    [Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 31, Number 21 (Monday, May 29, 1995)]
    [Pages 889-893]
    [Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    <R04>
    The President's News Conference

    May 23, 1995

        The President. Good afternoon, I want to speak with you today about
    legislation that Congress is considering which would place new
    restrictions on how America conducts its foreign policy and slash our
    budget in foreign affairs. I believe these bills threaten our ability to
    preserve America's global leadership and to safeguard the security and
    prosperity of the American people in the post-cold-war world. The world
    is still full of dangers but more full of opportunities, and the United
    States must be able to act aggressively to combat foreign threats and to
    make commitments and then to keep those commitments.
        These bills would deprive us of both those capabilities. Supporters
    of the bills call them necessary cost-cutting measures. But in reality,
    they are the most isolationist proposals to come before the United
    States Congress in the last 50 years. They are the product of those who
    argue passionately that America must be strong and then turn around and
    refuse to pay the price of that strength or to give the Presidency the
    means to assert that strength.
        The price of conducting our foreign policy is, after all, not very
    high. Today, it's slightly more than 1 percent of the budget. Let me say
    that again: slightly more than 1 percent of the budget. That's about
    one-fifteenth of what Americans think it is, according to the most
    recent surveys. And it's only one-fifth of what Americans believe would
    be about the right amount to spend.
        In other words, we don't spend 15 percent of the budget on foreign
    policy, or even 5 percent, but just a little over 1 percent. And that 1
    percent, which includes our contributions to the multilateral
    development banks, helps to dismantle nuclear weapons, saves lives by
    preventing famines, immunizing children, and combating terrorists and
    drug-traffickers. Bills in both the House and the Senate place new
    restrictions on our ability to meet these dangers as well as to take
    advantage of all the opportunities that are out there for the United
    States.
        For example, one bill, ``The American Overseas Interests Act'',
    which is being debated on the House floor just this week, would
    compromise our efforts to stop North Korea's nuclear program, impose
    conditions that could derail our support for democratic reform in
    Russia, and restrict the President's ability to prevent illegal
    immigration. The bill would also mandate an ill-conceived restructuring
    of agencies responsible for our foreign affairs.
        Taken together, these constraints represent nothing less than a
    frontal assault on the authority of the President to conduct the foreign
    policy of the United States and on our Nation's ability to respond
    rapidly and effectively to threats to our security.
        Repeatedly, I have said there are right ways and wrong ways to cut
    the deficit. This legislation is the wrong way. We did not win the cold
    war to walk away and blow the opportunities of the peace on
    shortsighted, scattershotted budget cuts and attempts to micromanage the
    United States foreign policy.
        That's why Secretaries Christopher, Perry, and Rubin and Ambassador
    Albright have recommended that I veto this bill being considered by the
    House this week. But it is not

    [[Page 890]]

    too late to reconsider. These are dangerous proposals. Our
    administration is ready to work with Congress, and I remain hopeful that
    the long tradition of bipartisanship in foreign affairs, which I have
    appreciated and been a part of, will continue throughout this session of
    Congress.
        I urge Congress to send me a bill that protects the fundamental
    interests of the American people, a bill that I can sign.

