    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book II)]
    [October 18, 1993]
    [Pages 1763-1769]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Interview With Radio Reporters
    October 18, 1993

        The President. First of all, I want to thank all of you for coming
    today and for offering all of us this opportunity to have a conversation
    with the radio listeners around the country and beyond.
        I thought I would open just by saying that I have sent a letter this
    afternoon to Senator Mitchell in the Senate about some potential
    amendments to the defense appropriation bill and one actual amendment
    dealing with Bosnia, Haiti, and the whole command and control apparatus
    of our military as it relates to cooperation with other countries in
    peacekeeping and other endeavors. That amendment has actually been
    introduced.
        The letter essentially says that I oppose the amendment that affects
    the way our military people do their business, working with NATO and
    other military allies. I think it unduly gets into the details of the
    command and control operations of the military, which I think is an
    error, and that I would oppose any amendments with regard to Haiti and
    Bosnia that were of questionable constitutionality and unduly restricted
    the ability of the President to make foreign policy, and outlines some
    of my concerns.
        In Haiti, my concerns are that there should be no restrictions that
    would undermine the ability of the President to protect the Americans on
    Haiti, that would aggravate the likelihood of another mass exodus of
    Haitians, or that would send a green light to the people who think
    they've got the best of both worlds: they got the sanctions lifted, and
    then they broke their word on the Governors Island Agreement.

    [[Page 1764]]

        With regard to Bosnia, the amendment simply points out that the
    United States has very strong NATO allies and that there were strict
    conditions that I have put on any kind of cooperation in Bosnia with
    NATO to enforce a peace agreement and that I think most Members of
    Congress agree with those conditions, but I don't think we should have
    an amendment which would tie the President's hands and make us unable to
    fulfill our NATO commitments, thus raising all kinds of questions about
    the long-term relationship of the United States to Europe.
        So that's what the letter says. There is only one amendment so far
    that has been offered, and we are discussing with various Members of
    Congress other proposed amendments. We'll just have to see what happens.
    But I thought I ought to say clearly today that I would strenuously
    oppose such attempts to encroach on the President's foreign policy
    powers.
        Now we can go to the questions. Mark [Mark Knoller, CBS News].

    Haiti

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Your opening statement raises the
    question of whether the United States would be willing to use military
    force for the purpose of removing the military leadership from Haiti and
    reinstalling President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in power.
        The President. Let me tell you what I have done today on Haiti,
    first of all. I just signed the Executive order freezing the assets of
    any people who are supporting the military and police leaders who have
    continued to fight the resumption of democracy and who are responsible
    for the bad things that have happened down there in the last few days. I
    have also, with the authorization of the Haitian government, directed
    our ships in the area to move closer to the shore so they will be in
    plain sight. And that has been done today.
        I think we should continue to work with President Aristide and with
    Prime Minister Malval. They want to go back to the sanctions. Remember,
    once the sanctions were tough, and they included oil, they produced the
    Governors Island Agreement. And what happened is that people who have an
    economic stranglehold on Haiti got what they wanted with Aristide's
    request, that is, lifting the sanctions. They got the amnesty that
    Aristide promised, they thought he would never give. And then, when time
    came for them to deliver what they agreed to do, they didn't do it.
        So I think the appropriate position for us to take at this time is
    to go back to those sanctions and make them as tough as possible and
    enforce them as completely as possible. And that is what the Prime
    Minister wants us to do and what President Aristide has asked us to do.
    I think it would be an error for me to discuss what further steps might
    or might not be taken. After all, we do have--I'll say again, we have
    1,000 Americans there, and we have another 9,000 people with dual
    citizenship, and we'd have no way of knowing what will or won't happen.
        But what the Haitians want is for the conditions of legitimacy to be
    maintained and restored. That is, the Haitian people have expressed
    their desires; two-thirds of them voted for President Aristide. And in
    terms of the questions that have been raised again in recent days about
    whether he could or could not govern the country, that's why he worked
    so hard with our support to get Mr. Malval, who plainly can run the
    government, as one of the ablest people in the nation to be the Prime
    Minister so they'd have the kind of partnership that would work. So I
    feel comfortable that they are capable of working with their friends and
    allies in the area to bring about a more democratic and a more
    prosperous Haiti if given the chance.

