[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 32, Number 46 (Monday, November 18, 1996)]
[Pages 2359-2373]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference

November 8, 1996

Chief of Staff Transition

    The President. Good afternoon. Please be seated. Before I begin I'd 
like to ask the Vice President and Leon Panetta and Erskine Bowles to 
join me up here. In no particular order. [Laughter]
    Let me begin by once again thanking the American people for the 
honor they have bestowed upon me and the responsibility they have once 
again placed in my hands. I will work hard over the next 4 years to 
uphold their trust, to protect our shared values, and to meet our common 
challenges.
    To do that, I want our administration to be able to serve the 
American people as well in the next 4 years as we have in the past 4. I 
must, therefore, begin by announcing that Leon Panetta, who has been my 
Chief of Staff since 1994, will be resigning to return to California.
    I understand why he wants to return home, after so many long years 
and long hours, but that doesn't make it any easier for me to see him 
go. No one in recent memory has better served the administration--any 
administration--or the American people than Leon Panetta in what is 
perhaps the most difficult of all the jobs in public service in 
Washington today.
    As a civil rights official, a distinguished Member of Congress, an 
OMB Director, Leon Panetta brought his sharp mind and his huge heart to 
bear on every task he ever undertook. He became my Chief of Staff at a 
difficult time. He leaves with a remarkable record: deep reduction in 
the deficit, millions of new jobs, a strong defense of programs for 
those in need, including food stamps. All these bear Leon's stamp.
    Just as important as the work he did was the way he did it. He saw 
our White House staff as a family. They returned his devotion. His easy 
laugh and his level head kept our priorities straight and our spirits 
up.
    He and I have often had the opportunity to wonder at the miracle of 
America that took us this far. He is a child of immigrants who came to 
this country in search of a better life and found it in the walnut 
groves of California. He has become my great friend, more than my 
countryman, more than my fellow Democrat, more even than my fellow 
worker. In the language of his people, he is my paisan. [Laughter] And I 
love him very much.
    To Sylvia, Christopher, Carmelo, Jim, Elizabeth, Christina, and the 
grandchildren, Michael and Elizabeth, I know how proud he is of you, and 
you must be very proud of him.
    To succeed Leon Panetta, I wanted someone of stature, intellect, 
dedication, drive, and the capacity to do this virtually impossible job, 
both a manager and a leader. I'm proud to announce that I am naming 
Erskine Bowles as the next White House Chief of Staff. He's combined 
brilliant business success and dedicated public service. As an 
investment banker, he recognized that our successes come not just from 
our big firms but from small and medium-size ones--entrepreneurs with 
energy and ideas he worked hard to give the opportunity to start new 
businesses and to expand the ones they were running.
    When I became President, I wanted to transform the Small Business 
Administration from a political backwater to an engine of economic 
growth. Erskine Bowles did it beyond my wildest expectations. He 
revitalized the SBA. He doubled the loan volume. He dramatically 
increased loans to women and minority business owners, even as he cut 
paperwork and trimmed bureaucracy.
    I then asked him to serve as the Deputy Chief of Staff. He was one 
of those most responsible for bringing focus and direction to our 
efforts. Quietly, behind the scenes, he

[[Page 2360]]

led our effort to educate the public on what was at stake in last year's 
budget fight. Through it all, he became my close friend and trusted 
adviser. He returned to North Carolina last year to be with his family, 
to start a new business, and continue his work for the Juvenile Diabetes 
Foundation, which he had previously served as president.
    I know how much Erskine Bowles loves private life. I know that I 
have asked from him a real sacrifice, and not only from him but also 
from his wife, Crandall, and his children, Sam, Anne, and Bill. But his 
country needs him, and I need him. I have absolute faith in his ability 
to do this job. He will bring discipline, focus, and deep values to the 
work. He will help us finish the job the American people sent us here to 
do. In a sense, this is a homecoming for him, for Erskine is a part of 
our family here, and I'm happy to have him back.
    As Leon will tell you, I expect a lot of the Chief of Staff. I kept 
Leon Panetta up until 6 o'clock in the morning election morning playing 
hearts. [Laughter] Yes, Erskine Bowles can play hearts. [Laughter] He 
also plays golf, but he plays golf better than he plays hearts; I prefer 
to focus on his hearts playing. [Laughter]
    It has become more apparent than ever that our country is moving 
forward with confidence and vigor toward the 21st century. It has become 
more apparent than ever since the election that the American people want 
us to fulfill our responsibilities as Democrats, Republicans, and 
independents second and Americans first, to set aside our differences 
and join hands to make the most of this moment of possibility.
    That's how we achieved so much at the end of the past Congress. Just 
think of what happened: historic welfare reform, a minimum wage 
increase, dramatic expansion of pension opportunities for people in 
small businesses, the adoption tax credit, the extension of the Brady 
bill to cover incidences of domestic violence, the Kennedy-Kassebaum 
health care reform bill that lets people keep their health insurance as 
they change jobs or when someone in the family has been sick, an end to 
the drive-by pregnancies and deliveries where people are kicked out of 
the hospital after only 24 hours, help for families with mental health 
needs, and assistance to Vietnam veterans' children with spina bifida. 
All this happened and shows you what we can do if we work together to 
give our people the tools they need to make the most of their own lives.
    It's a good sign for America that all parties now say they want to 
reach common ground. And I want us to forge a partnership to produce 
results for the American people. On Tuesday our people voted for the 
ideas of the vital American center. Now let us make that vital center 
the place for the vigorous actions to move us into the 21st century.
    We should begin with our most pressing challenges: balancing the 
budget, giving our children the world's best education, opening wide the 
doors of college to everyone willing to work for them, finishing the job 
of welfare reform, passing real campaign finance reform.
    Nothing is more fundamental than balancing the budget. Our progress 
has already produced lower interest rates, steady growth, expanded 
homeownership. Now we must keep our economy going steady and strong by 
finishing the job of balancing the budget in a way that truly reflects 
our values. I am inviting the bipartisan leadership of Congress to meet 
with me next week here at the White House to discuss how we can develop 
a plan together to pass a balanced budget and to keep our economy going. 
I've asked Leon Panetta and OMB Director Frank Raines to coordinate this 
effort.
    I want these negotiations to cover a broad range of issues involved 
in balancing the budget, including strengthening the Medicare Trust 
Fund, cuts in spending, and a tax cut. I believe our highest priority 
must be education, especially college opportunities. As I told the 
American people, we should make the 13th and 14th years of education as 
universal as a high school diploma is today. So I will work to see to it 
that this balanced budget includes the education tax cuts I outlined 
during the campaign, which had very broad and overwhelming support among 
the American people.
    I will also discuss with the congressional leadership how we can 
enact bipartisan campaign finance reform as soon as possible. We clearly 
have a unique moment of opportunity

[[Page 2361]]

now, when the public and you in the press are focused on this issue. Now 
is the time to seize it, before the moment fades. The American people 
will be watching to see whether our deeds match our words.
    The lesson of our history is clear: When we put aside partisanship, 
embrace the best ideas regardless of where they come from, and work for 
principled compromise, we can move America not left or right but 
forward. That is what I am determined to do.
    Now, I want to take your questions, but first I'd like to give Mr. 
Panetta and Mr. Bowles a chance to just say a few words.

