    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1999, Book I)]
    [March 19, 1999]
    [Pages 409-421]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    March 19, 1999

        The President. Ladies and gentlemen, as all of you know, we have
    been involved in an intensive effort to end the conflict in Kosovo for
    many weeks now. With our NATO Allies and with Russia, we proposed a
    peace agreement to stop the killing and give the people of Kosovo the
    self-determination and government they need and to which they are
    entitled under the constitution of their government.
        Yesterday the Kosovar Albanians signed that agreement. Even though
    they have not obtained all they seek, even as their people remain under
    attack, they've had the vision to see that a just peace is better than
    an unwinnable war. Now only President Milosevic stands in the way of peace.
        Today the peace talks were adjourned because the Serbian negotiators
    refused even to discuss key elements of the peace plan. NATO has warned
    President Milosevic to end his
    intransigence and repression or face military action.
        Our allies are strongly united behind this course. We are prepared,
    and so are they, to carry it out. Today I reviewed our planning with my
    senior advisers and met with many Members of Congress. As we prepare to
    act, we need to remember the lessons we have learned in the Balkans. We
    should remember the horror of the war in Bosnia, the sounds of sniper
    fire aimed at children, the faces of young men behind barbed wire, the
    despairing voices of those who thought nothing could be done. It took
    precious time to achieve allied unity there, but when we did, our
    firmness ended all that. Bosnia is now at peace.
        We should remember the thousands of people facing cold and hunger in
    the hills of Kosovo last fall. Firmness ended that as well. We should
    remember what happened in the village of Racak back in January--innocent
    men, women, and children taken from their homes to a gully, forced to
    kneel in the dirt, sprayed with gunfire, not because of anything they
    had done but because of who they were.
        Now, roughly 40,000 Serbian troops and police are massing in and
    around Kosovo. Our firmness is the only thing standing between them and
    countless more villages like Racak, full of people without protection,
    even though they have now chosen peace.
        Make no mistake, if we and our allies do not have the will to act,
    there will be more

    [[Page 410]]

    massacres. In dealing with aggressors in the Balkans, hesitation is a
    license to kill. But action and resolve can stop armies and save lives.
        We must also understand our stake in peace in the Balkans and in
    Kosovo. This is a humanitarian crisis, but it is much more. This is a
    conflict with no natural boundaries. It threatens our national
    interests. If it continues, it will push refugees across borders and
    draw in neighboring countries. It will undermine the credibility of
    NATO, on which stability in Europe and our own credibility depend. It
    will likely reignite the historical animosities, including those that
    can embrace Albania, Macedonia, Greece, even Turkey. These divisions
    still have the potential to make the next century a truly violent one
    for that part of the world that straddles Europe, Asia, and the Middle
    East.
        Unquestionably, there are risks in military action, if that becomes
    necessary. U.S. and other NATO pilots will be in harm's way. The Serbs
    have a strong air defense system. But we must weigh those risks against
    the risks of inaction. If we don't act, the war will spread. If it
    spreads, we will not be able to contain it without far greater risk and
    cost. I believe the real challenge of our foreign policy today is to
    deal with problems before they do permanent harm to our vital interests.
    That is what we must do in Kosovo.
        Let me just make one other statement about this. One of the things
    that I wanted to do when I became President is to take advantage of this
    moment in history to build an alliance with Europe for the 21st century,
    with a Europe undivided, strong, secure, prosperous, and at peace.
    That's why I have supported the unification of Europe financially,
    politically, economically. That is why I've supported the expansion of
    NATO and a redefinition of its missions.
        What are the challenges to our realizing that dream? The challenge
    of a successful partnership with Russia that succeeds in its own
    mission; the challenge of a resolution of the difficulties between
    Greece and Turkey so that Turkey becomes an ally of Europe and the West
    for the long term; and the challenge of instability in the Balkans. In
    different ways, all those things are at stake here.
        I honestly believe that by acting now we can help to give our
    children and our grandchildren a Europe that is more united, more
    democratic, more peaceful, more prosperous, and a better partner for the
    United States for a long time to come.
        I will say again to Mr. Milosevic, as
    I did in Bosnia: I do not want to put a single American pilot into the
    air. I do not want anyone else to die in the Balkans. I do not want a
    conflict. I would give anything to be here talking about something else
    today. But a part of my responsibility is to try to leave to my
    successors and to our country in the 21st century an environment in
    Europe that is stable, humane, and secure. It will be a big part of
    America's future.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Hunt [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

    Kosovo

        Q. Mr. President, as you mentioned, Yugoslav forces seem to be
    mobilizing for war in Kosovo despite the warnings of NATO airstrikes.
    After so many threats in the past, why should President Milosevic take
    this one seriously? And is there a deadline for him to comply? And is it
    your intention to keep pounding Serb targets until he agrees to your
    peace terms?
        The President. Well, there are several questions there, but let me
    say, I think he should take this
    seriously, because we meant--we were serious in Bosnia. And it was the
    combined impact of NATO's action in Bosnia, plus the reversals they
    sustained on the ground in fighting, plus the economic embargo, that led
    them to conclude that peace was the better course.
        Now, he says here that this is not
    like what happened last fall, that this threatens Serbia's sovereignty
    to have a multinational force on the ground in Kosovo. But he has put
    that at risk by his decade--and I want to reemphasize that--his decade
    of denial of the autonomy to which the Kosovars are legally entitled as
    a part of Serbia.
        My intention would be to do whatever is possible, first of all, to
    weaken his ability to massacre them, to
    have another Bosnia; and secondly, to do all that I can to induce him to
    take--it is not my peace agreement. It was an agreement worked out and
    negotiated and argued over, with all the parties' concerns being taken
    into account.
        I will say again--for the longest time, we did not believe that
    either side would take this agreement. And the fact that the Kosovar
    Albanians did it, I think, reflects foresight and wisdom on their part.
    They did not get everything they wanted. And in a peace agreement,
    nobody

