    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1995, Book I)]
    [April 18, 1995]
    [Pages 541-549]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    April 18, 1995

        The President. Good evening. Ladies and gentlemen, before we begin
    the press conference, I want to express on behalf of Hillary and myself
    our profoundest condolences to the families and to the loved ones of the
    eight Americans who were killed in the crash of the Air Force plane in
    Alabama last night.
        Tonight I want to talk about welfare reform. But before I do, I'd
    like to take just a minute to put welfare reform into the context of
    what is going on now in the United States Congress. Before the Easter
    break, the House of Representatives produced a flurry of ideas and
    proposals. Some of them were good. Some need work. Some should be
    rejected. My job is to work with people of good faith in both parties,
    in both Houses, to do what is best for America.
        I was not elected to produce a pile of vetoes. And the Congress was
    not elected to produce a pile of political issues for the next election.
    My philosophy is that we have to go beyond this kind of politics-as-
    usual, the old debate about whether there should be more Government or
    less Government. I think we need a better and different Government that
    helps people who are helping themselves, one that offers opportunity but
    demands responsibility.
        I have some common goals with the new Republican majority in the
    Congress. They say they want to reduce the deficit and the size of
    Government. I support that. My administration has reduced the deficit by
    $600 billion and is reducing the size of Government by over 250,000
    people. In fact, if it were not for the interest we have to pay on the
    debt run up between 1981 and 1992, our Government's budget would be in
    balance today. Let me say that again, because I don't think the American
    people know that. If it were not for the interest we have to pay this
    year on the debt run up between 1981 and 1992, our Government's budget
    would be in balance today.
        The Republicans say that they want to be tough on crime. Our crime
    bill is tough on crime, and I want to work with them to build on that.
    The Republicans are supporting the line-item veto, and so am I. I worked
    hard to get a version of the line-item veto passed through the Senate,
    and I look forward to working with them, actually getting agreement in
    both Houses and having a line-item veto come into law.
        As we look ahead, the issue is, what are we going to do on the
    outstanding matters? I have commented at length on them before the news-

    [[Page 542]]

    paper editors, but let me say again, I want us to show responsibility
    and common sense and decency. Do we need to cut regulation, as they say?
    Of course, we do. But we don't need to undermine our commitment to the
    safety of our skies or the purity of our water and air or the sanctity
    of our long-term commitment to the environment. Do we need to be tough
    on crime? Of course, we do, but we don't need to repeal the commitment
    to 100,000 police officers or the assault weapons ban. Do we need to cut
    taxes? I believe we do, but not as much as the House bill provides. I
    think the tax cuts should be targeted to the middle class and to
    education so we raise incomes and growth for America over the long run.
        Now let's talk a little about welfare. That's an issue that the
    Republicans and I, and the congressional Democrats should be able to
    agree on. They say we should end welfare as we know it. That's a
    commitment I made in 1992 and again in 1993 and 1994. Welfare reform is
    surely an example where all the people ought to be able to get together
    in the Congress to have reform.
        We all know what we need. We need time limits for welfare
    recipients. We need strict work requirements. We need very tough child
    support enforcement. We need more flexibility for the States. That's
    what our administration has been working on for more than 2 years now.
    We already have freed 25 States from cumbersome Federal rules and
    regulations so they can pursue welfare reform on their own. Tonight
    we're cutting redtape for two more States, for Montana and Missouri, one
    State with a Republican Governor, one State with a Democratic Governor,
    both committed to require people on welfare to go to work within 2
    years. That's the same time limit I called for when I ran for President
    and that I called for last year.
        Most people are in agreement on this. The question is, what are we
    going to do about it in Washington. In 1994, I introduced the most
    sweeping welfare reform ever presented to Congress. In 1994, Senator
    Dole, Senator Gramm, Senator Brown, and Senator Packwood cosponsored a
    pretty good bill. In 1994, Speaker, then-Congressman, Gingrich and 162
    of the 175 House Republicans sponsored a bill that was an awful lot like
    mine. All of these bills were based on the same idea: The fundamental
    goal of welfare reform is to move people into the work force and to make
    them independent.
        But the bill that passed the House of Representatives, supported by
    the House Republicans, in my opinion, is too weak on work and too tough
    on children. It saves a lot of money in the short run but at great
    damage to our long run interests, promoting responsible parenting and
    working to promote independence.
        The only way to save money over the long run is to move people from
    welfare to work and to ensure that they have the skills to keep jobs and
    to stay independent. And it's wrong to cut children off just because
    their mothers are minor. After all, a child is a child, a baby is a
    baby. Whether they're white or black or brown, whether they're born in
    or out of wedlock, every child deserves a chance to make a good life.
        Surely we should not punish children for the mistakes of their
    parents. Instead, we ought to give them a chance to become independent,
    full participating citizens, not part of the welfare population.
        Let me say again, this does not have to be a partisan issue. I know
    that there are some here in Washington, for example, who want to fold
    this whole welfare reform issue into the broader budget debate. If you
    put it into the budget process, as those of you who live here know, it
    can be buried in a pile of other issues. And then there will be no need
    for a bipartisan consensus on welfare reform. But welfare reform is too
    important for that kind of Washington game. It should be open. It should
    be bipartisan. And we should get on with it right away.
        I want to challenge Congress to pass a bipartisan welfare reform
    bill and put it on my desk by July the 4th, so that we can celebrate
    Independence Day by giving Americans on welfare the chance, the
    opportunity, the responsibility, to move to independence.

