    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1995, Book I)]
    [April 4, 1995]
    [Pages 448-455]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference With Prime Minister John Major of the
    United Kingdom
    April 4, 1995

        The President. Good afternoon. Please be seated. I am delighted to
    welcome Prime Minister Major back to the White House.
        Throughout this century, the United States and the United Kingdom
    have stood together on the great issues that have confronted our people.
    Our common cause has been at the heart of our success in two World Wars
    and, of course, in the cold war. In just the last 2 years British-
    American cooperation has played an essential role in allowing us to
    reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction, in promoting peace
    around the world, and certainly in expanding free trade.

    [[Page 449]]

        Today we have continued working in that tradition. We've had
    excellent discussions. We've covered a broad range of issues. We have,
    as always, found much to agree about.
        On security issues, we agreed that the inevitable process of NATO
    expansion must proceed smoothly, gradually, and openly, without any
    surprises. This is essential for extending stability, democracy, and
    prosperity throughout Europe. We believe that, in parallel with the
    enlargement of NATO, the alliance must develop and maintain close ties
    with Russia.
        We affirmed our shared commitment to a political settlement in
    Bosnia, based on the Contact Group plan. The conflict is being prolonged
    because of Bosnian-Serb intransigence. Renewed fighting will not end the
    conflict but only lead to more bloodshed and continued stalemate.
        The Prime Minister and I also vowed to continue working together to
    contain the Iraqi threat to stability in the Persian Gulf region. We are
    deeply concerned that Saddam Hussein could be regaining the ability to
    build weapons of mass destruction. We are determined that Iraq must meet
    all its United Nations obligations. This is no time to relax sanctions.
        The Iraqi people are suffering tremendously under Saddam's tyranny,
    and they do deserve the help of the international community. But easing
    up on a regime that oppresses people will not help them. So while there
    can be no compromise, the United States, the United Kingdom, and
    Argentina have put forward new proposals in the United Nations to get
    food and medicine to the people of Iraq. We hope other nations will join
    these efforts and support our Security Council resolution and pressure
    Saddam Hussein to stop the needless suffering of his innocent citizens.
        Prime Minister Major told me a great deal about his recent trip to
    the Middle East. We both strongly believe this is a hopeful moment for
    broadening the circle of peace. The United States and Europe must
    continue to fight the efforts to derail the peace process by those who
    prefer destruction to peace. It is clear that for peace to take root in
    the region, more economic assistance is vital. Peace and prosperity
    depend upon one another. I applaud the United Kingdom's investment
    program in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as its debt relief measures
    for Jordan. We must all continue to support those who take risks for
    peace.
        Nowhere is this more true than in Northern Ireland. I salute the
    Prime Minister for the tremendous efforts he is making to bring an
    enduring peace to Northern Ireland. Today, Northern Ireland is closer to
    a just and lasting settlement than at any time in a generation, thanks
    in large measure to the vision and courage of John Major. He and Prime
    Minister Bruton of Ireland together introduced the Joint Framework,
    which provides a landmark opportunity to move ahead toward a political
    settlement, one that will be backed by both of Northern Ireland's
    communities. We also agreed that the paramilitaries of both sides must
    get rid of their weapons for good so that violence never returns to
    Northern Ireland.
        And we must work to increase economic opportunity in that area.
    Their prospects have been blighted by bloodshed for too long. Next month
    our White House Conference on Trade and Investment in Ireland will help
    to expand the ties between the United States, Northern Ireland, and
    Ireland's border counties. Building those kinds of bonds will help to
    lead to a better life for all the people of the region.
        The Prime Minister and I discussed some other issues. We agreed on
    the need for an indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty at
    the review conference that begins this month. To further the cause of
    nonproliferation, the Prime Minister joins me in calling for full
    implementation of the framework agreement we negotiated with North Korea
    to end that country's nuclear program.
        And we discussed the need to adapt our international institutions to
    the challenges of the next century at the G-7 summit in Halifax. I was
    particularly impressed by the thinking that the Prime Minister has done
    on this profoundly important issue. The United States and the United
    Kingdom, after all, helped to shape those institutions. They have served
    our interests for the last half century. With the extraordinary
    relationship between our two countries as important as ever, I am
    confident we can make the changes necessary and work together to advance
    our shared values and our common interests, to promote peace and
    democracy and prosperity in the years ahead and, of course, in the
    century ahead.
        Finally let me say, we discussed the ceremonies that will mark the
    50th anniversary of the end of World War II. Because of my prior
    commitments, I've asked the Vice President to

