[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 32, Number 21 (Monday, May 27, 1996)]
[Pages 929-936]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference With Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany 
in Milwaukee, Wisconsin

May 23, 1996

    President Clinton. Good afternoon. It's indeed a pleasure for me to 
welcome Chancellor Kohl back to the United States. He's now in his 14th 
year in office, the longest serving leader in the West. And not only 
Germany and the European Union but all of the West has been well served 
by his leadership, his devotion to freedom and to free markets.
    He's a friend to whom three American Presidents have turned for 
support and wise counsel. And I am especially grateful for the 
relationship that we have enjoyed and the counsel he has shared with me. 
During his tenure, the relationship between our two nations has grown 
stronger and deeper than ever, and it has become a powerful force for 
positive change.
    As Chancellor, Helmut Kohl has visited Washington 23 times. He knows 
the shortcuts through the traffic better than most of us who have come 
here more recently. We thought it was high time that the Chancellor saw 
another part of our great country. What better place than Milwaukee, a 
city that German immigrants helped to build, a city so rich in German 
heritage and culture that in the 19th century it was called the Deutsche 
Athens, the German Athens. It is also fitting that as Chancellor, as he 
approaches the mark for the longest tenure of all those who have held 
his office, he is visiting a city that his great predecessor, Chancellor 
Konrad Adenauer, came to 40 years ago.
    Today the partnership between our two nations has taken another 
important step forward. The two aviation agreements we just signed will 
strengthen our cooperation in this vital economic sector. The safety 
agreement will help us to clear the way to better, safer air traffic. 
The open skies agreement will create the largest fully opened bilateral 
market in the entire world of aviation, dramatically increasing 
opportunities for consumers and flexibility for our airlines. The 
Chancellor and I believe this agreement heralds a new era of competition 
in the over-regulated aviation markets of Europe.
    But these agreements are just one example of the work we're doing 
together to increase growth and prosperity for our people. As the 
world's two greatest exporting nations, Germany and the United States 
have a vital interest and are, together, playing a vital role in 
bringing down trade barriers and building the international marketplace 
of the 21st century. We helped to complete the Uruguay round, the most 
ambitious trade agreement of all time, which has already boosted the 
greatest export surge in our country's history. Our cooperation in the 
G-7 has helped the global economy to keep moving forward for the benefit 
of people all around the world.
    Today I also salute the Chancellor for his bold budget and reform 
program. Strengthening Germany's finances and its capacity to grow and 
generate jobs will not only benefit the German people but also its many 
trading partners. Our economic cooperate is also making a difference in 
the daily lives of our citizens, but it has succeeded only because it 
has been backed by our security partnership as well, especially our 
security partnership in NATO, which has provided vital safe- 

[[Page 930]]