[At this point, Leon Panetta and Erskine Bowles made brief remarks and 
left the podium.]

    The President. Thank you. This is an inauspicious beginning; you're 
leaving me in my hour of need. [Laughter]
    Go ahead. Sorry.

Trust and Campaign Finance Reform

    Q. The election is over; you do have the support of the American 
people for a second term. But some questions remain. One of them is, how 
do you explain the obsession with fundraising, especially from dubious 
Asian sources, and how do you overcome the image created by your 
opponent that you are a President who cannot be trusted?
    The President. Let me answer the second question first. I think the 
American people, since they've been hearing this for 5 years, took a 
long, hard look at it, and they measured that against what they saw in 
terms of the work of this administration, in terms of the people who 
were laboring hard to make their lives better, and in terms of the 
President. And I think they made their judgment that I have worked hard 
for them, I will keep working hard for them, and that that is my 
motivation for being here. And I think that they gave me their trust, 
and I'm going to do my best to be worthy of it.
    Now, with regard to the contribution issue, the Democratic Party and 
the Republican Party raised a lot of money under the rules which now 
exist. The Democratic Party received over a million different 
contributions in 2 years. They determined two things. One is that a 
relatively small number of them--I think--I don't know exactly what the 
number is but quite a small number out of a million--they should not 
have taken, and they have returned them. They also--the Democratic Party 
said that they thought they should have a tighter screen on 
contributions when they come in, and they've implemented improvements so 
that they won't receive contributions they shouldn't if they can 
determine it at all. I think that's a good thing.
    I think the Republican Party should have the same rules. But the 
real thing that I would say here is--I'd like to make two other points. 
First, and far and away the most important point, is that this has shown 
us once again that our campaigns cost too much, they take too much time, 
they raise too many questions, and now is the time for bipartisan 
campaign finance reform legislation.
    I supported the McCain-Feingold bill last year. The leaders of the 
other party did not, and it did not pass. Today I reaffirm my support 
for McCain-Feingold, and I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to 
pass it as soon as possible with an amendment that our party has agreed 
to, saying that we should not have contributions from foreign nationals 
who are otherwise--who can legally give money now. I am prepared to do 
that.
    I called Senator McCain yesterday and Senator Feingold; I had a good 
conversation with both of them, and I asked them for their best advice 
about where to proceed. I assured them that I would support this 
legislation, that our party would support it, and that we had more than 
enough votes in our caucus to guarantee it an overwhelming victory. So 
the question now is basically for the leaders of the Republican majority 
in Congress, whether they will support it, either right now or as soon 
as we come into session next year. But I am prepared to go forward, and 
I think that's the most important thing.
    Now, let me just make one final comment. A lot of, I thought--
questions had been raised about these contributions, and any questions 
that had been raised, we should do our best, the Democratic Party should 
do its best to answer; any questions you ask of us, we should do our 
best to answer. But there was a--in your question and in a lot of the 
things that have happened in the aftermath, there is an almost 
disparaging ref- 

[[Page 2362]]

erence to Asians. And in the last few weeks, a lot of Asian-Americans 
who have supported our campaign have come up to me and said, ``You know, 
I'm being made to feel like a criminal. All these people are calling me. 
And I say, `Why are you calling me?' They say, `Because you have an 
Asian last name.' '' And I--maybe I don't need to do this, but I would 
like to remind everybody here and throughout the country that our 
country has been greatly enriched by the work of Asian-Americans. They 
are famous for working hard for family values and for giving more than 
they take. And I, frankly, am grateful for the support that I have 
received from them.
    And so I just want to make that clear. I think that there's been a 
lot of rather--I don't mean that you did, Helen [Helen Thomas, United 
Press International], but there has been a lot of rather disparaging 
comments made about Asian-Americans. And it's--ironically, I found it 
surprising that our friends on the other side did because historically 
they have received more votes from Asian-Americans than we have.
    Q. May I say as a point of rebuttal, I certainly didn't mean to 
disparage----
    The President. I know you didn't.
    Q. No, but also--there was also the question of whether the 
Indonesian contributions may have affected our policy toward----
    The President. Well, now that's a different--the answer to that is, 
absolutely not. Indeed, look at the difference in my policy and my 
predecessor's policy. We changed our policy on arms sales because of 
East Timor, not to sell small arms. And we cosponsored the resolution in 
the United Nations in favor of greater human rights for East Timor. And 
I'm proud that we did that. So I can tell you categorically that there 
was no influence.
    By the way, all kinds of people talk to me about policy. Polish-
Americans, Hungarian-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Irish-Americans talk 
to me about policy. Citizens that I--people I meet around the world in 
the course of my travels on your behalf talk to me about it. But in the 
end, I always do what I believe is right for the American people.
    Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].
    Q. Mr. President, Attorney General Reno is considering whether to 
appoint an independent counsel to investigate these allegations of 
improper fundraising by your campaign. She says that she's----
    The President. Wait, wait, wait. There have been no allegations 
about improper fund----
    Q. Well, by the Democratic----
    The President. That's correct, by the Democratic Party.
    Q. She says that she's caught between a rock----
    The President. That was the other campaign that had problems with 
that, not mine.

