    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book I)]
    [June 17, 1993]
    [Pages 867-875]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    June 17, 1993

    Somalia

        The President. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. First I want to
    speak with you about a situation that all of us have followed very
    closely in the last week, and that is the United Nations action in
    Somalia.
        General Powell reported to me this afternoon that this operation is
    over and that it was a success. The United Nations, acting with the
    United States and other nations, has crippled the forces in Mogadishu of
    warlord Aideed and remains on guard against further provocation.
    Aideed's forces were responsible for the worst attack on U.N.
    peacekeepers in three decades. We could not let it go unpunished.
        Our objectives were clear: The U.N. sought to preserve the
    credibility of peacekeeping in Somalia and around the world, to get the
    food moving again, and to restore security. I want to congratulate the
    American and the United Nations forces who took part in this operation.
    In this battle, heroism knew no flag. And in this era, our Nation must
    and will continue to exert global leadership as we have done this week
    in Somalia.

    Economic Program

        Here at home, America is on the move. These past few days have been
    an impressive and important series of victories for the American people.
    Congress has taken major steps to limit the influence of special
    interests and their money in our lawmaking and in our campaigns.
    Congressional committees have also approved my plan for more college
    loans for the American people and to enable tens of thousands of them to
    pay their loans off by community service to their States and Nation. But
    the most important thing I want to discuss is the progress that is being
    made, the remarkable progress, on the economic plan.
        Last month the House of Representatives passed the plan to reduce
    the deficit, the first step toward creating jobs and increasing incomes.
    Yesterday the Senate Finance Committee cleared the way for action by the
    full Senate. Make no mistake about it, this means that we are putting
    our economic house in order. Getting the economy back on track depends
    upon Congress passing this economic plan. It's necessary, it's fair, and
    it will work.
        I propose, indeed I have insisted upon, $500 billion in deficit
    reduction to be locked away in a deficit reduction trust fund. We will
    be making historic cuts in the deficit by making historic cuts first in
    Government spending, then by making high-income Americans pay their fair
    share so middle class Americans will be treated fairly in the tax burden
    for a change. Seventy-five percent of the new taxes proposed fall on the
    top 6 percent of the American people, those with incomes above $100,000.
    Now, some of the critics of this plan in Congress prefer instead to cut
    Social Security or health care or tax benefits for elderly people just
    above the poverty line or working people just above the poverty line so
    that the wealthy won't pay so much. I'm here tonight to say to you and
    to the Amer-

    [[Page 868]]

    ican people that I will draw the line here. We have to reduce the
    deficit by reducing the unfairness of the tax patterns of the 1980's
    and, once again, asking all Americans to do what is right and fair. We
    can't simply balance the budget on the backs of the old, the sick, the
    veterans, and those who work hard but are just barely making ends meet.
    It's not right.
        Let's look at what's at stake here. First of all, this chart shows
    that if we do nothing, the inherited deficit, what we found when I came
    into office, will go up by 1998 to about $400 billion a year. If this
    deficit reduction plan is passed, we will cut $500 billion out of the
    deficit. That's the difference in this line and that. As all of you know
    and as you've pointed out in various ways in the last few weeks, I just
    got here. And I may have a lot to learn, but I didn't create the red
    line. What I'm trying to do is to change the red line and bring the
    yellow line in. And let me say, to get the yellow line down here, we
    have to bring about an affordable health care plan for every American.
    And that's the next big step.
        But look what this deficit reduction plan alone will do. I want to
    emphasize once again, because there's been so much talk about taxes,
    that this is the most progressive tax plan this country has seen in
    decades. Two-thirds of the money will be paid by people with incomes
    above $200,000. Seventy percent of the economic gains of the last decade
    went to the top 1 percent of the American people. They are in a position
    now to pay more to help make this economy move again, and they will.
        This is the monthly payment, if my full economic plan is passed, by
    people with incomes above $200,000. And you can see what happens here to
    the plan with an actual modest break for people at the bottom end of the
    income scale. This is a very progressive and fair plan.
        Now, finally, let me say there's been a lot of talk about spending
    cuts here. If you look at this plan, for every $10 in deficit reduction,
    $5, half of it, comes in spending cuts; $3.75 of the $10 comes in tax
    increases on the highest income Americans, the upper 6 percent; and
    $1.25 comes in taxes from the middle class, people with incomes below
    $100,000 but roughly above $30,000. Families with incomes below $30,000
    are held harmless in this program. Now, that's the way this program
    works. Five dollars in spending cuts, $3.75 in taxes from the wealthiest
    Americans, $1.25 in taxes from the middle class. It's fair, and it's
    balanced. And I hope that the Congress will adopt it.
        Let me say that, as I open the floor to questions, the real issue
    here is whether we will reverse the pattern of the last 12 years where
    Presidents send budgets to Congress that are never seriously considered
    and everybody is afraid to talk about taxes because they're afraid, no
    matter what happens, that will dominate the agenda; nobody will know
    about spending cuts, nobody will know about deficit reduction, nobody
    will know about fairness.
        I've tried to tell the truth to the American people. And if this
    plan passes, you will see a continuation of what's happened already in
    the last 5 months: low interest rates, increased housing sales, more
    jobs coming into the economy. In the first 4 months of this economy
    alone we had a bigger growth in construction employment, 130,000 people,
    than we have had in 9 years. Why? Because we're serious about bringing
    the deficit down. That's what this last week means. It means continued
    victory for the American people if we can stay on this road.