    Health Care Reform

        Q. Mr. President, economists are expressing some concern of late
    about your health care reform plan and about whether it might grow
    considerably larger than you envision. What assurances can you give the
    American public that it either will not grow out of control or that the
    need for universal health care is worth it ballooning to the size of,
    say, Medicare and Medicaid, which are 10 times larger than originally
    predicted?
        The President. First of all, let me say that it's not a Government
    program. The Government will only insure the unemployed uninsured. Two-
    thirds of the funding for this program will come from employers and the
    employees who don't presently contribute anything to the American health
    care system.
        Secondly, where have these economists been for the last 15 years? I
    mean, the American health care system is already 40 percent more
    expensive than any other one in the world and the only advanced health
    care system in the

    [[Page 1765]]

    world that can't seem to figure out how to provide coverage to everybody
    while spending 40 percent more than anybody else spends.
        The budget we just passed in this Government has Medicare and
    Medicaid going up at 3 times the rate of inflation. We proposed to
    reduce that in our bill. We have also ceilings on how much health care
    expenditures can increase in any given year if the competition doesn't
    cut the costs.
        Now, if you look around the country at the places which have tried
    serious efforts at managed competition, including bringing the Medicaid
    program into a competitive arena, there's every indication that the rate
    of increase will slow down and that it will work. But the economists,
    they seem to want it all ways. They criticize me on the one hand for
    having a ceiling on how much costs could increase in any given year and
    then saying we don't have any guarantees, if you take it off they won't
    increase more. And it is difficult to imagine how we could design a
    system that would have costs more out of control than the one we have. I
    mean, the reason we have so much support here from employers in heavy
    industry, for example, who already cover their employees is that they're
    being killed by the cost increases.
        The system we have is irresponsible and out of control financially,
    and doesn't provide health care security to Americans. So we think there
    are plenty of protections built in to slow the rate of increase in
    costs. In fact, if anything, I think we've been certainly realistic and
    then some, in estimating how fast we can slow costs down. That is, even
    under our plan, it is estimated that the percent of our income going to
    health care will go from about 14.5 to about 18 by the end of the
    decade, and that if we just stay with the system we've got, which is the
    alternative--in all these things, you've got to ask what's the
    alternative--we'll go from 14.5 to 19 to 20 by the end of the decade. We
    have allowed and budgeted for significant increased expenses in health
    care.

    Republican Criticism

        Q. Mr. President, in the past week or so you and your foreign policy
    team have come in for some pretty blistering criticism, especially from
    a group of prominent Republicans. Richard Lugar, Dick Cheney, Dan
    Quayle, James Baker, and Robert Dole have all been very, very critical
    of your foreign policy. And some members of your administration have
    suggested that's politically motivated, these people might be running
    for President. What do you make of it, and how do you react to those
    criticisms?
        The President. I think you can monitor their travel schedules and
    statements as well as I can. I don't have anything to say about that.
    I'm going to do my job as best I can. I'm going to try to support a
    bipartisan approach to foreign policy. I'm going to try to involve
    Republicans and Democrats in the process of consultation and getting as
    good advice as I can all the way along. And I think that you have to
    expect that when things go very well, as they did with Russia and the
    Middle East, people will say you're doing fine, and if difficulties
    arise, then some will say that you didn't do fine. So I just don't want
    to get into the politics of it.
        If you want to talk about any specific policy in any specific
    country, I'll do my best to answer that. But I think it serves no useful
    purpose for me to engage any of them in this sort of debate. Whatever
    the political motivations are, I have a contract that runs for a
    specific amount of time. I'm going to do the very best I can during that
    time, and then when the time is up the American people can make their
    own judgments. I haven't even been President a year. I don't have any
    interest in starting a political debate now.

    Administration Goals

        Q. Even though it's been less than a year, Mr. President, it's been
    a very ambitious Presidency with a lot of projects you've taken on
    yourself, health care reform, reinventing Government, national service,
    things you inherited like Somalia, Haiti in a way, NAFTA. Is there ever
    coming a point, is there now a point that you just have to say, enough
    is enough for now, the plate is too full, we have to resolve some of
    these things before we get on with other things?
        The President. Oh, sure. And we have taken that position. I mean,
    first of all, if you go back to the budget, we kept the budget front and
    center until that was resolved. And it plainly has worked rather well.
    Long-term interest rates are still below 6 percent. The budget did some
    remarkable things. It dramatically broadened the availability of college
    loans to students, and it has the most significant piece of tax reform
    for working families in 20 years by increasing the earned-income tax
    credit, so that all working