Independent Counsel and

Attorney General Reno

    Q. General Reno says she's caught between a rock and a hard place 
and that she'll be criticized no matter what she does. I know that it's 
her decision, but what do you think? Do you think that these allegations 
should be investigated by an independent counsel? And secondly, do you 
think that General--would you like to see General Reno stay on for a 
second term?
    The President. I think, on the first question, I should have no 
comment on that. On the second question, I should have no comment on any 
personnel decision until I have had a chance to meet with the Cabinet 
members in question and work through all the decisions. And I think I 
should have a uniform policy on that, which I have followed to date and 
which I will continue to follow.
    Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, CNN].

John Huang and James Riady

    Q. Getting back to the first question, Mr. President, a lot of 
questions have been raised, though, about your personal relationship 
with John Huang, who was the DNC fundraiser who went out to the Asian-
American community and raised some of the money that had to be returned, 
as well as with the Riady family in Jakarta, James Riady in particular, 
who came to the White House on several occasions. What exactly was your 
relationship with John Huang and with the Riady family?
    The President. I believe the first time I met John Huang--I 
believe--was several years ago in Taiwan when I was a Governor on a 
trade mission. I believe that is correct.

[[Page 2363]]

He might have a better memory than I do, but I think that's right.
    I met James Riady when he came to Arkansas to live and work when he 
was partners--when his family and his family's business group were 
partners with the Stephens interest in Arkansas, in a bank there. And he 
and his wife lived there, and I got to know them several years ago.
    So I have known both James Riady and his wife and John Huang and his 
wife for several years. And I knew them primarily in the context of my 
work as Governor, both inside Arkansas in dealing with the economic 
issues within the State and then in my work as Governor of Arkansas and 
going to Taiwan--which parenthetically is one of the biggest purchasers 
of soybeans, which is a big product in my home State, of any country in 
the world. So I was there quite often, I think five times during the 
course of my governorship. And that's how I knew them.
    So I had a personal relationship with them that went back several 
years, and long before there was any politics or even contributions or 
anything like that involved. I had known them for several years.
    Q. Was it a mistake for you to appoint John Huang to a Commerce 
Department position, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, given the 
relationship he had with the Lippo conglomerate in Indonesia and his 
business interests in the past?
    The President. Well, I don't believe so. As soon as--I don't think 
so, not as long as the clearances and the search of all the records and 
the business disclosures, if they were all appropriate. You know, there 
are all kinds of standards for that, that anybody who gets an 
appointment that they have to be confirmed for has to meet. And if they 
were, I wouldn't say so.
    I mean, keep in mind, one of the jobs of the Department of Commerce, 
and perhaps one of the most important jobs now and one which Ron Brown 
did very well, is to open new opportunities for American businesses 
around the world, to open new markets for American businesses, to create 
jobs by doing that. And one of the great advantages the United States 
has over virtually every other country in the world is that we have 
living here in our country citizens who are from everywhere else and who 
have business ties and contacts and deep understandings of the cultures 
and the economies of every other country in the world.
    And so assuming that all the proper disclosures were made and all 
the proper clearances were had--I mean, the Government has rules for 
that--I would think that that's the sort of person we would be looking 
for, someone who did have good contacts and could--and did have a 
general understanding of international commerce.
    Yes.

Bosnia

    Q. Yes, Mr. President, thank you. Despite your promises earlier to 
pull out of Bosnia next month, the Pentagon now says that U.S. troops 
will remain there at least until the end of March. Is it possible you 
would keep U.S. troops there beyond March as part of a follow-on 
peacekeeping force if NATO decides they are needed?
    The President. Well, let me explain, first of all, what the March 
deadline is. We have already begun moving some people out, and the 
December--we said that the mission, the IFOR mission, would take about a 
year. But as the Pentagon can explain in greater detail and specificity 
than I, you can't just up and pull people out in one day. There has to 
be a phase-down, and people have to be brought in to help move out the 
people that have been there the whole time. So the March date is just 
the time the last people who are part of a 3\1/2\ month phase-down will 
leave.
    Now, separate and apart from that, NATO has been asked to consider 
the question of whether--well, let me make one other point. IFOR went 
there to establish a buffer zone between the ethnic groups and to make 
sure that during this time elections could be held and basic security 
could be maintained along the border areas, not to be actually involved 
in law enforcement. And I think they've done their job very well. I am 
very pleased with it. I am very pleased with the cooperation between the 
NATO allies and Russia and the other non-NATO countries. And I think 
that it has helped the Bosnian peace process to take hold. And we have 
had elections. A lot has been done.

[[Page 2364]]

    What NATO has been asked to consider is whether or not, since the 
economic reconstruction has not taken hold as fast as we had hoped and 
there is still, obviously, some hard feelings there between the parties, 
we should consider a smaller, different force that might have a more 
limited mission than the IFOR mission that NATO would be involved in. I 
have taken--I believe the position I have taken on that is the position 
that the other NATO leaders have taken, the leaders of the other NATO 
countries, which is, we would like to see the proposed mission; we would 
like to see what our contribution would be. I want to assess the risks, 
as I always do, and the possible benefits, and then I will make a 
judgment.
    I took a long look at the IFOR mission. We worked very hard to 
define it in a way that would guarantee the maximum possibility for 
success and the minimum possibility of danger to our forces. It has 
worked very well. Whether we could do this, as I said all along, would 
depend on what the nature of the mission is.
    I'm looking forward to the NATO report; I haven't received it yet. 
When I do, I will tell you exactly what the recommendations are and what 
my best judgment on them is. It is conceivable that we could 
participate, but it depends upon exactly what the recommendation is.
    Yes, sir, and then we'll go back. Go ahead.

Second Term Transition

    Q. You're in the process of choosing your team now for the next 
administration. You were criticized 4 years ago for your failure to go 
ahead with your stated intentions to choose at least one Republican for 
a top post. You were criticized for putting too much emphasis on 
diversity, and also for relying too much on friendship. In some case, 
friends got into ethical problems. Do you feel you must be more tough-
minded this time around?
    The President. Well, first of all, I think the Cabinet that I've had 
has done very well, and on average, I believe their tenure of service 
far exceeds the average tenure of service in the modern era. And I 
believe that we have proved that you could have diversity as well as 
excellence not only in the Cabinet but in the Federal bench, where I've 
made the most diverse appointments in terms of women and minorities in 
history and yet they have the highest ratings from the American Bar 
Association--my appointees do--of any President since the rating system 
began.
    So I don't see a conflict between excellence and diversity. But I 
would extend that diversity to Republicans as well. I think we ought to 
try to have a Government that can unify the country. And I did want to 
put--badly wanted to put a Republican in the Cabinet the last time. I 
had one in particular in mind who declined for personal reasons who, I 
think, wanted to serve, and I regret that. So I have not ruled out that; 
in fact, I have cast a very wide net in looking for people to serve in 
this administration, and I wouldn't be surprised if we had Republican 
representation. I certainly hope we will.
    Peter [Peter Maer, NBC Mutual Radio]--Rita [Rita Braver, CBS News] 
was next, and then Peter. I'm sorry.

