[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book II)]
[December 16, 1997]
[Pages 1772-1791]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



The President's News Conference
December 16, 1997

    The President. Good afternoon. It is only fitting that we gather 
today in the Dean Acheson Auditorium, for as Acheson was in his time, we 
truly are ``Present at the Creation,'' the

[[Page 1773]]

creation of an era after the cold war that might be unrecognizable to 
the wise men of Acheson's time; a new era of promise and peril, being 
defined by men and women determined that the 21st century be known as a 
new American Century.
    I briefly want to review the progress we've made in the last year 
and our mission to prepare America for that new century. Even as we reap 
the hard-earned profits of the strongest economy in a generation, our 
Nation refused to be complacent. We confronted big issues in 1997. We 
passed a plan to balance the budget. We made college affordable and 
community college virtually free to every American. We cut taxes for 
middle class families with children. We saved Medicare for another 
decade. We extended health insurance to 5 million children in lower 
income working families. We cut crime, reduced welfare, strengthened our 
schools. We made the world safer by ratifying the Chemical Weapons 
Convention. And at Kyoto, with the Vice President's leadership, we took 
an important step toward protecting the environment even as we promote 
global economy growth. We renewed the consensus for honest engagement 
with China. We stood strong against a rogue regime in Iraq. We made real 
progress toward lasting peace in Bosnia. Next week I will personally 
thank our troops there and talk to the Bosnian people about their 
responsibilities for the future.
    Of course, even as we reflect on how far we've come in our mandate 
to carry out enduring American values into a new century, we realize we 
have far to go. Nineteen ninety-eight will be a year of vigorous action 
on vital issues that will shape the century to come. From education to 
the environment, from health care to child care, from expanding trade to 
improving skills, from fighting new security threats to promoting peace, 
we have much to do both here at home and abroad.
    Earlier today, with the simple stroke of a pen, we helped to make 
European history. Secretary Albright and her NATO counterparts signed 
protocols of accession for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, 
formalizing our intent to welcome these nations as NATO's newest members 
and a grand effort to defend our shared values and advance our common 
destiny. This is a milestone in the enterprise I launched 4 years ago to 
adapt our alliance to the challenges of a new era and to open NATO to 
Europe's new democracies. The entry of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
Republic into the alliance will make America safer, NATO stronger, and 
Europe more stable and united.
    The decision to add new members to NATO must be ratified by all 16 
allies. I'm gratified that Congress has already taken an active, 
positive role in a bipartisan manner through the Senate NATO Observer 
Group that joined us at the Madrid Summit and the extensive hearings and 
resolutions this fall. I will promptly seek the Senate's advice and 
consent on NATO expansion when Congress returns in January.
    The United States has led the way in transforming our alliance. Now 
we should be among the first to vote yes for NATO's historic engagement. 
We are well on the way to the goal I set last year of welcoming the 
first new members to NATO by NATO's 50th anniversary. Today I am pleased 
to announce that the NATO alliance has accepted my invitation to come to 
Washington for that special summit in the spring of 1999. Together, we 
will strengthen NATO for the next 50 years, and I hope we will be 
welcoming its newest members.
    Now, before I take your questions, in this room where President 
Kennedy held so many memorable press conferences, let me remind you that 
he once praised these exercises, with tongue only somewhat in cheek, 
saying, and I quote, ``It is highly beneficial to have 20 million 
Americans regularly observe the incisive, the intelligent, and the 
courteous qualities displayed by their Washington correspondents.'' 
[Laughter] Precedent has its place.
    Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

Asian Economies

    Q. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago in Vancouver you said that the 
economic chaos in Asia was just a glitch in the road, but the currency 
turmoil continues, and South Korea says that it needs a faster IMF 
bailout. What--how serious is this crisis for Americans, and will you go 
along with the additional funds that the IMF says it needs?
    The President. Well, first of all, the American economy is strong, 
and the new numbers on low inflation, coupled with the very high rate of 
business investments, show that we have a significant capacity to 
continue to grow from within. Now, having said that, as I have 
repeatedly pointed out to our people, a significant part of our growth 
comes from our ability to

[[Page 1774]]

sell to others around the world, including in Asia. And so it is very 
much in our interest to do what we can to support the Asian economies as 
they work to weather this crisis.
    I remain convinced that the best way to do that is to follow the 
plan that we outlined at Manila. One, we need strong economic policies 
on the part of these countries. When you have a problem at home you have 
to address it at home. That's what we did in 1993 in addressing our 
deficit. Two, the IMF has--and the other international institutions 
should play the leading role, and there is a framework within which they 
can do that, and we know they can do it successfully when you look at 
what happened with Mexico. Third, we should be there, along with Japan 
and other countries, in a supporting capacity when necessary. That is 
the policy that will work.
    I am very encouraged--you mentioned South Korea--I am very 
encouraged by the steps that they are taking to try to implement the IMF 
plan to take actions at home that are important, and I think it is 
terribly important that President Kim met with the three candidates for 
President in South Korea, because they have an election coming up very 
soon, you know, and they all agreed to support this plan to rebuild the 
South Korean confidence of the markets and to work through this problem.
    Now, do I think we may need to do more? I think we may need to do 
more within the framework that has been established, but that needs to 
be a judgment made on a case-by-case basis. The important thing is that 
the United States must be in a position to do more to fulfill its 
responsibilities. And that means, among other things, that it's very 
important when Congress comes back here that we take up again the bill 
to provide for paying the dues that we owe to the United Nations and for 
giving us the ability to participate in the so-called new authority to 
borrow provision of the IMF. That bill should be taken up and judged on 
its own merits, and I would urge Congress to do it right away.
    But the most important thing is that we have a system in place. That 
system has to be followed; strong domestic policies by these countries, 
the IMF framework with the other multinational institutions, then the 
U.S. and Japan and others there in a back-up role when necessary.
    Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].

Administration Accomplishments

    Q. Mr. President, this may fall into the category of ``with friends 
like that,'' but two of your former aides, advisers, have written you 
off already, at the start of your second term. George Stephanopoulos 
says you're a lame duck. Dick Morris says you've gone to sleep. What is 
your rebuttal, and what's the dog's name? [Laughter]
    The President. Maybe that should be my rebuttal. [Laughter] You 
know, President Truman said if you want a friend in Washington you need 
to get a dog. [Laughter]
    Let me back up, and let me just say I don't know--first of all, I'm 
not sure that Mr. Stephanopoulos is being properly quoted there. But if 
you look at what happened in 1995, I think it is very difficult to make 
that case. I mean, if you compare year-by-year in each year of this 
administration, we have had significant accomplishments. But I think 
the--1997, we had the balanced budget; we had the biggest increase in 
aid to children's health since 1965, the biggest increase in aid to 
higher education to help Americans go to college since the GI bill 
passed. We voted to expand NATO; we passed the Chemical Weapons 
Convention; we had a historic agreement in Kyoto; and along the way, we 
passed sweeping reform of America's adoption laws. We passed sweeping 
reforms of the Federal Food and Drug Administration to put more medical 
devices and lifesaving drugs out there in a hurry, and a score of other 
things, plus the beginning of the first serious conversations Americans 
have ever had about their racial differences not in a crisis. I think it 
was a banner year for America. We have the lowest unemployment and crime 
rates in 24 years. Now we know we've got the lowest combined rates of 
unemployment and inflation in 30 years.
    We had a good year because we're all working hard. And all I can 
tell you is, in '98 there will--it will be a more vigorous year. And 
perhaps you'll have questions about that, but we intend to have a very, 
very active time. So I can't comment on what others say. I just say that 
all you have to do is look at the evidence, look at the record, look at 
our plans for the future, and I think that it's almost worthy of a 
dismissal.

[[Page 1775]]

President's New Dog, Buddy

    Now, back to the dog. [Laughter] Let me begin by thanking all the 
children and others, including members of the press corps at the 
Christmas parties last night, for their voluminous suggestions of a 
dog's name. We got great groups of suggestions, people who suggested 
categories related to the coloring of the dog, people who suggested 
names related to my interest in music, naming all kinds of jazz 
musicians that I would love to have named our dog after. Then there was 
a whole set of Arkansas-related suggestions, Barkansas, Arkanpaws. 
[Laughter] Then there were suggestions that related to all of our family 
names, somehow putting them together, or saying since the Secret Service 
knows me as POTUS and Hillary as FLOTUS, that we should call the dog 
DOTUS. [Laughter] Then there were the parallels to our cat, Socks, 
saying we should call it Boots or Shoes or something else like that.
    In the end, our family got together; we came down to about seven 
names, many of them personally inspired, and then to three. I finally 
decided to name the dog after my beloved uncle who died earlier this 
year. I'm going to call the dog Buddy, because of the importance of my 
uncle to my life but also because my uncle raised and trained dogs for 
over 50 years. And when I was a child growing up, we talked about it a 
lot. And because the dog was--as was in the press this morning--the dog 
was trained for a couple of months with another name, it is also, I can 
tell you, the name he responded best to of all the ones that we sort of 
tried out on him. [Laughter]
    And I think while it's important that I train the dog, it's been a 
good two-way street. But mostly it's a personal thing. And it's ironic 
that Hillary had thought about it; I thought about it; and then one of 
my uncle's daughters called me last night. And I didn't take the call 
last night because it was too late when I got done, so when I called her 
this morning, she said, ``You know, our family thinks you ought to 
consider naming it after Dad.'' And I said, ``That's what we've decided 
to do.'' So I made a few of my family members happy.
    But I want to thank everybody who participated in the exercise.
    Larry [Larry McQuillan, Reuters].

