Although not unprecedented in history, it's unusual for a 
President's child to have such an important limelight as Chelsea had 
during your state visit to the Asian subcontinent. With the First Lady 
fully engaged in New York, will we be seeing more of Chelsea? Did she 
express an interest to make more state visits with you, sir? How do you 
think she did?
    The President.  Well, I think--she's like Hillary and me. All three 
of us, I think, we want to savor the weeks and months we have ahead in 
this, our last year. And I told her that if she could take time off from 
school, I'd like for her to go with me on some of these trips.
    I was--I think she was kind of taken aback by the attention she got 
in India, in particular. And I think it was because she had been there 
with her mother before, and they had both made a very favorable 
impression in Bangladesh and India and Pakistan. So--but I think she was 
quite surprised by it, and I don't think she sought it out in any way. 
But you know, when your child grows up--I think any parent with a grown 
child can identify with this--you're always sort of pleasantly surprised 
when they still want to hang around with you a little. And it's a 
wonderful thing. So for me, it is just a personal thing. And any time I 
can be with her, I want to be with her.
    Yes, go ahead.

White House E-Mail

    Q.  Mr. President, it was reported today that the White House had a 
computer disk with Monica Lewinsky's E-mails. Sir, what do you think 
about the notion that it wasn't turned over sooner, and how would you 
assess your administration's overall handling of E-mail problems at the 
White House?
    The President.  I don't know it, but I believe that was known years 
ago. I believe that. I don't--I don't--I don't handle the E-mail things. 
I can tell you this: my Counsel, Beth Nolan, is going up to the Hill, I 
think tomorrow, to talk about this. I believe that it is accurate to say 
that we had turned over everything that had been found, and from what I 
understand, some things were not found because they were in a different 
system. So now we're working out how to cooperate with the Congress.
    But my Counsel will talk about it tomorrow, and I'm confident that 
whatever is the right thing to do, we will do.
    Yes, go ahead.

``American Beauty''/Youth Violence

    Q.  It's coming up on the year anniversary of Columbine, and around 
this time last year,

[[Page 658]]

you had a summit at the White House where you talked not only about the 
gun aspect of violence but also the cultural aspect in our society of 
it. And considering that we just had a movie sweep the Academy Awards 
that had a pretty violent ending, I wondered whether you felt the 
entertainment industry has made much progress in this area?
    The President.  Well, first of all, I certainly don't believe that 
movie glorified violence. I have never suggested that we should have 
movies that--as long as there is a good ratings system--movies that 
didn't have violence, which is part of a normal theme.
    I thought it was an astonishing movie, actually. And I certainly 
don't think anyone who watched it and understood it would think of it as 
glorifying violence. I think it would be--I think a lot of the tragedy 
and fear that is behind people who misuse guns would be apparent there. 
And so I think, if anything, it was an antiviolence movie.
    I think that some progress is being made. I think that there are 
still problems with whether the ratings systems make sense and make 
sense in relations to one another, between the movies, the TV programs, 
and the ones that are being developed for the Internet--I mean, the 
video games and I just--I think there are still some improvements that 
need to be made.
    I know that Hillary said that she thought there ought to be a 
uniform system, and I think that that would--if it could be made more 
uniform, more simple, more understandable, I think that would make a 
difference. And I still think there is too much gratuitous violence 
produced in entertainment. But I don't think that applies--that that is 
a fair criticism of ``American Beauty.''
    Let me say this. Since the year, though, since you mention that, the 
National Campaign Against Youth Violence, with our Executive Director, 
Jeff Bleich, has done a lot of work, and they're doing a lot of work on 
city-by-city efforts and efforts by specific sectors of the community 
and dealing with all these aspects. So there's quite a lot of vigorous 
involvement. We've even got a Youth Advisory Council now, and they're 
working.
    So I've been pleased by what they're doing, and I hope we can get a 
lot more people involved in it in my last year here. And then when I 
leave, I hope that the new administration will take this up and keep it 
going, obviously with whatever personnel they choose. But I hope this 
will become a permanent fixture of the National Government's efforts as 
well as the council we have within the Federal Government to work on 
this until the youth violence rate goes way down. There's just tons of 
work to do.
    Yes, go ahead.