    [[Page 450]]

    represent me and all Americans in London on May 8th at services that
    will commemorate the great wartime bravery and sacrifice of so many
    Britons. And I look forward to seeing Prime Minister Major when we go
    together to Moscow on May 9th to pay our respect to the heroism of the
    Russian people in that conflict.
        Mr. Prime Minister.
        Prime Minister Major. Mr. President, thank you very much.
        We've had the opportunity today for a good-humored, worthwhile,
    productive, and very far-reaching series of exchanges on a whole range
    of matters. The President has set out much of the agenda we discussed,
    and I won't reiterate what the President said, except to say that in his
    remarks he spoke not just for the United States but for the United
    Kingdom as well. I share the views he expressed, and I won't reiterate
    them.
        We spent some time looking forward at two separate matters which I
    think are of some importance to both our countries and of wider
    importance as well. The first of them the President just touched on, and
    that was the review of the Bretton Woods institutions and the United
    Nations that we agreed with the other G-7 heads of government at Naples
    last year that we should undertake and return to at Halifax later this
    year.
        We've given a great deal of discussion to that, and I think for a
    range of reasons the time is right to look at a fairly comprehensive
    reform of some of those institutions. And we exchanged some ideas today
    on precisely how we might do that and agreed that we would exchange
    further ideas before we came to the G-7 summit. I think there is scope
    to rationalize some of the international financial institutions.
        We wish to look particularly, in addition to that, at the United
    Nations where there are a number of overlapping functions. I am a very
    strong supporter of the United Nations, and I wish to see the United
    Nations a successful organization for the year 2000. It does seem that,
    looking at it, some of the areas of the U.N. could well do with
    updating, refreshing, to make sure that they are entirely applicable to
    the problems they will have to face in the late 1990's and beyond the
    turn of the century. And I hope very much that we will be able to get
    together with some more of our ideas and float those in greater detail
    when we get to the Halifax summit later on this year.
        We also spent some time looking at the commonality of interests that
    exists between the United Kingdom and the United States. There are a
    huge range of areas where there is common interest, and not just those
    that were discussed--the agreements that we have in terms of policy
    towards Russia, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East, Bosnia, and a range of
    other areas.
        But beyond that, I think there's a commonality of interest in the
    future security and prosperity of the Central and East European states,
    and also with two other matters: First, the further extension of free
    trade, to which I wish to return in just a second; and second, with
    looking together and combating together some of the problems of
    instability, extremism, and terrorism that we can begin to see in parts
    of North Africa, parts of the Levant, and parts of the Middle East. And
    we spent some time considering how we might address some of those
    problems in the future. It was necessarily a discussion that dealt with
    problems that may arise and dealt in some cases, frankly, with
    generalities. But it was an opportunity to look forward, rather than to
    just discuss the immediate topical problems that we face at the moment.
        One area of growing importance that we touched on was the
    possibility of seeing how we can build on the Uruguay round agreement of
    a year or so ago and see how we can move forward to deal with much freer
    trade in financial services, for example, removing many of the nontariff
    barriers that still exist between Western Europe and the United States,
    and seeing how, step by step, we can move forward to a much greater
    element of free trade between North America and the Western European
    nations. That is something that needs to be done. I think it's something
    that's of immense benefit. And I found our discussion on that immensely
    productive and it's one I know that we will both return to in the
    future.
        So I found the discussion not just on contemporary matters of use,
    but I found the sharing of ideas about how we deal with the development
    of the transatlantic relationship to deal with the problems that are
    going to arise in the future and also the examination of the common
    transatlantic view on many of the international problems around the
    world to be a very worthwhile and a very refreshing discussion, and I'm
    delighted we were able to have it.
        And I think the President and I will be happy to take any questions
    anyone may have.