Bosnia

    Q. Mr. President, to go back to NATO and your celebration of this 
expansion, Bosnia kind of underscores the obligations that membership 
brings. The foreign ministers today have said they basically reached a 
consensus that there will be a need to keep troops there beyond the June 
pullout date. Can you tell us just what conditions you've set in order 
to allow U.S. participation in this?
    The President. Well, first of all--you know this, of course, but I 
think it's worth repeating--we have been involved for the last several 
weeks in a whole series of intense meetings about the situation in 
Bosnia, where we are, what progress has been made. Let me point out that 
after 4 years of the bloodiest war in Europe since World War II, we've 
had 23 months of peace. It's easy to focus on the problems, but there 
has been peace, there has been a restoration of significant economic 
activity. A lot of the facilities, the waste systems, the sewer systems, 
the schools have been rebuilt. Housing units have been rebuilt. We've 
had elections and the beginning of a resurgence of democratic processes.
    So with all the continuing difficulties, there has been, in my view, 
a significant amount of progress in the last 23 months, of which the 
American people can be justly proud, and indeed all of our allies in 
NATO and beyond NATO and Russia and the other countries that are 
participating can be proud of that.
    We are discussing now actively both within the administration, with 
our allies in NATO, and our other allies and with Congress what should 
be done after the June date for the expiration of SFOR. And as you know, 
I'm going to Bosnia on the night of the 21st to be there on the 22d with 
our troops and to meet with people in Bosnia. And I will have an 
announcement about what I expect should be done thereafter before I go. 
And I'll be able to shed a little more light on that for you.
    Yes, go ahead.

Campaign Finance Reform

    Q. After all the things we've learned in the months of hearings 
about campaign fundraising and campaign contributions, I wonder if you 
can tell us whether you still consider two people, John Huang and 
Charlie Trie, to be your close friends, sir?

[[Page 1776]]

    The President. Well, I think what we've learned--first of all, what 
we've learned is that we need campaign finance reform. If anybody 
intentionally violated the law, then they should be held accountable. 
We've already had some examples of that--not involving my campaign, but 
we've had some examples of that already in the last year or so, people 
who apparently intentionally violated the campaign finance laws. And no 
one should be exempt from that. We have laws.
    But what we've also learned is, as I have been saying now for 6 
years, the laws we have are inadequate. And I am hopeful that the vote 
we have scheduled for the spring, the fact that we finally have a 
commitment to have a vote on some kind of campaign finance reform in the 
spring, will give us the kind of campaign finance reform that the 
American people need and deserve. And I can tell you, I believe most of 
the public officials would welcome it.
    It is difficult because of the advantages that the Republican 
majority has in Congress in raising money from all sources. I understand 
the challenge that's on them to get them to vote for this, but we do 
have all the Democrats in the Senate, 100 percent of them now, lined up 
in favor of the McCain-Feingold bill, and I am strongly committed to it. 
That is ultimately the answer to this.
    The fundamental problem is not those that might have deliberately 
violated the law; the fundamental problem is that the system no longer 
operates on the 1974-75 system of rules. We need to do more to deal with 
it. Now, I would like to see more done, whether Congress acts or not. I 
would like to see the FCC explore its authority and try to do something 
to offer free or reduced air time for candidates for Federal office, 
especially if they in turn agree to accept voluntary spending limits. I 
would very much like to see the FEC try to tighten up its rules on soft 
money. They opened the floodgates in the beginning; there may be some 
things that can be done there. But in the end, we have to have a decent 
campaign finance reform system if we want the kind of results that I 
think most Americans want.
    Yes, go ahead.
    Q. [Inaudible]--Mr. Huang and Mr.----
    The President. I answered that question.

President Saddam Hussein of Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, how long are you willing to tolerate Saddam 
Hussein's continued defiance of the United States and of the United 
Nations?
    The President. Well, Saddam Hussein has been in defiance of the 
United Nations since the end of the Gulf war. That's why we have a 
system of sanctions on him. And I am willing to maintain the sanctions 
as long as he does not comply with the resolutions.
    If you're asking me are there other options that I might consider 
taking under certain circumstances, I wouldn't rule out anything; I 
never have, and I won't. But I think it's important that you remember, 
since the end of the Gulf war, the world community has known that he was 
interested in not only rebuilding his conventional military authority 
but that he was interested in weapons of mass destruction. And a set of 
sanctions was imposed on him. There are those that would like to lift 
the sanctions. I am not among them. I am not in favor of lifting 
sanctions until he complies. Furthermore, if there is further 
obstruction from the mission--the United Nations' mission in doing its 
job, we have to consider other options. But keep in mind, he has not 
come out, as some people have suggested, ahead on this last 
confrontation, because now the world community is much less likely to 
vote to lift any sanctions on him that will enable him to rebuild his 
military apparatus and continue to oppress his people and threaten his 
neighbors and others in the world.
    So that's my position on that. I feel that we have to be very firm. 
It is clear to me that he has still not come to terms with his 
obligations to the international community to open all sites to 
inspections. We need to wait until Mr. Butler gets back, make a full 
report, and see where we are and where we go. But this is something that 
we are following on a--I and my administration are following on a daily 
basis and very closely. And the United States must remain steadfast in 
this. But we now have more people who are more sympathetic with being 
firm than we did before he provoked, needlessly, the last incident.
    John [John Donvan, ABC News].

President's Initiative on Race

    Q. Mr. President, reports from the front lines of your race 
initiative suggest that the initiative is in chaos, it is confused. The 
Akron town

[[Page 1777]]

meeting was little more than Presidential ``Oprah.'' Some people 
involved are beginning to----
    The President. That may be your editorial comment. That's not my 
reports. I've received scores of letters, including letters from 
ordinary people who said that they loved it, and they thought it was 
important. So if that's your opinion, state your opinion. But----
    Q. It's an opinion, sir, that I'm hearing from others who are 
beginning to question whether simply talking----
    The President. Who are they? Name one. Just one. Give me a name. All 
this ``others'' stuff--you know, it's confusing to the American people 
when they hear all these anonymous sources flying around.
    Q. I don't want them to get fired by you, sir, so--[laughter]--but 
they are people who are involved in the process who are beginning to 
question whether simply talking is enough. Some of them are saying there 
needs to be more policy, but just talking about an issue doesn't take it 
very far.
    The President. First of all, there has been policy. Keep in mind, 
we're trying to do four things here. We're trying to identify policies 
that we need to implement, and do them--from as basic a thing as finally 
getting the Congress to adequately fund the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission to the scholarship proposal I made to help to pay people's 
expenses to college if they'll agree to teach in underserved areas that 
are predominately minority areas in the country to Secretary Cuomo's 
recent initiatives on discrimination in public housing. And I have said 
there will be more. So the suggestion that there have been no policies 
is an inaccurate one. There have been policies, and there will be more--
first.
    Second, many people have told me they think perhaps the most 
important thing we can do is to get out the practices that are working 
in communities that are working. That's one of the reasons we went to 
Akron. And we have had many, many people access--hundreds and hundreds 
of people access the website that we set up for promising practices in 
the communities that work.
    Third, we're trying to enlist new leaders. I sent a letter to 25,000 
student leaders the other day asking them to take specific personal 
responsibility for doing something. We're getting about 100 letters a 
day back in response from them, saying what they're going to do.
    Fourthly, I believe talking is better than fighting. And I believe 
when people don't talk and communicate and understand, their fears, 
their ignorance, and their problems are more likely to fester. I think 
that's one of the reasons that what you do is often just as important in 
our society as what decisionmakers do, because people have to have 
information, they have to have understanding.
    Keep in mind, this is the first time--as I said in my opening 
statement, this is the first time ever that our country has tried to 
deal with its racial divergence in the absence of a crisis. We don't 
have a civil war. We don't have the aftermath of civil war. We don't 
have big fights over Jim Crow. We don't have riots in the streets. We 
have a country that is emerging as an ever more divergent, diverse 
democracy.
    In the next couple of days, the racial advisory board is going out 
to Fairfax County, Virginia, with people of different views, including 
Secretary Bill Bennett, former Secretary of Education, to sit down in 
Fairfax County, see what they're doing in their schools, how they're 
dealing with this, and whether there are any lessons there that we can 
learn for the rest of the country.
    So I believe we are on track. I believe that the kinds of criticisms 
that this board has received were inevitable once we decided to 
undertake this endeavor in the absence of a crisis or in the absence of 
building support for some single bill, like an open housing bill, a 
voting rights act, an omnibus civil rights act. But I think it is 
working, and I think it is taking shape, and I believe it's got clear 
direction, and I think you will see better results as we go forward.
    So that's the only reason I ask you the specifics. I think it's very 
hard for me to shadowbox with people if I don't know specifically what 
they're saying. You can always make these sort of general statements. 
But I'm very upbeat about this commission. I felt great about the Akron 
townhall meeting.
    And one of the things that I think we ought to do more of, however, 
following up on the Akron meeting, is to get people who have different 
views about real issues that are before the country and to try to see 
them talk together. I'm going to have a meeting with people who have 
been labeled and perhaps self-styled conservatives on a lot of the 
issues surrounding