The First Lady and

Former Senator Bob Dole

    Q. Speaking of what people will be doing in the next administration, 
when you ran for your first term you talked a lot about the First Lady's 
role, but we didn't hear so much about it during this run for the 
reelection. Can you give us a sense of what she'll be doing in the next 
term? And also, I wondered whether you have thought about whether you 
intend to offer Bob Dole any chance to serve.
    The President. Well, let me answer the question about Hillary. I 
think what the First Lady will do is something that--I think it will be 
consistent with what she's been doing, but we have not--frankly, we've 
been too tired to talk about it. Yesterday, I'm embarrassed to tell the 
American people, I actually slept past noon. [Laughter] I was tired. And 
so we hadn't had much chance to talk about it. But I think that my 
assumption would be that whatever she did, she would be working on the 
issues that relate to children and families that she's spent most of her 
life doing. And so that's what I would think. But we have not had a 
chance to talk about it.
    Q. You once mentioned welfare.
    The President. Well, but I think--I must not have spoken all that 
clearly on that. What

[[Page 2365]]

I meant about welfare is this: The welfare reform legislation is law 
now. Let me just talk about that just a minute, and then I'll come back 
to your other question. What the welfare reform bill says is this: It 
says, from now on, the United States Government will guarantee to poor 
families medical care and nutrition and, if a person moves from welfare 
to work, then more for child care than ever before. But that portion of 
the Federal money that used to go with State money into a monthly 
welfare check will now go to the States, and they have 2 years to figure 
out how to turn the welfare check into a paycheck.
    Now, I think what is important is to recognize that that's all the 
bill does. Then all the States and all of the communities of this 
country have to figure out how to do that. And what I think is important 
is that we all be aggressive in figuring out how to do that in ways that 
work for the children, not that there should be a role for the First 
Lady or anybody else, but children's advocates in particular want to 
make sure that this is a pro-family transition. That's all I meant. And 
I believe it will be. I feel good about it.
    In terms of anything for Senator Dole to do, I think, to be fair to 
him, even though I am standing up here on both feet giving this press 
conference today, after a campaign like this, you need time to 
decompress, whether you win or whether you lose. And I've been on both 
sides of this in my life. And he said something I really appreciated 
when we had our personal conversation on election evening. He said, 
``You know, after awhile, after I get rested up and you do and we get--
we'll come by--I'll come by, and we'll have a cup of coffee, and we'll 
talk about--just have a visit.'' And I said I'd really like that.
    And I think that I would just urge all of you to give him and Mrs. 
Dole a little space here and let them get rested up and think about 
their lives and what they want to do. And there will be time for that. 
You know, Thanksgiving's coming up; Christmas is coming up.
    But I can attest to the fact that based on the vigorous campaign he 
ran, not just in the last 96 hours but throughout, that if he so 
chooses, he's got a lot left to give his country. But I think that 
should be his decision. We should let a little time go by.
    Peter.

Investigations

    Q. Thank you, sir. As you reflect on the past 4 years and look ahead 
to the next 4, what are your thoughts about the emotional, legal, and 
even financial toll that these investigations over the past 4 years have 
taken and continue to take on people who are very close to you? Do you 
see any remedy for it, and do you see any end to it?
    The President. Well, I think that nearly every objective observer 
who's looked at it believes that progressively over the last however 
many years we have tended to turn our political differences into legal 
battles in ways that have enormous costs, human costs for the people 
involved in them and for our democracy.
    But I think--frankly, I think at this--given the posture in which 
some of these things are in, I'm not the person to be making 
recommendations on the resolution of it. There are others who are 
writing about it. I noticed there was a woman who worked for both Mr. 
Fiske and Mr. Starr who wrote an article in one of the legal periodicals 
in the last month or so arguing for some changes in the way these 
matters are dealt with. There are a lot of people who are troubled by 
this and are thinking about it.
    But I think that--I think that at least for the time being that it's 
not for me to be the one who's suggesting what should be done. But a lot 
of people, I think, in both parties who care about it are concerned 
about the costs of this as compared with any benefit that comes from it.
    Q. What are your thoughts, though, on the toll that it has taken on 
those closest to you?
    The President. Well, I hate--I obviously hate that. And the thing I 
really hate is that, when people that are completely innocent are 
basically confronted with a presumption of guilt and told to prove their 
innocence of charges, they're not quite sure what they're supposed to 
do. It's difficult.
    But, you know, right now--and my heart's full of gratitude--I told 
you that, as far as I'm concerned for me, it doesn't bother me because--
I wouldn't say it doesn't bother

[[Page 2366]]

me, but it's just part of being in public life today. But we should 
never be happy when innocent people suffer unnecessarily. That's not 
good; no one can be possibly for that. So we need to try to seek out 
people's opinion about what should be done. But I don't think it's for 
me to be discussing that now.

Campaign Finance Reform

    Q. Mr. President, you spoke in your opening remarks about the moment 
being now for campaign finance reform. In light of the recent 
controversies in both parties, would you be willing to commit to the 
idea that campaign fundraising not be done as closed events but be open 
for news coverage as a means of putting more sunshine on the process?
    The President. You know, you're the first person that ever asked me 
that. Let me just say this; I'll be glad--I'd like to have some chance 
to think about it. But I've never been asked it before, and I've never 
thought about it much. But I have--you know, a lot of our fundraisers 
are open, and most of the smaller events we have are basically round-
robin discussions from people who very often come from very different 
perspectives on issues. But I will think about it; I will give you an 
answer. I'd like to think about it.
    Q. Mr. President----
    The President. Go ahead. Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News 
Service], I'll come to you next. Go ahead.

Investigations

    Q. Getting back to the subject of all these legal investigations, 
has the First Lady been notified by Kenneth Starr's office that she is 
either the subject or a target of any of his investigations?
    The President. No.
    Yes, Sarah--not to my knowledge.

