    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book I)]
    [April 18, 1997]
    [Pages 454-459]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    April 18, 1997

        The President. Good afternoon. Less than 2 weeks from today, the
    Chemical Weapons Convention goes into effect, with or without the United
    States. The bottom line is this: Will the United States join a treaty we
    helped to shape, or will we go from leading the fight against poison gas
    to joining the company of pariah nations this treaty seeks to isolate?
        With this treaty, other nations will follow the lead we set years
    ago by giving up chemical weapons. Our troops will be less likely to
    face poison gas on the battle field. Rogue states and terrorists will
    have a harder time acquiring or making chemical weapons, and we'll have
    new tools to prevent and punish them if they try. But if we fail to
    ratify, other countries could back out as well. We won't be able to
    enforce the treaty's rules or use its tools, and our companies will face
    trade sanctions aimed at countries that refuse to join.
        As the Senate prepares to vote next week, I'm encouraged by the
    great progress we have made but mindful of the hurdles we still must
    overcome in order to gain approval of the CWC. I welcome yesterday's
    unanimous agreement by the Senate to bring the treaty to a vote, and

    [[Page 455]]

    I thank Majority Leader Lott, Senator Daschle, Senator Helms, and
    Senator Biden, and all the Members of the Senate from both parties for
    their efforts. By going the extra mile, we've reached agreement on 28
    conditions that will be included in the treaty's resolution of
    ratification, for example, maintaining strong defenses against chemical
    attacks, toughening enforcement, allowing the use of riot control agents
    like tear gas in a wide range of military and law enforcement
    situations, and requiring search warrants for any involuntary
    inspections of an American business.
        These agreed-upon conditions resolve virtually all of the issues
    that have been raised about this treaty. But there are still a handful
    of issues on which we fundamentally disagree. They will be voted on by
    the full Senate as it takes up the treaty next week. We should all
    understand what's at stake. A vote for any of these killer amendments
    will prevent our participation in the treaty. Let me quickly address
    four of them.
        The first would prohibit the United States from joining the treaty
    until Russia does. That is precisely backwards. The best way to secure
    Russian ratification is to ratify the treaty ourselves. Failure to do so
    will only give hardliners in Russia an excuse to hold out and hold on to
    their chemical weapons.
        A second killer condition would prohibit us from becoming a party
    until rogue states like Iraq and Libya join. The result is we'd be
    weaker, not stronger, in our fight to prevent these rogue states from
    developing chemical weapons because we would lose the ability to use and
    enforce the treaty's tough trade restrictions and inspection tools. No
    country, especially an outlaw state, should have a veto over our
    national security.
        A third killer condition would impose an unrealistically high
    standard of verification. There is no such thing as perfect
    verifiability in a treaty, but this treaty's tough monitoring,
    reporting, and onsite inspection requirements will enable us to detect
    militarily significant cheating. Our soldiers on the battlefield will be
    safer. That, clearly, is an advance over no treaty at all.
        Finally, the opponents would force us to reopen negotiations on the
    Chemical Weapons Convention to try to fix two concerns that have already
    been resolved. First, they claim that a treaty expressly devoted to
    eliminating chemical weapons somehow would force its parties to
    facilitate the spread of chemical weapons. This interpretation is
    totally at odds with the plain language of the treaty. I have committed
    to the Senate that neither the United States nor our allies share this
    interpretation and that we will reaffirm that fact annually.
        The opponents also misread the treaty to require that we share our
    most advanced chemical defensive technology with countries like Iran and
    Cuba, should they join the Chemical Weapons Convention. I have committed
    to the Senate that in the event such countries are threatened by
    chemical attack, we would limit our assistance to providing nothing more
    than emergency medical supplies.
        America took the lead in negotiating the Chemical Weapons
    Convention, first the Reagan administration, then the Bush
    administration. Every Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the past
    20 years supports it, as do the overwhelming majority of our veterans,
    the chemical industry, and arms control experts. Now we must lead in
    bringing this bipartisan treaty to life and enforcing its rules. America
    should stand with those who want to destroy chemical weapons, not with
    those who would defy the international community. I urge every Member of
    the Senate to support the convention when it comes to a vote next week.
        Now, let me take this opportunity also to say a few words about the
    budget. Yesterday my economic team briefed me extensively on the full
    range of issues that are now being discussed as we continue serious
    high-level talks on the balanced budget. The progress we've made so far
    is encouraging, and I'm hopeful that a bipartisan balanced budget
    agreement can be reached.
        We're working closely with Senate and House Democratic leaders and
    budget committee leaders as we move forward on this issue. I want to
    thank Senators Domenici and Lautenberg, and Congressmen Kasich and
    Spratt for working so hard and in such good faith with our economic
    team. There is no question that serious differences remain, but if each
    of us is willing to compromise our sense of the perfect, I know we can
    reach an agreement that advances the greater good. And we can both do so
    without compromising our deeply held values.
        Based on the progress that we've made so far, I'm asking the
    bipartisan negotiators to continue their work. I hope that in the near
    future we can--they can recommend ways to bridge the remaining
    differences. This can be a victory