    Bosnia and NATO

        Q. Since Vance-Owen is dead, will the United States approve of a
    partition of Bosnia if the three factions meeting in Geneva actually
    approve it? And also, isn't NATO really obsolescent now? I mean, hasn't
    it outlived--it can't stop the slaughter in Europe, it won't be the
    policeman in Europe?
        The President. There's two separate questions. First of all, as you
    know, my preference was for a multiethnic state in Bosnia. But if the
    parties themselves, including the Bosnian Government, agree, genuinely
    and honestly agree to a different solution, then the United States would
    have to look at it very seriously.
        Secondly, I do not agree that NATO is dead. NATO was limited in what
    it could do in this instance because there was no agreement among the
    NATO partners, first of all, and because any organization of states was
    limited by the rules that the United Nations imposed in the former
    Yugoslavia, on the arms embargo, for example. The clearest example I
    know to give you that NATO is not dead was provided by the leaders of
    all the Eastern European countries that used to be Communist that aren't
    anymore. When they came here a few weeks ago for the Holocaust
    dedication, every one of those Presidents said that their number one
    priority

    [[Page 869]]

    was to get into NATO. They know it will provide a security umbrella for
    the people who are members. And I think we need to continue to be
    involved in it.
        Q. Who's the enemy?
        The President. Well, there will be different enemies. The enemy will
    be anybody that threatens the security and the peace of the member
    nations, the values that we hold important. There are all kinds of
    possible problems in the years ahead, from terrorism, from the
    proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, from yet unforeseen
    developments in countries around NATO. So I don't think it's time to
    dismantle NATO. I think it's very, very important.
        Q. Mr. President, doesn't this plan for carving up Bosnia send a
    dangerous message to separatists around the world, particularly in the
    former Soviet Union, that military aggression pays?
        The President. I think that this plan shows that a civil war which
    has roots going back centuries, literally centuries, based on ethnic and
    religious differences, has not been resolved in the way that I certainly
    would have hoped. I think Serbian aggression has been rewarded to the
    extent that the United Nations resolution permitted the Serbs to send
    arms to the Bosnian Serbs and permitted the Croats that were next door
    to Croatia to have access to more weapons than the Bosnian Government,
    predominantly Muslim, had. And I think that was a mistake. But I don't
    think that anybody should overlearn that lesson. Everyone who looks at
    this concedes that this is perhaps our most difficult foreign policy
    problem.

