[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 36, Number 14 (Monday, April 10, 2000)]
[Pages 748-754]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Interview With Dan Rather of the ``CBS Evening News''

April 6, 2000

    Mr. Rather. First of all, thanks for doing this.
    The President. Glad to.

Elian Gonzalez

    Mr. Rather. I want to talk to you about guns, gun legislation. But 
the day's news is on Elian Gonzalez. His father is here; the boy's 
father is here. How soon can he expect to see the child?
    The President. Well, first, I think we should say it's a good thing 
that he's here. I'm glad he's here. And the Justice Department is 
working on that, and I think in a way we're fortunate to have an 
Attorney General who understands this issue, because Janet Reno was the 
prosecutor in Dade County for many years. And they're working on it. I 
don't know, I can't answer with any specifics. But I have confidence 
that they'll do the best they can to handle it in an expeditious and 
sensitive way.
    Mr. Rather. ``In an expeditious and sensitive way.'' Mr. President, 
from almost all other citizens, if the Immigration Service rules, and a 
Federal judge backs the ruling, then people will obey the law. What's 
happened here?
    The President. Well, I think the people--you can ask them; they can 
speak for themselves better than I do. But they, I think they feel that 
they're not sure that the process was adequate since it occurred in 
Cuba. I think that's basically what's going on.
    And you know, some of the people there are just against anybody 
going back to Cuba. But I think there are a lot of people who have 
genuine questions about it. And I think the fact that the father has 
come here and will be in a position to show his concern for and desire 
to be reunited with his son should be a big help. And as I said, I think 
the Justice Department will do a good job here, and I think Attorney 
General Reno really understands what's going on. And I think we'll work 
through it.
    Mr. Rather. You have consistently said that the father speaks for 
the son. You stand by that?
    The President. Well, that's the decision that was made by the INS. 
They went down and interviewed the father extensively. And they 
concluded that based on his previous contacts, which were regular, with 
his son, that he was a fit representative to speak for his son. And 
under our law, since Elian Gonzalez is a very young child, someone must 
be the designated person to speak for him. And under our law, the 
parent, as long as he is a fit parent, is that person.

[[Page 749]]

    So the INS made the decision that they felt was appropriate, and the 
judge ruled that they had the authority to make it. And now the family 
members in Miami are appealing to the Court of Appeals and arguing that 
there ought to be a more extensive inquiry into his best interests. 
That's the legal position.
    But I think that the main thing is that the Justice Department is 
handling it and that in the end the law ought to prevail. And I don't 
think that the young man's best interests are served by the rest of us 
talking about it too much. I think the Justice Department is going to 
try to work through this, and I have confidence that Janet Reno will 
handle it in a good way.

Mayor Alexander Penelas of Metro-Dade County, Florida

    Mr. Rather. I respect what you say about perhaps we shouldn't 
discuss it too much. But the mayor of Miami--I have in mind you saying, 
well, the law takes care of this. But the mayor of Miami has said that 
if anything bad happens, he will hold you and Janet Reno directly 
responsible, and--I think I quote him at least indirectly, correctly--
don't expect any help from him or the city of Miami in enforcing the 
law. Did that surprise you?
    The President. It did. But I think there's been some indication 
since then that he and others want to get this back in a lawful process. 
And I think the mayor of Miami is a fine young leader with an enormous 
amount of potential. But he represents the Cuban-American community. 
He's part of it. They have--I think that it's fair to say they have a 
big presumption against anything that happens in Cuba, including an INS 
proceeding.
    But I think that in the end, the rule of law will prevail in this 
country. The overwhelming majority of Cuban-Americans are law-abiding 
good citizens. They've made a great contribution to our country. And I 
think in the end, the rule of law will prevail. And I think we ought to 
have--just take a deep breath here and realize this is a highly unusual 
case, and let the Attorney General work through it. I believe that they 
will. I believe she'll do a good job on this.

