    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book II)]
    [August 6, 1997]
    [Pages 1061-1072]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 1061]]

    The President's News Conference
    August 6, 1997

        The President. You notice he didn't fall going up the steps.
    [Laughter]
        Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Before I begin, let me first
    say that I join with all Americans in expressing our deepest condolences
    for the victims of the terrible plane crash yesterday in Guam. I have
    spoken with Governor Gutierrez, and I want to commend him, the hundreds
    of volunteers, and the United States military personnel who are working
    so hard on the response and the rescue effort. The National
    Transportation Safety Board will lead the investigation of the crash,
    with technical assistance from the FAA and other agencies as needed.
        Now today I want to briefly review what our Nation has accomplished
    during the first 7 months of this year and to spell out the
    opportunities and the obligations that we have to continue that
    progress.
        As I have said over and over again, our common mission must be to
    prepare our people for the 21st century, to master the challenges and
    seize the opportunities of this remarkable time. I believe the American
    people are coming to see that and coming to believe that as we pass
    through this period of remarkable change, the future holds far greater
    rewards than risks if our people, our Government, and our other
    institutions are ready for tomorrow.
        In these past months, we have seen how the politics of the vital
    center can work to make progress on many of our most difficult problems.
    We ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, a landmark treaty that will
    protect our soldiers and our citizens from the threat of poison gas. We
    reached agreement in Madrid to open the doors of NATO to Poland,
    Hungary, and the Czech Republic, while creating a stronger partnership
    with Russia and Ukraine to build a Europe that is undivided, democratic,
    and at peace.
        These past months have been a remarkably fruitful time for
    bipartisan action in the national interests, and I think we have to
    continue that work. I should mention, too, that we worked in a
    bipartisan fashion to maintain our normal trade relationships with
    China, reaching out to a quarter of the world's population while making
    our differences with the government over human rights and other matters
    clear. These are major accomplishments, all achieved with support of
    Americans, both Democrats and Republicans. They have strengthened our
    Nation.
        Yesterday we took a historic action to eliminate the annual budget
    deficits we have been seeing and piling up since 1969. The first step
    toward that was taken back in 1993, when we abandoned supply-side,
    trickle-down economics, opened a new chapter in fiscal responsibility
    with a new strategy of growth based on reducing the deficit, investing
    in education and training, opening the world to trade and American
    products and services.
        Even before yesterday, the deficit had been reduced by over 75
    percent as a result of this strategy. But yesterday, when I signed into
    law the first balanced budget act in a generation, we know that it will
    add to the long-term economic growth potential of the United States. We
    know, too, that it includes the largest increase in college aid since
    the GI bill 50 years ago, the largest increase in children's health
    since Medicaid was enacted first, over 30 years ago.
        Today I have some more good news. Our efforts have led to an even
    lower deficit than we had previously projected. In this, the 4th year of
    the 5-year economic plan adopted in 1993, we now expect the deficit to
    drop to $37 billion. Yet without the bipartisan balanced budget we just
    passed, my budget officials estimate the deficit would rise next year to
    50 to $100 billion and stay at that level for years to come. With our
    bipartisan balanced budget plan, we now expect it not only to reach
    balance by 2002 but to have a surplus in excess of $20 billion and to be
    able to maintain that for several years thereafter.
        There are still big challenges and tough decisions that we have to
    make beyond the balanced budget, however, if we're going to keep our
    economy growing and keep our people fully prepared for the new century.
    To meet them, Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and
    Americans from all walks of life must summon the same will and spirit
    that led to the balanced budget. We have a lot of work to do in the rest
    of this year.

    [[Page 1062]]

        First, if we expect to keep our economy strong and growing, we must
    continue to invest in the education and training of our people, and we
    must succeed in our push for high national standards and tests to make
    sure our students, our schools, and our teachers are doing the job.
        Second, we must tackle the tough issue of entitlement reform. We
    have to make tough choices to strengthen and protect Medicare and Social
    Security over the long run. They are the two most important social
    service innovations of the 20th century. This is not simply a matter of
    fiscal responsibility, it is also a matter of honoring the duties we owe
    both to our parents and to the next generation.
        The balanced budget bill I signed yesterday sets up a bipartisan
    commission to reform Medicare. This fall, along with the Members of the
    Congress, I will appoint the members of the commission, and they will
    get to work. We'll also tackle other issues to strengthen our families,
    exploring ways to improve child care in America and continuing our
    efforts to reduce the use of tobacco among our children.
        Third, we will grow our economy and create good jobs by continuing
    to open more foreign markets to our goods and services through tough
    fair trade agreements. We must continue to reach out to the more than 95
    percent of the world's consumers who live beyond our borders. That is
    why I will ask Congress to give me fast-track authority to negotiate new
    trade agreements that will extend free and fair trade to keep our
    economy going.
        Fourth, it is obvious that we cannot fulfill our obligations to
    future generations unless we also deal responsibly with the
    environmental challenge of global climate change. Growing our economy
    need not--indeed, it must not--contradict our commitment to protecting
    the environment. When the nations of the world meet in Kyoto in
    December, we must all take concrete steps to address this problem. The
    United States must commit to realistic and binding limits on our
    emissions of greenhouse gases. The science demands that we act, and
    again, we owe it to our children.
        Finally, let me say, as I did in the State of the Union Address,
    that one of our most critical pieces of unfinished business remains
    campaign finance reform. When Congress returns from its vacation,
    Senators McCain and Feingold have made clear that they will bring
    campaign finance reform legislation to the floor of the Senate. This
    will be the time of testing. The special interests and their allies have
    killed reform year after year, but this year the eyes of America will be
    on the Senate floor. I will give my strong support to McCain-Feingold,
    and if the American people will give their strong support, I am
    determined that we can prevail.
        It should not be as easy this year as it has been in each of the 4
    previous years to kill campaign finance reform with a Senate filibuster
    by a minority of the Senate. This year it is very important that every
    American know where every single elected Federal official in Washington
    stands on this issue: Are you ``yes,'' or are you ``no.'' It should be
    clear and unambiguous, and I believe if it is, we have a chance to
    succeed in passing the bill.
        All these challenges will require bipartisan cooperation. Many of
    them will require difficult decisions. But this balanced budget and the
    prosperity we are now enjoying gives us a rare opportunity to take these
    steps for the long-term well-being of our country.
        We can meet the challenges of the 21st century. We can have higher
    educational standards, entitlement reform, campaign finance reform,
    expanding trade, and a cleaner environment. This budget agreement shows
    that we can do all these things when we work together to find common
    ground. We have to carry the spirit into the fall for the hard work
    ahead.
        Now, I'll be happy to take your questions, starting with Helen
    [Helen Thomas, United Press International].

