    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book II)]
    [July 9, 1997]
    [Pages 928-934]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 928]]

    The President's News Conference in Madrid
    July 9, 1997

        The President. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Ladies and
    gentlemen, I will try to abbreviate my opening statement and get right
    to the questions, because President Aznar has delayed his press
    conference so we could do this one first.
        Let me begin by thanking the President, Mr. Aznar, the Government of
    Spain, and the people of Spain for a truly remarkable 2 days here in
    Madrid. I compliment his leadership. And also, since we are in Spain, I
    think I should especially say that I believe every leader of a NATO
    country considers the job that Secretary General Solana has done in
    managing this historic transformation to be truly remarkable. So the
    people of Spain have a great deal to be proud of in terms of their world
    leadership over the last 2 days.
        This was a unique conference. There have been conferences of great
    powers in Europe many times before, but today, with our meeting of the
    Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, we had 44 nations, big and small, new
    democracies and established ones, meeting to chart a common future of
    freedom and security, not large powers riding the destiny of small ones
    without regard to the impact of their decisions on ordinary citizens but
    nations dismantling blocs of power, building lines of partnership and
    bridges to the future.
        Many tongues were spoken at our table today, but the language was
    the same, the language of democracy and the pursuit of a common dream of
    a Europe undivided, free, and at peace. NATO is at the heart of that
    vision.
        What happened here this week represents a lot of work over the last
    3\1/2\ years. Yesterday we made NATO stronger and ready to meet
    challenges of a new century by further streamlining its command
    structure and giving Europe a greater security role within NATO. Then in
    an historic turning point, we extended invitations to new members for
    the first time since Spain joined NATO 15 years ago, and we opened the
    door to other members in the future. Today we strengthened our ties to
    NATO's partners for peace and continued to reach out to a new one with
    the agreement with Ukraine. Together with the historic NATO-Russia
    Founding Act in Paris this spring, we now see a new and broader and
    deeper alliance.
        Let me say, as an American, I was very pleased to be joined by a
    bipartisan delegation of our Congress from both Houses and very pleased
    that Senator Roth was the spokesperson for the parliamentarians from all
    the NATO countries yesterday, supporting our expansion decisions.
        Next year, I will ask the United States Senate to ratify changes to
    the treaty governing NATO so that we can bring in the new members by the
    50th anniversary of NATO in 1999. I hope this week and the publicity it
    has received back home in America will help to stimulate discussion and
    debate among the American people about this historic decision. And I
    hope that when the American people hear the arguments, they, too, will
    strongly support the enlargement of NATO.
        This is going to make all of us stronger and more secure. The new
    allies will help us to better defend the territory of members and reduce
    the chances that any of the territory will be violated. Bringing in new
    members will help to lock in the gains of democracy in those countries
    and the free-market gains they are already achieving. The example of
    these new members will help to encourage others to aspire to membership
    and to continue their democratic reforms and their efforts to settle
    disputes with their neighbors. Finally, it will help to erase the
    artificial line drawn across Europe by Stalin after World War II.
        NATO enlargement, however, will not be cost- or risk-free. No
    important decision ever is. But for the American people, clearly the
    cost will be far less in lives and money to expand the bounds of
    democracy and security than it would be if we had to involve our people
    in another conflict in Europe.
        Tomorrow I am going to Poland to talk about the new responsibilities
    new members must undertake to keep NATO the strongest alliance in the
    world. Then on Friday, I will go on to Bucharest, Romania, to make clear
    to the people of that country and of the other emerging democracies that
    the door to this alliance and to partnership with the West is open, that

    [[Page 929]]

    we are determined to help them walk through it if they can stay on the
    path of freedom and reform.
        For too much of our century, Europe has been divided by trenches and
    walls. In two world wars and a cold war, there was a terrible toll in
    lives and treasure. The work we have done this week will help to build
    stability and peace in Europe for the coming century. It will make it
    also far less likely that the sons and daughters of the United States
    will be called upon again to fight and die for the freedom of the people
    of Europe because today, and in the years past, we have worked hard to
    preserve it in peace.
        Thank you very much.
        Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

    Bosnia

        Q. Mr. President, Radovan Karadzic continues to stir up trouble in
    Bosnia to the point of endangering the new President there and the
    democratically elected government. Do you think that NATO peacekeepers
    should aggressively pursue him? Would you favor some kind of
    paramilitary operation to apprehend him?
        The President. First, let me say we support Mrs. Plavsic and what
    she's trying to do. We oppose the unconstitutional efforts to restrict
    her authority. We appreciate the fact that even though we don't agree on
    everything, she has stated her adherence to the Dayton accords and has
    tried to follow them.
        Second, we believe that Mr. Karadzic and all the other indicted
    people who have been accused of war crimes should be arrested and
    subject to trial.
        Third, in terms of the SFOR members themselves, clearly our mandate
    is to arrest people who have been accused of war crimes and turn them
    over for trial, if that can be done in the course of fulfilling our
    other duties and if the commanders on the ground believe the risk is
    appropriate. As to whether anything beyond that could or should be done,
    I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this time.
        Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].