Vice President Al Gore

    Mr. Rather. Mr. President, you've consistently said that we should 
not politicize the case of this 6-year-old boy. But your Vice President 
has broken with your administration's position, a clearly political 
move. One, were you surprised by that? And two, are you irritated or 
angry about it?
    The President. Well, first of all, I don't know that it was clearly 
political, in the sense that there was a bill introduced in the Congress 
to deal with what the people in Miami say is the main defect in the INS 
proceeding. They say--you know, it's interesting. If you notice, they 
haven't attacked the father. They haven't claimed that he was an unfit 
father.
    Their claim is entirely different. Their claim is that even if he is 
a fit father, that it's not in Elian Gonzalez's best interests to be 
returned, at least at this moment. That's their position. So they say, 
if the INS followed the law, then the law ought to be changed so that a 
determination of his best interests can be made.
    Now, once the bill was introduced--there are a lot of reasons I 
don't agree with the bill. I don't support the bill. But once the bill 
was introduced, I think every public figure in America, national figure, 
was going to have to take a position on it.
    And as a matter of fact, I don't believe it was a purely political 
position. I know the conventional wisdom is that the Vice President's 
position was purely political, but he talked to me--I don't know, a day 
or two after Elian Gonzalez's case became public, weeks and weeks and 
weeks ago, and said, ``You know, I'm very worried about this process. 
I'm afraid we're going to have a lot of problems with this process. I'm 
just not sure it's adequate.''
    So you know, he personally and privately said that to me long before 
this bill was introduced and long before it became a matter of big 
public debate. So that's the way he personally feels. And because of 
that and, I think, because he is himself a candidate now, I think he had 
to take a position and say what he thought.
    Mr. Rather. Respectfully, Mr. President, a member of the Vice 
President's staff has been quoted as saying that it ``was a political 
decision.'' And too, he went on to say, the

[[Page 750]]

Vice President isn't going to ``fall on his sword'' for you. That would 
lead a reasonable person to believe that it was a political decision.
    The President. Well, I don't know. You know, if I knew who said 
that, and they were quoted by name, I would have more regard for the 
quote.
    I don't think he should fall on his sword for me. He's out there now 
making his own case to the American people. All I can tell you is, I'll 
bet you that staff member didn't know that I talked to Al Gore shortly 
after this case became public, and he said to me privately that he was 
disturbed about the process and whether it could adequately account for 
this young man's best interests. That's what he told me a long time ago, 
purely privately, and long before he ever said anything publicly about 
it.
    Mr. Rather. I want to move on to the subject of guns, but before 
we--just as we leave this----
    The President. He might have meant, you know, that falling on your 
sword sometimes means that you have to agree with the President, whether 
you really agree with the President or not. That's what Vice Presidents 
do when they're not independent candidates. And since I don't think he 
agrees with me, and since he is a candidate. I don't think he should 
mask an honest disagreement. And it's one that I believe that he 
actually believes, based on a private conversation I had long before he 
ever made a public statement.
    Mr. Rather. So you don't have any problem with it?
    The President. No.

Gun Safety Legislation

    Mr. Rather. Let's talk about guns. Next week, is it fair to say 
you're dedicating the week to doing what you can to get increased, at 
least, handgun control?
    The President. Yes.
    Mr. Rather. You're going to Maryland to be seen with the Governor as 
he signs a new handgun control law into law. Then you're going to 
Colorado, where there is a State ballot initiative that you're backing, 
and this initiative contains many of the provisions that you seek in 
Federal law. Question, why no focus on getting new State laws passed, 
rather than press forward with Federal legislation?
    The President. Because it'll take forever and a day. And because if 
you have Federal laws, they can be more efficiently administered. I 
mean, if you look at--and let me back up and say, I consider these 
measures gun safety measures. I think gun control is still sort of an 
explosive term to the American people, because they think we're going to 
take somebody's guns away from them.
    And the truth is, all we've tried to do is to take preventive 
measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children. And I 
think that on the specific measures, I think the overwhelming majority 
of the American people support us. And Colorado, which is a 
predominately Republican State, I believe this initiative will pass 
because they've had experience with it.
    And I think that it's unconscionable for Congress to hide behind the 
fact that there are States taking action. Maryland required child 
trigger locks this week, for example, and required safety training 
courses and things of that kind for handgun purchases. The State of 
Massachusetts applied its consumer protection laws to handguns, and 
Colorado has got this initiative to close the gun show loophole, which I 
think is very important. But it will take forever and a day for all the 
States to do that, and the Federal Government ought to do it. It's a 
Federal responsibility and a national problem.
    You know, it's simply an extension of what we did with the Brady 
bill. We had all this hoopla when I signed the Brady bill and the 
assault weapons ban about how damaging it was to the rights of gun 
owners, the legitimate hunters and sports people. Not a single hunter 
has missed a day in the deer woods; not a single sports person has 
missed a sport shooting contest. Nobody has been burdened by this, and a 
half-million felons, fugitives, and stalkers have not gotten handguns as 
a result. Gun crime is at a 30-year low in America, not just because 
we've increased gun prosecutions, which we have, but because we have 
done more prevention. That's what this is about.
    Mr. Rather. You're in a fierce fight on Capitol Hill to get Federal 
additional gun safety legislation passed.