ty and stability for our nations for nearly 50 years.
    Today we reviewed the process of NATO's enlargement. We reaffirmed 
that it is proceeding in a predictable and clear and deliberate way. 
Much as it did after World War II in Western Europe, NATO can provide an 
important shelter for the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe 
that share our values and are ready to bear the responsibilities of 
allies.
    The success of the partnership of NATO in the IFOR mission in Bosnia 
demonstrates how the Alliance is adapting to the needs of our time. I 
especially want to thank the Chancellor for the truly historic decision 
to deploy 4,000 German troops to support the Bosnia peace agreement. 
Germany is shouldering its security responsibilities in the post-cold-
war world, and we are all grateful for that.
    As NATO grows, it must also develop a strong and positive 
relationship with Russia. The seeds for that partnership have already 
been sown in the partnership of Russian troops alongside our NATO units 
in Bosnia, where they have served together and served well, and in the 
Partnership For Peace exercises involving Russian and American troops 
here in the United States.
    This is a moment of extraordinary opportunity. Not since the 
emergence of the modern nation state have the prospects been so great 
for a free and undivided Europe, a cause so many Americans gave their 
lives for in this century. We will do all we can to see that this vision 
for Europe is realized. But no one--no one--has done more to make that 
vision real than Helmut Kohl. For that, the friends of freedom 
throughout the world are in his great debt.
    Mr. Chancellor, welcome again to the United States, and the floor is 
yours.
    Chancellor Kohl. Mr. President, dear Bill, ladies and gentlemen: 
Allow me to thank you, first of all, for this very warm reception. I 
would like to thank the Governor. I would like to thank the citizens of 
this city who in the streets welcomed us so warmly. And it has already 
been said that this is our first meeting outside of Washington.
    And let me say that I immediately accepted the invitation to come to 
Milwaukee because this is, after all, a region that, as regards the 
history of the United States and the history of this State of Wisconsin, 
was in many ways one where German immigrants left their imprint. And I 
think it's a very good opportunity to be able to address the citizens of 
this State and of this region and to document once again how close the 
German-American relations have developed over the years. And let me say 
that I'm very, very pleased, and it warms my heart to be here.
    The many talks that we've had this morning we will continue later on 
during the day and also later in the afternoon when we fly together to 
Washington. They document how close and intensive our relationship has 
developed. I think there are only few examples that I would be able to 
mention where politicians of countries meet so often, so regularly, 
where they exchange letters and phone calls, and where their staff 
members cooperate in such a close and coordinated way. And obviously, we 
also have a very close, personal rapport. As has always been the case 
when we met, we covered a lot of ground. We discussed many issues, and 
we shall continue to do so.
    We signed just now the protocol amending the aviation agreement 
between the United States of America and the Federal Republic of 
Germany. I think that this is a very important step for the future, in 
order to be able to improve the liberalization of air traffic. And this 
opens up, after all, access of German airlines to all American airports, 
and the same goes for American airlines in Germany.
    This is a milestone, indeed, in the relationship between our two 
countries, and you mentioned this, Mr. President. And what is also 
obviously very important for us and what we think constitutes a very 
important step forward as regards aviation safety is the conclusion of 
the relevant agreement that was signed today, as well. After all, we've 
seen a history of air crashes just recently, and these are instances 
where we as leaders ask ourselves, have we really done enough in order 
to make accidents like that impossible?
    Now, this also underscores that we have a common position as regards 
free world trade. We think that goods and services should move freely 
between the countries of the world.

[[Page 931]]

    Let me just, by way of a brief introductory statement, make a few 
remarks on NATO. I think we should have time for questions, so I'll keep 
my remarks short.
    Also, in view of what the President said of the former Yugoslavia, 
we, all of us, wish that what was agreed upon for this year will come 
true. We hope that--in the discussion going on on the international 
scene that people assume right from the start that this will be a 
failure--I think we should, all of us, try everything in order to make 
this come true, to make the agreements that were reached become reality.
    From a German point of view, we as Germans continue to be interested 
in NATO fulfilling its role and being able to fulfill its role in this 
changed world after the collapse of communism, of the Communist empire. 
We think NATO does have a role to play in order to secure peace and 
freedom for the peoples of the world. And I think that we should do 
everything--we should use prudence and farsightedness and wisdom, and to 
bear in mind also the changes in the world of today, and that we should 
pursue a course that bears these changes in mind and addresses them.
    Now, first steps have been taken as regards NATO in Paris. I think 
that this is a very positive development. I think in the days and months 
ahead, also as regards to security cooperation in Europe and generally 
speaking in the world, we will hold necessary talks with Russia and the 
Ukraine.
    So, in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen, I'm looking forward to my 
talks with Bill Clinton that will go on during the course of today. I 
should like to thank all of you for the very warm reception that I have 
been given.
    President Clinton. Paul [Paul Basken, United Press International].

Legislative Agenda and the 1996 Election

    Q. Mr. President, in recent days and weeks you've been asked about 
your support for a series of larger Republican initiatives that have 
seemed at odds or were criticized at being at odds with your previous 
positions, such as the gas tax despite your strong environmental 
quality; such as the Helms-Burton bill, despite concerns expressed 
within your administration; such as the Wisconsin welfare plan, despite 
concerns it might actually hurt children. Is this basically election-
year positioning, or is this something more fundamental?
    President Clinton. Well, first of all, I dispute the way you 
characterized it. On the gas tax, what I said was that I far preferred 
that we spend our limited money in this budget to give tax relief to 
people for childrearing and for education but that if the Congress would 
pass a clean minimum wage that was tied to the gas tax, I would sign 
that. And I reiterated that.
    What we have done to try to bring the price of gasoline down will be 
more effective in the modest release from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, and frankly, time will take care of this. We had a spike in the 
gas tax partly caused by the fact that we had a very tough winter and a 
lot of oil supplies were refined for home heating oil instead of 
gasoline.
    Now, that's what I said on the gas tax. I reiterate that. I will do 
that; I will sign it if they will pass it with a clean minimum wage, and 
that's the price of getting the minimum wage increase in a clean way. 
But there are far better ways to get tax relief to the American people.
    On the Helms-Burton bill, I would remind you that the defense of 
freedom in Cuba is not a Republican issue. I came out for the Cuba 
Democracy Act before President Bush did in 1992. And I made it clear 
that we had some concerns about Helms-Burton, many of which were 
answered in the legislation, which gave me some flexibility there. And 
there was a big intervening event which gave us a clear signal about 
whether things had changed in Cuba or not. Two planes with American 
citizens on it were shot out of the sky in international waters. That 
didn't have anything to do with the election.
    And finally, on the welfare issue, I don't see how any member of the 
American press corps could say that welfare reform is a Republican 
issue. Now, let me just give you a few facts here.
    In 1980, when I was Governor of Arkansas--1980--I asked for and was 
granted permission to be one of the first States in the first Federal 
welfare reform experiment in the modern era. I helped to develop the 
Governors' position in the mid-eighties and