    [[Page 451]]

        The President. Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

    Taxes

        Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask you about two tax matters at
    home. Congress has sent you a bill that would provide health insurance
    tax deductions for self-employed people. But it also allows
    billionaires, a handful of billionaires, to avoid taxation by renouncing
    their citizenship. Will you sign or veto that measure? And secondly, the
    House tomorrow takes up the Republican tax bill that provides benefits
    to a range of businesses and also a $500 child tax credit for families
    earning up to $200,000 a year. I know you have your own approach, but
    can you live with the Republican approach?
        The President. Well, as to the first question, I strongly support
    restoring deductibility to self-employed people for the cost of their
    health insurance. I think it's unconscionable to have a different
    standard for them than for corporations. And that was a big part of my
    health care reform bill last year. So I'm on record strongly in favor of
    that. As a matter of fact, I'd like to see it expanded.
        I am deeply troubled that the conference committee took out a
    payment mechanism by simply asking billionaires who made their money as
    Americans and largely made their money in the United States to pay the
    taxes they owe and instead to let them evade American income taxes by
    giving up their citizenship now that they have it made. So I'm going to
    have to look at that very closely and examine whether there might be
    some other opportunities to achieve that objective. But it's just wrong
    for us to walk away from that. That's just wrong.
        Now, on the second matter, you know what my views are on that. We
    have two objectives here. I support tax relief for the middle class. I
    support greater tax fairness. I think it should be much more focused on
    things that will raise incomes in the short term and in the long term,
    so I favor a sharp focus on educating people and raising children, on
    families and education. But we cannot afford a cut of that magnitude and
    do the right thing by the deficit. And we should not be cutting taxes in
    ways that benefit very wealthy Americans and require us in turn to cut
    education, which will weaken our country as a whole. Education is the
    middle class social safety net, if you will. It is the key to our
    economic future as well. So I think that's a big mistake. I think it's
    too big. I think it is--we need to focus on the deficit, and we don't
    need to be cutting education and investment in our future to give tax
    relief to people who don't really need it.
        Prime Minister Major. Don MacIntyre [The Independent].

    Northern Ireland Peace Process

        Q. Could I just ask the President whether he accepts the British
    Government's pronouncements that Sinn Fein has not yet gone quite far
    enough on decommissioning of arms to justify a ministerial talk? And
    also, could I ask the Prime Minister whether he's satisfied with the
    administration on that issue?
        The President. Well, I think it's a decision entirely for the
    British Government to make when in negotiations with Sinn Fein, when
    ministerial talks are appropriate. I will say this: I was very clear
    when the Adams visa was granted with permission to fundraise that there
    must be an agreement, a commitment in good faith, to seriously and
    quickly discuss arms decommissioning. Without a serious approach to arms
    decommissioning, there will never be a resolution of this conflict.
        And so I think that--I would hope that there would be no difference
    in our position on that because I think the Prime Minister is right
    about that; we have to deal with this arms decommissioning issue. And I
    know that there is an attempt by the government to work with the
    paramilitaries on both sides to achieve that objective, and that's what
    I think should be done.
        Prime Minister Major. Let me just add to that point. We've already
    started discussions at ministerial level with the loyalists
    paramilitaries on decommissioning, and those discussions are proceeding.
    What we're seeking to do is to have exactly the same discussions on
    exactly the same terms with Sinn Fein.
        Now, if Mr. Adams is serious about moving towards peace--and he has
    repeatedly spoken about it--then he needs to discuss with the British
    Government the question of the modalities of decommissioning the arms.
    We need to know how it can be done, when it can be done, what needs to
    be done, a whole series of details. That matter has to be discussed.
        Now, I think it is right for that matter to be discussed at
    ministerial level with Sinn Fein. And we've made it perfectly clear
    that, providing

    [[Page 452]]

    they are prepared to discuss that matter--and we've suggested what an
    agenda might be, and we're in discussion with them about that--then I
    think it is right for us to move to ministerial discussion on
    decommissioning of arms.
        What is absolutely clear is that unless we are able to make progress
    on decommissioning of arms, there will be no possibility of Sinn Fein
    sitting down with the democratic political parties, the other democratic
    political parties in Northern Ireland. They simply won't be prepared to
    talk about meeting a settlement until there has been progress on
    decommissioning of arms. So I very much hope Mr. Adams will embark upon
    those discussions speedily.

    Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, I just wondered if you could elaborate on
    something you said in your opening remarks about your concerns with Iraq
    and their apparent ability to build weapons of mass destruction.
        The President. I didn't say they had the apparent ability. I said
    they could be regaining it. And what I mean by that--I want to be very
    specific about it--what I mean by that is, unless Mr. Ekeus and the
    international inspectors can certify that they're in full compliance
    with all the relevant United Nations resolutions, then we have no
    assurance that they are not regaining the capacity to move forward with
    weapons of mass destruction. That is what I mean, but that is all I mean
    about it.
        Q. So you're saying you don't have evidence that they are actually--
    --
        The President. That they are doing that now? I do not. And I want to
    make clear--that's why I used the word ``could be regaining.''
        The United States position, which the United Kingdom has supported
    and for which I am very grateful, is that we should not relax these
    sanctions until there is full compliance with the resolutions. The
    resolutions were not passed in a careless way. They are carefully worded
    resolutions designed to assure the international community that this
    cannot happen. And unless those resolutions are complied with, the
    international community cannot know that this cannot happen.
        Q. Mr. Prime Minister, do you share that view?
        Prime Minister Major. I share that view, absolutely. I think we need
    to await Mr. Ekeus's report. From all I hear, it's not going to be
    satisfactory about the way Iraq is behaving. We are concerned about the
    humanitarian aspect of people in Iraq. There is a Security Council
    resolution, which I trust is going to be passed, which will open up a
    better possibility for Saddam Hussein to sell oil in order to feed
    people in Iraq. It's an option that will be there. I very much hope
    he'll take that option.
        But on the general relief of sanctions, until he has met the
    Security Council resolutions, met the Security Council resolutions in
    full, and we have seen independent verification that he has met the
    Security Council resolutions in full, then we entirely agree that there
    could be no relief whatsoever from the sanctions that have been imposed.

    Northern Ireland Peace Process

        Q. Mr. President, having broken bread with Gerry Adams----
        The President. It's Mr. Major's turn.
        Q. Well, it's to both of you. Having broken bread with Gerry Adams,
    could you, person-to-person, man-to-man, recommend that he speak with
    Gerry Adams himself?
        The President. That's a decision for the Prime Minister to make in
    the context of the peace process. I have said--I said on St. Patrick's
    Day when I spoke then, I will say again, we are where we are today
    because of the risks that John Major has been willing to take for
    peace--and they have been considerable risks to himself, to his party,
    to his government--because he knows that this matter must be resolved.
    And I applaud that. The details of the decisionmaking must be made by
    the participants. And that is a decision for him to make.
        Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].
        Prime Minister Major. Adam Boulton [Sky TV]--sorry.
        The President. We didn't do a British--go ahead.
        Prime Minister Major. No, no, no--go after Helen. Ladies first. Adam
    Boulton next. He will willingly wait, won't you, Adam? [Laughter]

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

        Q. Mr. President, with all due respect, your nuclear policy is
    filled with inconsistencies, replete. You want to stop Russia from
    building a nuclear reactor in Iran. You want to ease sanctions against
    Pakistan, which we believe is developing nuclear weapons. You want Egypt

    [[Page 453]]

    to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and all other states in
    the area. And you never try to persuade Israel, which does have a
    nuclear arsenal, to sign the treaty. Can you explain?
        The President. Well, first of all, I'm trying to remember if I can
    remember all those three things. [Laughter]
        The United States does not want Russia to give the capacity to Iran
    because we don't want that to be the beginning of their increased
    capacity to develop nuclear fuel and technology for other purposes. And
    given their conduct, I think that is the right policy, and I don't have
    any problem with it.
        With regard to Pakistan, the simple question there is whether the
    policy we have pursued in the last few years is achieving its objectives
    and whether we will be a stronger force for peace and reconciliation and
    ultimately for the defanging, in terms of weapons of mass destruction,
    in the area if we change our policy or if we stay with it. I think it's
    time for--I think we should seriously review the policy.
        If you look at the number of people in those countries in South
    Asia, the potential they represent for the future and the powder keg on
    which they sit because of their problems, the United States, it seems to
    me, has an obligation to do the very best we can to bring about the best
    result and the most peaceful result. And that's all we're doing.
        Q. [Inaudible]--even if it's producing weapons?
        The President. We don't support that. We want everybody to be a
    member of the nonproliferation regime. We want everybody to do that. And
    that's why I said what I did to President Mubarak of Egypt. Our position
    is that we want the largest number of people possible to participate in
    the nonproliferation regime and to go forward with its requirements. And
    we want to keep as many states nonnuclear as possible. And we are doing
    our best to reduce the nuclear threat by reducing the number of nuclear
    weapons that we have, in agreement with the Russians and with the other
    former states--states of the former Soviet Union.
        And I think that our policy is consistent if you look at what the
    objective is. The objective is to reduce the threat of nuclear war to
    the world in the future and to reduce the threat of other weapons of
    mass destruction. There still is no more significant obligation I have
    to future generations, and that is the common thread running through all
    these policies.
        Prime Minister Major. Adam.