Situation in Kosovo

    Q.  A question, please, about Kosovo. A short while ago, a senior 
Pentagon official was quoted as saying, we're at ground zero in terms of 
building a better and more secure society over there. And there have 
been some instances that suggest U.S. troops are coming in to more 
danger. How does it appear that this situation will be in the future, 
more dangerous, less dangerous? What are the stakes for us now?
    The President.  Well, first, I think that there clearly are still 
deepseated aversions in the Serbian and Kosovar-Albanian communities for 
each other. There is a lot of fear, a lot of mistrust, a lot of hatred. 
There is continuing activity of which we do not approve by some radical 
elements in the Kosovar-Albanian community. There is some evidence that 
the Serbs may be trying to work a little mischief in the northern part 
of Kosovo.
    But the main problem is, those people were oppressed for a decade, 
and then they were all run out of their country. And there is still a 
lot of bad blood, and it's not going to go away in a year or 2. But I 
think that the international community did a very good job of sending 
the soldiers in. But we have to do more. And I've been on the phone 
quite a lot about this, by the way, in the last, oh, month or so, trying 
to make sure that all of us get our money there on time and that we get 
more police there. We've offered more police, and many of the European 
countries have, as well.
    We need more civilian police there, and then we need to make sure 
that the money flowing to Mr. Kouchner at the U.N. Mission flows in a 
timely fashion so that people can be paid and that the civil 
institutions can get up and going. But you know, this takes time.

[[Page 659]]

 I remember, when we started in Bosnia, people thought it would never 
get any better, and it's better. And there's still problems, but it's 
better. This is not going to be done 
shortly.
    But I would say this: I would urge the Congress to pass both the 
military and the non-military components of the Kosovo supplemental 
request, because if we want the Europeans to do their part, and they 
are--I must say, in the last month or so, they have really geared up the 
speed with which they are moving their investments into Kosovo--then 
we're going to have to do our part.
    But you know, we have to find ways to get people, first of all, to 
accept living normal lives, to provide basic protections, and then to 
get used to, in halting steps, living and working together. And this is 
not easy, but it can be done. And when I think of the other peace 
processes in which I have been involved, most of them really take hold 
after people have lived with the insanity of their previous position so 
long that they are tired of it; they are bored with it; and they are 
willing to lay down their hatred and hurt.
    And we're still at a point where, in Kosovo, a lot of people are 
carrying their hatred and hurt around, and a lot of others seek 
political advantage over it. All I can tell you is I think we did the 
right thing to go in there and let those people go back home. I think 
it's better than it would have been if we hadn't gone in there, and I 
think we are just going to have to work like crazy to try to make it 
work. I never thought it would be easy, but I do think it's possible.
    Yes. Go ahead.

Energy Policy

    Q.  Mr. President, tomorrow on the Hill, Republicans will accuse you 
of a failed energy policy when we look at America's continued dependence 
on foreign oil. Even a Member of the Democratic Senate says that not 
enough has been done, that we have grown complacent.
    And when you look at the popularity of sport utility vehicles in 
this country, sir, have you done enough, both practically and 
psychologically, to promote the idea of weaning this country off of 
fossil fuels?
    The President.  Well, maybe not. But I've done a lot more than the 
Congress has. And I think it is ironic that they would say that since, 
for years now, I have been pleading with them to give us some more tools 
to promote the development of alternative fuels and to promote both the 
manufacture and the purchase of energy-saving technologies.
    You know, I have talked until I was blue in the face about this for 
years, and a lot of times it's like you're alone in the forest and no 
one hears you. I felt like the tree falling in the forest. If no one 
hears it, did it fall and make a sound? You know, I--maybe we should do 
more, but maybe now people will be listening more.
    Of course, different Members have different takes on it. Some 
Members think we ought to have more oil production at home, and for some 
Members, that means we ought to have oil production offshore in places 
we don't have it now. But if you look at all of our proven reserves, I 
don't think anyone really believes that we can become more energy 
independent unless we become more energy efficient and develop more 
alternative fuels. That is the long-term answer here. And believe me, if 
the Congress--if any Member of Congress of either party wants to do more 
on that and is ready to do more than I have done in the past and ready 
to advocate something beyond what I've advocated in the past, I will be 
the first person to applaud that person, and I will work with them in 
any way, shape, or form I can.
    I hope very much that this is a little bit of a wakeup call for all 
of us and that we can put this on the front burner and get some action. 
And I think--I am like everyone else--after you say something several 
times and you look like you're not going to make any progress on it, you 
tend to go on to something where you can make progress. And it was hard 
to get people interested in it, especially when oil prices dropped to 
$12 a barrel. And I think--I hope this has been a sobering experience 
for the American people and for all of us and that we can now do more. 
And I'm certainly prepared to do more and prepared to give others the 
credit for taking the lead. I don't care about that. And what we 
should--we can do a lot, a lot.