    Tax Package

        Q. Mr. President, getting back to your pie chart, you said that
    $1.25 from the tax increase will hurt the middle class. During the
    campaign----
        The President. I don't think it will hurt the middle class. I think
    that it will help the middle class because it will be a way of bringing
    the deficit down.
        Q. A dollar and a quarter out of that tax bite will hit the middle
    class. In the PBS debate during the campaign, you said, ``The only thing
    Paul Tsongas has recommended that I haven't is a 3- to 5-cent-a-year gas
    tax increase, and I'll be darned if I understand why we should do that
    without giving some offsetting tax relief.'' Then in ``Putting People
    First,'' which was your campaign manifesto, you said you opposed a
    Federal excise gas tax. I quote: ``Instead of a back-breaking Federal
    gas tax, we should try conservation.'' Why are you now willing to go
    along with the Senate plan to keep it moving through the Senate for a
    gasoline tax? Do you think you can defeat it in conference, and if you
    do, will you try to restore the Btu tax, as your Budget Director
    suggested today? And if so, won't you then lose Senators Boren and
    Breaux and all the other opponents when it gets back to the Senate?
    Isn't it a no-win situation?
        The President. First of all, I think it is a win-win situation if
    the Senate passes a budget that has $500 billion in deficit reduction,
    locks the spending cuts away in a trust fund, and asks the highest
    income Americans to pay their fair share. I think that's a win-win
    situation because I think we'll go to conference and we'll get a plan
    that will meet those criteria and will also be fairer to middle class
    people and to the working poor. There's also a lot of important
    provisions in there that I care about that will help to encourage people
    to move from welfare to work.
        The Senate bill is very different. It does have a 4.3-percent fuel
    tax in it. That is very different from 3 cents a year, which is 15 cents
    over 5 years, or 5 cents a year, which is 25 cents over 5 years. A 4.3
    percent tax, flat, is not nearly as onerous as that.
        I wish we didn't have to do that. But I would remind you that after
    the election and before I took office, the aggregate deficit over the
    next 5 years was written up by $165 billion. I'm doing the best I can to
    use very conservative, hard-headed revenue estimates to get the deficit
    down, keep interest rates down so that people in the middle class can
    save more money than they'll pay if they refinance a car loan or a home
    loan or take out a business loan with lower interest rates. And tonight
    there will be millions of people who will either watch us or hear about
    this tomorrow who have refinanced their homes just since November. With
    interest rates dropping, they'll save more money in 1 year than they'll
    pay in 5 years under this program. So I still think, on balance, it is
    the right thing to do.

    Somalia

        Q. You say this Somalia operation has been a success. Does that mean
    that the United States and U.N. forces have captured the Somali

    [[Page 870]]

    warlord, General Mohamed Farah Aideed, and his associates, including
    Colonel Omar Jess? And if you haven't captured them, what are you
    planning on doing with them if you do capture them? Are they going to be
    put on war crimes tribunal or anything like that?
        The President. No, they have not been arrested. The purpose of the
    operation was to undermine the capacity of Aideed to wreak military
    havoc in Mogadishu. He murdered 23 U.N. peacekeepers. And I would remind
    you that before the United States and the United Nations showed up, he
    was responsible for the deaths of countless Somalis from starvation,
    from disease, and from killing.
        The military back of Aideed has been broken. A warrant has been
    issued for his arrest. If he is, in fact, arrested, then the United
    Nations will have to determine what appropriate action to take. That is
    the decision the United States is leaving to the United Nations, and one
    I believe we should.