    [[Page 1766]]

    families on modest incomes with children will know they'll be lifted
    above the Federal poverty lines. That's a lot to accomplish in a year
    right there.
        The national service bill passed, and very well, and of course, a
    number of other pieces of legislation have. And now, what we're going to
    focus on between now and the end of the year is making as much headway
    as we can on the first round of reinventing Government cuts, on the
    crime bill, on the political reform initiatives that some of which have
    passed the Senate already, the campaign finance reform and lobby reform
    bill, and on getting the health care bill heard and setting schedules
    there so we'll know that it will be reviewed along with all other ideas
    in a prompt and timely fashion, and we'll be able to see as we wind up
    here a process which unfolds next year and brings us to a date-certain
    vote.
        But we do have a lot going. We probably had more done this year than
    in any given first year in a long time, and there's still a lot more to
    do. For example, we started our welfare reform task force hearings
    around the country, but I don't intend to offer any legislation on that
    until next year. And there will be a lot of other things that will come
    up as we go along next year. We want, for example, to change the whole
    unemployment system, as you know, to a reemployment system. We don't
    think that will be offered until next year, to give the American people
    a system of lifetime education and training.
        I do hope that we can pass as many bills as possible this year. I
    was heartened by the fact that the House passed our education reform
    bill, the Goals 2000 bill, with such a big bipartisan majority last
    week, which made me think we could probably pass that bill completely
    before the Congress goes home the end of the year.

    Russia

        Q. Mr. President, it's coming up on 2 years since the end of the
    Soviet Union and the declaration by the remaining states to call
    themselves democracies or create democracies. Secretary Christopher is
    headed over there. Can you tell us what the objective of his trip is?
    Will he be looking to set up a summit meeting?
        The President. Well, there is a possibility, of course, that
    President Yeltsin and I will meet again early next year; I have to go to
    Europe to the NATO summit. But primarily, what he wants to do is to
    convey the continuing support of the United States for democracy and
    reform in Russia, to urge the Yeltsin administration on in their efforts
    to complete the timetable to get a new constitution and to have
    legislative elections and to restore completely the conditions of
    democracy in Russia, and to review the progress on the Russian aid
    package, both the ones, the two passed by the United States Congress
    here with strong bipartisan support and the international package that
    came out of the G-7 summit. And so he'll be doing all those things. And
    I'm sure they'll review some of the difficulties in that part of the
    world, too. President Yeltsin also has his share of foreign policy
    problems that he can't fully solve. But we'll talk about that. We're
    interested very much in some of those things. Especially we'd like to
    see the last Russian troops withdrawn from Latvia and Estonia, as they
    have been from Lithuania.

    Haiti

        Q. Mr. President, if we could return to the Haiti issue for just a
    moment. Senator Dole said he didn't think it was worth any American
    lives to restore President Aristide. You indicated you didn't want to go
    too far into options. But are there conditions beyond, say, a direct
    physical threat to the U.S. Embassy compound in Port-au-Prince under
    which you would consider committing U.S. troops to Haiti? For example,
    attacks or killings of foreigners, a flow of refugees, or maybe just
    threats against foreigners? Are there any conditions for sending U.S.
    troops?
        The President. I just think at this time it's better for me not to
    rule in or out options. Keep in mind, the Haitian Government, as we
    speak, has not asked for that and does not want that. And keep in mind
    that the sanctions did work once before to get this agreement, which was
    not honored perhaps because we raised the sanctions, we lifted the
    sanctions.
        But let me remind you that the circumstances of this need to be
    focused on. Haiti is very much in our backyard. The people wanted
    democracy. There is the continuing issue of whether there would be
    another exodus of Haitians trying to come to the United States,
    something which I think is not in their interest or ours but is
    something that the present conditions could make more likely. And we do
    have those Americans there.