[[Page 1778]]

the civil rights debates in America today in the next few days. I'm very 
much looking forward to that. But what we really need to do is to get 
people talking across the lines that divide them. And I hope we can do 
more of that. But I believe that there is an intrinsic value to this 
kind of discussion.
    Susan [Susan Page, USA Today].

Taxes

    Q. Mr. President, speaking of what will happen in 1998, some 
lawmakers are talking about giving Americans a tax cut next year. But 
there is a separate issue of fundamental tax reform, that is, changing 
the Tax Code to a flat tax or national sales tax or a greatly simplified 
progressive tax. Do you believe that the time has come to seriously 
consider fundamental tax reform?
    The President. You mentioned two things, so let me try to respond to 
both of them. First of all, on the whole tax cut front, there has been 
some talk about that by some lawmakers who say that now we have a 
surplus, and therefore, we should spend it in part, at least, with a tax 
cut. And by that they mean one of two things. They mean we have a 
projected surplus at the end of this budget period, or they mean that 
the deficit is lower now than it was projected to be last August when I 
signed the balanced budget bill.
    But it's important that the American people understand we don't have 
a surplus yet. We have a deficit; it's over 90 percent smaller than it 
was when I took office. I was at $290 billion, and now it's at $23 
billion. That is not a surplus. This economy is the strongest it's been 
in a generation because of the discipline that we've been able to bring 
to the task of bringing the deficit down and getting our house in order. 
We should not lightly abandon that discipline. The most important thing 
the American people need is a strong economy with good jobs and now 
rising incomes for all income groups. We've worked very hard to reverse 
20 years on that, and we need to stay at that task.
    Now, the second question, should the Tax Code be simplified, and 
should the system work better for ordinary Americans? On an elemental 
level, of course, it should. Let me remind you that we have a bill which 
passed the House with overwhelming support--I think there were only 
three or four votes against it--that is now in the Senate, that will 
further unshackle, if you will, the American people from any potential 
abuses by the IRS and make the system more accessible and fair for them. 
So I would urge the Senate to pass that bill.
    Now, let's go to some of the more ambitious schemes. I would not 
rule out a further substantial action to simplify the Tax Code. But I 
will evaluate any proposal, including any one that our people might be 
working on, by the following criteria: First of all, is it fiscally 
responsible? Secondly, is it fair to all Americans; that is, we don't 
want to shift the burden to middle class taxpayers to lower income taxes 
on upper income people. We did that for 12 years, and it didn't work out 
very well. And we have reversed that, and we don't want to start that 
all over again. Thirdly, will it be good for the economy? And fourthly, 
will it actually lead to a simpler tax system?
    Now, within those parameters, any proposals that meet those 
criteria, I think I am duty bound to consider supporting, and I would 
consider supporting them.
    Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, Cable News Network].

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of Israel

    Q. Mr. President, a few weeks ago the Prime Minister of Israel, 
Binyamin Netanyahu, was in the United States, and you and he were in Los 
Angeles at exactly the same time; in fact, your planes were both on the 
tarmac at LAX as you were getting ready to leave. But you refused to 
meet with him. He later said in an interview that you, in effect, were 
not only snubbing him, but you were humiliating or embarrassing the 
State of Israel, the people of Israel. I wonder if you'd care to respond 
to that, and why didn't you meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu? This is 
the first time in my memory that an Israeli Prime Minister was in the 
United States and did not get a meeting with the President of the United 
States.
    The President. Well, first of all, let's put the record straight 
here. Mr. Netanyahu has been in office only a year and a half, and we 
have had five meetings. I don't believe I have ever met with any other 
world leader five times within an 18-month period. So there can be no 
serious suggestion that the United States is not interested in the peace 
process or respectful of the people and Government of Israel. We have 
had five meetings.
    Secondly, I expect that we will have a meeting early next year, a 
sixth meeting, to discuss where

[[Page 1779]]

we are and where we're going. Secretary Albright was slated to meet with 
and did meet with Mr. Netanyahu to talk about what the next steps were. 
I think it is important when the President meets on the peace process 
that it be a real meeting and that there be some understanding of where 
we are and where we're going and what we're doing together. And I have 
always taken that position.
    So there was no--you never heard, I don't believe, me say anything 
about some sort of calculated decision to snub the people of Israel or 
the Government of Israel. I simply wouldn't do that.
    Yes.

Women in the Armed Forces

    Q. Mr. President, would you support the resegregation of the sexes 
in the military? And wouldn't that send a message to women that they 
cannot benefit from equal opportunity in the Armed Forces?
    The President. Well, I think you must be referring to the report 
issued by Senator Kassebaum and her--Senator Kassebaum Baker and her 
committee today. I have not had a chance to review the report. I did 
read the press reports on it this morning. I'm not sure exactly what 
their recommendations are. I can say this. It's a group of eminent 
Americans; I think they looked at a difficult question. I'm not sure 
they recommended a total resegregation of the military.
    What I would be very reluctant to do is to embrace anything that 
denied women the opportunity to serve in positions for which they are 
qualified and to progress up the ladder of promotion in the way that so 
many have worked so hard to permit them to do in the last few years.
    Now, within those parameters, if there is something that they feel 
strongly ought to be done in the training regime or in the housing 
regime because of the problems that we have seen in the military in the 
last couple of years, I think we ought to entertain it. And I think 
within those limits that this ought to be largely a decision left to our 
military commanders upon serious review of the report. But I don't 
think--I doubt that the committee wants to do anything to deny women the 
opportunity to serve or to gain appropriate promotions, and so I'm not 
accusing them of that. I'm just saying that we would be in my framework 
within which to evaluate this.
    Mara [Mara Liasson, National Public Radio], and then Peter [Peter 
Maer, NBC Mutual Radio]. Go ahead.

Iran

    Q. Mr. President, a question about Iran. You said this week you were 
looking forward to an honest dialog with Iran. Can you tell us how and 
when that dialog might begin? And also, given that the United States has 
not been able to enlist a single other country to help us in our effort 
to isolate Iran economically, to join in the embargo, do you still think 
that policy is effective, or are you willing to rethink it?
    The President. Let me answer the questions in order, but in reverse 
order. On our embargo, I think it is the right thing to do. And it will 
have varying degrees of effectiveness depending upon how much other 
people are willing to work with us, but I think that the voters in Iran, 
when they made the selection of the current President, seemed to be 
sending a signal that they wanted a more open society. And I was quite 
encouraged by his remarks. So that I'm not sure you can say that our 
policy has been in error. I certainly think it is right, whether it is 
supported or not.
    Now, going to your first question. We are, all of us, discussing 
about how to proceed now. No decision has been made. But I have always 
said from the beginning that I thought it was tragic that the United 
States was separated from the people of Iran. It's a country with a 
great history that at various times has been quite close to the United 
States. We have had the privilege of educating a number of people from 
Iran over several decades; indeed, some people in the present government 
were able to get some of their education in the United States. And 
Americans have been greatly enriched by Iranian, by Persian culture, 
from the beginning of our country.
    We have three issues that we think have to be discussed in the 
context of any comprehensive discussion. The first relates to Iranian 
support of terrorist activities, with which we strongly disagree. The 
second relates to Iranian opposition to the peace process in the Middle 
East, with which we disagree. And the third relates to policies 
involving the development of weapons of mass destruction. I think we 
have to be able to discuss those things in order to have

[[Page 1780]]

an honest dialog, just like we have an honest dialog with China now. We 
don't have to agree on everything, but people have to be able to have an 
honest discussion, even when they disagree.
    And in terms of terrorism, I think the United States must maintain 
an uncompromising stand there. We would not expect any Islamic State, in 
effect, to say it had no opinions on issues involving what it would take 
to have a just and lasting peace settlement in the Middle East. We would 
never ask any country to give up its opinions on that. But we would ask 
every country to give up the support, the training, the arming, the 
financing of terrorism.
    If you look at the world that we're living in and the one toward 
which we are going, if you look at the torments that many Americans 
underwent in the 1980's because of terrorist activities, our 
uncompromising position on that I think is clearly the right one, and we 
shouldn't abandon that, and we must not, and we won't. But do I hope 
that there will be some conditions under which this dialog can resume? I 
certainly do.
    Peter.