Clandestine Government Activities

    Q. How are you going to keep yourself from secrets that other people 
try to keep from you in Government? I refer to the secrecy that 
surrounds the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department and 
those people in Government--and the Defense Department--who sometimes 
try to work and keep secrets from you. How are you going to keep 
yourself from being insulated?
    The President. Well, frankly, the only way to do that--there are 
only two ways to do that. One is, I have to appoint good people in 
positions in those departments who are in a position to know what is 
going on or to find out if I need to know. Or there has to be some 
external way of knowing, which means that all of you have to find out so 
that I can either see it or read it or hear it on the news, or we have 
to have--or some independent commission, if a particular problem or 
question is hanging out there, should press further.
    I think the--let me just say, I think the commission I appointed on 
Gulf War illnesses has done an exemplary job. And I believe that the 
Pentagon, in fairness, has also done much better recently. And we have 
done--as I think all of you know, we have given free medical exams to 
tens of thousands of people. We have qualified 26,000 people for 
disability. And we have a lot of various medical tests going on. That 
all came about, I believe, in large measure because the American people 
kept demanding a response. And so I put this commission together, and 
they did their job. And then the Pentagon, as I said--Secretary Perry, 
having seen the evidence, has moved in an expeditious fashion.
    But I think those are the ways--there is never any magic about that. 
The President has to have good people in those agencies; they have to be 
able to find out the truth. And then if you do your job, and then if 
some real big problem arises and a group of citizens can look into it, 
we normally find a way to make our democracy work.
    Ken [Ken Walsh, U.S. News & World Report]. Go ahead, Ken; Ken and 
then Susan [Susan Page, USA Today]. Go ahead.

Medicare and Budget Negotiations

    Q. Mr. President, one of the lingering areas of hard feelings from 
the campaign is over your and the Democratic Party's attacks on the 
Republicans over Medicare. Since you're going to meet with the 
Republican leadership next week, how will you encourage them to be 
conciliatory and trust you now

[[Page 2367]]

over Medicare, given the damage they incurred in the campaign over the 
issue?
    The President. Well, first of all, there are always a lot of hard 
feelings after every campaign. I mean--I believe that what I said about 
the Medicare provisions of the budget I vetoed was accurate and true and 
fair, and I cannot retract that. I do not believe the picture they 
painted of the budget I passed, which sparked America's economic 
recovery, is fair. By any reasonable standard, it wasn't the biggest tax 
increase in history. Average people did not pay as much as they said 
they paid. I mean, there were lots of problems I had with that. But that 
wouldn't stop me from working with them on the budget.
    So we obviously don't always agree with each other's 
characterization of our positions. I don't agree with a lot of their 
characterizations, but that wouldn't stop me from working with them. And 
I would say that--my answer to you is that the way to put this behind us 
is to reach an agreement. And I'm prepared to reach out and meet them 
halfway. And if you--I think the way to go forward is to pick up where 
we left off.
    As I said and acknowledged to everyone, including for Senator Dole, 
when we ended the budget negotiations, when they had to stop, in 
fairness to him, because he had to begin his Presidential campaign, at 
the time when they ended, we were actually quite close to an agreement 
and the differences between us were entirely manageable. And I could see 
how we could build a bridge between our two positions that would give us 
a balanced budget plan.
    So the obvious answer here is just to go forward by picking up where 
we left off, with the Republican position and with our administration's 
position, and I think we could have an agreement in next to no time. And 
that would be my advice on that.
    Yes, Susan, go ahead, and then I'll take this.

President's Second Term

    Q. Mr. President, we know that you're an avid student of 
Presidential history, and in modern times second terms for Presidents 
have been either disappointing or disastrous. I wonder if you've drawn 
any lessons on why that's so--[laughter]--and if there are any pitfalls 
in particular that you are determined to avoid for yourself.
    The President. Actually, I read a book not very long ago on second--
there is a book that's just been written on second-term Presidencies. 
And I was a little nervous about reading it before the election, but 
along toward the end I read it. And I got to thinking in my own mind 
about the second terms of, you know, President Truman's second term, 
President Eisenhower's second term, and President Reagan's second term, 
and then the others, in the 20th century especially I focused upon.
    What the record shows is that the things which derail a second term 
are basically three: One is, some external event intervenes, and the 
President can't fulfill his dreams or hopes or his agenda. Two is--I 
mean, apart from the obvious case. The second thing that happens is, 
sometimes a President thinks he has more of a mandate than he does and 
tries to do too much in the absence of cooperation. That was the rap on 
President Roosevelt's second term, that his first and third terms were 
greater than his second term because of that. And the third is that 
sometimes a President essentially just runs out of steam. That was the 
rap that was attempted to be put on President Reagan, although I would 
remind you that in President Reagan's second term he signed the tax 
reform legislation and the first big welfare reform overhaul, which was 
quite a good bill.
    But--so what we have done to try to avoid that is, number one, make 
it clear that we understand the American people want us to work together 
with the Republicans and that we have to build a vital center; and 
number two, to have a driving agenda for the second term that grows out 
of what we have done for the last 4 years. That's why I went out of my 
way at the Democratic National Convention, when I was speaking to the 
convention and the American people, to list a very long list of specific 
things I wanted to do, because I wanted an agenda to organize the 
attention, the spirits, and the energies of people. I think when people 
stay busy, they do good things. And I think that that will very much 
help.
    So we have a big agenda; we have a driving agenda; we know what we 
have to do. And

[[Page 2368]]

if we keep good, energetic people involved, I think we'll be able to 
avoid those pitfalls. But I'm very mindful of history's difficulties, 
and I'm going to try to beat them.
    Yes, Jim [Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News], go ahead.