    Health Care Reform

        Q. Mr. President, the original deadline for the unveiling of your--
    --
        The President. I'm sorry, that's a great tie. I just lost it for a
    moment there. I wish the American people could see this tie. [Laughter]
    Go ahead. I'm sorry.
        Q. Some people believe that that's what the White House press corps
    is all about--[inaudible]--Mickey Mouse. [Laughter]
        The original deadline for the unveiling of your health care reform
    plan has come and gone. When will the plan be unveiled? What are the
    prospects for congressional passage this year? And if you don't get it
    done this year, won't it be very difficult to do so next year because of
    the congressional elections?
        The President. Let me answer the first question. The task force has
    made its report to me. They have given me a number of options from which
    I must choose before I can finalize a bill. The White House is
    continuing to consult with people who know a lot about this issue. My
    wife, as you know, went to speak to the American Medical Association
    just a few days ago.
        Is he trying to give me some water? [Laughter] Let me answer the
    question first. Thank you, John. He always wanted to be on television. I
    hope his mother--[laughter].
        My wife talked to the American Medical Association recently. We are
    consulting regularly with both the Democratic and Republican Members of
    Congress. She also had a long meeting with several Republican House
    Members just a couple of days ago.
        We have determined that, first--and I, personally, am getting quite
    close to making the final choices from among the options there. I do not
    believe we can make any serious attempt to go forward with this until
    the economic plan and the budget is in place; then we will go forward
    with it. I think because of all the consultation which has been done and
    all the work that's been done, there's a real shot we can act on it this
    year. I do not share the view that there's no chance Congress will act
    next year, although I believe we can do it this year, because I expect a
    lot of Republican as well as Democratic support for this.
        And I think that this issue affects the American people so deeply.
    There are millions of families out there who are terrified they're going
    to lose their health insurance; who are terrified they can't afford it;
    who are terrified because somebody's been sick in their family, if they
    have to change jobs, they'll be without it; as well as all those who are
    working for a living without health insurance; as well as all the
    businesses that are afraid they're going to go broke, that the impetus
    behind doing something will be very great. I think it will be good, not
    bad, for the American political system to act on this. So I think
    whenever the debate really begins in earnest, you will see the prospects
    of passage intensify, not diminish.
        Q. If that does go over until next year, sir, will that become the
    issue in congressional elections?
        The President. I think that and the condition of the economy will be
    the big issues, and whether we are actually facing up to our
    responsibilities in this new global economy. But that wouldn't be the
    worst thing in the world, except I hope and believe that the plan will
    pass before all that political season starts.

    Welfare Reform

        Q. Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton recently said that she hopes to
    tackle welfare reform as her next priority. Will she head the
    administration's welfare reform effort? And do you expect to get that
    done this year, too, or is that something that will have to wait until
    1994?
        The President. Well, that, again, is a subject

    [[Page 871]]

    that I expect we'll have broad bipartisan support on. And I would expect
    that all of us will be involved in it. My wife is very interested in
    this because it affects children.
        But let me say that the first big block of the welfare reform
    package is now being considered by Congress, and that is the earned-
    income tax credit. Most Americans don't know what that is, but basically
    it is a change in the Tax Code that will permit us to say to working
    families, if you work 40 hours a week and have a child in your house,
    you can be lifted out of poverty. That will remove all the financial
    incentive to prefer welfare to work, if we can then pass, in the health
    care reform, health coverage for all children, like every other country
    does, so we remove that incentive.
        But we expect to have a welfare reform package that will literally
    end welfare as we know it, that will put a time limit on welfare, and
    after that, people who have been through the education and training
    programs will have to work. And I, again, would like that if it could be
    done this year. That will depend on how warmly embraced it is by
    Congress.
        Let me just make one other point. The national service bill, which
    will provide more college loans and the opportunity to work them off
    with service, is moving through Congress more quickly than most people
    thought because we were able to get good bipartisan support and work out
    a lot of the details. If we can do that on welfare reform, I think we
    can do it this year.