    [[Page 411]]

    ever gets everything they want. We've seen it in the Middle East, in
    Northern Ireland, everywhere else.
        So it is not my agreement. It is the best agreement that all the
    parties can get to give us a chance to go forward without bloodshed. I
    believe also, as I have said publicly to Mr. Milosevic and to the Serbs, it is their best chance to keep
    Kosovo as a part of Serbia and as a part of Yugoslavia. And so I would
    hope that the agreement could be accepted, and I'll do what I can to see
    that it is.
        Q.  And the deadline, sir--is there one?
        The President.  I don't want to discuss that. We're working on that.
    I expect to be working on this all weekend.
        Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].

    Chinese Nuclear Espionage

        Q.  Mr. President, how long have you known that the Chinese were
    stealing our nuclear secrets? Is there any trust left between the two
    nations? And some Republicans are saying that you deliberately
    suppressed the information from the American people because of the
    election and your trade goals.
        The President. Well, let me try to respond to all those things.
    First of all, the latter charge is simply untrue. We were notified--Mr.
    Berger was notified sometime in 1996 of the
    possibility that security had been breached at the labs, the Energy
    Department labs where a lot of our nuclear work is done, in the
    mideighties--not in the 1990's, but in the mideighties--and that there
    was an investigation being undertaken by the FBI.
        Then, sometime in the middle of 1997, he was notified and I was notified that the extent of the
    security breach might have been quite extensive. So we had the CIA
    looking into that, the Energy Department looking into that, and the FBI
    investigation continued with the cooperation, the full cooperation of
    the Energy Department.
        In early 1998 I propounded a Presidential directive designed to
    improve security at the labs. And as you know, Secretary
    Richardson's been talking quite a bit in
    recent days about what has been done since that directive was signed and
    what continues to be done today.
        Now, I think there are two questions here that are related but ought
    to be kept separate. One is, was there a breach of security in the
    mideighties; if so, did it result in espionage? That has not been fully
    resolved, at least as of my latest briefing.
        The second is--there are really three questions, excuse me. The
    second is, once the executive branch was notified and the investigations
    began, was everything done in a timely fashion? I am confident that we
    in the White House have done what we could to be aggressive about this.
        Look, if there was espionage against the United States, I will be
    very upset about it, as I have been every time there has been. And
    anybody who committed it ought to be punished, just as we went after Mr.
    Ames, anybody else who committed espionage against the United States.
        In an effort to ensure that there was an independent review of this,
    in addition to whatever work is being done by the Senate and House
    committees--who have, as you know, received more than a dozen briefings
    over the course of this investigation, going back to 1996--I asked
    Senator Rudman, former Republican Senator
    from New Hampshire, and the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory
    Board to review the chronology, to make an assessment, and to make any
    recommendations about what further action also might need to be taken.
    So I believe that's the appropriate thing to do.
        Now, the third question is, what, if anything, does this mean about
    our relationship with China? I don't believe that we can afford to be
    under any illusions about our relationship with China, or any other
    country, for that matter, with whom we have both common interests and
    deep disagreements. I believe the course I have followed with China is
    the one that's best for America: disagreeing where we have serious
    disagreements, pursuing our common interests where I thought it was in
    the interest of the United States.
        And again, let me say just one or two examples. I think if we hadn't
    been working with China, China would not have signed the Comprehensive
    Test Ban Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention. They would very likely
    not have refrained from transferring dangerous technology and weaponry
    to countries that we don't believe should get it. I doubt if they would
    have helped us as much as they have to try to contain the North Korean
    nuclear threat, or that we would have had the level of cooperation we
    had in trying to limit the Asian financial

    [[Page 412]]

    crisis, which is a serious economic and security problem for our
    country.
        And I think we should just take the facts as they come and do what
    is best for the American people. But I can say categorically that it
    never crossed my mind that I should not disclose some inquiry being
    undertaken by the United States Government for reasons of commercial or
    other gain. That is not true.
        I just think we should always pursue what is in the interest of the
    United States. And if we think we've got a security problem, we ought to
    fix it. Plainly, the security was too lax for years and years and years
    at the labs. And a lot of important changes have been made, and
    yesterday the Secretary of Energy announced some others.
        I think that if anybody did, in fact, commit espionage, it is a bad
    thing, and we should take appropriate action. But in our dealings with
    China, we should do quite simply what is in the interest of the American
    people, and that's what I intend to do.
        Yes. And Larry [Larry McQuillan, Reuters], you're next.
        Q. Mr. President, if I could follow up on this issue of alleged
    Chinese spying, you just said that according to your latest briefing,
    you've not fully resolved the issue of whether Chinese actually spied on
    the United States. Are you meaning to suggest that you're not certain at
    this hour whether there was, in fact, Chinese spying?
        You also said that you've had the full cooperation of the Energy
    Department. How do you explain, sir, then, that in April of 1997, the
    FBI made specific recommendations to the Department of Energy about the
    need to tighten security and those recommendations were not followed
    through on for 17 months?
        And, finally, sir, you mentioned the spying in the 1980's, or the
    alleged spying in the 1980's. Can you assure the American people that
    under your watch, no valuable nuclear secrets were lost?
        The President. Well, you asked several questions there. Let me say,
    first of all, it's my understanding that the Energy Department has fully
    cooperated with the FBI in investigating the alleged breach in the
    mideighties, including the person who was suspected. That is my
    understanding.
        On the question of what recommendations were implemented by whom,
    when, that's what I've asked for the President's Foreign Intelligence
    Advisory Board and Senator Rudman to
    review, to report to me on, as well as to make further recommendations.
        I can tell you that I have--what I said about the espionage was that
    it is my understanding that the investigation has not yet determined for
    sure that espionage occurred. That does not mean that there was not a
    faulty security situation at the lab. The security procedures were too
    weak for years and years and years, for a very long time. And I believe
    that we are aggressively moving to correct that and a lot of changes
    have been made. I think Secretary Richardson
    has been quite vigorous in that regard.
        The chronology about who did what when, I think it's more important
    to have an independent analysis of that, which is why I asked the
    Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to do that.
        Now, you asked me another question, which is can I tell you that
    there has been no espionage at the labs since I have been President. I
    can tell you that no one has reported to me that they suspect such a
    thing has occurred.
        Larry.

