[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book I)]
[June 15, 1993]
[Pages 847-853]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



The President's News Conference
June 15, 1993

Supreme Court Nominee

    The President. Thanks for the introduction, Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, 
Cable News Network]. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to 
make a couple of opening remarks. First, let me say that this morning I 
had a good talk with Judge Ginsburg, complimenting her on her very 
moving statement yesterday. And I assured her that we were moving ahead 
with this confirmation process. I spoke with Senators Biden and Thurmond 
and Hatch and asked them to work with me to assure the speediest 
possible confirmation consistent with the Senate doing its duty. At any 
rate, I am confident that she will be ready to assume her position on 
the Supreme Court when the fall term begins in October.

Economic Program

    With regard to the economy, we've had, since last Friday, very good 
reports on low inflation in terms of both producer prices and consumer 
prices. And in a larger sense, over the last few months, we've seen a 
continuing reduction in long-term interest rates, which have given us a 
20-year low in mortgage rates, a 7-year high in housing sales, and have 
mightily contributed to the introduction into this economy of 755,000 
new jobs, well over 90 percent of them in the private sector.
    I am confident that the continuation of this trend depends on our 
ability to pass a strong economic program through the Congress which 
reduces the deficit, increases investment in our future, and is fair in 
terms of requiring a fair apportionment of the burden. The plan that the 
House passed, that the Senate Finance Committee is now dealing with, for 
every $10 that the deficit is reduced, $5 comes from spending cuts, 
$3.75 from upper income people, $1.25 from the middle class, and 
families with incomes under $30,000 are held harmless.
    I hope that the principles I have outlined will be honored as this 
program moves through the Congress. The Senate Finance Committee has 
some tough decisions to make. I don't expect to agree with all of them, 
but I think they will produce a bill. I think the Senate will produce a 
bill. And then we can go on to conference and see what the final shape 
of the economic plan that the whole Congress will vote on will be. I'm 
encouraged, quite upbeat, by the reports I've received from Senator 
Moynihan, Senator Mitchell, and others about the progress being made 
there, and I just want to encourage the Senate to move forward.

Campaign Finance Reform

    Finally, let me say that the Senate is dealing with another very 
difficult and very important issue now, and that's campaign finance 
reform. I have believed for a long time that we can't get thoroughgoing 
economic reform in our country until we have political reform. That 
requires the lobby reform legislation that is moving its way through 
Congress but, very importantly, campaign finance reform to lower the 
cost of campaigns, reduce the influence of special interests and PAC's, 
and open the airwaves to more

[[Page 848]]

honest debate.
    The troubling thing, obviously, is that the Republican Senators have 
announced that they may yet again filibuster a bill. And the thing that 
particularly troubles me about this one is that several Republicans 
voted for a bill not unlike this last year, which contained public 
financing. If in fact this filibuster occurs, it will be the second time 
that Republican Senators who voted for a piece of progressive 
legislation when there was a Republican in the White House have now 
voted against it and have filibustered it. The first was on the motor 
voter bill where eventually we were able to work out the problems and 
get a bill passed. But I think this is very, very important. And I very 
much hope that the Senators will reconsider and let this bill go 
forward. We need to pass a strong campaign finance reform bill this 
year. Political reform and economic reform, in my judgment, over the 
long run must go hand-in-hand, and time is long since past when we 
should have campaign finance reform.
    Now having said that, I think I ought to give Brit [Brit Hume, ABC 
News] his followup. [Laughter]
    Q. I hope you don't mind if I follow up on another subject, sir. In 
the House----
    The President. You know what I'm really upset about? You got a 
honeymoon, and I didn't. [Laughter]
    Q. Yes, sir, but you got to end it. [Laughter]
    The President. Well, let's extend it then. Go ahead.

