    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1995, Book I)]
    [March 3, 1995]
    [Pages 291-301]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    March 3, 1995

        The President. Good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen, now that the
    vote on the balanced budget amendment has passed, it is time for
    Congress to go forward to write a disciplined budget that brings the
    deficit down, cuts unnecessary Government spending, and continues to
    invest in our future.
        Two years ago, 27 days after I became President, I presented such a
    budget to the Congress. It has succeeded in reducing our deficit by over
    $600 billion, while still increasing our investment in our children, in
    education, and in our economic growth.
        As of today it has been 58 days since the new Republican majority
    took office. Congress has a deadline for passing a budget resolution of
    April the 15th. The American people now are entitled to see this work go
    forward. When the Congress proposes their budget and passes their
    resolution, of course, I will work with them. As I have said repeatedly,
    we can get more deficit reduction in responsible health care reform, but
    I learned last year that that is clearly something we must do working
    together with both parties.
        The debate that is going on in Washington today is about more,
    obviously, than simply the deficit and the budget. It is also about the
    role of Government. And you can see it running through every issue, from
    the laws being debated now in the Congress to the question of the
    rescission legislation before the Congress. The old Washington view, I
    think it's fair to say, is that the Federal Government could provide
    solutions to America's problems. The Republican contract view reflects
    in many cases an outright hostility to governmental action, although in
    some cases a curious willingness to increase the Federal Government's
    control over our daily lives.
        My view, what has loosely been called the new Democratic view or the
    New Covenant view, is to be skeptical of Government but to recognize
    that it has a role in our lives and a partnership role to play.
        We have made the Government smaller. We have given more power to
    States and localities and to private citizens. Our proposals would
    further accelerate those trends. We have, as you learned here in this
    room just a few days ago, been working for months on a serious effort to
    reduce the burden of unnecessary regulation.
        But we believe Government has important work to do, to expand
    opportunity, to give people the tools they need to make the most of
    their own lives, to enhance our security. That's why we support adding
    100,000 police. That's why we support more affordable college loans.
    That's why we supported the family leave bill. That's why I support the
    minimum wage legislation now before Congress and why I do not want to
    reduce our investment in education in our future.
        The Republicans now have proposed to cut education, nutritional help
    for mothers and schoolchildren, antidrug efforts in our schools, and
    other things which to me appear to target children in order to pay for
    tax cuts for upper income Americans. I do not believe that that is
    consistent with our interests as we build America into the 21st century
    and we move into this new global economy.
        So my job, it seems to me, is to continue to push my view, what I
    believe is the essence of the New Covenant: more opportunity, more
    responsibility; reform welfare but don't punish people, require work.
    This is the sort of thing we need more of. And I look forward to this
    debate. I think it's healthy. I think it's good for the American people.
        And I would like to begin now by answering your questions. Helen
    [Helen Thomas, United Press International].

    Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell

        Q. Mr. President, did you try to talk Senator Campbell out of
    jumping ship? What does it portend for the Democratic Party, and what
    does it mean in terms of your leadership?
        The President. Well, I talked to him this morning because he called
    the White House and said he wanted to talk to me. And so I called him.
    And we had a good conversation, and he pointed out that he had voted
    with me over 80 percent of the time in the last 2 years, that he
    essentially supported our economic policies, our education policies, and
    our social policies, and that he would not change that. It was obvious
    to me that there were some Colorado-

    [[Page 292]]

    specific factors at work. I wish he hadn't done it. I think it was a
    mistake. But I hope he will continue to vote in the way he has in the
    past.
        Q. Do you think there will be more defectors?
        The President. No. I have no reason to believe it. He'd been talking
    about this for some time, we had heard, because of--apparently because
    of some things that happened out there that I'm not fully familiar with.
    I wish he hadn't done it, but it's done. All I can do now is hope that
    he'll keep voting the way he has the last 2 years. If he does, it will
    make a contribution to moving the country forward.