[[Page 932]]

helped to write the Family Support Act of 1988. Let's come to the 
present day. I have granted 61 approvals for State welfare reform 
experiments. President Bush granted 11; President Reagan granted 13.
    Three-quarters of the American people on welfare are now under 
welfare reform experiments. We have moved to stiffen child support 
enforcement. The results have been pretty impressive. The welfare roles 
are down by 1.3 million; child support enforcement collections are up by 
40 percent. I don't believe welfare reform is a partisan issue. It's 
certainly not out there in the country.
    If you look at the 21 States where the welfare caseload has gone 
down--or the 13 States, or how many--I think there are 13 where--there 
are 21 States where the welfare caseload has gone down by 18 percent or 
more--13 are governed by Republicans, 8 by Democrats, almost the exact 
ratio in the Governors Association as a whole. The State with the 
biggest drop in welfare caseload is Indiana, which has a Democratic 
Governor. This is not a partisan issue.
    Now, the Republicans passed a bill that I vetoed. Does that mean 
they're for welfare reform and I'm not? No. Look at the Wisconsin plan--
you mentioned the Wisconsin plan. The Wisconsin plan does three things 
that I think are very important. First of all, it says you got to work 
immediately, but we'll give you a job and we can use welfare money to 
subsidize private-sector jobs or to create community service jobs. I 
asked every Governor in the country to do just that when I spoke at the 
Governors' Conference in Vermont quite a long while ago.
    Secondly, it says, if you go to work, we won't ask you to hurt your 
children; we'll give you child care and health care. Now, it seems to me 
that those are elements that we all ought to be for. Now that is not 
what was in the Republican welfare reform bill. It was tough on kids and 
easy on work, and that's why I vetoed it.
    All this election-year rhetoric and posturing and gnashing of teeth, 
if you look beneath the rhetoric, the Republicans are moving toward the 
position I have advocated all along. And I'm encouraged by that. In the 
country this is not a partisan issue. This does not have to be a 
partisan issue in Washington.
    When Senator Dole was here Tuesday, he said some things which it 
seemed to me were very consistent with what I have said I would be glad 
to support. He said that he wanted a welfare plan that had tough work 
requirements, that had a 5-year lifetime benefit, that had no welfare 
benefits to illegal immigrants except in extreme circumstances, that had 
tough child support enforcement, more responsibility for teen mothers, 
and greater flexibility for States to reform welfare on their own. They 
could require drug testing, or as Texas does, they could require 
immunization.
    Now, I am for all of that. Yesterday the House Republicans 
introduced a new plan that abandoned most of their extreme proposals. 
And these proposals--both some of what Senator Dole said and the House 
plan seem much closer to the bipartisan bills that are in the Senate and 
the House--the Castle-Tanner bill, the Breaux-Chafee bill that I have 
supported.
    So here's what I'd like to say about it. If we can rely on the 
common sense of America about this, we ought to still pass Federal 
legislation. Even though three-quarters of the American people who are 
on welfare are under welfare reform, not all of them are. Even though 
the scholar for the American Enterprise Institute says in this week's 
edition of Business Week that I can justifiably claim to end welfare as 
we know it--that's what he said--the truth is, we still need 
legislation.
    So what I say is, this is Senator Dole's plan; I think what he ought 
to do is to pass this plan through the Congress before he leaves the 
Senate on June 11th, and I will sign it. And we will put this behind us. 
My attitude is, let her rip. If this is the plan, let's don't pollute it 
with a lot of poison pills. Pass this plan through the Congress before 
you retire on June 11th, and I will sign it. And it will be good for the 
country.
    Chancellor.