Economic Program

    Q. The House liberals in particular, Black Caucus in particular, 
seem in a somewhat mutinous mood as they watch the deliberations in the 
Senate on your economic program. And I'm wondering, sir, what do you say 
to them to assure them that the tough vote they felt they cast for your 
program was not in vain and that you haven't really cut the rug out from 
under them?
    The President. Well, I've not cut the rug out from under them at 
all. I have not agreed to any provision that the Senate Finance 
Committee is deliberating. There's been no agreement on any issue. I 
have set out principles: $500 billion in deficit reduction; a deficit 
reduction trust fund for all the tax increases and spending cuts, at 
least $250 billion in spending cuts, although I would like some more 
cuts and some less taxes. Seventy-five percent of the burden has to fall 
on upper income people, and we ought to keep the incentives for growth 
and for empowerment of the working poor and the incentives to move 
people from welfare to work.
    Those are the things that I want to see in the final bill. And what 
I have assured the Black Caucus--and let me say, I have talked to, oh, 
probably 15 of the members in the last week or so just in that caucus 
and many other Members of the House--is that the principles that I 
outlined are still there and that we'll do our best to articulate those 
as the Senate deals with this bill.
    But the real test will be what happens in the conference and what 
the final bill looks like that the House and the Senate will vote on. 
And again, I'm quite encouraged that we'll get a bill out that they'll 
feel good about. They made it clear to me what they felt most strongly 
about. And the two things above all were the earned-income tax credit 
for the working poor, which is an important part of our welfare reform 
incentive, and the empowerment zones for the depressed urban and rural 
areas.
    And there are all kinds of parliamentary issues that, as you know, 
the Senate has to consider in all this, but I'm confident that in the 
end the bill that they vote on in the House to send to me for signature 
will have those things in it.

Domestic and Foreign Policy Decisions

    Q. Mr. President, do you perceive a loss of public confidence in 
your Presidency because of wavering domestically and in foreign policy? 
And what do you plan to do about it if----
    The President. No.
    Q. ----there is such a thing? You don't----
    The President. Well, there is no wavering. If somebody had told you 
at Christmastime, Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International], that 
by June 1st we'd have unemployment under 7 percent for the first time in 
a year and a half, 755,000 new jobs, a 20-year low in interest rates, a 
7-year high in housing sales, that the United States would have led a 
global effort to support Boris Yeltsin, sign the global warming treaty, 
I mean, the Biodiversity Treaty--that actually happened on June 4th--
pass family leave and pass the motor voter legislation, repeal the gag 
rule and the ban on fetal tissue research to allow more science and less 
politics in medical research, I'd say most people would think

[[Page 849]]

that was a pretty decisive record; that we would have moved this budget 
through the House of Representatives, sent it to the Senate--much 
tougher decisions than were required in the Reagan budget in 1981, on a 
faster track, on a faster track, I think people would have said at 
Christmastime, that's a pretty good and decisive record.
    We haven't solved the problem in Bosnia that has plagued everybody. 
I concede that. The Europeans wouldn't go along with my proposed 
resolution. I still think they may be compelled to do that or something 
very near like it if they want to get anything done over there. And I 
think we're going forward. I like the Supreme Court judge that I picked. 
I don't think it shows any wavering at all on that.
    Q. You don't think there is a public feeling that you're indecisive? 
I mean, on the----
    The President. Well, all I'm telling you is----
    Q. ----highly touted issues, the budget, Bosnia.
    The President. Let me tell you something about Bosnia. On Bosnia, I 
made a decision. The United Nations controls what happens in Bosnia. I 
cannot unilaterally lift the arms embargo. I didn't change my mind. Our 
allies decided that they weren't prepared to go that far at this time. 
They asked me to wait, and they said they would not support it. I didn't 
change my mind.
    And as far as the budget, I don't--how can you say that? No 
President's budget has been taken seriously in this town for a dozen 
years. Three-quarters of the Republicans in the House of Representatives 
voted against President Bush's last budget. I sent a budget up there 
that passed. A budget resolution passed on time for the first time in 17 
years. And we're out here fighting for these tough decisions. How could 
anybody say--this is the most decisive Presidency you've had in a very 
long time on all the big issues that matter.
    And I might say, all the heat we're getting from people is because 
of the decisions that have been made, not because of those that haven't.

