    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1996, Book II)]
    [November 8, 1996]
    [Pages 2091-2104]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    November 8, 1996

    Chief of Staff Transition

        The President. Good afternoon. Please be seated. Before I begin I'd
    like to ask the Vice President and Leon Panetta and Erskine Bowles to
    join me up here, in no particular order. [Laughter]
        Let me begin by once again thanking the American people for the
    honor they have bestowed upon me and the responsibility they have once
    again placed in my hands. I will work hard over the next 4 years to
    uphold their trust, to protect our shared values, and to meet our common
    challenges.
        To do that, I want our administration to be able to serve the
    American people as well in the next 4 years as we have in the past 4. I
    must, therefore, begin by announcing that Leon Panetta, who has been my
    Chief of Staff since 1994, will be resigning to return to California.
        I understand why he wants to return home after so many long years
    and long hours, but that doesn't make it any easier for me to see him
    go. No one in recent memory has better served the administration--any
    administration--or the American people than Leon Panetta in what is
    perhaps the most difficult of all the jobs in public service in
    Washington today.
        As a civil rights official, a distinguished Member of Congress, an
    OMB Director, Leon Panetta brought his sharp mind and his huge heart to
    bear on every task he ever undertook. He became my Chief of Staff at a
    difficult time. He leaves with a remarkable record: deep reduction in
    the deficit, millions of new jobs, a strong defense of programs for
    those in need, including food stamps. All these bear Leon's stamp.
        Just as important as the work he did was the way he did it. He saw
    our White House staff as a family. They returned his devotion. His easy
    laugh and his level head kept our priorities straight and our spirits
    up.
        He and I have often had the opportunity to wonder at the miracle of
    America that took us this far. He is a child of immigrants who came to
    this country in search of a better life and found it in the walnut
    groves of California. He has become my great friend, more than my
    countryman, more than my fellow Democrat, more even than my fellow
    worker. In the language of his people, he is my paesan. [Laughter] And I
    love him very much.
        To Sylvia, Christopher, Carmelo, Jim, Elizabeth, Christina, and the
    grandchildren, Michael and Elizabeth, I know how proud he is of you, and
    you must be very proud of him.
        To succeed Leon Panetta, I wanted someone of stature, intellect,
    dedication, drive, and the capacity to do this virtually impossible job,
    both a manager and a leader. I'm proud to announce that I am naming
    Erskine Bowles as the next White House Chief of Staff. He's combined
    brilliant business success and dedicated public service. As an
    investment banker, he recognized that our successes come not just from
    our big firms but from small and medium-size ones, entrepreneurs with
    energy and ideas he worked hard to give the opportunity to start new
    businesses and to expand the ones they were running.
        When I became President, I wanted to transform the Small Business
    Administration from a political backwater to an engine of economic
    growth. Erskine Bowles did it beyond my wildest expectations. He
    revitalized the SBA. He doubled the loan volume. He dramatically
    increased loans to women and minority business owners even as he cut
    paperwork and trimmed bureaucracy.
        I then asked him to serve as the Deputy Chief of Staff. He was one
    of those most responsible for bringing focus and direction to our
    efforts. Quietly, behind the scenes, he led our effort to educate the
    public on what was at stake in last year's budget fight. Through it all,
    he became my close friend and trusted adviser.

    [[Page 2092]]

    He returned to North Carolina last year to be with his family, to start
    a new business, and continue his work for the Juvenile Diabetes
    Foundation, which he had previously served as president.
        I know how much Erskine Bowles loves private life. I know that I
    have asked from him a real sacrifice, and not only from him but also
    from his wife, Crandall, and his children, Sam, Anne, and Bill. But his
    country needs him, and I need him. I have absolute faith in his ability
    to do this job. He will bring discipline, focus, and deep values to the
    work. He will help us finish the job the American people sent us here to
    do. In a sense, this is a homecoming for him, for Erskine is a part of
    our family here, and I'm happy to have him back.
        As Leon will tell you, I expect a lot of the Chief of Staff. I kept
    Leon Panetta up until 6 o'clock in the morning election morning playing
    hearts. [Laughter] Yes, Erskine Bowles can play hearts. [Laughter] He
    also plays golf, but he plays golf better than he plays hearts; I prefer
    to focus on his hearts playing. [Laughter]
        It has become more apparent than ever that our country is moving
    forward with confidence and vigor toward the 21st century. It has become
    more apparent than ever since the election that the American people want
    us to fulfill our responsibilities as Democrats, Republicans, and
    independents second and Americans first, to set aside our differences
    and join hands to make the most of this moment of possibility.
        That's how we achieved so much at the end of the past Congress. Just
    think of what happened: historic welfare reform, a minimum wage
    increase, dramatic expansion of pension opportunities for people in
    small businesses, the adoption tax credit, the extension of the Brady
    bill to cover incidences of domestic violence, the Kennedy-Kassebaum
    health care reform bill that lets people keep their health insurance as
    they change jobs or when someone in the family has been sick, an end to
    the drive-by pregnancies and deliveries where people are kicked out of
    the hospital after only 24 hours, help for families with mental health
    needs, and assistance to Vietnam veterans' children with spina bifida.
    All this happened and shows you what we can do if we work together to
    give our people the tools they need to make the most of their own lives.
        It's a good sign for America that all parties now say they want to
    reach common ground. And I want us to forge a partnership to produce
    results for the American people. On Tuesday our people voted for the
    ideas of the vital American center. Now let us make that vital center
    the place for the vigorous actions to move us into the 21st century.
        We should begin with our most pressing challenges: balancing the
    budget, giving our children the world's best education, opening wide the
    doors of college to everyone willing to work for them, finishing the job
    of welfare reform, passing real campaign finance reform.
        Nothing is more fundamental than balancing the budget. Our progress
    has already produced lower interest rates, steady growth, expanded
    homeownership. Now we must keep our economy going steady and strong by
    finishing the job of balancing the budget in a way that truly reflects
    our values. I am inviting the bipartisan leadership of Congress to meet
    with me next week here at the White House to discuss how we can develop
    a plan together to pass a balanced budget and to keep our economy going.
    I've asked Leon Panetta and OMB Director Frank Raines to coordinate this
    effort.
        I want these negotiations to cover a broad range of issues involved
    in balancing the budget, including strengthening the Medicare Trust
    Fund, cuts in spending, and a tax cut. I believe our highest priority
    must be education, especially college opportunities. As I told the
    American people, we should make the 13th and 14th years of education as
    universal as a high school diploma is today. So I will work to see to it
    that this balanced budget includes the education tax cuts I outlined
    during the campaign, which had very broad and overwhelming support among
    the American people.
        I will also discuss with the congressional leadership how we can
    enact bipartisan campaign finance reform as soon as possible. We clearly
    have a unique moment of opportunity now, when the public and you in the
    press are focused on this issue. Now is the time to seize it, before the
    moment fades. The American people will be watching to see whether our
    deeds match our words.
        The lesson of our history is clear: When we put aside partisanship,
    embrace the best ideas regardless of where they come from, and work for
    principled compromise, we can move America not left or right but
    forward. That is what I am determined to do.