    Surgeon General Nominee Henry Foster

        Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].
        Q. Mr. President, Senator Dole has threatened to block Dr. Foster's
    nomination as Surgeon General from reaching a vote or going to the
    Senate floor. I have a two-part question. Are you going to the mat to
    fight for it? Are you going to withdraw it? And do you think that
    abortion, which is still lawful in this country, will be a litmus test
    in Presidential politics?

    [[Page 543]]

        The President. Yes, I'm going to the mat for the nomination. Whether
    abortion is a litmus test in Presidential politics is up to the voters.
    Dr. Foster is a good man with a good record as a family doctor, as
    someone who has helped thousands of mothers to give birth to their
    children, and as an academic and as someone who has supported policies
    that are pro-family and pro-child. He is qualified. He should be
    confirmed. He should not be caught up in any kind of politics,
    Presidential or otherwise.
        Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

    Russia-Iran Nuclear Cooperation

        Q. Mr. President, two countries with which the United States has
    important relationships, Russia and China, want to sell nuclear
    technology to Iran over your objections. Can you explain why Russia, in
    particular, would want to give this technology to a neighboring country
    that intelligence agencies say is determined to acquire nuclear weapons?
    And do you think that when you go to Moscow that you will be able to
    persuade Mr. Yeltsin to cancel the sale?
        The President. Well, as you know, I cannot explain why Russia would
    do it since I don't believe that it's in their interest to do it. I
    don't think it's right, and I don't think it's in their interest. If you
    ask them, I think they would say that they had a prior contractual
    obligation to do it, and they believe that the level of nuclear
    technology in the powerplants is so low that it won't lead to the
    development of a nuclear weapon. I believe that's what they would say. I
    think that's what the Chinese would say. But I disagree with them, and
    we're continuing to work with them.
        The United States and our people have benefited greatly from this
    new engagement we've had with Russia and for our attempts to promote the
    nonproliferation agenda. There are nuclear weapons, large numbers of
    them now, being destroyed in Russia, weapons from Russia and the states
    of the former Soviet Union that had them before. And we are destroying
    weapons. For the first time, there are no Russian nuclear missiles
    pointed at the United States. So we are moving ahead in our
    nonproliferation agenda. I do not believe it's in their interest to do
    this. I understand what they say, but I disagree with them. And I hope
    I'll be able to prevail. I intend to continue to be quite aggressive on
    it.
        Yes, Rita [Rita Braver, CBS News].

    ``The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam''

        Q. Mr. President, you've been quoted as saying that you believe that
    Robert McNamara's new book, in which he essentially says that the U.S.
    had no underlying basis for the war in Vietnam, vindicates your own
    opposition to the war. I wonder if we could hear you talk about that and
    also if, in this time of reflection, you feel vindicated about your
    handling of your own draft status?
        The President. On the second matter, I've said all I have to say
    about it.
        On the first, I believed our policy was incorrect. I think the book
    supports that conclusion. But I do not believe that the book should be
    used as yet another opportunity to divide the United States over that.
    We should learn about what happened, resolve not to repeat our mistakes,
    honor the service of Americans, and go forward together. That's what we
    should be doing.