Somalia

    Q. Mr. President, since the United States began bombing in Somalia, 
the Pakistani peacekeepers on the ground opened fire on civilians. There 
have been reports that civilians have died as a result of our action. We 
haven't heard from you since Saturday on this subject. What is your 
assessment of the U.N. action there? And how much longer is the U.S. 
bombing going to go on?
    The President. Well, the action that we took was, I think, 
appropriate in response to what happened, which is that Pakistani 
peacekeepers were ambushed and murdered. There's no question about that. 
The action that we took was designed to minimize as much as we possibly 
could any damage or any injury or any death to civilians.
    What happened with the Pakistanis is in some doubt in the sense that 
they're saying the first time they were ambushed, they were ambushed by 
people who stood behind women and children and used them as a defense. 
And as I understand it, the U.N. is trying to get to the bottom of that. 
I expect them to do it and to take appropriate action and to take every 
appropriate step to make sure that U.N. peacekeepers do not, do not 
cause injury or death to innocent people in Somalia. That is the United 
Nations job, and the United States expects them to do it.
    Q. We've also gone from being the heroes in Somalia now to 
apparently a feeling in the towns themselves of ``Yankee, go home.'' I 
mean, are you concerned that this action is sort of becoming 
counterproductive?
    The President. I think that on balance, I still believe that most 
people in the country think that we came in there, we ended starvation, 
we ended brutalization, we ended violence, we opened up the country 
again to the beginnings of civilization. I am very sorry about what 
happened this last week. But we cannot have a situation where one of 
these warlords, while everybody else is cooperating, decides that he can 
go out and slaughter 20 peacekeepers. And so, yes, there have been some 
tensions as a result of that. But we had to take appropriate action. And 
I hope very much that we can get back to the peacekeeping function as 
soon as possible.
    Q. Mr. President, the attack against the peacekeepers in Somalia 
raises questions about the safety of U.N. forces everywhere. As you send 
American troops into Macedonia, how much risk are you exposing them to, 
and will the United States take action when U.N. peacekeepers are 
attacked?
    The President. The United States has made it clear that we would 
take action if U.N. peacekeepers were attacked in Bosnia. And obviously,

[[Page 850]]

we're going to protect our own soldiers. I believe that the Macedonian 
deployment carries minimal risk and carries maximum gain in terms of the 
statement that we don't intend to see this conflict widen. But I think 
that all Americans know and have to know that whenever we send people 
around the world, even if they're on peacekeeping missions, there is 
some risk to them.

Supreme Court Nominee

    Q. Mr. President, getting back to Judge Ginsburg for a moment, I 
know that you're familiar with her Madison lecture and her rather 
provocative statements about the judicial reach of Roe versus Wade. Can 
you tell me how comfortable you are with her challenge to the whole 
theoretical construct to that landmark ruling and whether you feel 
confident that she will, once on the Court, meet what you had said 
during the campaign was your concerns about continuing----
    The President. I think if you read the lecture, she is clearly pro-
choice in the sense that she believes the Government should not make 
that decision for the women of America. She disagrees with the rationale 
of the decision. I'm not sure I agree with her, as a matter of fact, on 
that issue, but I thought it was a very provocative and impressive 
argument. As a matter of fact, I have always thought that Roe v. Wade 
was the most difficult case decided in the last 25 years because it was 
such a difficult issue and that the Court did the best it could under 
the circumstances. She made a very interesting alternative suggestion, 
but there is no suggestion in any of her writings that she's not pro-
choice. And that was to me the important thing.
    Q. Can I follow? How much did you actually discuss legal theory with 
her? Can you give us some sense of----
    The President. I didn't discuss that with her. I'd read the 
writings, and they'd been widely discussed. When we talked for about an 
hour and a half, I talked to her a little bit and asked her about a 
couple of cases that she had been associated with in the business law 
area and a couple of the cases she fought for women's rights on, just to 
sort of talk about them, to get a feel for it. And we talked a little 
bit about one of the religious liberty cases she dealt with involving 
the right of a soldier to wear a yarmulke. Again, I just wanted to hear 
her talk about that. That whole issue of religious freedom is a very big 
issue in my judgment, and I wanted to hear her discuss it.
    Q. Did you discuss homosexual rights with her?
    The President. Not at all. It never came up.
    Q. And are you at all concerned about some of her rulings in that 
area?
    The President. No.

Space Station and Super Collider

    Q. Mr. President, we understand you're about to make a decision on 
the future of the space station, one way you could quickly cut some 
Government spending. Could you let us in on your thoughts? We know there 
are various proposals, big, medium, little, none at all. And also the 
super collider, since there's a considerable amount of opposition to 
that as well.
    The President. Well, I'll have statements on them in the very near 
future; if not today, in the next few days. Let me just make one comment 
about the space station generally. As you know, I have supported both 
projects in the past. The thing about the space station, first of all, 
that I want to say is a word of compliment to the Vest Commission that 
just completed its review, and not only of the space station but of the 
management structure of NASA and how they interrelate. And they make 
some very provocative and thought-provoking and, I thought, very 
important recommendations and suggestions about how not only this 
project should be dealt with but about how NASA should operate the 
project and should proceed. So I have them under review.
    I do think it's important to recognize that the space station offers 
us the potential of working with other nations and continuing our lead 
in a very important area and having a significant technological impact, 
and that in the aftermath of all the cutbacks in defense and what they 
mean for science and technology, it is something that we should, in my 
judgment, consider very carefully. Keep in mind, a lot of the people who 
say, ``Well, I don't like the space station,'' or ``I don't really think 
the super collider is the best use of our investments in physics,'' they 
may be arguing about other investments that they think ought to be made. 
We're talking here about reducing America's investment in space and 
science and technology, and that's something I think we need to think 
about a long time before we do.
    Q. It sounds like you're going to continue----

[[Page 851]]

    The President. Well, wait and see what I say. I'm going to issue a 
very careful statement to the Congress in the next few days which will 
outline my position.

