    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1996, Book I)]
    [April 2, 1996]
    [Pages 529-534]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 529]]

    The President's News Conference With President Oscar Luigi Scalfaro of
    Italy
    April 2, 1996

        President Clinton. Good afternoon. Let me say again, it's a great
    pleasure to have President Scalfaro at the White House. For 50 years,
    Italy has been one of America's closest allies, a pillar of the Atlantic
    Alliance throughout the cold war, a strong advocate for freedom and
    democracy in the years since.
        Over these many years of partnership, our Nation has had no better
    friend in Italy than President Scalfaro. The President began his public
    career with the founding of the post-war Italian state. He has served
    his country in a range of high positions, and he has always, always
    worked to strengthen the close cooperation between our nations. As
    President, he has stood firm for the values that we share, and America
    is grateful to President Scalfaro for his leadership and his wise
    counsel.
        This is our third meeting. Today we focused in large measure on our
    shared interests and effort in building a free, stable, and undivided
    Europe. Nowhere is this common commitment more evident than in our work
    in the former Yugoslavia. I salute the Italian soldiers who are
    participating in the mission in Bosnia. America's soldiers are proud to
    serve with them in what is truly a joint endeavor. They and the other
    members of IFOR are doing invaluable work. They're giving the people of
    Bosnia a chance for peace. They are carrying on Italy's tradition of
    shouldering responsibility in the region that began with Operation Deny
    Flight and Operation Provide Promise. Italy is helping to build bridges
    to Central and Eastern Europe, bridges that can extend security and
    prosperity and democracy across the entire Continent.
        As a member of NATO and the European Union, Italy is a force for
    cooperation and integration in Europe and around the world. I had the
    opportunity today to thank President Scalfaro for Italy's work in
    overcoming the old divisions in Europe and for his nation's global
    efforts to promote peace and security, from its support for the peace
    process in the Middle East to its vital help in the effort to halt
    proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to its commitment that we
    strongly share to win the struggle against terrorism.
        President Scalfaro told me about Italy's ambitious goals for its
    E.U. Presidency. The new transatlantic agenda, which I was proud to sign
    at Madrid at the U.S.-E.U. summit last December, promises to make our
    citizens on both sides of the Atlantic more secure and more prosperous.
    I am pleased with the cooperation we have enjoyed with Italy on problems
    such as international crime, narcotics, and refugees.
        Finally, let me say we had a brief discussion of political change in
    Italy and throughout the world. Every nation in the West, including
    America, has been undergoing a period of adjustment in the wake of the
    end of the cold war. We in the United States are convinced that Italy's
    democracy is strong, its economy healthy, its people committed to
    playing a vital and constructive role on the world stage in the future
    as they have for so many decades. We are very pleased about that and,
    again, very glad to welcome you, Mr. President, to Washington.
        President Scalfaro. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you
    for the invitation and for the welcome during the state visit. But above
    all, I would like to express my great satisfaction for the words that
    you have repeated during this meeting and that you have repeated to me
    when I finished my speech at the arrival ceremony.
        I have written down the sentences that have struck me the most and
    which are the reason for which I am so pleased with this meeting with
    you. As you said just earlier, Italy is a guiding force in the world.
    You added that in the meeting that we just had that we believe that
    Italy is a first-class ally in the international field, in all fields.
    And again, the American people--is very attached to the alliance between
    our two countries.
        This visit, which is a visit based on friendship, is a visit in
    which a head of state, such as myself, has lived through these 50 years
    following the end of the war, following the War of Liberation, and these
    were very difficult years after the war, difficult recovery years. And
    based on de Gasperi's policy, which has always been based first of all
    on the agreement among free people, de Gasperi always taught us that the

    [[Page 530]]

    fundamental approach of a state must be based, first of all, on foreign
    policy. And from this, in the logic of things, follows domestic policy.
    And therefore, this agreement among free people has as its pillar the
    United States of America, with the sacrifice made by their men and
    through the various stages that I have mentioned earlier, the initial
    agreements that we struck in Italy among the political forces. And it
    was because of this that we recognized in human rights and the values of
    mankind the values of peace.
        Based on this approach, we have begun our fight against terrorism. I
    had the opportunity for 4 years when I was Minister of the Interior
    when, at the time, I was able to subscribe the first agreement with the
    United States on this issue. The danger of this violence, in other
    words, the violence against man and the attack against man's values,
    continues, persists today.
        I have said earlier and I repeat today, when faced with terrorism,
    negating human rights, there is no such thing as neutrality. There is no
    such thing as abstention. He who says he is neutral before the
    aggression against human rights, he who says that he has abstained from
    this, must undoubtedly be considered as someone as being against the
    values of mankind and man's dignity. This is what our meeting was based
    on, and this is why I'm so pleased with our meeting.
        Thank you, Mr. President.
        President Clinton. Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