    Russia

        Q. Mr. President, there are growing strains in relations with Russia
    over the crackdown in Chechnya and the planned sale of nuclear
    technology to Iran. Does U.S. aid to Moscow give us any leverage on
    these problems? Is it time to consider an alternative to Boris Yeltsin,
    as Bob Dole says, that you've got too much invested in? And have you
    finally decided on the timing of a summit with Mr. Yeltsin?
        The President. The answer to the last question is, no, we have not
    determined the exact date. As you know, we committed to meet with each
    other on a rotating and regular basis, so I have to sustain that
    commitment in the first part of this year. He asked me to come at the
    time they are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the end of World War
    II. There are some scheduling complications here. We're working through
    it. It shouldn't be long before you have an answer.
        Let me respond to the second set of questions. First of all, I don't
    think it's fair to say the United States or that our administration has
    a Yeltsin-centered policy, or that it is time for the United States to
    determine to deal with someone else. What we want is a democratic Russia
    which continues to support reform within the country and respects the
    borders of its neighbors. That is what we want. We want a Russia that
    helps us to reduce further the nuclear threat in the world. Those are
    our fundamental interests.
        Boris Yeltsin has been elected the President of a country that has a
    Constitution and a democratic system. He has a term of office. He is
    fulfilling that term of office. I think it would be curious, indeed, if
    the United States were to say that we have a separate set of rules for
    these new democracies: When things don't go the way we want or they
    follow some policy we don't like, well, then, we decide that we should
    invest ourselves in some other person.
        We should support the elected representatives of the people, who are
    duly produced by constitutional judgments in a democracy. That's what I
    believe, and that's what I'm doing. When we differ with Russia, we say
    so. When they differ with us, they say so. But on the whole, let's not
    forget that a remarkable amount of progress has been made in that
    country and a remarkable amount of progress has been made in our
    relationship. They have no troops in Eastern Europe. They have no troops
    in the Baltics. They have helped us to implement START I. We are working
    on ratification of START II. We are working across a whole range of
    issues.
        Do we have differences with them? Of course we do. But on balance,
    this relationship is one that is in the interest of the United States to
    continue to support.
        Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News].

    Social Security

        Q. You indicated yesterday agreement with the Democratic Senators
    who balked on the balanced budget amendment because of their objections
    to the current and continuing practice of borrowing surplus Social
    Security funds to offset the deficit. In light of your attitude on that,
    sir, I wonder if you're prepared to take a lead on that issue by
    proposing that that practice be stopped and by revising, if necessary,
    your budget and your budget projections to take account of the change.
        The President. Well, wait a minute, there are two issues in which
    that works. There are two ways in which the Social Security thing works.
    The first is that we clearly have been using payroll taxes for 12 years
    now, long before I ever came here, to minimize the size of the deficit
    exclusive of the payroll tax, so that from 1983 forward, previous
    Democratic Congresses and Republican Presidents made judgments that it
    was better and politically more palatable to tax payroll than income,
    even though it's a burden on working people and small businesses.
        The other issue, however, Brit, to be fair, was that were we going
    to cut Social Security benefits to reduce the deficit and count that
    against deficit reduction. And that's what I have been emphasizing. That
    is, if Social Security is producing a surplus today as it is and if it's

    [[Page 293]]

    going to have to be reformed on its own terms for the 21st century when
    all the baby boomers retire, then I did not believe it was right for us
    to effect cuts in Social Security simply to reduce the deficit. I do not
    think that is right. I think that is wrong. So that was my position.
        I have presented my budget. I stand behind my budget. I see that
    there are some specific cuts the Republicans have suggested that I also
    would think about, I see in their rescission package. But I am going to
    wait now until they do their constitutional duty, which is to present a
    budget, which is something that has not happened. Then I will work with
    them.
        The key on this is not to reduce Social Security benefits. The key
    is to reduce health care costs.
        John [John Palmer, NBC News]. Welcome back.