    Kosovo

        Q. Mr. President, you met this morning with Members of Congress. And
    afterward, some of them came out and said that they had trouble
    imagining how you could justify airstrikes in Kosovo unless the Serbs
    launched a new offensive first. In fact, Senator Nickles actually
    suggested that it might take a significant massacre before such a move
    would get public support.
        In your mind, does the mere fact that the Serbs refused to sign a
    peace treaty justify airstrikes? Or do you think they need to--if they
    took military action, only then you could act?
        The President. Well, first, I believe they have already taken
    provocative actions. And there was, in the very recent past, the
    massacre at the village that I mentioned in my opening statement. Plus,
    there is the long unquestioned record of atrocity in Bosnia.
        So what we have tried to do all along--and frankly, the Russians
    have been with us in this; I don't mean that they support military
    action, but they've been with us in the peace process--is we could see
    that the same thing that happened in Bosnia and that had happened to
    some

    [[Page 413]]

    extent in Kosovo already, and had already produced tens of thousands of
    refugees in Kosovo, was going to happen there. And it seems to me that
    if we know that, and if we have a NATO action order predicated on the
    implementation of the peace process, and the failure to do it triggering
    reaction, that we ought to do what we can to prevent further atrocities.
        I understand what Senator Nickles was
    saying. I think he was saying that the American public has not seen the
    sort of atrocities there they saw in Bosnia, that that is not fresh in
    people's minds. But with all the troops that have been massed, and what
    we know about their plans and what they have publicly said about them, I
    would hate to think that we'd have to see a lot of other little children
    die before we could do what seems to be, to me, clearly the right thing
    to do to prevent it.
        Q. So you would act first then? I mean----
        The President. I don't think it's accurate to say we're acting
    first. I think they have acted first. They have massed their troops.
    They have continued to take aggressive action. They have already leveled
    one village in the recent past and killed a lot of innocent people. I do
    not believe that we ought to have to have thousands more people
    slaughtered and buried in open soccer fields before we do something. I
    think that would be unfortunate if we had said we have to have a lot
    more victims before we can stop what we know is about to happen.
        Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, Cable News Network].

    Hillary Clinton's Possible Senate
    Candidacy/Personal Relationship

        Q. Mr. President, there has been a lot of people in New York State
    who have spoken with your wife who seemed to be pretty much convinced
    she wants to run for the Senate seat next year. A, how do you feel about
    that; do you think she would be a good Senator? And as part of the
    broader question involving what has happened over the past year, how are
    the two of you doing in trying to strengthen your relationship, given
    everything you and she have been through over this past year?
        The President. Well, on the second question, I think we're working
    hard. We love each other very much, and we're working at it.
        On the first question, I don't have any doubt that she would be a
    magnificent Senator. She told me--oh, I don't know--over a year ago, and
    long before this ever occurred to anybody, long before we even knew
    Senator Moynihan wouldn't run for reelection--that she thought we should
    move to New York when I left the White House, knowing that I would spend
    a lot of time at home in my library and with the work there, but that we
    would also establish a home in New York. I don't have any doubt that she
    really would be a terrific Senator. She knows so much about public
    policy; she cares so much about the issues, especially those that have a
    particular impact on New York, including the education and economic
    issues that would be very important to the people there.
        But I also have to tell you, the people she's talking to must know
    more than I do because I literally don't have a clue. If you ask me
    today whether I thought it was more likely or not that she would run or
    not run, I could not give you an answer. I just don't know.
        She's doing what I urged her to do, and what I think her instinct
    was, which is to talk to a lot of people. I think she was, at first,
    just immensely flattered that so many people wanted her to do it, but
    she couldn't really believe it. And I think now she's decided to take a
    look at it. But I don't have any idea what she's going to do. If she
    wants to do it, I will strongly support it. But I do not know and really
    have no idea what decision she will ultimately make.
        Q. Mr. President----
        The President Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service].
    [Laughter]

    Treatment of the President

        Q. Sir, will you tell us why you think people have been so mean to
    you? Is it a conspiracy? Is it a plan? They treat you worse than they
    treated Abe Lincoln.
        The President. I don't know. You know, one of my favorite jokes--you
    know that story about the guy that's walking along the Grand Canyon? And
    he falls off, and he's falling hundreds of feet to certain death, and he
    reaches out--he sees a little twig on the side of the canyon, and he
    grabs it. He takes a deep breath, and then all of a sudden he sees the
    roots of the twig start to come loose. And he looks up in the sky and he
    said, ``Lord, why me? Why me? I pay my taxes. I go to work every day.
    Why me?'' And this thunderous voice says, ``Son, there's just something
    about you I don't like.'' [Laughter]
        Who knows? Let me say this. Let me give you a serious answer.
    Whatever happens, I have

    [[Page 414]]

    been very blessed in my life. Most of us leave this life further ahead
    than we would be if all we got was justice. Most of us get a fair share
    of mercy, too. And I wouldn't trade anything for having had the
    opportunity to be President and do the work I've done. So I feel very
    good about all that.
        Sam [Sam Donaldson, ABC News].

