    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (1999, Book II)]
    [July 1, 1999]
    [Pages 1097-1105]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 1097]]

    The President's News Conference With President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt
    July 1, 1999

        President Clinton. Good afternoon. I'm delighted to welcome
    President Mubarak back to the White House. He is our longtime partner in
    building a safer and more peaceful world.
        Once again, we now have a real chance to move the peace process
    forward in the Middle East. Egypt has been central to that process and
    to all the progress which has been made since the Camp David accords
    over 20 years ago. Egypt will continue to play a leading role to address
    the important tasks ahead, building on Oslo, Wye River implementation,
    reaching a permanent status agreement between Palestinians and Israelis,
    widening the circle of peace to include agreements with Syria and
    Lebanon, revitalizing talks between Israel and the Arab world on a host
    of other important issues from the environment to water resources to
    refugees to economic development. There are, to be sure, major
    challenges ahead, but the will of the people for peace is strong.
        President Mubarak and I also discussed our common determination to
    fight terrorism in all its forms.
        With regard to the peace process, let me just say one other thing.
    The best way for the Israelis to have lasting security is a negotiated
    peace based on mutual respect. That is also the best way for
    Palestinians to shape their own future on their own land. A negotiated
    peace is the best way for all the people of the region to realize their
    aspirations.
        Let me just say also that over the last two decades, under President
    Mubarak's leadership, Egypt has done much to fulfill the aspirations of
    its people. Economic growth has been strong and sustained; inflation has
    been held in check; the GDP per person has increased by a factor of
    five. Egypt is building a modern infrastructure in roads, powerplants,
    communication systems. Civil society has grown, with work ahead to
    strengthen it, so that all Egyptians participate in building a better
    future.
        Among the reasons for all this progress, two stand out, both
    advanced by President Mubarak's wise leadership. First, Israel's--excuse
    me--Egypt's deepening peace with Israel that has freed resources and
    energies of the people. A broader regional peace will be good for
    prosperity, for progress, and for freedom.
        Second, Egypt's economic reform, with expansion of the private
    sector and free markets. The work of President Mubarak and Vice
    President Gore on our U.S.-Egypt
    partnership for growth and development, which they will advance later
    today, has been crucial. The President is committed to continuing the
    reforms, and America will continue to help.
        Today we discussed a number of other issues. I'd like to mention
    just one: Kosovo. I am profoundly grateful to Egypt for supporting the
    stand taken by NATO. Already, more than half the refugees have returned
    to Kosovo. There is still much work to do, and I thank Egypt for its
    commitment to provide Egyptian police officers for the civilian police
    implementation force there.
        But we have made a powerful statement together. The future belongs
    to those who reconcile human differences, not those who exploit them.
    The future belongs to those who respect human rights, not those who
    destroy people because of their religion, their race, or their ethnic
    background.
        I hope we can carry some of the momentum from what we have achieved
    in Kosovo to the Middle East, as we seek there to promote tolerance and
    a durable peace. As we do, the leadership of President Mubarak, as
    always, will be critical.
        Mr. President, welcome. The floor is yours.
        President Mubarak. Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
    I was very pleased to see my friend President Clinton and exchange views
    with him on matters of common concern. As usual, our talks this morning
    reflected the similarity and the convergence of our views. We value our
    solid friendship with this great Nation and consider it one of the
    pillars of our policy.

    [[Page 1098]]