    [[Page 456]]

    for all Americans. Over the past 4 years, we have shown that with hard
    work and strong resolve, we can make significant progress toward
    balancing our budget while still investing in our people and that both
    those things will lead us to the strong economy we have today and an
    even stronger economy tomorrow.
        Neither side can have everything it wants. But we know that a good
    agreement must include at a minimum that our children will have the best
    education from the first days of life through college to prepare for the
    21st century, that more children will have access to quality health
    care, that our environment will be protected, that we are living up to
    our obligations to the most vulnerable among us, and that Medicaid--
    Medicare will be strengthened while ensuring the solvency of its Trust
    Fund well into the next decade. This is what we can achieve and what I
    think we must achieve and why we all have to stay at the table until the
    job is done.

    Chemical Weapons Convention and State Department Reorganization

        Q. Mr. President, what is your outlook for ratification of the
    treaty? And how much of a quid pro quo was there with Senator Helms on
    reorganizing the State Department? Will the Voice of America still have
    its autonomy? All of these things are kind of worrisome.
        The President. Well, yes, the Voice of America will still have its
    independent voice. It will still be the Voice of America. There was no
    linkage.
        Senator Helms came to see me personally at the White House last year
    sometime--I don't remember when--and we met up in my office in the
    Residence for an extended period of time, with just a few of his staff
    members, a few of mine. He was going over his plan for reorganization of
    the agencies and why he thought it was right. I promised him that I
    would seriously consider the issue, that I thought there ought to be
    some reorganization. I had a slightly different take on it. And
    actually, since that time, but especially in the last few weeks, we have
    been working very, very hard to reach a consensus within the
    administration on an alternative proposal. I think it is warranted, and
    I think it's good on the merits.
        I can tell you that there was no linkage between these two issues. I
    do not expect Senator Helms to vote for the Chemical Weapons Convention.
    I would be elated if he did. We have, as I said, resolved, I think, to
    his satisfaction, 27 of the 30 issues that we made.
        Q. All of these were concessions on your part, weren't they, all the
    conditions?
        The President. No, all these--well, they were--I didn't consider
    them concessions because I agree with them. There is nothing in any of
    these conditions that I think is bad for the treaty, bad for the system,
    or bad for the national security. But they do clarify questions that
    Senator Helms and other Senators had about the meaning of the treaty.
    But they all can be attached to the treaty without in any way
    undermining its integrity, its fundamental meaning, or its rules of
    enforcement and inspection, and that is the critical thing.
        So I consider that the things that we've agreed to in good faith are
    really a tribute to the work that Senator Lott and Senator Helms and
    Senator Biden and a number of others did to really clarify what this
    convention will mean. I think it's a positive thing.
        Bill [Bill Plante, CBS News].

    Whitewater Investigation

        Q. Are you concerned, Mr. President, by the statement of Mr.
    McDougal and the independent prosecutor that there is new evidence, new
    documents which, according to the suggestions that seem to be coming out
    of there, might cause you or Mrs. Clinton further trouble?
        The President. No.
        Q. Why not?
        The President. For obvious reasons. I mean, go back, look at the RTC
    report; look at all the evidence that's ever come out on this. We did
    not do anything wrong. We had nothing to do with all these business
    matters that were the subject of the trial. No, I'm not worried at all.
        Peter [Peter Maer, NBC Mutual Radio].

    Bob Dole's Loan to Speaker Newt Gingrich

        Q. President Clinton, what do you think about the deal worked out
    between Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich? Is this the right arrangement when
    you consider that it's not the kind of arrangement that most Americans
    could get in similar circumstances if they faced a fine?
        The President. Actually, I was thinking of calling Senator Dole this
    afternoon--you know, Chelsea is about to go off to college, and it's
    pretty expensive. [Laughter] I----
        Q. Where is she going?