Bosnia

    Q. Mr. President, I'd like to go back to the earlier question on 
Bosnia. You're obviously laying the groundwork for an extended stay for 
U.S. troops there. What kind of a mandate do you envision for that 
mission? And what type of military and financial responsibility do you 
hope that the European allies will agree to in this follow-on effort?
    The President. Well, of course, that is all part of our discussions 
now both with our allies and with the Members of Congress, and I don't 
want to truncate the discussions. What I want to do is to see that the 
peace process continues. I think one of the things that all of our 
military people agree on is that we must do more to beef up the civilian 
police there; and that there must be a distinction between what we 
expect our military leaders to do and what we expect the civilian police 
to do; and that the mission must be--if there is to be a mission after 
the SFOR mission expires, it also must have clear, objective components 
with some way of knowing whether the mission has been achieved or not.
    In other words, I still don't believe that there should be anybody 
interested in some kind of a permanent stationing of global military 
presence all over Bosnia. But I do think that these are all elements 
that have to be discussed. And as I said, I hope to be able to tell you 
more about this before I leave on my trip in a few days.
    April [April Ryan, American Urban Radio Networks].

Affirmative Action

    Q. Mr. President, as the national dialog on race gains momentum, the 
one-year anniversary seems too near, and how are you going to pull apart 
the issue of race reconciliation and affirmative action that seems to be 
cross-tied? And will you extend the race initiative beyond this year, to 
the end of your term?
    The President. Well, in some sense, this whole initiative has been a 
part of my administration from the beginning, because it permeates so 
much else of what we try to do and what we're trying to do.
    With regard to affirmative action, I think that's an ongoing 
process. My reading of the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the 
Court of Appeals ruling that the California vote abolishing affirmative 
action was, in fact, not unconstitutional, that it was permissible for 
the voters to vote in the way that they did under the Constitution--my 
reading of the Supreme Court's decision there is that they were saying 
that we're going to allow this matter to be resolved in the political 
process, that is, that affirmative acts of discrimination are illegal; 
what should be done to root out the vestiges of discrimination or to 
create a society in which people have more or less the same chance to 
succeed without regard to their racial background must be resolved in 
the political arena. As you know, there was a different decision made by 
the voters of Houston recently in a vote on affirmative action.
    So what I would like to see done is to move beyond the I'm-for-it 
and you're-against-it stage to a more sophisticated and, ultimately, 
more meaningful debate to the American people, which is, if you don't 
like the way California used to admit people to its colleges and 
universities, what would you do to make sure that you didn't exclude 
whole groups who happened to be predominantly of racial minorities, but 
also happen to be predominantly poor, predominantly from difficult 
neighborhoods, predominantly born into families without the kinds of 
advantages as many other children have? What

[[Page 1781]]

are we going to do? And that debate is, I would suggest to you, in its 
infancy. But there are a lot of people who are trying to contribute to 
that debate.
    I noticed there was an interesting set of op-ed pieces in one of our 
papers recently, one by Chris Edley, who used to work for us, 
essentially defending affirmative action, but pointing out some of the 
problems within it; and another one by Glenn Loury, who's normally 
viewed as a conservative intellectual, who said that he thought in some 
cases there was still some room for it, but there were a lot of other 
things which ought to be done which might make an even bigger 
difference.
    Let me give you a problem; this is one that I think about all the 
time. Most people believe that our affirmative action program in the 
United States Army has worked quite well. It's clearly not a quota, and 
clearly no one is given a position for which they are not qualified. But 
there is an intensive effort to qualify people so that in each promotion 
pool, the pool of applicants for the next rank roughly reflects the 
racial composition of the people in the next lowest rank.
    Now, if you try to draw a parallel from that to where we are in our 
colleges and universities, what is the breakdown? The breakdown, it 
would almost be as if--people are in kindergarten through 12th grade 
over here in this system, and then they go to college or graduate school 
over in this system, over here. It's almost as if the Army were divided 
so that one group of people was responsible for training everybody from 
private through captain and everybody else, and a whole different group 
were responsible for training and picking everybody from major through 
four-star general.
    Is there something we can learn from the way the military does that? 
Should the universities be more involved, for example, in a more 
systematic way in identifying candidates who may not have the academic 
background that will give them a high score on a SAT test, but whose 
probability of success in college is very, very high indeed early on, 
and doing more for them so that they can get there? Is this the sort of 
affirmative action that would be widely supported by the American 
people?
    I really believe that these debates really turn more on how the--in 
these initiatives--turn more on how the initiative is described as 
opposed to what the problem is and whether we can reach agreement on how 
to solve it. So we may not get this done by next June. And if that's not 
done, that's something that has to continue. We have to continue to work 
on that until we reach a reasoned resolution of it.
    Yes, go ahead, and then Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News 
Service] next. Go ahead.

Middle East Peace Process

    Q. Mr. President, you said earlier, getting back to the Middle East 
peace process, you said that if you met with the Prime Minister, it 
should be with an understanding of the direction that the peace process 
is going--forgive me if those aren't your exact words, but did you mean 
to suggest that there is no understanding of the direction that the 
peace process is taking?
    The President. No, I didn't mean that at all. But what I mean is I 
think the next time we meet, we are likely to have a productive meeting, 
because we'll have a lot to talk about because a lot of work has been 
done. Secretary Albright has been out there to the region; she's been 
meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu in Europe. The Netanyahu Cabinet 
has taken a decision on redeployment, which they're attempting to flesh 
out and define at this moment. And, as you know, there's a lot of 
controversy within the Government in Israel about what next steps ought 
to be taken in the peace process.
    The only point I made is I think the next time we meet we'll have 
quite a meaty agenda; we'll have something to talk about and something 
to do. I'm not suggesting that there is some standard that the 
Government or the Prime Minister has to meet in order to have a meeting, 
but I think that it will be a useful meeting and it's an appropriate 
thing to do.
    Sarah, go ahead.

Vice President Al Gore

    Q. This is about Vice President Albert Gore. He apparently is your 
heir apparent, and he's been very loyal to you. But he seems to be the 
target of a nationally well-organized campaign on the part of Democrats 
and Republicans to knock him out and fix it so that he will be so 
scandalized that he can't even run for President after you're gone. Now, 
what do you think about the way these people are acting, especially the 
Democrats? [Laughter]

[[Page 1782]]

    The President. Well, I think anybody that wants to run for President 
has a perfect right to do so. And if anybody wants to run and believes 
they have a unique contribution to make and has the passion and the pain 
threshold to do it, I'd be the last one to tell them not to.
    What I would say among all the Democrats is that there's plenty of 
time for Presidential politics--I would say that to the Republicans as 
well--and that the most important thing now is that we show the people 
we can make progress on the problems of the country and on the promise 
of the country.
    As for the Vice President himself, he needs no defense from me. I 
have simply said, and I will say again, what everyone knows: He's had 
the most full partnership with the President of any Vice President in 
history, and he has performed superbly. Whether it was on the 
environment, or on energy initiatives, or on helping us downsize the 
Government by 300,000 and increase the Government's output, or on the 
foreign policy issues like Russia and South Africa, he has done a superb 
job. And I'm proud of that, and I appreciate it. And I think that we've 
accomplished more for the American people because of it.
    Yes, Elizabeth [Elizabeth Shogren, Los Angeles Times], go ahead.

Campaign Fundraising

    Q. Mr. President, many analysts suggest that the Attorney General 
finding legitimizes making telephone calls for soft money from the White 
House. Given that, and given the troubles that the Democratic Party 
faces, the financial troubles, do you have any plans to make more such 
telephone calls, and if not, why not?
    The President. I believe that I spoke to this earlier, but let me 
try to restate it. I think the most effective thing for me to do when 
raising money is to meet with people in small groups and tell them what 
I think should be done, and I prefer that to just making phone calls. I 
also think it gives people who contribute to the Democratic Party the 
sense that they are part of an administration and part of a process that 
stands for some ideas; so you're not just calling people for money, 
you're also listening to what they think should be done. And I think 
that's more fruitful and more productive.
    But I do expect to continue to try to help our party, our candidates 
for Senate, our candidates for the House, and our candidates for 
Governor to raise funds in the 1998 elections. I hope before I leave 
office, however, that my successor of whatever party, and all others, 
will be living under a different campaign finance reform system which 
will be better for the American people and much better for the people in 
public life.
    Go ahead.