        For decades, we have been working together in order to bring about
    peace and reconciliation in the Middle East. President Clinton has been
    playing an active and very effective rule. Under his leadership, the
    American contribution to the cause of peace has reached a new high. His
    continued involvement is appreciated by those of us who are committed to
    peace in the region.
        In the months ahead, we'll be looking forward to reviving the peace
    process, which has been stalled for sometime. Unfortunately, valuable
    time has been wasted. Today there's an opportunity which should not be
    missed. We shall work closely with the U.S. and coordinate our joint
    efforts in order to have the parties break the stalemate and restore
    movement towards peace.
        Recent events indicate that most of the region's inhabitants are
    yearning for peace. We shall be working with President Asad, Prime Minister Barak, and
    Chairman Arafat, respectively, with a view to
    creating the necessary atmosphere for resuming the peace process without
    delay. I'll be meeting with each of them in the near future for this
    purpose.
        Agreements which have been signed on the Palestinian track must be
    implemented fully and in good faith. Provocative actions, especially
    settlement activities, should be stopped altogether. This will pave the
    way for starting final status negotiations. In parallel, negotiations
    should be resumed on the Syrian track. There are signs that the ground
    is favorable for that. It would be a mistake to assume that movement
    should be confined to one track at a time. Progress on each track
    facilitates movement on the other. The goal is to achieve just,
    comprehensive, and stable peace in the whole area.
        In that context, we were alarmed by the recent Israeli bombing of
    civilian targets in Lebanon. Such actions only poison the atmosphere in
    the region. They create an erosion of the people's confidence in the
    process at the time when we are working hard to encourage the parties to
    take confidence-building measures. We call upon Israel to apply maximum
    self-restraint in the crucial months ahead.
        As tangible progress is achieved towards peace, we can work for
    enhancing cooperation and interaction in the region. Egypt was a country
    that initiated the peace process, and we remain most willing and
    determined to do all we can to help bridge the gaps and restore
    confidence between the parties.
        We also discussed some other regional and international problems,
    notably African issues, as well as matters related to cooperation
    between countries of north and south.
        I commended President Clinton on the success of the American role in
    bringing about peace and security in Kosovo. We hope that the events
    that took place in that part of the world will convince all those
    concerned of the necessity to abide by the rule of law and respect the
    human rights of all peoples. We are aware of the fact that much has to
    be done to help the refugees and to prevent any recurrence of ethnic,
    religious, or cultural violent conflicts. On our part, we will
    contribute to international forces as being assigned the task of
    maintaining security and order in Kosovo.
        As we are about to enter a new era, with the dawning of the new
    millennium, we must spare no effort in our quest for peace and security.
    For all nations, global problems that threaten the future of mankind
    ought to be addressed with vigor and determination. In all these
    endeavors, we shall cooperate with our partners and friends, among whom
    the U.S. figures very prominently.
        Our bilateral cooperation is expanding every year, and it will
    continue to grow. This is a goal both of us are committed to. The
    Clinton administration has done much in this respect, and the
    President's personal involvement in this process was and continues to be
    most appreciated by the Egyptian people.
        Before I conclude, I would like to send a message of friendship and
    affection to all Americans. Thank you very much.
        President Clinton. Thank you, Mr. President. Now, as is our
    practice, we will alternate between American and Egyptian journalists.
        Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International], you go first.
        Q. I'd like to ask both Presidents questions. President Clinton, do
    you have any new ideas for breaking the stalemate in the Middle East?
    And with the advent of our own Independence Day, when do you think
    Lebanon will be free and independent and rid of a longtime occupation?
        President Mubarak, do you think the new Israeli Government will make
    a gesture toward halting the settlements?
        President Clinton. Well, let me answer the questions you asked me
    first. I do think that

    [[Page 1099]]

