[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1994, Book II)]
[December 11, 1994]
[Pages 2175-2181]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



The President's News Conference in Miami
December 11, 1994

    The President. Good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen, this Summit of 
the Americas we just concluded represents a watershed in the history of 
our hemisphere. I want to begin by thanking again the people of Miami 
and the people of Florida for working so hard to make this a stunning 
success and for treating these deliberations with such great respect. I 
would say a special word of appreciation to the people who demonstrated 
in the Orange Bowl in such large numbers but in a way that spoke up for 
their deepest convictions for freedom and democracy for Cuba, in a way 
that was supportive of the other deliberations of this summit.
    From my point of view, the mission of this summit was accomplished, 
first, in our specific commitment to a free trade agreement of the 
Americas by 2005, which, going with NAFTA,

[[Page 2176]]

with Chile's coming into the NAFTA partnership, with the recent success 
of the GATT world trade agreement, puts us on the right road. And for 
the Americans here in the audience, I would just like to ask you to 
consider that just in the last 2 weeks the United States has concluded 
agreements to push for regional free trade in the two fastest growing 
areas of the world, first at Bogor in Indonesia with the Asian-Pacific 
economies and now here with the free trade agreement at the Summit of 
the Americas. These things, along with the implementation of GATT and 
the expansion of the NAFTA arrangement, will set the agenda for world 
trade for years to come in ways that benefit ordinary American families, 
that generate more high-wage jobs in this country and more opportunity 
in the countries of our trading partners.
    Secondly, we reaffirmed our commitment to continuing to work 
together to strengthen our democracies and to promote sustainable 
development, to promote education and health care and labor standards 
and the environment, to fight drugs and international crime and 
corruption, in other words, to push not only for economic growth, for 
improvements in the quality of life. This spirit of Miami was embodied 
in 23 very specific declarations and a specific work program that will 
begin immediately. That makes it quite a bit different than most summit 
declarations of the past.
    And finally and perhaps equally important, we saw here in the 
interlocking networks of people that began to meet and work together 
both in preparation for this summit and then here--not just the world 
leaders but others who were here in huge numbers from these various 
countries--the beginning of the kind of working relationship that will 
be absolutely essential to bring this hemisphere together in an 
atmosphere of trust and a true spirit of partnership. So from my point 
of view, this has been a very successful summit, indeed. I am pleased. I 
am deeply indebted to the leaders of the other countries, as well as to 
the people who did all the work to make it a success on our side.
    Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International], I'm sorry about 
your accident last night, but you look just fine.

Taxes

    Q. The water was fine. [Laughter]
    Mr. President, there are strong indications that you read the 
election results, and as a result of them, you plan to give a middle 
class tax cut, and you're going to cut the programs from the poor. And 
my question is, are you going to promote or support a middle class tax 
cut, and are you going to cut programs for the people who are the most 
vulnerable and less able to defend themselves?
    The President. Well, first of all, before the election, long before 
the election, I announced on more than one occasion, as did others who 
are in our administration, that we wanted to complete the work of being 
fairer in our Tax Code by providing a middle class tax cut that would go 
with what we did with the earned-income tax credit in 1993, which, I 
would remind you, gave 15 million American families with 40 million 
Americans in it--that's a significant number of people in a country of 
254 million--an income tax cut. Already we have done that. I want to 
build on that. I want to fulfill the commitment of our campaign and my 
commitment to tax fairness and to give the working people of this 
country, many of whom have had declining incomes or stagnant incomes for 
a long time, some benefit from the end of the cold war and the 
downsizing of the Federal Government, which is well underway. So I am 
working to do that. I am working to do that, however, in the context of 
not a lot of irresponsible promises but the real discipline of the real 
world. That is, I do not want to see this deficit start going up again.
    That is my objective. I think we can achieve that objective without 
hurting--not only without hurting poor people who are poor through no 
fault of their own but while creating an environment in which the poor 
will be encouraged and empowered to work their way into the middle 
class.
    Keep in mind--I think sometimes we lose sight of this--I believe--
you know, people read the elections any way they want; I think the 
important thing is to do what we think is right. But there are two 
components to restoring the American dream today. One is rooted in the 
fact that working Americans without college degrees have stagnant wages 
or declining wages for a long period of time. We want them to have more 
security in their jobs. We want them to be rewarded for their work. We 
want them to stop losing their health benefits. The second is that the 
percentage of people living in poverty, including working people in 
poverty, is going up. A big part of the American dream