    Juanita Broaddrick

        Q. Mr. President, when Juanita Broaddrick leveled her charges
    against you of rape, in a nationally televised interview, your attorney
    David Kendall issued a statement denying them. But shouldn't you speak
    directly on this matter and reassure the public? And if they are not
    true, can you tell us what your relationship with Ms. Broaddrick was, if
    any?
        The President. Well, 5 weeks ago today--5 weeks ago today--I stood
    in the Rose Garden, after the Senate voted, and I told you that I
    thought I owed it to the American people to give them 100 percent of my
    time and to focus on their business and that I would leave it to others
    to decide whether they would follow that lead. And that is why I have
    decided, as soon as that vote was over, that I would allow all future
    questions to be answered by my attorneys. And I think I made the right
    decision. I hope you can understand it. I think the American people do
    understand it and support it, and I think it was the right decision.
        Scott [Scott Pelley, CBS News].
        Q. Can you not simply deny it, sir?
        The President. There's been a statement made by my
    attorney. He speaks for me, and I think he
    spoke quite clearly.
        Go ahead, Scott.

    Kosovo

        Q. Mr. President, it seems you're on the verge of committing U.S.
    forces to combat without a clear definition of your threshold for doing
    so. In January Serb troops massacred 44 civilians. You called it murder
    and demanded that the Serb forces withdraw. They did not. Last month you
    said it would be a mistake to extend the deadline, but the deadline
    passed. Last week your administration said atrocities would be punished,
    and then after that a bomb went off in a Kosovo market and killed
    numerous children. What level of atrocities, sir, is a sufficient
    trigger? What is your threshold?
        The President. Well, you've just made my case. I think that the
    threshold has been crossed. But when I said that the deadline should not
    be extended, Mr. Pelley, what I said was that those of us who were
    trying to shepherd the process should not extend the deadline. When the
    parties themselves asked for a delay, that's an entirely different
    kettle of fish. The rest of us can't be so patronizing that we can't say
    to both sides they had no right to ask for a delay. They asked,
    themselves, for a delay, and I thought it was the right thing to do. I
    still believe that it was the right thing to do. And it did lead to one
    side accepting the agreement.
        You have made another point, which I did not make in my remarks, but
    I would like to make, based on the factual statements you made--
    everything you said was right, all the factual things you've cited--
    which is that there are basically two grounds on which, in my judgment,
    NATO could properly take action. One is the fact that we have already
    said that if the peace agreement were accepted by the Kosovars, but not
    by the Serbs, we would take action to try to minimize the ability of the
    Serbs just to overrun and slaughter the Kosovars. That's the first thing
    I said.
        The second thing, what you said is quite right. While our threat of
    force last year did result in the drastic reduction of the tension and a
    lot of the refugees going home, it is absolutely true that there have
    been actions taken since then and forced movements since then that would
    trigger the other NATO action order to use force. The reason that has
    not been done, frankly, is because the peace process was going on and we
    knew that if we could just get an agreement from both sides, that we
    could end the violence and we wouldn't have to act under either ground.
        So from my point of view, as I made clear to the Congress today, I
    think the threshold for their conduct has already been crossed.
        John [John Harris, Washington Post].
        Q. Sir, if I might follow up. With the OSCE monitors leaving
    tonight, if Serbian forces move into Kosovo, will that trigger NATO
    strikes?
        The President. I've already said, I do not believe that--I think
    that whatever threshold they need to cross has been crossed. I think
    that, in view of the present state of things, it would be better if I
    did not say any more about any particular plans we might have.

    [[Page 415]]

        John.

    Books by Former White House Staff Members

        Q. Sir, George Stephanopoulos has written a book that contains some
    tough and fairly personal criticism of you. Earlier, Dick Morris had
    written a somewhat similar book. How much pain do these judgments by
    former aides cause you? And do you consider it a betrayal for people to
    write books on the history of your administration while you're still in
    office?
        The President. Well, like I said last night, I haven't read it.
    [Laughter] So I have absorbed no pain, since I haven't read either one
    of the books, but I--or even any articles about it. I don't think that
    furthers the commitment I made to the American people to focus on their
    business and their future.
        What I will say is that I very much value the loyalty and service I
    have received from the overwhelming majority of the people who have
    worked here in the White House and in the Cabinet and in the
    administration, often under positions of almost unprecedented pressure.
    And I think that very often that kind of loyalty goes unrecognized, but
    it is not unappreciated by me.
        I remember once, in the difficult days of early 1995, a scholar of
    the Presidency came here and said that I was a most fortunate person
    because I had enjoyed the most loyal Cabinet since Thomas Jefferson's
    second administration. It took my breath away when he said it, but the
    more I thought about it and the more I read about what had happened
    between this time and Mr. Jefferson's, the more I realized he was
    probably accurate. All I can tell you is I am profoundly grateful for
    the service and the loyalty that I have received, that our cause has
    received, and I think the American people have benefited quite richly
    from it.
        Mr. Walsh [Ken Walsh, U.S. News & World Report].