Sanctions on Trade With Terrorist Nations

    Q. Mr. President, could you comment on the legislature put forward 
to sanction European companies trading with Iran or Libya, and how did 
the Chancellor react on that?

[[Page 933]]

And do you see on that case any link, probably just morally, with the 
U.S. secretly allowing weapons being shipped into Bosnia by Iran?
    President Clinton. First of all, there is no linkage. Our Congress 
passed a bill at one point prohibiting us from enforcing the arms 
embargo against Bosnia. And if you go back and look at the facts, what 
enabled the peace to be made in Bosnia? What made the Dayton Agreement 
possible?
    I would argue that there were two things: one, NATO's willingness to 
attack through the air, the aggression; the second, the Muslims and the 
Croats and their Federation began to win military victories on the 
ground.
    The arms embargo had a one-sided effect. We did not violate it. 
There's a difference in not violating it and being mandated to enforce 
it. So the two things have no connection.
    Now, this legislation that is working its way through the Congress 
has some provisions with flexibility in it that enables the President to 
take into account the national interests of the country in implementing 
it. But I have to tell you, we believe that there are a few countries in 
the world that all attempts to reason with have failed. And that's why 
this legislation is moving its way through the Congress. We will do 
everything we can to implement it in a way that is sensitive to the 
partnerships we have with our friends and the honest disagreements that 
we have.
    I believe that Chancellor Kohl is as good a friend of freedom and as 
strong an enemy of terrorism as any democratic country has anywhere in 
the world. I believe that. And we had a discussion about it today. We 
are working on a number of things, and I think that's, at this moment, 
all I should say about it.

Same-Sex Marriages

    Q. Mr. President, yesterday your Press Secretary said that you would 
sign a bill banning recognition of same-sex marriages. What do you say 
to those who feel that this discriminates against gays and lesbians? And 
how do you respond to the many gays who supported you who now feel 
betrayed?
    President Clinton. Well, first of all, as I understand it, what the 
bill does--let's make it clear. As I understand it, what the bill does 
is to state that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, 
that among other things, is used to bring children into the world. But 
the legal effect of the bill--as I understand it, the only legal effect 
of the bill is to make it clear that States can deny recognition of gay 
marriages that occurred in other States. And if that's all it does, then 
I will sign it.
    Now, having said that, I do not favor discrimination against people 
because they're homosexual. And you asked me what I would say to gay 
Americans who may disagree with me about this issue, I'd say, ``Look at 
my record. Name me another President who has been so pilloried for 
standing up for the fact that we shouldn't discriminate against any 
group of Americans, including gay Americans, who are willing to work 
hard, pay their taxes, obey the law, and be good citizens.''
    And let me just say, even though--I will sign this bill if that's 
what it does, and that's what I understand it does. This is hardly a 
problem that is sweeping the country. No State has legalized gay 
marriages. Only one State is considering it. We all know why this is in 
Washington now--it's one more attempt to divert the American people from 
the urgent need to confront our challenges together. That's really 
what's going on here. And I'm determined--this has always been my 
position on gay marriage. It was my position in '92. I told everybody 
who asked me about it, straight or gay, what my position was. I can't 
change my position on that; I have no intention of it.
    But I am going to do everything I can to stop this election from 
degenerating into an attempt to pit one group of Americans against 
another. Every time we do that the American people make a mistake. We 
are a better country than that. We're a greater country than that. And 
we ought not to do it, and I'm going to do what I can to stop it.
    Who else is there? Chancellor, do you want to call on somebody?

Russian Elections

    Q. I'd like to bring your guest, the Chancellor, into this 
discussion here and ask the two of you to give us some insight in how