    Economic Program

        Q. Mr. President, going back to the budget for a moment, if you
    manage to get the budget passed, as it seems to be heading, you will
    have achieved two major objectives: deficit reduction and getting the
    wealthy to pay a larger share of the cost of Government. But there was a
    third major objective that you talked about in the campaign and early on
    in your administration as crucial for the health of the economy, which
    was your investment package, your new spending that you proposed, which
    does not seem to be faring well in Congress at all. So you seem to be in
    a position where you've managed to overturn Reaganomics, but not enact
    Clintonomics.
        So let me ask you two things about that. One is why? What's your
    analysis of why your spending programs have not been successful? And
    second, what do you propose to do about it?
        The President. If you look at the budgets, if you look at where
    we're going with the budgets, we had to cut back all spending in the
    first 2 years of this 5-year budget period to deal with the fact that
    the deficit was higher than we thought it would be. And I had to do that
    as well. But this is a 5-year budget for long-term growth of the
    American economy. Over the long run, we do have to increase investment.
    Let me also say that just because we are freezing all domestic
    discretionary spending for 5 years doesn't mean there aren't changes
    within those categories. We're cutting a lot of stuff so that we can
    increase investment in things like Head Start for children and job
    training for workers and new technologies to help convert from a defense
    to a domestic economy. A lot of that new investment is in there.
        Secondly, I expect this bill to treat the other part of my
    investment budget, that is, the private sector part, quite well. I think
    there will be an increase in the expensing allowance for small business,
    which will really help small business people to hire more workers. I
    think there will be an empowerment zone proposal in the final bill which
    will finally test whether free enterprise can go into depressed cities
    and rural areas and put people to work and invest and start businesses.
    I believe it can.
        I think those are the kinds of things that you will see there. I
    think the earned-income tax credit again will pass so that we can lift
    the working poor out of poverty. So I expect a big portion of the
    investment program to pass, and I'll be surprised if it doesn't.
        Q. Mr. President, I'm surprised that for the first 4 months you came
    into office you were saying how bad the economy was and how important it
    was for your program to be enacted to grow the economy. Now, we hear you
    in the last week or so talking up the economy, saying how well things
    are going, and yet, your program hasn't passed. What are we to make of
    this? Why have you changed your mind about the economy?
        The President. First of all, I think the economy is still bad for
    most Americans. But the trends are good, and the trends are plainly tied
    to the determination of this administration to bring the deficit down.
    We began to see a substantial drop in long-term interest rates after the
    election when Secretary of the Treasury Bentsen announced that we were
    going to have

    [[Page 872]]

    a serious deficit reduction plan that would include entitlement cuts,
    other budget cuts, tax increases on the wealthy, and an energy tax. We
    saw that. And every student of this, starting with the Chairman of the
    Federal Reserve, who's testified before Congress to this effect, has
    said that if we continue and pass this, we will get interest rates down.
    So those things have been coming down. That's why the Home Builders
    Association of America--not a Democratic group, presumably largely a
    Republican group--came from all over the country to Maryland a few days
    ago to endorse the economic program, because it is already beginning to
    bring interest rates down.
        So are most people affected by the economic recovery? No. But is it
    a good thing that you have 755,000 private sector jobs in the first 5
    months, that you have 130,000 jobs in the construction industry, the
    biggest gain in a 4-month period in 9 years? Yes, it is. So the point
    I'm trying to make is we're taking the right direction, but we've still
    got a lot of changes to make.

    Somalia

        Q. Mr. President, you said a few minutes ago that you've broken the
    back of the Somali warlords in Somalia. However, Mohamed Aideed is still
    at large. This brings to mind the same problem that happened with the
    previous administration with Saddam Hussein. How can you assure the
    American people that you're not going to get sucked into an ever-growing
    vortex of war in Somalia?
        The President. Well, there's a big difference there. Aideed is not
    in control of the government of Somalia. The United Nations force is
    there; they're still promoting peace. They're now going to be able to
    deliver food, medicine, do their work, and try to help engage in the
    long-term process of nation building. And we never, ever, the United
    Nations and the United States never listed getting rid of Aideed as one
    of our objectives. In fact, as long as he was willing to cooperate with
    the United Nations, he was able to live and work in peace right there in
    Mogadishu.
        So what happens, from now on in, will be a function of, number one,
    what the United Nations thinks is appropriate for his conduct to date
    and, number two, what he does in the future.