[[Page 2177]]

has always been the opportunity that poor people had to work their way 
into the middle class.
    So I don't believe that we should be pitting the middle class 
against the poor who themselves are willing to embrace the values of 
work and family and community. And I don't think that we have to do 
that.
    So I think when you see our budget, our proposals, our cuts, they 
will be perceived by the American people as fair, fair to both the 
middle class and to the poor in this country who are willing to work 
hard to make themselves independent or who through no fault of their own 
are poor.
    Q. So the answer is yes on a middle class tax cut?
    The President. No, the answer is--the answer is what we have said 
for months and months and months: I intend to propose one as long as I 
can pay for it, without--that's the answer. But I do not believe that 
what we need in this country is a war of the middle class against the 
poor, because most poor people believe in family, work, and community. 
Most poor people would gladly work themselves into the middle class. And 
a lot of people living in poverty today live in families where people 
work.
    What I think--if you want to know what I think the people believe on 
this, it's what I believe, what I think most Americans believe, which is 
that no one should get a check for irresponsible conduct, that 
Government funds should not be used to reward irresponsibility. But if 
people are temporarily poor through no fault of their own, if they're 
doing their best to improve their lot in life, if they are responsible 
parents and trying to do the best they can, I don't think the American 
people want us to put a lot of folks in the street or take a lot of kids 
away from loving parents and put them in state-run orphanages or do any 
of that stuff.
    I think that we can show discipline in welfare reform and discipline 
in a lot of these other programs and still not be anti-poor. What we 
ought to want is for the middle class to be rewarded and for the poor to 
be empowered to work their way into the middle class and rewarded for 
that.

Federal Government Downsizing

    Q. Mr. President, also on an economic issue, back in Washington your 
deputies are working on budget proposals that might include the 
elimination of a Cabinet department such as Energy or HUD. Do you concur 
with the idea that a Cabinet agency might have to be abolished? And if 
so, what are your thoughts on where their functions would go and why 
they should be eliminated?
    The President. Well, I don't think we should--I think that's 
starting at the end rather than at the beginning. So let me try to 
answer the question.
    It has been apparent for more than a year that the exploding cost of 
health care, which I was unable to persuade the Congress to act on, will 
cause the deficit to start to go up again next year, unless we take 
further steps.
    The American people should know something I don't think they do know 
now, which is that this budget the Congress just adopted--the first 
budget adopted with all agencies on time in, like, 17 years--reduced 
both domestic and defense spending for the first time since 1969; 
domestic spending was reduced. What did not go down was interest on the 
debt, Medicare, and Medicaid.
    So what we have to do is to continue to reduce spending. If we want 
to have a middle class tax cut, if we want to invest more in the 
education and training of our work force, if we want to train people to 
move from welfare to work, we have to find the money to do that. So 
we're going to have to continue to cut back on Government.
    Our people have been looking for, well, 6 months or more now, at 
what our options are. And what I instructed them to do was to basically 
ask a certain set of questions: Does this program, or would the 
elimination of this program, advance the interest of working people's 
jobs and incomes, of the desire to have poor people work their way into 
the middle class, of our desire to have safer streets and stronger 
families and stronger communities, of our need to be strong in the 
world, promoting peace and prosperity? Those are the criteria.
    And I said, ``Let's measure all this, everything the Federal 
Government's doing, and let's take a fresh look at it. And don't rule 
anything out, but don't make a lot of decisions until you analyze these 
things rigorously, because it's obvious that we're going to have to 
continue to reduce the size of the Federal Government, to give more 
authority back to States and localities, to consider whether we need to 
be doing some things at all.''