    Proposed Tobacco Agreement

        Q. Mr. President, your people at the White House have put out the
    word that the FDA part of the tobacco deal is unacceptable. Are you
    going to block it?
        The President. Let me restate my position, then specifically answer
    your question. I am concerned about one thing only, the health of the
    people of the United States and, in particular, our children. Secondly,
    I want to applaud again the attorneys general, the public health
    advocates, and the others who negotiated this settlement. There are a
    lot of really important, good things in it.
        I have reached only one conclusion about the settlement in terms of
    what has to be changed. That portion that restricts the judgment--the
    jurisdiction of the FDA in terms of limiting tobacco content in
    cigarettes or banning it outright--nicotine content--or banning it
    outright because some black market might be created, it seems to me is a
    totally unreasonable restriction. What is a black market, after all, a
    one percent penetration of the market, a 3 percent penetration of the
    market? Would we deny the FDA the right to protect 100 percent of our
    children because there might be a few black-market cigarettes around? I
    think that's unreasonable.
        I have reached no final judgment about anything else, but I do think
    that is a change that ought to be made, and I cannot believe that the
    tobacco companies or others would bring down the entire settlement over
    that. I have not reached a final decision on anything else.
        Rita [Rita Braver, CBS News].

    1996 Campaign Financing

        Q. Mr. President, while we we've been over here, there have been
    reports that you personally intervened with the Democratic National
    Committee to get John Huang hired as a fundraiser. I wonder what you
    could tell us about any activities that you had involving John Huang,
    why you felt so strongly about him, and what, in retrospect, do you
    think of that?
        The President. I can only tell you what I recall about that. I
    believe that John Huang, at some point when I saw him in 1995, expressed
    an interest in going to work to try to help raise money for the
    Democratic Party, and I think I may have said to someone that he wanted
    to go to work for the DNC. And I think it was--he said that to me, and I
    relayed that to someone. I don't remember who I said it to, but I do
    believe I did say that to someone. And I wish I could tell you more;
    that's all I know about it.
        Q. Why were you so--[inaudible]?

    [[Page 930]]

        The President. Well, I had known him for--first of all, most people
    don't volunteer to help you raise money in this world; it's normally an
    onerous task. And so if anybody volunteered, I would have referred
    virtually anybody's name to the party. But I had had some acquaintance
    with him for several years, going back to my service as Governor, so I
    knew who he was.

    NATO Expansion

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. French President Chirac earlier today
    suggested that France was not going to spend any money to expand NATO.
    He said that the new members should pay the bill themselves, which
    raises two interesting questions. If France isn't going to spend any
    money to expand NATO, why should the United States taxpayers be forced
    to spend what probably would be a few billion dollars over the next
    decade or so to expand NATO?
        And the second related question is, these new countries are
    relatively poor and have limited hard currency. Why should the United
    States and the other NATO allies be encouraging them now to spend their
    limited resources for high-tech weaponry, which may be good for U.S. and
    European defense contractors but probably could be used more effectively
    to develop their own economic infrastructure, especially at a time when
    you yourself say there is not serious external threat to these
    countries?
        The President. Well, first of all, the weapons they would have to
    buy would be conditioned more than anything else on what kinds of
    missions they believe they will be called upon to undertake. If they,
    for example, are sending their troops to Bosnia, if there is some future
    Bosnia or some other peacekeeping role, as NATO troops, we would want
    them to be as well-armed as possible to protect themselves. That doesn't
    mean they have to buy the most expensive weapons to do everything in the
    world, but it does mean that if they're going to undertake the projected
    missions of NATO, they would need to be appropriately trained and armed.
        Secondly, one of the things that I believe that I noted at this
    meeting was that there had not been a great deal of work done in many
    countries about what the costs were. I think some people in the United
    States have grossly overestimated the costs of NATO expansion. I do
    believe that the nations involved should pay most of the costs
    themselves. But it's not just a question of that. There will be joint
    training to be done, just like there is in the Partnership For Peace,
    but it will be conducted at a higher level. There will be joint planning
    to be done. So a lot of the costs that would be borne would be extra
    activities for the armed forces that are already there from these
    countries.
        And then there will be some infrastructure that will have to be
    built in the countries of members so that we can have what is called
    interoperability. And I would expect that these costs will be modest for
    all countries, but I would think that the Europeans and the United
    States and Canada will have modest costs that we will bear. And I think
    most of the costs will be borne by the member states. It was up to them
    to make that judgment.
        I think, if you take--let's just take the Czech Republic. President
    Havel, I think, is widely recognized as an apostle of peace and as
    someone who's interested in all the kinds of domestic concerns to
    improve the quality of life in the Czech Republic that you would expect.
    To have a modest but strong defense is a precondition, I believe, over
    the long run, for Europe avoiding the kind of instabilities that could
    undermine the quality of life. So I think as long as--we're not talking
    about getting into an arms race or bankrupting their budgets, and these
    were judgments that they were all in a position to make.
        I will say this. One of the things that I think animated our
    decisions on how many countries should come in, and when, is that we
    want countries to be able to do this and afford to do it without
    undermining quality of life at home, because the public in those
    countries has to continue to support both democracy and free market
    reforms and engagement, constructive engagement with other nations.