    Middle East Peace Process

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the United States has
    avoided nurturing peace for a long time in the Middle East tinderbox.
    I'm sure that it's a way to go, you feel, but yet, editorially the
    Washington Post says your choices are--and if you'll permit me to read
    it--it says, ``Up to now, President Clinton has avoided confronting the
    implications of Mr. Netanyahu's reluctance to bargain territory for a
    Palestinian settlement. Now he must decide whether to minimize short-run
    frictions with the Israeli Government or reach for a long-term peace.''
    What do you say to that?
        The President. Well, first of all, let me say that the Secretary of
    State gave a very important speech to the Press Club at noon today. I
    read the speech last night. I went over it with great

    [[Page 1063]]

    care, and I am in full accord with what she said.
        Secondly, in this year alone, the United States helped to broker the
    Hebron agreement. We have hosted all the leaders from the Middle East
    here. Dennis Ross has been to the Middle East twice. We have worked very
    hard on this. Indeed, there is no foreign policy problem to which I have
    given more of my personal time since I became President in 1993.
        But we have to do what we believe will be most effective. The
    question is not whether the United States or this administration on any
    given day or week is popular or not in any foreign capital. The question
    is, are we doing what is most likely to work? And sometimes reasonable
    people can disagree about that.
        Now, I have asked Dennis Ross to go back to the region to primarily
    discuss security. As Secretary Albright made clear, until the parties
    trust each other and until the Israelis believe that the Palestinian
    Authority is making 100 percent effort, which is different from 100
    percent results, but making 100 percent effort on security, it is
    impossible for peace to proceed. If we can resolve that, then the
    Secretary of State will soon go to the Middle East with the ideas that
    we have developed for going forward.
        Let me make this one final point on this--you may want to ask some
    followup questions, but I want to make what I hope is a clear
    distinction.
        On the substance of the peace process, the parties still have to
    make the final decision. But on the process itself--how to get the
    process going again with some integrity designed to restore confidence
    in both parties--I think the United States can and should offer its best
    ideas, and that is exactly what we intend to do, and that's what the
    Secretary of State's speech was designed to set the stage for today.
        Q. Well, the point of friction has been the settlements. And do you
    think you've been evenhanded in that respect?
        The President. Well, I think we've made it clear to the Israelis
    that we don't think anything should be done which undermines the trust
    of the parties and violates either the spirit or the letter of the Oslo
    accord and which predetermines the outcome of final settlement issues
    under Oslo. I think we've made that clear. And I think that the
    Secretary of State's speech today was quite clear on that.
        But let me say there is no parallel between bombs and bulldozers.
    You cannot draw a parallel. We cannot have an environment in which
    people believe the way to get what they want is to kill innocent people
    in a marketplace. Furthermore, I believe the people who are responsible
    for those terrorist bombs are the enemies of the Palestinian Authority
    as well, and I think they ought to see that. It is imperative that Mr.
    Arafat understand that those people are not his friends either. Those
    people do not want the peace. Their closest allies, in terms of
    political objectives, may be their most extreme enemies in Israel, who
    do not believe that peace is possible. The people that murdered all
    those people, those innocent civilians, are not trying to get a peace
    that they think is more favorable to the Palestinian or the Arab cause;
    they are trying to murder the peace process. And as soon as we all
    understand that and go back to work on it, then I think we have a chance
    to make progress.
        But I also believe that the Government of Israel clearly has a
    responsibility to try to--to carry its end of the load, too. This has
    got to be a two-way street: security first; then let's see both sides do
    what it takes to restore the confidence.
        Sonia [Sonia Ross, Associated Press].