    New Zealand

        Q. Mr. President, I have an easy problem for you, and it's domestic,
    too.
        The President. There are none. [Laughter]
        Q. This one's very easy. A lot of Americans are not wildly
    pronuclear and thought the U.S. may have overreacted in past years in
    its very heavyhanded treatment of New Zealand. Would you consider
    meeting now with a New Zealand leader and discussing the situation?
    Isn't there some way that a compromise can be reached so you can agree
    to disagree but still restore the political and security relationship?
        The President. I've given absolutely no thought to that question.
    And I'm afraid if I give an answer to it, I'll be in more trouble
    tomorrow than I can figure out. [Laughter]

    Economic Program

        Q. Mr. President, as you point out, your economic plan would reduce
    the budget deficit by $500 billion over 5 years, which is a significant
    improvement over what we've seen in the past. But your critics would
    point out that the budget deficit would continue to mount by hundreds of
    billions of dollars a year; and that your attack on the deficit is
    limited to lowering projected spending increases, rather than taking the
    much harder tack of making real cutbacks in the budget. Can't you do
    more to deal with the problem of this deficit and runaway spending?
        The President. Let me have the chart again. The answer to that
    question--first of all, let me answer it. You asked two questions, not
    one. It is absolutely true that if this whole thing is adopted or any
    other deficit reduction plan that has been presented to date is adopted,
    by the fifth year the deficit starts to inch up again, and you don't get
    down to zero.
        Now, that is true, but why is that? That is because primarily of the
    projected exploding costs in medical care through Medicare and Medicaid
    and because we have programs like Social Security and other retirement
    programs where people are given cost-of-living increases year-in and
    year-out, something that most Americans support. But the prime culprit
    here is Social Security--I mean, is medical costs, not Social Security.
    The prime culprit is medical costs. They've been going up way faster
    than inflation.
        Now, I want to make two points. Why do we reduce the deficit only
    $500 billion over 5 years, even though that's a huge amount? Because it
    was the considered judgment of the

    [[Page 873]]

    economic team, Secretary Bentsen, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Rubin, that in a
    recession there was a limit to how fast you could contract the deficit,
    and that this would be a very rapid reduction of the deficit in a time
    where there's very slow economic growth around the globe. We think it
    will actually lead to some expansion of the economic activity. Why?
    Because there's so much debt built into our system at high interest
    rates that if people just go refinance all their homes and their
    business loans, it will give them a lot of cash in their pocket, and
    that will stimulate the economy to grow.
        Secondly, it is our considered judgment that we cannot get the
    deficit down to zero, which is where it ought to be, until we do
    something about health care costs, which is why the next big piece of
    this administration's work is to provide a comprehensive health care
    plan that will bring health costs in line with inflation. If you do
    that, then this yellow line here, instead of going up, will keep going
    down. And since there is no historic precedent in America, let me ask
    you to go back and look what happened in Japan in the mid-seventies to
    mid-eighties. They had about the same size deficit we do in the mid-
    seventies. They decided they were going to wipe it out. They took 10
    years to wipe it out, not 5. But they did it. And today, in spite of all
    their economic problems, they are the only major nation in a surplus
    position.
        We can do it, too, if we do this, then tackle the deficit. And let
    me remind you of one other thing, in September, the Vice President's
    task force will make its report on reinventing Government and
    reorganizing the whole way the Government operates. That will give us
    another whole shot to deal with this issue.

    Media Coverage

        Q. Mr. President, John F. Kennedy once said that with the coverage
    he'd been getting as President, that he'd been reading it more and
    enjoying it less. And many other Presidents have expressed similar
    sentiments. Lately, sir, there have been some indications, at least,
    that you may be experiencing those feelings as well. Can you give us
    your analysis of that?
        The President. I don't think I could say it any better than
    President Kennedy did. But let me say this: You have to do your job as
    you see it. And I'm going to do mine the best I can. Everybody in
    America knows, as I said, that I did not live and work in this city
    until I became President. I knew when I came here that there would be
    things that I would need to learn about the processes and the way things
    worked. I believed then and I believe now that if I do the big things
    right and deal with the big issues, that eventually the other things
    will also work themselves out.
        In the meantime, I think the most important thing is that we
    attempt, you and I, to create an atmosphere of trust and respect and
    that you at least know that I'm going to do my best to be honest with
    you. And I think you're going to be honest with me, and I expect you to
    criticize me when you think I'm wrong. The only thing I ever ask is, if
    I have a response and I have a side, let that get out, and we'll watch
    this conflict unfold. I mean, this is nothing new. President Jefferson
    got a rough press, too.