    Post-Impeachment Impressions

        Q. Mr. President, I understand that you don't want to speculate
    about what your opponents might do now, after the impeachment struggle
    is over. But I wonder what your feelings are after some period of
    reflection on the impeachment process, how you were treated, and if you
    feel resentment, relief, and how you think people will deal with this
    and see it 10 or 20 years from now.
        The President. I think it's best for me not to focus on that now. I
    think it's best for me to focus on my job. I have nearly 2 years to go.
    I have an enormous amount to do. I am trying to convince the Congress to
    adopt what, if they do adopt it, would be the most ambitious set of
    legislative proposals yet in my tenure, probably even more ambitious
    than the economic reforms of '93 or the balanced budget of '97 or any of
    the other things that were done--to save Social Security and Medicare
    for the 21st century, to pay our debt down, to secure our economy for
    the long run. And it seems to me that anything I say or do, or any time
    I spend working on that will detract from my ability to be an effective
    President. And I owe that to the American people, and so that's what I'm
    going to focus on.
        Yes, go ahead.

    Personal Savings Rate/Economic Goals

        Q. Mr. President, with the Dow crossing the 10,000 mark, the stock
    market is trading well above any traditional benchmarks. Meanwhile, the
    personal savings rate has dropped below zero, largely in part, perhaps,
    because of rising stock prices. Are you worried that the U.S. and the
    world economies have become too dependent on a stock market that may be
    overvalued, and if so, is there anything the administration can do about
    it?
        The President. I think what the administration should do is focus on
    the economic fundamentals at home and focus on fixing what appears to
    be, in my judgment, the biggest remaining obstacle to continued growth
    around the world on which our growth depends. I think that the savings
    rate, the aggregate savings rate of the country is very important for
    the long-term economic health of America.
        I don't think there's any question that the savings rate dropping to
    zero or negative in the last quarter of last year is in part due to the
    fact that people feel that they have more wealth. Now, that is not a bad
    thing that they have more wealth. One of the things that I'm really
    pleased about is that through retirement funds and other things, there
    is a more broad sharing of the wealth in America.
        But I would like to just say the two things I think I should be
    working on, and this is something I ask all of you to watch as we debate
    the specific proposals on Social Security and the specific proposals on
    Medicare. Because,

    [[Page 416]]

    keep in mind, I carefully made the Social Security and Medicare
    proposals I made so that we could fund them and pay down the debt,
    because if we pay down the debt we increase savings, aggregate savings,
    in America. And when we do that, we assure the long-term stability of
    our economy. Lower interest rates means higher investment, more jobs,
    more businesses, lower mortgage rates, lower home loan rates--excuse me,
    lower car loan rates, lower college loan rates, lower credit card rates,
    the whole 9 yards. I think that is very, very important. At a time when
    we have such a low personal savings rate, it is very important that we
    get the Government debt down.
        Secondly, it will help us to do what we have to do in the rest of
    the world. If you look at Asia, they have--their situation in a lot of
    those Asian countries is more like what we went through in the 1930's;
    that is, they have a collapse of demand. They need more liquidity. They
    need more funds. They need more investment. They need more activity. If
    we are not taking money out of the international system but instead
    paying down our own debt, then there will be more funds that will be
    able to flow into that part of the world to get the economy going, into
    Latin America to keep the economy there from sinking under the weight of
    the Asian problems. So this is very important.
        The second thing I'd like to say is, I'm doing my dead-level-best to
    build on the work we've been doing for the last 2 or 3 years to try to
    fix some of the problems in the international financial system. Keep in
    mind that one of the things that caused such great burden in the Asian
    financial crisis is, these countries didn't get in trouble the way we
    were used to countries getting in trouble. We were used to countries
    getting in trouble where they had great big deficits and enormous
    inflation and everything got out of control.
        What happened in these countries were, there were problems with the
    financial institutions, problems with the rules and the transparency in
    making loans and making investments. And we're trying to make some
    changes that we'll try to ratify this summer when we meet in Germany
    that I think could go a long way toward ensuring that this sort of thing
    will not happen again in the future.
        Now, the markets will determine what happened to the markets. What I
    think I have to do is give the American people good, sound fundamentals,
    pay this debt down, and try to get the financial architecture of the
    21st century straightened out.
        Mark [Mark Knoller, CBS Radio].

    Independent Counsel Statute

        Q. Mr. President, your administration has come out against the
    extension of the independent counsel statute. And yet, when you signed a
    reauthorization of it 5 years ago, you called it ``a force for
    Government integrity and public confidence.'' Do you think now that you
    made a mistake when you signed that reauthorization 5 years ago? Do you
    disavow those comments? And if so, do you feel that way because you were
    the target of Ken Starr's investigation?
        The President. Well, because of that, because I was the target, I
    think it is better for me to refer you to the conclusions reached by the
    American Bar Association that had the same change of heart, and by the
    Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney
    General. I believe that their views
    should be given more weight since they were not the subject of such
    investigations. And the bar association and the Attorney General and the
    Deputy Attorney General have spoken clearly and have said anything I
    could say.
        Mara [Mara Liasson, National Public Radio].

    Vice President Gore

        Q. Mr. President, your Vice President has recently been ridiculed
    for claiming he invented the Internet and spent his boyhood plowing
    steep hillsides in Tennessee. I'm wondering what you think of those
    claims and what advice you'd give him about how to brag on himself
    without getting in so much trouble. [Laughter]
        The President. Well, you know, he came
    a lot closer to inventing the Internet than I did. [Laughter] I mean--I
    will say this about it. First of all, you remember he was talking about
    the information superhighway 20 years ago, and he did have a lot to do
    with supporting the development of it and supporting the Government
    research that led to these developments.
        Keep in mind, I think when I became President in 1993, there were
    still only 50 or 60 sites on the Internet, and now there are millions
    and millions. So what I would like to say is, I don't know exactly what
    he said or exactly how it's been
    characterized, but he has been, for 20 years, one of the major
    architects of

    [[Page 417]]

    America's progress in technology, and he deserves a lot of appreciation
    for that. The Telecommunications Act, which I signed, he was heavily
    involved in the negotiations of our administration's positions. I talked
    to an executive the other day who said he was absolutely convinced at
    least 200,000 new high-tech jobs have already been created in America as
    a result of that act.
        As far as his boyhood home, I think--I
    know what you're saying. You're saying, well, he went to St. Alban's and
    his daddy was a Senator. But it's also true that he is from east
    Tennessee, and he did learn to do all those things he did on the farm.
    I've been there, in Carthage, Tennessee. I've talked to his mother and
    his father, when he was alive, and other people who were there. And I
    think it's important that the American people know more about the Vice
    President's background. I think it's important that they know that he
    served in the Congress, that he served in the Senate, that before that
    he was a member of your profession, he was a journalist and served in
    the Armed Forces in Vietnam. I think it's important also that they know
    that he was a principal architect of the
    major economic and other policies of this administration.
        And you know, you all will examine his claims, and presumably the
    claims of everybody else who would like to succeed me, and make your
    judgments, and the American people will be as well. But the Vice
    President is, by nature, a reticent person when it comes to talking
    about his life and his background. And I hope that he will find--for all
    of us, that's one of the most difficult things about running for public
    office. You want to be able to share formative experiences in your life
    or things you've been involved in that you're particularly proud of, and
    you want to do it without seeming to toot your own horn too much. And
    it's a challenge.
        But I can tell you this. I'll be happy to toot his horn in terms of the years that we've worked together,
    because there's no question that he has been integral to all the good
    things that have happened in this administration.
        Yes.

    Lessons in Truthfulness

        Q. Mr. President, many young Americans learn the importance of
    telling the truth based on an allegory about our very first President;
    George Washington reportedly said, ``I cannot tell a lie.'' What do you
    think your legacy will be about lying? And how important do you think it
    is to tell the truth, especially under oath?
        The President. I think it's very important. And I think that what
    young people will learn from my experience is that even Presidents have
    to do that and that there are consequences when you don't.
        But I also think that there will be a box score, and there will be
    that one negative, and then there will be the hundreds and hundreds and
    hundreds of times when the record will show that I did not abuse my
    authority as President, that I was truthful with the American people.
    And scores and scores of allegations were made against me and widely
    publicized without any regard to whether they were true or not. Most of
    them have already been actually proved false. And it's very hard to
    disprove every false allegation against you. But we have had more
    success, frankly, than I was afraid we would when we started.
        So I would hope that there would be a higher regard for truth
    telling by all people in public life and all those who report on it. I
    think it would be a very good thing.
        Yes.

    Kosovo

        Q. Mr. President, you said on Kosovo that if we don't act, the war
    will spread. That's very similar to what we said when we went into
    Bosnia several years ago. Our troops are still there. How can you assure
    the American people that we're not getting into a quagmire in Bosnia?
        The President. Well, first of all, in Bosnia we have brought about
    70 percent of our troops home. It has not been a quagmire. I told the
    America people we might well have some loss of life there, but I was
    convinced we would lose fewer lives and do more good over the long run
    if we intervened when we did.
        I feel the same way about Kosovo. The argument that I tried to make
    for our putting troops there, if we could reach a peace agreement, was
    that we were moving in the right direction; the Europeans had been
    willing to shoulder a much bigger share of the responsibility; we were
    only going to be asked to put up about, oh, 15 percent of the troops.
        But I don't want to get in the position in Kosovo that I was in in
    Bosnia, where the Pentagon came to me with a very honest estimate of
    when they thought we could finish. And we

    [[Page 418]]

    turned out to be wrong about that. We were not able to stabilize the
    situation as quickly as we thought we could. And this business in Kosovo
    is not helping any. Keep in mind, there could be some ramifications in
    Bosnia, as well as in Macedonia, where we have troops.
        So I can just tell you that I think that we have tried to limit our
    involvement, we have tried to limit our mission, and we will conclude it
    as quickly as we can. I think that in all these cases, you have to ask
    yourself, what will be the cost and the duration of involvement and the
    consequences if we do not move. And I have asked myself that question as
    well.
        Again, I would say to you, I would not be doing this if I did not
    think, number one, whenever we can stop a humanitarian disaster at an
    acceptable price, we ought to do it. Two, I'm convinced we'll be dragged
    into this thing under worse circumstances, at greater cost if we don't
    act. And three, this is, to me, a critical part of the objective I
    brought to the Presidency of trying to leave office with an alliance
    between the United States and a more unified, more prosperous, more
    peaceful, more stable Europe. And this is one of the big three questions
    still hanging out there, as I said in my opening remarks, and I'm trying
    to resolve this.
        April [April Ryan, American Urban Radio Network]. And then Mr. King
    [John King, Cable News Network].