    Line Item Veto

        Q. Mr. President, the tax cut and budget bills that you signed
    yesterday were criticized by your own Treasury Secretary as heavily
    laden with special interest provisions. You have the power to use the
    line item veto to take out some of those special interest tax breaks.
    Are you planning to exercise that power?
        The President. Well, the short answer is that I expect there will be
    some exercise of that. But let me tell you what we're doing.
        First of all, I have asked my staff and relevant Cabinet members to
    review both the budget bill and the tax bill. I know that all of you
    know this, but just for the people that you're writing or speaking for,
    there are three areas in which the President can exercise the line item
    veto, three sets of legislation. In the tax bill, there are certain
    limited, and they're quite limited, special tax provisions that are
    subject to the line item veto. In the budget bill, there are certain
    special spending programs under the so-called entitlement umbrella that
    are subject to the line item veto. I must act on either one

    [[Page 1064]]

    of them within 5 days from yesterday, excluding Sunday. That's what the
    law says. In addition to that, as the annual appropriations are passed
    they, too--the spending items within the annual appropriations--are
    subject to the line item veto.
        So what I've asked my staff and Cabinet to do is to meet with me,
    first of all, make sure I am aware of the items that are subject to the
    veto in the tax bill and in the budget bill that I signed. And then the
    second thing we have to do is to make absolutely sure that none of these
    things that we don't think are very good were part of the agreement.
    That is, this was an agreement entered into in good faith, and I cannot
    use the line item veto on anything that our negotiators agreed to let go
    through. I think that's very important. And I want to bend over
    backwards to make sure there's no misunderstanding on that. Then after
    that, we'll have a category of items, and I will just go down and
    evaluate them and decide whether I think that they are sufficiently
    objectionable that they should be vetoed.
        Larry [Larry McQuillan, Reuters].

    Balanced Budget Act of 1997

        Q. Mr. President, on this deficit reduction that you've just
    mentioned that has now fallen to $37 billion, doesn't it raise the
    question that, in fact, the budget could be balanced a lot sooner if you
    and Congress hadn't enacted $95 billion in tax cuts?
        The President. Well, let me say this: If we hadn't done anything, if
    we had had no tax cuts and no other changes, our estimates are--keep in
    mind, these tax cuts are over a 5-year period--our estimates are that we
    would have a deficit which would rise over the next 5 years and stay at
    about the level of $100 billion. So you can also say that if we hadn't
    spent $24 billion on children's health care, we could balance the
    budget. If we abolished spending on education, we could do it. The
    question is, can we do this in a way that also helps the American people
    and gives them some of the benefit of the prosperity that has been
    generated in the last 5 years?
        And let me say again, there is a lot of discussion about this tax
    cut. I want to make two things clear: This tax cut is a small fraction
    of the size of the tax cut that was adopted in '81 that started us down
    the road to permanent structural deficits, a small fraction. Number two,
    80 percent of this tax cut goes to three things which will benefit the
    vast majority of Americans: education, the child tax credit, and the
    initiatives to help isolated and distressed urban and rural communities.
    That's where 80 percent of this cut goes.
        Many people believe that the capital gains cut will also spur
    economic growth; some people don't. As you know, that was a big priority
    for the Republicans. I believe that, overall, the tax package is a good
    and balanced one. I think the fact that we have a plan for a balanced
    budget and that we are providing these kind of tax cuts that will help
    people to raise and educate their children will actually contribute to
    economic growth because they are disciplined, they are limited, and they
    are part of a comprehensive strategy that ends in balancing the budget
    now in a surplus. That's what I believe.
        Bill [Bill Plante, CBS News].
        Q. Mr. President, what makes you believe that future Congresses will
    continue along the path to keep the--to balance the budget in 2002 or to
    keep it balanced? And also, sir, in 1994 you referred to extreme
    Republicans who want tax cuts and spending increases and balanced
    budgets--``all this ridiculous stuff'' quote, unquote--that seems to be
    what you've got yesterday. I mean, you came here intending to stimulate
    the economy with Government spending and to get universal health care.
    Why did you change your mind?
        The President. That's not accurate. I also said that we would cut
    the deficit in half in 4 years. We did better than I said; we cut it by
    75 percent in 4 years. But if you--that's a very selective reading of my
    1992 campaign. I also said that I would have to eliminate programs, cut
    the size of Government by at least 100,000, and do more things that we
    had--that I believed we could reduce the deficit and increase targeted
    investment.
        And let me remind you that in this budget--let me just go through
    this quickly. When you adjust for inflation, all of these departments
    with discretionary budgets are going to have to cut spending 10 percent
    during this budget. There are more entitlement savings in the Medicare
    program in this budget than ever in any budget since Medicare has been
    enacted, about $400 billion. There are new, modest fees for home health
    care in the Medicare premium. So there will be--this is not all
    increased spending. Some

    [[Page 1065]]

    things will be increased; many things will be decreased. And if we do
    it, we'll produce growth.
        Let me just make one other point. I'm convinced that if we did not
    pass this plan and did not say to the world and to the investor
    community, we're going to balance the budget, it would slow economic
    growth.
        Let me answer your final question, why do I think subsequent
    Congresses will stay with this? Because I think that they have seen what
    happens if you do this. If you have fiscal responsibility and you're
    running a balanced budget when you have good economic times, then you
    get rewarded in the markets, and your economy does well. If you spend a
    lot of money you shouldn't be spending and you run big deficits in good
    economic times, the international financial markets will punish the
    United States. They will drive up interest rates. They will drive down
    the value of our stock market. They will weaken our economy, and they
    will make the deficits even worse. So I believe that the markets are
    sending us a clear signal.
        Alison [Alison Mitchell, New York Times] and then David [David
    Bloom, NBC].