    Japan-U.S. Trade

        Q. The Japanese are threatening to pull out of auto talks unless
    U.S. negotiators stop threatening sanctions. Are you willing to do that?
    Are we at risk of a trade war?
        The President. Well, we should not be at risk of a trade war, but I
    would remind you that we have been very patient as a country for a very
    long time in this area. And our major trade deficit in the world, except
    for our oil imports, has been with Japan and, of course, now with China
    and other countries in Asia combined. But Japan is a country that is a
    wealthy country, almost as wealthy as we are when you compare purchasing
    power parity, where consumer prices within the country of Japan are
    much, much higher than they are in the United States and could be
    maintained at that high level only by a sophisticated system of direct
    and indirect protectionism, which is most manifest in this area. We have
    strong differences. We have worked hard to resolve our trade differences
    with Japan. We have made some significant progress in other areas. And
    I'm going to let Ambassador Kantor continue to pursue this one in the
    way that we have agreed upon. I think that he is proceeding in good
    faith.

    Political Division and Dialog

        Q. Mr. President, when a politician starts talking about the
    irrelevancy or inadequacy of terms such as liberal and conservative, and
    even adds,

    [[Page 544]]

    as you did in Dallas, Democrat and Republican, usually they're in
    trouble or see a bad patch coming down the road. Is that the case with
    you, or why did you bring the issue up again?
        The President. First of all, that's what I said when I ran for
    President, that's what I said when I was head of the Democratic
    Leadership Council, that's what I said when I was the Governor of my
    State, that we were going into a new era when a lot of the old divisions
    and old labels didn't mean the same thing. We have to redefine them. And
    I have sought to redefine them from the beginning of my campaign for
    President and indeed before. And I still find it very frustrating from
    time to time when I am not successful in redefining it, because I think
    the American people--to the American people, a lot of what they hear and
    see and read up here, is a real turn-off because it seems that these
    categories of debate are extreme on both sides and don't fit with their
    experience and their concerns for the future.
        Q. Do you think you failed in that regard?
        The President. No, I think that--I think that we're in a process in
    which a new political dialog and a new understanding is struggling to be
    born. I think that in the last election, if you say, you choose more
    government or less, less wins; you choose more taxes or less, less wins.
    But everybody instinctively knows that's not the real choice. The real
    choice is, does it makes sense to cut Head Start? Does it makes sense to
    cut immunizations for kids or college loans? No. Does it make sense to
    cut bureaucracy? Yes. So the real question is, how do we have a language
    that reflects what people know is the right thing for the country to do.
    And I'm doing my best to help the country develop the language and the
    debate.

    Family Values and Moral Virtue

        Q. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you a philosophical question
    tonight. A number of the Nation's social critics have been saying lately
    that America is what they call a morally bewildered society. And they
    cite as evidence the fact that much of the Nation's political discourse
    and its public debate centers on the subject of family values. These
    critics say that family values is really a fig leaf or a euphemism to
    cover up the Nation's moral relativism.
        I'd like to know if you think that the distinction between moral
    virtue--in the ancient Roman or old Victorian sense--the distinction
    between that and family values is a valid and legitimate one? And if you
    do, do you think that you and the other candidates in the '96
    Presidential contest should debate the Nation's social compact on the
    basis of instilling moral virtue rather than family values?
        The President. Well, I think family values require moral virtue. I
    mean, family values mean to me that people make common sacrifices to
    stay together, to work together, to put primacy on the family unit and
    the rearing of children and to put their children first. I think that
    that has been at the bedrock of our success as a country and as a
    bedrock of other successful civilizations. And I think when people cease
    to put the interest of their children and the future ahead of their
    interest of themselves in the short run, we get in trouble.
        I believe that if you look at the successes in this country, both
    the individual successes and the places where there are broad success,
    there are strong support for families, and families are generally
    successful. I also believe that America worries so much about moral
    relativism because we are the least relativistic of all the big
    countries. We are the most religious. We are the most likely to believe
    not only in God but in absolute rules of right and wrong here on Earth.
    And I think the fact that we worry about it shows that we have problems
    in our country which are inconsistent with our beliefs, and we know that
    we can't solve our problems purely by some common social action. We also
    require personal changes to solve those problems. I think that is a
    broadly held belief in the United States, and I certainly believe that.
    And my experience is consistent with that.
        Yes, Mara [Mara Liasson, National Public Radio].