[[Page 660]]

    Again, let me just review one or two of the things that I said in 
the State of the Union, just very briefly. We are reasonably close, I 
believe--most of the scientists I've talked to think that we're 
reasonably close to cracking what I would call the fuel-to-biofuel 
conversion problem. If you, for example, if you want to produce ethanol 
today, it takes about 7 gallons of gasoline to make about 8 gallons of 
ethanol. You wind up a little ahead, but not much.
    Scientists believe that if we can unlock the chemical problem that 
is analogous to cracking the crude oil molecule that made gasoline 
possible, we can get down to a conversion ratio of 1 gallon of gasoline 
for 8 gallons of ethanol. If you do that and then we get 80-mile-a-
gallon cars, you're looking at 500 miles to the gallon, in effect. So 
that's important.
    I have done everything I can, and the Vice President has taken the 
lead on this partnership for new generation vehicles, where we've worked 
quietly, now, for over 7 years to work with the auto companies to 
develop high mileage vehicles--vehicles that run on electricity that 
have self-regenerating batteries, so you don't have to pull in every 80 
or 90 or 100 miles to recharge them, or dual-fuel-use vehicles that are 
beginning to come on the market.
    Now, on the sports utility vehicles, I think, you know, the American 
people, they want to drive those vehicles. They like those big vehicles. 
But if they're going to drive them, we're either going to have to find a 
way for them to get better mileage or run on alternative fuels over the 
long run. And I think we will be able to do that.
    In the--and let me just give you one other example. I don't want to 
beat a dead horse, but one of my proposals was to give tax incentives 
for the manufacturers and to purchasers--for consumers--to buy certain 
energy-efficient materials. The National Home Builders has worked with 
HUD and the Energy Department to build lower cost housing for working 
people on modest incomes in various places that cut the fuel bills by 40 
to 60 percent, just by using better insulation, new solar panels that 
look just like ordinary shingles on roofs, and glass that lets in more 
light and keeps out more heat and cold.
    These things are out there now, and we just need to increase the 
percentage of people that are using them. If you can afford the right 
kind of light bulb, which may cost you 2\1/2\ times as much, it'll burn 
4 or 5 times longer and can save a ton of greenhouse gas emissions just 
over the life of a big light bulb.
    So there are lots of things we can do, but we need to create some 
markets for doing this. And there hasn't been a lot of interest in it, I 
think, probably since the high prices of the seventies. But even at 
modest oil prices, the profits are there if we can just highlight this. 
So I hope--I will say this: I think I should do more. I hope I can do 
more. But I'd like their help to do more, as well.
    Thank you.

 Note: The President's 189th news conference began at 2:10 p.m. in the 
East Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to President 
Hafiz al-Asad of Syria; Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel; President 
Hosni Mubarak of Egypt; former President Boris Yeltsin of Russia; 
Charlton Heston, president, National Rifle Association; President-elect 
Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan; Special Representative of the Secretary-
General and head of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in 
Kosovo Bernard Kouchner; and Representative Richard Gephardt. A portion 
of this news conference could not be verified because the tape was 
incomplete.