    [[Page 2093]]

        Now, I want to take your questions, but first I'd like to give Mr.
    Panetta and Mr. Bowles a chance to just say a few words.

    [At this point, Leon Panetta and Erskine Bowles made brief remarks and
    then left the podium.]

        The President. Thank you. This is an inauspicious beginning; you're
    leaving me in my hour of need. [Laughter]
        Go ahead. Sorry.

    Trust and Campaign Finance Reform

        Q. The election is over; you do have the support of the American
    people for a second term. But some questions remain. One of them is, how
    do you explain the obsession with fundraising, especially from dubious
    Asian sources, and how do you overcome the image created by your
    opponent that you are a President who cannot be trusted?
        The President. Let me answer the second question first. I think the
    American people, since they've been hearing this for 5 years, took a
    long, hard look at it, and they measured that against what they saw in
    terms of the work of this administration, in terms of the people who
    were laboring hard to make their lives better, and in terms of the
    President. And I think they made their judgment that I have worked hard
    for them, I will keep working hard for them, and that that is my
    motivation for being here. And I think that they gave me their trust,
    and I'm going to do my best to be worthy of it.
        Now, with regard to the contribution issue, the Democratic Party and
    the Republican Party raised a lot of money under the rules which now
    exist. The Democratic Party received over a million different
    contributions in 2 years. They determined two things. One is that a
    relatively small number of them--I think--I don't know exactly what the
    number is but quite a small number out of a million--they should not
    have taken, and they have returned them. They also--the Democratic Party
    said that they thought they should have a tighter screen on
    contributions when they come in, and they've implemented improvements so
    that they won't receive contributions they shouldn't if they can
    determine it at all. I think that's a good thing. I think the Republican
    Party should have the same rules.
        But the real thing that I would say here is--I'd like to make two
    other points. First, and far and away the most important point, is that
    this has shown us once again that our campaigns cost too much, they take
    too much time, they raise too many questions, and now is the time for
    bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation.
        I supported the McCain-Feingold bill last year. The leaders of the
    other party did not, and it did not pass. Today I reaffirm my support
    for McCain-Feingold, and I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to
    pass it as soon as possible with an amendment that our party has agreed
    to, saying that we should not have contributions from foreign nationals
    who are otherwise--who can legally give money now. I am prepared to do
    that.
        I called Senator McCain yesterday and Senator Feingold. I had a good
    conversation with both of them, and I asked them for their best advice
    about where to proceed. I assured them that I would support this
    legislation, that our party would support it, and that we had more than
    enough votes in our caucus to guarantee it an overwhelming victory. So
    the question now is basically for the leaders of the Republican majority
    in Congress, whether they will support it, either right now or as soon
    as we come into session next year. But I am prepared to go forward, and
    I think that's the most important thing.
        Now, let me just make one final comment. A lot of, I thought--
    questions had been raised about these contributions, and any questions
    that had been raised, we should do our best, the Democratic Party should
    do its best to answer; any questions you ask of us, we should do our
    best to answer. But there was a--in your question and in a lot of the
    things that have happened in the aftermath, there is an almost
    disparaging reference to Asians. And in the last few weeks, a lot of
    Asian-Americans who have supported our campaign have come up to me and
    said, ``You know, I'm being made to feel like a criminal. All these
    people are calling me. And I say, `Why are you calling me?' They say,
    `Because you have an Asian last name.' '' And I--maybe I don't need to
    do this, but I would like to remind everybody here and throughout the
    country that our country has been greatly enriched by the work of Asian-
    Americans. They are famous for working hard for family values and for
    giving more than they take. And I, frankly, am grateful for the support
    that I have received from them.

    [[Page 2094]]

        And so I just want to make that clear. I think that there's been a
    lot of rather--I don't mean that you did, Helen [Helen Thomas, United
    Press International], but there has been a lot of rather disparaging
    comments made about Asian-Americans. And it's--ironically, I found it
    surprising that our friends on the other side did because historically
    they have received more votes from Asian-Americans than we have.
        Q. May I say as a point of rebuttal, I certainly didn't mean to
    disparage----
        The President. I know you didn't.
        Q. No, but also--there was also the question of whether the
    Indonesian contributions may have affected our policy toward----
        The President. Well, now that's a different--the answer to that is,
    absolutely not. Indeed, look at the difference in my policy and my
    predecessor's policy. We changed our policy on arms sales because of
    East Timor, not to sell small arms. And we cosponsored the resolution in
    the United Nations in favor of greater human rights for East Timor. And
    I'm proud that we did that. So I can tell you categorically that there
    was no influence.
        By the way, all kinds of people talk to me about policy. Polish-
    Americans, Hungarian-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Irish-Americans talk
    to me about policy. Citizens that I--people I meet around the world in
    the course of my travels on your behalf talk to me about it. But in the
    end, I always do what I believe is right for the American people.
        Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

    Independent Counsel and Attorney General Reno

        Q. Mr. President, Attorney General Reno is considering whether to
    appoint an independent counsel to investigate these allegations of
    improper fundraising by your campaign. She says that she's----
        The President. Wait, wait, wait. There have been no allegations
    about improper fund----
        Q. Well, by the Democratic----
        The President. That's correct, by the Democratic Party.
        Q. She says that she's caught between a rock----
        The President. That was the other campaign that had problems with
    that, not mine.
        Q. General Reno says she's caught between a rock and a hard place
    and that she'll be criticized no matter what she does. I know that it's
    her decision, but what do you think? Do you think that these allegations
    should be investigated by an independent counsel? And secondly, do you
    think that General--would you like to see General Reno stay on for a
    second term?
        The President. I think, on the first question, I should have no
    comment on that. On the second question, I should have no comment on any
    personnel decision until I have had a chance to meet with the Cabinet
    members in question and work through all the decisions. And I think I
    should have a uniform policy on that, which I have followed to date and
    which I will continue to follow.
        Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, CNN].