    Haiti

        Q. Sir, on Haiti, the Security Council of the U.N. has stated that
    they're giving Haiti until the 23d of this month before they put real
    tough petroleum and economic sanctions. Do you think that will solve the
    problem, or will we see a multinational force in Haiti as we did in
    Somalia?
        The President. As you know, since you asked the question about
    Haiti, the United States is pushing for the U.N. resolution to
    strengthen the sanctions to include not simply a freeze on assets and
    lifting visas but also to include oil. I think it will make a
    difference. And the Members of Congress who are expert in Haitian
    affairs and who talk to people in Haiti believe that it will make a
    difference.
        Secondly, I have always assumed that to really facilitate the
    restoration of democracy in Haiti, there would have to be some sort of
    multinational force there. But I would remind you that recently when
    that was proposed with the support of the United States, both sides
    rejected it. President Aristide rejected it and the de facto government
    rejected it, which was a disappointment to us. So we decided to go back
    to the drawing board, look for tougher sanctions.
        In the end, since both sides distrust each other to treat each other
    civilly, even to keep from shooting each other, there in my judgment
    will never be a resolution of that as long as the main players are who
    they are, unless we have a multinational peacekeeping force.

    [[Page 874]]

    Former President George Bush

        Q. Mr. President, what have you been told about the plot to
    assassinate George Bush in Kuwait? How definitive is the chain of
    evidence against Iraq, and what do you plan to do about it?
        The President. I have not received the final report from the FBI,
    and until I do I don't think I should say what I will or won't do.

    U.S. Leadership Role

        Q. Mr. President, in Bosnia the Europeans did not want to take
    action because the United States did not have troops on the ground. In
    Somalia, although we turned over operations to U.N. peacekeepers about a
    month ago and it was Pakistani soldiers who were attacked, the forces
    that went into action were largely American; most of the firepower was
    American. You were just talking about a multinational peacekeeping force
    in Haiti. Is the United States now being put in the role of enforcer for
    the United Nations? And what principles or thoughts do you bring to the
    table when you consider committing U.S. troops to enforce not something
    that may be strictly a U.S. interest but something that is the will of
    the international community?
        The President. I think we have to ask ourselves, first of all: What
    are the interests of the American people? Secondly: What are the values
    and humanitarian concerns at stake? And thirdly: What is the price of
    doing what we might be asked to do?
        Let me just say on Bosnia, it's not so simple as that. We didn't
    have an agreement, ever, about what troops would do. I pledged to the
    American people in the campaign last year, and I reaffirmed repeatedly,
    that I did not think we had any business sending troops into combat in
    Bosnia. I also said if there were a cease-fire and a genuine peace
    agreement and the United Nations had to guarantee the peace agreement,
    that the United States would participate. I don't think we should
    minimize the importance of leading the way but also setting an example.
        Let me tell you, a lot of other countries--the President of Namibia
    was here, a very small country; they sent people to Somalia. There are
    people from all over the world who sent people to Cambodia in very
    dangerous circumstances. The Pakistanis are the people who were murdered
    in Somalia. So I think this is a very good thing. Yes, America can lead
    the way. But it is very moving to me to see all these other countries--
    Ireland sending people, putting themselves on the line, not just
    government employees but people working through other organizations to
    try to help solve these problems. There is a remarkable confluence of
    people trying to promote democracy and human rights and freedom and
    market economics. And I think that if we can leave that an acceptable
    price, that is in our narrow interest and it is certainly in our broader
    human interest.

    Space Station

        Q. Mr. President, now that you've made your decision about the space
    station, are you going to appoint a new NASA Administrator? And if you
    are, when?
        The President. I don't have any plans at this time to do that. Let
    me just make a point about the space station, if I might. As you know, I
    have always supported the space station; I realize that some people
    don't. The United States indisputably leads the world in space. It is an
    important area of science and technology. I think it would be a mistake,
    after all the work we've done, to scrap the space station.
        There is a $4 billion budget cut in my budget for the space station
    because we're going to redesign it and redesign the management system of
    NASA. We've brought in all of these scientists to look at it, to tell us
    exactly what ought to be done and exactly how this thing ought to be
    run, and we're going to have to make some changes. But I want to tell
    the American people: We need to stay first in science and technology; we
    need to stay first in space. We're going to be able to get more people
    to come in and invest with us, and we're going to have to make some very
    tough management decisions at NASA to get that done.

