[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.