    John Huang and James Riady

        Q. Getting back to the first question, Mr. President, a lot of
    questions have been raised, though, about your personal relationship
    with John Huang, who was the DNC fundraiser who went out to the Asian-
    American community and raised some of the money that had to be returned,
    as well as with the Riady family in Jakarta, James Riady in particular,
    who came to the White House on several occasions. What exactly was your
    relationship with John Huang and with the Riady family?
        The President. I believe the first time I met John Huang--I
    believe--was several years ago in Taiwan when I was a Governor on a
    trade mission. I believe that is correct. He might have a better memory
    than I do, but I think that's right.
        I met James Riady when he came to Arkansas to live and work when he
    was partners--when his family and his family's business group were
    partners with the Stephens interest in Arkansas, in a bank there. And he
    and his wife lived there, and I got to know them several years ago.
        So I have known both James Riady and his wife and John Huang and his
    wife for several years. And I knew them primarily in the context of my
    work as Governor, both inside Arkansas in dealing with the economic
    issues within the State and then in my work as Governor of Arkansas and
    going to Taiwan--which parenthetically is one of the biggest purchasers
    of soybeans, which is a big product in my home State, of any country in
    the world. So I was there quite often, I think five times during the
    course

    [[Page 2095]]

    of my governorship. And that's how I knew them.
        So I had a personal relationship with them that went back several
    years and long before there was any politics or even contributions or
    anything like that involved. I had known them for several years.
        Q. Was it a mistake for you to appoint John Huang to a Commerce
    Department position, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, given the
    relationship he had with the Lippo conglomerate in Indonesia and his
    business interests in the past?
        The President. Well, I don't believe so. As soon as--I don't think
    so, not as long as the clearances and the search of all the records and
    the business disclosures, if they were all appropriate. You know, there
    are all kinds of standards for that, that anybody who gets an
    appointment that they have to be confirmed for has to meet. And if they
    were, I wouldn't say so.
        I mean, keep in mind, one of the jobs of the Department of Commerce,
    and perhaps one of the most important jobs now and one which Ron Brown
    did very well, is to open new opportunities for American businesses
    around the world, to open new markets for American businesses, to create
    jobs by doing that. And one of the great advantages the United States
    has over virtually every other country in the world is that we have
    living here in our country citizens who are from everywhere else and who
    have business ties and contacts and deep understandings of the cultures
    and the economies of every other country in the world. And so assuming
    that all the proper disclosures were made and all the proper clearances
    were had--I mean, the Government has rules for that--I would think that
    that's the sort of person we would be looking for, someone who did have
    good contacts and could--and did have a general understanding of
    international commerce.
        Yes.

    Bosnia

        Q. Yes, Mr. President, thank you. Despite your promises earlier to
    pull out of Bosnia next month, the Pentagon now says that U.S. troops
    will remain there at least until the end of March. Is it possible you
    would keep U.S. troops there beyond March as part of a follow-on
    peacekeeping force if NATO decides they are needed?
        The President. Well, let me explain, first of all, what the March
    deadline is. We have already begun moving some people out, and the
    December--we said that the mission, the IFOR mission, would take about a
    year. But as the Pentagon can explain in greater detail and specificity
    than I, you can't just up and pull people out in one day. There has to
    be a phase-down, and people have to be brought in to help move out the
    people that have been there the whole time. So the March date is just
    the time the last people who are part of a 3\1/2\ month phase-down will
    leave.
        Now, separate and apart from that, NATO has been asked to consider
    the question of whether--well, let me make one other point. IFOR went
    there to establish a buffer zone between the ethnic groups and to make
    sure that during this time elections could be held and basic security
    could be maintained along the border areas, not to be actually involved
    in law enforcement. And I think they've done their job very well. I am
    very pleased with it. I am very pleased with the cooperation between the
    NATO allies and Russia and the other non-NATO countries. And I think
    that it has helped the Bosnian peace process to take hold. And we have
    had elections. A lot has been done.
        What NATO has been asked to consider is whether or not, since the
    economic reconstruction has not taken hold as fast as we had hoped and
    there is still, obviously, some hard feelings there between the parties,
    we should consider a smaller, different force that might have a more
    limited mission than the IFOR mission that NATO would be involved in. I
    believe the position I have taken on that is the position that the other
    NATO leaders have taken, the leaders of the other NATO countries, which
    is, we would like to see the proposed mission; we would like to see what
    our contribution would be. I want to assess the risks, as I always do,
    and the possible benefits, and then I will make a judgment.
        I took a long look at the IFOR mission. We worked very hard to
    define it in a way that would guarantee the maximum possibility for
    success and the minimum possibility of danger to our forces. It has
    worked very well. Whether we could do this, as I said all along, would
    depend on what the nature of the mission is.
        I'm looking forward to the NATO report; I haven't received it yet.
    When I do, I will tell you exactly what the recommendations are and

    [[Page 2096]]

    what my best judgment on them is. It is conceivable that we could
    participate, but it depends upon exactly what the recommendation is.
        Yes, sir, and then we'll go back. Go ahead.

    Second Term Transition

        Q. You're in the process of choosing your team now for the next
    administration. You were criticized 4 years ago for your failure to go
    ahead with your stated intentions to choose at least one Republican for
    a top post. You were criticized for putting too much emphasis on
    diversity and also for relying too much on friendship. In some cases,
    friends got into ethical problems. Do you feel you must be more tough-
    minded this time around?
        The President. Well, first of all, I think the Cabinet that I've had
    has done very well, and on average, I believe their tenure of service
    far exceeds the average tenure of service in the modern era. And I
    believe that we have proved that you could have diversity as well as
    excellence not only in the Cabinet but in the Federal bench, where I've
    made the most diverse appointments in terms of women and minorities in
    history and yet they have the highest ratings from the American Bar
    Association--my appointees do--of any President since the rating system
    began.
        So I don't see a conflict between excellence and diversity. But I
    would extend that diversity to Republicans as well. I think we ought to
    try to have a Government that can unify the country. And I did want to
    put--badly wanted to put a Republican in the Cabinet the last time. I
    had one in particular in mind who declined for personal reasons who, I
    think, wanted to serve, and I regret that. So I have not ruled out that;
    in fact, I have cast a very wide net in looking for people to serve in
    this administration, and I wouldn't be surprised if we had Republican
    representation. I certainly hope we will.
        Peter [Peter Maer, NBC Mutual Radio]--Rita [Rita Braver, CBS News]
    was next, and then Peter. I'm sorry.

