[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 33, Number 16 (Monday, April 21, 1997)]
[Pages 542-547]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference

April 18, 1997

    The President. Good afternoon. Less than 2 weeks from today, the 
Chemical Weapons Convention goes into effect, with or without the United 
States. The bottom line is this: Will the United States join a treaty we 
helped to shape, or will we go from leading the fight against poison gas 
to joining the company of pariah nations this treaty seeks to isolate?
    With this treaty, other nations will follow the lead we set years 
ago by giving up chemical weapons. Our troops will be less likely to 
face poison gas on the battle field. Rogue states and terrorists will 
have a harder time acquiring or making chemical weapons, and we'll have 
new tools to prevent and punish them if they try. But if we fail to 
ratify, other countries could back out as well. We won't be able to 
enforce the treaty's rules or use its tools, and our companies will face 
trade sanctions aimed at countries that refuse to join.
    As the Senate prepares to vote next week, I'm encouraged by the 
great progress we have made but mindful of its hurdles we still must 
overcome in order to gain approval of the CWC. I welcome yesterday's 
unanimous agreement by the Senate to bring the treaty to a vote, and I 
thank Majority Leader Lott, Senator Daschle, Senator Helms, and Senator 
Biden, and all the Members of the Senate from both parties for their 
efforts. By going the extra mile, we've reached agreement on 28 
conditions that will be included in the treaty's resolution of 
ratification, for example, maintaining strong defenses against chemical 
attacks, toughening enforcement, allowing the use of riot control agents 
like tear gas in a wide range of military and law enforcement 
situations, and requiring search warrants for any involuntary 
inspections of an American business.
    These agreed-upon conditions resolve virtually all of the issues 
that have been raised about this treaty. But there are still a handful 
of issues on which we fundamentally disagree. They will be voted on by 
the full Senate as it takes up the treaty next week. We should all 
understand what's at stake. A vote for any of these killer amendments 
will prevent our participation in the treaty. Let me quickly address 
four of them.
    The first would prohibit the United States from joining the treaty 
until Russia does. That is precisely backwards. The best way to secure 
Russian ratification is to ratify the treaty ourselves. Failure to do so 
will only give hardliners in Russia an excuse to hold out and hold on to 
their chemical weapons.
    A second killer condition would prohibit us from becoming a party 
until rogue states like Iraq and Libya join. The result is we'd be 
weaker, not stronger, in our fight to prevent these rogue states from 
developing chemical weapons because we would lose the ability to use and 
enforce the treaty's tough trade restrictions and inspection tools. No 
country, especially an outlaw state, should have a veto over our 
national security.
    A third killer condition would impose an unrealistically high 
standard of verification. There is no such thing as perfect 
verifiability in a treaty, but this treaty's tough monitoring, 
reporting, and on-site inspection requirements will enable us to detect 
militarily significant cheating. Our soldiers on the battlefield will be 
safer. That, clearly, is an advance over no treaty at all.
    Finally, the opponents would force us to reopen negotiations on the 
Chemical Weapons Convention to try to fix two concerns that have already 
been resolved. First, they claim

[[Page 543]]