    the time is right, but I think that before I advance publicly any ideas,
    I should have a chance to meet with the Prime Minister-elect, Mr.
    Barak, when he--according to the reports in the
    press this morning, he has constituted a government on quite a broad
    base. We should give him more freedom of movement to move aggressively
    ahead.
        Our role, traditionally, has been to try to create the conditions
    and provide the support necessary for the parties to make peace, and I
    expect that he will have ideas of his own about
    that. And so I think that the appropriate thing for me at the moment is
    to look forward to our meeting, which I hope will occur in the near
    future, and then after that, after I talk with him, to make whatever
    statements are called for at that time.
        On the question of Lebanon, I think our position on that has always
    been clear. We believe that a comprehensive peace in the Middle East
    should include not only an agreement with the Palestinians and an
    agreement with the Syrians but also an agreement which includes Lebanon
    and promotes its independence and integrity.
        President Mubarak. The question about the settlements you mean? I
    think the time now is, at least, to improve the atmosphere in the area,
    to stop building the settlements now until the negotiations start. Then
    the Palestinians and the Israelis could sit and find out what could be
    done. This is, I mean, a step for improving the atmosphere between the
    two groups.
        President Clinton. Would you like to call on one of your
    journalists?
        President Mubarak. Yes.
        Q. Thank you. The question is for President Clinton. I would like to
    follow up on Helen's question on the settlements. President Clinton, in
    1991, when you first were running for the Presidency, you made a pledge
    never to criticize Israel publicly. However, your administration
    expressed its dissatisfaction with Israel's settlements activities by
    describing them as an obstacle to peace.
        However, 23 new settlements have been built since the signing of the
    Wye River accord. Would you be willing, your administration, would be
    willing to tell Israel to stop building the settlements, the new Israeli
    government, to stop building the settlements and undo the wrong that has
    been done? Thank you.
        President Clinton. Well, I think our position on the settlements has
    been clear. We don't believe that unilateral actions by any parties,
    including other interested parties like the United States, which
    compromise the capacity of the parties to the Oslo accord to reach
    agreement on final status issues, should be taken. And that includes
    provocative settlement actions. We have made that clear and unambiguous.
        But I do not believe--the Israeli people just had a huge election, a
    big election, and they voted in very large percentages in ways that
    almost every commentator has concluded sent the signal that they were
    ready to pursue the peace process to its conclusion. They now have a
    Prime Minister-elect who has just completed his
    government. He is coming to see me in the next few days. I think the
    less I say, until I see him and until we see if we can embrace a common
    posture toward making a peace, the better. But my views on the
    settlement question are well-known and have not changed.
        Yes, Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

    2000 Election and Campaign Finance Reform

        Q. Mr. President, Governor Bush has raised a record-breaking $36
    million, more than 10 times his closest rival for the Republican
    nomination. Do you think he's wrapped up the nomination, or is wrapping
    it up? And if he decides not to accept Federal campaign money and the
    spending limits that go with it, as appears increasingly likely, do you
    think that would be a blow to campaign finance reform?
        President Clinton. Well, first of all, I don't want to get into
    being a political handicapper, so I can't say--how do I know what the
    Republicans are going to do in their nominating process? I don't have a
    clue.
        But I would make two observations. First of all, the leadership of
    the Republican Party, in general, are unanimously hostile to campaign
    finance reform. They don't believe in it. And so, if he did that, he would have that in common with the other
    leaders, who won't permit us to bring the McCain-Feingold bill to a vote
    or to try to pursue what I believe are needed changes in the campaign
    finance laws. So that is one thing that--that's just where they are, and
    they're very forthright about it. And the American people are going to
    have to make up their minds whether this is an important issue to them
    or not.
        But I would make one point, generally. I think the most valuable
    commodity in an election, in a democracy, in which you will cover

    [[Page 1100]]

    the candidates extensively--even more valuable than money--is ideas. And
    I think the most important thing, therefore, that I have seen in this
    election so far is that Vice President Gore
    is, nearly as I can determine, the only candidate of either party who
    has yet actually told the American people what he would do if he got
    elected.
        And I think that if you look at the 1998 elections, for example,
    it's a good example that, in a democracy which has a vigorous media
    publicizing what people are doing and saying, money may be important,
    but ideas are even more important.