[[Page 2178]]

    But I think it's important to see this as a continuous process. In 
the last 2 years we deregulated banking, intrastate trucking; we 
deregulated much of what the Federal Government was doing with the 
States in education, in welfare and health. So I think we have to keep 
doing it. And I wouldn't rule anything out.
    But the questions you asked me about any particular department are 
all the questions that would have to be asked and answered. If you ask 
me a purely political question, do I think it's necessary to do that for 
show, the answer is no, I don't think it's necessary to do that for 
show. Do I think it is terribly important that we continue the work of 
reinventing Government, which the Vice President has spearheaded, that 
we continue to downsize the Government? Yes, I do.
    Keep in mind, among other things, we are already obligated to reduce 
the size of the Federal Government by 272,000, and we have already 
reduced it by 70,000, but not more.
    Now, what I would like to do is to alternate from here on in between 
journalists from other countries and American journalists. So, the 
gentleman over here. I'll do my best.

Customs Inspections

    Q. It is really not easy for us to interview the President of the 
United States, so I beg you a followup, please. My first question is 
when we can really expect a change from the approach of the United 
States? You have told me in the past that you would like to be the best 
President since John Kennedy, and certainly many changes have been done 
to Latin America. But for all of us Colombian citizens, it's very 
difficult to pass through an airport in the United States. When will we 
see and expect a change?
    The President. What I said was I wanted the people in Latin America 
to perceive the United States as a good friend of Latin America, as they 
did when Kennedy was President. I do believe that. And I don't know what 
you're referring to. I mean, we--you mean because they question you at 
the airports?
    Q. [Inaudible]--Colombians that are honest people. Not all 
Colombians are--[inaudible].
    The President. I agree with that. But we also--when people come into 
our borders, many honest people are tested and questioned, and their 
effects are examined. That's the nature of our system here. If you think 
that it's disproportionately prejudicial to Colombians, I will look into 
that. No one has ever raised that question with me before. But that's 
what border inspections are all about. You have to inspect the honest 
and the dishonest; otherwise you would never--no one knows who is or 
isn't in the beginning. That's why you have inspections.

Russia

    Q. Mr. President, while you've been here, the Russians have moved 
into Chechnya. And I'm wondering if you have any comment on that and if 
you have had a chance to discuss that with President Yeltsin, or if you 
plan to.
    The President. Well, we haven't had direct discussions; President 
Yeltsin and I have not. But we have had some discussions with our 
contacts in Russia, and they with us. The first thing I want to say is, 
obviously, it's something we're monitoring closely; we're concerned 
about it. It is an internal Russian affair, and we hope that order can 
be restored with a minimum amount of bloodshed and violence. And that's 
what we have counseled and encouraged.

Cuba

    Q. [Inaudible]--Cuban-American. You have said in the past that you 
feel our pain. Do the other 33 heads of state feel that pain? And if so, 
why wasn't it mentioned here today? Why does it seem to be so difficult 
to present a united front against the last remaining tyranny in this 
hemisphere?
    The President. In our private meetings yesterday, a substantial 
number of the heads of state spoke up on behalf of democracy in Cuba and 
the need for changes, political changes there. And as you know, 
President Menem and one or two others did publicly when they were here, 
as well.
    I think the differences, frankly, are over what the best way to 
achieve that objective is. Most of these countries don't agree with the 
United States policy--not because they don't agree with our objective; I 
didn't find much sympathy with the political structure in Cuba among 
these leaders. There was a great deal of feeling that it is urgent to 
restore democracy to Cuba, and it was very widespread. The differences 
were over whether or not the approach we have taken is the correct one. 
And I think because they couldn't agree on what to do about it, they 
decided not to say what they feel about it. But I don't think you should 
underestimate the

[[Page 2179]]

depth of feeling throughout Latin America that every country should be 
free.