    Affirmative Action

        Q. Mr. President, in California recently you urged Democrats who are
    grappling with the issue of affirmative action to be sensitive to the
    feelings of angry white males. And if you were addressing a group of so-
    called angry white males tonight, how would you convince them that
    Federal programs that have goals of giving a certain percentage of
    contracts or jobs to minorities are good and fair for everyone,
    including white males?
        The President. Well, first of all I don't want to prejudge the
    review of all the Federal programs that I'm going through. So I
    wouldn't--

    [[Page 545]]

    I don't want to answer that question. But I would say first of all to
    them--I will answer the question when I complete the review, which won't
    be long. But I don't want to do--I would say, though, the earnings of
    male workers, including white male workers, have been declining when
    measured against inflation, for years now. So people are working
    harder--these male workers are working harder for lower wages, unless
    they have good educations or are in a section of the economy that's
    growing very rapidly. I would say to them, your problem is the problem
    of what's happening to wages and rising inequality in the United States.
    And it was caused primarily by foreign competition, technology, the
    weakening of organized labor, the collapse of the minimum wage, and
    according to the study which was in the paper today, the tax and
    budgetary policies of the last 12 years before I became President which
    aggravated inequality.
        And what I am trying to do is, number one, give you equality again
    with better jobs, more jobs, a higher minimum wage, a tax cut for
    workers with modest incomes and children in the home, about $1,000 a
    year for incomes under $25,000 this year; and that on affirmative
    action, your principle should be, we're all better off if everybody's
    got an even chance, if there's no discrimination, if people have the
    opportunity to live up to the fullest of their ability, but the
    Government should never give someone who is unqualified anything over
    someone who is qualified.

    Robert G. Torricelli Investigation

        Q. Congressman Torricelli of New Jersey is embroiled in a
    controversy over the revelations he made about the CIA and its apparent
    involvement in murders in Guatemala. You have indicated your concerns
    about the CIA's conduct. I want to know what your thoughts are about
    Congressman Torricelli's conduct. Should he have revealed that
    information or not? And if he should not have, should he be disciplined?
        The President. Well, what should happen to him depends on, number
    one, what the facts are and, number two, what the House decides to do
    with it. And they have to do their investigation, and they have to make
    their determination.
        What I do believe is that the United States owes the American people
    a thorough investigation of the allegations of what went on. And it may
    take a little time because these are things which occurred by and large
    before I became President. But I've asked the Intelligence Oversight
    Board to look into it. I expect them to do a thorough and deep job, and
    I expect to have the truth, and I expect us to take the appropriate
    action. That is exactly what we will do. But it is not for me to judge
    Congressman Torricelli.
        Q. Are you concerned at all about the information coming out, as the
    person ultimately responsible as the guardian of American intelligence?
        The President. I am concerned about the information coming out, but
    in the end, I think that it is unlikely, given the facts of this case,
    that certain information would not have come out.
        Yes, Peter [Peter Maer, Westwood One Radio], and then Sarah [Sarah
    McClendon, McClendon News].

    Middle East Peace Process

        Q. Mr. President, outward appearances would indicate that one of
    your key foreign policy goals, a comprehensive Middle East peace, is
    deadlocked, especially on the Israeli-Syrian track. Is there a
    stalemate? And especially in light of the recent terrorist incidents and
    word today that Syria wants to get land to the Sea of Galilee?
        The President. Well, I won't comment on the details of the
    negotiations between them because that would only complicate matters. It
    is difficult. We knew it would be difficult. I do believe that both
    Prime Minister Rabin and President Asad want to make a comprehensive
    peace. I do believe that both of them understand they don't have
    unlimited time. I do believe that the United States still has the trust
    of both parties in working to help them reach an agreement. And as
    concerned as I am about it, I am more hopeful today than I was, let's
    say, 45 days ago. We just have to keep at it.
        Q. Sir, I want to ask you----
        Q. [Inaudible]--stalemate incorrect then?
        The President. I think the correct perception is that we're not on
    the edge of a breakthrough. But that does not mean that there is no
    ongoing work on this, and that does not mean that the parties have
    basically hardened their hearts and minds and decided that there will
    not be a resolution of this in the fairly near-term.