    [[Page 457]]

        The President. Let me say that this is a matter that has to be
    decided by the House. They have certain rules, certain standards, and
    they will have to decide whether it complies with those rules and
    standards.
        John [John Donvan, ABC News].

    Israeli Politics and the Peace Process

        Q. Mr. President, the Prime Minister of Israel is having domestic
    troubles now, and occasionally, these sorts of issues can leak into the
    large international arena, particularly in regard to this peace process.
    Are you concerned about that sort of spillage, and have you had any
    conversations with him about it since the news was announced or during
    his visit here?
        The President. He didn't say anything to me during his visit here
    which is inconsistent with what he's said in public since then. He made
    the same general statements to me. We have had no conversations since
    then. As you know, Dennis Ross has been there and helped to broker this
    meeting between the Palestinians and the Israelis on security. It's
    obviously an internal matter for Israel to deal with. They're a great
    and vibrant democracy, and they'll deal with that in their way. But I
    think that the important thing is that we get the security cooperation
    up and going, and then we just keep plugging ahead here. We cannot allow
    anything--anything--to derail the peace process, and I don't believe we
    will.

    Hong Kong

        Q. Mr. President, could you tell us a little bit about your meeting
    today with Mr. Lee? And one of the concerns since the day that--once
    Hong Kong is turned over to the Chinese, if there's any kind of erosion
    of liberties, is there much the United States could do?
        The President. Well, let me say this: I think the United States has
    to make it clear that Hong Kong is important to us, the people of Hong
    Kong are important. The agreement made in 1984 by China and Great
    Britain, which they sought the support of the United States on when
    President Reagan was here, clearly commits China to respect not only the
    economic liberties but also the political and civil liberties of the
    people of Hong Kong. And our policy is that the agreement was a good one
    when we said we supported it in 1984; it's a good one in 1997, and it
    ought to be honored.
        Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, Cable News Network].
        Q. But, sir, do you--are you prepared to do something if you thought
    the Chinese were not living up to the agreement?
        The President. Well, that's a hypothetical question. Let me say at
    this time, it's very important to us. We believe it's an important
    matter, and we expect that they will live up to their agreement. And
    it's our policy--strong policy--that they should.
        Wolf.

    Aberdeen Trials

        Q. Mr. President, a lot of Americans have been shocked by the
    Aberdeen trial of the U.S. Army drill sergeant and the allegations that
    this is part of a much bigger problem that has developed in the U.S.
    military. I wonder if you'd share with us your thoughts on how serious a
    problem that this kind of alleged sexual harassment is? Is it a
    pervasive problem throughout the military?
        The President. Well, as you know, there's now an inquiry going on,
    and the instructions that I have given on this are the same instructions
    I gave on the Gulf war issue, which is to get to the bottom of it, find
    the facts, tell the truth, and take appropriate action. And I think we
    ought to let that play out.

    Domestic Terrorism

        Q. Sir, in light of tomorrow's anniversaries of the Oklahoma City
    bombing and of the fiery end to the Waco standoff, first of all, are
    there any credible security threats that Americans ought to be worried
    about? And secondly, is this a date that Americans ought now view with
    trepidation?
        The President. Well, my answer to the first question is that we are
    mindful of the issues and we have taken the actions that I think are
    appropriate. I don't think that I should say more than that.
        I would hope that tomorrow, rather than viewing these actions with
    trepidation, the American people would be thinking about two things:
    First, with regard to Oklahoma City, as Hillary and I saw last year when
    we were there, some of the surviving victims and the families of victims
    who survived and who did not survive are still hurting and face some
    continuing difficulties, and I would hope that they would be in our
    prayers. And I hope that we would, as I said at the time, all take a
    little time to express

    [[Page 458]]

    appreciation, rather than condemnation, for people who serve the public
    in the way they did. They were targeted solely because they work for the
    United States.
        With regard to Waco, in light of what happened with the Heaven's
    Gate group out in San Diego, which was an entirely different thing but
    came to an equally tragic end, I would hope that the American people
    would say, ``We really value the freedom of religion and the freedom of
    political conviction, and we want people to have their own convictions,
    but we need to all be sensitive and to be aware of what can happen to
    people if they develop a kind of a cult mentality which can push them
    off the brink.'' And we ought to do what we can to try to avoid that.
        Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