that a treaty expressly devoted to eliminating chemical weapons somehow 
would force its parties to facilitate the spread of chemical weapons. 
This interpretation is totally at odds with the plain language of the 
treaty. I have committed to the Senate that neither the United States 
nor our allies share this interpretation and that we will reaffirm that 
fact annually.
    The opponents also misread the treaty to require that we share our 
most advanced chemical defensive technology with countries like Iran and 
Cuba, should they join the Chemical Weapons Convention. I have committed 
to the Senate that in the event such countries are threatened by 
chemical attack, we would limit our assistance to providing nothing more 
than emergency medical supplies.
    America took the lead in negotiating the Chemical Weapons 
Convention, first the Reagan administration, then the Bush 
administration. Every Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the past 
20 years supports it, as do the overwhelming majority of our veterans, 
the chemical industry, and arms control experts. Now we must lead in 
bringing this bipartisan treaty to life and enforcing its rules. America 
should stand with those who want to destroy chemical weapons, not with 
those who would defy the international community. I urge every Member of 
the Senate to support the convention when it comes to a vote next week.
    Now, let me take this opportunity also to say a few words about the 
budget. Yesterday my economic team briefed me extensively on the full 
range of issues that are now being discussed as a we continue serious 
high-level talks on the balanced budget. The progress we've made so far 
is encouraging, and I'm hopeful that a bipartisan balanced budget 
agreement can be reached.
    We're working closely with Senate and House Democratic leaders and 
budget committee leaders as we move forward on this issue. I want to 
thank Senators Domenici and Lautenberg, and Congressmen Kasich and 
Spratt for working so hard and in such good faith with our economic 
team. There is no question that serious differences remain, but if each 
of us is willing to compromise our sense of the perfect, I know we can 
reach an agreement that advances the greater good. And we can both do so 
without compromising our deeply held values.
    Based on the progress that we've made so far, I'm asking the 
bipartisan negotiators to continue their work. I hope that in the near 
future we can--they can recommend ways to bridge the remaining 
differences. This can be a victory for all Americans. Over the past 4 
years, we have shown that with hard work and strong resolve, we can make 
significant progress toward balancing our budget while still investing 
in our people and that both those things will lead us to the strong 
economy we have today and an even stronger economy tomorrow.
    Neither side can have everything it wants. But we know that a good 
agreement must include at a minimum that our children will have the best 
education from the first days of life through college to prepare for the 
21st century, that more children will have access to quality health 
care, that our environment will be protected, that we are living up to 
our obligations to the most vulnerable among us, and that Medicaid--
Medicare will be strengthened while ensuring the solvency of its Trust 
Fund well into the next decade. This is what we can achieve and what I 
think we must achieve and why we all have to stay at the table until the 
job is done.

Chemical Weapons Convention and State Department Reorganization

    Q. Mr. President, what is your outlook for ratification of the 
treaty? And how much of a quid pro quo was there with Senator Helms on 
reorganizing the State Department? Will the Voice of America still have 
its autonomy? All of these things are kind of worrisome.
    The President. Well, yes, the Voice of America will still have its 
independent voice. It will still be the Voice of America. There was no 
linkage.
    Senator Helms came to see me personally at the White House last year 
sometime--I don't remember when--and we met up in my office in the 
Residence for an extended period of time, with just a few of his staff 
members, a few of mine. He was going over his plan for reorganization of 
the agencies and why he thought it was right. I promised him that I 
would seriously consider the issue,

[[Page 544]]

that I thought there ought to be some reorganization. I had a slightly 
different take on it. And actually, since that time, but especially in 
the last few weeks, we have been working very, very hard to reach a 
consensus within the administration on an alternative proposal. I think 
it is warranted, and I think it's good on the merits.
    I can tell you that there was no linkage between these two issues. I 
do not expect Senator Helms to vote for the Chemical Weapons Convention. 
I would be elated if he did. We have, as I said, resolved I think 20--to 
his satisfaction, 27 of the 30 issues that we made.
    Q. All of this were concessions on your part, weren't they, all the 
conditions?
    The President. No, all--well, they were--I didn't consider them 
concessions because I agree with them. There is nothing in any of these 
conditions that I think is bad for the treaty, bad for the system, or 
bad for the national security. But they do clarify questions that 
Senator Helms and other Senators had about the meaning of the treaty. 
But they all can be attached to the treaty without in any way 
undermining its integrity, its fundamental meaning, or its rules of 
enforcement and inspection, and that is the critical thing.
    So I consider that the things that we've agreed to in good faith are 
really a tribute to the work that Senator Lott and Senator Helms and 
Senator Biden and a number of others did to really clarify what this 
convention will mean. I think it's a positive thing.
    Bill [Bill Plante, CBS News].

Whitewater

    Q. Are you concerned, Mr. President, by the statement of Mr. 
McDougal and the independent prosecutor that there is new evidence, new 
documents which, according to the suggestions that seem to be coming out 
of there, might cause you or Mrs. Clinton further trouble?
    The President. No.
    Q. Why not?
    The President. For obvious reasons. I mean, go back, look at the RTC 
report; look at all the evidence that's ever come out on this. We did 
not do anything wrong. We had nothing to do with all these business 
matters that were the subject of the trial. No, I'm not worried at all.
    Peter [Peter Maer, NBC Mutual Radio].