    [[Page 546]]

    Central Intelligence Agency

        Q. Sir, there's something funny going on out at the CIA. I wonder
    just how many times you have looked into it and had a really good,
    honest briefing on it. But today we have found out that they are taking
    their classified documents and sending them by mail to retired former
    CIA people. This gets them out of the records, out of the storehouse out
    there, and gets them into a private home where nobody could ever find
    them if they conducted a congressional investigation of CIA reports.
    Some of these are classified and some are not, but they have the names
    on them of the officers who worked on them, and they have mailed them
    back to the officers who worked on them. Why they are doing this I don't
    know, but it sounds like they are trying to keep us from getting a
    chance at the records.
        The President. Let me make two comments quickly on that. First of
    all, I have made it clear to the Intelligence Oversight Board that I
    want a thorough investigation of all these matters--and clear to the CIA
    leadership there, including the Acting Director, that I want the
    records, the relevant records, secured and accounted for.
        Secondly, I think this reinforces the need for the United States
    Senate to hold quick confirmation hearings and have a prompt vote on
    John Deutch to be the new Director. Let's get him out there so we can
    get on with the business of doing what we need to do.

    1996 Presidential Election

        Q. Sir, I know you've said that you'd like to put politics aside for
    a certain period, but last week you opened--you formally opened your
    campaign office for reelection in town here. And I was wondering if you
    might take a minute to say--to fill in the blank and say, ``I believe I
    should be reelected President in 1996 because--'' and take it from
    there.
        The President. I believe I should be reelected--[laughter]--because
    I have done what I said I would do, because we have got good results,
    and because the policies that I now advocate, most importantly, will
    address the outstanding problems of the country.
        If you look at this problem of inequality, if you look at the
    economic problems, what is the response? The response is to invest more
    in education, to raise the minimum wage, to expand trade in high wage
    products in the United States to generate more jobs.
        If you look at the problems of the social fabric that you asked
    about, what is the answer? The answer is to tell people the truth about
    things they have to do to make things better, to assume more
    responsibility, to do the right things but to have policies, from
    welfare reform to supporting children, to doing things to make adoptions
    easier and more preferable to other alternatives, which we're working on
    now, that build up families and build up communities.
        We are moving the country in the right direction. We are doing what
    we said we would do. We are getting results. This country is in a
    stronger position today than it was 2 years ago.

    Taxes

        Q. Mr. President, the idea of a flat tax is more and more popular
    with a lot of people. In your mind, what would be wrong with a flat tax?
    And more fundamentally, for lack of a more elegant term, what's wrong
    with blowing up the present tax structure as it is?
        The President. Well, I tell you what, after I just went over my tax
    returns last week, that has more appeal than it did a week ago.
    [Laughter] And I think a lot of Americans feel that way.
        On the flat tax. What we have to do is to put a pencil to a piece of
    paper and see how it works. All the studies I have seen say that all the
    proposals out there now will raise taxes for people with incomes under
    $200,000 and lower taxes for people with incomes over $200,000, like my
    wife and myself, which would be unfair, and that if they don't do that,
    they explode the deficit. So the question is, we can't explode the
    deficit, and we can't be unfair. Can we simplify the tax system without
    being unfair or increasing the deficit? And if we can do it, then I am
    open to it. But the studies are not promising on the proposals that are
    out there now.

    Value of the Dollar

        Q. Mr. President, both you and your Treasury Secretary have said
    repeatedly that a strong dollar is in America's interest. But some
    people don't believe you because they don't see you taking any specific
    steps to try to make that happen. Can you tell the American people why
    this would be in America's interest, particularly since a weak dollar
    encourages export sales, and