FBI Director Louis J. Freeh

    Q. Mr. President, the Attorney General has rendered her judgment, 
and the FBI Director has dissented from that judgment as to the 
appointment of a special counsel. On several occasions, your spokesman 
has declined to express full confidence in the FBI Director. Have you 
lost confidence in Director Freeh? Is it because of his dissent, and is 
that fair, sir?
    The President. First of all, his decision to dissent in that case 
has no effect on whatever opinion I have of him. I think he should be--I 
think that--the Attorney General runs the Justice Department the way I 
try to run the White House, which is, I want to hear what people's 
opinions are.
    But on this confidence business, I think there has been too much 
back-and-forth on that, and I don't want to get into it. What I have 
confidence in is that, if we all work on trying to make the American 
people safer and continue to try to drive the crime rate down and solve 
crime problems, the American people will feel that they're getting out 
of all of us what they paid for and what they expect from us. And that's 
what I think we should be doing. I don't think we should--I don't think 
it's a very fruitful thing to try to keep spinning that around.
    Yes, George [George Condon, Copley News Service].

Democratic Party

    Q. Mr. President, just to follow up a little bit on what you said 
about the Democratic Party--since you became President, the Democrats 
have lost both Houses of Congress, more than a dozen Governorships, and 
has gone broke. Now you have Congressman Gephardt saying he wants to 
steer the party into a more liberal direction. First off, do you feel at 
all personally responsible for the state of the party today? And 
secondly, is there anything you plan to do to take the challenge of 
Congressman

[[Page 1783]]

Gephardt to keep the party on a more centrist course after you leave 
office?
    The President. Well, I don't know what I'm going to do when I leave 
office, and I don't think I should spend much time thinking about it. I 
think I should spend my time thinking about what I can do in the next 3 
years and 2 months to leave America in the best possible shape for a new 
century, so I'm not going to think about it very much.
    Secondly, I think the Democratic Party's financial problems are due 
almost entirely to the legal bills it incurred with a lot of very 
vigorous help from the Republican congressional committee. So it is 
obviously part of the strategy, and it's worked to some extent. And I've 
worked very hard this year to try to keep it from bankrupting the party.
    Now, we did well in the elections of '92, the congressional 
elections, and we did pretty well in the elections of '96. The 
Governorships I think tend not to be so identified with national party 
trends as the Senate and House. I feel badly about what happened in '94. 
I think only partly it was due to the fact--several things--there were 
three big factors, I think.
    One is, the Republicans successfully argued that we had a tax 
increase in the '93 budget for ordinary Americans, and that simply 
wasn't so. The income tax went up on 1\1/2\ percent of the people. 
Secondly, they scared a lot of people in districts that--where you had a 
lot of rural gun owners into believing we were taking their guns away, 
when we weren't, with the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. And 
thirdly, they were able to, with the help of a massive campaign by 
private industry, to convince people we wanted the Government to take 
over the health care system, which we didn't.
    I would just remind you to look at history there. The last time that 
happened was when Harry Truman went from 80 percent approval on the day 
after he dropped the bomb ending World War II, in effect, down to about 
38 percent approval because he tried to provide health insurance 
coverage to all Americans, with the same consequence in the midterm 
election. So I feel--I'm sorry that happened, and I hope that we'll have 
more skills and more ability coming up in this midterm elections. If we 
have a clear position, I think we'll be fine.
    Now, in terms of the debate with Congressman Gephardt, let me just 
say, I think that it's easy to overstate that--which is not to say that 
I trivialize it, but let's look at the issue here. First of all, we were 
together when we passed that economic plan in 1993 without a single vote 
from anybody in the other party, and it reduced the deficit by 90 
percent before the balanced budget bill passed. So we were together, and 
I think we were both right. We were together on the crime bill, and we 
were together on trying to do something about the health care needs of 
all Americans.
    And I think the left-right issue is a little bit misstated. We have 
a difference of opinion on trade, but I think it's important to 
articulate what the difference is. I believe strongly that selling more 
products around the world is a precondition to maintaining our standard 
of living and growing jobs, for the simple reason, as I have said 
repeatedly, we have 4 percent of the world's population and 20 percent 
of the world's wealth; and the developing countries will grow 3 times as 
rapidly as the developed countries in the next 10 years. Therefore, if 
you want to keep your income, you've got to sell more to the other 96 
percent, especially those that are growing fast.
    However, I agree with him, and it was our administration and our 
campaign in '92 that explicitly made a national priority of trying to 
do, in addition to expanding trade, in the process of expanding trade, 
at least not to diminish environmental standards, to raise them where 
possible, and to try to lift the labor standards of people around the 
world.
    Our difference about fast track was a difference about how much that 
could be mandated in the process of giving the President the authority 
to negotiate trade. And I would argue that that is no different than a 
lot of the differences that exist within the Republican Party today over 
issues that are potentially far more explosive.
    The second thing I'd like to say is, I consider the real obligation 
here, over and above that, in the trade area, is to do what is necessary 
to make more winners, which is to trade more but to develop a public 
response from our Government where we can do more and do it more quickly 
to help the people that are displaced from the global economy or from 
technology or from anything else.
    We have doubled funds invested for displaced workers since I've been 
President, while we were reducing the deficit. We have doubled funds. 
But we need to do more, and I am now

[[Page 1784]]

in the process of working with the Secretary of Labor and others to set 
up a model which will enable us to help communities that are hurt by 
trade dislocation or plant closings for other reasons to basically 
operate the way we did with communities that lost military bases because 
they had a big hit.
    So I don't believe any advanced country can say with a straight face 
and a clear conscience that it has done everything possible to help 
those that are losing in the modern economy, that are rendered more 
insecure in the modern economy because of the industries they work in or 
because they have low levels of skills. And until we have a 
comprehensive lifetime system of education and training and an 
investment strategy that works in those communities, we have to keep 
working on it.
    So to that extent, if that's the debate we're having in the 
Democratic Party about how to get that done, that is a good thing to do, 
because our party cares about the people who lose, as well as trying to 
make more winners. That's always been our burden, our obligation, our 
responsibility. It's a part of our conscience about who we are. And I 
think that's a healthy debate. But it's not a debate that's going to 
split this party in 1998, because basically both factions, if you will, 
of our party, agree that we should do both; we should trade more, and we 
should do more to help people around the world with environmental and 
labor problems, and to help people here at home that are being left 
behind. All I want to do is keep it in a policy-oriented, positive 
context, and I'm going to do what I can to get that done.
    Yes, in the back. Go ahead.

District of Columbia

    Q. Mr. President, about a year ago you first voiced your vision and 
your thoughts about the District of Columbia and where we ought to be 
going. And since then, frankly, you've been very active. You worked with 
the Congress to get a legislative plan passed that calls for financial 
recovery and restructuring. And yet the city leaders are criticizing 
you. They say you haven't done enough. They apparently expected 
something at your church service, even though ahead of time you said, in 
effect, not to expect that much. My question to you is, how do you 
respond to this kind of criticism, and what kind of thoughts might you 
have on the future, from taxes, commuter taxes--anything like that that 
you might be thinking about in response?
    The President. Well, first, if you go back to Mr. Donvan's question 
or any others, it's almost a citizen responsibility to criticize the 
President. Why be an American if you can't criticize the President? 
[Laughter]
    Secondly, the District of Columbia, I think, has a lot of 
accumulated frustration. The people who live here, who have put their 
roots down here love this city deeply. They see folks like me come and 
go, have our roots elsewhere. But there really is, with all the problems 
in the District of Columbia, there is a passionate love for it among the 
people who have lived here. And I want to see that love redeemed, and I 
want this city to be something--a place that every single American can 
be truly proud of. But I can't do everything that everybody in the city 
wants me to do as soon as they want me to do it.
    Furthermore, there are some things that will have to be done by 
people here themselves. Folks here want more home rule. There were 
people in our meeting, our leaders' meeting, who want more home rule. 
They would like to see an elected official represented on the control 
board, for example. But with more freedom comes more responsibility. And 
actions must be taken to restore the confidence of the people of the 
District of Columbia in the school systems--not just in some schools, 
not just in teachers, in the school system. Action must be taken to 
restore the confidence of the people of the District of Columbia in law 
enforcement generally, not just in some precincts or some police 
officers but in law enforcement generally.
    We know now from schools I could show you in the District of 
Columbia that urban schools with poor children in difficult 
neighborhoods can perform at high levels. Every school has to be able to 
perform that way. We know now that in urban environments with very 
difficult circumstances, children can be made safe and crime can be made 
low, and that ought to be done here in the District of Columbia.
    I will do everything I can to help. There is more that the Federal 
Government can do. But we have to do it in partnership. So I would say 
to the people who are frustrated with me, keep on pushing. Push me, push 
the Congress, push the Federal Government. There is more to do. But in 
the end, a city is formed and made by the people who live in it and 
shape

[[Page 1785]]

its life day-in and day-out. I want to be a good partner. I don't mind 
the fact that some people with greater ambitions are still disappointed 
even though we've done very sweeping things, but there still has to be a 
lot more done here as well.
    Go ahead.