    [[Page 1767]]

        So what I want to do today is to encourage Prime Minister Malval and
    the brave people who are in his government and the good people of Haiti
    who plainly want democracy and are being pushed around by the only guys
    in town with guns, which I regret very much. But we are trying to
    preserve the legitimacy of democracy there.
        Now, the truth is, as you know, there are people in this country, in
    the press, and in the Congress and elsewhere, who, notwithstanding the
    vote of the Haitian people, basically have never felt very strongly
    about returning Aristide anyway and have questioned his fitness to be
    President. You can do that with the winner of any election. But all I
    can tell you is that I would just like to observe just a couple of
    things. Number one is, unlike his adversaries, President Aristide has
    done everything he said he would do under the Governors Island
    Agreement, including giving them amnesty. And secondly, recognizing his
    lack of experience in politics and business, he reached out to a man
    like Malval, who's plainly one of the ablest people in the country and
    clearly a very stable and reassuring figure, asking him to run the
    government. So I feel that we should support the democratic movement in
    Haiti. And I think that the steps we're taking now are the appropriate
    ones.

    Assistant Attorney General Nominee

        Q. Mr. President, have you decided on a nominee for the position of
    Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights?
        The President. I don't want to give you an evasive answer, but let
    me tell you what happened. We had, weeks ago, a nominee who declined the
    position for personal reasons. And the Justice Department was asked, the
    Attorney General specifically was asked, to make another recommendation.
    I believe that she has a recommendation for me which I have not yet
    formally received. But I am not positive of that, but I believe so.

    Gun Control Legislation

        Q. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about a subject that you've
    brought up in a number of your remarks lately. You've been discussing
    the issue of gun control, firearms violence, the extremely high cost of
    health care related to firearm injuries. Senator Chafee of Rhode Island
    has once again introduced legislation which is pending in the Judiciary
    Committee now which would ban the sale, manufacture, possession,
    importation, or exportation of all handguns with exceptions for law
    enforcement, military, and licensed target clubs. You've talked about
    your support for the Brady bill and for a ban on assault weapons. How
    would you feel about Senator Chafee's bill, which I understand Dr.
    Sullivan, former HHS Secretary, is testifying on tomorrow?
        The President. Well, I have to read it, but I think it might go a
    little far if it bans all handguns, just because I think that there is a
    lot of evidence that Americans have used handguns responsibly for
    sporting purposes, that they're not all used as weapons for committing
    crimes or killing people. I do believe, however--and let me say first--
    secondly, as a practical matter, I have not yet been able to get
    Congress to vote on the crime bill, including the Brady bill and the
    vote to ban a comprehensive list of assault weapons.
        I also know that I heard that Senator Kohl has an amendment, which I
    would encourage, which would make national the ban on ownership or
    possession of handguns by minors unless with their parents or another
    supervising adult in an appropriate setting, which might be the way to
    go on the issue that Senator Chafee is concerned about. Nonetheless, I
    hold him in the highest regard. He's, I think, an extremely responsible
    person, and I welcome the hearings on his legislation. But I would have
    a little problem with a total ban on handguns. I would have a problem
    with that based on what my understanding of the situation is.
        Again, we ought to focus on the Brady bill, the assault weapons ban,
    and banning possession by minors right now. Since I have been working on
    this in the last several months, one of the multitude of statistics
    that's made the biggest impression on me is the one that we were told a
    couple of weeks ago, that now someone shot in a criminal encounter is 3
    times more likely to die from a gunshot wound because they're likely to
    have nearly three bullets in them, as opposed to only 15 years ago. That
    is a huge statistical change. And of course, as I pointed out, these
    wounds and the homicides put an enormous financial burden on this
    country, on the medical system, on the criminal justice system.
        But mostly, it's an incredible human problem. We've got 90,000
    people in the last 4 years

    [[Page 1768]]

    murdered in America, most of them by gunshots. That's more in any single
    year than were ever lost in a single year in the war in Vietnam. I think
    the time has come to do something about this. And I'm hopeful that both
    Houses of Congress will act on the crime bill and on the assault weapons
    bill before the end of the year. I hate to keep coming back to this, but
    right now I don't know that we have the votes to pass the assault
    weapons ban in the Congress. And I hope we can get the votes to do that
    and to pass the limitation on minors and possession or ownership of
    handguns. I think if we push those now in the Brady bill, then the
    Congress could really make a dent on the exposure of Americans to lethal
    violence.

