    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1995, Book II)]
    [August 7, 1995]
    [Pages 1208-1215]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Interview with Bob Edwards and Mara Liasson of National Public Radio
    August 7, 1995

    Bosnia and Croatia

        Mr. Edwards. Well, Croatia is back into it, and we wonder how the
    Croat offensive affects the prospects of a U.N. withdrawal and the
    accompanying commitment of U.S. ground troops.
        The President. Well, my guess is that if the Croat offensive
    concludes successfully in the Krajina area, as it appears to be doing,
    and that is the extent of it, that it will not increase the chances of
    the U.N. withdrawing. But it does change the kind of balance of play in
    the area. And when you put that with the new resolve of NATO and the
    willingness of the U.N. to let NATO use air power and the establishment
    of the Rapid Reaction Force, two things we worked very hard for in the
    last few weeks, it may create some new opportunities to work toward a
    resolution of this.
        Now, we're concerned, and we've told the Croatians we're concerned
    about anything that would spread the war, that would widen the war. But
    if the offensive concludes with the reestablishment of the dominance,
    the Croatia in the Krajina area, then I think it will not increase the
    chances of U.N. withdrawal.
        Mr. Edwards. In the absence of direct U.S. involvement, why should
    the American people care about this conflict?
        The President. The American people should care, first of all,
    because if the war spreads in the Balkans to other areas it could
    destabilize many, many countries in which we have a vital interest and
    bring America into the fray. Secondly, we should care because an awful
    lot of human damage has been done there, and a lot of people's human
    rights have been violated, and we should try to minimize the loss of
    life and human suffering. Thirdly, we should care because it's the first
    real security crisis in Europe after the end of the cold war, and it is
    important that we, working with our European allies through the United
    Nations and through NATO, do as much as humanly possible to do, given
    the fact that when you have these kind of intra-ethnic conflicts within
    countries, to some extent, any outside power is going to be limited in
    stopping the killing until there is a

    [[Page 1209]]

    greater willingness to make peace. But we have to do our best to try to
    minimize the carnage, to try to keep it from spreading, and to try to
    demonstrate a consistent and determined and long-lasting commitment by
    our allies through the United Nations and through NATO to resolve this.
        Ms. Liasson. Mr. President, there are tens of thousands of Krajina
    Serbs now who are being ethnically cleaned, and they're fleeing over the
    border into Bosnia. Can you tell us how that influx of Serbs into Bosnia
    will affect the conflict there? And also, what can you tell us about
    Croatian President Franjo Tudjman's intentions? Does he want to maintain
    the Bosnia Croat Federation, or do you think he wants an ethnically pure
    state of his own?
        The President. Well, first, let's remember what gave rise to this
    offensive. There was a Bosnian Serb attack supported by the Krajina
    Serbs on the Bihac area of Bosnia, which is a Muslim area or at least a
    government area now. And President Tudjman ordered a counterattack to
    try to relieve Bihac and, in the process, to try to secure the areas
    within Croatia under control of his government.
        I believe that he wants to see the Croats and the Muslims stay in
    their confederation within Bosnia. And you know, the United States took
    the lead in brokering that confederation. I think that it's very
    important because it ended, in effect, one-half of the civil war within
    Bosnia. So I felt good about that. And I think it will endure. I believe
    that confederation will endure.
        What impact the Krajina Serbs going over into Bosnian territory will
    have is, frankly, impossible to determine at this time. If they become
    members of the Bosnian Serb army, then it could have a destabilizing
    impact. But no one knows for sure. That's why I say that circumstances
    have changed there in a way that might give us the opportunity to make
    some new efforts at a diplomatic settlement, and I'm going to be talking
    with our allies over the next few days to discuss that.
        Ms. Liasson. But before the Croat offensive started, you warned the
    Croatians not to target civilians and not to target U.N. peacekeepers.
    They seem to have ignored both of those warnings. Do you have any
    control over the Croats?
        The President. No, but I think we have--I think we and the Germans
    have some influence with the Croats. And I think what appears to have
    happened is they had more success than they had, I think, perhaps even
    imagined they might in the battle. And so they kept going until they had
    recovered that portion of their territory which had been previously
    under the dominance of the Krajina Serbs.
        I do believe that President Tudjman will be reluctant to do anything
    that will knowingly spread the war and totally destabilize the situation
    in ways that undermine his interest and the interest of the Bosnian
    Croat Confederation within Bosnia. So, as I said, I'm hopeful that this
    will turn out to be something that will give us an avenue to a quicker
    diplomatic resolution, not a road to a longer war.
        Mr. Edwards. This is the most important foreign policy problem of
    your Presidency, and you are seen as indecisive. Senator Dole has tried
    to take advantage of that. Is this frustrating to you in a situation
    such as Bosnia, where no action might actually be the best action?
        The President. Well, first of all, I disagree that it's the most
    important foreign policy problem. It's the foreign policy problem that's
    the longest lasting and therefore the most publicized. But the most
    important things we have done, I think, you'd have to start out with our
    continued efforts with Russia and the other republics of the former
    Soviet Union to denuclearize; our efforts to stem the proliferation of
    weapons of mass destruction, which have been very successful and which
    the United States has led; our efforts at peace in the Middle East. All
    those things, it seems to me, over the long run, in terms of America's
    vital interest, are more important.
        The Bosnian situation is heartbreaking. And it is potentially very
    important to our security interests should it spread, which is why I
    have sent troops to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to try to
    make sure that it doesn't spread. But is it frustrating? Sure it is,
    because most of the people who criticize don't have a better
    alternative. And many of them who criticize don't have any alternative.
        The United States, before I became President, made a decision not to
    send troops in the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. Frankly, at the
    time, it's my understanding that our European allies agreed with that.
    They wanted to take the lead in dealing with this big security problem,
    the first one of the post-cold-war era. The U.N., in any case, was not
    supposed to be trying to determine the outcome

    [[Page 1210]]

    of the war but simply trying to minimize the violence and get the
    humanitarian aid through.
        Now we have spent as much or more money as any country in supporting
    the peace process in Bosnia, in supporting the humanitarian aid and the
    airlift, and trying to keep the war out of the air, and doing all the
    things that we have done from our ships and from our bases, to fly
    literally tens of thousands of flights. We have also been responsible
    for taking the lead in establishing the alliance between the Bosnian
    Government and the Croatians. We took the lead in asserting the need for
    NATO to use its air power. In 1994, we had a pretty good year there
    because of this aggressive action on our part. And it fell apart when
    the United Nations decided not to let NATO use its power whenever a U.N.
    soldier had been taken hostage.
        Now we have changed the ground rules on the ground with the Rapid
    Reaction Force, and we've got a new set of command and control rules for
    NATO. So we seem to be making some progress. There have been several
    convoys go in and out of Gorazde, for example, without being attacked.
        I believe we have done all we could to work with our allies, and I
    think we have exercised all the influence we could, considering the fact
    that they have soldiers on the ground and we don't. And I do not believe
    that under these circumstances we should have put ground troops on the
    ground in the U.N. mission. So I think history will reflect that, given
    the options, none of which were very pleasant in a very difficult
    situation, that we have done the right things and that they were better
    than the alternatives available to us.
        Ms. Liasson. Mr. President, recently you said the reason why the
    United States and NATO and the U.N. have all lost prestige in Bosnia is
    because they went around saying they were going to do something and then
    they didn't do it. In retrospect, would it have been better not to have
    said that you were going to lift the arms embargo and then help the
    Muslims with air strikes? Do you think you raised expectations there
    that couldn't be met?
        The President. No because when I ran for President I made it clear
    that I would support a lifting of the arms embargo multilaterally. I
    never said I would lift it unilaterally. I was, frankly, surprised,
    given the record we had of Serbian aggression when I became President,
    that our allies would not agree to lift the arms embargo multilaterally.
    But they felt it would put their own troops too much at risk, and they
    believed that it would not do what I thought, which was to induce the
    Bosnian Serbs to make a quick peace.
        Let me say that air strikes cannot win a war, but they can raise the
    price of aggression. And if you believe as I do, that territorial
    disputes between the sides now could be resolved without the legitimate
    interests of any ethnic group being eroded, I think that's a very
    important reason for using air strikes to increase the price of
    aggression.
        But it didn't happen in `93, so in `94, we got a different kind of
    agreement to use air power, our own air power, in return for not lifting
    the arms embargo on the Bosnian Government. And it worked. The Serbs and
    the Bosnian Government brought their heavy weapons into collection
    points. The cafe areas were largely free from shelling and military
    activity. And the whole thing only came apart when, number one, no peace
    was reached in 1994 and, number two, when military activity started in
    the central part of the country spread to these safe areas and the U.N.
    would not permit NATO to strike back.
        So that's what I would say. If you say for sure you're going to do
    something, you simply have to do it. And if you don't do it, you suffer.
    And that's what happened to the U.N. and the NATO. And because the
    United States is a part of those organizations and has a leading role in
    NATO, it hurt us as well. And that's why I told our allies I would try
    one more time to have NATO play a role in this, one more time to try to
    support them with their Rapid Reaction Force. But the United States
    could not be part of any endeavor that made commitments which were not
    kept. We have to keep commitments once we make them.
        Ms. Liasson. You've talked, though, about the limits of the U.S.
    being able to dictate the outcome of something when we don't have troops
    on the ground. Does that mean that the U.S. can only lead if it's
    willing to commit troops in situations like this?
        The President. As I said, we have exercised a leadership role in
    pushing the air power and leading the humanitarian air lift and putting
    our troops on the border and in getting the Croatians and the Bosnian
    Muslims to agree to a confederation. So in that sense, we have. But

    [[Page 1211]]

    our ability to exercise a leadership role when the British, the French,
    the Dutch, and the others who have troops on the ground believe that
    what we want to do will endanger their troops but not ours, since we're
    not there, is necessarily limited. But that is, after all, part of what
    we, I think, should be working toward in the post-cold-war world.
        The United States, obviously, will have to make a decision whether
    we think we should run every show and totally dominate every crisis. But
    if we want to do that, we do have to be willing to have troops on the
    ground where others have troops on the ground. I believe that we have
    exercised a great deal of leadership, and I think it's been consistent
    with our interest in not having troops there in this U.N. mission. I
    could not have countenanced putting American troops in the position
    where they could be fired upon and taken as hostages without firing
    back. I don't believe in that. I don't think that's what the United
    States is all about. And I do not believe the United States should be
    there trying to win this war on the ground, as a combatant. I don't
    believe in that. So I have said that I would not send troops there
    unless it's necessary to take our allies out.

    Teenage Smoking

        Mr. Edwards. You're wrestling with a difficult decision on tobacco.
    Why not let the FDA regulate tobacco? Polls show a lot of support for
    regulating smoking among teenagers.
        The President. Well, I don't know that it's such a difficult
    decision. We're working through what our options are, and I've talked
    with Dr. Kessler at the FDA. He has asked me to do that, and we've been
    involved with him and discussed that.
        But this country has to do something about the problem of teenage
    smoking. It's going back up. We know that a significant percentage of
    young people who start to smoke will smoke consistently throughout their
    lives, and that if they do, a significant percentage of them will die
    from diseases directly related to their smoking. We know that if we
    wanted to lower the cost of health care and increase the life expectancy
    of our people and improve the health of the American people, there's
    almost nothing you could do that would have a bigger impact than
    dramatically reducing the number of young people who stop smoking or who
    never start smoking. So we have to have a vigorous response to that, and
    I expect to have an announcement on that in the next several days--not
    too far away.
        Ms. Liasson. Is it possible to regulate tobacco as a drug and not
    spark years of litigation?
        The President. Well, that's one of the things that bothers me. You
    know, I think we need a tough and mandatory type program, but I don't
    want to see us in a position where we act like we're going to do
    something but we wind up in years and years and years of costly
    litigation while kids continue to be bombarded with advertisements
    plainly designed to get them to smoke, with all kinds of promotional
    activities while they can still buy cigarettes in vending machines,
    while there's no real comprehensive national law against their buying
    cigarettes. And meanwhile, these lawsuits drag on.
        So I'm concerned about that. And that's one of the reasons I think
    that Dr. Kessler and the FDA have wanted to have a series of
    conversations with the White House because everybody involved in this,
    at least from our point of view, wants to focus on the whole problem of
    children smoking and how to stop it and to stop it from starting.
        Mr. Edwards. You say mandatory, you're not going to have any kind of
    voluntary program for the industry?
        The President. Well, I believe we have to have some means of knowing
    that whatever we all agree to, whatever people say they're going to do
    is done. And I think we need some strength there. So we'll just--I'm
    looking at what my options are, and I expect to have an announcement in
    the near future. You won't be waiting long to know how we're going to
    resolve this. But there will be a strong commitment here to doing
    something about children smoking.
        Ms. Liasson. Are you saying the tobacco industry can't be trusted to
    comply with some kind of a voluntary deal?
        The President. I've already talked a lot about this. I'll have more
    to say in the next few days.

    Relief for Middle Class

        Mr. Edwards. You've spoken a lot about the squeeze on the American
    middle class, although the economy is good, incomes are not keeping up,
    people are working harder for less, and they've been anxious about their
    futures. Without control of Congress, what can you do to relieve some of
    that anxiety?

    [[Page 1212]]

        The President. Well, one thing that I can do is to keep trying to
    grow the economy and to keep following policies that will lead to
    balanced and fair growth. That's what we were trying to do with the
    Japanese trade action, for example. I have been responsible for a
    greater expansion of trade than any other administration, I think, than
    any other President, with NAFTA and GATT and 80 separate trade
    agreements. But I also want fair trade. I want trade that will
    strengthen the jobs and the incomes of America's workers, which is why I
    took the action I did with Japan with regard to auto parts and autos.
        We also can make sure that the laws we have on the books are
    enforced in a way that tend to support good jobs and good wages. That's
    why I don't favor, for example, a repeal of the Davis-Bacon law or some
    other laws that are on the Government's books which at least say when
    we're doing business we want to try to support a high-wage, high-
    opportunity society.
        But there are things that I think this Congress can do and some
    other things I think they shouldn't do. And I'll just--let me just give
    you three examples very quickly. Two things I think they should do. I
    think they ought to raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage has had
    bipartisan support in the past, and I think has broad bipartisan support
    among the American people. If this Congress does not raise the minimum
    wage, as I have asked it to do, we'll have the lowest minimum wage we've
    had in 40 years in terms of real purchasing power next year. That's not
    my idea of the kind of country I'm trying to create for the 21st
    century. I don't want a hard-work, low-wage America. I want a high-
    opportunity, high-growth America.
        The second thing they could do is to pass the bill I have proposed
    which has bipartisan support to create a ``GI bill'' for America's
    workers. And our proposal is to take the 70 or so separate training
    programs the Government has now, collapse them, put them in a big pot of
    cash, and give workers who are unemployed or who are underemployed a
    voucher which they can take to their local community college worth
    $2,500 or so a year for up to 2 years to get the training and education
    they need. This would go around the Federal Government, the State
    government, and the local government. This is just something we could
    give to unemployed Americans, people that lose their jobs and need to
    acquire new skills. Almost every American now is within driving distance
    of a community college or other fine training institute. They'd make the
    decisions, and all they'd have to do is prove they spent the money at
    the appropriate place. They could pass that.
        The third thing that Congress should do is to do no harm--do no
    harm. They are on a path now which will dramatically increase the middle
    class squeeze. By cutting all this education money, they are cutting off
    the future for millions of Americans. By cutting all the Medicare and
    Medicaid money, what they are doing is to make sure that more and more
    middle class people who are middle-aged will have to spend much higher
    percentages of their incomes supporting their elderly parents and
    therefore will have less to spend on themselves and in educating their
    own children. And none of that is necessary to balance the budget. I
    have given them an alternative.
        So they should raise the minimum wage, pass the ``GI bill'' for
    America's workers, and do no harm on education and health care. Those
    things will help us.
        But you know, we've never had a period like this before, really,
    where we've got 7 million new jobs; 2\1/2\ million new homeowners; 1\1/
    2\ million new businesses, the largest number in American history in
    this period of time; very high stock market--about 4,700--rapid growth
    of corporate profits; and stagnant wages for half the American workers.
    We've got to turn that around. And these things will help.

    1996 Election

        Ms. Liasson. Mr. President, you did a pretty good job in 1992
    figuring out what the election was going to be about, what was on
    people's minds. What do you think the election of 1996 is going to be
    about? What are the three or four top issues that you think Americans
    care most about right now?
        The President. Well, in 1996, I think the election will be--there
    will be economic issues still at the forefront, more in terms of family
    security. That is, I think that people will see the economy as a two-
    step process, not a one-step process. And I hope maybe I can communicate
    that more clearly. That is, what we started doing--reducing the deficit,
    expanding trade, increasing investment in technology, promoting defense
    conversion, all those things--they produce a lot of jobs, but now we
    have to raise incomes and a sense of family security. So I

    [[Page 1213]]

    think there will be a whole cluster of family security issues that are
    economic and that deal with the whole issue of opportunity.
        Then I believe there will be some significant debates about social
    issues and what kind of responsibilities we have individually and to
    each other in this society. If we don't get welfare reform legislation
    through, that will be an issue. If there's a continuing effort to
    undermine law enforcement as there has been now in the Congress--the
    leaders of Congress told me, for example, after Oklahoma City they would
    have the antiterrorism bill on my desk by Memorial Day; that's late May.
    Here we are almost to mid-August and no sign of the bill. I think that
    will be an issue because Americans are still concerned about their
    security.
        And then the third set of issues will be about--so the opportunity
    issues, responsibility issues, and then I think there will be a set of
    issues that have to do with how we're going to move together into the
    21st century. How are we going to handle our diversity? What's the
    responsible way to handle our immigration problems, which are
    considerable?
        So those are the kinds of things that I think will dominate this
    election. It's basically, this is one more jumping off stage, the last
    one we'll have before the next century. And I hope that it will be
    dominated by two competing visions of what America will look like in the
    next century and how we will live and how we will work together.
        Mr. Edwards. But the strongest sentiment we're hearing from voters
    seem to reject both visions. They seem to be looking for a third party,
    a third force to put their faith in. What is that----
        The President. I don't know that they reject both visions. I think
    they consistently accept my vision when they hear it. It's almost
    impossible for people to know what's going on out there given the nature
    of communications today. There's a lot of information, but it's always
    on something new day-in and day-out. And it tends to emphasize conflict
    over achievement. And so I think what we need is an election to see
    that.
        And also, a lot of people are kind of frustrated with their own
    lives and don't see the connection between governmental action on the
    one hand and improvements in their circumstances on the other. All of
    this is to be expected in a time of transition and difficulty. But I
    basically think the prognosis for America's future is quite bright. And
    if somebody wants to run as a third party candidate they ought to, but
    that's like--that's ``the buyer's remorse'' and ``the grass is always
    greener on the other side,'' and all of that. You know, you hear all of
    that.
        But I believe that the '96 election will really give me an
    opportunity I have not had since I've been here to get out and talk
    about what we've done that we promised to do, what difference it's made
    for America, and what still needs to be done. I think the third category
    should be the most important thing, what are we going to do tomorrow?
    But I'm not at all pessimistic about where America is or where this
    administration is. We've done a lot of things that were very important.
    We've kept up very high percentages of our commitments. We've had a
    great deal of success with the efforts that we've made, and I look
    forward to having a chance to discuss that. But meanwhile, I'm going to
    try to delay the onset of the political season as long as possible and
    just keep doing my job.
        Mr. Edwards. But how can you say that the American people share your
    vision? A majority did not elect you and then came the '94 election
    that----
        The President. Yes, but that doesn't mean--the American people
    didn't ratify the contract on America. What they ratified--there were
    two things. A lot of the people who voted in '92 were disillusioned and
    didn't vote because they'd been fed a steady diet of bad news and
    because their own circumstances hadn't improved. And we said this many
    new jobs came into the economy and the deficit was reduced by 50 percent
    for 3 years in a row for the first time since Harry Truman was
    President. Huge numbers of voters said, ``I just don't believe it; I
    just don't believe it,'' because their lives weren't better, and they
    didn't hear about it in their regular communications. They were anxiety
    ridden; they were frustrated; they were angry. The Republicans said,
    ``Vote for us, we've got a plan, and the first item is balancing the
    budget.'' All the research after the election showed that that's what
    people knew.
        Now, there are two plans to balance the budget. I believe two-thirds
    of the American people agree with my way. I think they'd rather take a
    little longer, have a smaller tax cut and protect the incomes of elderly
    Americans on Medicare, protect our investments in education

    [[Page 1214]]

    from Head Start to affordable college loans and not gut the environment.
    That's what I believe. I believe the American people want a high-wage,
    high-growth, high-opportunity future, with safe streets and a clean
    environment, where people have a chance to make the most of their own
    lives. I believe that's what they really want. And I think they believe
    we ought to work together toward that.
        And my referendum will come in '96, and we'll just see. But there's
    a lot--if you look at the research, I think there is a lot of common
    ground in America. I believe the American people, left to their own
    devices, would come to commonsense, progressive conclusions on a lot of
    these issues. And I think the political system basically seeks to divide
    them in little slices and wedges to advance the causes of whoever's
    doing the dividing. But that's not really what the American people want,
    which is why they often say, ``I'd like a third way,'' because they're
    sick of partisan bickering in Washington and people who are trying to
    advance their short-term interest at the expense of the long-term public
    interest in this country.

    Federal Budget

        Ms. Liasson. I wanted to ask you about some partisan bickering
    that's coming up pretty soon, which is the big battle over the budget in
    the fall. Now, you've said you didn't want to pile up a stack of vetoes,
    you've threatened quite a few of them. But Republicans say they don't
    believe that you're going to make good on all these threats, especially
    if it means that agencies will close or if the Government can't borrow
    the money to send out benefit checks. Are you willing to see the
    Government shut down if that's what it takes to protect your priorities?
        The President. Well, first of all, let's look at what they're
    threatening to do. And the American people need to know it as
    unprecedented. They are responsible. If the Government gets shut down,
    it will be their responsibility. They will have to vote or not vote to
    lift the debt ceiling. They will have to vote or not vote for continuing
    resolutions to let this Government go on. I will have no role in that;
    that is their responsibility.
        My responsibility was fulfilled when I offered them an alternative
    balanced budget and a willingness to discuss it. So far, none of them
    have been willing to discuss anything. They have not been willing to
    discuss this. They seem determined--for example, they seemed absolutely
    determined to raise the cost of Medicare in copayments, in premiums and
    deductibles to seniors with incomes of $25,000 a year or less. They seem
    determined to raise the cost of going to college. They seem determined
    to cut kids off Head Start. They seem determined to gut the
    environmental laws of this country when none of that is necessary to
    balance the budget, and they haven't even discussed it with me.
        So what I'm going to do is--and these veto threats that I've been
    issuing, they're really sort of veto notices. I'm just trying to be as
    forthright and honest and forthcoming as I can with people who so far
    have not expressed any interest in having any dialog with me. It's a
    funny way to do business. But if you ask me am I going to blink at the
    end and basically, to avoid shutting down the Government, risk shutting
    down America 10 or 15 years from now because of the costs we're taking,
    the answer to that is, no, I am not going to blink at the end. As awful
    as it is, it would be better to shut the Government down for a few days
    than to shut the country down a few years from now because we took a
    radical and unwarranted road here that the American people never voted
    for, don't believe in.
        So I think it's easy to over-read the results of the '94 election. I
    think you could convincingly argue that the NRA put the House of
    Representatives in Republican hands if you look at the number of short
    races, close races that were turned there. But the other voters that
    were voting for the Republicans and the other voters that were staying
    home weren't ratifying a repeal on the assault weapons ban or a repeal
    of the Brady bill.
        So I don't think you can make these kind of connections. I'm just
    going to stand up and fight for what I believe in but be willing to work
    with them. But if they don't ever want to work with me and they keep
    trying to push this country off the brink, I cannot in good conscience
    let America gut its commitment to education from Head Start for poor
    children to affordable college loans for college students, when I know
    that that is the key to our economic future. And I know it's the only
    way to expand middle class incomes over the long run. I cannot in good
    conscience let a budget go through which essentially undermines our
    ability to provide for clean air, clean water, and

    [[Page 1215]]

    pure food when I know good and well the American people never voted for
    that in 1994.
        And I certainly have no intention of destroying Medicare under the
    guise of saving it when I know we can fix the Medicare Trust Fund, which
    does not have anything to do--the Medicare Trust Fund that the
    Republicans are always talking about is in some trouble, less trouble
    than when I took office. I pushed the insolvency date out 2 or 3 years
    already, and I know we can fix that and never touch the premiums, the
    copays, and the deductibles. And they know it, too. They know this has
    nothing to do with fixing the Medicare Trust Fund.
        So we ought to get together like civilized human beings and good
    Americans and do what's best for the American people. The one time I
    thought we were going to do it was when I had the meeting with the
    Speaker up in New Hampshire and that fellow asked us a nice question,
    and we shook hands on it. We said, yes, we'd appoint a commission like a
    base closing commission to look into political reform. And 5 days after
    I got back I sent a letter to the Speaker suggesting that we ought to
    appoint this commission in the same way the base closing commission was
    appointed. Five weeks later I still hadn't gotten an answer to my
    letter. I still haven't gotten an answer to my letter. It's been 7 or 8
    weeks now. So I appointed two distinguished Americans, John Gardner and
    Doris Kearns Goodwin, to go try to work this out. They haven't seen the
    Speaker either.
        So this is a different world up here. The American people don't
    understand this. I think most Americans are still conservative and old-
    fashioned in the best sense. They think when you shake hands, especially
    when you do it in broad daylight in front of the whole country, you
    ought to do what you say you're going to do. And I intend to do it.
    That's just the way I am. It's the way I was brought up. I don't
    understand this. I don't understand people that don't talk to one
    another and don't try to see one another's point of view and that don't
    try to reach common accord. So that door over there is going to stay
    open all the way, but I will not be--I will not be blackmailed into
    selling the American people's future down the drain to avoid a train
    wreck. Better a train wreck for a day or 3 or 4, better political damage
    to Bill Clinton than damaging the future of millions and millions and
    millions of Americans. I'm just not going to do it.
        Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. President.
        The President. Thank you.

    China

        Ms. Liasson. Mr. President, just one quick yes or no question.
    Should Mrs. Clinton go to China if Harry Wu is still held?
        The President. Well, no decision has yet been made on that, and
    we're just going to follow events as they develop and try to make a good
    decision. It's an important conference. The United States will be
    represented, but no decision has been made yet about whether she will
    go.

    Note: The interview began at 1:48 p.m. in the Oval Office at the White
    House, and it was recorded for broadcast on August 9. The final question
    referred to Harry Wu, human rights activist imprisoned in China.