[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]]