[[Page 934]]

we should feel about what's going on in the Soviet Union. We have talked 
a lot about issues in our elections here. They have elections coming up 
there. They're very close to you, sir. How do you feel about that? How 
should we think about what is going to happen there? And what backing 
are you giving whom in that election?
    Chancellor Kohl. Well, obviously, no one here is in a position to 
give any sort of safe, ironcast predictions as to what is going to 
happen. And I must say, I'm always a bit hesitant in such turbulent 
times--and I think if there ever were turbulent times in Russia, that is 
certainly going on now--I'm always hesitant in such times to rely on 
polls that try to make an attempt to clarify a little bit that sort of 
situation.
    Well, the Russian people will now decide in two rounds of elections. 
My position is a very clear one. I support those political forces that 
pursue reform, that wish to open up Russia to the rest of the world, and 
that consider that to be a basic tenet of their policy. And I would 
support those who are pursuing a policy to build bridges, build bridges 
after all of the horrors that we have experienced, bridges to Europe but 
also to the United States of America and to the people of America.
    And I think one simply will have to wait for the outcome of this 
election. I'm not one of those who reveres either of the candidates or 
any of the candidates as a sort of icon. I observe closely what is going 
on there, and I do hope--the outcome of that is I do hope that the 
present President will win the election.
    Q. [Inaudible].
    President Clinton. I would ask the American people and the German 
people to imagine how the world looks to the Russians. And I understand 
this has been a difficult period for them. They have freedom in a way 
they have never had it before. Their voice is controlling now in these 
elections, as it has been now in Duma elections and in one Presidential 
election already. But they have been through a traumatic experience, 
which has cost them great economic hardship. They have withdrawn their 
forces from Central and Eastern Europe, from the Baltics. They have 
downsized their defense dramatically.
    So they are in the process of doing two things. They are in the 
process of stabilizing their democracy and regenerating their economy at 
home but also in redefining how they should relate to the rest of the 
world. And keep in mind, this is a country that not only has been 
through economic hardships but has also suffered in the 19th and 20th 
century two very traumatic invasions.
    So the appeal of people who say, we can make it the way it used to 
be--even though I'm kind of with Will Rogers--do you remember what Will 
Rogers said about the good old days? ``Don't tell me about them. They 
never was.'' But still there is that nostalgic appeal, and that's what's 
making this a tough, tight election in Russia.
    The Chancellor and I have admired the way that President Yelsin has 
continued to press forward to the future--and not always agreeing with 
us--trying to define a new system of greatness for the Russian people, 
as well as trying to solidify democracy and bring back economic 
prosperity. And he and the other forces of reform in Russia, it seems to 
me, represent the future, and we hope the Russian people will vote for 
the future.
    Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News].

Partial Birth Abortion

    Q. Mr. President, thank you. I want to give you an opportunity to 
respond to Senator Dole. The Senator in a speech today accused your 
administration of being ``without direction or moral vision,'' citing 
specifically your veto of the partial birth abortion ban which he said, 
quote, ``pushed the limits of decency too far.'' Would you respond to 
that, sir? Thank you.
    President Clinton. What would Senator Dole say to those five women 
who stood up there with me? They're five women of several hundred women 
every year who are told by their doctors that their babies, severely 
hydrocephalic, often without functioning brains, sometimes without even 
a brain in their skull, are going to die right before they're born or 
during birth or right afterward, and that the only way those women can 
avoid serious physical damage, including losing the ability to ever bear 
further children is to reduce the size of the skull, the head of the 
baby before it's too late?

[[Page 935]]

    What would he say to the fact that at least two of those five women 
who were with me made it clear that they were pro-life, Catholic 
Republicans? That one of those women said she got down on her knees and 
prayed to God to take her life and let her child live? I am always a 
little skeptical when politicians piously proclaim their morality. He 
has to answer to those women.
    All I asked the Republicans in Congress to do was to pass an 
exception for women who would face severe physical damage. And their 
answer was, ``Oh, you want to give them exceptions so they can fit in 
their prom dress.'' That was the answer. Ads were run saying, ``This is 
what the President wants. They'll be able to drive a truck through this 
exception.''
    Well, I know that those 500 or 1,000 women or however many there are 
a year--they're not many of them--they don't have an organized voice, 
and they don't have much influence at the election. And I know what 
appeal this partial birth abortion bill had because it appeals to me; I 
wanted to sign it. But the President is the only place in this system of 
ours where there is one person who can stand up for people with no 
voice, no power, who are going to be eviscerated.
    And two of those five women had already had other children. One of 
those women had adopted another child and was physically able to take 
care of it. So before he or anybody else stands up and condemns the rest 
of us for our alleged lack of moral compass, he ought to say--he's 
looking at those women, and he said there was too much political support 
behind this; I did not want to be bothered by the facts; it's okay with 
me whatever--if they rip your body to shreds and you could never have 
another baby even though the baby you were carrying couldn't live. Now, 
I fail to see why his moral position is superior to the one I took.
    And again, I'm telling you, why did this come up now in this way? 
Why wouldn't they accept that minor amendment? Why? Because they would 
rather have an issue than solve a problem. Some people live and breathe 
to divide the American people and keep them in a turmoil all the time. I 
work to calm the American people down, to lift their vision, to unite 
them, and to move them into the future. And I think when it's all said 
and done, that's what the American people will want to do.