[[Page 751]]

    The President. Yes.
    Mr. Rather. And you set April 20th, the anniversary of the 
Columbine, Colorado, high school shootings as the goal. Is there any 
chance that it would get passed by that time?
    The President. Probably not. We have a majority for it in both 
Houses, I think. But the Republican leadership in the Senate may be able 
to keep it from coming to a vote. They can't really keep things from 
coming to a vote in the House, so I think there is a majority for 
closing the gun show loophole, a majority for banning the importation of 
large scale ammunition clips.
    Who could be against that? We've got an assault weapons ban in the 
country, and then we turn around and make a mockery of it by letting 
people import these big ammunition clips which they can put on the guns 
and convert them into assault weapons. There ought to be child trigger 
locks on guns. Most manufacturers do it anyway. It ought to be a 
national requirement.
    But I think we're making progress. I think the action in these 
States indicates it; the initiative in Colorado, with the support of 
many Republican officials in Colorado; the incredibly brave action that 
Smith & Wesson has taken to try to improve the way it markets and 
distributes guns and the way those handguns are sold. I hope they'll 
find some resonance among other gun manufacturers. So we're making 
progress. but this is a brutal fight. The interest behind it, the status 
quo, are very strong.
    Mr. Rather. Do you suppose, if I may--I don't mean to interrupt--you 
say the interest behind this is very strong. As Butch Cassidy said to 
the Sundance Kid, ``Who are these guys?''
    The President. Well, the NRA and other groups even to the right of 
them, and a lot of people in the Congress, in the Republican Party, 
really agree with them. A handful of Democrats do. But it's basically a 
party fight.
    And again I say, if they had any evidence that we had undermined 
hunting or undermined sports shooting or even undermined legitimate 
self-defense, it would be one thing. They don't. The only evidence they 
have is we have kept handguns out of the hands of half million felons, 
fugitives, and stalkers. And the last place, besides person-to-person 
transactions, that such people can get handguns with impunity is at 
these gun shows. So we ought to close the gun show loophole and do a 
background check. It's a no-brainer.
    There are some minor details of adjustment that would have to be 
undertaken to do these background checks, to make it work when you do 
these one-day shows out in rural areas. But they can easily be taken 
care of, and we ought to do it.
    Mr. Rather. You mentioned the Republican leadership in the House and 
the Senate. What I and other reporters talk to them, they say, 
basically, ``Look, the President could get a lot of what he wants. He 
could get the trigger locks for children on handguns. He could get the 
ban on importing the extra long clips--if the President would simply 
compromise on the criminal background checks for gun shows.'' Why not 
make that compromise?
    The President. Well, first of all, we already offered a compromise. 
John Conyers has offered a compromise to Representative Henry Hyde that 
we were hoping could prevail in the conference. You know, the bill is in 
conference now. We got a good bill out of the Senate on this gun show 
loophole because the Vice President broke the tie. The bill is in 
conference, and Mr. Conyers offered a compromise.
    Let me say, if you look at the gun shows, they want insta-check. And 
here's the problem. When you do these background checks--let's just look 
at the facts--when you do the background checks, you can get over 70 
percent of the background checks done in the first hour. You can get 95 
percent of them done--or over 90 percent in the first day. So they say, 
``Well, just agree to a 24-hour background check or an insta-check 
system.'' The real difficulty is, of the roughly 10 percent you can't 
finish in one day, the rejection rate in that 10 percent is 20 times 
higher than the rejection rate in the 90 percent. So what we tried to do 
was to work out an agreement where we let everybody who would be 
cleared, be cleared, but we didn't have an automatic release for the 
others because they're 20 times more likely to