Iran

    Q. Mr. President, if I could follow up on the question about Iran. 
You mentioned, in your answer to Mara, concerns about terrorism, and one 
of the specific concerns with respect to Iran and terrorism is that they 
might be involved with Khobar Towers. Is your hope for improved dialog--
is there any prospect for that if it's shown that Iran was involved with 
that bombing? And also, could you give us your understanding of the 
status of that investigation? Many family members, understandably, are 
frustrated by the progress or the seeming lack of public progress so 
far.
    The President. I think it better to answer the second question 
without answering the first because I don't think it's worth having a 
hypothetical question--if I give an answer to that hypothetical 
question, it will imply that I think I know what the answer is, and I 
don't.
    I share the frustration of the families. Here is a case where I 
believe that Mr. Freeh and the FBI have worked hard to try to get an 
answer. We have tried to work in cooperation with the Saudis, as we had 
to since the crime occurred--the murder occurred in their country. And 
we are not in a position at this time--all I can tell you is the 
investigation is ongoing, and we are not in a position at this time to 
answer definitively your question, which is who was behind this, who did 
it all, who contemplated it, who funded it, who trained, who facilitated 
it. I wish I could answer that question. When we know the answer to that 
question, then there will be a range of things that are appropriate to 
do when we know the answer. And for the family members, it grieves me 
that we don't. But we don't know the answer yet.
    Yes, sir, in the back.

India, Pakistan, and China

    Q. Mr. President--[inaudible]--1997--[inaudible]--a year--
[inaudible]--you're doing a great job. And also you have done a great 
service to America by appointing Mr. Lee to the Civil Rights Division 
post. The last time at the White House press conference you renewed your 
call that you are going to India and Pakistan. But since other things--
things have changed in those two countries: The Pakistan President was 
forced to resign, and the Prime Minister of India was also forced to 
resign. Now, despite all these political changes in India and Pakistan, 
are you still renewing your call, going to the region?
    The President. Absolutely. First of all, let me say the United 
States has an enormous national interest in having greater positive 
involvement with all of South Asia, with India, with Pakistan, with 
Bangladesh, the other countries in the region. India already has the 
world's biggest middle class. Pakistan has had historic alliances with 
the United States. There are difficulties in each country which make it 
difficult for us to resolve everything and to have every kind of 
relationship we'd like to have.
    But I still intend to go there next year. I have not set a time for 
when I will go, and I think I have to be sensitive, among other things, 
to the Indian election schedule. But both countries are now celebrating 
their 50th anniversary of independence, and I think that it's quite 
appropriate for the President of the United States to be there.
    Q. To follow up--I'm sorry--also India is the world's largest 
democracy and U.S. is the world's richest democracy, and also China is 
the world's largest Communist country. And this triangle, you are also 
visiting India and also to China. So where do you fit all these largest 
democracies and Communist countries?
    The President. Well, you know, in the cold war, our relationship 
with India was sometimes complicated because the tensions between India 
and China led to relations between India and the Soviet Union, which 
made difficult relations between India and the United States. The last 
thing I want to do is to replay that in a different context with regard 
to China and India. What I'm trying to do is to develop constructive 
relationships with both of them and hope that they will have 
constructive relationships with each other, so the world will move 
together toward more peace, more prosperity, and ultimately in countries 
which don't have it, more personal freedom.
    Bill [Bill Neikirk, Chicago Tribune].
    Press Secretary Mike McCurry. Penultimate question. [Laughter]
    The President. We're having a good time.

[[Page 1786]]

    Press Secretary McCurry. All right. [Laughter]

Affirmative Action

    Q. Mr. President, the polls show that people support affirmative 
action, but not when it's known as racial preference. How do you get 
around this clash of language? And what do you think about the term 
``racial preference''? Is it a proper one?
    The President. I think people support affirmative action when you 
describe it, and then if you call it ``racial preference,'' they don't 
support it because the words itself seem to inevitably mean that someone 
will get something because of his or her race for which he or she is not 
really qualified.
    Now, the problem, if you back off from that, is that we Americans 
believe in three things: We believe that the best qualified people ought 
to get what they're best qualified for; we believe everybody ought to 
have a chance; and we believe people that have had a hard time ought to 
have a hand up. If you took a survey, I believe over 80 percent of the 
people would say that. We believe that merit should prevail over pull, 
if you will, or privilege. We believe that everyone should have a 
chance. And we believe that people who have had a hard time ought to 
have a hand up. The problem is, when you try to translate those three 
principles, if you have a label that can be affixed to your efforts that 
is consistent with those principles, people say, yes, do it. If the 
label seems to be contradictory to those, they say, no, don't do it. And 
what really matters is, what are you doing, and is it working?
    There are a lot of problems. For example, in college admissions--
let's just take college admissions. It's something I think I know quite 
a bit about. I wasn't thinking about Chelsea at the time. [Laughter] I 
mean, I used to teach in a college; I used to deal with admissions 
policies. I've thought about this a lot. The whole premise on which 
affirmative action is being attacked is that there really is a totally 
objective, realistic way you can predict success in college and right to 
go to college and capacity to learn in college based on your high school 
grades and your SAT scores.
    And yet, we know--if you forget about race altogether, that grading 
systems in some high schools are very different from those in others, 
and that the work done in the courses in some schools at the same period 
of time are different from those in others. Furthermore, we know that 
performance on the SAT scores is not a perfect predictor of capacity to 
learn and capacity to perform in college, because there are some people 
who just won't do as well because of the experiences they've had, but 
they're capable, given the chance, of making a huge leap in college. And 
you can see that in the sterling careers and performance that has been 
established by many people who got admitted to either college or 
professional schools through affirmative action programs.
    That is why I say I honestly believe that it's going to be difficult 
to finally resolve all this at the ballot box if voters are coming in 
and it's a question of which label wins. I thought it was interesting in 
Houston that the proaffirmative action position won, I think in no small 
measure because it was a city where people knew each other; they 
probably had a greater familiarity with how the programs worked; and 
they understood what their elected leaders were saying perhaps better 
than--the bigger the electorate is and the further away more voters are 
from the actual decisions that are being made, the more vulnerable they 
may be to the way--the general characterizations.
    And that's what--one of the things I think that we should be charged 
with in this racial dialog is maybe something that will blend talk and 
action which is, how can we overcome this, how can we get beyond the 
labeling to how the real world works? See, I honestly believe--let's--I 
honestly believe that if every kid in this country had the right kind of 
preparation and a hand up where needed, enough in advance, and the right 
sort of supports, and you had a realistic set of criteria for letting 
people into college, that there would not be much racial disparity in 
who got into which institutions.
    I honestly believe, furthermore, in the economic area it's even more 
complex. You know, when people get into business and when they get bank 
loans and when they get training to do certain things, it has so much to 
do with the whole fabric of contacts people have and what they know and 
what experiences they've had--which is why I've supported a lot of these 
economic affirmative action programs.
    My whole idea is that we have to reach a point in this country where 
there is a critical mass of people in all neighborhoods from all 
backgrounds that have had enough business contacts, business experience, 
and have enough

[[Page 1787]]

credibility with financial institutions, for example, to be able to do 
business and compete on equal terms. And I don't think we're there yet.
    So I'm hoping--I haven't given you a clear answer because it's not a 
clear problem. If we get down to slogans, you have no better than a 50-
50 chance of seeing any kind of affirmative effort prevail. If you get 
down to brass tacks, I think people in both parties, of good faith, what 
they want is a society where everybody who needs it gets a hand up, 
everybody has got a fair chance, but where unfair criteria don't deprive 
the deserving at the expense--to the benefit of the undeserving. We can 
get there if we'll move beyond the slogans to keep refining these 
programs and maybe even extending our efforts to help more people in 
their earlier years and to help more people in these disadvantaged 
communities. That's what our whole empowerment concept is all about.
    Yes.