    World Summit on Terrorism/Middle East Peace Process

        Q. My first question is for President Mubarak. You've been
    suggesting for some time the preparation of a world summit on terrorism.
    Did you discuss your ideas on this issue with President Clinton? And,
    Mr. President, do you have a specific plan for dealing with this
    international threat?
        And for you, President Clinton, to carry on with the peace process,
    how do you plan to work really on the peace process as you approach the
    next, best and maybe the happiest, 18 months in the Clinton
    administration? [Laughter]
        President Clinton. Well, being at peace would be a good start.
    [Laughter]
        President Mubarak. I've already discussed this issue about
    international terrorism with the President, as well as I have discussed
    it with other heads of states, but mainly here with President Clinton I
    did this issue. I'm saying that in the coming century, the most
    dangerous element is not the war program of this or that; it's terrorism
    spreading all over the world.
        Sometimes when the terrorism starts, when I start speaking about
    terrorism sometime, I was told, ``Oh, because of some kind of incident,
    you're speaking about terrorism.'' Now terrorism is spreading everywhere
    in the world. It's a very dangerous phenomenon. And a summit, and if
    it's well prepared before it--I think the whole world will suffer from
    terrorism. War is much more easier than terrorism. Terrorism, you never
    know when the attack is going to take place. But war is planned, and you
    know its limits.
        That's why I discussed with the President, and I hope we could reach
    a summit, and before the summit there should be very thought-out
    preparation with a technical group to see what kind of agreement could
    be reached in the whole world under the U.N.
        President Clinton. We discussed this issue quite extensively, and
    this has been a subject of great concern to me. It's one thing we've
    shared over the last 6 years. A few years ago, I gave a speech at the
    United Nations, at the opening session, about terrorism and asked that
    we focus on it.
        We have asked the Congress to provide substantial resources to look
    into what else we can do to fight terrorism, to deal with the threats of
    biological and chemical weapons and the prospect that they might get
    into the hands of terrorists. We have to consider the prospect in the
    future that, as the President said, the most serious security threats to
    nations will not be from other nations but from terrorist groups that
    cross national borders and that may well form presently unprecedented
    allegiances with other illegal groups, organized crime groups, drug
    traffickers, weapons profiteers.
        And so I think that all the nations of the world that are interested
    in stability and peace for their people are going to have to have a much
    higher level of cooperation on these issues. So I'm for doing anything
    that can be done to increase that.
        Now, you asked me about the Middle East peace process. Let me just
    say again, our role has never been to dictate to either party the terms
    of the peace. Even though we have many Arab-Americans and many Jewish
    Americans in this country, we do not live in the Middle East. The people
    of the Middle East live there, and they have to work out the terms of
    their own reconciliation.
        What we have always tried to do is to keep the parties working
    together and then to do whatever was necessary to provide the support
    that the friends of peace need, and if the process seemed in danger of
    failing, as it did before the Wye River 9\1/2\ days and sleepless
    nights, to do what could be done to keep it alive. But I think that the
    people of Israel have sent us a loud message that they want the process
    to be kept alive and they want it to be seen through.
        So we're in a period of transition now. Let's let the Prime
    Minister, the new Prime Minister-elect get his
    government in place, take office, come to see me, talk to President
    Mubarak,

    [[Page 1101]]

    and talk to all the other parties and see where we go from there. But
    those of us who are friends of the peace process in the Middle East
    should focus on successful resolution of it. And sometimes, the less we
    say in public, the more likely we are to have a positive impact on the
    outcome of the negotiations.
        Q. On Northern Ireland----
        President Clinton. Larry [Larry McQuillan, Reuters]? Yes, I'll take
    an Irish question. Go ahead.