    Budget Proposals

        Q. Leon Panetta said that trying to balance the budget in 7 years
    would be nuts. Laura Tyson said it would be bad for the American
    economy. And over the weekend, you said it could be done and that after
    the Republicans propose and dispose of the budget they're dealing with
    now, you would offer your own plan to do so. Can you tell us why the
    disagreement within your administration, and what exactly you do intend
    to propose?
        The President. Well, it can be done, but it is not good policy to do
    it. Those things are not inconsistent. It is mathematically possible to
    do it, but having analyzed the alternatives for doing it, we believe
    that it cannot be done consistent with the interests of the American
    economy.
        Now--in other words, I believe that all Americans should be
    committed to bringing our budget into balance within a reasonable amount
    of time that we can determine. And I believe we should be committed to
    working together toward that end. But I do not believe it is good
    policy, based on my understanding of this budget, which is pretty good
    now, to do it in 7 years.
        Keep in mind--let's back up a minute. What is the fundamental
    problem with the American economy? Is it the deficit? I have worked hard
    to reduce the deficit. But what happened when we reduced the deficit--
    the Republicans now use 7-year terms, so let's talk about 7 years.
        In 1993, the deficit reduction plan we adopted reduced the deficit
    by $1 trillion over 7 years. And even though not a single one of them
    voted for it and never engaged us in any kind of cooperative effort,
    they obviously like building on it, and it makes it possible for them to
    argue that now the budget can be brought into balance.
        What did we get out of it? We got declining interest rates and a
    growing income for the economy, 6.3 million new jobs. What is the
    problem now with the American economy? The incomes of the American
    people are not going up in the global economy. If you reduce the deficit
    to zero, if you balance the budget in 7 years, with the evidence we now
    have, that would either require massive tax increases or massive budget
    cuts, which would be unfair to our long-term objective to stabilize the
    incomes and the way of living of the American people. If you ignore it,
    the same thing would happen. So that's the point that we made. I don't
    think the two things are inconsistent at all.
        Q. What are you going to do? What are you going to do, sir?
        The President. I'm going--well, for one thing, the Republicans have
    to resolve the differences between themselves. They have to produce a
    budget resolution. The President has no role in the budget resolution
    and cannot veto it; it's a guidance. Then the budget process will begin.
    That's the reconciliation process, and that process the President has a
    role in, because I have a veto. I have shown--if you look at the debate
    in the rescissions bill, you see that I have shown good faith. I will
    not do what they did 2 years ago. I will not walk away from this
    process.
        Look at the rescission bill. At the appropriate time, I sat down
    with the Republicans in the Senate, who made it clear that they wanted
    us to do that; we worked out an agreement for big spending cuts. Then,
    when it was changed behind closed doors, I offered an alternative budget
    in the rescission context--what I have done today. It was a responsible
    thing to do. I still want deficit reduction in the rescission bill. I
    still want to work with the Congress, and I will do so.
        And if you look at how I handle the rescission business, we put
    people first, we put investment first, but we reached agreement on how
    much we should cut, spending and rescissions. We can do the same thing
    here.
        Q. [Inaudible]--your own counterbudget and to get the budget into
    balance in less than 10 years. Could you share with us some ideas about
    how you would do that?
        The President. Well, we've already made clear--I've already made
    clear what my

    [[Page 891]]

    problems are and where we need to start. First of all, I told everybody,
    including the White House Conference on Aging, that we were going to
    have to make some changes. But let's deal with what I think the problems
    are.
        Both of the Republican budget proposals propose big cuts in Medicare
    outside the context of health care reform. When I presented my initial
    budget to the Congress, I said we can cut the deficit much more, but we
    have to do it in the context of health care reform. Otherwise, you're
    going to have a lot of hardship on elderly people and others.
        Secondly, the tax cut is way, way too big, and it is essentially
    paying for tax cuts to people who are not needy and who are doing well
    in this economy by cutting Medicare. Thirdly, the education cuts are too
    deep. And fourthly, the Senate proposal cuts--raise taxes on working
    Americans with children with incomes under $28,000 and lowers taxes on
    people with incomes over $200,000. That's the reverse of what we ought
    to be about. And finally, the 7-year period is an arbitrary period not
    dominated by an analysis of economic policy and what's good to raise
    incomes, but basically just a figure picked out of the air. So that's
    where I think we ought to begin.
        Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].

    Funding and Conduct of Foreign Affairs

        Q. Mr. President, are you going to veto the foreign affairs bill on
    the recommendation of your Cabinet if the changes you asked for are not
    made?
        The President. I can't conceive of permitting it to become law,
    because it is an assault on the ability of the President to protect the
    interests of the American people and to pursue the foreign policy of the
    country.
        And let me say that, again, I have worked with Congressman Gilman,
    with Chairman Gilman, for 2 years on many issues. I have worked with
    Republicans in both the House and the Senate. I have appreciated the
    support, even on controversial issues, given to me by the leadership of
    the House and the Senate when we were dealing with the very difficult
    issue of Mexico, for example.
        So I do not want to jumpstart what has been--an unusual partisan
    split over foreign affairs. But while I hope it doesn't happen any time
    soon, someday there'll be a Republican President here again. And this is
    about the Presidency. The Presidency cannot be hamstrung. We must allow
    the President to conduct the foreign policy of the United States in ways
    that make us safer, more secure, and more prosperous. This bill will
    undermine that objectives.
        And again, I'd say, the one good thing that could come out of this
    great debate is, every single survey shows that the American people
    think we're spending 15 to 20 percent of their tax money on foreign aid.
    When you ask them what the right amount would be, they say, ``Oh, about
    5 percent.'' What would be too little? ``Under 3 percent.'' But we're
    just spending a little more than one percent. We're spending about what
    the American people think--maybe they think we should spend more. We
    should not destroy the foreign aid budget.
        But, furthermore, we should not handcuff the President. That is not
    the way to conduct the foreign affairs of this country. You cannot
    micromanage foreign policy.
        Q. So is the answer, you will veto it?
        The President. If this bill passes in its present form, I will veto
    it, yes.