Bob Dole's Loan to Speaker Newt Gingrich

    Q. President Clinton, what do you think about the deal worked out 
between Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich? Is this the right arrangement when 
you consider that it's not the kind of arrangement that most Americans 
could get in similar circumstances if they faced a fine?
    The President. Actually, I was thinking of calling Senator Dole this 
afternoon--you know, Chelsea is about to go off to college, and it's 
pretty expensive. [Laughter] I----
    Q. Where is she going?
    The President. Let me say that this is a matter that has to be 
decided by the House. They have certain rules, certain standards, and 
they will have to decide whether it complies with those rules and 
standards.
    John [John Donvan, ABC News].

Israeli Politics and the Peace Process

    Q. Mr. President, the Prime Minister of Israel is having domestic 
troubles now, and occasionally, these sorts of issues can leak into the 
large international arena, particularly in regard to this peace process. 
Are you concerned about that sort of spillage, and have you had any 
conversations with him about it since the news was announced or during 
his visit here?
    The President. He didn't say anything to me during his visit here 
which is inconsistent with what he's said in public since then. He made 
the same general statements to me. We have had no conversations since 
then. As you know, Dennis Ross has been there and helped to broker this 
meeting between the Palestinians and the Israelis on security. It's 
obviously an internal matter for Israel to deal with. They're a great 
and vibrant democracy, and they'll deal with that in their way. But I 
think that the important thing is that we get the security cooperation 
up and going, and then we just keep plugging ahead here. We cannot allow 
anything--anything--to derail the peace process, and I don't believe we 
will.

[[Page 545]]

Hong Kong

    Q. Mr. President, could you tell us a little bit about your meeting 
today with Mr. Lee? And one of the concerns since the day that once Hong 
Kong is turned over to the Chinese, if there's any kind of erosion of 
liberties. Is there much the United States could do?
    The President. Well, let me say this: I think the United States has 
to make it clear that Hong Kong is important to us, the people of Hong 
Kong are important. The agreement made in 1984 by China and Great 
Britain, which they sought the support of the United States on when 
President Reagan was here, clearly commits China to respect not only the 
economic liberties but also the political and civil liberties of the 
people of Hong Kong. And our policy is that the agreement was a good one 
when we said we supported it in 1984; it's a good one in 1997 and it 
ought to be honored.
    Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, Cable News Network].
    Q. But, sir, do you--are your prepared to do something if you 
thought the Chinese were not living up to the agreement?
    The President. Well, that's a hypothetical question. Let me say at 
this time, it's very important to us. We believe it's an important 
matter, and we expect that they will live up to their agreement. And 
it's our policy--strong policy--that they should.

Aberdeen Trials

    Q. Mr. President, a lot of Americans have been shocked by the 
Aberdeen trial of the U.S. Army drill sergeant and the allegations that 
this is part of a much bigger problem that has developed in the U.S. 
military. I wonder if you'd share with us your thoughts on how serious a 
problem that this kind of alleged sexual harassment is. Is it a 
pervasive problem throughout the military?
    The President. Well, as you know, there's now an inquiry going on, 
and the instructions that I have given on this are the same instructions 
I gave on the Gulf war issue, which is to get to the bottom of it, find 
the facts, tell the truth, and take appropriate action. And I think we 
ought to let that play out.

Domestic Terrorism

    Q. Sir, in light of tomorrow's anniversaries of the Oklahoma City 
bombing and of the fiery end to the Waco standoff, first of all, are 
there any credible security threats that Americans ought to be worried 
about? And secondly, is this a date that Americans ought now view with 
trepidation?
    The President. Well, my answer to the first question is that we are 
mindful of the issues and we have taken the actions that I think are 
appropriate. I don't think that I should say more than that.
    I would hope that tomorrow, rather than viewing these actions with 
trepidation, the American people would be thinking about two things: 
First, with regard to Oklahoma City, as Hillary and I saw last year when 
we were there, some of the surviving victims and the families of victims 
who survived and who did not survive are still hurting and face some 
continuing difficulties, and I would hope that they would be in our 
prayers. And I hope that we would, as I said at the time, all take a 
little time to express appreciation, rather than condemnation, for 
people who serve the public in the way they did. They were targeted 
solely because they work for the United States.
    With regard to Waco, in light of what happened with the Heaven's 
Gate group out in San Diego, which was an entirely different thing but 
came to an equally tragic end, I would hope that the American people 
would say, ``We really value the freedom of religion and the freedom of 
political conviction, and we want people to have their own convictions, 
but we need to all be sensitive and to be aware of what can happen to 
people if they develop a kind of a cult mentality which can push them 
off the brink.'' And we ought to do what we can to try to avoid that.
    Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

James Riady and Webster Hubbell

    Q. Mr. President, in the summer of 1994, you met at the White House 
with James Riady, and then just a little bit later, you met at Camp 
David with Webb Hubbell. And about the same time, the Lippo Group 
started paying Mr. Hubbell $100,000. What do you recall about the 
conversations with those two gentlemen?