    1996 Campaign Financing

        Q. Mr. President, yesterday when some of your aides were asked about
    allegations raised at the Thompson committee hearings about China still
    possibly being engaged in attempts to manipulate U.S. elections, their
    response was that because this was under investigation, it's
    inappropriate to comment. While reasonable, this response is also in
    some ways quite unsatisfying because this is a very serious allegation.
    It's difficult to believe that the White House does not have concerns
    and opinions. So I'm taking the question once again to you, to the top.
    Do you have knowledge of this,

    [[Page 931]]

    or at the very least, do you have concerns that these allegations have
    been raised?
        The President. Well, as I have said before and I will say again, I
    have no knowledge of it. I do not know whether it is true or not.
    Therefore, since I don't know, it can't in any way and shouldn't affect
    the larger, long-term strategic interests of the American people and our
    foreign policy.
        However, it is a serious charge. If any country--any country--sought
    to influence policy through illegal means, including illegal campaign
    contributions to people running for President or people in the Congress,
    it would be wrong and a matter of serious concern. But I simply don't
    know. And I think we have to let the investigation play itself out. As
    you did, all I know is what was said yesterday. I heard the assertion
    that this was continuing, and I heard others say that they did not
    believe the evidence supported that conclusion, and I just don't know.
        So what I have said and what I expect is the most vigorous possible
    investigation by the Justice Department. And let's get the facts, and
    when we have the facts we will act in an appropriate fashion.
        Yes? And then I'll take a couple of foreign journalists in a moment.

    NATO Expansion

        Q. Mr. President, NATO expansion has critics in the United States
    and not only on the grounds of costs; some say it risks isolating Russia
    or weakening and diluting the western alliance. Do you feel the need to
    launch a public relations campaign in the United States on behalf of
    this initiative, and if so, what will you do?
        The President. Well, I think a lot of our campaign has already
    begun. Because of the widespread awareness at home because all of you
    are here and telling them at home what we just did, I think that a lot
    of the work has begun. But I do think, yes, that we all have a job to
    do, as Senator Roth said yesterday, but I and our administration have a
    job to do with the American people and with the United States Congress.
        I disagree that we are isolating Russia. You can only believe we're
    isolating Russia if you believe that the great power, territorial
    politics of the 20th century will dominate the 21st century and if you
    believe that NATO is inherently antagonistic to Russia's interests and
    that Russia inherently will have to try to exercise greater territorial
    domination in the next few years than it has in the last few. I dispute
    that.
        I believe that enlightened self-interest, as well as shared values,
    will compel countries to define their greatness in more constructive
    ways. And the threats that we will share that will be genuine threats to
    our security will compel us to cooperate in more constructive ways.
    Therefore, I think the fact that we had the NATO-Russia agreement first,
    that I went to Helsinki to see President Yeltsin before we actually even
    went--finalized where we were going with this--we got that done first,
    and we met in Paris and signed the agreement--it shows that NATO wants a
    constructive partnership with Russia as with all other democratic
    countries.
        Yes, go ahead, Peter [Peter Maer, NBC Mutual Radio].