    Peace Process in Northern Ireland

        Q. Mr. President, the Irish Economic Conference is taking place here
    this week. I wonder if you could tell us if the tragedy, the terrible
    tragedy in Oklahoma City, has in any way altered your attitude toward
    the Sinn Fein party in Northern Ireland or towards Mr. Gerry Adams who
    has defended terrorist actions in Britain?
        The President. As long as he continues to renounce terrorism and as
    long as they continue on the progress that they--the path that they have
    set, including the willingness to talk about weapons decommissioning,
    then I think we're doing the right thing. We are supporting an end to
    terrorism and the beginning of peace and, I hope, more prosperity in
    Northern Ireland. That is consistent with our position here. And I think
    that's the right thing to do.

    [[Page 892]]

        We're supporting an end to the kind of agonies that the people in
    Northern Ireland and Great Britain generally have suffered in the last
    25 years and that the American people suffered most significantly in
    Oklahoma City but also at the World Trade Center.
        Q. If the Republicans don't make a move on the budget in the areas
    you've asked them to on Medicare in the context of health care reform
    and so on, will you still lay out a counterproposal that gets to
    balance?
        The President. Well, when we get into the--when we get into the
    reconciliation process--I don't believe in idle exercises. When we got
    into the--look what we did in the rescission bill. I was very specific
    in dealing with the rescission bill. First of all, I sat down and tried
    to have a good-faith negotiation at the first opportunity. The first
    opportunity I had to negotiate in good faith with the Republican
    majority in Congress was in the United States Senate, and we did it in
    good faith and in great detail. And we did it in the context of agreeing
    to meet a target of significant deficit reduction.
        Then, when the House and Senate went behind closed doors and put all
    that pork in the bill and took the education out of it and took the
    investments in environmental protection out of it, I said we had to make
    some changes, and I offered a specific alternative in the context of a
    decisionmaking process where I could have an impact. That is the
    procedure I will follow in dealing with the larger budget.
        If you look at the rescission bill, you will see the way I am
    prepared to go forward. I will bargain and negotiate and deal in good
    faith, because I believe in deficit reduction. I believe in a balanced
    budget. But I also know we've got to invest in the people of this
    country if we're going to raise their incomes.

    Bosnia

        Q. You spoke earlier about keeping foreign commitments and why you
    thought that was important. Two years ago in this room, Secretary of
    State Warren Christopher said, the clock is ticking on Serb aggression.
    The blockade of Sarajevo has been tightened, the snipers are back at
    work. Apparently you're the only person in the world who can stop this.
    Are you prepared to do more?
        The President. Well, I do not--let me just say this: From the
    beginning of my campaign for President, I said that the one thing I did
    not think we should do is to send American troops into combat into
    Bosnia, nor did I believe we could be part of a United Nations mission
    in Bosnia with the kind of conditions on involvement that have been
    imposed on the UNPROFOR forces. I do not apologize for that. I think I
    was right then. I think that has still been the right case, right
    decision.
        Every effort to be more aggressive in promoting peace and fighting
    aggression in Bosnia that has been made in the last 2 years has been
    made at the initiative of the United States. I thought for sure after
    the events of a few days ago, once again NATO airpower would be called
    into action. And I strongly supported it, and I was very surprised after
    the commanders on the ground asked for it that the United Nations
    stopped it.
        But I believe that we are doing, at the moment, all we can do. We do
    not want to collapse the U.N. mission. And I believe the United Nations
    made a mistake in not calling NATO airpower in when the commanders asked
    for it. We are still doing the airlift there, now the biggest one in the
    history of the United States, the biggest one in world history. And we
    are prepared to do more. But I do not believe the United States has any
    business sending ground troops there. Yes?
        Q. Mr. President, there were talks over the weekend between American
    industry and Saudi officials to try to expedite the transaction you
    brokered for Saudi Arabia to buy Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas commercial
    transports. Do you know what the outcome of those talks were? And do you
    know if there's going to be further delay in consummating the
    transaction, or is there a fixed date to close on it?
        The President. I'm sorry, I do not know. I have done what I could to
    make sure that the contract stayed on track, but I do not know.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 96th news conference began at 2:24 p.m. in the
    Rose Garden at the White House.

    [[Page 893]]