    Congressional Black Caucus

        Q. Mr. President, many African-American leaders have expressed their
    anger or extreme disappointment with the way you handled the Lani
    Guinier nomination and with the way you handled the Haiti situation. In
    addition, the Congressional Black Caucus has said it is very angry with
    the fact that they voted for your budget package and cast some very
    politically difficult votes, only to have you negotiate a watered-down
    package in the Senate. How would

    [[Page 875]]

    you assess your relationship right now with blacks? And what are you
    doing to mend fences with the Congressional Black Caucus so that they
    will not vote against the conference report on the budget package?
        The President. Well, first of all, I did not negotiate that bill
    that the Senate passed. That is just inaccurate. I did not do that. And
    I think you know what I liked about the House bill, and you know where I
    have been on the issues, and you know what the principles are I've
    enunciated.
        I think Senator Moynihan did a remarkable job to get a bill out that
    does have $500 billion in deficit reduction, more spending cuts and tax
    increases, and taxes falling primarily on upper income people. I think
    to that extent we ought to give him credit. But there has been no
    negotiations.
        Secondly, and quite to the contrary, when members of the Black
    Caucus came to see me and asked me to pursue sanctions in the United
    Nations against Haiti that included oil, I examined it, and I agreed to
    do it. They were the first people who asked me to do it. And very
    shortly after the meeting I agreed to go forward. But they know, the
    ones who follow the Haitian developments, that even before that I
    offered to have the United States participate in a multinational
    peacekeeping force to restore democracy and to restore President
    Aristide, and that he rejected that. They know that's a fact.
        Thirdly, I don't think my commitment to civil rights is very much
    open to question. And I think my actions as President and the
    appointments I've made and the things I've stood for document that. And
    I believe that over the long run the Black Caucus and the Clinton
    administration will continue to be very close. And I've talked to any
    number of them personally, recently.

    Campaign Finance Reform

        Q. On campaign finance reform, now that most of the public financing
    provisions have been removed from the Senate bill, how do you convince
    people that this is truly meaningful campaign finance reform? And also,
    will you seek at some point in the future perhaps to put that public
    financing back into another measure?
        The President., First let's see what the House does. Again, this is
    a bill you're going to have to watch come out of conference. The House
    will probably adopt a somewhat different bill.
        But let's talk about what the Senate bill does do. The Senate bill
    reduces the influence of PAC's and special interests; it limits the cost
    of campaigns; it spends public funds, if necessary. If one party
    violates the spending limits, then the other party can get public funds
    in the form of communications vouchers so that the airwaves will be open
    to both parties and people can hear both sides.
        So this is a vast advance over the present law in breaking the back
    of special interest domination of politics and elections. So I like it
    in that regard. Let's see what the House does. I think we can get a good
    bill out, and I hope both sides will vote for it.

    Tax Package

        Q. Mr. President, will you support the Senate's 10 percent increase
    in the capital gains tax?
        The President. They imposed a 10 percent surcharge because there's
    now a difference between the capital gains rate and the income rate. And
    as you know, the theory of the Tax Reform Act of '86 was to level them.
    Let's see what comes out of the conference report. What I want is a tax
    system where 75 percent of the burden falls on the top 6 percent of the
    American people, at least that progressive. And if it is that
    progressive, then I'm open on the details. But I want to see what the
    final bill is. That's the key thing: Will the wealthy pay their fair
    share? Will it all be in a trust fund to reduce the deficit? And will
    the ratio be at least as good as the one I showed--$5 of every $10 in
    spending cuts; $3.75 in tax increases on upper income people, $1.25 on
    the middle class.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 17th news conference began at 8:02 p.m. in the
    East Room at the White House. Paul Tsongas was a candidate for the
    Democratic nomination in the 1992 Presidential campaign.