Supreme Court Nomination

    Q. In regard to Judge Ginsburg, do you have any regrets about the 
process that led to her nomination----
    The President. I have one big regret----
    Q. [Inaudible]--Mr. Babbitt and Mr. Breyer's names as frontrunners--
--
    The President. First of all, I strongly dispute that I hung them 
out. I regret the leaks. But it's not fair to say I hung them out. Any 
Senator I talked to will tell you, when I called to discuss Judge 
Breyer, I also said, ``I've got someone else I'm looking at.'' Anybody 
will tell you that. I told Bruce Babbitt the first day I called him, ``I 
want to know if you agree to be considered, I don't know if the country 
can afford to lose you as Interior Secretary.'' The truth is--and I said 
this yesterday; I will say it again--I've never seen such an outpouring 
of support for any public official in my adult lifetime as we got for 
Bruce Babbitt to continue as Interior Secretary while we work through 
the issues in the Northwest and deal with a lot of these other issues.
    I will say again, I think Steven Breyer is superbly qualified to be 
on the Supreme Court. I think both of them would have been confirmed by 
very large margins. I have no doubt in my mind of that. I really believe 
that she was the best candidate at this time. I was immensely impressed 
with the kind of inner strength and character that she demonstrated out 
there in the Rose Garden yesterday, and that's why I picked her. But do 
I regret the fact that there were leaks and that that may have exposed 
them more than they would otherwise have been? I certainly do. And I'd 
be happy to--you know, we ought to do better with that. And if 
somebody's got any suggestions about how I can, I'd like to have them.

Major General Harold N. Campbell

    Q. Sir, we have not had the opportunity to ask you your reaction to 
the derogatory remarks about you that were reportedly made by the Air 
Force general in Europe. How did you feel when you heard about that? And 
why have you tolerated it the way you have?
    The President. First of all, I have not tolerated it. I have simply 
permitted the Air Force to handle this in the ordinary course of 
business, as I thought was appropriate. The Air Force is dealing with 
this issue. I have been fully briefed on it. I had two feelings about 
it, frankly. For me personally, I didn't care. People say whatever they 
want to say about me personally. It had no impact on me. And I thought, 
well, here's a guy who's served this country, and you know, so what if 
he doesn't like me. And he doesn't know me from Adam's off ox, so you 
know, he's just repeating something he's heard.
    But for a general officer to say that about the Commander in Chief 
is a--if that happened--is a very bad thing. And so we are--the Air 
Force is investigating it. They're going to make a report once they have 
all the facts, and then there will be some action taken. But I don't 
think that I should personally intervene as long as the Air Force is 
doing what is appropriate.
    Q. You say you've been briefed on the situation, and we've been told 
by your folks that this would be resolved by the middle of June. We're 
at that point now. What have they told you so far?
    The President. Just what I told you, that the Air Force felt very 
strongly that someone should go to Europe, find out exactly what 
happened, get all the facts, and take appropriate action.
    Q. Have they confirmed, though, to you that he said it?
    The President. I don't know if the factfinder has come back from 
Europe. And I have not gotten the final report yet. All I've gotten so 
far is secondhand stuff.

Bosnia

    Q. Mr. President, on Bosnia, could we take your earlier remarks here 
today to mean that you are now revisiting a tougher policy on Bosnia and 
that you might go back to the Europeans to try to sell them once again 
on bombing the Serbs?
    The President. I wouldn't characterize it quite that way, but let me 
restate what I said before. I just want to make it clear that I don't 
think an unwillingness to move alone in Bosnia on arms embargo issues--
and we supported bombing to support, if you will, if you remember--the 
position we had was that we would support the use of air power to back 
up a freeze of heavy artillery in place while the arms embargo was 
equalizing the opportunity that the sides

[[Page 852]]

had to work out their business. We thought that would lead, frankly, to 
a cease-fire and ultimately to a peace agreement.
    From the beginning, even after the British and French said, ``We 
don't want to do this right now, and we will not vote for it or support 
it in the United Nations,'' and the Russians said the same thing, they 
all agreed to leave the option on the table if their other efforts 
failed. What I want to reaffirm to you is that that is still my 
position. I still think that may be the only way we can get them to have 
a real meaningful cease-fire and a real meaningful peace agreement. And 
that option was never taken off the table. The British and French and 
the Russians never said to me flat out they would never go along. They 
said they thought they could do better. It seems to me that the 
political situation has deteriorated since then. And my position has not 
changed. But I am willing to work with them to do what we can do.