Bosnian Peace Process

    Q. Mr. President, Mr. Chancellor, what about a followup to IFOR, and 
will there be an American participation for a certain IFOR II next year? 
Thank you.
    President Clinton.  First of all, I think it's important that we 
stay on the timetable that has been established. One of the worst things 
that would happen is if we said that we were going to have an indefinite 
military presence there as it would slow down all the other efforts. It 
would slow down the effort to hold the elections on time. It would slow 
down the efforts to strengthen the Federation. It would slow down the 
reconstruction efforts and the efforts to create in Bosnia the 
conditions in which the refugees can return from Germany and other 
places.
    And by the way, I want to thank the Chancellor and thank the German 
people for the extraordinary financial sacrifice they have undertaken in 
order to provide a decent home for those refugees who were driven out of 
Bosnia.
    So, for me, it's important to stay on the timetable because, 
otherwise, the people involved in economic reconstruction or political 
reform and all the other aspects of the Dayton Agreement will, I think, 
inevitably, be more likely to get off track. Now, we're going to watch 
this very closely and see the developments unfold. But I am convinced 
that we have to continue to try to work within this timetable.
    One of the great tragedies of this whole endeavor, as you know, from 
the American point of view was the crash of the airplane carrying 
Secretary Ron Brown and many American business leaders. We're 
reestablishing that trade mission now. We're going to go back to Bosnia. 
We're going to try to get some things going there sooner rather than 
later. And I think that ought to be the feeling that we all have. We 
should be driven by a sense of urgency to complete the tasks of the 
Dayton Agreement.
    Chancellor, would you like answer?
    Chancellor Kohl. I would like to say very clearly at this point in 
time that I completely

[[Page 936]]

agree with President Clinton's position. I think it would be a very 
grave mistake, and it's something that you can see sometimes on the 
international scene, that people don't speak enough about what is 
necessary now, what has to be done now. People think too much about what 
we should do once the year is over and expectations have not been 
fulfilled.
    But this is a very critical kind of challenge, a very crucial kind 
of challenge is obvious to all of us. And that we have to do everything 
in order to attain this goal that we have set for ourselves is equally 
clear. I think whoever thinks that problems will become smaller when we 
extend the time frame is under an illusion. We have assumed 
responsibility now. We have devolved this responsibility on the people 
there. Just think of the elections. And I think we to do everything in 
order to maintain pressure by the international community and to make it 
very clear to all of those in the country itself who want to shed the 
responsibility that we shall not allow this.
    Let me at this point take up what the President said on the German 
contribution, and let me thank him for what he said on this. Ladies and 
gentlemen, I'm not complaining about the money that we have earmarked 
for this purpose, but in Germany right now we have 350,000 refugees from 
that civil war in former Yugoslavia, which is more than double the 
number that any other European country has absorbed. And the German 
taxpayer has paid about 10 billion Deutsche mark over these few years in 
order to assist those refugees.
    Now, I'm not talking about us wanting to have this money back, not 
at all. I only think it doesn't really make sense that this money that 
we have to spend for caring for these refugees should be spent in 
Germany. We should take it, I think, and use it in those villages and 
towns that have been deserted by the refugees, these villages and towns 
that are partly destroyed. And I think we should use this money in order 
to give them--to allow them to buy materials for construction, timber, 
bricks, cement, and give some of it also for free, so as to enable 
people to rebuild their home.
    I must say I see it with great concern, every year, that these 
refugees are not able to return to their home. There is a certain degree 
of uprootedness that is spreading, particularly among the children of 
those refugees. And those people who, after all, have launched this 
terrible war and this terrible campaign and have waged a war of ethnic 
cleansing, that they should be proved right, that their achievements 
should, so to speak, come true in the end, that is an intolerable 
thought for me. And this is why I support the President and others in us 
trying to keep within the timetable and trying to achieve what we wanted 
to.
    President Clinton. Thank you all very much.

Note: The President's 122nd news conference began at 11:45 a.m. at the 
City Hall. Chancellor Kohl spoke in German, and his remarks were 
translated by an interpreter.