    War Powers Resolution

        Q. Mr. President, could I go back to your comments about the use of
    American military force and your discussions with Congress? Would you
    oppose, would you veto legislation which contained an amendment
    requiring you to ask and get the consent of Congress before you use
    troops in Haiti or Bosnia? And how far do you think the congressional
    role in the war powers area goes?
        The President. Well, let me say, my letter says that I want to
    resist and that I urge the Senate not to vote for things which unduly
    infringe on the President's power, and certainly not things that are of
    questionable constitutionality. Before I express an opinion about a
    veto, I need to see a specific piece of legislation. And there are still
    discussions going on about the questions of Haiti and Bosnia. The whole
    issue of the War Powers Resolution and the role of Congress and the role
    of the President obviously has been the subject of virtually nonstop
    debate in America for the last several years, for all kinds of obvious
    reasons. Sometimes Congress has acted or attempted to act to restrict
    the President's authority under Presidents Reagan and Bush, and
    sometimes they have.
        All I can tell you is that I think I have a big responsibility to
    try to appropriately consult with Members of Congress in both parties--
    whenever we are in the process of making a decision which might lead to
    the use of force. I believe that. But I think that, clearly, the
    Constitution leaves the President, for good and sufficient reasons, the
    ultimate decisionmaking authority. And I think to cut off that authority
    in advance of it being made without all the circumstances and facts
    there before us is an error and could really lead to weakening our
    relationships with a lot of our allies and encouraging the very kind of
    conduct we want to discourage in the world.
        I understand what's going on here, and it's all perfectly
    predictable, given any reading of American history and perfectly
    understandable, given the aversion that Americans have always had to
    seeing any of our young people die when the existence of our country was
    not immediately at stake. And the President should be very circumspect
    and very careful in committing the welfare and the lives of even our
    All-Volunteer Army. We need to have a clear American interest there, and
    there needs to be clearly-defined conditions of involvement, and the
    burden is on the President to provide those. But still the President
    must make the ultimate decision, and I think it's a mistake to cut those
    decisions off in advance.

    Advice From Previous Administrations

        Q. Final question. Thank you, Mr. President. In the past week or so,
    President Bush himself and, as we've already discussed here today, some
    members of his foreign policy team have criticized your foreign policy
    team. I'm curious about the promise that has been reported that
    President Bush made to you. And it's also been reported in at least one
    commentary, that there was an implied promise from your side to go easy
    on any revelations about the so-called Iraqgate scandal. What can you
    tell us about your discussions with Mr. Bush on this?
        The President. Well, first of all, with regard to the Iraqgate
    issue, there was no promise expressed or implied. There was no
    discussion about that between me and President Bush. I believe he said
    publicly that he would not have anything negative to say about the
    administration for a year at least, that he thought we were entitled to
    that.
        And again, I just don't want to get into this. This is a free
    country, people have free speech, they can say whatever they want to
    say. I think you will agree. And maybe I've been wrong to do it, but I
    have been pretty careful about focusing on the problems we have in the
    future and not trying to spend a lot of time establishing partisan blame
    for the past. I said that in my State of the Union speech. I said it in
    the health care speech. I said it repeatedly. What's past is past. I'm
    doing the best I can with the issues

    [[Page 1769]]

    that I faced when I came here. If the time comes in the future when I
    have to engage in a debate with any of those folks about who-did-what-
    when, I'll do my best to have that kind of a debate. But I just don't
    think--it doesn't get us very far. And I would hope that if they have a
    constructive suggestion to make about what America should do, I would be
    more than happy to take it. I'm not ashamed to ask for advice from
    anybody, Republicans or Democrats. I've called every living former
    President, I've called former Secretaries of State, I've called those
    that agreed and disagreed. As you know, Secretary Shultz thought that
    the previous administration should have done more in Bosnia, thought
    that we should. I mean, there are people who have--Secretary Kissinger
    thought just the reverse. I mean, this is a new and difficult and
    uncertain time. But if they have anything to say about what they think
    we ought to do, I'll be glad to listen, and I'd just ask that it be
    constructive when they do it.
        Q. I'm told by your aides that we're out of time. On behalf of the
    radio networks, we thank you, and we hope we can make this a regular
    thing.
        The President. I would like to do it on a regular basis. I'm a big
    radio listener, you know. Except if we did it enough, we could even have
    Top 10 countdowns in the middle and stuff. [Laughter]
        Q. We accept the challenge.
        The President. Thank you.

    Note: The interview began at 3:40 p.m. in the Roosevelt Room at the
    White House. The Executive order on Haiti is listed in Appendix D at the
    end of this volume.