    President's Relationship With the Vice President/Medicare

        Q. President Clinton, as you're aware, there have been reports of
    tension between you and Vice President Gore, and I wondered if you could
    comment on your relationship. And are you resigned, as the campaign goes
    on, that inevitably, you're going to be at odds on certain issues and
    disagree with the Vice President, and for that matter, assuming your
    wife decides to run for the Senate, perhaps on Medicare and New York
    issues?
        President Clinton. Well, that's a substantive question. I'll be glad
    to answer that if you want. But let me say, I have been, frankly,
    bewildered by those reports. Only one person ever asked me about it
    directly, one of your number, and that was Wolf Blitzer, in an interview I did before I left my European trip at
    the G-8, and I gave him a very good answer, which was that I thought
    that the Vice President had done a good job
    in his announcement. I thought the most important thing he had done is--
    I'll say again--is to tell the American people what he would do if he
    got the job and to pose the choice that I think is before them, which is
    do you want to go beyond--build on and go beyond the successful
    direction of the last 6\1/2\ years, or would you like to turn around and
    go back and take a different course?
        And so I think he's doing fine. I
    honestly do not know what the source of the stories are, but they are
    not in my heart or my mind. I want him to get out there, and if he
    disagrees with the decisions that I make as President during the next
    year and a half, then of course, he will have to say so. And I will take
    no offense at that. And if my wife
    decides to run for Senator from New York, then some of the disagreements
    that we've had in the past over decisions I've made as President she may
    be constrained to state publicly because they will be relevant to the
    future. And that's the way a democracy works.
        You know, members of a political party, whether Democrats or
    Republicans, belong to the political party because they share a general
    set of values and a general approach and because they agree on almost
    all things, not because they agree on all things. It would be a dreary
    world, indeed, if we all agreed on everything, and I didn't ask Al
    Gore to become Vice President so that he
    would agree with me about everything. Nobody with a fine mind and a lot
    of experience and looking at the world we live in would agree with
    anyone else with the same qualities on every issue. It just wouldn't
    happen.
        Now, on the merits--let me say, on this Medicare issue, there have
    been many people--not just in New York with the teaching hospitals, but
    there are rural hospitals; there are home therapy providers; there are
    others--who have felt that the budget savings, the cuts in the '97
    Balanced Budget Act, were too severe and made it difficult for them to
    maintain quality of care. One such group are the teaching hospitals.
    There are a lot of them in New York who take care of a lot of poor
    people, but there are a lot of them in Massachusetts, a lot of them in
    California, and there is at least one in every State in the country.
        When we put out our Medicare plan, we, therefore, did not continue
    all of the cost savings in the '97 Balanced Budget Act beyond the period
    when they run out. We actually left some of them off to try to alleviate
    that pressure. The second thing we did was to create a fund, a quality
    fund, of about $7.5 billion, which the Congress can use to debate and
    allocate to alleviate present problems.
        So I would encourage the Senators from New York, or anyone else
    who's concerned about this, to bring those concerns, bring the facts to
    the table, get it out in the open, then embrace the idea of Medicare
    reform, pass that fund, and then allocate it as it should be allocated.
    Because I do think that's a legitimate issue.

    Iraq/Kosovo/Middle East Peace Process

        Q. For President Mubarak, have you discussed the issue of Iraq and
    how close or distant American and Egyptian positions are? For President
    Clinton, Mr. President, I'd like to congratulate you on your success and
    resolve on Kosovo. And from your statement, you referred as one

    [[Page 1102]]