    The First Lady and Former Senator Bob Dole

        Q. Speaking of what people will be doing in the next administration,
    when you ran for your first term you talked a lot about the First Lady's
    role, but we didn't hear so much about it during this run for the
    reelection. Can you give us a sense of what she'll be doing in the next
    term? And also, I wondered whether you have thought about whether you
    intend to offer Bob Dole any chance to serve.
        The President. Well, let me answer the question about Hillary. I
    think what the First Lady will do is something that--I think it will be
    consistent with what she's been doing, but we have not--frankly, we've
    been too tired to talk about it. Yesterday, I'm embarrassed to tell the
    American people, I actually slept past noon. [Laughter] I was tired. And
    so we hadn't had much chance to talk about it. But I think that my
    assumption would be that whatever she did, she would be working on the
    issues that relate to children and families that she's spent most of her
    life doing. And so that's what I would think. But we have not had a
    chance to talk about it.
        Q. You once mentioned welfare.
        The President. Well, but I think--I must not have spoken all that
    clearly on that. What I meant about welfare is this: The welfare reform
    legislation is law now. Let me just talk about that just a minute, and
    then I'll come back to your other question. What the welfare reform bill
    says is this: It says, from now on, the United States Government will
    guarantee to poor families medical care and nutrition and, if a person
    moves from welfare to work, then more for child care than ever before.
    But that portion of the Federal money that used to go with State money
    into a monthly welfare check will now go to the States, and they have 2
    years to figure out how to turn the welfare check into a paycheck.
        Now, I think what is important is to recognize that that's all the
    bill does. Then all the States and all of the communities of this
    country have to figure out how to do that. And what I think is important
    is that we all be aggressive in figuring out how to do that in ways that
    work for the children, not that there should be a role for the First
    Lady or anybody else, but children's advocates in particular want to
    make sure that this is a pro-family transition. That's all I meant. And
    I believe it will be. I feel good about it.
        In terms of anything for Senator Dole to do, I think, to be fair to
    him, even though I am standing up here on both feet giving this press
    conference today, after a campaign like this, you need time to
    decompress, whether you win or whether you lose. And I've been on both
    sides of this in my life. And he said something I

    [[Page 2097]]

    really appreciated when we had our personal conversation on election
    evening. He said, ``You know, after awhile, after I get rested up and
    you do and we get--we'll come by--I'll come by, and we'll have a cup of
    coffee, and we'll talk about--just have a visit.'' And I said I'd really
    like that.
        And I think that I would just urge all of you to give him and Mrs.
    Dole a little space here and let them get rested up and think about
    their lives and what they want to do. And there will be time for that.
    You know, Thanksgiving's coming up; Christmas is coming up.
        But I can attest to the fact that based on the vigorous campaign he
    ran, not just in the last 96 hours but throughout, that if he so
    chooses, he's got a lot left to give his country. But I think that
    should be his decision. We should let a little time go by.
        Peter.

    Investigations

        Q. Thank you, sir. As you reflect on the past 4 years and look ahead
    to the next 4, what are your thoughts about the emotional, legal, and
    even financial toll that these investigations over the past 4 years have
    taken and continue to take on people who are very close to you? Do you
    see any remedy for it, and do you see any end to it?
        The President. Well, I think that nearly every objective observer
    who's looked at it believes that progressively over the last however
    many years we have tended to turn our political differences into legal
    battles in ways that have enormous costs, human costs for the people
    involved in them and for our democracy.
        But I think--frankly, I think at this--given the posture in which
    some of these things are in, I'm not the person to be making
    recommendations on the resolution of it. There are others who are
    writing about it. I noticed there was a woman who worked for both Mr.
    Fiske and Mr. Starr who wrote an article in one of the legal periodicals
    in the last month or so arguing for some changes in the way these
    matters are dealt with. There are a lot of people who are troubled by
    this and are thinking about it.
        But I think that--I think that at least for the time being that it's
    not for me to be the one who's suggesting what should be done. But a lot
    of people, I think, in both parties who care about it are concerned
    about the costs of this as compared with any benefit that comes from it.
        Q. What are your thoughts, though, on the toll that it has taken on
    those closest to you?
        The President. Well, I hate--I obviously hate that. And the thing I
    really hate is that, when people that are completely innocent are
    basically confronted with a presumption of guilt and told to prove their
    innocence of charges, they're not quite sure what they're supposed to
    do. It's difficult.
        But, you know, right now--and my heart's full of gratitude--I told
    you that, as far as I'm concerned for me, it doesn't bother me because--
    I wouldn't say it doesn't bother me, but it's just part of being in
    public life today. But we should never be happy when innocent people
    suffer unnecessarily. That's not good; no one can be possibly for that.
    So we need to try to seek out people's opinion about what should be
    done. But I don't think it's for me to be discussing that now.

    Campaign Finance Reform

        Q. Mr. President, you spoke in your opening remarks about the moment
    being now for campaign finance reform. In light of the recent
    controversies in both parties, would you be willing to commit to the
    idea that campaign fundraising not be done as closed events but be open
    for news coverage as a means of putting more sunshine on the process?
        The President. You know, you're the first person that ever asked me
    that. Let me just say this: I'll be glad--I'd like to have some chance
    to think about it. But I've never been asked it before, and I've never
    thought about it much. But I have--you know, a lot of our fundraisers
    are open, and most of the smaller events we have are basically round-
    robin discussions from people who very often come from very different
    perspectives on issues. But I will think about it; I will give you an
    answer. I'd like to think about it.
        Q. Mr. President----
        The President. Go ahead. Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News
    Service], I'll come to you next. Go ahead.

    Investigations

        Q. Getting back to the subject of all these legal investigations,
    has the First Lady been notified by Kenneth Starr's office that she is
    either

    [[Page 2098]]

    the subject or a target of any of his investigations?
        The President. No.
        Yes, Sarah--not to my knowledge.