    Campaign Financing

        Q. Mr. President, you said that the American people should know
    where every political figure in Washington stands on campaign finance.
    Yet at the same time that you've called for an end to soft money, you
    continue to raise it for your party.
        The President. I certainly do, and I'm proud of it.
        Q. Well, let me ask you----
        The President. I do. I plead guilty to that. I don't believe in
    unilateral disarmament. And I don't think--suppose I said to you,
    ``Advertising is bad, your newspaper should stop advertising while
    everybody else does it, and trust me to tell everybody what a good
    newspaper you have. Just stop it. Just say no.'' You live in a
    competitive world. We live in a competitive world. And notwithstanding
    what the image may be, constantly--and you see again in the press
    today--the Republicans raise more money, raise more big money, and raise
    more money from noncitizens than the Democrats do. But we have to raise
    enough to be competitive.
        I am doing my best to try to build things like our Women's
    Leadership Forum, which is the most exciting thing that the Democratic
    Party has going now in the way of fundraising, people who give modest
    contributions involving women, smaller businesses, new business people
    coming in. But I think it would be a grave mistake for us to abandon any
    attempt to compete. That would only ensure that the Republicans would
    never pass campaign finance reform.
        And I might say--I'm trying to stay in a good humor about this,
    because if I were sitting at home and I were a Republican Senator with a
    lot of influence in this, I'd say, ``Hot dog, this is the question I
    have been praying for. We will never be held accountable for this. We
    can kill it one more time. We've killed it 4 years. Let's go for 5.''
        And I hope that won't be it. I mean, I think we ought to--I will
    live under any set of rules that are there. But the lesson that we have
    learned is there's too much money in this system, but it's because of
    the cost of communication. It's the cost of communication that's driving
    this up. And so we have got to get free air time or reduced air time,
    and we've got to get campaign finance reform. And I hope we can.
        Let me just say, look at what we have done just since the first of
    this year. We want the FCC to deal with the issue of free air time. I
    have appointed an advisory committee to explore that. I've asked former
    Vice President Mondale and former Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker to head
    a national group to get citizens involved in campaign finance reform. I
    have asked the FEC to reconsider the rules that it made which made soft
    money possible in the first place. And I'm supporting Kennedy-Kassebaum.
    I don't know what else I can do.
        But I will not, at the same time, bankrupt the Democratic Party and
    say that I want you to have no money, even though if we do our very best
    we're still going to be outraised and outspent two to one. I don't think
    that is a responsible thing to do. I think that would be wrong. This
    money was given to us by--the people that contributed money to us, by
    and large, were people that could have made a lot more money
    contributing to the Republicans, they thought, because they were the
    party for the capital gains tax, the estate tax relief, and all of that.
    They did it because they believed in what we were doing. And they gave
    us a chance to fight for things like this children's health program,
    this education program, and all

    [[Page 1066]]

    the things we did. I just think we can't afford to just lay down our
    capacity to compete when what we really have to do is all agree to live
    under a new set of rules, which I will happily agree to live under.
        David.

    Medicare and Social Security

        Q. Mr. President, you spoke of entitlement reform, but the Medicare
    commission will not return its recommendations until the spring of 1999,
    and I'm wondering two things: first of all, in that context, one year
    before the Presidential elections begin, do you really believe that
    there will be the political will to do something drastic, vis-a-vis
    Medicare reform; and number two, on Social Security--you've had a chance
    to think about this for several years now--can you tell us what your
    recommendations will be in terms of keeping Social Security from going
    bankrupt?
        The President. Well, first let me deal with the Medicare issue. It
    was the decision of the Congress to have the commission report back in
    1999. And I would have gladly accepted a 1998 reporting date because I
    believe that we cannot make changes in Social Security or Medicare that
    are significant unless there is bipartisan support. And I believe if
    there is strong bipartisan support, you can do it in an election year as
    well as in a nonelection year. But I think the fact that March of '99 is
    18 months before a Presidential election, more or less--I haven't
    counted the months, maybe a little more--is not dispositive. I think
    that, first of all, this commission may decide to make interim
    recommendations, and we may take a series of steps. Secondly, if they
    make a package recommendation at the end and it has the support of all
    these appointees--and I can assure you I'm going to work hard to appoint
    distinguished, good people to this commission that will inspire
    confidence in our citizens--then I think the Congress will be prepared
    to act on it.
        And I feel the same way about Social Security. I have not yet
    decided exactly what the timing ought to be on that because we need to
    work it out with the congressional leadership in both parties in terms
    of how they're dealing with Medicare.
        But let me make the point again: These systems would work for a
    longer period of time than they otherwise will but for the fact of the
    baby boom and the fact that all seniors are living longer. Now, that's--
    as I've said before, that's a high-class problem. People are living
    longer and living better, and that's what we should want for our
    society. That's a good thing. But when the baby boomers retire, because
    of the length of life of senior citizens, there will come a time when
    there will be almost only two people working, just a few more than two
    people working, a fraction over two, for every one person on these
    programs.
        And you asked me, do I think that we will take the steps necessary
    to reform them. I do. And I feel that for a simple reason. Number one--
    and I'm the oldest of the baby boomers--I don't believe that our
    generation wants to ask our children to make drastic sacrifices to
    support us because we wouldn't take modest steps now that don't have to
    affect the people that are now retired at all. We can deal with this
    over a longer period of time in ways that don't affect people who are
    now retired at all or at least in a very minimal fashion. And I think
    it's an inter-generational obligation, and I expect it to be fulfilled.
    I'll be surprised if it's not.
        Yes, Mike [Mike Frisby, Wall Street Journal].