[[Page 752]]

have background problems, which would not enable them to purchase these 
guns.
    So I think it is an almost bizarre development, since we're more 
than willing to meet them halfway. We've offered them a good 
compromise--that they would hold this whole bill up to protect that 10 
percent when they know that's where a huge percentage of the problem 
gun-buyers are, people that are likely to use those guns for criminal 
conduct.
    So we have offered a compromise. John Conyers offered a good 
compromise to Representative Henry Hyde, and I hope and pray that they 
will take it or something like it. I'm willing to compromise, but I 
don't think that we ought to gut the main purposes of the background 
check. And again, you know, they say, ``Well, we have these shows out in 
the country. They occur on the weekend. They're not all basically at 
big-city convention centers.''
    But the gun could be deposited with the local sheriff's office for 
the weekend while the background check is completed, for example. You 
could deposit the gun and the check and return one or the other, or 
both. It would be easy to work through this if they really wanted to.
    I just think it's important--I think the child trigger locks are 
important because the accidental death rate in America of the children 
are so high, 9 times higher than the next 25 biggest countries combined. 
But we ought to close the loophole in the Brady law. I am willing to 
compromise, but I don't want to destroy the purposes of the background 
check.
    Mr. Rather. Our correspondent Maureen Maher has been doing some 
investigation of some of the loopholes in the Brady law, which turn out 
to be pretty extensive. If you could close one loophole in the Brady 
law, what would it be?
    The President. Oh, the gun show loophole. That's the most important 
one. There are some other loopholes in the Brady law, but if you look at 
the numbers, it's been quite successful; for all of its problems, it's 
been quite successful. And when you do the insta-check, you know, we 
have to do instant checks whenever we can--when you do the insta-check, 
you actually--you lose some people, because if you can't wait 3 days, 
there are some records that haven't been logged in, for example, that 
won't be picked up on the insta-check. But when we passed the Brady 
bill, that's the best we could do. We had to take a bill that would say 
a 3-day waiting period, but insta-check whenever possible when it became 
possible. And so we're stuck with that for the time being.
    I have a totally different view of this than the people on the other 
side of the issue. I think I've demonstrated in 7 years here I've never 
tried to take a gun away from a law-abiding citizen. I've never tried to 
interfere with hunting or sport shooting. But I believe that guns are 
like every other area of national life where there is a lot of loss of 
life and injury. Prevention is always the first line of defense.
    Their position, basically, is: Punish people that violate the law; 
throw the book at them; but in this area alone, let's don't have much 
prevention, because we're worried about the second amendment or a 
slippery slope or whatever. And I just think they're wrong. I think that 
we can save so many more lives by sensible prevention and not interfere 
with legitimate gun owners.

President's History With Guns

    Mr. Rather. Mr. President, did you ever own a gun?
    The President. Oh, yes. I've owned a shotgun; I had a .22 when I was 
little kid. I had a couple of handguns when I was a Governor.
    Mr. Rather. Did you hunt?
    The President. Oh, yes. I suppose I was 12 the first time I had 
target practice, you know, shooting cans off fenceposts. And I normally 
went hunting, duck hunting, once a year when I was Governor. On 
occasion, I went bird hunting. I've been duck hunting a couple of times 
since I've been President.

Smith & Wesson

    Mr. Rather. Let me follow up on this Smith & Wesson deal. A number 
of people, none of whom want their name attached to it, say, ``Dan, you 
have to look into this deal,'' because, one, Smith & Wesson was about to 
go bankrupt, and so this was a form of what

[[Page 753]]

they call financial blackmail. Anything to that argument?
    The President. Not that I know of. I don't know that--if it's true, 
I don't know it.
    Mr. Rather. I understand. Any agreement, that you know of, the 
Federal Government has agreed to supply Federal law enforcement officers 
with Smith & Wesson weapons?
    The President. No, that was not a part of the agreement. Since then, 
we have looked into the question of whether we--as have many local 
jurisdictions looked into the question--whether they can give any kind 
of preference or consideration to Smith & Wesson in their purchases 
because they've taken this action. But obviously, whatever they do will 
have to take account of the need to get the best possible weapons for 
their law enforcement officials.
    But that was not a quid pro quo; that was something that came up 
later. And we're looking into--I wanted to look into to see what, if 
anything, we can do as well. But I know that a lot of cities were so 
appreciative of what Smith & Wesson did.
    See, here is the deal. This is another thing. This is like the Brady 
bill gun show loophole. The main thing Smith & Wesson did in changing 
its marketing and distribution policies was to focus on a fact that I 
would think that the NRA would want us to focus on, and that is that an 
inordinately high percentage of guns used in crimes are sold through a 
very small percentage of the gun sellers. So the main thing, when you 
strip away everything else Smith & Wesson did, what they're really 
trying to do is to stop providing weapons to people who obviously are 
careless in enforcing the Brady bill or have a criminal clientele or 
otherwise just aren't taking care of their business.
    I would have thought when Smith & Wesson came forward, since this 
had nothing to do with the Brady bill or anything else, this was about 
having gun dealers clean up their act and gun manufacturers putting the 
hammer on them to do it, rewarding those that are good, punishing those 
that aren't. I would have thought that's the kind of thing the NRA would 
like.
    I was actually kind of surprised that they and the gun dealers went 
so totally the other way about this, because you can't get out of the 
fact--we now have evidence--a very small percentage of gun dealers sell 
a very high percentage of the guns used in serious crimes. That's what 
we're trying to get at.