    Clandestine Government Activities

        Q. How are you going to keep yourself from secrets that other people
    try to keep from you in Government? I refer to the secrecy that
    surrounds the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department and
    those people in Government--and the Defense Department--who sometimes
    try to work and keep secrets from you. How are you going to keep
    yourself from being insulated?
        The President. Well, frankly, the only way to do that--there are
    only two ways to do that. One is, I have to appoint good people in
    positions in those departments who are in a position to know what is
    going on or to find out if I need to know. Or there has to be some
    external way of knowing, which means that all of you have to find out so
    that I can either see it or read it or hear it on the news, or we have
    to have--or some independent commission, if a particular problem or
    question is hanging out there, should press further.
        I think the--let me just say, I think the commission I appointed on
    Gulf war illnesses has done an exemplary job. And I believe that the
    Pentagon, in fairness, has also done much better recently. And we have
    done--as I think all of you know, we have given free medical exams to
    tens of thousands of people. We have qualified 26,000 people for
    disability. And we have a lot of various medical tests going on. That
    all came about, I believe, in large measure because the American people
    kept demanding a response. And so I put this commission together, and
    they did their job. And then the Pentagon, as I said--Secretary Perry,
    having seen the evidence, has moved in an expeditious fashion.
        But I think those are the ways--there is never any magic about that.
    The President has to have good people in those agencies; they have to be
    able to find out the truth. And then if you do your job, and then if
    some real big problem arises and a group of citizens can look into it,
    we normally find a way to make our democracy work.
        Ken [Ken Walsh, U.S. News & World Report]. Go ahead, Ken; Ken and
    then Susan [Susan Page, USA Today]. Go ahead.

    Medicare and Budget Negotiations

        Q. Mr. President, one of the lingering areas of hard feelings from
    the campaign is over your and the Democratic Party's attacks on the
    Republicans over Medicare. Since you're going to meet with the
    Republican leadership next week, how will you encourage them to be
    conciliatory and trust you now over Medicare, given the damage they
    incurred in the campaign over the issue?
        The President. Well, first of all, there are always a lot of hard
    feelings after every campaign. I mean--I believe that what I said about
    the Medicare provisions of the budget I vetoed was accurate and true and
    fair, and I cannot retract that. I do not believe the picture they
    painted of the budget I passed, which sparked America's economic
    recovery, is fair. By any reasonable standard, it wasn't the biggest tax
    increase in history. Average people did not pay as much as they said
    they paid. I mean, there were lots of problems I had with that. But that
    wouldn't stop me from working with them on the budget.
        So we obviously don't always agree with each other's
    characterization of our positions. I don't agree with a lot of their
    characterizations, but that wouldn't stop me from working with them. And
    I would say that--my answer to you is that the way to put this behind us
    is to reach an agreement. And I'm prepared to reach out and meet them
    halfway. And if you--I think the way to go forward is to pick up where
    we left off.
        As I said and acknowledged to everyone, including for Senator Dole,
    when we ended the budget negotiations, when they had to stop, in
    fairness to him, because he had to begin his Presidential campaign, at
    the time when they ended, we were actually quite close to an agreement
    and the differences between us were entirely manageable. And I could see
    how we could build a bridge between our two positions that would give us
    a balanced budget plan. So the obvious answer here is just to go forward
    by picking up where we left off, with the Republican position and with
    our administration's position, and I think we could have an agreement in
    next to no time. And that would be my advice on that.
        Yes, Susan, go ahead, and then I'll take this.

    [[Page 2099]]

    President's Second Term

        Q. Mr. President, we know that you're an avid student of
    Presidential history, and in modern times second terms for Presidents
    have been either disappointing or disastrous. I wonder if you've drawn
    any lessons on why that's so--[laughter]--and if there are any pitfalls
    in particular that you are determined to avoid for yourself.
        The President. Actually, I read a book not very long ago on second--
    there is a book that's just been written on second-term Presidencies.
    And I was a little nervous about reading it before the election, but
    along toward the end I read it. And I got to thinking in my own mind
    about the second terms of, you know, President Truman's second term,
    President Eisenhower's second term, and President Reagan's second term,
    and then the others in the 20th century especially I focused upon.
        What the record shows is that the things which derail a second term
    are basically three: One is, some external event intervenes, and the
    President can't fulfill his dreams or hopes or his agenda. Two is--I
    mean, apart from the obvious case. The second thing that happens is,
    sometimes a President thinks he has more of a mandate than he does and
    tries to do too much in the absence of cooperation. That was the rap on
    President Roosevelt's second term, that his first and third terms were
    greater than his second term because of that. And the third is that
    sometimes a President essentially just runs out of steam. That was the
    rap that was attempted to be put on President Reagan, although I would
    remind you that in President Reagan's second term he signed the tax
    reform legislation and the first big welfare reform overhaul, which was
    quite a good bill.
        So what we have done to try to avoid that is, number one, make it
    clear that we understand the American people want us to work together
    with the Republicans and that we have to build a vital center; and
    number two, to have a driving agenda for the second term that grows out
    of what we have done for the last 4 years. That's why I went out of my
    way at the Democratic National Convention, when I was speaking to the
    convention and the American people, to list a very long list of specific
    things I wanted to do, because I wanted an agenda to organize the
    attention, the spirits, and the energies of people. I think when people
    stay busy, they do good things. And I think that that will very much
    help.
        So we have a big agenda; we have a driving agenda; we know what we
    have to do. And if we keep good, energetic people involved, I think
    we'll be able to avoid those pitfalls. But I'm very mindful of history's
    difficulties, and I'm going to try to beat them.
        Yes, Jim [Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News], go ahead.

    Congressional Investigations

        Q. Speaking of hard feelings, as you did just a moment ago, Senator
    Alfonse D'Amato only yesterday said that the Senate Whitewater hearings
    were over. And he said the American people didn't want to see Congress
    going out on any fishing expeditions. What do you make of what Senator
    D'Amato said, and do you think it signals that Republicans may ease up a
    little bit on some of the investigations that were aimed at the White
    House?
        The President. I don't know. All I can tell you is, I imagine they
    will have debates in their party about what they should do. It's clear
    to me what the American people said. It's clear to me what the people of
    New York said. It's clear to me what--but even in the States that I did
    not carry--you know, we lost Georgia by 10,000 or 15,000 votes or
    something--this country was divided as to just exactly which way to
    tilt, but they were collected around the idea that we needed to keep
    making progress but do it by working together from the center. And I
    think that's what Senator D'Amato recognized. And if that is the
    majority view within the Republican caucus in the Senate and the House,
    the American people will be very well pleased by the work we do
    together, and we will get a lot done.
        Q. And would you expect any relief from the Republican
    investigations?
        The President. What I would respect is if we all spent our time and
    energy working on balancing the budget, on opening educational
    opportunities, on advancing health care reform step by step, on
    continuing the fight against crime; the things that we need to be doing
    together, that's what I think we ought to do. And I think the American
    people would be elated if we--both sides seem to be putting our politics
    down, waiting for the next election, and really working like crazy to
    get something done for our country; I think they would like it. And

    [[Page 2100]]

    I'm prepared to do it, and I hope that they will be.
        And I was very encouraged by my conversation with Senator Lott and
    with my conversation with Speaker Gingrich. And I was encouraged by what
    Senator D'Amato said. We'll have to see what happens. I very much hope
    it will be that way.
        Mike [Mike Frisby, Wall Street Journal], and then we'll go over
    there.