Russia

    Q. In the past couple of weeks, Russia has taken a number of actions 
that raise questions about its reliability as a strategic partner, 
specifically the failure to sign on to the Partnership For Peace, the 
U.N. veto on Bosnia, and then blocking a statement on Bosnia at the CSCE 
summit. Do these things cause you to question or have second thoughts 
about your policy of trying to work for a close relationship with 
Moscow?
    The President. No. And I'd like to say why. They don't, because 
Russia is still a democracy. Russia is still pursuing economic reform, 
which is critical to the kind of political stability that will lead to 
responsible partnership. Russia followed through in its efforts on the 
Non-Proliferation Treaty, and we now can see START I entering into 
force. There are no Russian missiles pointed at the United States for 
the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age. And maybe more to the 
point here, Russia also kept its commitment to withdraw its troops from 
the Baltic States that, as you know, I worked very hard on with 
President Yeltsin.
    When we first met, President Yeltsin and I did, back in the spring 
of 1993, I said then, and I will reiterate now, there will always be 
some areas of difference between us; there will be some times of greater 
or lesser difficulty. But I think that our continuing engagement with 
the Russians, our involvement with them, our working with them is quite 
important. We have some differences about Bosnia, as you know. But we 
have some differences with our close allies in Western Europe over 
Bosnia, as well.
    I was disappointed, frankly, that the agreement about Russia's 
relationship with NATO and the Partnership For Peace was not signed, 
because Russia has participated in the Partnership For Peace. We have 
done military exercises in Russia as well as in Poland, and we had done 
our best to prepare the groundwork in cooperation. So I am disappointed 
about that. And obviously, I felt that the exchange of statements that 
we had in Budapest reflected some modification of what the United States 
thought the Russian position was.
    But these things are to be expected in the relationships of great 
nations that have a lot of irons in the fire. And we'll have to--I'll 
watch them; I'll work on them; I'll do whatever is necessary to protect 
our interests. But I think, on balance, our policy has been the right 
one, and I think there have been far more pluses than minuses to it. 
Consider what the alternative might have produced. I don't think it 
would have produced nearly as much as has been produced in the last 2 
years.

Cuba

    Q. [Inaudible]--in order to bring democracy to Haiti. Will you be 
doing the same on Cuba?
    The President. But what we did--we had a lot of support from other 
countries. And we have a lot of support from other countries to bring 
democracy to Cuba, but no agreement on what the policy should be. Our 
policy toward Cuba is embodied in the Cuba Democracy Act, which calls 
for an embargo and then permits calibrated steps toward normalizing 
economic and other activities in response to things which might happen 
in Cuba.
    Most other countries believe that time is on our side, that if you 
look at what has happened in Russia and the former Soviet Union and 
Eastern Europe, that a more aggressive engagement would produce 
democracy more quickly. So that is the difficulty. We have a policy 
difference. You could see it in the recent U.N. vote.
    I think what we need to do--and that goes back to the question that 
the lady in front of you asked--what we need to do is to try to persuade 
our friends, to say, ``Look, even if you disagree with the specifics of 
American policy, you ought to keep speaking out publicly about this 
because you will change the environment.'' And changing the environment 
is an important thing. I think President Menem made an important 
contribution to that when he was here.

Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders

    Q. Your Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders, was forced to resign this 
past week over remarks she had made last weekend at an AIDS conference 
in which she appeared to be suggesting alternatives to dangerous forms 
of out-of-wedlock sex. She apparently was forced to resign because you 
didn't agree with those comments. I was wondering, what exactly is it 
that you didn't agree with, or what do you think was wrong about the way 
she made the statement? And how do you answer those critics who say that 
her firing was essentially bowing to pressures from Republicans who just 
last week,

[[Page 2180]]

Newt Gingrich, for example, asked for her resignation?
    The President. Well, first of all, if I wanted to do it for 
political reasons, it would have been done before the election, not 
afterward.
    Secondly, I think you ought to go back and read my statement. My 
statement makes it clear that I held her in the highest esteem. She is a 
person of great energy and conviction, and she's devoted her life to 
child health and reducing teen pregnancy and fighting AIDS. But there 
have been a number of things where we just have different positions, and 
I think that at some point the President is entitled to have people in 
certain positions who agree with him and who don't depart from the 
policy positions and the personal convictions that a President has. I 
think that that is a legitimate thing. It's not political; it's what is 
necessary for a government to have coherence and integrity and 
direction.
    But I still admire her; I still like her. But we just have a whole 
series of differences which I thought made this an appropriate decision.