    James Riady and Webster Hubbell

        Q. Mr. President, in the summer of 1994, you met at the White House
    with James Riady, and then just a little bit later, you met at Camp
    David with Webb Hubbell. And about the same time, the Lippo Group
    started paying Mr. Hubbell $100,000. What do you recall about the
    conversations with those two gentlemen?
        The President. I don't have anything to add to what I've already
    said about both of them. Mr. Riady was there in the White House for 5 or
    10 minutes, basically a social call. We had exchanged a few comments,
    and he said nothing about Mr. Hubbell that I can remember. I don't
    believe he did.
        And when Mr. Hubbell came to Camp David, my recollection is we
    played golf and I took a walk with him and asked him point blank if he
    had done anything wrong. And as he has said now in public, he told me
    that he hadn't and that he had a billing dispute with his law firm and
    he expected it to be resolved. And I have really nothing to add to that.
    There was no correlation between the two.
        Q. There was no discussion about----
        The President. No.
        Q. ----efforts to--for him, any assistance for Mr. Hubbell?
        The President. No, I don't remember anything about that, and he
    didn't--we didn't talk about the Lippo Group at all.

    Federal Bureau of Investigation

        Q. Mr. President, the problems with the FBI crime lab are only the
    latest controversy involving the FBI. What is your current view of the
    performance of the FBI and its Director, Mr. Freeh?
        The President. Well, let me say about the crime lab, obviously, I'm
    concerned about the lab, but I think that you have to give the Justice
    Department, the Attorney General, and Mr. Freeh credit for doing what I
    think should be--in any organization, you're always going to have some
    problems. I, frankly, think--I was impressed with the fact that they did
    what I want the Pentagon to do on the sexual harassment issue--I mean,
    the matter was looked into, the facts were laid honestly before the
    public, and now I think it's important that all appropriate corrective
    action be taken.

    Budget Agreement

        Q. One more on the budget. Do you share the view of many in
    Washington that the next week or maybe 2 weeks is really a make-or-break
    period on the budget, and if a deal is going to happen, it's going to
    become apparent in this next window?
        The President. Well, let me say, as you know, there is also a view
    directly contrary to that.
        Q. What's your view?
        The President. There are people--well, I think it's important--there
    are people who think that all the various positions are so unsettled
    that even the budget leaders and the leaders of the Senate and House and
    White House acting in good faith can't put together an agreement that
    will hold up and produce significant bipartisan majorities in both
    Houses.
        My view is, I don't believe in saying ``make or break'' because I
    don't believe in ever saying ``never.'' I've seen too many things come
    back again and again. And I believe we'll get a balanced budget
    agreement this year because it is so important to the country and to our
    future.
        We've got this unemployment rate down to 5.2 percent. Inflation
    seems to be dropping again. If we passed a balanced budget, I think it
    would remove a lot of other lingering fears about inflation out there. I
    think it would give a new jolt of confidence to the economy. I think it
    would keep the recovery going. And I think it would be very good for the
    long term, especially if it also protected the Medicare Trust Fund for
    significant numbers of years in the future, and if it--[inaudible]--
    investment.
        Now, I am in the camp of people who believe it would be better to do
    it sooner rather than

    [[Page 459]]

    later if we can do it. But I don't believe for a minute that it's an
    easy task, and I don't believe that an agreement at any price is worth
    doing it in the next 4 or 5 days. And I don't believe the Republicans
    do. I wouldn't ask them to do that either. You know, we have strong
    convictions. And you saw in 1995 and until the end in 1996, when we made
    a remarkable amount of progress there just right before the Congress
    adjourned for the election, that we have different and deeply held
    views, and they're honestly different.
        But I do believe that if we could do it sooner rather than later and
    it would be good for the country and consistent with our principles and
    theirs, an honorable compromise--which I think is there--I think sooner
    rather than later is better. But I certainly won't give up if it doesn't
    happen. I'm going to keep on working until we get it done. I expect it
    to happen this year. I'm very optimistic. And I am hopeful that it can
    happen sooner rather than later. And I am committed personally to doing
    everything I can to put it together.
        Thank you.

    Note: The President's 141st news conference began at 3:40 p.m. in the
    Briefing Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Kenneth
    Starr, independent counsel; former Senator Bob Dole; Prime Minister
    Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel; Ambassador Dennis B. Ross, Special Middle
    East Coordinator; and James Riady and Webster Hubbell of the Lippo
    Group. A reporter referred to Martin Lee, head of the Hong Kong
    Democratic Party.