    Russian Elections

        Q. Mr. President, from the IMF to your own administration, the West
    appears to be bending over backwards to support or bolster Boris Yeltsin
    as the Russian elections approach. How important is it for the West to
    impede a comeback of the Communist Party in Russia, and what would be
    the repercussions if the Communists succeed?
        President Clinton. Well, first of all, I think that none of us
    should take any position on the elections in another country, but the
    United States has been clearly on the side of reform in Russia, on both
    political and economic reform. And what would be the repercussions of an
    election, of a change in government in Russia would depend entirely on
    how the new government proceeded: what would be their policy on
    political reform, on democracy and freedom; what would be their policy
    on relating to their neighbors; what would be their policy on economic
    reform in relating to the rest of the world?
        So we have to judge--first of all, leave all free countries and free
    elections to their own devices, and then, secondly, we evaluate other
    countries based on what they do. But we have to say clearly that we are
    on the side of reform, political reform, democracy, respecting the
    rights of other countries, and economic reform.
        Could we have a question from an Italian journalist? Mr. President,
    would you like to call on----

    Italian Elections

        Q. We are now in the largest democracy in the world. Can you confirm
    your doubts about the presidentialism? Do you see any reason for
    authoritary----
        President Clinton. Do I see any reason for what? Are you asking him
    or me? [Laughter]
        President Scalfaro. You're asking me a question? Okay. All right,
    just so we understand each other, because if--first, I'm going to ask--
    all right, let's do it one thing at a time. I'd like to hear the
    question first. Your question is based on the assumption--and lucky you
    who has this assumption--that I am concerned about--if there is a
    Presidential solution. I don't have these concerns. And since this
    debate grew from a speech that I gave to the Parliament in Mexico last
    week, I said precisely that I do not have any objections to a state
    based on a Presidential system. Now, if this sentence means that I'm
    against it, then you can explain it to me. I also added that what I
    believe to be crucial is that the Parliament must have full powers. And
    I said that wisdom would have it that there must be able to have a
    synthesis between these two principles.
        Now, if somebody says that I said that the Presidential system is
    dangerous, then that means that you think something, and you attribute
    it to me. I think--I have thoughts, but I don't sublet my thoughts. This
    is as clear as I can be. Now if you want to debate it, then you can go
    ahead, but you can't forget the fact that in Italy a few weeks ago, just
    a few weeks ago, I asked the government to--I asked Senator Maccanico to
    create the government.
        This did not come from me, because according to our constitutional
    laws, the head of state must gather all of the proposals from all the
    parties--from the right wing of Mr. Fini, which

    [[Page 531]]

    had the support of Forza Italia, and these proposals were supported by
    the left wing of D'Alema. D'Alema said that--he said he could not--not
    be in favor of Maccanico, and that's how this whole thing started.
        Excuse me, one minute--in this whole exercise, the lady has a little
    bit more energy than the man, but you have to wait. In this attempt,
    there was a broad understanding on a semi-Presidential system, and a
    sentence that Fini expressed, and I think I'm going to repeat it
    verbatim here, is, ``without mortifying the Parliament in its exercise
    of its powers.'' And I won't add anything more, because the political
    forces don't want to add anything to it, and that's it.
        President Clinton. I feel as if we just got to sit in on a little
    family feud here. [Laughter]
        Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].

    1996 Presidential Election

        Q. Mr. President, now that you know who your opponent will be in the
    November elections, what do you think of him? Also, this election is
    being called, rightly or wrongly, the center against the middle. What do
    you think are the real issues that will divide the two candidates?
        President Clinton. Well, first of all, I think we should put off the
    politics for a little longer. I mean, for many people this election has
    gone on for--since the second I took my hand off the Bible in 1993. And
    I think that's not always good for the United States. And we have work
    to do.
        Just last week, we at least extended the debt limit, passed the line
    item veto, something I have advocated for 3 years. We still have a
    balanced budget before us. I hope we can pass the right kind of balanced
    budget. We've got the welfare reform issue before us. We have a lot of
    other--we've got the antiterrorism legislation, which I still hope can
    be rescued.
        So I think we should work on this. And I think I should do my job,
    and Senator Dole should do his. And we should not have a work stoppage
    between now and November just because we've got an election. Then at
    some point in the future, we'll have our conventions, and there will be
    plenty of time to have the political campaigns.
        But I think the American people will sort out the differences pretty
    clearly. They laid their markers down last year. They passed their
    budget, and they said, ``If we have the White House and the Congress,
    this is what we intend to do for America.'' That's their message. Read
    their budget. And I have different views, which I made clear last year.
    And we will be able to amplify those as we go forward. There are other
    differences as well.
        But the main point is that we are not yet in an election--at least
    we shouldn't be--and we all are getting checks from the American people,
    both of us are and those who support us, to go to work and show up here
    every day. We shouldn't have a work stoppage between now and November.
    We ought to keep working until we pass a balanced budget, pass welfare
    reform, pass antiterrorism legislation, and keep going forward.
        Q. That's not going to happen.
        President Clinton. I don't think that you know that. I think that we
    might--I think we might do that. A lot of people thought that we
    wouldn't have the line item veto. I had to agree to wait until next year
    to exercise it, but I wanted it bad enough on the books that I was glad
    to do that. And we've done some other things that I think are worth
    doing. We lifted the earnings limits on Social Security, something I
    have long favored and I think will really benefit this country as the
    demographics of our work force change. So I think we can get things done
    here. We need to keep doing it.
        An Italian journalist.