    Future of the Stock Market

        Q. Mr. President, the stock market has been soaring in recent
    months. Are you worried or concerned about whether ordinary Americans
    understand the risk involved in their investments at this time?
        The President. Anything I say is wrong, right? [Laughter] If I say
    yes, the market drops tomorrow. If I say no, someday it will drop, and
    I'll be a heel. [Laughter] Well, let me say this: It is an astonishing
    fact. I mean, what was the market when I took office? The market was
    3,200. So it's gone up at an unprecedented rate to unprecedented
    heights. But that increase has been accompanied by a very brisk growth
    in our economy and strong growth in productivity.
        And keep in mind, most ordinary citizens who are invested in the
    stock market are invested through their retirement funds and mutual
    funds and things of that kind, and the people who are managing those
    funds are managing huge amounts of money and presumably do have very
    good judgment about things like that. You know, all markets go up and
    down at various times, but I think that if you go back over the last 30
    years, investments in the stock market held over the long term have
    panned out pretty well. And there aren't too many people of modest

    [[Page 1067]]

    incomes who put a huge amount of money in the stock market on one day
    and then have to take it out 4 months from now no matter what. And I
    think that these mutual funds, these retirement funds, they can mix
    their investments, and they can do it over a longer period of time. So I
    think on the whole, what they're doing is betting on the larger American
    economy, and I think that's a very good bet.
        Yes, Elizabeth [Elizabeth Shogren, Los Angeles Times].

    Microsoft Corporation

        Q. Mr. President, in light of the new alliance between Apple and
    Microsoft that was announced today, I wondered if you could tell us if
    you're troubled at all by the phenomenal growth of the Microsoft
    Corporation and if you or your administration is considering putting any
    limits on that growth if you--and if not, how this is different from oil
    and steel and the railroads in the early parts of the century?
        The President. Well, first of all, this--I can't comment on this
    particular announcement today because it just happened today, and its
    economic effects under our laws have to be analyzed. But there--as you
    know, Microsoft has been involved in the last--since I've been President
    in various legal issues relating to its organization and operations. And
    I think all I can tell you is we will treat them in the same way we
    would anyone else and make the analysis of law that seems appropriate,
    and the Justice Department--I have to wait to hear from them about
    whether there are any antitrust implications to this.
        Yes, John [John Donvan, ABC News].

    Paula Jones Civil Suit

        Q.  Mr. President, in a civil suit filed against you, attorneys for
    the plaintiff have issued a subpoena for an individual who may or may
    not have worked in the White House. Your staff, when asked to clarify
    the status of that individual in the past, refuses to answer the
    question, refers it to an outside attorney. Even for those of us who
    don't have much appetite for this entire subject, this particular answer
    in this particular category seems needlessly evasive. My question to you
    is, is it your wish that it be answered this way and is it consistent
    with your intention to run an open White House? That's the principle I'm
    asking about here.
        The President. Well, first of all, I think the answer is probably
    known, but I think that Mr. Bennett and the person in question's lawyers
    gave the only relevant answers. And there was a request to be left alone
    and not harassed, and we're just trying to honor it. I don't really have
    anything to say to add to what Mr. Bennett already said about it.
        Yes, Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, CNN].

    Line Item Veto

        Q.  Mr. President, I want to ask a question about the UPS strike,
    but before I do, I want to just clarify what you meant by the line item
    veto, that you expect to exercise it. Do you mean between now and Monday
    you expect to exercise it, or exercise it in the fall when there are
    appropriations bills?
        The President. I mean I expect to exercise it, and I know--I'm
    anticipating that there will be some things between now and Monday that
    I would want to exercise it on. But I want to emphasize this: I have not
    had a briefing on this, and I literally--all I know about this is what I
    have read in the press, about the list of tax items which are subject to
    the line item veto. And there has been more scant coverage of the
    questions in the entitlement part of the budget. But I honestly don't
    know enough to tell you today, here's something I'm going to veto.
        We're going to have a session sometime between now and Saturday--
    excuse me, sometime between tomorrow and Saturday, about this whole
    issue of what's in this budget. And until I know for sure that I'm going
    to veto something, I don't want to say. I'm just--I'm assuming that
    there will be something in there that was not agreed to by all of us in
    the budget agreement that seems to me to be a good candidate for it. But
    I do not know of any specific thing now. As soon as I do, I will tell
    you. But I believe in the line item veto. I believe it should be used.
    And of course, as all of you know, it will be tested. As soon as I
    exercise it one time, somebody is going to file suit against it, and
    then we'll see what happens.

    United Parcel Service Strike

        Q. If I could just ask on the UPS strike, there are a lot of small
    businesses out there that are suffering right now as a result of this,
    and they see you standing by, encouraging both sides to go back to the
    bargaining table but

    [[Page 1068]]

    not really doing anything about it. And some of your critics are saying
    that's because the labor unions supported you and the Democrats so
    overwhelmingly over these past few years. Is that a fair criticism of
    why you're standing aside and not getting directly involved in this
    strike?
        The President. No. No. Let me urge you all to do one thing, because
    I think it would be very helpful to the American people generally to
    know this. If you compare what I did in the American Airlines strike,
    which is the only strike I've been involved in recently where I had some
    authority there-- the airlines companies, because they take passengers,
    are governed by a Federal law which gives the President the power to
    intervene if there is substantial economic danger or damage to the
    country. The UPS strike with the Teamsters is not covered by that law.
    It is covered by the Taft-Hartley act. If you look at the Taft-Hartley
    act, there has to be a severe damage to the country. The test is very
    different and very high before the President can intervene.
        Now, Mr. Lindsey, as he always does in strikes of large national
    stakes and high interest, has been involved as sort of our mediator, our
    talking person dealing with all the parties. And we did bring the
    Federal Mediation Service into this, and we have--we've done everything
    we could, both privately as well as publicly, to urge the parties to get
    back to the table and settle this. I'm very concerned about all the
    customers and users of UPS and what's happening to them, but I do not
    believe that it is a fair reading of the Taft-Hartley law, which is the
    law I have to act under, that the high standard of that law has been
    met. It's a totally different law from the law that affected the
    American Airlines case. And I think it's really important that the
    people understand that.
        Go ahead.