    Social Security and Medicare

        Q. Mr. President, do you plan on looking at ways to reform the
    Social Security system in the next 4 years?
        The President. Well, I think--that goes back to the Medicare
    question one of you asked--Ken, I guess. I believe we have to find a
    bipartisan framework to look at the longer, if you will, the baby boom
    issues presented in Social Security and Medicare. And as I said, I think
    there has to be some sort of commission, some sort of functioning
    bipartisan way of looking at that. But that must not be an excuse for
    any of us, including me, to avoid doing what it takes right now to put a
    decade of life on the Medicare Trust Fund. In other words, we need to
    fix Medicare for a decade right now. And we have agreed upon savings
    that will do that.
        And we lost a year last year. Thank goodness it didn't hurt us too
    bad because the inflation rate dropped so much in medical costs. But we
    don't need to lose another year. We ought to make an agreement now, put
    a decade of life on the Medicare Trust Fund, and then agree upon a
    bipartisan mechanism that could look at what things can be done which
    wouldn't be particularly dramatic if we move now, to deal with the
    problems that Social Security will encounter in the third decade of the
    next century and the problems that Medicare will encounter when all the
    baby boomers go on it. But those things can be salvaged and resolved
    with modest changes if we move now because it's so far into the future.
    But that kind of a bipartisan mechanism cannot and must not be used to
    avoid dealing with the Medicare Trust Fund problem that exists right
    now.
        John [John Broder, Los Angeles Times], and then we'll go to--yes, go
    ahead, follow up, and then we'll do this one, and then I'll go over
    here.
        Q. The last time there was a bipartisan commission to look into the
    long-term reform of Social Security in 1983, among the reforms that came
    out was the raising of taxes and the raising of the retirement age,
    eligibility. Would you be open to those possibilities if that became the
    recommendation of a new commission?
        The President. I think it would be--well, the reason you have a
    commission is so you don't have to jump the gun on trying to make
    decisions. But let me mention--let's just--my view is it would be unwise
    to raise the payroll tax any more. It is already quite high, and it is a
    regressive tax. Most of our new jobs are coming from small businesses.
    If you start a small business, you have to pay the payroll tax whether
    you make any money or not. You don't have to pay income tax unless
    you're actually making money. And if you look at the job machine in
    America and where most of these jobs are coming and you look at the fact
    that the payroll tax is quite high, I think it would be difficult for us
    to do it. And I also believe if we start now, it will not be necessary.
        In terms of the age, keep in mind, we have already--the '83
    commission got an agreement to raise the age from 65 to 67 because when
    Social Security was instituted the average life expectancy was less than
    65. You didn't even have a 50-50 chance to draw Social Security when it
    started. Now if you get to be 65 in America, you're living in the group
    of seniors with the highest life expectancy in the world. So we're going
    up to 67.
        I think I would--to go beyond that, the question would be--there are
    two issues there. One is, could you accelerate the ladder? You know,
    it's like a month a year now; could it go to 2 months a year? That's one
    question. The other question would be, if you went beyond that, it might
    be fine for somebody like me who has always had a desk job, but what
    about people who have laboring jobs? What about people who really work
    with their hands and their backs, and would that be too burdensome for
    them? That would be my concern there.
        Go ahead, John, and then we'll come over here. Yes.

    Campaign Financing

        Q. Yes, Mr. President. When questions came up earlier this afternoon
    about questionable campaign finance contributions, you took pains to say
    these were Democratic National Committee matters. But with all due
    respect, you named the cochairmen of the Democratic National

    [[Page 2101]]

    Committee. Much of what they did this year was in furtherance of your
    reelection and that of other Democrats. Don't you feel some
    responsibility or accountability for what was done in your name?
        The President. Well, first of all, we are doing--I believe that the
    Democratic Committee is doing the right thing by returning any
    contributions that were improperly tendered to it. And I certainly feel
    responsible to do that, and I would not tolerate their not doing it.
        Furthermore, I think Senator Dodd and Chairman Fowler did the right
    thing in trying to, if you will, develop a tighter screen for evaluating
    it. They acknowledged that they should have had a better screen, that
    they were--you know, as I said, they took in over a million
    contributions over 2 years from different people and that they found
    these relatively small number that were wrong and they should do it. And
    had that not been done, I would absolutely feel responsible for it,
    because I am a Democrat and I'm the titular head of the Democratic
    Party.
        So I'm not trying to disclaim responsibility, but I am trying to
    point out that there is--there's a difference between what the party
    does and what the campaign does. I'm also responsible for what the
    campaign does in that sense, but there is a difference. And the party
    should do the right thing and give any money back but--and I also
    pointed out again, the Republicans have their own problems here and have
    had some in both campaign and in party-raising--in Presidential
    campaigns and in party-raising. But all of them, when you add them up,
    it's--I'll say something in behalf of the Republicans--if they raise
    money from a million people over 2 years, it would not surprise me if 10
    to 20 of those contributions did not meet the requirements of the law,
    or 30, and it would be a small percentage. And that doesn't mean that we
    ought to run them out of town on a rail.
        But what I do know is that if you have to raise this kind of money--
    and they raised--what did they raise, $150 million more than we did;
    they raised $3 for every $2 we did--if you raise this kind of money,
    questions will be raised about it. And the only way to ever put this to
    rest is to pass campaign finance reform.
        We have a vehicle that I think is as good as any. There is no
    perfect solution to this, because of two Supreme Court decisions, one of
    which says nobody can limit how much money you spend on the campaign or
    how much of your money you spend; the other one appears to give a wide
    berth to these third-party expenditure committees. But still, the
    McCain-Feingold bill, with a modification to deal with the foreign
    contribution issue, would dramatically improve things.
        Now, I am for it; the Democratic Party is on record for it; the
    chairman of the Democratic Committee has challenged the chairman of the
    Republican Committee to endorse it. Senator McCain was very active in
    Senator Dole's campaign. It is completely bipartisan, and we have enough
    votes in our caucus in the Senate and the House to contribute to an
    overwhelming victory. So now the real question is, whether we get
    McCain-Feingold is solely within the purview of the leaders of the House
    and the Senate on the Republican side. If they'll go with it, we will do
    it lickety-split, and then we'll be able to talk about some other things
    down the road.
        Yes.
        Q. Mr. President, first of all, congratulations.
        The President. Thank you.
        Q. President Arafat called on you----
        The President. You had to remind me that it was congratulations
    instead of condolences after this crowd. [Laughter]