    Italian Elections

        Q. A State Department report foresees a key role for the ex-
    Communist Party after the Italian political polls on April 21st. How
    would that affect the U.S.-Italian relationship?
        President Clinton. After the--how would what affect it? If we had a
    Communist-dominated government?
        Q. Yes.
        President Clinton. I'll answer the question the way I answered the
    question on Russia. First of all, we support freedom and democracy in
    democratic countries. So, if any government emerges as a result of the
    free choice of the people, under the rules of the constitution and laws
    of any country, that is that nation's business. We then evaluate those
    governments based on what their position is in relation to us: What is
    their economic position; what is their foreign policy position; what is
    their position on human

    [[Page 532]]

    rights and freedom? And that's what we would do with any government.
        And if you look at the whole history of the way the Italian
    governments have emerged and conducted themselves in the last 50 years,
    I don't know that we have any cause for concern, so I wouldn't express
    any here. I think that's up to the people of your country to decide what
    kind of government you have, and then you have to decide what the
    policies are.
        Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News].

    1996 Presidential Election

        Q. Mr. President, to follow up on your last answer, Senator Dole and
    his advisers have indicated that the Senator will try during the course
    of this legislative session to pass as much of the Republican agenda as
    he can, to send it to you for your signature or, just as good for him
    politically, perhaps, your veto. Senator Daschle has indicated that he
    will do everything he can to block Senator Dole from doing that. So the
    very thing that you describe, the kind of political deadlock, election-
    year deadlock, seems in prospect. I wonder if you might have some advice
    for both sides in that.
        President Clinton. That's what they say now, but you know, Senator
    Dole's just been through all these primaries, and you know, since the
    whole purpose of the primaries was to nominate someone that hopefully
    will defeat me in November, they had to--they ginned up a lot of red
    meat, and they got their juices flowing, and that's what they were doing
    out there.
        But I would just say that the right thing for the country is for us
    to pass a balanced budget plan. We have now both identified more than
    enough savings to get there. They know what I cannot accept. We have 95
    percent agreement, I think, on welfare reform, and we are very close on
    some other things; I just think it would be a mistake not to do this.
        So there will be still plenty of things we disagree on. I mean,
    after all, they put their marker down last year. You can see it in their
    budget. I mean, there's plenty of differences between us that won't be
    evaporated by anything we do that's good for America between now and
    November, but we both have jobs to do and we ought to do them.
        It may be that they will try to pass bills that they know that I
    will have to veto, but I'd far rather sign them. And I just hope we can
    avoid this sort of gridlock. There's no need for it, particularly if you
    look on the budget, if you look at how we've identified--the American
    people must have a difficult time understanding how both sides could
    identify more than $700 billion worth of savings, which is more than
    enough to balance the budget and give a middle-class tax cut to support
    childrearing, and not do it. I think that'll be very hard to explain.
    But I don't have a vote in Congress; I can only urge them to do it.
        Is there an Italian question?

    Extraterritorial Impact of Sanctions

        Q. Mr. President, the U.S. has always been pro-free-trade as a
    country. But recently, Congress has passed a couple of bills, the
    D'Amato bill and the Helms-Burton bill, that are introducing secondary
    boycott and the concept of extraterritoriality of U.S. law. This will
    create a problem for many international companies, European companies
    and Italian companies who want to do business with the U.S. Don't you
    think that, by signing those laws, you will send the wrong message of
    the outside wall?
        And just a question for President Scalfaro. Mr. President, did you
    talk about Ustica and the fact that NATO may have important documents
    that would help to resolve this issue?
        President Clinton. Let me answer your first question. With regard to
    the Helms-Burton legislation, the United States believes that we need to
    take a very firm position in our dealings with Cuba, which is the only
    nondemocratic country left in our hemisphere and which recently shot
    down two American civilian airplanes over international airspace, in
    plain violation of international law.
        The Helms-Burton bill provides the President with a waiver authority
    which I believe makes it possible for me to implement that bill in a way
    that does not violate the commercial rules and regulations governing
    nations and that will not undermine our strong, broad-based, and
    consistent commitment to open trade among nations, and I will do my best
    to do that.
        Perhaps the President would like to answer the question you asked
    him.