    District of Columbia Rescue Plan

        Q. Mr. President, also put into law yesterday, of course, with the
    tax and budget provisions was the District of Columbia rescue plan. And
    there's an extraordinary amount of roiling around and criticism in the
    city, and I think perhaps around the country, about what's taken to be a
    trampling of home rule for this Nation's Capital City. As democracy
    advances in the rest of the world, some folks are worried that it may be
    receding here, and the fact that Mayor Barry's powers have been reduced
    to a certain extent, as an unelected control board comes in to make
    these management reforms and deal with the aid. And there are some that
    think that this may be an attack on Mr. Barry personally, that this is
    in the legislation. Are you concerned about this to the extent that
    you're going to try to do anything to follow up on it, talk to Mrs.
    Norton? I wonder what your reaction would be.
        The President. Well, first of all, we've already been in touch with
    Congresswoman Norton about this in some detail. Let me back up and say
    that I think on balance the legislation was very good for the District
    of Columbia because it will have the effect of injecting about $200
    million in cash into the city this year, as the State--the Federal
    Government pays a higher share of the Medicaid budget of DC, begins to
    take over the prisons, begins to assume the pension liabilities.
        What I was hoping to do was to remove from the District of Columbia
    the burdens that normally are borne by a State but that this city has
    had to bear; and then to give the local officials more responsibility
    for the things that a city must do: run a good school system, keep the
    streets safe, repair the roads and the highways and the streets, and do
    the other things that the city has to do. And the Congress,
    simultaneously, wanted to strengthen the whole reform system that was
    represented by the control board. And it was a congressional initiative
    and, if you will, a condition of getting the financial relief that the
    provisions that you mentioned were adopted, which, among other things,
    require a joint agreement of new department heads between the Mayor and
    the head of the control board.
        Here's what I've asked Frank Raines to do. Frank Raines, as all of
    you know, is representing me in our DC negotiations. I've asked him to
    try to get together with the parties and see if we can find a way to
    make these appointments consistent with home rule and that, if he finds
    the situation to be untenable, to come back to me with some suggestions
    about what we should do then.
        Let me just say one other thing. There are some very interesting tax
    provisions in this bill which are similar to the tax credits that we
    gave generally around the country for people to hire people off welfare,
    for people who go into the inner cities and the high poverty areas, and
    then there is, for the first time ever, a

    [[Page 1069]]

    zero capital gains on people that start trade or businesses in high
    poverty areas of DC. So we are trying to rebuild the economic
    infrastructure of the city as well. Director Raines is going to try and
    work through it for me and come back with a set of recommendations.

    President's Advisory Board on Race

        Q. Mr. President, there seems to be several issues blowing in the
    wind that come back to you--the issue of the race initiative. You wanted
    a dialog on race, and you have a dialog on race right now, the black-
    white issue, in particular, the issue of an apology for slavery and
    reparations. Are you hoping that the issue were to go away by giving it
    to the Race Advisory Board? Because there is word that you would like it
    to go away.
        The President. I don't know that I hope the issue will go away. What
    I hope the issue--what I hope will happen is that the issue will not
    dominate all the other things that need to be discussed about the past,
    the present, and the future. And I gave it to the Advisory Board because
    I--after all, the Chairman is one of America's most eminent historians
    and as knowledgeable about this subject as anyone in the country. If I
    had no Advisory Board, I probably would have called him on the telephone
    and asked for his opinion when this subject came up. So that's the only
    reason I asked them to look at it.
        But let me say, I think they're doing a good job. We've got our
    Executive Director in Judy Winston now. We're staffing up. We're going
    to be moving out around the country. There will be dialog, there will be
    research and studies done, and there will be policies flowing. And you
    know, I've already announced the first major policy under this
    initiative, which is the $250 million program to give people--to defray
    the costs of college education for people who teach in underserved
    areas.
        Peter [Peter Maer, NBC Mutual Radio].

    Middle East Peace Process

        Q. Mr. President, going back to the first question on the Middle
    East, when this administration calls on the Palestinian Authority to
    take sustained action to prevent terrorism, what specific steps are you
    looking for? And secondly, do you personally believe that Yasser Arafat
    and the Palestinian Authority have fulfilled the obligation to prevent
    terrorism?
        The President. Let me answer them in order. Number one, we expect
    them to resume meaningful, real, consistent security cooperation with
    the Israeli authorities in the way that they do when they work best.
    Number two, we expect them to act on the information that they have. You
    can't hold them to the information that they don't. But they have proven
    in the past quite effective at rounding up people and arresting them for
    good cause. And number three, we expect that if there are people there
    who are really serious threats to the peace and to innocent civilians,
    that they should be kept behind bars if it is legal to do so. So that's
    basically it.
        Now, in answer to your second question, I would have to say that I
    could not say that there has been constant, 100 percent effort. That
    does not mean that we know--by the way, that does not mean that we know
    for sure, we in the United States know, that these bombs would not have
    exploded and killed these people if 100 percent effort had been made. I
    can't say that; I'm not close enough to the situation. But I know that
    it's been discouraging for the Palestinian Authority. I know they get
    frustrated. I know that sometimes Mr. Arafat feels like he's caught in
    the middle between his own population and their discontents and
    frustration and his frustrations in dealing with the Israeli Government.
    But none of that can be an excuse for not maintaining security.
        If you go back and read Oslo, they promised 100 percent effort on
    security, number one. Number two, never mind Oslo; you can't have a
    civilized society if you permit terrorism. And number three, in the end
    the terrorists are the enemy of moderate, constitutional government
    among the Palestinians. Those people who murdered those people in the
    market did not want a better peace deal. They want continued impasse.
    They want to destroy Israel. And that is not going to happen. There must
    be a peace process.