    of the criteria for success, the return of refugees; will you work--the
    return of refugees, Kosovars, to their homes. Will you use the same
    criteria in the Middle East, that the Palestinian refugees and displaced
    will come back to their homes? Thank you.
        President Clinton. That's really good. [Laughter] That's really
    good. [Laughter]
        President Mubarak.  Well----
        President Clinton. You called on him. [Laughter]
        President Mubarak. I didn't know what was the question. [Laughter]
        Really, for the first part of the question, about Iraq, really, our
    position didn't change at all. We are looking forward, how to help the
    people of Iraq under any circumstances. I have discussed this with the
    President, and I think that the resolution in the U.N., and I think
    maybe some improvement in it in the near future, may lead to helping the
    people of Iraq for medicine, food, and other things. And I hope that
    something can conclude in that direction--discussed this with the
    President.
        President Clinton. Let me say, our position on Iraq is that we favor
    the proposal before the United Nations, advanced by the British and the
    Dutch. It would provide for more money to Iraq to help the people there,
    with their human needs. But it would maintain a vigorous arms control
    regime, because we do not believe that Saddam Hussein should be permitted to develop again weapons of mass
    destruction.
        And I would remind everyone that he has
    actually used weapons of mass destruction. He has used chemical weapons
    on the Iranians. He has used them on his own people, on the Kurds that
    live in Iraq.
        So I think that we have a balanced position. But I have never wanted
    the Iraqi people to suffer because of their leader. And I think we supported a relaxation of the way the
    funds flow there so that more can go to benefit the people. But I do not
    believe we should give up on an attempt, an insistence, indeed, that the
    United Nations, in return for this, maintain an arms control regime.
        Now, on the refugee question, let me say one brief question about
    Kosovo because I do appreciate the interest in Kosovo in Egypt and in
    other countries of the region. About half the refugees have gone home.
    They're dying to go home. And one of the reasons that NATO was
    determined to act is we knew, if we acted quickly enough, that the
    refugees could go home and most of them would wish to go home.
        Even in Bosnia, where the war went on from--the conflict--from 1991
    until 1995, there were many people who had established other lives in
    other places and did not want to go home. There are still a lot of
    refugees who have not gone home in Bosnia.
        So I'm delighted that the Kosovars are pouring in. The truth is that
    we've actually tried to slow it down a little bit, because we're worried
    about the landmines and other explosives which might be there, and we
    want it to be safe for them, and because we're tying to get organized to
    help everybody rebuild their homes and the basic infrastructure of life
    so that once they do go home, they can actually live and do well.
        Now, that brings you back to the refugee question you asked in the
    Middle East. I think that the important thing is if we have the right
    kind of a peace agreement. That's why I say--no one can accuse me of
    dodging Middle East questions. I've been up to my ears and eyeballs in
    this peace process since the day I took office. But if you just look at
    it as a practical matter--the agreement that is made in the end--whether
    refugees go home depends in part on how long they've been away and
    whether they wish to go home. It will also depend on what the nature of
    the settlement is, how much land will the Palestinians have, where will
    it be, how does it correspond to where people lived before.
        And I would like it if the Palestinian people felt free and more
    free to live wherever they like, wherever they want to live. I would
    also like it very much if we could help those countries which have borne
    a heavy burden, particularly Jordan where a majority of the population
    is now Palestinian, to build a better life for the people who are there,
    because they have a lot of very serious economic challenges. They have a
    fine new King who is an able person, and
    we're trying to help, and we want others to help. But I think it will
    depend upon the refugees themselves, and it will depend upon the shape
    of the final agreement.
        Ask the Irish question if you want.

    Northern Ireland Peace Process

        Q. Thank you, sir. Several questions on Northern Ireland. What is
    the latest--[laughter]--sorry.

    [[Page 1103]]

        President Clinton. They're learning from you now. [Laughter]
        Q. What is the latest update you can give us about your activities?
    Do you plan to make an emergency trip over there? Do you blame either
    side for the impasse? And what constructive suggestions can you convey
    to us at this juncture?
        President Clinton. Well, I have been--for the last couple of days,
    particularly, we've been in virtually constant contact with the parties
    there. And I spent a lot of time on it yesterday and late, late last
    night and this morning early. They are in negotiations as we speak. The
    mood seems to be reasonably positive, and they are exploring some new
    ideas. I offered my suggestions for a possible resolution of the
    sticking points, with the benefit of all the folks on our national
    security team who have been working on that.
        And I'll say this, it is a very difficult problem for the parties,
    but it will be very hard for the world to understand if this breaks off,
    since everyone has agreed to the fundamental elements of the Good Friday
    agreement. Both sides agree that they have to comply with every bit of
    it. There was an election where the Irish people voted for it. Then
    there was an election where the Irish people voted for leaders under it.
        So if you have a situation where you've had two elections ratifying
    a peace agreement and you have all the leaders saying that we all have
    to comply with every element of it and it falls apart over sequencing, I
    think that it would be--to call it a tragedy would be a gross
    understatement. But it is a very difficult thing--it would take 30
    minutes to go through the whole litany of why. But they are working now.
    They are exploring some new ideas, and they do seem determined to work
    it through to a positive conclusion.
        Would you like to take one more?