NAFTA

    Q. Sir, the NAFTA, the agreement with Mexico, you're going to take 
jobs down there and plants down--they'll leave the jobs vacant here and 
take the plants down there. How do you figure that they can make enough 
goods in Mexico at those low rates and the U.S. brought in plants--how 
do you figure that they can buy goods up here? We won't have anybody up 
here to sell--we won't have anybody up here to make goods in our plants, 
our plants--been gone to Mexico. We won't have anything to sell----
    The President. Well, that's the argument against NAFTA, but I don't 
believe that will happen, and I'll tell you why.
    Q. ----you see it?
    The President. Yes, I can see it. Look what's happened in the last 5 
years. There have been any number of plants that have moved into Mexico. 
They can continue to do that now under the present law. The maquilladora 
line has been extended well beyond the Rio Grande River. There are lots 
of plants down there. But just a few years ago we had a $5 billion trade 
deficit with Mexico. Now we have a $6 billion trade surplus. Last month, 
they replaced Japan as the second biggest purchaser of our manufacturing 
products. There are over 80 million Mexicans. As their incomes go up, 
they will buy more from us. If we can work out an agreement with them, 
we will then be able to move to similar agreements with countries even 
farther from us but in our region in Latin America, like Argentina and 
Venezuela and other countries, and I believe that that will create far 
more jobs than it will cost. There will be some changes, but I believe 
that NAFTA will help us to create jobs.
    Now, I promised to hear from you, and then I've got to go. Go ahead.

Economic Program

    Q. On the budget, although you are committed, as you say, to a $500 
billion deficit reduction package, it appears that you seem to be giving 
an indirect endorsement to continuing the space station and the 
superconductor collider. If that be the case, then in a final budget 
bill are you willing to accept a final reconciliation package that 
includes a scaled-down energy tax and some elimination of certain 
corporate tax incentives, such as suggested by Senator Bradley, 
specifically a minimum tax, elimination of VAT tax, elimination of 
expensing provisions in a final bill, particularly if interest rates 
remain low?
    The President. The most important thing is to get the deficit 
reduction, have the tax burden be very progressive, fall 75 percent on 
the wealthy, and have at least as many spending cuts as you do tax 
increases.
    Let me answer very specifically your questions. And let me just tell 
you that in general, first of all, I have an enormous respect for 
Senator Bradley, and I think the '86 tax reform act did an awful lot of 
good in eliminating a lot of loopholes, deductions, and things that it's 
very difficult to argue for and in trying to get rates down.
    Now having said that, I still believe that there is a distinction to 
be made between investment and consumption by businesses and individuals 
and that the tax system of this country should at the very least not 
penalize investment. I have favored some changes in the alternative 
minimum tax because I believe the way it operates now you put people in 
a very difficult position when they want to go invest in plant and 
equipment if it triggers the alternative minimum tax burden, even when 
they're just investing. So, I would like to see some modification in 
that.
    He may have some ideas about how we can have a better modification, 
or maybe he says we don't need as much money, but I think conceptually 
it's important. The second thing,

[[Page 853]]

the small business community is the major generator of jobs in America, 
has been for the last 12 years. Their job-generating capacity has slowed 
recently because it costs a lot of extra money to hire an employee and 
because of uncertainties in the economy. I believe if we increase the 
small business expensing provision from $10,000 to $25,000 that for 
millions of small business people out there who are the backbone of this 
economy, they will then see the wisdom in continuing to invest, 
continuing to expand, and a lot of people might hire one more person, 
two more people, three more people, in ways that will create jobs for 
the economy.
    In the end this is a jobs package. So, there is an expensing 
provision in the Tax Code right now for small business. I just think it 
ought to be bigger, and I think it's a job generator.
    I'll see you in a couple of days. I'm sorry. Thanks.
    Q. In a couple of days?
    The President. A couple of months. [Laughter]

Note: The President's 16th news conference began at noon in the Briefing 
Room at the White House.