    Nuclear Weapons and the Republics of the Former Soviet Union

        Q. Mr. President, the recent arrest in Miami of three Lithuanian
    nationals accused of offering to smuggle nuclear weapons to U.S. Customs
    agents, unbeknownst to them at the time, has raised new questions about
    the security and stability of the nuclear holdings of the former Soviet
    Union. What is your analysis of it, especially in light of the decisions
    that have been taken here over the past couple of days? How secure, how
    stable are the nuclear holdings of the former Soviet Union?
        The President. I think on balance, they have made great progress in
    the last few years. You know this because we've talked about it a lot
    over the last few years, but we have spent a lot of time working with
    the Russians both to try to bring all the nuclear weapons and materials
    into a more concentrated area and get them out of the other Republics of
    the former Soviet Union and also to try to increase the safety of the
    materials. And the Russians have been quite constructive in our
    cooperation, and we've made a lot of progress.
        The first thing I asked when I saw that story about the arrest was
    whether or not they could have delivered the goods they were promising,
    which we don't know. Keep in mind, we have--our European friends, and
    Germany especially, a few years ago made a lot of arrests of people who
    were coming out of Russia with what they thought were nuclear materials,
    but none of

    [[Page 932]]

    them, as far as I know, could have been converted into weapons. That is,
    they were nuclear-related materials from sites that people got away
    with, but the actual material that could be turned into a weapon was
    under sufficient security control that it wasn't out.
        We may not live in a zero-risk world, but I do believe we're doing
    well. And we will have to investigate this thoroughly to try to trace it
    back if there was a breakdown somewhere and, if so, what we have to do
    about it. But let me say, you just made the case for why I believe that
    we need to view our national interests in the same way. Obviously, the
    Russians and we here have the same interest. The Lithuanians have the
    same interest. Nobody wants this to be done. This is a violation of
    every nation's self-interest.
        Yes, Mara [Mara Liasson, National Public Radio].

    Medicare

        Q. [Inaudible]--said that you would consider means-testing Medicare
    only in the context of long-term structural reform of the program, and
    now your advisers say you might be reconsidering to accept it in the
    context of this budget agreement. Why the shift in your thinking?
        The President. Well, I think on the merits, means-testing--as the
    population ages and as we continue to have an unconscionably high
    percentage of children living in poverty, you have to have help from
    society as a whole. We will have to look at means-testing generally. I
    have never been opposed to means-testing Medicare.
        Now, one of the things I have said--let me reiterate here, the
    Senate committee and then the Senate as a whole deserves a lot of credit
    for looking to the long-term future of the country and trying to deal
    early with the impact of the aging of the population on one of our most
    important systems, Medicare. And I think that we have a responsibility
    to respond to that, and I intend to. But I'd like to make just two
    points.
        Number one is, if you look at their bill, it adds about now 12 years
    to the Medicare Trust Fund. Most of the adding to the Medicare Trust
    Fund comes from the structural reforms, including the greater
    competition, the greater choice, and the greater preventive elements
    that are in the plan that I presented. Number two, if we're going to
    means-test benefits, the means-testing needs to be fair and workable.
    And the third thing I would say about the things that they offered, we
    do not want to do anything that will increase the number of people
    without any health insurance at all. That is one of the biggest problems
    America has. And as I predicted back in '93 and '94, it's getting worse,
    not better. And if it weren't for Medicaid, it would be terrible.
        And one of the most difficult populations we have in the United
    States are people who retire early, say, at 55 or 60, or are forced to
    retire, and then they have to wait for years to qualify for Medicare.
    I'll never forget the one story Hillary told me about meeting a woman
    that actually had breast cancer, who was 64 years old, who was waiting
    until she qualified for Medicare to get adequate treatment. I mean, we
    don't want to create a new class of people without any health insurance
    at all.
        But the Senate did a good thing by showing its concern for the
    future. I think I should respond. I intend to, but I want us to--
    whatever we do, I want it to make sense. And let's not forget, the
    structural reforms may save more money over the long run.
        The gentleman from Ukraine there, and the lady next to him. I'll
    take both questions.

    Russia and Ukraine

        Q. Mr. President, what's your attitude--Russia is going up the
    opposition towards the American-Ukrainian exercises on the Black Sea.
    And if Russia will go up their opposition, are you going to withdraw
    your troops from Black Sea--from this exercises--[inaudible]--'97? And
    will the Ukrainian-NATO charter give any guarantees of security for
    Ukraine?
        The President. Well, first of all, you should read the charter
    because it shows about what we will do together with Ukraine. Secondly,
    I think it enhances the security of Ukraine, just as I believe the NATO-
    Russia agreement enhances Russia's security and enhances NATO's because
    it commits us to cooperation rather than conflict.
        In terms of what we would do in the Black Sea, let's note one thing,
    that Ukraine and Russia have recently agreed to settle their
    differences, which is a huge, positive thing from our point of view. To
    us, that was our biggest concern in the Black Sea, was the argument
    between Ukraine and Russia. And we're gratified that there's been an
    agreement that will resolve it when it's implemented.

    [[Page 933]]

        And in terms of what we do with our exercises, that depends upon
    what we think the appropriate thing is under the circumstances. And I
    have no evidence at the time which would cause me to change my position.
        Yes?
        Q. Mr. President, you had a meeting with Ukrainian President Leonid
    Kuchma today. What did you say to him? And what do you think about the
    state of economic reform in this country which was the point of your
    concern recently?
        The President. Well, first of all, I congratulated him on the
    agreement--President Kuchma on the agreement between the United States
    and NATO. Secondly, I reaffirmed our determination, which was stated
    again at Denver, to help Ukraine deal with the closure of Chernobyl and
    develop reasonable alternative sources of energy. The third thing I did
    was to urge him to continue to support economic reform.
        This is the most difficult thing of all because when a country goes
    from a communist economy to a free market economy, almost always there
    is a period in which things are actually harder for ordinary citizens,
    and the voters may vote out the reformers. And it's a difficult thing.
    But in the end, which doesn't take very long, the economy grows much
    more.
        And I told President Kuchma that if he could find a way to support
    the reforms and enact them in this year, that I would do everything I
    could to see that the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and
    the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development supported Ukraine
    to minimize the problems for the people in Ukraine and to speed up the
    day when the economy will genuinely be growing again.
        Let me take one--is anyone from Spain here? I think I should take a
    host question. One of the Spanish journalists? Go ahead. Either one of
    you stand up. Somebody. Go ahead. Since I don't know your name, I have a
    hard time calling on you.

    NATO Expansion

        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. Because NATO is a military organization, which
    requires a commitment of security, it is always operated by consensus.
    That is the only way it ever could have operated. Keep in mind, if we
    extend membership to another country, it means that we are committing
    the people who wear the uniform of our Nation to go and fight and die
    for that nation, should it ever be attacked. Now, I think it's a pretty
    good gamble because no NATO nation has ever been attacked, ever, not
    once. But for 50 years, we have always operated by consensus.
        Let me give you another example. When we planned the NATO operation
    in Bosnia, we had to reach consensus among our military planners. They
    didn't all agree on every detail. Of course, because it was military
    planning, the differences were not so highly publicized as these were,
    which were more open and political, if you will. But obviously, you
    couldn't take a vote on those kinds of decisions. And I think it's the
    very nature of this sort of alliance; we have to try to work through and
    do our best to get a unanimous decision and accommodate ourselves to
    each other.
        And let me say, it wasn't just how many countries got in; it was
    also how we stated what we were doing, making sure the door was open,
    acknowledging that progress had been made in Europe's northwest and
    Europe's southeast and that we were going to keep the door open over a
    protracted period of time. I thought all that was quite important.
        I'll take one question from the gentleman from Israel. Then I have
    to go.

    Middle East Peace Process

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Amar Adniah from Channel 2 News,
    Israel, and I wonder whether you've got any new plans, any new
    initiatives to save the peace process in the Middle East, which seems to
    be falling apart. And does the Secretary of State plan a visit to the
    region?
        The President. The answer to your question is that I have been
    working, before I came here, to come up with some ideas about how we can
    start this again. I am very concerned about what's happening in the
    peace process. I'm very concerned about the growing tensions between the
    Palestinians and the Israelis. And it is obvious that we're going to
    have to see some new specific actions taken in order to get this thing
    going again. It is equally obvious that we're going to have to have real
    security cooperation in the area with the Palestinians to keep down the
    violence.
        I think it can be done. It is a question of will and risk,
    calculated risk; that's what the peace process in the Middle East has
    always been about. And we are working on it now.

    [[Page 934]]

    But you know how it works there: The less I say about it, the more
    likely we are to succeed.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 149th news conference began at 4:43 p.m. at the
    Centro de Convenciones. In his remarks, he referred to President of the
    Government Jose Maria Aznar of Spain; NATO Secretary General Javier
    Solana; President Biljana Plavsic of the Serb Republic of Bosnia-
    Herzegovina (Republika Srpska); Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic;
    President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic; and President Boris
    Yeltsin of Russia.