    United Kingdom-U.S. Relations

        Q. Given that as Tories, Democrats are supposedly on the opposite
    side ideologically, and given that we understand Teddy Blair of Labour
    may be coming here soon, I wonder if I could ask you how important you
    think your personal relations are for the relations between our two
    countries?
        Prime Minister Major. Do you want to have first crack at that?
    [Laughter]
        The President. Well, first of all, I think that in foreign policy,
    the differences are not easily discernible by party. We have, as you
    heard today, broad overlap, and indeed, in our country the differences
    among us here in America as Americans in foreign policy don't tend to
    break down along party lines. For example, the Speaker of the House and
    the Senate majority leader supported the position I took on debt relief
    for Mexico, which was opposed by a number of members of their party and
    a number of members of mine.
        So I think there is--at the end of the cold war in this country, and
    I sense throughout Europe perhaps, there are forces arguing for kind of
    an inward-looking approach, a little bit more, if not isolationist,
    disengaged approach. And there are others who believe we must still
    continue to broaden the frontiers of relationships, to expand trade, in
    order to support democracy and prosperity. I am in that latter group.
    Prime Minister Major's in that latter group. Last year at the G-7
    meeting, we were the two strongest proponents of expanding opportunities
    for economic integration of the countries there. So I just don't believe
    that there is a necessary partisan breakdown to our common objectives in
    the world community.
        Secondly, I think we've got a good personal relationship, and I feel
    very comfortable about where it is. And I think it's honest and open.
    And it endures occasional disagreements, but the agreements are far more
    numerous and over the long run should be the shaping factors of our
    relationship.
        Prime Minister Major. The fact of the matter is that we know well
    enough--we know one another well enough and the relationship is good
    enough to have those disagreements. And it doesn't affect the broad sway
    of agreement that

    [[Page 454]]

    exists between the two countries. I was fascinated to see that you
    referred to differences between parties and not within parties. And I
    think that's a great advance. [Laughter] I'm delighted--I'm delighted
    you put it that way.
        Let me just make a broader point, really, about the Anglo-American
    relationship. At almost any time there's probably an issue--be
    astonishing if there wasn't, if there wasn't some measure of difference
    on an issue between two sovereign governments, whether they happen to be
    Conservative or Labor in the United Kingdom, Democrat or Republican in
    the United States. But against that, I think you have to look at the
    huge range of things in which the instinctive outlook between the United
    Kingdom Government and the United States Government is exactly the same.
        If you run down most of the great issues of the moment--relationship
    with Russia, relationship with the Middle East, relationship on
    terrorism, relationship with Iran, relationship with Iraq--you won't
    find a scintilla of difference--present policy on Bosnia--between the
    British Government and the United States Government. If you look at the
    two nations that were foremost in propounding a free trade agreement,
    the GATT agreement, and taking that forward, you'll find the same
    relationship, the British and the American Government.
        As for looking forward, I spoke a few moments ago of two areas where
    we've actually been looking forward today, together, of what we might
    actually do in the future. But as to whether the relation is good
    enough, perhaps I can just give you a practical example. If you were to
    spend a weekend, Adam, on one of our nuclear submarines, you would find
    a Trident missile on it. I'm not sure you could travel on anyone else's
    submarine and find a Trident missile on it. And I hope very soon in the
    future that you'll be able to see Tomahawk cruise missiles in the United
    Kingdom armory. And I'm not sure anybody will have those.
        Now, they're practical illustrations of the extent of the closeness
    of the defense, of the security and other relationships between the
    United Kingdom and the United States. And the fact of the matter is, it
    is sufficiently close and has been sufficiently close for a large number
    of years to enable the President and I to have the occasional
    disagreement if we want without any harm coming of it.
        The President. Rita [Rita Braver, CBS News].
        Press Secretary McCurry. Make this the last one.