    Middle East Peace Process

        Q. President Arafat called on you, Mr. President, to help him move
    the peace process between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and Mr.
    Arafat considers the whole situation as very urgent and serious, due to
    the fact that there are many settlements which are brewing and Mr.
    Sharon is threatening to build more settlements in the West Bank before
    the final settlements with the Palestinians. In light of this and the
    choking closure on the Palestinians that you are very concerned about--
    several times you have expressed your opinion and desire to see the
    Palestinians working and getting everything--what are your immediate
    plans, Mr. President, to bring about implementation of the Oslo accords,
    as well as the Israeli-Palestinian agreement, and all of the signatures
    that we have done here in Washington, in the near future, sir? Thank
    you.
        The President. I think the first and most important thing we can do
    is to nail the agreement on Hebron. You know, we were getting very,

    [[Page 2102]]

    very close to an agreement on Hebron before Chairman Arafat had to leave
    to go to his trip to Europe. And I did what I could by bringing Prime
    Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat here to meet with King Hussein
    and me. They began to establish at least the beginnings of a
    relationship of trust and interchange so that an agreement could be made
    on Hebron.
        If we can clear the Hebron hurdle--it has such emotional
    significance to both sides as well as such practical significance--I
    believe that will open the door to go on and fulfill all the other
    challenges that are there before us. That's what I believe.
        Yes, sir, in the back.

    Social Security and Medicare

        Q. Mr. President, on the Social Security-Medicare problem, could you
    give us a timeline on when you plan to call for organization of a
    bipartisan commission and who you would like to see serve on that
    commission?
        The President. I can't, simply because I--it's one of the--how we're
    going to deal with this is one of literally a hundred items that are on
    my agenda in this period after the election. All I can tell you is, I
    think that to deal with the baby boom issues of Social Security and
    Medicare, we need a bipartisan commission, and we need the longest
    possible timelines so we have to make the least painful possible
    changes.
        But that must not be--let me reiterate--that is not a reason not to
    go on and balance this budget and put 10 years on the Medicare Trust
    Fund. We need to do that now. Losing a year last year I think was an
    error. It may have been unavoidable, but it complicates all of our other
    balanced budget calculations. We need to go on and do it and start
    ratcheting down this spending issue.
        Go ahead, Karen [Karen Ball, New York Daily News].

    Election Results

        Q. Mr. President, this is twice now you've been elected with less
    than 50 percent of the vote. How big of a disappointment was that to
    you, and is that going to hamstring you now?
        The President. Not much. The 379 electoral votes was an enormous
    consolation prize. [Laughter] And after all, in many of the States that
    were battleground States, including two that were especially important
    to me, there were four candidates on the ballot that got substantial
    numbers of votes, in California and Oregon particularly. And I made a
    decision the last week that I wanted to go to some of the smaller States
    where we had some elections in play. And my advisers said, ``Now, if you
    do this, it will cost you a couple of points on your popular margin.'' I
    said, ``You know, it's the right thing to do, we ought to go out
    there.'' People were asking me to come and campaign, they thought it
    would make a difference, and I agreed to do it. I don't have any regret
    at all.
        I never met a person in public life that didn't wish that he or she
    had gotten all the votes. So would I have liked a few more? Of course.
    But I'm very gratified by what happened.
        Yes, go ahead.

    Australia and New Zealand

        Q. You'll be going to Australia in about a week or so. What do you
    hope to accomplish there? And you're not going to visit its neighbor New
    Zealand at this time, but will you be reaching out to them to increase
    the contacts with New Zealand and perhaps invite their ambassador here
    when they sort out--their Prime Minister--when they sort out their
    election?
        The President. Let me just say, we have a good partnership with
    Australia. I have not had a chance--it is vital to our security
    interests in the area. I have not had a chance to meet with the new
    Prime Minister. And I'm looking forward to going down there, and it will
    be a nice thing for Hillary and for me. We have never been to Australia
    before.
        And we've also had a good relationship with New Zealand. And Prime
    Minister Bolger and I work quite well together. And we'll just have to
    cross that bridge when we come to it about where we go from there. But
    I'm feeling--I'm anxious to go down there and do that because our
    relationships with Australia are a big part of our future in the whole
    Asian-Pacific region.
        Yes, go ahead.

    Iraq and Kuwait

        Q. [Inaudible]--from Kuwait TV. Congratulations, again. My question
    is, what would be your administration's policy towards Iraq in order to
    guarantee and maintain the security of the Gulf area in general and the
    state of Kuwait in particular? Thank you.
        The President. Well, the first thing we will do is maintain our firm
    policy that we have all along to let the Iraqis know that no action

    [[Page 2103]]

    can be taken against Kuwait without dire consequences. When the Iraqi
    troops were massed, remember, down toward the Kuwait border during my
    first term, we immediately moved military assets into the area and
    activated a plan for reaction. And I think that they can be under no
    illusion that any aggressive action could be taken against Kuwait
    without a stern response by the United States.
        The other thing that I think we're focused on with Iraq, and we must
    continue to be, is just getting them to comply with the United Nations
    resolutions. I think that is also very important. I do not relish the
    suffering of the people of Iraq. The United States was one of the
    sponsors of the resolution which would allow them to sell oil in return
    for food and medicine. And when the U.N. can work out the mechanism for
    doing that in the aftermath of the unfortunate events involving the
    Kurds, I think that will go forward. But our policy will be the same. We
    must contain the ability of Iraq to threaten its neighbors.
        Yes, Mara [Mara Liasson, National Public Radio].