Republican Congressional Investigations

    Q. Speaking of hard feelings, as you did just a moment ago, Senator 
Alfonse D'Amato only yesterday said that the Senate Whitewater hearings 
were over. And he said the American people didn't want to see Congress 
going out on any fishing expeditions. What do you make of what Senator 
D'Amato said, and do you think it signals that Republicans may ease up a 
little bit on some of the investigations that were aimed at the White 
House?
    The President. I don't know. All I can tell you is, I imagine they 
will have debates in their party about what they should do. It's clear 
to me what the American people said. It's clear to me what the people of 
New York said. It's clear to me what--but even in the States that I did 
not carry--you know, we lost Georgia by 10,000 or 15,000 votes or 
something--this country was divided as to just exactly which way to 
tilt, but they were collected around the idea that we needed to keep 
making progress but do it by working together from the center. And I 
think that's what Senator D'Amato recognized. And if that is the 
majority view within the Republican caucus in the Senate and the House, 
the American people will be very well pleased by the work we do 
together, and we will get a lot done.
    Q. And would you expect any relief from the Republican 
investigations?
    The President. What I would respect is if we all spent our time and 
energy working on balancing the budget, on opening educational 
opportunities, on advancing health care reform step by step, on 
continuing the fight against crime; the things that we need to be doing 
together, that's what I think we ought to do. And I think the American 
people would be elated if we--both sides seem to be putting our politics 
down, waiting for the next election, and really working like crazy to 
get something done for our country; I think they would like it. And I'm 
prepared to do it, and I hope that they will be.
    And I was very encouraged by my conversation with Senator Lott and 
with my conversation with Speaker Gingrich. And I was encouraged by what 
Senator D'Amato said. We'll just have to--we'll have to see what 
happens. I very much hope it will be that way.
    Mike [Mike Frisby, Wall Street Journal] and then we'll go over 
there.

Social Security and Medicare

    Q. Mr. President, do you plan on looking at ways to reform the 
Social Security system in the next 4 years?
    The President. Well, I think--that goes back to the Medicare 
question one of you asked--Ken, I guess. I believe we have to find a 
bipartisan framework to look at the longer, if you will, the Baby Boom 
issues presented in Social Security and Medicare. And as I said, I think 
there has to be some sort of commission, some sort of functioning 
bipartisan way of looking at that. But that must not be an excuse for 
any of us, including me, to avoid doing what it takes right now to put a 
decade of life on the Medicare Trust Fund. In other words, we need to 
fix Medicare for a decade right now. And we have agreed upon savings 
that will do that.
    And we lost a year last year. Thank goodness it didn't hurt us too 
bad because the inflation rate dropped so much in medical costs. But we 
don't need to lose another year. We ought to make an agreement now, put 
a decade of life on the Medicare Trust Fund, and then agree upon a 
bipartisan mechanism that could look at what things can be done, which 
wouldn't be particularly dramatic if we move now, to deal with the 
problems that Social Security will encounter in the third decade of the 
next century and the problems that Medicare will encounter when all the 
Baby Boomers go on it.
    But those things can be salvaged and resolved with modest changes if 
we move now because it's so far into the future. But that kind of a 
bipartisan mechanism cannot and must not be used to avoid dealing with 
the Medicare Trust Fund problem that exists right now.

[[Page 2369]]

    John [John Broder, Los Angeles Times], and then we'll go to--yes, go 
ahead, follow up, and then we'll do this one, and then I'll go over 
here.
    Q. The last time there was a bipartisan commission to look into the 
long-term reform of Social Security in 1983, among the reforms that came 
out was the raising of taxes and the raising of the retirement age, 
eligibility. Would you be open to those possibilities if that became the 
recommendation of a new commission?
    The President. I think it would be--well, the reason you have a 
commission is so you don't have to jump the gun on trying to make 
decisions. But let me mention--let's just--my view is it would be unwise 
to raise the payroll tax anymore. It is already quite high, and it is a 
regressive tax. Most of our new jobs are coming from small businesses. 
If you start a small business, you have to pay the payroll tax whether 
you make any money or not. You don't have to pay income tax unless 
you're actually making money. And if you look at the job machine in 
America and where most of these jobs are coming and you look at the fact 
that the payroll tax is quite high, I think it would be difficult for us 
to do it. And I also believe if we start now, it will not be necessary.
    In terms of the age, keep in mind, we have already--the '83 
commission got an agreement to raise the age from 65 to 67 because when 
Social Security was instituted the average life expectancy was less than 
65. You didn't even have a 50-50 chance to draw Social Security when it 
started. Now if you get to be 65 in America, you're living in the group 
of seniors with the highest life expectancy in the world.
    So we're going up to 67. I think I would--to go beyond that, the 
question would be--there are two issues there. One is, could you 
accelerate the ladder? You know, it's like a month a year now; could it 
go to 2 months a year? That's one question. The other question would be, 
if you went beyond that, it might be fine for somebody like me who has 
always had a desk job, but what about people who have laboring jobs? 
What about people who really work with their hands and their backs, and 
would that be too burdensome for them? That would be my concern there.
    Go ahead, John, and then we'll come over here. Yes.

Campaign Financing

    Q. Yes, Mr. President. When questions came up earlier this afternoon 
about questionable campaign finance contributions, you took pains to say 
these were Democratic National Committee matters. But with all due 
respect, you named the cochairmen of the Democratic National Committee. 
Much of what they did this year was in furtherance of your reelection 
and that of other Democrats. Don't you feel some responsibility or 
accountability for what was done in your name?
    The President. Well, first of all, we are doing--I believe that the 
Democratic Committee is doing the right thing by returning any 
contributions that were improperly tendered to it. And I certainly feel 
responsible to do that, and I would not tolerate their not doing it.
    Furthermore, I think Senator Dodd and Chairman Fowler did the right 
thing in trying to, if you will, develop a tighter screen for evaluating 
it. They acknowledge that they should have had a better screen, that 
they were--you know, as I said, they took in over a million 
contributions over 2 years from different people and that they found 
these relatively small number that were wrong and they should do it. And 
had that not been done, I would absolutely feel responsible for it, 
because I am a Democrat and I'm the titular head of the Democratic 
Party.
    So I'm not trying to disclaim responsibility, but I am trying to 
point out that there is--there's a difference between what the party 
does and what the campaign does. I'm also responsible for what the 
campaign does in that sense, but there is a difference. And the party 
should do the right thing and give any money back but--and I also 
pointed out again, the Republicans have their own problems here and have 
had some in both campaign and in party-raising--in Presidential 
campaigns and in party-raising. But all of them, when you add them up, 
it's--I'll say something in behalf of the Republicans--if they raise 
money from a million people over 2 years, it would not surprise me if 10 
to 20 of those contributions did not meet the