    1980 Ustica Island Airline Tragedy

        President Scalfaro. Yes, I did speak about this issue with President
    Clinton. Obviously, I didn't ask him the questions because this is a
    NATO issue, but I did ask him for his support for the Italian request,
    and I told him that this

    [[Page 533]]

    request did not come from political circles but came from a judge, the
    judge who has been responsible for this long trial.
        I also added that there is a right--the right for Italy, which is
    part of NATO, to know the facts. Second place, there's a right, and it's
    even stronger a right that cannot disappear, which is the families'
    natural right to know how their loved ones died.
        I also added that, in my opinion, that if we were to be denied this
    request, it could cause speculation which could not help anyone.
    President Clinton very kindly replied to me that he had never discussed
    this issue before in NATO, but that he would gladly examine the case and
    that he would give his support to the request made by the Italian
    judges.
        President Clinton. Ann [Ann Devroy, Washington Post].

    Judge Harold Baer

        Q. Mr. President, is it proper for the White House to criticize a
    sitting Federal judge, and do you now regret appointing Judge Baer in
    New York?
        President Clinton. Let me answer--you have two questions: Number
    one, I don't regret appointing him; number two, I think it is proper for
    the White House to say, or for the President personally to say if he
    disagrees with a judge's opinion.
        After all, I think there's been a little overreaction to this. The
    judge has lifetime tenure. So that to insulate the judge in our system
    from pressure, that does not mean that any judge should be entitled or
    any court should be entitled not only to lifetime tenure but a gag rule
    on everyone else.
        So I supported the position taken by our United States Attorney in
    New York. On the other hand, I think that it's important not to get into
    the business of characterizing judges based on one decision they make.
    Judge Baer had a rehearing on it, made a decision, and I have nothing to
    add to what our United States Attorney said. But I think that it's very
    important that we say--at least for me to say--I support the system we
    have, I support the independence of the Federal judiciary. I do not
    believe that means that those of us who disagree with particular
    decisions should refrain from saying we disagree with them. It doesn't
    mean we won't obey them; we'll all obey them. But if we don't agree and
    we have reasons for not agreeing, we should be free to say that. And
    that's what I think should be done.
        Now beyond that, however, I don't think it's fair to just
    characterize a judge or judges in some sort of sweeping way, as
    apparently members of the other party are now beginning to do. And I'm a
    little perplexed by that since I think only three of my judges had any--
    any of the ones I've appointed--had any Republicans voting against them.
    I believe all the rest of them went through without Republican
    opposition.
        And there have been many articles talking about how, number one, the
    judges I have appointed had the highest ratings from the American Bar
    Association of any President since the appointments have been made;
    number two, they were more diverse in terms of gender and race; but
    number three, I have been criticized from all sides because they are
    less ideological. I didn't--I have tried to appoint good, sensible
    people to the bench.
        So I hope that we won't have a big attempt to turn this into a
    political campaign issue. I think that it's obvious what is going on
    here. The people on the other side are sort of embarrassed about their
    crime record. They fought the crime bill. They fought the 100,000
    police. They fought the Brady bill. They fought the assault weapons ban.
    They fought things that they used to say they were for, so now they
    think they can sort of get well by making some outrageous claims about
    the judges I have appointed.
        But that does not mean that every American shouldn't feel free to
    express his or her opinion on a particular decision. That's why you give
    these judges the insulation, but you still permit the free debate.

    Visiting Heads of State

        Q. You talked about European heads of state who come to the United
    States to promote themselves. Were you referring to a specific case?
        President Scalfaro. No, if I were referring to someone in
    particular, I would have said so. You know me better than that. I said
    that there is a tradition. It's not a new tradition, and you know it
    very well. This is the tradition that, following the Second World War,
    that heads of state come here because it's a huge publicity stunt that
    they used in their own countries, or they do it to promote themselves. I
    wanted to

    [[Page 534]]

    say that this is not my case, and I would be offended, and it would be a
    lack of respect for the United States and for the President of the
    United States, but also for Italy and for myself. And that's all I have
    to say.
        President Clinton. Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 117th news conference began at 12:36 p.m. in Room
    450 of the Old Executive Office Building. President Scalfaro spoke in
    Italian, and his remarks were translated by an interpreter.