    Affirmative Action

        Q. Thank you, sir. I'd like to ask you a question, if I might, about
    affirmative action. I know your administration is now reviewing all of
    those affirmative action regulations, but there's some concern that this
    might be the prelude to a backing off of those policies. In fact, Jesse
    Jackson earlier this week expressed the opinion that maybe if you did,
    he might even run against you. But my question, really, on that issue
    is, what about the many Americans who really feel they have been
    punished by affirmative action? And I'd like to get your comments on
    that.
        The President. Let me tell you about the review I've ordered and
    comment on the affirmative action thing. First of all, our
    administration is against quotas and guaranteed results, and I have been
    throughout my public career. I have always been for trying to help
    people develop their capacities so they could fully participate. And I
    have supported things--when I was a Governor, I supported, for example,
    minority scholarship programs--in my public life, I have done that.
        I want to make a couple of comments here. First, I have asked for a
    review of all the Federal Government's so-called affirmative action
    programs because I think it's important that we analyze, number one,
    what they do and what--a lot of times people mean different things when
    they use affirmative action. For example, I take it there is virtually
    no opposition to the affirmative action programs that are the most
    successful in our country, which are the ones adopted by the United
    States military, which have not resulted in people of inferior quality
    or ability getting preferential treatment but have resulted in an
    intense effort to develop the capacities of everybody who joins the
    military so they can fully participate and contribute as much as
    possible and has resulted in the most integrated institution in our
    society.
        So I want to know what these programs are, exactly. I want to know
    whether they are working. I want to know whether there is some other way
    we can reach any objective without giving a preference by race or gender
    in some of these programs. Those are the three questions we need to ask.
        And let me make a general observation. I asked myself when this
    debate started, what have we done since I've been President that has
    most helped minorities? And I think that--I would say that the things we
    have done that have most helped are things that have benefited all
    people who needed them: expanding the Head Start program; expanding the
    college loan program; expanding the earned-income tax credit, the
    working families tax credit which has given an average tax cut of $1,000
    to families with incomes under $25,000; the empowerment zones--and one
    of them, one of the empowerment zones went to an all-white area in
    Kentucky, but the disproportionate impact was on people who'd been left
    behind in our cities; and one thing that the rescission package would
    take away, the community development banks--which I think would be a
    terrible mistake--which is designed to empower people through the free
    enterprise system to make the most of their own lives.
        So I would say to you, where we can move ahead based on need we
    ought to move forward, and we shouldn't move backward. There's still a
    lot of people who aren't living up to their capacity in this country,
    and it's hurting the rest of us. And so, I want this analysis to finish.
    I will then make a decision in a prompt way, and I'll tell the American
    people what I think, and I will proceed to act in the context of the
    Government.
        Meanwhile, I urge all of you to read the history--in light of the
    other, the political comments you made--to read the history of how these
    affirmative action programs got started and who was on what side when
    they began. It's very interesting to go back through the last 25 years
    and see all the twists and turns.

    [[Page 294]]

        The American people want an end to discrimination. They want
    discrimination, where it exists, to be punished. They don't want people
    to have an unfair break that is unwarranted. We can work this out, and
    I'm determined to do it.
        Rita [Rita Braver, CBS News].

    Balanced Budget Amendment and 1996 Presidential Election

        Q. Mr. President, it seems like every day another Republican is
    jumping into the Presidential race. It also seems like every day we are
    reading about your election campaign and who is in and who is out. I
    wonder if you could tell us a little bit about the kind of organization
    that you're putting together.
        And I also wanted to ask you about a comment that Senator Dole made
    yesterday when he was asked about why he didn't meet the Democrats'
    demands to take Social Security out of the fight over the balanced
    budget amendment. He said, ``You have a President who has abdicated his
    responsibility. If you had a real President down there, we might think
    about it.'' What's your response to that in the context of his
    Presidential aspirations?
        The President. My response to that is that Senator Dole's been part
    of Washington for 30 years, and he hasn't always been in the minority.
    And when I got here, policies supported by his Presidents and deficits
    run up under Republican administrations--remember, they had this town 20
    of the last 26 years; they were making all these proposals--had given
    this country a $4 trillion debt, quadrupled--quadrupled--in the 12 years
    of Republican ascendancy.
        And since I've been President, we've got a lower deficit, a lower
    unemployment rate, a lower inflation rate, a higher growth rate. We have
    cut the size of the Federal Government, something they did not do, and
    still found a way to invest more in the education of our children. And I
    might add, we have expanded trade more than they did, supported
    democracy, and supported a reduction of the nuclear threat. So we've got
    a safer world and a stronger economy. Now, I think that's a pretty good
    record, and I'll be glad to put it up against all that kind of name-
    calling and all of the stuff they want to do.
        But you know, what I really want to say is, we've got to stop all
    this. It's March of 1995. I mean, I was a Governor, and I was at a
    severe disadvantage, and I didn't even announce for President until
    October of '91. I mean, we can't have everybody all torn up and upset
    about playing politics here for the next 6, 7 months. We've got a lot of
    work to do, and I think we should relax and do it.
        I will, in an appropriate way, organize and proceed with my own
    efforts, but I've already given you my speech. We've got more peace,
    more prosperity, and fewer problems than we had when I showed up. And
    meanwhile, I'd like to work with them to continue to make progress. We
    can do things together.
        And I think that that Social Security remark is--you know, they
    could have had the balanced budget amendment if they had done what the
    Democrats wanted on Social Security, and they chose the political issue
    instead. That was their judgment. They made their judgment, so they
    shouldn't blame someone else for a decision that they made. It was a
    decision they made, not me.
        Q. Are you putting together an organization, though, yourself now?
        The President. Well, I'm not actively involved as they are, but I
    will organize and proceed. As I told you, I intend to run for
    reelection. But I think--I can see right now, every day, everybody that
    wants to run for this job is going to be trying to make some remark or
    some move that runs everybody else halfway up the flagpole. And we've
    got enough politics in this town on a regular basis without injecting
    that into it. I wish--I want everybody to relax, take a deep breath, and
    go back to work. Let's try to do something for the American people for a
    year, and then we can have an election. We'll have plenty of time for
    the politics.
        Go ahead.