[[Page 2370]]

requirements of the law, or 30, and it would be a small percentage. And 
that doesn't mean that we ought to run them out of town on a rail.
    But what I do know is that if you have to raise this kind of money--
and they raised--what did they raise, $150 million more than we did; 
they raised $3 for every $2 we did--if you raise this kind of money, 
questions will be raised about it. And the only way to ever put this to 
rest is to pass campaign finance reform.
    We have a vehicle that I think is as good as any. There is no 
perfect solution to this, because of two Supreme Court decisions, one of 
which says nobody can limit how much money you spend on the campaign or 
how much of your money you spend; the other one appears to give a wide 
berth to these third-party expenditure committees. But still, the 
McCain-Feingold bill, with a modification to deal with the foreign 
contribution issue, would dramatically improve things.
    Now, I am for it; the Democratic Party is on record for it; the 
chairman of the Democratic Committee has challenged the chairman of the 
Republican Committee to endorse it. Senator McCain was very active in 
Senator Dole's campaign; it is completely bipartisan, and we have enough 
votes in our caucus in the Senate and the House to contribute to an 
overwhelming victory. So now, the real question is, whether we get 
McCain-Feingold is solely within the purview of the leaders of the House 
and the Senate on the Republican side. If they'll go with it, we will do 
it lickety-split, and then we'll be able to talk about some other things 
down the road.
    Yes.
    Q. Mr. President, first of all, congratulations.
    The President. Thank you.
    Q. President Arafat called on you----
    The President. You had to remind me that it was congratulations 
instead of condolences after this crowd. [Laughter]

Middle East Peace Process

    Q. President Arafat called on you, Mr. President, to help him move 
the peace process between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and Mr. 
Arafat considers the whole situation as very urgent and serious, due to 
the fact that there are many settlements which are brewing and Mr. 
Sharon is threatening to build more settlements in the West Bank before 
the final settlements with the Palestinians. In light of this and the 
choking closure on the Palestinians that you are very concerned about--
several times you have expressed your opinion and desire to see the 
Palestinians working and getting everything--what are your immediate 
plans, Mr. President, to bring about implementation of the Oslo Accords, 
as well as the Israeli-Palestinian agreement, and all of the signatures 
that we have done here in Washington, in the near future, sir? Thank 
you.
    The President. I think the first and most important thing we can do 
is to nail the agreement on Hebron. You know, we were getting very, very 
close to an agreement on Hebron before Chairman Arafat had to leave to 
go to his trip to Europe. And I did what I could by bringing Prime 
Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat here to meet with King Hussein 
and me. They began to establish at least the beginnings of a 
relationship of trust and interchange so that an agreement could be made 
on Hebron.
    If we can clear the Hebron hurdle--it has such emotional 
significance to both sides as well as such practical significance--I 
believe that will open the door to go on and fulfill all the other 
challenges that are there before us. That's what I believe.
    Yes, sir, in the back.

Social Security and Medicare

    Q. Mr. President, on the Social Security-Medicare problem, could you 
give us a timeline on when you plan to call for organization of a 
bipartisan commission, and who you would like to see serve on that 
commission?
    The President. I can't, simply because I--it's one of the--how we're 
going to deal with this is one of literally a hundred items that are on 
my agenda in this period after the election. All I can tell you is, I 
think that to deal with the Baby Boom issues of Social Security and 
Medicare, we need a bipartisan commission, and we need the longest 
possible timelines so we have to make the least painful possible 
changes.

[[Page 2371]]

    But that must not be--let me reiterate--that is not a reason not to 
go on and balance this budget and put 10 years on the Medicare Trust 
Fund. We need to do that now. Losing a year last year I think was an 
error. It may have been unavoidable, but it complicates all of our other 
balanced budget calculations. We need to go on and do it and start 
ratcheting down this spending issue.
    Go ahead, Karen [Karen Ball, New York Daily News].

Election Results

    Q. Mr. President, this is twice now you've been elected with less 
than 50 percent of the vote. How big of a disappointment was that to 
you, and is that going to hamstring you now?
    The President. Not much. The 379 electoral votes was an enormous 
consolation prize. [Laughter] And after all, in many of the States that 
were battleground States, including two that were especially important 
to me, there were four candidates on the ballot that got substantial 
numbers of votes, in California and Oregon particularly. And I made a 
decision the last week that I wanted to go to some of the smaller States 
where we had some elections in play. And my advisers said, ``Now, if you 
do this, it will cost you a couple a points on your popular margin.'' I 
said, ``You know, it's the right thing to do, we ought to go out 
there.'' People were asking me to come and campaign, they thought it 
would make a difference, and I agreed to do it. I don't have any regret 
at all.
    I never met a person in public life that didn't wish that he or she 
had gotten all the votes. So would I have liked a few more? Of course. 
But I'm very gratified by what happened.
    Yes, go ahead.

Australia and New Zealand

    Q. You'll be going to Australia in about a week or so. What do you 
hope to accomplish there? And you're not going to visit its neighbor New 
Zealand at this time, but will you be reaching out to them to increase 
the contacts with New Zealand and perhaps invite their ambassador here 
when they sort out--their Prime Minister--when they sort out their 
election?
    The President. Let me just say, we have a good partnership with 
Australia. I have not had a chance--it is vital to our security 
interests in the area. I have not had a chance to meet with the new 
Prime Minister. And I'm looking forward to going down there, and it will 
be a nice thing for Hillary and for me. We have never been to Australia 
before.
    And we've also had a good relationship with New Zealand. And Prime 
Minister Bolger and I work quite well together. And we'll just have to 
cross that bridge when we come to it about where we go from there. But 
I'm feeling--I'm anxious to go down there and do that because our 
relationships with Australia are a big part of our future in the whole 
Asian-Pacific region.
    Yes, go ahead.

Iraq and Kuwait

    Q. [Inaudible]--from Kuwait TV. Congratulations, again. My question 
is, what would be your administration's policy towards Iraq in order to 
guarantee and maintain the security of the Gulf area in general and the 
state of Kuwait in particular? Thank you.
    The President. Well, the first thing we will do is maintain our firm 
policy that we have all along to let the Iraqis know that no action can 
be taken against Kuwait without dire consequences. When the Iraqi troops 
were massed, remember, down toward the Kuwait border during my first 
term, we immediately moved military assets into the area and activated a 
plan for reaction. And I think that they can be under no illusion that 
any aggressive action could be taken against Kuwait without a stern 
response by the United States.
    The other thing that I think we're focused on with Iraq, and we must 
continue to be, is just getting them to comply with the United Nations 
resolutions. I think that is also very important. I do not relish the 
suffering of the people of Iraq. The United States was one of the 
sponsors of the resolution which would allow them to sell oil in return 
for food and medicine. And when the U.N. can work out the mechanism for 
doing that in the aftermath of the unfortunate events involving

[[Page 2372]]

the Kurds, I think that will go forward. But our policy will be the 
same. We must contain the ability of Iraq to threaten its neighbors.
    Yes, Mara [Mara Liasson, National Public Radio].