Anthrax Vaccinations

    Q. As you know, the Pentagon is going to vaccinate every member of 
the armed services against anthrax. A two-part question on that. One, as 
Commander in Chief, will you be vaccinated? [Laughter] And second, 
Secretary Cohen made a quite vivid demonstration not long ago on TV that 
a primary threat of anthrax would be a terrorist attack against a 
civilian population. Should civilians be vaccinated against anthrax?
    The President. I do not think that's called for at this time. I 
couldn't recommend that. But I will say this. I gave a directive to the 
Pentagon on force protection because I felt that it was more likely that 
over the next 20 to 30 years we might be in settings with our forces in 
other countries where they might be exposed to chemical or biological 
weapons. This instruction grows out of that directive I gave to the 
Pentagon. I think it is appropriate, and I will support it. Also, keep 
in mind, the anthrax vaccine is fairly well-known and widely 
administered to people who deal with animals which might have been 
infected with anthrax. So we don't believe this presents any significant 
risk to our men and women in uniform.
    Now, having said that, at this time I know of no expert opinion that 
would say that those of us that are essentially in the civilian 
population in the United States should be vaccinated. I don't think the 
evidence is there that would support that kind of recommendation.

Taxes

    Q. Mr. President, you mentioned, somewhat skeptically, that 
Republicans in Congress are talking again about new tax cuts on top of 
those that you and they agreed to this year. But you get the first word 
on next year's agenda in your State of the Union and in the budget. What 
tax cuts might you call for? And, in particular, what do you think of 
the Republicans' idea of doing away with the marriage penalty?
    The President. Well, I do get the first word in the State of the 
Union, and I hope you will all watch it, because there will be a lot in 
there--a lot of things in there. I can't say at this time that I will 
have anything to say about tax cuts in the State of the Union. Keep in 
mind, we have worked so hard to make this country work again, and we 
need to be looking to the future and our long-term challenges now. And 
we cannot break the connection of progress between making the country 
work again and looking to the future by basically losing our discipline 
and our concentration and giving in to the easy answers. So we don't 
have a surplus yet, and I don't know that anyone's talking about paying 
for tax cuts with some other sort of program cut or some other sort of 
tax increase. So I have reached no decision about that, and I'm not 
entirely sure that I will.
    Now, on principle, I don't like the marriage penalty--on principle. 
I don't think any American could. I think that--you know, whether it's 
the Family and Medical Leave Act or the $500 children's tax credit or 
the adoption tax credit, I have been firmly committed to supporting 
policies which would both strengthen families and strengthen work and 
help people reconcile the balance between the two. And the so-called 
marriage penalty is, I think, not defensible under those circumstances.
    On the other hand, it's like every other tax cut. There are a lot of 
tax cuts that might be desirable, but how would you pay for them? How 
would you not increase the deficit? How would you keep the budget moving 
toward balance? Even married couples paying an otherwise unfair rate of 
tax because they're married are better off, first and foremost, with a 
strong economy. And most of those married couples will now be able to 
take advantage of the children's tax credit, the education tax cuts, and

[[Page 1788]]

the other changes which have been made in America to have a better life. 
So that's the first and sort of bottom line for me.
    Susan [Susan Feeney, Dallas Morning News].

Affirmative Action

    Q. You touched on college admissions. And very early this year you 
said you were quite concerned that some American universities, public 
universities in Texas and California in particular, were going to become 
resegregated, and you vowed to come up with some sort of plan to counter 
that. Have you come up with a plan, and could you share it with us?
    The President. Well, what I said was that I wanted to look at what 
the alternatives were. Texas has now adopted an alternative which I 
think will work apparently quite well for them for undergraduate 
schools, which is simply to say that the top 10 percent of every high 
school graduating class in Texas is eligible for admission to any public 
institution of higher education in Texas. But I think if you look at it, 
while I think it is an acceptable alternative, the critics will argue 
it's simply affirmative action in another form. But it's a way of 
saying, look, high schools are different, but the ability of children is 
not unevenly distributed, so we're going to give them a chance. That may 
be one answer.
    The other thing we're looking at is trying to support more college 
efforts in actually identifying young people in schools with the promise 
of going to college, who have a difficult situation, and trying to work 
with them over a period of a few years to make sure that when they come 
to take the college exams, that they are fully prepared to do so and 
much more likely to succeed. You know, the military academy has a kind 
of a prep school like this, that enables people to apply for positions 
in our service academies with a greater prospect of success. So these 
are some of the things that I think we might do.
    Let me say, are there any foreign journalists here? Since we're 
here, let me take a few questions from the international press corps, 
since we're in the State Department.

U.S. Ambassador to Mexico

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President, Maria Equsquiza, Eco Televisa. On 
several occasions, sir, you mentioned that Mexico is the second most 
important partner and commercial partner to the United States. But it's 
been more than 5 months, and there's not a U.S. Ambassador in Mexico. 
Are you considering any particular names right now, and by when you're 
going to announce with your nominee?
    The President. I expect to have a name quite soon, but I don't want 
to say the people I'm considering. I'll have a nominee, and then I'll 
name it, and I think it will be quite soon.
    Yes.

President Boris Yeltsin of Russia

    Q. Mr. President, this is the first time for the last 6 years, I 
guess, that we don't know when you're going to go to Russia for the next 
meeting with President Yeltsin. Otherwise, we could say it was pretty 
easy before that. Is that the START II impasse in Duma, or something 
else?
    The President. Well, we have agreed, President Yeltsin and I, that 
we are going to meet again and that we will meet again in Russia. We 
think it would be better for me to go to Russia after the Duma ratifies 
START II, because then we can work on START III. I think that's very 
important. And that's the sort of timetable we agreed to embrace.
    I'm glad to see that the President, apparently, is getting over his 
little illness, and I expect to see him back to work soon. And I hope 
and believe the Duma will ratify START II, and when they do, I'd like to 
go there and talk about START III, because for Russia it's very 
important in order that they not be in an unfair either security or 
economic position, that there not be much gap between the time START II 
is ratified and we agree on the broad terms of START III. And that's my 
personal commitment to the President, so I expect to be there shortly 
after START II is ratified.
    Yes.

Bosnia

    Q. Mr. President, on Bosnia, you mentioned that being there you're 
going to talk about responsibility. Sir, would you care to share with us 
how will you characterize responsibilities of Belgrade, Zagreb, and 
Sarajevo in Bosnia among Bosnians and Serbs and Croats, and 
responsibilities of your own and international community?
    The President. Well, I think that all of us should support the 
Dayton accords, the Dayton process. We should do nothing to undermine it 
and do whatever we can to support it. Now, when the Croats, for example, 
supported the

[[Page 1789]]

turning over of some Bosnian Croats who were indicted for war crimes 
recently, I though that was a very positive thing.
    Now, they'll all have difficult moments when it comes to relocation 
of people and to areas where they'll be the minority, and there are a 
lot of difficulties ahead. But Belgrade, Sarajevo, and of course, 
Zagreb, all of them have the responsibility to support Dayton. They said 
they'd support it; they signed off on it; and that's what they ought to 
do. It's a good framework, and it will work if we all support it.
    Yes, sir.
    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. I'll take them both, go ahead.

Presidential Election in Guyana

    Q. Mr. President, a feisty 77-year-old Chicagoan, American woman is 
said to be the first elected President in South America. From one 
American to another, do you have any words of wisdom to offer her? And 
just in case you're wondering where it is, it's in Georgetown, Guyana.
    The President. Excuse me, I'm sorry, what----
    Q. Georgetown, Guyana.
    The President. Oh, yes, I know. I couldn't hear what you said 
before. I think anybody with enough energy to get elected President at 
that age probably knows what to do. [Laughter] And I'm very impressed. 
But I'll try to be a good ally, and I hope we can work together.

China and Taiwan

    Q. Sir, General Xiong Guangkai, the very high-level--China's 
military officer who warned that U.S. better care about the safety of 
Los Angeles other than the safety of Taiwan, was in town last week and 
conducted so-called first defense consultative talks with U.S.--I think 
the Under Secretary of Defense. By conducting such a meeting, does your 
Government care more about Los Angeles now, or do you care both? I mean, 
regarding the security of Taiwan, I guess, in your press conference with 
President Jiang Zemin, you urged that both sides of Taiwan Strait to 
resume their talk as soon as possible. Now it's been about 5 weeks 
already, and during the interlude you also met with President Jiang 
Zemin once. Do you think they're moving toward that direction under your 
advice, or not? If not, do you have any other suggestion?
    The President. Well, I know you didn't mean it that way, but the 
American President, of course, has to be concerned about the security of 
Los Angeles. They've endured earthquakes and fires and now El Nino--
[laughter]--and they just keep going on. They're remarkable. So we're 
worried about them, and we'll be there for them.
    But I think the important thing that you understand is that nothing, 
nothing has changed in our position on the security of Taiwan. The whole 
framework of America's relations with China, embodied in three 
communiques, is that while we recognize one China, China makes a 
commitment to a peaceful resolution of the issues between itself and 
Taiwan. And we have always said that we would view a departure from that 
with the gravest possible concern. So you shouldn't be worried about 
that.
    In terms of whether too much time has elapsed before the resumption 
of talks, I can't comment on that, because I don't believe I know enough 
to make a judgment. But I would urge them to get together to keep 
working on it as soon as possible. Both places, they're just doing too 
well now, economically and otherwise, to risk their prosperity and their 
progress on a fight that need not occur and should not happen.
    Yes, Andrea. [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News]
    Press Secretary McCurry. Mr. President, let's go home. [Laughter]
    The President. My answers are too short today.