    Value of the Dollar

        Q. Mr. President, are you concerned that the value of the dollar is
    falling again? And would you like to see the Fed do more to boost it?
        The President. You know, one of the things I've learned since I've
    been here is that anything I say on this subject is wrong. [Laughter] So
    the Treasury Department is taking appropriate action today, and I don't
    think I should say anything else.
        Go ahead, Mara [Mara Liasson, National Public Radio].

    [[Page 295]]

    Affirmative Action

        Q. Just another question on affirmative action, Mr. President. When
    you announced your review you said, we have to stop defending things
    that are not defensible. Do you think that rules that mandate a certain
    percentage of Federal contracts be set aside for minority firms--are
    those still necessary, and isn't that guaranteeing results, the kind of
    thing you say you're now opposed to?
        The President. Well, I want to look at how they're implemented. For
    one thing, if you look at the rules and what they mean, it's difficult
    to draw a conclusion about whether they even do what they were supposed
    to do in the first place. But I want--I will make comments--I am almost
    done with this review, and I will make comments when I finish about what
    I think we should do. And then I will do whatever it is that I can do
    within my executive authority to go forward.
        I do not--I want to continue to fight discrimination where it
    exists. I want to continue to give people a chance to develop their
    capacities where they need help. I want us to emphasize need-based
    programs where we can because they work better and have a bigger impact
    and generate broader support. But let me finish what we're doing here,
    and then I will try to answer all the details.
        Q. Mr. President----
        The President. Yes, Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News].

    Teen Pregnancy

        Q. Sir, we hear a lot of talk these days about these teenage
    pregnant women, most of them are poor and black and that sort of thing.
    Well, that's peanuts, the cost of that program, compared to what we are
    spending on arms sales around the world, making wars, and then we have
    to go and clean up when the famines that come along afterwards. And
    we're buying untested weapons. Why don't we work on the billions of war
    and have a little peace?
        The President. Well, we should do that, but we should also work on
    reducing teen pregnancy.
        Go ahead.

    Mexico

        Q. Mr. President, Mexico is going through very difficult times. The
    Republicans are asking for more and more information from you on the
    Mexican crisis. How do you see the election situation right now? And do
    you think things are working there or----
        The President. Well, I think--first of all, it seems that President
    Zedillo is working very hard to try to develop a program, an economic
    program that will balance two interests: his desire to continue to be
    able to make Mexico attractive to investors outside the country, which
    is necessary for the long-term growth, and the need to keep Mexico
    strong enough and responsive enough to the domestic business interests
    and the working people of the country.
        This is a difficult period. I think everyone would admit who has
    worked on this that the problems turned out to be more difficult and of
    long--more duration, more thorny than had originally been thought back
    in December and January. But I believe that he's moving in the right
    direction. And Mexico plainly has moved toward more democracy, more
    openness, and more market economics. And I did what I did because I
    thought it was good for America's jobs and America's long-term interest.
    I still believe that. And I believe it's in our interest to support that
    movement toward democracy and openness throughout Latin America,
    beginning with Mexico.
        Deborah [Deborah Mathis, Gannett News Service].

    Affirmative Action

        Q. Mr. President, forgive me for pressing you on this, but if I'm
    not mistaken, you've always been in favor of affirmative action, and in
    fact, you have practiced it. Why now the hesitation?
        The President. I have always--that's right. I'm glad you asked. I
    have always practiced it. But let's look at how I practiced it. Look at
    my appointments to the Federal bench, ones for which, I might add, I've
    been regularly and roundly attacked for trying to achieve diversity here
    in this community. I read something in the paper about once a month,
    people jumping on me because I've appointed more women and more
    minorities to the Federal bench than my predecessors combined at this
    point in our terms--my last three predecessors combined. And oh, by the
    way, they sometimes say, his appointees also have the highest rating
    from the American Bar Association of the last three Presidents.
        I have practiced affirmative action here the way that I perceive the
    United States military