    Police Brutality/President's Race Initiative

        Q. Mr. President, for many years, civil rights leaders have called
    for White House help in cases of police brutality and police profiling.
    Now, civil rights leaders say more needs to be done, like opening old
    brutality cases. Will you listen to those calls and expand your recent
    proposals allowing that, and when will you receive your completed draft
    of the race book?
        The President. Let me answer the second question first because it's
    an easier question to dispose of. I have received and gone over a number
    of drafts of the race book, and I'm fairly pleased with where it's
    going. And one of the things we'll attempt to address is this whole
    issue of civil rights and law enforcement. And I would hope that it will
    be ready sometime in the next couple of months. I hope we'll have it
    finished, because we're rushing and we're trying to get it done.
        Now, on the question of reopening old cases, I have to be candid
    with you and tell you that you're the first
    person who has ever mentioned that to me. I know that there must have
    been something in the letters about it. I will have to discuss that with
    our advisers and see what the appropriate thing to do is. But I would
    like to make a general statement about it, maybe to try to emphasize
    some of the points I attempted to make in my radio address on Saturday.
        I've been involved in law enforcement for more than 20 years now,
    since I became attorney general of my State in 1977. Even before that,
    when I was in law school, and later when I was a law professor, I used
    to spend a lot of time teaching criminal law, criminal procedure, and
    constitutional law to law enforcement officers. I think that the police
    of this country know that I honor them and that I support them and that
    I think what they're doing is profoundly important.
        I am very proud of the crime bill we passed in '94, not only because
    it was--along with the Brady bill--it banned assault weapons, but
    because it put 100,000 police on the street. And we're ahead of schedule
    and under budget on that goal. And my present budget called for putting
    50,000 more out there in community policing in the highest crime areas
    of the country.
        But I think that--and I am mindful of the fact that when you put on
    a gun, no matter how well trained you are, you have to be very careful
    about being under great stress and fear and making mistakes. But it
    seems to me that just as this administration has strongly supported law
    enforcement in every way to try to give us a safer country and a country
    where the law enforcement was closer connected to the community, we have
    a responsibility to deal with these issues of brutality when they arise
    and the whole question of policies of profiling, of presuming that
    people are more likely to be criminals because of their racial
    background or some other characteristic.
        And I hope that our administration, working with civil rights
    groups, civil liberties groups, and law enforcement groups, will be able
    to really get a genuine debate on this and a resolution of it that is
    satisfactory, because we cannot have the kind of country we want if
    people are afraid of those folks who are trying to protect them.

    [[Page 419]]

        Now, but in terms of opening the old cases, I just have to look at
    that. I don't know enough about the facts to give you an informed
    opinion.
        Mr. King. And then Mr. Cannon [Carl Cannon, National Journal]. Go
    ahead.

    Russia

        Q. Mr. President, the Russian Prime Minister will be here next week
    seeking your support for another very large installment in international
    economic assistance. Yet, leading officials in your own administration
    say there has been a retreat, if not a reversal, in the pace of market
    reforms in Russia. Are you prepared to support the new installment of
    IMF funding? And are you on the verge of an agreement with Russia
    regarding its nuclear transfers to Iran?
        The President. Well, first, let me say that Mr. Primakov is coming here at an important time. And I have
    urged all of us in the administration, our economic team and our
    political team, to be acutely aware of the fact that the first thing he
    had to do was to try to stabilize his own situation when he took office.
        In terms of the economic reforms that he needs to pursue,
    he needs some help from the Duma. And I
    would be a poor person to be unsympathetic with a man who is having
    trouble getting a certain proposal through a Congress. But I think it is
    important, if we are going to help Russia--and we should; we should do
    everything we can--that we do things that are actually likely to make a
    difference, instead of things that will undermine confidence over the
    long run in Russia and in the ability of others to invest there.
        So I'm hoping we can reach an agreement which will permit the IMF
    program to go forward, because I think that is important. But it will
    only work if the money doesn't turn around and leave the country as soon
    as it's put in.
        In other words, that's what--what we have to persuade the Russians
    of is that we're not trying to impose some economic theory on them,
    we're not trying to impose more--I don't mean just we, the United
    States; I mean we, the international financial institutions, of which
    the United States is a part--and that we want to see the back wages
    paid. We want to see the standard of living of the Russian people rise.
    We want to see more investment go in there. But there have got to be
    some changes, some of which require legislative action in the Duma in
    order for this to work. Otherwise, even if we put the money in, it will
    leave.
        And so that's what we're working on. And I'm hopeful that we'll also
    get a resolution of the second issue you mentioned, and I'm optimistic
    about that.
        Q. Mr. President----
        Q. Mr. President----
        [Laughter]
        The President. I said Mr. Cannon could go next. I want to honor my
    commitment there. Oh yeah, yeah, I forgot Wendell [Wendell Goler, Fox
    News Channel]--go ahead. Wendell's next.

    China-U.S. Relations

        Q. We're jumping around a lot, and I apologize, but I'd like to
    return to China for just a minute. Officials with your administration
    have said that China's size, that it's so big, it's just difficult to
    ignore, that you can't just pretend they don't exist. But in terms of
    human rights, that merely underscores the magnitude of the problem.
    That's a billion people who don't have freedom of worship, freedom of
    the press, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to redress their
    government, the right to form their government. And you often talk about
    values when you talk about public policy. Does our relationship with
    China now reflect your values?
        The President. I believe our policy toward China does. Our
    relationship is not perfect, but I think it is the correct course.
        First of all, I believe that the principal problem, human rights
    problem in China is the absence of political rights and the civil rights
    associated with them. There are some examples of religious--denial of
    religious freedom. There's also a lot of religious expression there. You
    remember, I went to church in China, to a church that has regular
    services every week, whether we're there or not.
        And there is the special problem of Tibet, which I engaged President
    Jiang about in our press conference and on which
    we continue to work.
        So to me, it's very important, and we have to continue to press
    ahead on that. I think the question is, what is the best way for the
    United States to maximize the chances that China will become more open
    in terms of political and civil rights, that any vestiges of religious
    oppression will be dropped, that Tibet will have a chance as soon as
    possible to preserve its unique