    Nomination of Governor William Weld

        Q. You have repeatedly expressed your admiration and support for
    Governor Weld, but how far are you willing to go to see him confirmed?
    Are you willing to make Senator Helms mad? What plans do you have
    specifically to help him?
        The President. I thought maybe I'd go down to Mexico and jump off
    those cliffs at Acapulco. Have you ever seen them? [Laughter] Maybe

    [[Page 1070]]

    that would--well, let me say, first of all, let me have a very serious
    comment on this. Let's get a few things on the record here. I have had a
    good and surprisingly constructive relationship overall with Senator
    Helms, and it has flowed from our being completely straightforward with
    one another and acting in a candid and open manner. And he certainly has
    been candid and open about this. But so have I.
        Now, I believe that Governor Weld would be a good Ambassador to
    Mexico and is rather uniquely situated to be a good Ambassador to Mexico
    because of his background, his experience, his knowledge, because he
    does know a lot about the drug trafficking. And he's been criticized for
    that, but let me remind you that President Reagan named Governor Weld
    head of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. And just in the
    last couple of days President Reagan's head of the Drug Enforcement
    Administration strongly endorsed Governor Weld for Ambassador to Mexico.
    When I nominated him, one of the reasons I nominated him, ironically, is
    that I felt that this would build strong, broad, bipartisan support for
    our relationships with Mexico, which I think are critical.
        Now, having said that, I think at least the man ought to get a
    hearing and ought to get his day in court, if you will, his day before
    the committee. And I was encouraged to hear Senator Lugar say that.
    We've got a team organized in the White House to try to help promote his
    nomination, and we'll do the very best we can, and we'll see what
    happens. But I believe he ought to be the Ambassador, and I'm going to
    try to see him confirmed.
        Yes, Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service].

    Elder Care

        Q. Sir, we have a scandal in the country, a quiet scandal and not
    talked about very much because it concerns a lot of older people who
    don't even talk to their relatives when they visit them. I'm talking
    about nursing homes. Apparently, the Federal regulations are not being
    enforced enough, and in many of the nursing homes owned by corporates,
    there are very few, small staff, very large number of patients, and the
    staff are paid very little. Therefore, they take it out on the patients.
    And some of these patients, many of them are hungry, and they're abused,
    and they're mistreated. And nationally we ought to do something about
    it. I'm sure you can.
        The President. Well, let me say, there are two issues here, really,
    in terms of what happens to older people who are not living at home, and
    to some extent, in home. There is the nursing home situation; there is
    the--people who are living in institutions that aren't quite nursing
    homes. And then there are people who are getting home care, and the
    question of whether the home care they're getting actually is what they
    contracted for and whether they're being properly paid.
        The Department of Health and Human Services is looking at the
    question of whether we can streamline and make more effective the
    regulation of nursing homes, and also how we're going to go about
    getting money--stopping spending money in other forms of support for
    seniors where the money basically is being ripped off through fraud and
    abuse. And I hope that over the next few weeks we will have something to
    say about that that will reassure people and their families who are in
    nursing homes.
        Mara [Mara Liasson, National Public Radio].

    Line Item Veto

        Q. Mr. President, another line item veto question. You said that
    some of these candidates for a veto were negotiated in good faith,
    they're part of the agreement. Could you explain to the American people
    why a tax cut that benefits 100 or fewer taxpayers is ever in the
    national interest? It sounds like the very definition of a special
    interest goody.
        The President. Well, it's certainly the definition of a special
    interest group, but not all special interests are always in conflict
    with the general interest. If that were true, our country would not have
    survived for over 200 years.
        But I want to look at them and see, because you say that anything
    that benefits 100 or fewer taxpayers must, by definition, be a special
    interest, but it could be a sector of the economy where there are fewer
    than 100 businesses now, where there is a national interest in keeping a
    certain activity going--alternative--something that's good for the
    environment, for example. I don't know. I don't want to comment because
    I have not seen these. But I would think that there are cases--for
    example, there may be a case where an injustice was done to a taxpayer
    or a small class of taxpayers, and we're trying to fix that. There may
    be a--that's the one case

    [[Page 1071]]

    I can think of. The other case is where there would be fewer than 100
    firms in a given economic area where we'd want to do something.
        Yes, Ann [Ann Compton, ABC News].
        Press Secretary Mike McCurry. Tea time. [Laughter]
        The President. Are you serving? [Laughter]
        Press Secretary McCurry. That's another way of saying ``last
    question.''