    Voter Turnout

        Q. Mr. President, we just finished an election where turnout was at
    a record low. I'm wondering why you think that was and what you might
    have done to make it more interesting or compelling so that more people
    would have voted.
        The President. I could have made it closer, maybe. [Laughter] I
    don't know. I'm concerned about it, you know, and there are all kinds
    of--there are explanations you read which may be reassuring, like,
    ``Well, when times are pretty good people maybe not vote;'' and
    explanations you read which are discouraging, ``The more the negative
    ads are, the lower the turnout is.'' And I saw a very disturbing--one of
    you on the television--I saw a series the other night about how local
    campaigns were now becoming also dominated by negative ads.
        Let me make a suggestion and say that I do not know the answer to
    it. I was elated at the enormous turnout in 1992. I felt good about it.
    But we had signals that this election would be a lower turnout election
    quite a long while before we had the turnout. And the first indication I
    had for sure was when the viewership of the debates was so much lower
    than it was the year before. And you know, we got all our folks together
    and I said, ``We're going to have a hard time getting our folks to the
    polls, and we need to really work on this.''
        So let me just throw it back to you and say that I would welcome any
    analysis anyone has about what we can do to get voting up. I strongly
    supported motor voter and other attempts to increase the registration
    base, thinking that that would increase the turnout. We have
    dramatically increased the number of people who are registered; there's
    been a huge increase in registration in the last 4 years. And I'm
    disappointed it wasn't accompanied by an increase in voting.
        If you've got any more ideas--I saw Senator Feinstein on television
    saying that if we had a uniform poll closing, that that would increase
    turnout in the Western States. I wish I had a good opinion on it, but
    I'm open to doing something that will increase it if you all have any
    good ideas.
        Yes.
        Press Secretary Mike McCurry. Last question, please.
        The President. No, I'll take both of them. Go ahead.

    Northern Ireland Peace Process

        Q. You took some heat during the campaign concerning the troubles in
    Northern Ireland, particularly from former Secretary of State Jim Baker,
    who called your trip to Ireland last year ``Gullible's Travels.''
    [Laughter]
        The President.  Did he say that? That's pretty good.
        Q. Will you continue to try and assist in finding a solution to
    Northern Ireland, or do you find that there's just no solution to be had
    and no assistance the U.S. can provide?
        The President. Well, the answer is I will continue to do whatever I
    can to be of assistance to the Irish and the British Governments as long
    as they work for peace in Northern Ireland and to the other parties who
    are committed to peace. I have supported the process which is now
    underway there. I don't think America could make a greater contribution
    than to have a man of George Mitchell's caliber there doing what he's
    doing.
        And so I do not think that I have been in error in trying to help
    the Irish people come to grips with their hundreds of years of demons
    and put them aside and make peace. I think that we should continue to
    try. But it's obvious that there has to be a genuine cessation of vio-

    [[Page 2104]]

    lence and that all the parties have to be able to rely on one another
    not to start killing again, either in Northern Ireland or in Great
    Britain, in order for this peace process to go forward.
        But I--yes, I intend to continue to do what I can to encourage it. I
    stay in close touch with Prime Minister Bruton and with Prime Minister
    Major and we talk--obviously, our people talk to the parties involved
    from time to time. And of course Senator Mitchell keeps us informed. And
    I would like to--I very much hope in the next 4 years that we can make
    some contribution to the ultimate resolution of this.
        Yes.

    Secretary of State

        Q. Thank you, sir. Mr. President, the Israeli-Palestinian peace
    agreement was the foreign policy pinnacle of your first term. As you
    seek a Secretary of State, will the first and foremost quality you look
    for in someone be the person who can get that process back on track?
        The President. Well, the short answer to your question is, that will
    be one thing I look for. And that is one of the most important things
    that happened in the last 4 years. Continued reduction of our nuclear
    arsenals, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the indefinite
    extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the end of--stopping the
    North Korean nuclear program, all those things amount--they count for a
    lot as well.
        But if you look ahead, here's what I want a Secretary of State who
    can do--to do: number one, to continue our efforts to build the first
    undivided democratic Europe in history, which means to effect the NATO
    expansion, working with the Secretary of Defense, in a way that
    solidifies our partnership with a democratic Russia instead of
    undermining it; number two, to continue to be a force for peace in the
    Middle East and Northern Ireland, working through the process in Bosnia,
    and elsewhere; number three, to meet the new security threats of
    terrorism and organized crime and drug running and the proliferation of
    weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated traditional weapons; and
    then to take advantage of the extraordinary economic opportunities for
    the United States in building a global economic structure that is
    increasingly more open and fair. That will stabilize the rest of the
    world and help America's prosperity to continue.
        I don't think there is any way to--we don't have any scientific
    studies of this, but there is no way to calculate the enormous positive
    impact that the dramatic expansion of trade in the last 4 years has had
    on the changing mix of the new jobs in America. Over half of the new
    jobs, our 10\1/2\ million--10.7 million new jobs have come in high-wage
    areas. There is no question that one big reason is the disciplined,
    organized, integrated efforts that have been made in the private and
    public sectors to expand trade. So I want a Secretary of State that can
    do all that. I guess that means I want a magician.
        One other thing I would say that we've learned from Warren
    Christopher--I made a reference to this yesterday--he is--his sheer
    physical capacities are those of a person half his age. You cannot be an
    American Secretary of State today unless you are capable of withstanding
    the rigors of intense travel, followed by intense meetings, followed by
    more intense travel. So it's almost like you've got to be practically
    athletic to do as well as you need to do. But those are the things that
    I want.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 130th news conference began at 3 p.m. in the East
    Room at the White House. During the news conference, the following
    persons were referred to: former Secretary of Commerce Ronald H. Brown;
    Robert B. Fiske, Jr., former Independent Counsel, and Kenneth Starr,
    Independent Counsel, in the investigation of Madison Guaranty Savings &
    Loan Association; Senator Christopher J. Dodd, general chairman, and
    Donald L. Fowler, national chairman, Democratic National Committee;
    Chairman Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority; Ariel Sharon,
    Minister of Infrastructure, and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of
    Israel; King Hussein I of Jordan; Prime Minister John Howard of
    Australia; Prime Minister James Bolger of New Zealand; George J.
    Mitchell, Special Adviser to the President and Secretary of State on
    Economic Initiatives for Ireland; Prime Minister John Bruton of Ireland;
    and Prime Minister John Major of the United Kingdom.