    Middle East Peace Process/Iraq

        Q. Thank you. President Clinton, you talked about the 9\1/2\ days at
    the Wye Plantation. We know you tried; God knows you tried, but you
    failed, sir. [Laughter] What makes you think that----
        President Clinton. I got an agreement. It wasn't my job to implement
    it. It has not been fully implemented. The agreement, itself, was a
    success.
        Q. That's correct, sir, but your officials--[laughter]----
        President Clinton. That's all right. They tell me I've failed every
    day. It's quite all right. [Laughter] You just save them the trouble
    today. Go ahead.
        Q. Your officials used to speak about CBM, confidence-building
    measures. The Palestinians did their part, even Netanyahu thanked Arafat
    at one stage. But let's say you failed in convincing the Israelis to
    reciprocate and do the same. What makes you feel that this time around
    you would be more successful, sir?
        My question to President Mubarak: Sir, how does Egypt view any
    external interference in Iraqi internal affairs from whatever source it
    comes? Thank you.
        President Mubarak. I've failed also this time. [Laughter]
        President Clinton. Yes, they zinged you this time.
        Let me say, I think, with regard to Wye, obviously, I think its
    conditions should be honored, because it's like any agreement between
    two parties; unless both parties agree that the agreement should be
    modified, then it should be honored.
        I believe that historians, when they look back on this period, will
    conclude that the principal difficulty that Mr. Netanyahu had was the nature of his coalition, and because it
    was small enough--his majority was so small and it included people who
    were so hostile to the peace process, that no matter what he tried to
    do, they could always threaten to bring him down.
        Now, the reason I think it will be different now is, number one,
    Prime Minister-elect Barak was a much more open
    and heartfelt supporter of the Oslo process. He has--you remember, I
    think his first public event after his election was to visit the
    gravesite of our friend Prime Minister Rabin. But number two, he got a
    big vote from the people of Israel with peace being the major issue. And
    number three, he has constituted a government--
    apparently, from the morning press--with quite a large voting majority
    in the Knesset, obviously geared toward the peace process, because the
    parties have deep differences, in his coalition, over domestic policies
    unrelated to the peace process.
        So for those reasons, I think the chances of success are now
    greater. And therefore, I think that all of us should try to restrain
    our comments about specifics until we talk to the Prime

    [[Page 1104]]

    Minister-elect and we can form a common strategy.
        President Mubarak. Concerning the interference in the internal
    affairs of Iraq, you know our principle from the beginning; we never
    interfere in the internal affairs of Iraq. If there is any change in the
    Government of Iraq, it should come from internally, not from outside.
    This is our principle which has been adopted all our life with any
    country in the world.
        Press Secretary Joe Lockhart. Thank you.
        President Clinton. One more, go ahead.
        Q. On Russia?
        President Clinton. One more.
        Q. What if I say I'm going to leave? [Laughter]
        President Clinton. I'll give you a question. [Laughter]

    Bill Bradley

        Q. Mr. President, when you were asked about George W. Bush and the
    Republicans a few moments ago, you deferred, pleading ignorance. Perhaps
    I could ask you about the Democrats. When you said that Al Gore is the
    only one in the race on either side of the party who has been talking
    about ideas, clearly that represents a dig not merely at the Republican
    candidates but also former Senator Bill Bradley as well. So let me ask
    you about his candidacy, sir, if I may.
        Number one, do you believe that he's as qualified as is the Vice
    President to be President of the United States? And number two, how do
    you explain, in your own mind, when you heard the figures yesterday
    showing that the Vice President raised less money than he'd hope for and
    Bill Bradley appears to have raised more?
        President Clinton. Well, first of all, I'm not going to talk about
    their fundraising because I don't think I should be a political
    handicapper. But anyone who understands Senator Bradley's career and
    life story would not be particularly surprised by this. I certainly
    wasn't. And I don't think it's accurate to say the Vice President has raised less money than he hoped for.
        On the other question, it wasn't a dig at Senator Bradley. He has
    said, himself, that he has not laid out his case for being President and
    said that he wants to wait until the fall to do it. That's what he said.
    I'm not digging him. I have nothing bad to say about him. That's a fact.
        But I, personally, have always believed that you should begin by
    saying why you want the job, because you're asking people to hire you to
    do things. And I think the Vice President
    deserves a lot of credit for doing that. That's my view. But you can't
    read that as a dig at Senator Bradley because he, himself, said, ``In
    the fall, I will tell you what it is I intend to do.'' That's his
    position.
        Q. And do you think he's as qualified as the Vice President, sir?
        President Clinton. I think the question--the American people will
    have to decide who's qualified and who's not. There is nobody in the
    race who is running or who could run who has had as much experience in
    as many different ways. He's had both
    legislative experience and executive experience. Besides that, he's been
    a journalist, the Vice President. You've got to think that counts for
    something. [Laughter] So he's been a journalist; he's been in the
    executive branch; he's been in the legislative branch. He has vast
    experience in foreign policy, in arms control issues, and vast
    experience in domestic policy. And maybe even more important than
    experience, the ideas that he's advanced have made America a better
    place. So if results counts and experience counts, then he has quite a
    good resume.
        And I don't have to make comparative judgments about the other
    candidates to say that. No one has anything like that level of
    experience, with that level of positive impact on the people of our
    country. Those are just, I think, indisputable facts.
        Q. How about one more?
        President Clinton. You want to ask one more Egyptian? Equal time.