    Russian Nuclear Cooperation With Iran

        Q. If I could get back to the issue of Russia, you said that you do
    not want the Russians to go forward with their plans to sell a nuclear
    powerplant to Iran. What, if anything, did you talk about in terms of
    putting some real pressure on them? Is there anything you can do at this
    point to stop it from going forward? And if they do go forward, will it
    put a damper on the Western relationship with Russia?
        The President. Well, we're continuing to have negotiations and
    discussions with them about it. And I think that's all I can really say
    at this time because we're in the midst of our conversations.
        I thought Helen was going to ask me the question I think you asked
    me the last time, which is, are we trying to discourage Russia from
    selling to Iran the technology we're trying to finance in North Korea.
    The difference is, when I became President, I found a full-blown nuclear
    program in North Korea, which I'm trying to take down. And I don't want
    to leave some future President in the United States and the people of
    Britain with a program in Iran that they have to try to take down. I'm
    going to do the best I can to deal with it.
        Q. Well, a lot of Americans, sir, are questioning whether or not the
    United States can really rely on Russia in any way--[inaudible].
        The President. Well, let's don't jump the gun here. We're having
    these serious discussions. We're working it through. We have a lot of
    interests in a democratic and a reformist Russia. And the Prime Minister
    and I talked about it at some length today. And I think that they have
    done better economically than either the Prime Minister or I thought
    they would a couple of years ago in terms of pursuing the path of
    reform. They have continued to honor their Constitution and their
    electoral system and obligations to democracy. And we're going to have
    differences from time to time, but I wouldn't assume we can't work this
    one out. We're going to keep working hard on it.
        Prime Minister Major. Peter [Peter Riddell, Times of London].

    Bretton Woods Institutions

        Q. Mr. Prime Minister, the President mentioned your ideas on the
    Bretton Woods institu-

    [[Page 455]]

    tions and the U.N. How much have you worked that up in detail, and what
    would it actually involve? I mean, is it a fully--a several-page plan,
    or what?
        Prime Minister Major. It's developing rather than being developed.
    We agreed last year that we needed to look at some of the overlap there
    was in the Bretton Woods institutions and see how we could look at
    making the--bringing the United Nations a little more up to date.
        If I could just give you a couple of illustrations--if you mean have
    we yet got a detailed, worked-out position between the United Kingdom
    and the United States, the answer is no, we haven't. We've both been
    looking separately, as we agreed we would do at the G-7 summit last
    year, at the sort of ideas we might bring forward for discussion with
    partners at Halifax later on this year and the sort of things that we're
    looking at in--by ``we'' I now mean the United Kingdom--in terms of the
    financial institutions. You'll be aware of the idea we've had in the
    past of selling some IMF gold to help some of the poorer nations. That's
    still on the agenda as far as we're concerned. Looking at perhaps a
    greater degree of rationalization of some of the activities of the IMF,
    OECD, and the World Bank--that's an area we're looking at.
        We'd like to look at the way in which poverty is dealt with through
    the U.N. There seem to us to be a number of overlapping agencies, a
    certain amount of duplication, which could credibly be looked at. In
    terms of trade, we'd like to see what can be done to bed down the World
    Trade Organization satisfactorily. In terms of environment, I would
    suggest that there are some areas of overlap as well. The U.N.
    Environment Program and the Commission for Sustainable Development,
    there seem to be areas of overlap.
        Now, they're just specimen samples of the sort of things we are
    looking at. I emphasize, we are in the early stages of that examination.
    We haven't reached any conclusions. But I think those are matters we
    must examine.
        Other things I'd like to see us examine at the summit would be to
    look more comprehensively at crime, drugs, and money laundering. We had
    a G-7 task force on money laundering some time ago. That's been
    successful. I think we should revisit that, given the nature of the
    problem and given the problem that exists internationally with crime and
    drugs. And I think we'd like to look a little more carefully at what
    might be done in terms of conflict prevention.
        Those are just broad headlines of some of the areas we're looking
    at. We shared them in general outline today. We will come to them in
    detail at the summit.
        The President. Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 90th news conference began at 2:53 p.m. in the
    East Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to President
    Saddam Hussein of Iraq; Rolf Ekeus, chairman, United Nations Special
    Commission (Iraqi Weapons); Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein; and
    President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt.