    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1996, Book I)]
    [May 23, 1996]
    [Pages 805-812]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference With Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany
    in Milwaukee
    May 23, 1996

        President Clinton. Good afternoon. It's indeed a pleasure for me to
    welcome Chancellor Kohl back to the United States. He's now in his 14th
    year in office, the longest serving leader in the West. And not only
    Germany and the European Union but all of the West has been well served
    by his leadership, his devotion to freedom and to free markets.
        He's a friend to whom three American Presidents have turned for
    support and wise counsel. And I am especially grateful for the
    relationship that we have enjoyed and the counsel he has shared with me.
    During his tenure, the relationship between our two nations has grown
    stronger and deeper than ever, and it has become a powerful force for
    positive change.
        As Chancellor, Helmut Kohl has visited Washington 23 times. He knows
    the shortcuts through the traffic better than most of us who have come
    here more recently. We thought it was high time that the Chancellor saw
    another part of our great country. What better place than Milwaukee, a
    city that German immigrants helped to build, a city so rich in German
    heritage and culture that in the 19th century it was called the Deutsche
    Athens, the German Athens. It is also fitting that as Chancellor, as he
    approaches the mark for the longest tenure of

    [[Page 806]]

    all those who have held his office, he is visiting a city that his great
    predecessor, Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, came to 40 years ago.
        Today the partnership between our two nations has taken another
    important step forward. The two aviation agreements we just signed will
    strengthen our cooperation in this vital economic sector. The safety
    agreement will help us to clear the way to better, safer air traffic.
    The open skies agreement will create the largest fully opened bilateral
    market in the entire world of aviation, dramatically increasing
    opportunities for consumers and flexibility for our airlines. The
    Chancellor and I believe this agreement heralds a new era of competition
    in the over-regulated aviation markets of Europe.
        But these agreements are just one example of the work we're doing
    together to increase growth and prosperity for our people. As the
    world's two greatest exporting nations, Germany and the United States
    have a vital interest and are together playing a vital role in bringing
    down trade barriers and building the international marketplace of the
    21st century. We helped to complete the Uruguay round, the most
    ambitious trade agreement of all time, which has already boosted the
    greatest export surge in our country's history. Our cooperation in the
    G-7 has helped the global economy to keep moving forward for the benefit
    of people all around the world.
        Today I also salute the Chancellor for his bold budget and reform
    program. Strengthening Germany's finances and its capacity to grow and
    generate jobs will not only benefit the German people but also its many
    trading partners. Our economic cooperate is also making a difference in
    the daily lives of our citizens, but it has succeeded only because it
    has been backed by our security partnership as well, especially our
    security partnership in NATO, which has provided vital safety and
    stability for our nations for nearly 50 years.
        Today we reviewed the process of NATO's enlargement. We reaffirmed
    that it is proceeding in a predictable and clear and deliberate way.
    Much as it did after World War II in Western Europe, NATO can provide an
    important shelter for the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe
    that share our values and are ready to bear the responsibilities of
    allies.
        The success of the partnership of NATO in the IFOR mission in Bosnia
    demonstrates how the Alliance is adapting to the needs of our time. I
    especially want to thank the Chancellor for the truly historic decision
    to deploy 4,000 German troops to support the Bosnia peace agreement.
    Germany is shouldering its security responsibilities in the post-cold-
    war world, and we are all grateful for that.
        As NATO grows, it must also develop a strong and positive
    relationship with Russia. The seeds for that partnership have already
    been sown in the partnership of Russian troops alongside our NATO units
    in Bosnia, where they have served together and served well, and in the
    Partnership For Peace exercises involving Russian and American troops
    here in the United States.
        This is a moment of extraordinary opportunity. Not since the
    emergence of the modern nation-state have the prospects been so great
    for a free and undivided Europe, a cause so many Americans gave their
    lives for in this century. We will do all we can to see that this vision
    for Europe is realized. But no one, no one, has done more to make that
    vision real than Helmut Kohl. For that, the friends of freedom
    throughout the world are in his great debt.
        Mr. Chancellor, welcome again to the United States, and the floor is
    yours.
        Chancellor Kohl. Mr. President, dear Bill, ladies and gentlemen.
    Allow me to thank you, first of all, for this very warm reception. I
    would like to thank the Governor. I would like to thank the citizens of
    this city who in the streets welcomed us so warmly. And it has already
    been said that this is our first meeting outside of Washington.
        And let me say that I immediately accepted the invitation to come to
    Milwaukee because this is, after all, a region that, as regards the
    history of the United States and the history of this State of Wisconsin,
    was in many ways one where German immigrants left their imprint. And I
    think it's a very good opportunity to be able to address the citizens of
    this State and of this region and to document once again how close the
    German-American relations have developed over the years. And let me say
    that I'm very, very pleased, and it warms my heart to be here.
        The many talks that we've had this morning we will continue later on
    during the day and also later in the afternoon when we fly together to
    Washington. They document how close and intensive our relationship has
    developed. I think there are only few examples that I would be able to
    mention where politicians of countries

    [[Page 807]]

    meet so often, so regularly, where they exchange letters and phone
    calls, and where their staff members cooperate in such a close and
    coordinated way. And obviously, we also have a very close, personal
    rapport. As has always been the case when we met, we covered a lot of
    ground. We discussed many issues, and we shall continue to do so.
        We signed just now the protocol amending the aviation agreement
    between the United States of America and the Federal Republic of
    Germany. I think that this is a very important step for the future, in
    order to be able to improve the liberalization of air traffic. And this
    opens up, after all, access of German airlines to all American airports,
    and the same goes for American airlines in Germany.
        This is a milestone, indeed, in the relationship between our two
    countries, and you mentioned this, Mr. President. And what is also
    obviously very important for us and what we think constitutes a very
    important step forward as regards aviation safety is the conclusion of
    the relevant agreement that was signed today as well. After all, we've
    seen a history of air crashes just recently, and these are instances
    where we as leaders ask ourselves, have we really done enough in order
    to make accidents like that impossible?
        Now, this also underscores that we have a common position as regards
    free world trade. We think that goods and services should move freely
    between the countries of the world.
        Let me just, by way of a brief introductory statement, make a few
    remarks on NATO. I think we should have time for questions, so I'll keep
    my remarks short.
        Also, in view of what the President said of the former Yugoslavia,
    we, all of us, wish that what was agreed upon for this year will come
    true. We hope that--in the discussion going on on the international
    scene that people assume right from the start that this will be a
    failure--I think we should, all of us, try everything in order to make
    this come true, to make the agreements that were reached become reality.
        From a German point of view, we as Germans continue to be interested
    in NATO fulfilling its role and being able to fulfill its role in this
    changed world after the collapse of communism, of the Communist empire.
    We think NATO does have a role to play in order to secure peace and
    freedom for the peoples of the world. And I think that we should do
    everything--we should use prudence and farsightedness and wisdom, and to
    bear in mind also the changes in the world of today, and that we should
    pursue a course that bears these changes in mind and addresses them.
        Now, first steps have been taken as regards NATO in Paris. I think
    that this is a very positive development. I think in the days and months
    ahead, also as regards to security cooperation in Europe and generally
    speaking in the world, we will hold necessary talks with Russia and the
    Ukraine.
        So, in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen, I'm looking forward to my
    talks with Bill Clinton that will go on during the course of today. I
    should like to thank all of you for the very warm reception that I have
    been given.
        President Clinton. Paul [Paul Basken, United Press International].

    Legislative Agenda and the 1996 Election

        Q. Mr. President, in recent days and weeks you've been asked about
    your support for a series of larger Republican initiatives that have
    seemed at odds or were criticized at being at odds with your previous
    positions, such as the gas tax, despite your strong environmental
    quality; such as the Helms-Burton bill, despite concerns expressed
    within your administration; such as the Wisconsin welfare plan, despite
    concerns it might actually hurt children. Is this basically election
    year positioning, or is this something more fundamental?
        President Clinton. Well, first of all, I dispute the way you
    characterized it. On the gas tax, what I said was that I far preferred
    that we spend our limited money in this budget to give tax relief to
    people for childrearing and for education but that if the Congress would
    pass a clean minimum wage that was tied to the gas tax, I would sign
    that. And I reiterated that.
        What we have done to try to bring the price of gasoline down will be
    more effective in the modest release from the Strategic Petroleum
    Reserve, and frankly, time will take care of this. We had a spike in the
    gas tax partly caused by the fact that we had a very tough winter and a
    lot of oil supplies were refined for home heating oil instead of
    gasoline.
        Now, that's what I said on the gas tax. I reiterate that. I will do
    that; I will sign it if they will pass it with a clean minimum wage, and
    that's the price of getting the minimum wage increase in a clean way.
    But there are