    [[Page 420]]

    culture and identity? I think--and all these questions like that.
        And it seems to me that the best way to do it is to work with the
    Chinese where it's in our interest to do so and to frankly and
    forthrightly state our differences where they exist. If we were to reach
    a point where we were convinced that no agreement we made ever would be
    kept, where no progress could ever be made, then I would ask the
    American people to reassess that. But I believe that the evidence is--
    and I cited some specific examples earlier in this press conference--the
    evidence is that the Chinese would like a constructive relationship with
    us.
        Keep in mind, the same sort of debate that's going on in this
    country, there is a mirror image of that debate going on in China today.
    And there are people in China that are not at a press conference, but
    they're saying, ``You know, the Americans cannot exist without an enemy;
    you know they've got to have an enemy; they've got to have somebody to
    dominate the world against. And what they really want to do is to
    contain us; they don't want us to flower economically; they don't want
    us to have influence, even if it's nonaggressive influence. And
    therefore, we need to build up our military. Therefore, we need to fight
    them at every turn; we need to oppose them at every turn.''
        These sorts of debates are going on in their country. And what I
    have said to President Jiang, to Premier Zhu, to everyone who is involved on the trip--and I look
    forward to the Premier's trip to the United States--is that we still
    have to define what kind of future we're going to have, how we're going
    to share it, what is the proper arena for competition, what is the
    proper arena for cooperation. And we have to judge China as we would
    judge anyone else, and as we would expect to be judged, by our actions.
        What you have here is a relationship that is profoundly important,
    very large and inherently frustrating because it has many different
    elements, some of which we like, some of which we don't. And it requires
    a constant evaluation to see whether we're on the right track, whether
    we're doing the right things, whether we're going in the right
    direction. And because it doesn't fit within neat or calming categories,
    it can be a source of difficulty.
        But I believe that I've done the right thing for America over the
    long run by trying to establish a positive but wide-open--I mean eyes
    wide open, with no illusions--relationship with China where we
    explicitly put our differences on the table; where we pursue them to a
    point of resolution if possible; where we don't give up on what we
    believe if we can't resolve them; and where we do work on the things
    that we have in common. I believe this is the right thing to do. But it
    is inherently frustrating at the points of difference.
        Wendell, go ahead.
        Press Secretary Joe Lockhart. This is the last question warning.

    Chinese Nuclear Espionage

        Q. Thank you, Joe. Mr. President, you said just a short while ago
    that no one has reported to you they suspect Chinese espionage at U.S.
    nuclear labs during your administration, sir. But sources tell Fox News,
    and we are reporting this evening, that China stole the technology for
    electromagnetic pulse weapons from several nuclear labs during your
    first term in office, sir, and that the Chinese have successfully tested
    these weapons in China. And the sources also say that the
    administration, at least, was aware of this.
        Can you tell us, sir, were you not personally aware? Are you
    concerned about this? And what will be your administration's response to
    the report?
        The President. Well, you didn't say what the source of what they
    sold was. You say they ``stole,'' is that the word you used?
        Q. Yes, sir, the technology for EMP weapons, from 4 of the 11
    nuclear labs.
        The President. To the best of my knowledge--and, you know, I try
    to--not only do I spend a great deal of time every day on national
    security measures, I try to prepare for these things. To the best of my
    knowledge, no one has said anything to me about any espionage which
    occurred by the Chinese against the labs during my Presidency.
        I will--if you report that, then I'll do my best to find out what
    the facts are, and I'll tell you what they are. And if I have misstated
    this in any way because I don't remember something, then I will tell you
    that. But I don't believe that I have forgotten.
        Yes, ma'am. One more.

    [[Page 421]]

    Treasury Secretary/Federal Reserve Board Chairman

        Q. Mr. President, can you put to rest rumors--you were talking
    earlier about the stability of your Cabinet. Can you put to rest rumors
    on Wall Street that Treasury Secretary Rubin is going to be leaving
    soon? Has he had any discussion about a departure with you? And in a
    related question, have you had any conversations with Fed Chairman
    Greenspan about his reappointment?
        The President. The answer to the second question is, no, I have not.
    You should draw no conclusion about that one way or the other. It's just
    not come up.
        And I have not discussed Mr. Rubin's
    plans personally with him in quite a long while, maybe a year--I can't
    remember; it's been a good long while. He has served well. He has worked
    hard. I hope he will stay. Goodness knows, he's given his country a
    great deal, and he's served us very well. But I do not know what his
    specific plans are. I'm aware of all the rumors, but we've not had a
    conversation about it.
        Yes, ma'am, in the back. You had your hand up for a long time.

    Bosnia

        Q. Mr. President, I'm a Bosnian journalist. And my country before
    war was almost unknown; during the war, for a long time neglected. And
    now we feel a little bit forgotten, if you don't mind, sir. You're going
    to go to Slovenia soon, and you're talking about European security and
    stability as a priority of U.S. foreign policy. I'd like to know, and I
    believe that Bosnians would appreciate that, if you can say if you have
    any new initiative to boost a peace process in Bosnia. Bosnian dream of
    a united country is dying slowly--country is dying slowly. So if you're
    going to change some people, as New York Times reported, or the State
    Department hints, sir, what would be your next step in Bosnia, sir?
        The President. The Bosnian peace process has been put under stress
    recently because the Brcko decision was made and had to be made within
    the timeframe in which it was made. And I think the most important thing
    now is that we try to get beyond that and go on with the business of
    building the common institutions and trying to get more economic
    opportunity there.
        I'm very concerned that the politicians who still want to chip away
    at the idea of a united Bosnian nation will be able to do it principally
    because we're not able to show the benefits of peace to ordinary
    citizens. It seems to me that is the most important thing we can do,
    once we stabilize the situation in the aftermath of the Brcko decision.
    And I think we're on the way to doing that.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 171st news conference began at 4:01 p.m. in the
    East Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to President
    Slobodan Milosevic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
    Montenegro); convicted spy Aldrich Ames; former Senator Warren B.
    Rudman, Chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; David
    E. Kendall, the President's personal attorney; Prime Minister Yevgeniy
    Primakov of Russia; and President Jiang Zemin and Premier Zhu Rongji of
    China. The President also referred to Presidential Decision Directive
    61.