[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.