    [[Page 547]]

    since the inflation it might cause seems nowhere on the horizon? And if
    you do want a strong dollar, what can you do or what are you willing to
    do to achieve it?
        The President. In the present climate, the ability of governments to
    affect the strength of their currency or in the case of Japan, as you
    see, that would like a weaker yen, the ability of governments that have
    strong currencies to get a weaker one, in the short run, may be limited,
    as we have seen in countless examples over the last several years. So
    what you have to do is work over the long run.
        The United States does want a strong dollar. We believe in the
    importance of fundamentals in our economy. We believe in getting the
    deficit down, getting jobs up and pursuing a responsible course. I have
    done that for 2 years. I will continue to do that.
        Yes, Judy [Judy Keen, USA Today].
        Q. Can you tell us, sir--to follow up--what a strong dollar would do
    for the economy?
        The President. Well, the point is that a weak dollar, eventually,
    over a long period of time, will weaken the economy, either by bringing
    inflation into it or by upsetting the whole complex international fabric
    of business relationships that are carried on in dollars. So we do have
    an interest over the long run in a strong currency. But we have to look
    at it--but for Government--Government actions need to be directed toward
    long-term fundamentals, sound economic policies, sound growth policies,
    sound investment policies.
        Yes, Judy.

    President's Leadership Role

        Q. President Clinton, Republicans have dominated political debate in
    this country since they took over Congress in January. And even tonight,
    two of the major television networks declined to broadcast this event
    live. Do you worry about making sure that your voice is heard in the
    coming months?
        The President. No. I would remind you, I had at least one press
    conference during the previous 2 years when I had it at night, but only
    one of the networks covered it, as I remember. But the important thing
    is for me to do these press conferences on a regular basis, and every 3
    or 4 months, to do it at night so that anyone who wants to cover it can.
        The Constitution gives me relevance. The power of our ideas gives me
    relevance. The record we have built up over the last 2 years and the
    things we're trying to do to implement it give it relevance. The
    President is relevant here, especially an activist President. And the
    fact that I am willing to work with the Republicans. The question is,
    are they willing to work with me? I have shown good faith. That's how we
    got two of those bills in the contract that I supported in 1992 signed
    into law. That's how we got a strong showing among Senate Democrats for
    the line-item veto. I have shown good faith. The question is, what
    happens now?

    Surgeon General Nominee Foster

        Q. Mr. President, as a followup to Helen's question about the Foster
    nomination, it is now at the whim not only of Majority Leader Dole but
    three other Presidential candidates who are in the Senate, and then when
    the going gets tough, there are some Democrats who may very well run for
    cover. I'm wondering if you can tell us if Dr. Foster knows himself the
    difficult period that lies ahead if, as you say, you are going to the
    mat with this and whether--and the possible or probable outcome.
        The President. I think he knows that it will be difficult. I think
    that he has been warned repeatedly, not by me but by reading it in the
    press or seeing it, that Presidential politics seems to have found its
    way into his nomination. But you know, sometimes the American system
    works the way it's supposed to, and sometimes the right thing has been
    done.
        I will say again: He is a distinguished physician. He is a good man.
    He has a good record. He should be confirmed.

    ``Enola Gay'' Exhibit Controversy

        Q. Can you explain why you supported the veterans' effort to end the
    Smithsonian's exhibit of the Enola Gay, which was seen by many as an
    effort to educate the public on the pros and cons of the nuclear bomb?
    Is this subject taboo in the United States?
        The President. No, I don't think the subject is taboo. I don't think
    the subject is taboo. But my simple position is, as I said to the
    newspaper editors, that painful though it is, even after 50 years, that
    President Truman did the right thing. And I do not believe that on the
    celebration of the end of the war and the service and the sacrifice of
    our people, that that is the appropriate time to be asking about or
    launching a major reexamination of that issue. Anyone who

    [[Page 548]]

    wants to write a book about it, express a contrary opinion, is perfectly
    free to do so, but I don't think that the policy of my administration or
    the United States should be to say that's the way to celebrate the 50th
    anniversary of the end of World War II. I disagree with that. I don't
    think it's right.
        Yes, Jill [Jill Dougherty, CNN].

    Russia and NATO

        Q. Mr. President, in terms of your upcoming trip to Russia, in spite
    of what your administration has said numerous times to Russia about NATO
    expansion, the Russian--the Yeltsin government either does not
    understand or will not understand that that is not a threat to them. And
    in fact, some people in Russia are now talking about rearming in a
    nuclear fashion to allay some--any type of attack from the West.
        When you meet with Boris Yeltsin, what will you say to him to
    convince him that it is not a threat?
        The President. I will say what I have always said, that NATO is not
    an offensive alliance; it is a defensive alliance, a security alliance;
    that NATO has worked with Russia and Bosnia; that NATO has invited
    Russia to be a part of the Partnership For Peace and has not excluded
    anybody from potential NATO membership; that Russia, in terms of its
    security interest, has nothing to fear from a NATO which expands in a
    gradual, open, straightforward way and, at the same time, is deepening
    its relationship with Russia.
        Q. Why does Mr. Yeltsin not understand that? He's said it numerous
    times.
        The President. That is something you'll have to ask them. I
    understand they're--you know, they have the same sort of domestic
    political pressures that every country has and misunderstandings, but I
    think the United States has shown its good faith in our dealings with
    Russia.
        The United States did not move aggressively to help Russia overcome
    the burden of decades of Communist economics and other problems that
    were left when the cold war was over and the Soviet Union collapsed to
    turn around and make Russia an enemy. That is not why we did all that
    work to help rebuild their economy, to support their movement to
    democracy, to support their integration and their work with the G-7 and
    all these other countries. We have shown our good faith. But we cannot
    and we should not give any nation a veto over the expansion of NATO when
    it is otherwise appropriate to do so.

    International Financial Reform

        Q. Mr. President, concerning--to follow up on the question about the
    dollar, there is growing concern that there is instability within the
    international financial system as a whole. There are some proposals,
    like I know the Japanese Finance Minister put out a proposal regarding
    international financial reform, reform of the international system. How
    do you view this situation? And what would be your primary concerns in
    such a reform of the international financial system?
        The President. First, let me say that this is an issue which needs
    to be addressed, but it needs to be addressed in a very thoughtful way
    so as not to further aggravate whatever conditions exist there. It is
    obvious that the integration of the global financial markets have--that
    that has many advantages--that you can get money to places in a hurry,
    that places that have been underdeveloped can develop more quickly, that
    you can develop the sophisticated trading relationships more rapidly,
    and that this is all a positive.
        It is also obvious that as with almost every other element in the
    modern society that we live in, every force of integration carries
    within it the seeds of potential disintegration, of rapid unraveling. So
    last year that's why I asked the heads of the other G-7 countries, the
    other major economies, to devote a discussion this summer when we meet
    in Canada to this subject. We have been working on it; the Japanese have
    been working on it; the Canadians have been working on it; the Europeans
    have been working on it. And we will have a long talk about it this
    summer. We will do our very best to come up with sensible statements
    about where we go from here.
        George [George Condon, Copley News Service].

    Japan-U.S. Relations

        Q. Mr. President, to follow up on the answer you gave a moment ago,
    when you spoke last week about President Truman's decision to drop the
    atomic bomb, Americans overwhelmingly thought you were right not to
    apologize. The Japanese overwhelmingly thought you were insensitive.
    Were you surprised that 50 years after the event there is still that
    wide divergence of

    [[Page 549]]

    opinion? And do you see any chance of that gulf ever being bridged?
        The President. The way to bridge the gulf is to talk about the
    friendship that we have now, the respect and regard that we have now,
    the common interests that we have now. I did not say that to hurt
    anyone's feelings or to be insensitive to anyone in Japan. I know what a
    terrible, terrible loss of life there was, how many scarred families
    there were, how difficult it was. It was hard in World War II. Twenty
    million Russians lost their lives in World War II. No one can fail to be
    sensitive to the loss.
        Do I wish none of it had happened? Of course, I do. But that does
    not mean that President Truman, in the moment of decision, made the
    wrong decision or that the United States can now apologize for a
    decision that we did not believe then and I do not believe now was the
    wrong one. That has nothing to do with my feelings for the Japanese
    people, my profound sorrow at the suffering and the agony that they went
    through.
        But we have recovered from that. We have gone on from that. We have
    one of the world's most important bilateral relationships. The thing we
    need to do now is to join together and look to the future. We're up to
    our ears in challenges today. Let's get on with dealing with them in
    mutual respect and support. And that's the way to get this behind us.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 93d news conference began at 9:01 p.m. in the East
    Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Prime Minister
    Yitzhak Rabin of Israel and President Hafiz al-Asad of Syria.