Hillary Clinton's Senate Campaign

    Mr. Rather. Mr. President, I have all kinds of things I'd like to 
ask you about, including China and the World Trade Organization, but the 
clock is running on us. Let me ask you two questions, and I'll let you 
get on to your next meeting.
    You recently said at a meeting that the First Lady, in her bid for a 
Senate seat in New York, faces--I think this is your direct quote--``a 
right-wing venom machine that's collecting double tons of money to 
defeat her.'' Was that too strong, on reflection?
    The President. Well, it depends on how you interpret the facts. 
Richard Viguerie is doing Mayor Giuliani's mail. Mayor Giuliani, when he 
was mayor of New York, basically said, ``I'm not a Reagan Republican 
anymore. I'm a moderate Republican. I'm pro-choice. I'm for the Brady 
bill. I'm for the assault weapons ban. I'm for the President's crime 
program.'' We worked together. We had a good relationship.
    Now he's got Richard Viguerie doing this venomous mailing, talking 
about what a left-wing crazy my wife is, when--while he was mayor of New 
York, he was in agreement with her and me on most issues.
    Mr. Rather. While he was helping the mayor.
    The President. No, while Rudy Giuliani was mayor. But the Viguerie 
mailings, which are being sent to people who have fought me the whole 
time I'm here--which is fine--are basically using the same old standard 
hard-core right-wing stuff, the kind of stuff we saw Governor Bush do to 
Senator McCain in South Carolina, that kind of--sort of that kind of 
thing.
    And I think if he's going to do it and get the benefit of it, he can 
raise a lot of money, because a lot of us folks see beating Hillary or 
beating the Vice President as another way of going after us for what 
we've tried to do here on issues like gun safety and vetoing the big tax 
cuts to keep a balanced budget and the surplus and other things we've 
fought

[[Page 754]]

for. They see that as a way of continuing the battle.
    He can raise a lot of money that way, but I don't think he should be 
able to raise it for free. That is, I think he ought to have to be 
accountable for the rhetoric being used in his behalf and the money 
that's coming in as a result of that kind of inflammatory right-wing 
rhetoric.
    Mr. Rather. Would you be surprised if I told you that tonight's CBS 
poll indicates the First Lady is up by 8 points now in the race with 
Giuliani?
    The President. A little bit. But I think it's going to be a close 
race and a hard race. But she knows why she's running. She knows what 
she wants to do for New York. I'm really proud of her, and I just--I 
think these polls will change a lot between now and November. He's a 
very formidable opponent.
    Mr. Rather. You don't think that what one newspaper has called the 
``wealthy hate Hillary campaign'' will, in the end, sink her?
    The President. No, I don't. I think the main thing that she's got to 
think about is not what they're saying about her but what she's going to 
say to the people of New York. I think a lot of that is--when you have 
opposition in politics, a lot of times what they're trying to do is 
distract you from doing your main job, which is to communicate with the 
people and to serve the people. And I think if she'll just focus on 
that, talk about her life, her work, and what she wants to do, I think 
she'll do fine.
    Mr. Rather. Mr. President, I'm getting the cut signal. I so much 
appreciate you taking the time to do this. Thank you very, very much.
    The President. Thanks, Dan.
    Mr. Rather. Tell the First Lady hello for us.
    The President. I will.

Note: The interview was taped at 2:25 p.m. in the Roosevelt Room at the 
White House for later broadcast but was embargoed by the Office of the 
Press Secretary until 6:30 p.m. In his remarks, the President referred 
to Juan Miguel Gonzalez, father of Elian Gonzalez; Richard A. Viguerie, 
chairman, chief executive officer, and president, Conservative HQ.com; 
and Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York City. A tape was not available 
for verification of the content of these remarks.