    [[Page 296]]

    has practiced it. I have made an extra effort to look for qualified
    candidates who could serve with distinction and make a contribution to
    this country and make the Federal bench reflective of the American
    population. I have not done it with any quota system in mind, and I have
    not guaranteed anybody a job. I have made an extra effort to do that.
        The military starts before that. They have made an extra effort to
    develop the capacities of people who come to them with great raw
    ability, but maybe a disadvantaged background. Is that wrong? I don't
    think it is. And I'm not backing off of that.
        The question is--here is the narrow question--the question is: If
    we're not for quotas in results, and we are for developing everybody's
    capacities, what do we do with all those rules and regulations and laws
    that really are in a gray area, that are really in a gray area where
    there is, let's say, a minority scholarship or a contracting set-aside
    that Mara asked about, that really is often got around because of the
    way they are written? I want to review those. I do not want to see us
    stop trying to develop the abilities of all Americans. I do not want to
    see us move away from trying to concentrate our resources in the areas
    of greatest need.
        But I would say again, I think most minorities have been helped most
    by the programs in this country that have been targeted toward broad-
    based needs. And ironically, if you go back to the beginning of this
    whole affirmative action debate, it started in the late sixties, and
    many civil rights leaders at the time argued against affirmative action
    programs because they thought we'd wind up in the debate we are now
    having 25 years later.
        I think we need to look at the programs, look at the facts, and ask
    the questions I just asked: How does this work? Is it fair? Is it
    necessary? Is there an alternative way to achieve the objective? But in
    terms of taking aggressive initiatives to develop the capacities of
    people, should we keep doing that? You bet we should. How should we do
    it in the law, that's the question.
        George [George Condon, Copley News Service].

    Illegal Immigration

        Q. Mr. President, in the past you have bragged on Operation
    Gatekeeper. Governor Pete Wilson last week said that was a failure, and
    the numbers from the INS seem to back that up. Are you rethinking in any
    way your approach to----
        The President. How can you say that? Because----
        Q. In the first 5 months.
        The President. Yes, but what happened was, we had big problems in
    immigration when the Mexican economy started to go down, as I told
    everyone. But we have a lot of evidence, too, from what has been done in
    El Paso and in other places that we are stopping more people.
        I think the key is--my answer is, we need even more border guards,
    we need to accelerate the deportation of people who have been found
    through the criminal justice system or otherwise who are illegal aliens,
    and we need to accelerate our ability to find people primarily in the
    workplace. And if we do that--that's part of the budget that I have
    submitted to the Congress. And if we do that, we will reduce the number
    of illegal immigrants, and we will accelerate rapidly the pace by which
    we are deporting those who have come here illegally.
        So my answer to Governor Wilson is, the problem got bigger during
    the last 5 months because of the problems in Mexico, but we have made a
    difference. That's my first answer. My second answer is, it's a lot more
    than was done before I got here by the previous administration and by
    the United States Senate when he was a part of it. So I want him,
    instead of criticizing me for doing more than they did, he ought to keep
    working with us so we can do even more. That's what my budget does; I
    hope the Congress will adopt it.
        Yes.

    Administration Ethics

        Q. Mr. President, you have an independent counsel investigating
    yourself and your wife. You have another independent counsel
    investigating your former Agriculture Secretary. The Justice Department
    is soon about to make decisions on whether independent counsels should
    investigate your Secretaries of Commerce, Housing, and Transportation.
        Two questions: One, if any of those three are going to be subject to
    an independent counsel investigation, would you like to see them resign
    to take care of that? And two, combining the independent counsels with
    those others, like Webster Hubbell and Roger Altman, who have resigned
    after some ethical problems, how can

    [[Page 297]]