    1996 Campaign Financing

        Q. I'll make it quick. A minute ago in talking about campaign
    finance reform you said, ``I will live under any set of rules that are
    there.'' But violations of the rules that are in place--or apparent
    violations--are exactly why there are Thompson hearings in the Senate,
    why your own Justice Department has an investigation going. Why don't
    you appeal to two people who are trying to help you, Charlie Trie and
    John Huang, to come and tell their story? They've begun to talk to ABC
    and other media. You make an appeal to them to come and tell what they
    did and why they did it and help move past the investigations that are
    there now.
        The President. Well, first of all, I have encouraged and I will do
    it again now--I've said I think everybody ought to work out a way to
    cooperate with this committee and get all the information out. Secondly,
    the State Department specifically has tried to work with the
    congressional committees with regard to anybody who might be out of this
    country. So I don't know what else we can do on that. I certainly have
    been fully cooperative and will continue to do so.
        But what have we learned in these hearings? We've learned that there
    were problems. Now, we've learned that both parties had problems. We've
    learned that a lot of money was raised and a lot of money was spent. And
    I hope we've also learned that a lot of what was legal--and that was the
    import of Alison's question earlier--I hope we've also learned that a
    lot of what is legal would be better off if it didn't happen. We'd be
    better off if we had ceilings on contributions to the political parties.
    We'd be better off if somebody couldn't give a million dollars to a
    political party at one pop.
        And that all leads you back to the same place: We either will or we
    won't pass a credible campaign finance reform bill this year. Some
    people will be for it, and some people will be against it. If the public
    is permitted to think for a moment that they're all the same and they're
    all doing it and nobody really wants it, then that is an absolute, lock-
    down guarantee that no bill will pass. There must be a clear distinction
    between those who are for and those who are against. And until there is
    in the public mind, people won't think they're going to be held
    accountable for that vote and those who benefit from the present system
    will do what they can to keep it.

    Independent Counsel Statute

        Q. Mr. President, the American Bar Association is considering
    recommendations to limit the independent counsel statute in their annual
    meeting in San Francisco this week, a series of recommendations
    including limiting what offices can be investigated and the elimination
    of the need for a final report. First of all, where do you stand on
    these recommendations? And second of all, in 1999, if this statute were
    reauthorized, would you veto it?
        The President. Well, I think--let me say, first of all, the American
    Bar Association has taken a great interest in this and ought to be
    viewed as a little bit, at least, of a neutral observer here. And they
    have pointed out some abuses of the law that are general and some abuses
    of the law that are specific to certain specific independent counsels.
    And I think that in this case I ought to be like the rest of the
    country; I ought to wait for their recommendations and study them. I
    can't comment on their recommendations until I know what they are and
    what the grounding is. But I'll be eager to hear them.
        Thank you.
        What did you say? You want me to take one more? Go ahead.
        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. On tobacco----
        Press Secretary McCurry. Quit while you're ahead.
        The President. I'm not sure I am ahead. I never know where I'm
    ahead.
        Go ahead.

    Tobacco

        Q. On tobacco, there were news accounts this week that you plan to
    take some additional smoking steps pertaining to Federal property. In
    the coming months and coming year, do you plan to be active on some of
    the international issues as U.S. companies emphasize sales

    [[Page 1072]]

    abroad--things like the World Health Organization's idea for some
    standards on labeling, or there have been bills introduced in Congress
    that would prohibit U.S. employees from promoting the export of tobacco
    products?
        The President. Well, I think that there may be some multilateral
    actions that we would want to be a part of. And to be honest with you, I
    haven't had a great deal of time to think about it. I know that sales
    have been declining in the United States and in Latin America and going
    up in Asia and in Eastern Europe and that it's natural to expect that
    companies will try to accelerate the growing markets and, if they're
    dangerous to children here, they're dangerous to children there.
        What I'm focused on now is completing my evaluation of this proposed
    settlement, protecting the jurisdiction of the FDA and the victories
    we've already won, and continuing to advance the health interests of the
    American people. But it is inevitable; it is as inevitable as the Sun
    coming out today that international institutions will be called upon and
    nations will be called upon to responsibly deal with this.
        Yes, I'll take one question over here from the front.

    India

        Q. Next week, India will celebrate 50 years of independence, and you
    have been invited by New Delhi and also by the Indian community in
    Washington to attend the functions. Are you going to one of the
    functions? Also, how do you view the last 50 years of U.S. and India
    relations, the world's largest two democracies, under your
    administration?
        The President. Well, first, I hope to do something here in
    Washington to recognize the beginning of what will be a yearlong
    celebration of Indian independence. And also, as you know, at some time
    there will be some overlap in when Pakistan will be celebrating its 50th
    year of independence, and I think the United States should also be--its
    presence should be heavily felt in South Asia because of the long
    relationship we've had with India, to be specific to India, because it's
    been a democracy all the time, but also because of the enormous
    potential of South Asia for good if things go well and for ill if things
    don't.
        You know, it's not a very hot issue here in the United States, but
    it's a source of continuing concern to me that the people of Pakistan
    and the people of India have not been able to work through their
    differences, because if they could do so, I am convinced that they could
    quickly begin to enjoy economic growth rates at the level of the highest
    East Asian communities and be our best partner for the future. So I'm
    hoping that not only can we observe India's anniversary but that we can
    be an even better friend in the next 50 years and a more constructive
    supporter of resolving these difficulties in the near term.
        Thank you.

    Note: The President's 150th news conference began at 2:02 p.m. on the
    South Lawn at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Gov. Carl
    T.C. Gutierrez of Guam; Ambassador Dennis Ross, Special Middle East
    Coordinator; Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of Israel; Yasser Arafat,
    Chairman, Palestinian Authority; the President's attorney, Robert S.
    Bennett; Deputy Counsel to the President Bruce Lindsey; and Mayor Marion
    S. Barry, Jr., of the District of Columbia. A reporter referred to
    Kathleen E. Willey, former White House volunteer who was subpoenaed in
    the Paula Jones civil suit.