President Saddam Hussein of Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, as you pointed out, it seems like maybe about a 
half-hour or 45 minutes ago--[laughter]--every time Saddam Hussein seems 
to be close to winning, perhaps getting the U.N. sanctions eased, he 
does something that might be considered less than rational. As the 
Commander in Chief who has to weigh options that will inevitably affect 
the lives of young Americans, how do you assess your opponent? How do 
you assess Saddam Hussein? Is he less than rational and, not to put too 
fine a point on it, are you persuaded that he's not simply crazy?
    The President. Well, if he is, he's clever-crazy on occasion, and 
then sometimes he does something that seems maddeningly stupid. Though, 
in this case, I think he made a calculated decision that was wrong. That 
is, I don't think this

[[Page 1790]]

was--I think there was a calculated decision here that other countries 
wanted to do business with him, that he owed money to other countries 
from before the Gulf war that he couldn't pay and never would be able to 
pay unless he could do more business, that the war is fading into 
memory--you know, it's not imminent now--and that the burden of 
maintaining the sanctions had wearied many of those with responsibility 
for doing so, and that there might be a way to split the alliance here. 
I also think he knew that the suffering of the Iraqi people is something 
which has touched the hearts of the whole world, and he thought it was a 
card he could play. So for all those reasons I think that he thought 
this decision--finally, I think that he felt, probably, that the United 
States would never vote to lift the sanctions on him no matter what he 
did. There are some people who believe that. Now, I think he was dead 
wrong on virtually every point, but I don't know that it was a decision 
of a crazy person. I just think he badly miscalculated.
    I will say again, we supported--the United States initiated the oil 
for food and medicine resolution. I am glad--I would support broadening 
it. I still don't think the caloric intake of the average Iraqi is 
sufficient. I'm worried about those kids. I'm worried about the people 
who are hurt over there. But the biggest problem they've got is him. He 
delayed the implementation of the oil for food embargo for a year and a 
half to try to play on global sympathy for the suffering of his own 
people. So that's not an issue for me.
    Furthermore, I have done everything I could not to have the American 
people overly personalize our relationship with him. To me it is a 
question of his actions. But I do believe that he has shown, whether you 
think it's madness or not, that he was willing to rain SCUD missiles on 
Israel and use chemical warfare on the Iranians and on the Kurds. So 
whatever his motives are, I think it best serves the United States--our 
interests, our values, and our role in the world--to judge him by his 
actions and to insist that we proceed, in return for substantive 
progress, on concrete actions. I think that is the practically right 
thing to do and the morally right thing to do.
    Yes, sir, in the back.

Greece and Turkey

    Q. You take pride, understandably, in the expansion of NATO. But one 
member of NATO, Greece, is constantly being threatened by another 
member, Turkey. Is that an example for the other three countries coming 
in?
    The President. You mean the problems between Greece and Turkey?
    Q. Yes. And what's your role as the leader of the superpower in the 
world to help two members solve their problems? The European leaders 
this weekend called upon Turkey to accept the countenance of the 
International Court of Justice. You're meeting Turkish Prime Minister 
Yilmaz on Friday. Are you going to talk about that?
    The President. Yes, we are going to talk about that. The problems 
between Greece and Turkey, and the decisions taken by the EU with regard 
to Turkey, it seems to me to point to two objectives that the American 
people should care very much about as we move toward a new century.
    First of all, I think it is very important that we do everything 
reasonable to anchor Turkey to the West. They are a secular Islamic 
government that has been a dependable ally in NATO. They have also 
supported a lot of our operations in and around Iraq since the Gulf war, 
and they have been a good ally of ours. I think that is terribly 
important. If you look at the size of the country, if you look at its 
geostrategic significance, where it is, what it can block, and what it 
could open the doors to, it is terribly important.
    Secondly, I think it is terribly important for us to do everything 
we can to resolve the differences between Turkey and Greece. They are 
deeply held, historic, and I'm convinced, at bottom, ultimately 
irrational. I mean, that to allow the potential that Greece and Turkey 
both have for future economic growth and cooperation, for political 
cooperation, for security cooperation, to be broken on the rocks of 
their differences over Cyprus and other territorial differences in the 
Aegean is, in my view, a grave error.
    And so I will be talking to Prime Minister Yilmaz about this. I want 
a resolution of the Cyprus issue very badly. You have evidence of that 
in asking--when I asked Mr. Holbrooke to head our efforts to try to 
resolve it. And our long friendship, our long alliance with Greece, the 
role that many Greek-Americans have in our national life would, if 
nothing else,

[[Page 1791]]

impose on us a heavy responsibility for trying to work out the problems 
on Cyprus.
    But the truth is, this is a case where not only does the United 
States need to be on good terms with Greece and Turkey,\1\ they need to 
be on good terms with each other. If they could sort of take off their 
blinders about each other and look at what they're really up against for 
the next 30 or 40 years in their neighborhood in terms of opportunities 
and threats, this world would be in considerably better shape moving 
into a new century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ White House correction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Q. Mr. President----

Agenda for the Future

    The President. Look, it's 3:30. I've gone on for an hour and a half. 
Let me say, first, some of you had trouble getting in last night. I'm 
really sorry about that. It shows I haven't solved all the 
administrative problems of the Government.
    Secondly, I wish you a happy holiday. We've got a lot to be happy 
about, a lot to be thankful for.
    Thirdly, if in a sentence--I'll leave you with one sentence. A lot 
of people are curious about the next 3 years. When I came here I was 
trying to just prove America could work again. I just wanted the country 
to work again. I wanted to get the economy going; I wanted to deal with 
social problems like crime and welfare; and I wanted to pull the country 
together. I want to see us spend the next 3 years fleshing out that 
agenda.
    But now is the time that we should be looking at the long-term 
problems of the country, the long-term challenges. That's why this 
environmental issue of climate change is so important. Every 
environmental challenge we have met in the last 30 years--we proved we 
could grow the economy and preserve the environment; we've got to deal 
with it here. That's why the education issues and setting up excellence 
and lifetime learning are so important, because we will not be able to 
protect all Americans from the global changes that are taking place 
unless we do that. That's why it's important to deal with the 
entitlements challenge, because we have to honor the good that has been 
done by Social Security and Medicare for retirees, and let more people 
do more for their own retirement as well, and do it in a way that 
doesn't bankrupt their children when we baby boomers retire.
    And those are just three of the issues that we have to face that are 
long-term challenges. So I think you'll see in this next 3 years we'll 
still be trying to make America work; we'll still be trying to deal with 
these issues. But we'll spend a lot more time on those long-term 
challenges and on the long-term challenges of having a security 
framework in the world that enables us to both pursue our interests and 
our values. On this occasion, at the end of this year, I think our 
country is in better shape than it was 5 years ago, and I believe 3 
years from now, if we continue to work on that agenda, we'll be in 
better shape still.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President's 154th news conference began at 2 p.m. in the Dean 
Acheson Auditorium at the State Department. In his remarks, he referred 
to President Kim Yong-sam and Presidential candidates Kim Dae Jung, Lee 
Hoi Chang, and Rhee In Je of South Korea; the President's late great-
uncle, Henry Oren (Buddy) Grisham; Richard Butler, Executive Chairman, 
United Nations Special Commission; former Secretary of Education William 
J. Bennett, codirector, Empower America; former Senator Nancy Kassebaum 
Baker, Chair, Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated Training 
and Related Issues; President Mohammad Khatami of Iran; Christopher 
Edley, adviser to the President's Advisory Board on Race; Glenn C. 
Loury, professor, Boston University; Prime Minister and First Vice 
President Janet Jagan of Guyana, candidate for her nation's Presidency; 
Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz of Turkey; and Special Presidential Emissary 
for Cyprus Richard Holbrooke. The President also referred to the NATO-
led Stabilization Force in Bosnia (SFOR).