Voter Turnout

    Q. Mr. President, we just finished an election where turnout was at 
a record low. I'm wondering why you think that was and what you might 
have done to make it more interesting or compelling so that more people 
would have voted.
    The President. I could have made it closer, maybe. [Laughter] I 
don't know. I'm concerned about it, you know, and there are all kinds 
of--there are explanations you read which may be reassuring, like, 
``Well, when times are pretty good people maybe not vote;'' and 
explanations you read which are discouraging, ``The more the negative 
ads are, the lower the turnout is.'' And I saw a very disturbing--one of 
you on the television--I saw a series the other night about how local 
campaigns were now becoming also dominated by negative ads.
    Let me make a suggestion and say that I do not know the answer to 
it. I was elated at the enormous turnout in 1992. I felt good about it. 
But we had signals that this election would be a lower turnout election 
quite a long while before we had the turnout. And the first indication I 
had for sure was when the viewership of the debates was so much lower 
than it was the year before. And you know, we got all our folks together 
and I said, ``We're going to have a hard time getting our folks to the 
polls, and we need to really work on this.''
    So let me just throw it back to you and say that I would welcome any 
analysis anyone has about what we can do to get voting up. I strongly 
supported motor voter and other attempts to increase the registration 
base, thinking that that would increase the turnout. We have 
dramatically increased the number of people who are registered; there's 
been a huge increase in registration in the last 4 years. And I'm 
disappointed it wasn't accompanied by an increase in voting.
    If you've got any more ideas--I saw Senator Feinstein on television 
saying that if we had a uniform poll closing, that that would increase 
turnout in the Western States. I wish I had a good opinion on it, but 
I'm open to doing something that will increase it if you all have any 
good ideas.
    Yes.
    Press Secretary Michael McCurry. Last question, please.
    The President. No, I'll take both of them. Go ahead.

Irish Peace Process

    Q. You took some heat during the campaign concerning the troubles in 
Northern Ireland, particularly from former Secretary of State Jim Baker, 
who called your trip to Ireland last year ``Gullible's Travels.''
    The President.  [Laughter] Did he say that? That's pretty good.
    Q. Will you continue to try and assist in finding a solution to 
Northern Ireland, or do you find that there's just no solution to be had 
and no assistance the U.S. can provide?
    The President. Well, the answer is I will continue to do whatever I 
can to be of assistance to the Irish and the British Governments as 
along as they work for peace in Northern Ireland and to the other 
parties who are committed to peace. I have supported the process which 
is now underway there. I don't think America could make a greater 
contribution than to have a man of George Mitchell's caliber there doing 
what he's doing.
    And so I do not think that I have been in error in trying to help 
the Irish people come to grips with their hundreds of years of demons 
and put them aside and make peace. I think that we should continue to 
try. But it's obvious that there has to be a genuine cessation of 
violence and that all the parties have to be able to rely on one another 
not to start killing again, either in Northern Ireland or in Great 
Britain, in order for this peace process to go forward.
    But I--yes, I intend to continue to do what I can to encourage it. I 
stay in close touch with Prime Minister Bruton and with Prime Minister 
Major and we talk--obviously, our people talk to the parties involved 
from time to time. And of course, Senator Mitchell keeps us informed. 
And I would like to--I very much hope in the next 4 years that

[[Page 2373]]

we can make some contribution to the ultimate resolution of this.
    Yes.

Secretary of State

    Q. Thank you, sir. Mr. President, the Israeli-Palestinian peace 
agreement was the foreign policy pinnacle of your first term. As you 
seek a Secretary of State, will the first and foremost quality you look 
for in someone be the person who can get that process back on track?
    The President. Well, the short answer to your question is, that will 
be one thing I look for. And that is one of the most important things 
that happened in the last 4 years. Continued reduction of our nuclear 
arsenals, the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, the indefinite 
extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the end of--stopping the 
North Korean nuclear program, all those things amount--they count for a 
lot as well.
    But if you look ahead, here's what I want a Secretary of State who 
can do--to do: number one, to continue our efforts to build the first 
undivided democratic Europe in history, which means to effect the NATO 
expansion, working with the Secretary of Defense, in a way that 
solidifies our partnership with a democratic Russia instead of 
undermining it; number two, to continue to be a force for peace in the 
Middle East and Northern Ireland, working through the process in Bosnia, 
and elsewhere; number three, to meet the new security threats of 
terrorism and organized crime and drug running and the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated traditional weapons; and 
then to take advantage of the extraordinary economic opportunities for 
the United States in building a global economic structure that is 
increasingly more open and fair. That will stabilize the rest of the 
world and help America's prosperity to continue.
    I don't think there is any way to--we don't have any scientific 
studies of this, but there is no way to calculate the enormous positive 
impact that the dramatic expansion of trade in the last 4 years has had 
on the changing mix of the new jobs in America. Over half of the new 
jobs, our 10.5 million--10.7 million new jobs have come in high-wage 
areas. There is no question that one big reason is the disciplined, 
organized, integrated efforts that have been made in the private and 
public sectors to expand trade. So I want a Secretary of State that can 
do all that. I guess that means I want a magician.
    One other thing I would say that we've learned from Warren 
Christopher--I made a reference to this yesterday--he is--his sheer 
physical capacities are those of a person half his age. You cannot be an 
American Secretary of State today unless you are capable of withstanding 
the rigors of intense travel, followed by intense meetings, followed by 
more intense travel. So it's almost like you've got to be practically 
athletic to do as well as you need to do. But those are the things that 
I want.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President's 130th news conference began at 3 p.m. in the East 
Room at the White House. During the news conference, the following 
persons were referred to: Senator Christopher J. Dodd, general chairman, 
and Donald L. Fowler, national chairman, Democratic National Committee; 
Chairman Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority; Ariel Sharon, 
Minister of Infrastructure, and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of 
Israel; King Hussein of Jordan; Prime Minister John Howard of Australia; 
Prime Minister James Bolger of New Zealand; Prime Minister John Bruton 
of Ireland; and Prime Minister John Major of the United Kingdom. This 
item was not received in time for publication in the appropriate issue.