Argentina

    Q. Did Argentina ask the United States to mediate between England 
and Argentina for the Malvinas Islands? And if that happened, what would 
be the U.S. position?
    The President. Well, I'm in enough trouble already without answering 
that. [Laughter] No, let me answer. No one--President Menem has never 
asked me to do that, and I have found it quite useful in life not to 
answer hypothetical questions.
    Q. A summit question?
    The President. A summit question, one summit question? Sure.

Cooperation of Summit Participants

    Q. Your aides are speaking now of--discussing your influence, your 
leadership in the summit, and it appears that the American positions did 
prevail across the board. I wonder, given the new partnership in this 
hemisphere, what you can tell us other countries brought to this summit 
and why we were not swayed in issues like Cuba and others?
    The President. Well, first, there was a difference of opinion among 
them over Cuba, too, so it wasn't as if it was 34 to 1. The question of 
whether our embargo is the right policy was one of only many questions 
there. We had some good discussions about Cuba individually and in our 
smaller groups.
    But let me also say that when we say the American positions 
essentially prevailed in critical areas, like in the free trade area, I 
think it's important to note that Mr. McLarty and Mr. Altman and a lot 
of others did an enormous amount of background work. I don't know how 
many times Mack McLarty went to various countries involved in this, and 
our trade people, Mickey Kantor and others. There was a lot of 
background work done to try to get a feel for what these other 
countries' concerns were, what their legitimate concerns were, so that 
there was really a shaping of the ultimate position coming up to the 
summit which reflected many of their concerns.
    And I think you could hear some of their concerns, for example, in 
the statement of the representative of the Caribbean today. You know, if 
you listen to what he said, they have some very fixed views there, and 
they wanted to know that we were going to try to push for legislation in 
the Congress to make sure they wouldn't be disadvantaged by NAFTA. We 
said we would. That's an important thing they got out of the summit. 
Although I intended to do that all along, the fact that they made that 
case here at the summit, were able to do it when there was a very strong 
bipartisan delegation of Congress here, I thought was quite important.
    To give you another example, a lot of the countries in South America 
are willing to, I think, work very hard to try to stamp out drug 
trafficking. But they wanted to know that we were willing to renew our 
efforts to reduce consumption in America, to reduce the demand for drugs 
in America, and to help them to consider alternative ways to move the 
farmers away from coca production. And a lot of that is implicit in the 
summit. They liked that. They wanted to know that it wasn't just the 
American position that they had to do more but that we would listen, 
that we would be willing to do more. And those are just two examples.
    So there were many areas when--I mean, I appreciate the fact that 
people who work for me want me to--want to give us credit for things; 
that's their job. But you have to give these people an enormous amount 
of credit, these other leaders, because they gave huge amounts of time 
to this process before we ever showed up here. And they would say things

[[Page 2181]]

like, ``Okay, this is what you want to do in this area, and we will go 
along with that, but this is our concern.'' So we would work along to 
get their concerns worked out.
    So I think that if the United States deserves any credit here, it is 
in the process by which we found common ground, by moving into the 
future in ways that took account of the legitimate concerns of all these 
other countries.
    And if I could just give you one example in closing--I haven't seen 
it much noted in the last couple of days, but this summit represented a 
remarkable partnership between the United States and Brazil, two 
countries that have in the past been at odds over trade and other issues 
and at least have not had the kind of closeness of relationship that the 
two largest countries in this hemisphere ought to have had. And I am 
especially grateful to President Franco and to the Brazilians generally 
for the work they did to help us keep this together.
    So I would give a lot of credit to the other guys. I think they 
deserve it, and I hope they get it.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President's 83d news conference began at 1:15 p.m. at the 
James L. Knight Center. In his remarks, he referred to President Carlos 
Menem of Argentina; Summit of the Americas Coordinator Thomas F. (Mack) 
McLarty; Summit of the Americas Deputy Coordinator Roger Altman; Prime 
Minister Owen Arthur of Barbados; and President Itamar Franco of Brazil.