    you explain what's happened to your administration after you came into
    office promising the most ethical administration in history?
        The President: Well, first of all, let's look at each one of them.
    The only people--Roger Altman resigned even though the finding was that
    he had violated no law and no rule of ethics. And he made a major
    contribution to this country. Let's just look at that.
        Secondly, all the other examples--Secretary Espy was the single
    person who resigned because the subject of his activity involved things
    he had done as Secretary of Agriculture, which, I might add, in the
    aggregate, amounted to a few thousand dollars, all of which he has
    reimbursed, in return for which he got a special counsel with 33 lawyers
    and a historian.
        All these other things--including mine--I would remind you, I am the
    first President in history ever to have a special counsel involving
    activities that have nothing to do with my work as President, nothing to
    do with the campaign for President, that all predated that, and that
    arose when there had not been a single, solitary serious assertion that
    I had done anything illegal. But I said, ``Fine, we'll look into it. If
    it makes people feel better and to have more confidence, I'll be glad to
    do it.''
        We live in a time now where the first thing people call for is a
    special counsel. I don't know if you saw Susan Estrich's article in USA
    Today yesterday, but I commend it to all of you to read. I mean, we
    really have to ask ourselves whether we are creating a climate here in
    which a lot of people will be reluctant to serve. I saw the U.S. News
    essay on Dr. Foster. I commend them for that. It was a--I was quite
    moved by it. Now that I say it, the rest of you will probably jump on
    them since I said it. [Laughter]
        But I'm just telling you, I think--no one has accused me of abusing
    my authority here as President. Everybody knows that I have tougher
    ethics rules than any previous President. For example, when we had the
    controversy where the Speaker misspoke about the drug usage in the White
    House and we found out that it was absolutely wrong, we found out that I
    have much, much tougher rules than the Congress does on random drug
    testing for employees, for example. So if you look at the rules and you
    look at the facts instead of the number of investigations, then there's
    no way to control that under that new law. All you've got to do is have
    a certain number of Members of Congress ask, and then it triggers this
    prospect.
        I want to just point out, again, if you look at the work that people
    have done in their public capacity since I have been President, you
    would be hard-pressed to cite examples that constitute abuse of
    authority.
        Secondly, I have continued to argue for lobbying reform and campaign
    finance reform, two things which I see are still apparently very low on
    the priority list of the new Congress. If you want to clean Washington
    up, what we ought to do is to reform the lobbying rules. That's the best
    thing we can do.

    START II

        Q. Earlier this week, the Central Intelligence Agency went up to the
    Hill and said that the prospects for the START II, the Strategic Arms
    Reduction Treaty, in the Russian Duma are getting dimmer every day.
    Number one, I'd like to know if you agree with that intelligence
    estimate. Number two, have you conferred with President Yeltsin about
    what could be done to salvage the treaty in Russia, or what President
    Yeltsin could do to salvage it, if, in fact, it fails on the initial
    vote?
        The President. Well, first of all, ever since we started dealing
    with the former Communist countries with elected Parliaments, both they
    and we have been hearing how our Congress or their Parliaments wouldn't
    take the next step, whatever the next step was. I remember all the
    people who said there was no way in the world we'd get the Ukrainian
    Rada to ratify the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And there have been all
    these sort of gloomy predictions about what this Congress would do. But
    in the end, the democracies normally wind up doing the right thing and
    moving forward on these issues.
        Therefore, do I believe that eventually the Duma will adopt START
    II? I do. And that's one of the reasons that I think it's important that
    we continue to engage with Russia and I continue to work with the
    Yeltsin administration and with President Yeltsin to try to get things
    like that done.
        But look, look at all the things that have happened here in the last
    2 years. It's not predictable what parliamentary bodies are going to do
    in these tumultuous times. But do I think we'll prevail on that? I do.
        Karen [Karen Ball, New York Daily News].

    [[Page 298]]

    Whitewater Investigation

        Q. Following on what you said about independent counsels, Newt
    Gingrich has called for Democrats attacking him on ethics to pay his
    legal bills and reimburse the Government if the charges prove
    groundless. You face $2 million in legal bills. Whitewater is probably
    going to cost taxpayers at least $5 million. Following on what Gingrich
    says, do you think Republicans should have to pay for this if Whitewater
    is groundless?
        The President. You know, I don't want to personalize it. I really
    tried to just cooperate and go along with this thing and not talk about
    it at all. I've told the American people I didn't do anything wrong, and
    I've told the truth. We'll just see what happens. But I don't want to
    personalize it.
        What I meant to say is that, looking forward, what I think we should
    ask ourselves is, is this really the way we should be running a
    democracy, the way this operates. But I don't want to--anything I say
    about my own situation I think is not helpful. I think that I should be
    treated--I don't want to be involved in it that way. I want to think
    about what's good for America after the Whitewater investigation is
    over. Let's look forward. Forget about me; let's let this thing unfold
    that involves me in an established way.
        Yes.