    [[Page 808]]

    far better ways to get tax relief to the American people.
        On the Helms-Burton bill, I would remind you that the defense of
    freedom in Cuba is not a Republican issue. I came out for the Cuba
    Democracy Act before President Bush did in 1992. And I made it clear
    that we had some concerns about Helms-Burton, many of which were
    answered in the legislation, which gave me some flexibility there. And
    there was a big intervening event which gave us a clear signal about
    whether things had changed in Cuba or not. Two planes with American
    citizens on it were shot out of the sky in international waters. That
    didn't have anything to do with the election.
        And finally, on the welfare issue, I don't see how any member of the
    American press corps could say that welfare reform is a Republican
    issue. Now, let me just give you a few facts here.
        In 1980, when I was Governor of Arkansas--1980--I asked for and was
    granted permission to be one of the first States in the first Federal
    welfare reform experiment in the modern era. I helped to develop the
    Governors' position in the mid-eighties and helped to write the Family
    Support Act of 1988. Let's come to the present day. I have granted 61
    approvals for State welfare reform experiments. President Bush granted
    11; President Reagan granted 13.
        Three-quarters of the American people on welfare are now under
    welfare reform experiments. We have moved to stiffen child support
    enforcement. The results have been pretty impressive. The welfare roles
    are down by 1.3 million; child support enforcement collections are up by
    40 percent. I don't believe welfare reform is a partisan issue. It's
    certainly not out there in the country.
        If you look at the 21 States where the welfare caseload has gone
    down--or the 13 States, or how many--I think there are 13 where--there
    are 21 States where the welfare caseload has gone down by 18 percent or
    more, 13 are governed by Republicans, 8 by Democrats, almost the exact
    ratio in the Governors Association as a whole. The State with the
    biggest drop in welfare caseload is Indiana, which has a Democratic
    Governor. This is not a partisan issue.
        Now, the Republicans passed a bill that I vetoed. Does that mean
    they're for welfare reform and I'm not? No. Look at the Wisconsin plan--
    you mentioned the Wisconsin plan. The Wisconsin plan does three things
    that I think are very important. First of all, it says you got to work
    immediately, but we'll give you a job and we can use welfare money to
    subsidize private-sector jobs or to create community service jobs. I
    asked every Governor in the country to do just that when I spoke at the
    Governors' conference in Vermont quite a long while ago.
        Secondly, it says, if you go to work, we won't ask you to hurt your
    children; we'll give you child care and health care. Now, it seems to me
    that those are elements that we all ought to be for. Now that is not
    what was in the Republican welfare reform bill. It was tough on kids and
    easy on work, and that's why I vetoed it.
        All this election year rhetoric and posturing and gnashing of teeth,
    if you look beneath the rhetoric, the Republicans are moving toward the
    position I have advocated all along. And I'm encouraged by that. In the
    country, this is not a partisan issue. This does not have to be a
    partisan issue in Washington.
        When Senator Dole was here Tuesday, he said some things which it
    seemed to me were very consistent with what I have said I would be glad
    to support. He said that he wanted a welfare plan that had tough work
    requirements, that had a 5-year lifetime benefit, that had no welfare
    benefits to illegal immigrants except in extreme circumstances, that had
    tough child support enforcement, more responsibility for teen mothers,
    and greater flexibility for States to reform welfare on their own. They
    could require drug testing, or as Texas does, they could require
    immunization.
        Now, I am for all of that. Yesterday the House Republicans
    introduced a new plan that abandoned most of their extreme proposals.
    And these proposals--both some of what Senator Dole said and the House
    plan seem much closer to the bipartisan bills that are in the Senate and
    the House--the Castle-Tanner bill, the Breaux-Chafee bill that I have
    supported.
        So here's what I'd like to say about it. If we can rely on the
    common sense of America about this, we ought to still pass Federal
    legislation. Even though three-quarters of the American people who are
    on welfare are under welfare reform, not all of them are. Even though
    the scholar for the American Enterprise Institute says in this week's
    edition of Business Week that I can justifiably claim to end welfare as

    [[Page 809]]

    we know it--that's what he said--the truth is, we still need
    legislation.
        So what I say is, this is Senator Dole's plan; I think what he ought
    to do is to pass this plan through the Congress before he leaves the
    Senate on June 11th, and I will sign it. And we will put this behind us.
    My attitude is, let her rip. If this is the plan, let's don't pollute it
    with a lot of poison pills. Pass this plan through the Congress before
    you retire on June 11th, and I will sign it. And it will be good for the
    country.
        Chancellor.

    Trade With Terrorist Nations

        Q. Mr. President, could you comment on the legislature put forward
    to sanction European companies trading with Iran or Libya, and how did
    the Chancellor react on that? And do you see on that case any link,
    probably just morally, with the U.S. secretly allowing weapons being
    shipped into Bosnia by Iran?
        President Clinton. First of all, there is no linkage. Our Congress
    passed a bill at one point prohibiting us from enforcing the arms
    embargo against Bosnia. And if you go back and look at the facts, what
    enabled the peace to be made in Bosnia? What made the Dayton agreement
    possible?
        I would argue that there were two things: one, NATO's willingness to
    attack through the air, the aggression, the second, the Muslims and the
    Croats and their Federation began to win military victories on the
    ground.
        The arms embargo had a one-sided effect. We did not violate it.
    There's a difference in not violating it and being mandated to enforce
    it. So the two things have no connection.
        Now, this legislation that is working its way through the Congress
    has some provisions with flexibility in it that enables the President to
    take into account the national interests of the country in implementing
    it. But I have to tell you, we believe that there are a few countries in
    the world that all attempts to reason with have failed. And that's why
    this legislation is moving its way through the Congress. We will do
    everything we can to implement it in a way that is sensitive to the
    partnerships we have with our friends and the honest disagreements that
    we have.
        I believe that Chancellor Kohl is as good a friend of freedom and as
    strong an enemy of terrorism as any democratic country has anywhere in
    the world. I believe that. And we had a discussion about it today. We
    are working on a number of things, and I think that's, at this moment,
    all I should say about it.

    Same-Sex Marriages

        Q. Mr. President, yesterday your Press Secretary said that you would
    sign a bill banning recognition of same-sex marriages. What do you say
    to those who feel that this discriminates against gays and lesbians? And
    how do you respond to the many gays who supported you who now feel
    betrayed?
        President Clinton. Well, first of all, as I understand it, what the
    bill does--let's make it clear. As I understand it, what the bill does
    is to state that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman,
    that among other things, is used to bring children into the world. But
    the legal effect of the bill--as I understand it, the only legal effect
    of the bill is to make it clear that States can deny recognition of gay
    marriages that occurred in other States. And if that's all it does, then
    I will sign it.
        Now, having said that, I do not favor discrimination against people
    because they're homosexual. And you asked me what I would say to gay
    Americans who may disagree with me about this issue; I'd say, ``Look at
    my record. Name me another President who has been so pilloried for
    standing up for the fact that we shouldn't discriminate against any
    group of Americans, including gay Americans, who are willing to work
    hard, pay their taxes, obey the law, and be good citizens.''
        And let me just say, even though--I will sign this bill if that's
    what it does, and that's what I understand it does. This is hardly a
    problem that is sweeping the country. No State has legalized gay
    marriages. Only one State is considering it. We all know why this is in
    Washington now--it's one more attempt to divert the American people from
    the urgent need to confront our challenges together. That's really
    what's going on here. And I'm determined--this has always been my
    position on gay marriage. It was my position in '92. I told everybody
    who asked me about it, straight or gay, what my position was. I can't
    change my position on that; I have no intention of it.
        But I am going to do everything I can to stop this election from
    degenerating into an attempt to pit one group of Americans against
    another. Every time we do that the American

    [[Page 810]]

    people make a mistake. We are a better country than that. We're a
    greater country than that. And we ought not to do it, and I'm going to
    do what I can to stop it.
        Who else is there? Chancellor, do you want to call on somebody?

    Russian Elections

        Q. I'd like to bring your guest, the Chancellor, into this
    discussion here and ask the two of you to give us some insight in how we
    should feel about what's going on in the Soviet Union. We have talked a
    lot about issues in our elections here. They have elections coming up
    there. They're very close to you, sir. How do you feel about that? How
    should we think about what is going to happen there? And what backing
    are you giving whom in that election?
        Chancellor Kohl. Well, obviously, no one here is in a position to
    give any sort of safe, ironcast predictions as to what is going to
    happen. And I must say, I'm always a bit hesitant in such turbulent
    times--and I think if there ever were turbulent times in Russia, that is
    certainly going on now--I'm always hesitant in such times to rely on
    polls that try to make an attempt to clarify a little bit that sort of
    situation.
        Well, the Russian people will now decide in two rounds of elections.
    My position is a very clear one. I support those political forces that
    pursue reform, that wish to open up Russia to the rest of the world, and
    that consider that to be a basic tenet of their policy. And I would
    support those who are pursuing a policy to build bridges, build bridges
    after all of the horrors that we have experienced, bridges to Europe but
    also to the United States of America and to the people of America.
        And I think one simply will have to wait for the outcome of this
    election. I'm not one of those who reveres either of the candidates or
    any of the candidates as a sort of icon. I observe closely what is going
    on there, and I do hope--the outcome of that is I do hope that the
    present President will win the election.
        Q. [Inaudible]
        President Clinton. I would ask the American people and the German
    people to imagine how the world looks to the Russians. And I understand
    this has been a difficult period for them. They have freedom in a way
    they have never had it before. Their voice is controlling now in these
    elections, as it has been now in Duma elections and in one Presidential
    election already. But they have been through a traumatic experience,
    which has cost them great economic hardship. They have withdrawn their
    forces from Central and Eastern Europe, from the Baltics. They have
    downsized their defense dramatically.
        So they are in the process of doing two things. They are in the
    process of stabilizing their democracy and regenerating their economy at
    home but also in redefining how they should relate to the rest of the
    world. And keep in mind, this is a country that not only has been
    through economic hardships but has also suffered in the 19th and 20th
    century two very traumatic invasions.
        So the appeal of people who say, we can make it the way it used to
    be--even though I'm kind of with Will Rogers--do you remember what Will
    Rogers said about the good old days? ``Don't tell me about them. They
    never was.'' But still there is that nostalgic appeal, and that's what's
    making this a tough, tight election in Russia.
        The Chancellor and I have admired the way that President Yeltsin has
    continued to press forward to the future--and not always agreeing with
    us--trying to define a new system of greatness for the Russian people as
    well as trying to solidify democracy and bring back economic prosperity.
    And he and the other forces of reform in Russia, it seems to me,
    represent the future, and we hope the Russian people will vote for the
    future.
        Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News].

    Partial Birth Abortion

        Q. Mr. President, thank you. I want to give you an opportunity to
    respond to Senator Dole. The Senator in a speech today accused your
    administration of being without direction or moral vision, citing
    specifically your veto of the partial birth abortion ban which he said,
    quote, ``pushed the limits of decency too far.'' Would you respond to
    that, sir? Thank you.
        President Clinton. What would Senator Dole say to those five women
    who stood up there with me? They're five women of several hundred women
    every year who are told by their doctors that their babies, severely
    hydrocephalic, often without functioning brains, sometimes without even
    a brain in their skull, are going to die right before they're born or
    during birth or right afterward and that the only way those women can
    avoid serious physical damage, including losing the ability to ever bear
    further

    [[Page 811]]

    children, is to reduce the size of the skull, the head of the baby
    before it's too late.
        What would he say to the fact that at least two of those five women
    who were with me made it clear that they were pro-life, Catholic
    Republicans? That one of those women said she got down on her knees and
    prayed to God to take her life and let her child live? I am always a
    little skeptical when politicians piously proclaim their morality. He
    has to answer to those women.
        All I asked the Republicans in Congress to do was to pass an
    exception for women who would face severe physical damage. And their
    answer was, ``Oh, you want to give them exceptions so they can fit in
    their prom dress.'' That was the answer. Ads were run saying, ``This is
    what the President wants. They'll be able to drive a truck through this
    exception.''
        Well, I know that those 500 or 1,000 women or however many there are
    a year--they're not many of them--they don't have an organized voice,
    and they don't have much influence at the election. And I know what
    appeal this partial birth abortion bill had because it appeals to me; I
    wanted to sign it. But the President is the only place in this system of
    ours where there is one person who can stand up for people with no
    voice, no power, who are going to be eviscerated. And two of those five
    women had already had other children. One of those women had adopted
    another child and was physically able to take care of it.
        So before he or anybody else stands up and condemns the rest of us
    for our alleged lack of moral compass, he ought to say--he's looking at
    those women, and he said there was too much political support behind
    this; I did not want to be bothered by the facts; it's okay with me
    whatever--if they rip your body to shreds and you could never have
    another baby even though the baby you were carrying couldn't live. Now,
    I fail to see why his moral position is superior to the one I took.
        And again, I'm telling you, why did this come up now in this way?
    Why wouldn't they accept that minor amendment? Why? Because they would
    rather have an issue than solve a problem. Some people live and breathe
    to divide the American people and keep them in a turmoil all the time. I
    work to calm the American people down, to lift their vision, to unite
    them, and to move them into the future. And I think when it's all said
    and done, that's what the American people will want to do.

    Bosnian Peace Process

        Q. Mr. President, Mr. Chancellor, what about a followup to IFOR, and
    will there be an American participation for a certain IFOR II next year?
    Thank you.
        President Clinton.  First of all, I think it's important that we
    stay on the timetable that has been established. One of the worst things
    that would happen is if we said that we were going to have an indefinite
    military presence there as it would slow down all the other efforts. It
    would slow down the effort to hold the elections on time. It would slow
    down the efforts to strengthen the Federation. It would slow down the
    reconstruction efforts and the efforts to create in Bosnia the
    conditions in which the refugees can return from Germany and other
    places.
        And by the way, I want to thank the Chancellor and thank the German
    people for the extraordinary financial sacrifice they have undertaken in
    order to provide a decent home for those refugees who were driven out of
    Bosnia.
        So, for me, it's important to stay on the timetable because
    otherwise the people involved in economic reconstruction or political
    reform and all the other aspects of the Dayton agreement will, I think,
    inevitably, be more likely to get off track. Now, we're going to watch
    this very closely and see the developments unfold. But I am convinced
    that we have to continue to try to work within this timetable.
        One of the great tragedies of this whole endeavor, as you know, from
    the American point of view, was the crash of the airplane carrying
    Secretary Ron Brown and many American business leaders. We're
    reestablishing that trade mission now. We're going to go back to Bosnia.
    We're going to try to get some things going there sooner rather than
    later. And I think that ought to be the feeling that we all have. We
    should be driven by a sense of urgency to complete the tasks of the
    Dayton agreement.
        Chancellor, would you like answer?
        Chancellor Kohl. I would like to say very clearly at this point in
    time that I completely agree with President Clinton's position. I think
    it would be a very grave mistake, and it's something that you can see
    sometimes on the international scene, that people don't speak enough
    about what is necessary now, what has to be done now. People think too
    much about what

    [[Page 812]]

    we should do once the year is over and expectations have not been
    fulfilled.
        But this is a very critical kind of challenge, a very crucial kind
    of challenge is obvious to all of us. And that we have to do everything
    in order to attain this goal that we have set for ourselves is equally
    clear. I think whoever thinks that problems will become smaller when we
    extend the timeframe, is under an illusion. We have assumed
    responsibility now. We have devolved this responsibility on the people
    there. Just think of the elections. And I think we to do everything in
    order to maintain pressure by the international community and to make it
    very clear to all of those in the country itself who want to shed the
    responsibility that we shall not allow this.
        Let me at this point take up what the President said on the German
    contribution, and let me thank him for what he said on this. Ladies and
    gentlemen, I'm not complaining about the money that we have earmarked
    for this purpose, but in Germany right now we have 350,000 refugees from
    that civil war in former Yugoslavia, which is more than double the
    number that any other European country has absorbed. And the German
    taxpayer has paid about 10 billion deutsche mark over these few years in
    order to assist those refugees.
        Now, I'm not talking about us wanting to have this money back, not
    at all. I only think it doesn't really make sense that this money that
    we have to spend for caring for these refugees should be spent in
    Germany. We should take it, I think, and use it in those villages and
    towns that have been deserted by the refugees, these villages and towns
    that are partly destroyed. And I think we should use this money in order
    to give them--to allow them to buy materials for construction, timber,
    bricks, cement, and give some of it also for free, so as to enable
    people to rebuild their home.
        I must say I see it with great concern, every year, that these
    refugees are not able to return to their home. There is a certain degree
    of uprootedness that is spreading, particularly among the children of
    those refugees. And those people who, after all, have launched this
    terrible war and this terrible campaign and have waged a war of ethnic
    cleansing, that they should be proved right, that their achievements
    should, so to speak, come true in the end, that is an intolerable
    thought for me. And this is why I support the President and others in us
    trying to keep within the timetable and trying to achieve what we wanted
    to.
        President Clinton. Thank you all very much.

    Note: The President's 123d news conference began at 11:45 a.m. at City
    Hall. Chancellor Kohl spoke in German, and his remarks were translated
    by an interpreter.