[[Page 546]]

    The President. I don't have anything to add to what I've already 
said about both of them. Mr. Riady was there in the White House for 5 or 
10 minutes, basically a social call. We had exchanged a few comments, 
and he said nothing about Mr. Hubbell that I can remember. I don't 
believe he did.
    And when Mr. Hubbell came to Camp David, my recollection is we 
played golf and I took a walk with him and asked him point blank if he 
had done anything wrong. And as he has said now in public, he told me 
that he hadn't and that he had a billing dispute with his law firm and 
he expected it to be resolved. And I have really nothing to add to that. 
There was no correlation between the two.
    Q. There was no discussion about----
    The President. No.
    Q. ----efforts to, for him, any assistance for Mr. Hubbell?
    The President. No, I don't remember anything about that, and he 
didn't--we didn't talk about the Lippo Group at all.

Federal Bureau of Investigation

    Q. Mr. President, the problems with the FBI crime lab are only the 
latest controversy involving the FBI. What is your current view of the 
performance of the FBI and its Director, Mr. Freeh?
    The President. Well, let me say about the crime lab, obviously, I'm 
concerned about the lab, but I think that you have to give the Justice 
Department, the Attorney General, and Mr. Freeh credit for doing what I 
think should be--in any organization, you're always going to have some 
problems. I, frankly, think--I was impressed with the fact that they did 
what I want the Pentagon to do on the sexual harassment issue--I mean, 
the matter was looked into, the facts were laid honestly before the 
public, and now I think it's important that all appropriate corrective 
action be taken.

Budget Agreement

    Q. One more on the budget. Do you share the view of many in 
Washington that the next or maybe 2 weeks is really a make-or-break 
period on the budget and if a deal is going to happen, it's going to 
become apparent in this next window?
    The President. Well, let me say, as you know, there is also a view 
directly contrary to that.
    Q. What's your view?
    The President. There are people--well, I think it's important--there 
are people who think that all the various positions are so unsettled 
that even the budget leaders and the leaders of the Senate and House and 
White House acting in good faith can't put together an agreement that 
will hold up and produce significant bipartisan majorities in both 
Houses.
    My view is, I don't believe in saying ``make or break'' because I 
don't believe in ever saying ``never.'' I've seen too many things come 
back again and again. And I believe we'll get a balanced budget 
agreement this year because it is so important to the country and to our 
future.
    We've got this unemployment rate down to 5.2 percent. Inflation 
seems to be dropping again. If we passed a balanced budget, I think it 
would remove a lot of other lingering fears about inflation out there. I 
think it would give a new jolt of confidence to the economy. I think it 
would keep the recovery going. And I think it would be very good for the 
long term, especially if it also protected the Medicare Trust Fund for 
significant numbers of years in the future, and if it--[inaudible]--
investment.
    Now, I am in the camp of people who believe it would be better to do 
it sooner rather than later, if we can do it. But I don't believe for a 
minute that it's an easy task, and I don't believe that an agreement at 
any price is worth doing it in the next 4 or 5 days. And I don't believe 
the Republicans do. I wouldn't ask them to do that either. You know, we 
have strong convictions. And you saw in 1995 and until the end in 1996, 
when we made a remarkable amount of progress there just right before the 
Congress adjourned for the election, that we have different and deeply 
held views, and they're honestly different.
    But I do believe that if we could do it sooner rather than later and 
it would be good for the country and consistent with our principles and 
theirs, an honorable compromise--which I think is there--I think sooner 
rather than later is better. But I cer

[[Page 547]]

tainly won't give up if it doesn't happen. I'm going to keep on working 
until we get it done. I expect it to happen this year. I'm very 
optimistic. And I am hopeful that it can happen sooner rather than 
later. And I am committed personally to doing everything I can to put it 
together.
    Thank you.

Note: The President's 141st news conference began at 3:40 p.m. in the 
Briefing Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to 
Ambassador Dennis Ross, Special Middle East Coordinator; Martin Lee, 
head of the Hong Kong Democratic Party; James Riady of the Lippo Group.