    Bosnia and Croatia

        Q. Mr. President, if we could come back to foreign policy. Are you
    prepared to send American troops to Croatia at the end of the month to
    help in the withdrawal of U.N. peacekeepers if President Tudjman sticks
    to his deadline? And can you foresee beyond that any circumstances in
    which you would keep those troops there or expand the number of American
    ground troops in the region to help avert the wider war that so many
    people fear?
        The President. Well, the United States has sent troops, as you know,
    to Macedonia as part of the United Nations effort to try to limit the
    scope of the Bosnian War. And we have committed to help get the U.N.
    peacekeepers out of Bosnia if the UNPROFOR mission in Bosnia collapses.
    We have done everything we could do to persuade President Tudjman not to
    suspend the U.N. mission in Croatia because we fear that it will lead to
    a wider war there. We feel a strong responsibility to our U.N. and many
    of them our NATO allies as well, to try to help them, and we are trying
    to work through whatever plans would be appropriate to give that sort of
    assistance. But I do not foresee--I have worked very hard to avoid the
    long-term commitment of American ground troops in that region, and I
    will continue to do that.
        I think that this is something that has to be handled through the
    United Nations. I have offered NATO support, and I have been willing to
    work with our allies who were willing to put their troops on the ground
    there because they thought it was an area in which Europe ought to take
    the lead. And that's generally the system I think we should continue to
    observe.
        Yes.

    Health Care Reform

        Q. Mr. President, you mentioned health care reform yesterday and
    again today as one way you could achieve deficit reduction. I wonder if
    we're going to see any concrete proposals from you in this legislative
    session on health care reform.
        The President. Yes, I think you will see concrete proposals in this
    legislative session.
        Q. From you?
        The President. From me, yes. But I want to do it, insofar as I can,
    with the Congress. As I said in the State of the Union Address, I think
    last time I bit off more than I could chew. They saw that, and then they
    decided to back away from their proposals and just take the political
    position they would kill anything we propose. And I think I made a
    mistake, but I think they did, too. And what I hope we ought to do now--
    what I think we ought to do now, is to figure out a way to help
    Americans get more affordable health care and to solve this problem. And
    if we do it in the right way, we will continue to substantially lower
    the costs of Medicare and Medicaid in the out-years.
        Let me say something that almost nobody has noticed in this budget I
    presented, and that is that this budget reflects $94 billion less in
    health care costs over the next 5 years than last year's budget. Why?
    Because of the increasing use of managed care in the Medicare program,
    because more seniors are voluntarily going into managed care programs in
    Medicaid, and because of the general efforts in both the private and in
    the public sector to bring down health care costs. Now, the reason it
    hasn't reduced

    [[Page 299]]

    the deficit $94 billion is that interest rate increases have added to
    the cost of carrying the debt.
        But we are lowering the cost of health care from what it was when I
    took office. And we can do that some more in a responsible, fair way.
    But we've got to do that together. I mean, we just--you know the
    Congress is a Republican majority Congress; I can't pass a health care
    bill unless they want to work with me on it.
        Q. Are you saying you'll only do it with them then? I mean, are you
    inviting them to work on----
        The President. No, what I'm saying is, I've been talking to Senators
    and Congressmen, House Members, in both parties for some weeks, and I'm
    very flexible about when to put what out and all that, but the point is,
    unless we have some agreement about how we're going to proceed, we won't
    pass a bill. If we do pass a bill, we can both help to make progress on
    health care for the American people, which is a thing they really want,
    and we can lower our future costs in health care.

    First Lady's Travel

        Q. Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton is about to visit a number of foreign
    countries, and I wonder, is there a diplomatic element to this at your
    behest, or what is the purpose of her visits, particularly to the South
    Asian nations?
        The President. Well, she has been invited to go there, number one.
    And number two, I believe that the United States has given insufficient
    attention for some years now to South Asia; India has the biggest middle
    class in the world, for example. And there are two reasons for this. One
    is our historic ties to India were strained during the cold war because
    of what the geopolitics of that area did to their foreign policy. And
    secondly, there are these thorny problems between India and Pakistan
    which we have sought to help resolve through several administrations and
    without success. And it's not something that I can do right now. But we
    had a number of Cabinet members going there. She was invited, and I
    thought she ought to go. I encouraged her to go.
        The trip to Copenhagen, she was invited to speak to the
    nongovernmental organizations about issues being dealt with at
    Copenhagen that she's been involved with for 25 years, and I was very
    glad she did that.
        Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, Cable News Network].