    Middle East Peace Process

        Q. I have a question for President Mubarak and one for President
    Clinton. Sir, at this moment, Prime Minister-elect Ehud Barak is forming
    his government in Israel. What should be, with so little time before the
    next American elections, which are just around the corner, what would
    be----
        President Clinton. Seventeen months? [Laughter]
        Q. What would be perhaps the one thing or one message you would
    direct towards Mr. Barak as a step that should be taken as soon as
    possible to revive the peace process?

    [[Page 1105]]

        And President Clinton, your comment on President Mubarak's
    statement?
        President Mubarak. Is the question directed to me?
        Q. Yes, first, Your Excellency.
        President Mubarak. I think I have already mentioned that, in the
    comments I started with, there should be some steps to make that feel
    much far better and to start the peace process. Eighteen months is quite
    a lot; we could achieve in one year so many things. The peace process
    was already started years and years ago. The Palestinians have signed
    some agreements. If Mr. Barak--and I'm sure that he's going to do it--
    starts implementing the Wye agreement, for example makes some steps for
    the settlements, I think the process will move. And we hope that we
    could finish or reach a final status in one year. One year and a half is
    quite a lot of time for negotiations.
        President Clinton. I agree with that. It doesn't have anything to do
    with the time left I have on my term. My advice would be--let me go back
    to 1993 when I became President. Our biggest problem was the domestic
    economy was not doing well, and we had a $290 billion deficit, and there
    was no easy way to close it. And we presented an economic plan to the
    Congress that passed by only one vote in both Houses. It was very
    controversial; it was very difficult, I think in that sense--
    politically, internally--was perhaps more controversial than making--
    than in Israel going forward with the peace process maybe now, given the
    vote in the last election.
        I think it's better, if you know you've got to do something without
    which you cannot succeed in serving your people in the long run, it's
    better to do it sooner rather than later, generally. That is generally
    true. And if it is going to be difficult and there are tough
    consequences, it's better to take them early rather than later. That is
    just a general rule. Because otherwise, if you don't do it, you may
    never get around to doing it, but it won't get any better. It will just
    get worse and worse and worse.
        So it's better to just take a deep breath and go on and do what you
    think has to be done. That's what I believe.
        Press Secretary Lockhart. Thank you.
        President Clinton. First--next question, I'll give you--next time we
    come, I'll give you the first one, after we do the roll. I've got to go.
    Thank you.
        President Mubarak. Thank you very much.
        President Clinton. Thank you.

    Note: The President's 177th news conference began at 1:47 p.m. in
    Presidential Hall (formerly Room 450) in the Old Executive Office
    Building. In his remarks, the President referred to Gov. George W. Bush
    of Texas; CNN senior White House correspondent Wolf Blitzer; President
    Saddam Hussein of Iraq; King Abdullah II of Jordan; outgoing Prime
    Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Prime Minister-elect Ehud Barak of
    Israel; and former Senator Bill Bradley. President Mubarak referred to
    President Hafiz al-Asad of Syria and Chairman Yasser Arafat of the
    Palestinian Authority.