    Foreign Policy

        Q. Mr. President, a two-part question on international issues. When
    you attack the new isolationists, specifically, who do you have in mind,
    by name? [Laughter]. And the second part of the question, as you know,
    the French Government has accused five CIA agents listed as diplomats in
    France of activities incompatible with their diplomatic status, which is
    a euphemism for espionage. Are they telling the truth? What does this
    mean?
        The President. Let me take the second question first. I believe that
    we have resolved this matter with France, and as a practical matter, I
    have followed the policy of every President not to publicly discuss
    intelligence-related questions.
        Secondly, I just got through saying, I think we're getting into too
    much name-calling in Washington, and I don't want to exacerbate that. I
    made it very clear what I said in my speech at the Nixon Center the
    other night. There are understandable tendencies all across the world--
    the gentleman just asked me the question about the Russian Duma--there
    are understandable tendencies all across the world to look inward in
    these democracies and in all countries where popular pressure is saying,
    ``Let's shut the world out. This is a complicated world. We don't have
    control over all this. We've got enough problems here at home. We've got
    to walk away from them.'' And they are working on people, everywhere in
    the world. They are working on people here in the United States.
        I do not want us to become either economically or politically
    isolated. That's what I mean by isolationist. Therefore, as you know, I
    believe that since we have no intention of just closing our borders--
    we're getting all the downside of global trade in terms of having people
    in vulnerable jobs being dislocated. Expanding trade gives us the
    upside, gives us the chance to win, to promote democracy and stability
    abroad and to get more high-wage jobs here. I think it would be a bad
    mistake for us to restrict the power of me--this President or any future
    President in peacekeeping, in all those areas.
        So you know who's on what side on all these issues, and you know how
    I feel about it. And I don't think that us getting into name-calling
    will further that.
        Peter [Peter Maer, Westwood One] and then Anne [Anne Compton, ABC
    News].

    [[Page 300]]

    Russia

        Q. Mr. President, returning to the issue of Russia, given the
    continued fighting in Chechnya and the apparent stall in Russian
    reforms, can you give us some measure of your confidence level in Boris
    Yeltsin or your lack of confidence? And how do you read his failure to
    conclude this situation in Chechnya?
        The President. I think it's obviously a very difficult problem for
    him. And I think that--I hesitate to comment on it in great detail
    because I'm not sure I know everything there is to know about it. We and
    every other country in the world outside Russia and all of his allies--I
    know Chancellor Kohl and many others in Europe have said, ``You ought to
    slow down the fighting. You ought to bring an end to the violence. You
    ought to bring the OSCE in there to be observers, to make sure there are
    no human rights violations, and this thing ought to be negotiated.''
        And so, the ambivalence between the military solution and the
    political solution and the fact that you obviously have 1.2 million or
    however many there are of very determined people in Chechnya with a
    decades-long history of resentment against the central government makes
    this thing just sort of hanging there. It's like a thorn in their flesh.
        Now, I believe that he has made the major policy decisions there. I
    think he is in control of the policy there. And I have dealt directly
    with him in urging a change and a moderation of policy there, and I will
    continue to do that. My confidence level in him is strong. If you ask me
    do I think he is still the effective President of Russia, and is he
    making those decisions, yes, that's what I believe is the case.
        I'll take one more. Anne, and then I'll go.

    1996 Presidential Election

        Q. Back on politics, you say it's too early for you to become
    consumed by reelection talk. It might not be too early for someone
    within the Democratic Party who might choose to challenge you. Do you
    expect a challenge from within your own party, and do you think that
    would be destructive for Democrats?
        The President. I don't expect it. I don't not expect it. I don't
    know what will happen. I hope there won't be one. I think it would be a
    mistake for the Democratic Party. And again I would say, what would the
    issue be? What would the issue be? The unemployment rate is lower. The
    inflation rate is lower. The growth rate is higher. The world is more
    peaceful. We have a slew of problems out there. We can stay here for 3
    or 4 hours and talk about it. There are a bunch of problems out there.
    The country is in better shape than it was 2 years ago.
        I get tickled--I laugh every time I see one of the Republican--when
    the Republicans have a big fundraiser and they give them a bunch of
    money because a lot of them are angry that we raised income taxes on the
    top 1.2 percent of people to bring the deficit down. But I'll bet you
    almost everybody going to those fundraisers for those Republicans is
    doing better under our economic policies in the last 2 years than they
    were before.
        So my job is just to do the best job I can, reward work, support
    families and communities, offer opportunity, demand responsibility in
    these changes, and keep moving forward. That's what I'm going to do. And
    this is a difficult, tumultuous time, but this country is doing better.
    And I am determined to keep fighting for the interests and the values of
    middle class people. And I'm going to let the election take care of
    itself, as I believe it will.
        Thank you.

    Note: The President's 88th news conference began at 1 p.m. in Room 450
    of the Old Executive Office Building. In his remarks, he referred to
    civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, Surgeon General nominee Henry Foster,
    President Franjo Tudjman of Croatia, President Boris Yeltsin of Russia,
    and Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany.

    [[Page 301]]